U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Canada
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 03-19-2012, 10:03 PM
 
Location: Lethbridge, AB
1,132 posts, read 1,654,873 times
Reputation: 974

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by BruSan View Post
Your thoughtful and very reasoned responses are the stuff of quality debate and much appreciated.

I grew up in a rural ontario setting where I received my first .22 at the age of twelve and was allowed to shoot with it unattended by the age of 14 to then move on to a better rifle for the purpose of ridding the neighbouring farms of groundhogs that were anethma to their dairy cattle while grazing.

It was the accepted norm to observe myself and other teens walking the main street of our little town with rifle under arm and froundhogs hanging from our shoulders to later collect the bounty for them. I followed this early use with many years of every type of hunting all over Canada using long weapons to 308's in the mountain ranges of B.C. I do not hunt now as my age precludes it along with a 'time developed' appreciation for all living things in the wild.

Handguns for personal protection in the northern reaches make perfect sense for those areas where a genuine threat to you exists and the work or activity precludes the use of a rifle. In these examples though, a caliber of weapon with a barrel length to achieve certainty of disabling the threat of a Cougar, a Black, Brown or Grizzly would not be one you would want hanging off your hip in an urban setting.

We have so far been debating the merits of "desiring" to carry versus the "need" to carry and this brings many considerations to the discussion such as crime common in the U.S. versus crime that doesn't happen in Canada to as great as an extent so as to warrant concern over the odds of it happening to you.

Car jackings, home invasions, muggings, personal attacks, etc., these are all valid concerns in areas of the U.S. due to frequency but in Canada not so much.

We are all too often seduced into subliminally correlating our personal freedoms with those touted by the folks south of us and that is a great mistake. We need not explain or justify our disdain for the personal handgun to those who would float the premise that our freedoms are somehow less due to our government making it illegal to carry a firearm. We need instead, to glorify our personal freedoms with the admonishment to our neighbours that we are simply "more free" due to our not feeling the need to carry a weapon while we walk to work, go to the store or escort our kiddies to the soccar match.

If the need has not reached the proportions to warrant it, why else then, would one want to, unless it's a hypothetical ego boost or an attempt to respond to an inferiority attitude induced by chagrin from our neighbours.

The caveat to all of this is; were the guns not so readily available there would not be the need for them.
Don't get me wrong, I'd never suggest that it would be preferable to be in a situation where we felt it was necessary to carry a gun.

However, I don't think it's necessary to restrict someone from doing something silly, even if it's just to stroke their ego, provided we can be reasonably sure they're not posing any serious threat to the rest of us. I don't really care if some people want to drive jacked up super-duty trucks, provided they can actually drive them. They look ridiculous, but that's their problem.

I'm not convinced that were guns not as easy to get, we wouldn't need them either. If we lived in a seriously violent society, but without easy access to guns, we'd still have a serious violence issue - and still need protection from it.

 
Old 03-20-2012, 06:50 AM
 
18,302 posts, read 10,393,778 times
Reputation: 13370
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stubblejumper View Post
Don't get me wrong, I'd never suggest that it would be preferable to be in a situation where we felt it was necessary to carry a gun.

However, I don't think it's necessary to restrict someone from doing something silly, even if it's just to stroke their ego, provided we can be reasonably sure they're not posing any serious threat to the rest of us. I don't really care if some people want to drive jacked up super-duty trucks, provided they can actually drive them. They look ridiculous, but that's their problem.

I'm not convinced that were guns not as easy to get, we wouldn't need them either. If we lived in a seriously violent society, but without easy access to guns, we'd still have a serious violence issue - and still need protection from it.

I take your point.

When looking at many other dangerous things without the focus specificly on the handguns alone; even some accepted sports or activities come up on the screen as dangerous with inherrant risks and we would not think of abolishing or limiting them either.

I agree.
 
Old 03-27-2012, 07:39 AM
 
3 posts, read 5,297 times
Reputation: 13
The reason for the Operation 'sheepdog' campaign is to protect your unalienable Right to LIFE

Many Canadians do not know what their God given unalienable rights are and allow civil powers to usurp them out of ignorance. See below for a partial enumeration of inalienable rights in the individual capacity that no government has a right to take away from you.

Some of your basic unalienable rights:

Right to LIFE
Right to INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY.
Rights of ASSOCIATION and CONTRACT
Rights of LABOR and OCCUPATION
Right of EXPRESSION
Rights of RELIGION and CONSCIENCE (same root as right of expression).

Don’t let agents of tyranny dupe you into believing that the state can take care of your unalienable rights with public policy. It cannot nor is it morally right to do so.

True rights are given to men and woman by God and are inalienable because no man, government, law or regulations have the authority to deny, transfer or take away what God has given.

The nature of rights is a function of one's own authority, not someone else's. Authority to a "right" is exclusively given by God or voluntarily conferred. A person may, by choice forfeit or waive an inalienable right but a person cannot waive the inalienable rights of another.

Our civil governments are granted powers but no inalienable rights. The people can give some of their powers to government, but people can never give away their unalienable rights.

The only purpose of civil government is to protect the inalienable rights of non-civil institutions and those of the individual. (E.g. right to life, liberty, and security of the person) However, modern law has been subverted and now ignores the distinctions between rights and powers. Unfortunately our civil powers now run roughshod over individual rights by no longer recognizing unalienable rights.

