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.
The right to life AND the self defense are not, and never have been, up for majority vote. We have both.
If you prevent someone from defending himself/herself with a weapon in case of assault you actually infringe on the right to self defense.....a 110 pounds woman assaulted for rape by a 220 pounds man does not have the same chance of defending herself without a weapon..period.
Quote:
We have gun rights. We have never needed a constitution and we now have a charter.
Newsflash: Canada has indeed a constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Canada (the Charter of Rights and Freedom is part of the Constitution) and, as far as I know, there is no mention of gun rights...owning a gun in Canada is a privilege given to you by the authorities, it is not a right...big difference.
Quote:
The reasons for gun control are varied and history has proven them to be on the whole, correct......... so far.
History actually often proved otherwise....some of the first acts of tyrants and dictators have been disarming of the population...Hitler, Marcos, etc...
Quote:
This post is back to reasoned discussion. Thank you.
I wish.....
Last edited by saturno_v; 11-13-2016 at 12:53 PM..
He admit to be a sexist pig, a womanizer, a misogynist....but never a "sexual predator", in the famous "grabbing" part of the recording he says "if you are a star they let you do it" meaning he implies consent....not to mention that it may be actually just stupid bragging...
He admit to be a sexist pig, a woman chaser.....but never a "sexual predator", in the famous "grabbing" part of the recording he says "if you are a star they let you do it" meaning he implies consent....not to mention that it may be actually just stupid bragging...
Ummm...I don't know about you, but in my world, consent comes *before* the grabbing. It's not implied simply because the grab-ees were too stunned, shocked, or otherwise gobsmacked to give him a well-deserved slap across the face.
Ummm...I don't know about you, but in my world, consent comes *before* the grabbing. It's not implied simply because the grab-ees were too stunned, shocked, or otherwise gobsmacked to give him a well-deserved slap across the face.
That is all assumption on your part.....he says "if you are a star they let you do it"....there is no way that from that snippet you can actually understand if the consent is before or after....it would be odd (but entirely possible) for someone to grab someone's crotch out of the blue before some heavy advances first...we just do not know and, again, it may be just talk.....
He admit to be a sexist pig, a womanizer, a misogynist....but never a "sexual predator", in the famous "grabbing" part of the recording he says "if you are a star they let you do it" meaning he implies consent....not to mention that it may be actually just stupid bragging...
Well let's see; aside from the fact you've quoted his admission in your post; to elucidate further; he implies they've consented when they actually haven't, he implies they let him do it when in reality he knows they haven't and he knows that they cannot complain because his known use of his wealth and power result in those who do, being punished; all adds up to a man who will gleefully seek out only pretty women to grope in a sexual manner regardless if they want him too or not and couldn't shive-a-git about the consequences related to them complaining about it.
Seeking out, sexual groping without consent, knowing he can get away with it due to his position...... uum,.... that's pretty much the description of a sexual predator Sat.
Well let's see; aside from the fact you've quoted his admission in your post; to elucidate further; he implies they've consented when they actually haven't, he implies they let him do it when in reality he knows they haven't and he knows that they cannot complain because his known use of his wealth and power result in those who do, being punished; all adds up to a man who will gleefully seek out only pretty women to grope in a sexual manner regardless if they want him too or not and couldn't shive-a-git about the consequences related to them complaining about it.
He implies consent..that's it, that's all you can imply from that recording, before or after we do not know.......all the rest is your own assumptions......and, again, it's all talk...
He may be a sexual predator....we just do not know and definitely he does not admit being one in that video...he does admit being a sexist misogynist yes for sure.
Actually he admits finally backing off in his advances on another married woman in the first part of the video.
Finally...if you do not think that in that particular world there are some women willing to go in bed with celebrities to curry favors you live in La-La land....
I would argue that someone like Donald Trump, applying logic, would actually not need to be a sexual predator to have sex with women....
If you prevent someone from defending himself/herself with a weapon in case of assault you actually infringe on the right to self defense.....a 110 pounds woman assaulted for rape by a 220 pounds man does not have the same chance of defending herself without a weapon..period.
Newsflash: Canada has indeed a constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Canada (the Charter of Rights and Freedom is part of the Constitution) and, as far as I know, there is no mention of gun rights...owning a gun in Canada is a privilege given to you by the authorities, it is not a right...big difference.
History actually often proved otherwise....some of the first acts of tyrants and dictators have been disarming of the population...Hitler, Marcos, etc...
I wish.....
Aah nuts, you're at it again!
People getting hit by a bus in Canada is of far more likely a scenario but they still manage to cross major intersections without carrying a firearm. Being afraid of a remote possibility to the extent they wish to carry a firearm is not the Canadian way ........yet. You're different. We understand.
