🚀 go-pugleaf

"Semper Liber" <nopolicestates??@freedom4�ll.xxx> wrote in message
news:mu5kg.55024$S61.53052@edtnps90...
>
> "Mountain Goat" <rmgoatNO@SPAMshaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:cui192l3t7n1pqjvndhnp4b4mutu399pq1@4ax.com...
> > On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 01:05:28 GMT, "Semper Liber"
> > <nopolicestates??@freedom4�ll.xxx> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"Semper Liber" <nopolicestates??@freedom4�ll.xxx> wrote in message
> > >news:qk0kg.54933$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.....

You can't help to notice that. It's amazing how pathetic these useful idiots
are.

They can't grasp even the basic issues of rights guaranteed by their own
Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and yet these same puppets shout their
stupidity in this news group are so dense on these issues.

Here you got these elect scum in political office in Canada, that are
puppets for the new world order scum like the one Harper belongs too, "the
evil Buildenburg group", barking orders that these neo-con goofs, that they
just jump too it. Even the mainstream media put on it, but yet here you have
these so called Canadians in news group who can't even figure it out, it not
rocket science guys, wake up!  It seems Canada is falling fast and is
dying....and can't even see what is happening to this country.

Bloody Sad indeed!




> > >> "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
>
>