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.
you haven't answer my question.
anyway, i'm done with you... clearly you're not capable of processing logic.
and I'll just mention I'm a proud supporter of the 2nd amendment. I own multiple firearms and had to jump through too many hoops to get them IMO.
but I don't believe that we should dictate how others should run their country and project our values on them. this is something you clearly can't comprehend.
Should an involuntary third party have the right to dictate terms/conditions of a consensual agreement in which the rights of no one is violated?
Quote:
Originally Posted by No_Recess
Under what authority does a "Canadian legislator" have the right to decide what two consenting adults can sell, buy, trade, donate to one another?
Tell me ... can the Godfather go to the civil courts in order to enforce a contract for a hit, when the hitman takes the deposit/down payment, and then doesn't make the hit?
Or can a drug dealer go to the civil courts to enforce a contract for the sale of drugs, when the buyer takes delivery, but doesn't pay in full?
The answer to both is, "No." Why? Because one of the elements of contract law is "legality of object." This element (and the other elements) comes down to us through centuries of common law, but it is up to legislators to decide what is statutorily legal in a contract between two consenting adults, and what is not. Murder is illegal, legislators have decided, so the Godfather's contract is unenforceable and illegal; and some drugs are illegal by statute, so deals for those drugs are unenforceable and illegal also.
Today, the Canadian government has made the sale, trade, purchase, gifting, and so on, of some (but not all) firearms illegal. And that's why and how Canadian legislators have the authority to decide terms and conditions of contracts between consenting adults: all the government has done is narrow the "legality of object" common law contract element when it comes to gun sales.
That's the answer to your question. You may not like it, but when looked at from a contract law perspective, it makes perfect sense.
Tell me ... can the Godfather go to the civil courts in order to enforce a contract for a hit, when the hitman takes the deposit/down payment, and then doesn't make the hit?
Or can a drug dealer go to the civil courts to enforce a contract for the sale of drugs, when the buyer takes delivery, but doesn't pay in full?
The answer to both is, "No." Why? Because one of the elements of contract law is "legality of object." This element (and the other elements) comes down to us through centuries of common law, but it is up to legislators to decide what is statutorily legal in a contract between two consenting adults, and what is not. Murder is illegal, legislators have decided, so the Godfather's contract is unenforceable and illegal; and some drugs are illegal by statute, so deals for those drugs are unenforceable and illegal also.
Today, the Canadian government has made the sale, trade, purchase, gifting, and so on, of some (but not all) firearms illegal. And that's why and how Canadian legislators have the authority to decide terms and conditions of contracts between consenting adults: all the government has done is narrow the "legality of object" common law contract element when it comes to gun sales.
That's the answer to your question. You may not like it, but when looked at from a contract law perspective, it makes perfect sense.
Contractual law requires consent by two or more parties with the cognitive ability to do so and being free from duress (proper consent).
Proper consent is a logical impossibility when an involuntary party that claims a right on force initiation insists on being involved in the proceedings.
Why?
Because the threat of force automatically voids the concept of consent ergo the contract is non-binding.
That's the answer to your post. You may not like it, but when looked at from a contract law perspective, it makes perfect sense.
Their country their choice. Lots of guns and hunting in Canada, I don’t believe they have as many “tactical, zombie killing, bug out bag” types we have here. I still get a kick out of the guys that dress for Desert Storm and come to the range standing next to me in a tee shirt and jeans.
Probably won’t be to big a deal to most Canadians.
But, but, but, this is "Murica, man !" I think any guy who feels the need to carry around an assault weapon has bigger issues than a gun will fix. Or maybe he has "smaller issues" and needs that gun to compensate.
That's the answer to your post. You may not like it, but when looked at from a contract law perspective, it makes perfect sense.
Yeah, no.
You wanted an answer, and I provided a legally-correct one. It may not educate you, but I hope that it will educate others. I'm neither going to engage nor debate you.
You wanted an answer, and I provided a legally-correct one. It may not educate you, but I hope that it will educate others. I'm neither going to engage nor debate you.
You just did engage/debate me!
And no, it didn't "educate" me. I got that same spiel in the indoctrination centers like you did.
Contractual law requires consent by two or more parties with the cognitive ability to do so and being free from duress (proper consent).
Proper consent is a logical impossibility when an involuntary party that claims a right on force initiation insists on being involved in the proceedings.
Why?
Because the threat of force automatically voids the concept of consent ergo the contract is non-binding.
That's the answer to your post. You may not like it, but when looked at from a contract law perspective, it makes perfect sense.
I can tell you've never gone through a divorce or you wouldn't be asking all these silly questions posed as your consent being required for all aspects of contract law.
A sovereign citizen gets his day in court just like everybody else and his rights will be no more imperative to the court than anybody else's. A result of society deciding they preferred order over chaos.
I can tell you've never gone through a divorce or you wouldn't be asking all these silly questions posed as your consent being required for all aspects of contract law.
A sovereign citizen gets his day in court just like everybody else and his rights will be no more imperative to the court than anybody else's. A result of society deciding they preferred order over chaos.
Nothing says "order over chaos" than the Canadian government, responsible for thousands of murders each year, being allowed to own guns while regular individuals who will never kill anyone are not.
Point taken.
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.
