🚀 go-pugleaf

"Mountain Goat" <rmgoatNO@SPAMshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:cui192l3t7n1pqjvndhnp4b4mutu399pq1@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 01:05:28 GMT, "Semper Liber"
> <nopolicestates??@freedom4�ll.xxx> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Semper Liber" <nopolicestates??@freedom4�ll.xxx> wrote in message
> >news:qk0kg.54933$S61.1982@edtnps90...
> >> Public Safety minister Stockwell Day acknowledged that ALL Canadians
will
> >> need to be mobilized to be fully effective in the war on terror, and
that
> >an
> >> effective defence will require the government to acknowledge the
publics
> >> right to defend themselves lawfully.... Day stated that his government
was
> >> committed to restore freedoms to law abiding Canadians as part of his
> >> government mandate to fight the terrorists war on freedom.... Day
stated
> >> that if this law saves even one life it will be worth  it.....
> >
> >Interesting to see all the pro-terrorist kooks coming out against our
right
> >to self-defence. Now we see who's side they are really on.

> Usual rightard 'debate' tactic, when losing claim the other guy is
> 'pro terrorist'. Just like when people who could foresee where the
> Iraq debacle was going, were accused of being 'pro Saddam'.

You're obviously not the sharpest knife in the drawer..... Just a few days
ago i was told i was a terrorist sympathizer because i dared defend
our/their right to due process and presumption of innocence. You theft/right
black/white "thinking" loons must get vertigo every time you enter a urinal
with more than two stalls.....




> >>
> >>
> >> "Brian Daily" <daily.brian@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:jo4p82ld66613kufl4f6boo8mj1g44r7vj@4ax.com...
> >> > On Sun, 11 Jun 2006 22:00:15 GMT, "Semper Liber"
> >> > <nopolicestates??@freedom4�ll.xxx> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > >"Brian Daily" <daily.brian@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> > >news:bj5j821sjeo6b1tlbcu1b1dgt9cobjoelb@4ax.com...
> >> > >> On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 05:18:54 GMT, "Semper Liber"
> >> > >> <nopolicestates??@freedom4�ll.xxx> wrote:
> >> > >>
> >> > >> >> I guess those fancy sidearms they carried proved to be kinda
> >useless
> >> > >for
> >> > >> >self
> >> > >> >> protection? Yet gun nuts everywhere yearn to own one. Stupid
isn't
> >> it.
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >You think the cops are stupid for carrying sidearms for
protection?
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Nope.
> >> > >
> >> > >So why would they carry something you say is "useless"?
> >> > >
> >> > Useless to civilians.
> >>
> >> That makes no sense. Why would a bullet stop an attacker ONLY when
fired
> >by
> >> someone wearing different clothing? Do cops have special decoder rings
> >that
> >> give their firearms special powers? Too funny!
> >>
> >> >It against the law for a civilian to use a sidearm for
> >> > self defense in Canada.
> >>
> >> It is against the law for "governments" to make laws that differentiate
> >> between individuals.... Rule of law means everyone is equal under the
> >law -
> >> equal in application and protection... end of story. We all have a
right
> >to
> >> defend ourselves, and while it may be argued that a gun is not a
> >reasonable
> >> tool for self defence, such an argument by government would be totally
> >> incoherent given the fact they issue guns to our servants for just such
a
> >> purpose. This sort of legal argument should even be simple enough for
> >> dullards to understand...
> >>
> >> "Here is a law which is above the King and Parliament, and which even
He
> >and
> >> They must not and may not legally break. And in the event they or
anyone
> >> else were to try to abrogate it, such attempt at abrogation shall have
no
> >> force nor effect [1297] and can be safely ignored with no legal ill
> >effect.
> >> In addition, in the event of successful attempts at abrogation of such
> >> liberties, customs, or rights, the King has commanded and do hereby
compel
> >> any and all subjects to swear oath to join the barons to assail the
> >> properties and persons and families of those (saving the King, Queen
and
> >the
> >> royal children) who had successfully completed such abrogation,
including
> >> but not limited to that of the individual Members of Parliament who had
> >> voted in favour of any such successful attempts at abrogation [1215].
This
> >> reaffirmation of a supreme law and its expression in a general charter
is
> >> the great work of Magna Carta; and this alone justifies the respect in
> >which
> >> men have held it."
> >>
> >>
> >> --Quote by Sir Winston Churchill, 1956
> >>
> >> > The gun can only be legally used for target shooting
> >> > there fore it should be stored where it is used.
> >>
> >> The gun can be used to lawfully defend ones person or property when
> >> threatened..... This is a fundamental right, and any law that states
> >> otherwise can be safely ignored. End of Story.
> >>
> >> Per Arbour and LeBel JJ. : Section 88(1) of the Criminal Code requires
a
> >> subjective mens rea. Constitutional considerations aside, there is a
> >common
> >> law presumption that, absent a clear expression of Parliamentary
intent, a
> >> person is not liable for a criminal offence in the absence of
subjective
> >> mens rea. However, the elements of the offence must be distinguished
from
> >> the evidentiary problems that arise in any offence where the trier of
fact
> >> is called on to determine the subjective intent of an accused. To do
this,
> >> the trier of fact must look at the externalities or objective indicia
of
> >the
> >> accused's state of mind.
> >>      Under s. 88(1), an accused's subjective purpose must be one that
is
> >> dangerous to the public peace. To avoid importing an objective element
> >into
> >> a purely subjective approach, the concept of a "purpose dangerous to
the
> >> public peace" needs to be given concrete content. Within the meaning of
s.
> >> 88(1), it is the possession of a weapon with the intention of doing
harm
> >to
> >> persons or property, or showing reckless disregard for harm to persons
or
> >> property. Section 88(1) does not require actual use of the weapon, but
> >does
> >> require possession of a weapon coupled with an additional intention.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> -- 
>
> "I believe there are more instances of the abridgement
> of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent
> encroachments of those in power than by violent and
> sudden usurpations." - US President James Madison
>
> "To be a social conservative is to believe that the
> poor have too much money, and the rich don't have
> enough." - J.K. Galbraith
>
>
> "You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get
> yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days
> is to go about repeating the very phrases which our
> founding fathers used in the struggle for independence."
>  - Charles Austin Beard