Free Dating Site    

Canadians do have the Right to Bear Arms.

5. The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defense, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute I W. & M. st.2. c. 2. [English Bill of Rights] and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.

And all these rights and liberties it is our birthright to enjoy entire; unless where the laws of our country have laid them under necessary restraints.

^^^^^
such as are allowed by law and unless where the laws of our country have laid them under necessary restraints.

^^^^

That means conditional and a privilege. No cigars for you bud. Laws have made it difficult for a subject to carry heat.

2nd amendment here has always been clear and proven recently by the Supreme Court. It's just that for a numbers of years, liberals have attempted to cause confusion with militia and individuals. A woman from DC, finally forced the Court to end the liberal BS of not bearing arms.

What you don't seem to understand is that it is NOT the same thing as the US 2nd Amendment (which is misunderstood itself by many Americans)

It means that the "right to arms" is a qualified right. In other words, it may be limited by law as is prudently necessary ("and such as are allowed by law", "unless where the laws of our country have laid them under necessary restraints")

It also qualifies the right according to capacity AND social status ("suitable to their condition and degree". This is a reference to the keeper of the arms, not the condition of the arms themselves).

Many Canadians believe (and our government would certainly have us believe) that there is no Right of the citizen to keep arms for their own use and defense, like the US Second Amendment, in Canadian law.

We have this Right, though our government is attempting to suppress it and deny citizen's their age-old right to self-defense with the egregious and unconstitutional (not to mention horrendously expensive) Firearms Act and other proposals.

It leads one to wonder why the government so wants an unarmed and defenceless populace. See The Legal basis for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in Canada.

Seems our friends to the north are under attack too huh?

One thing the best guy here and I agree on. Harper is a toad.

Thankfully due to the constitution act of 1982 changes have been made. There are two areas that parliament can not over ride (and in fact have had their hands slapped and laws overturned on)

The Canadian charter of rights and freedoms, which has a very comrehensive set of rules by which Canadians can be treated under law, you know, free speech, no discrimination based on race. ect.

But no right to bear arms. (sorry, please try again!)

and its status as a federal state.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the government may limit free speech in the name of "GOALS" such as ending discrimination, ensuring social harmony, or promoting gender equality. It also has ruled that the benefits of limiting hate speech and promoting equality are sufficient to outweigh the freedom of speech clause in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is the country's bill of rights incorporated in the country's constitution.
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2006/78883.htm

The government generally respected the human rights of its citizens, and the law and judiciary provide effective means of addressing individual instances of abuse. Human rights problems included harassment of religious minorities, violence against women, and trafficking of persons to, from, and within the country.

The law provides for freedom of speech and of the press, and the government generally respected these rights in practice. An independent press, an effective judiciary, and a functioning democratic political system combined to ensure freedom of speech and of the press.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the government may limit free speech in the name of goals such as ending discrimination, ensuring social harmony, or promoting gender equality. It also has ruled that the benefits of limiting hate speech and promoting equality are sufficient to outweigh the freedom of speech clause in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is the country's bill of rights incorporated in the country's constitution.

Yup charly here is a perfect example of freedom of speech in canada.

Ernst Zundel interviews Prof. Roger Dommergue in France.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=purWmOFl8qc

With such a perfect government that you are blessed with maybe you can explain why and what possible reason such a free society would have to silence Ernst Zundels political views?

Basically you have the same restrictions in your "no fire in a theater" we try to discourage people from telling people to set fires to theaters because muslim/jews/black/white people are inside them.

Yes charlie but you see here it is unconstitutional and if ever taken to court should be thrown out as such.

No charly not at all, I wanted you explanation WHY DID CANADA VIOLATE ERNST'S PRIVILEGE TO SPEECH

I do however think there would be many social and economic benefits from such a merger of your two nations as we have seen many do here in Europe in the last few years.

You and Mexico together with the USA could maybe compete with China, India, Europe and others in the next couple of decades. Lifes going to get a lot tougher when their not number one in the world anymore.

Oh no not another one of those who thinks the supreme court is our little american monarchy.

It most certainly is unconstitutional, just because scotus made a ruling and no one gives a shit enough to hold them at gun point to correct it does not make it constitutional.

The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution, is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.

Alexander Hamilton

Drafted by Thomas Jefferson between June 11 and June 28, 1776, the Declaration of Independence is at once the nation's most cherished symbol of liberty and Jefferson's most enduring monument. Here, in exalted and unforgettable phrases, Jefferson expressed the convictions in the minds and hearts of the American people.

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain UNALIENABLE RIGHTS, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their RIGHT, it is their DUTY, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.

Did you know that there are over 600 million people in the world who have or are entitled to have a british passport?. It doesn't stop them from being Indian or Bangladeshi or anything else. It just entitles them to be part of everything that makes Great Britian great and we are all the better for having them.

Religion_of_Eve:
NwMke,
At last progress. Huray huray. Yes we should make the world one huge state headed up by the United Nations.