As such, laws are in conflict and are being unilaterally balanced by civil authority but true rights cannot be balanced. True rights can never be balanced with, or against, each other because true rights never actually conflict, and therefore do not need to be balanced. True rights will always lead to the same result. When two rights appear to need balancing, one of them does not actually apply.

Therefore when another tells me that I cannot defend my life or the life of my loved ones with my firearm, they have no moral authority to do so and I have every righteous reason to just ignore it.

CRIMINAL CODE SECTION 34

Self-defense against unprovoked assault Section 34-C.C.C.

(1) Everyone who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself.

(2) Everyone who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if ...

(a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; and

(b) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm.

But this law is practically illusory - meaning that although we have the legal right to do so, punitive 'gun control' regulations make it impossible to use a firearm for self defense because the firearm user will automatically incur subsequent criminal charges that in effect negate this right. (E.g. Unsafe storage of a firearm, pointing a firearm, careless use of a firearm regulation) These ‘colorable’ regulations are designed to act as a deterrent and not as a reasonable control mechanism, and this is not in keeping with the spirit of the ‘self defense’ as cited in the Criminal Code and is therefore contrary to a fundamental tenet of Canadian criminal justice. In short, the Liberals have effectively stripped us all of our unalienable right to protect our lives with the most effective personal defensive tool there is - a readily available firearm.

The UN’s ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights states ’Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. Our own Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees our unalienable RIGHT to ‘Security of Person’.

Self-defense continues to be among the major defenses a person can raise in response to a criminal charge in Canada. In fact, the Crown conceded in Montague that “Canadians have an undoubted right of self-defense, and they have a right to use firearms for self-defense in appropriate circumstances.”

However, due to overly restrictive gun control regulations (safe storage, highly restricted ATC) and other 'colorable' laws enshrined in the Criminal Code; the ability of all Canadian citizens to effectively defend themselves or to protect their property in emergencies with a legal firearm is severely subverted to the point of being illusory, leaving them completely dependent on the reactive and ineffective protection of the Canadian protective security forces and thus openly vulnerable to violent crime.

Is it time to re-institute our own Canadian 'castle laws' that designates one's place of residence or any place legally occupied, such as one's car or place of work, as a place in which one is entitled the RIGHT of protection from illegal trespassing and violent attack. This means entrusting all law abiding and qualified Canadian citizens with the legal right to carry defensive firearms and use deadly force when necessary to defend that place (his/her "castle"), and/or any other innocent persons legally inside it, from violent attack or an intrusion which may lead to violent attack. In a legal context, therefore, use of deadly force which actually results in death may be defended as justifiable homicide under such a castle law.
 
Old 03-27-2012, 01:40 PM
 
2,292 posts, read 3,938,241 times
Reputation: 2061
To each his/her own. Personally, once "God" is in it, I have a very hard time reading the rest..

The OP has written a grand total of 3 posts, all in this thread, all propaganda pieces as far as I'm concerned, and hasn't participated in any of the resulting discussion even though this is a forum. Moderator:snip - rude

Last edited by sunshineleith; 03-28-2012 at 03:20 AM..
 
Old 03-27-2012, 04:19 PM
 
18,302 posts, read 10,393,778 times
Reputation: 13370
Quote:
Originally Posted by barneyg View Post
To each his/her own. Personally, once "God" is in it, I have a very hard time reading the rest..

The OP has written a grand total of 3 posts, all in this thread, all propaganda pieces as far as I'm concerned, and hasn't participated in any of the resulting discussion even though this is a forum.

Yeah; he lost me with all of that "bumph" about inalienable rights we don't seem to know we have.

Not giving us much credit for having the brains we were born with is he?

I hate folks who scream I'm a wuss for allowing my government to govern in a sane and rational manner and claiming at the top of their lungs I must be able to defend myself from the boogyman under the bed AND it must be with a handgun! Sheesh! Oxymoronic in the extreme!

Last edited by sunshineleith; 03-28-2012 at 03:20 AM.. Reason: removed orphaned material
 
Old 03-27-2012, 08:02 PM
 
Location: British Columbia ☀️ ♥ 🍁 ♥ ☀️
7,278 posts, read 6,600,948 times
Reputation: 14297
I agree with Barneyg and BruSan, the OP's posts were hard to read through and I personally would have preferred to not see him promoting his agenda here in the Canada forum in any event.

However, I do think the OP has provided us all with an excellent example of the single-track mindset and obsession of CCW proponents who have drunk too much of the gun fanatics paranoia koolaid. The OP and others like him with this kind of tunnel vision frighten me and I think people with this demonstrated kind of violent and obsessive paranoia are unstable and dangerous and should probably never be permitted a license to possess or carry any kind of firearms in Canada.

Hopefully the OP's posts are something that level headed, less fearful Canadians can learn a lesson from and be cautious of.

.
 
Old 03-28-2012, 01:58 AM
 
Location: Canada
5,692 posts, read 6,544,693 times
Reputation: 8193
Quote:
Originally Posted by barneyg View Post
To each his/her own. Personally, once "God" is in it, I have a very hard time reading the rest..

The OP has written a grand total of 3 posts, all in this thread, all propaganda pieces as far as I'm concerned, and hasn't participated in any of the resulting discussion even though this is a forum.
I think he's trying to say God meant to give Adam a gun

Last edited by sunshineleith; 03-28-2012 at 11:35 AM.. Reason: orphaned material removed
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Canada
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top