Can Canadians purchase firearms Saturno and to quote you "yes or no will suffice"?
I think you know the difference between an "act" describing the constitution of a country that encompasses a number of documents including the Charter without there being one single document described as "the constitution". Any term referred to as "the constitution of Canada" refers to the structural make up of documents of legislation, a charter describing our rights, a codicil for Aboriginal rights and any number of customs or traditions long held but not necessarily etched in stone. It describes our way of running the country using all of those without laying each one out in detail and making them inviolate. Our charter serves that role and forms a part of the constitution of Canada
constitution definition. A nation or state's fundamental set of laws. Most nations with constitutions have them in written form, such as the United States Constitution. The constitution of Britain, by contrast, is an informal set of traditions, based on several different laws.
to wit: "The Canadian Constitution is composed of written and unwritten statutes, customs, judicial decisions, and tradition. The written part of the Constitution consists of the Constitution Act, 1867, which created a federation and the division of legislative powers between the federal and provincial governments, and the Constitution Act, 1982, which transferred formal control over amendments to the Constitution from Britain to Canada, and added a Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms."
When Canadians are "prevented" from owning firearms come on back and float your balloon of hot air.
Until then why can't you just accept the fact Canadians are not afraid of their daily surroundings, Canadians do not desire their country to address the carrying of firearms upon their person and would deem it a societal regression were they ever to need to. You're different. We understand.
Now, we return you to your regularly scheduled programming of fear and anxiety thinly disguised as an expressed freedom.
He implies consent..that's it, that's all you can imply from that recording, before or after we do not know.......all the rest is your own assumptions......and, again, it's all talk...
He may be a sexual predator....we just do not know and definitely he does not admit being one in that video...he does admit being a sexist misogynist yes for sure.
Actually he admits finally backing off in his advances on another married woman in the first part of the video.
Finally...if you do not think that in that particular world there are some women willing to go in bed with celebrities to curry favors you live in La-La land....
I would argue that someone like Donald Trump, applying logic, would actually not need to be a sexual predator to have sex with women....
Aaah, that covers it nicely the logic he cannot be one because he doesn't need to be one. Perverts who are rich cannot be perverts because they don't need to be. Roger Ailes, Bill Cosby, Jeffery Epstein, Jared Fogle; is that you?
People getting hit by a bus in Canada is of far more likely a scenario but they still manage to cross major intersections without carrying a firearm. Being afraid of a remote possibility to the extent they wish to carry a firearm is not the Canadian way ........yet. You're different. We understand.
Can Canadians purchase firearms Saturno and to quote you "yes or no will suffice"?
I think you know the difference between an "act" describing the constitution of a country that encompasses a number of documents including the Charter without there being one single document described as "the constitution". Any term referred to as "the constitution of Canada" refers to the structural make up of documents of legislation, a charter describing our rights, a codicil for Aboriginal rights and any number of customs or traditions long held but not necessarily etched in stone. It describes our way of running the country using all of those without laying each one out in detail and making them inviolate. Our charter serves that role and forms a part of the constitution of Canada
constitution definition. A nation or state's fundamental set of laws. Most nations with constitutions have them in written form, such as the United States Constitution. The constitution of Britain, by contrast, is an informal set of traditions, based on several different laws.
to wit: "The Canadian Constitution is composed of written and unwritten statutes, customs, judicial decisions, and tradition. The written part of the Constitution consists of the Constitution Act, 1867, which created a federation and the division of legislative powers between the federal and provincial governments, and the Constitution Act, 1982, which transferred formal control over amendments to the Constitution from Britain to Canada, and added a Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms."
When Canadians are "prevented" from owning firearms come on back and float your balloon of hot air.
Until then why can't you just accept the fact Canadians are not afraid of their daily surroundings, Canadians do not desire their country to address the carrying of firearms upon their person and would deem it a societal regression were they ever to need to. You're different. We understand.
Now, we return you to your regularly scheduled programming of fear and anxiety thinly disguised as an expressed freedom.
What I'd like to know is this. Saturno said that sometimes he carries, and sometimes he doesn't. Why? What is happening on the day he decides it's best to have his gun with him?
Aaah, that covers it nicely the logic he cannot be one because he doesn't need to be one. Perverts who are rich cannot be perverts because they don't need to be. Roger Ailes, Bill Cosby, Jeffery Epstein, Jared Fogle; is that you?
Bill Clinton. We can't forget Bill Clinton. The guy whose wife was a candidate to be POTUS and who dirtied up the women who were accusing her husband of sexual assault. How do women view this crooked person as an asset to them?
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.
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.
Perverts who are rich cannot be perverts because they don't need to be. Roger Ailes, Bill Cosby, Jeffery Epstein, Jared Fogle; is that you?
