how-to block ads
|
|
Uniqs:
633 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
ricep5Premium
join:2000-08-07
Jacksonville, FL | reply to ANon PSP owner
Re: already there said by ANon PSP owner:
Wrong! The Patriot Act allows them to get whatever info or snoop (bypassing Constitutional Rights) by bypassing the middle man, the Judge without a warrant any time they wish.
Please provide the link, I don't see that language in the revised bill. Not a news media report link, one that shows the actual bill under debate. | |
| reply to fiberguy
Well dude I do have a hobby.I'm a gun collector.Your political affiliation,Was not and is the issue.What the issue concerned was freedom.I believe I asked a legimate question
concerning the freedom of gun ownwrship.To Voyager6868
When Said by voyager6868
(You people should really consider moving north We have a lot more freedoms up here.)You jumped all over me.With (Gun laws? Is that all you can compare? That's hardly a come back to his post.)
YUP thats all I wanted to know.Then YOU turned political right off the bat.Decided to bring Civil Liberties,Racism that most likely neither you or I lived through in that era.Then without further hesitation.
You brought Religion into the debate to muddy the water even more with.An assertion. (The U.S. is quickly, and I mean in the last 5 years, steering into an era of church driven laws).
To further confuse you added.(I never understood how we have survived so long with the so-called separation of church and state).I explain that meaning again.What that means is the State CANNOT order anyone to any Religion.Especially won that would be State organized.Ok look I'm sorry i called you
a liberal.Will heathen athesist do.?  .You made a claim that where.(steering into an era of church driven laws).
I don't see that.What I do see is a corporate run police state taking affect slowly.As for not wanting to refute the rest of my post.? Why not? Here's your chance to point by point back up your claims with proof.On the issues you brought into this.Except for the animal have no rights that statement I made.
I do not expect an answer to this post from you.Nor do I expect you to have proof of your claims you posted.It's
nothing personal against you.However when one gets wrongly
blamed.In this case The Church I will stand up for it. | |
| reply to guitarzan
said by guitarzan:said by orangelemon:You people should really consider moving north  We have a lot more freedoms up here. How many handguns,What make,What model do you own? How many rifles are in your home? Again I ask what make,What model? How many so called "assault weapons do you have and are aloud to purchase and keep? I don't own any guns and I have no desire to. Sometimes you have to trade one freedom for another. I'd much rather restrict freedoms on handguns and assault weapons (but still allow people to have hunting rifles, etc.) and then be able to enjoy more freedoms of peace of mind and security.
There are very few legitimate uses for assault weapons, so I don't think restricting them affects freedoms in any significant way. You have to draw the line somewhere. For example, I'm pretty sure the average American can't legally own nuclear weapons. | |
| said by orangelemon:said by guitarzan:said by orangelemon:You people should really consider moving north We have a lot more freedoms up here. How many handguns,What make,What model do you own? How many rifles are in your home? Again I ask what make,What model? How many so called "assault weapons do you have and are aloud to purchase and keep? said by orangelemon:I don't own any guns and I have no desire to. Sometimes you have to trade one freedom for another. That is your option not to own firearms.Or do you have that option at all.? Here's the thing.If we live in a society that is so free and democratic.Why would one be SOMETIMES REQUIRED to give up,a God given right for another.? That does not make much sense because it implies limited freedom.No I will not trade one for another.Fugg that bullsh*t seriously. said by orangelemon:I'd much rather restrict freedoms on handguns and assault weapons (but still allow people to have hunting rifles, etc.) and then be able to enjoy more freedoms of peace of mind and security. Thats where you and I will have to agree to disagree.What freedoms of peace of mind and security will one have when confronted with an armed criminal intent on doing harm to you.?See only law abiding citizens would turn there guns in for that so-called freedom.That would have no effect whatsoever on criminals,except to make law abiding citizens easier prey.Criminals DO get them from the same place the get Illicit drugs,the black market.Since the disregard the law.How can it apply to them.?Do you understand what I'm saying? "Assault weapons"Before the term political correctness took over.Assault weapon actually had a different meaning.Such as one was hit with a hammer,a 2+4,apiece of lumber,tire iron.When a Police report was filed. The investagating Officer considered what was used to assault someone,as the "assault weapon". Does the following make sense to you.?(It is better to have a gun and not need it.Than to need a gun and not have it). said by orangelemon: There are very few legitimate uses for assault weapons, so I don't think restricting them affects freedoms in any significant way. You have to draw the line somewhere. So you see no legitimate uses for assault weapons.I see two.The first.IS my unalienable God givin right to own them as reconigized by the bill of rights in the Constitution.Second.Politicians want people to believe that bullsh*t about guns for hunting.The right to keep and bear arms has absolutely nothing to do with hunting. Everytime I look,I see nothing mentioned anywhere in the Constitution about hunting.Gun ownership has absolutely nothing what so ever to do with hunting. That is a truth that needs repeating over and over in the in the face of lies and distortions told today said by orangelemon:For example, I'm pretty sure the average American can't legally own nuclear weapons. Don't be silly like that of course they can't own something like that A comparision like that is so far out of whack it's not even funny.I can't believe you compared a pistol or rifle cartridge to a nuke. | |
| reply to orangelemon
said by orangelemon:said by guitarzan:said by orangelemon:You people should really consider moving north We have a lot more freedoms up here. How many handguns,What make,What model do you own? How many rifles are in your home? Again I ask what make,What model? How many so called "assault weapons do you have and are aloud to purchase and keep? I don't own any guns and I have no desire to. Sometimes you have to trade one freedom for another. I'd much rather restrict freedoms on handguns and assault weapons (but still allow people to have hunting rifles, etc.) and then be able to enjoy more freedoms of peace of mind and security. Can you please answer the question I asked.?
Is firearm ownership legal in Canada.? That is all I want to know.A simple yes or no answer would do. Which I have yet to recieve a straight answer to.Nevermind I can
google the answer.
I have nothing personal against you or Fiberguy.I appoligize if I offended either of you.This is a personal issue to me.That I feel strongly about,I'm pro gun and will remain that way.I will stand always stand up for my rights.That I WILL NOT compromise for any reason.My rights are my rights and not some off season baseball trading session.Again I appoligize,but not for what I believe in.
| |
1 edit | reply to guitarzan
said by orangelemon:said by guitarzan:said by orangelemon:You people should really consider moving north We have a lot more freedoms up here. How many handguns,What make,What model do you own? How many rifles are in your home? Again I ask what make,What model? How many so called "assault weapons do you have and are aloud to purchase and keep? said by orangelemon:I don't own any guns and I have no desire to. Sometimes you have to trade one freedom for another. That is your option not to own firearms.Or do you have that option at all.? Here's the thing.If we live in a society that is so free and democratic.Why would one be SOMETIMES REQUIRED to give up,a God given right for another.? That does not make much sense because it implies limited freedom.No I will not trade one for another.Fugg that bullsh*t seriously. said by orangelemon:I'd much rather restrict freedoms on handguns and assault weapons (but still allow people to have hunting rifles, etc.) and then be able to enjoy more freedoms of peace of mind and security. Thats where you and I will have to agree to disagree.What freedoms of peace of mind and security will one have when confronted with an armed criminal intent on doing harm to you.?See only law abiding citizens would turn there guns in for that so-called freedom.That would have no effect whatsoever on criminals,except to make law abiding citizens easier prey.Criminals DO get them from the same place the get Illicit drugs,the black market.Since the disregard the law.How can it apply to them.?Do you understand what I'm saying? "Assault weapons"Before the term political correctness took over.Assault weapon actually had a different meaning.Such as one was hit with a hammer,a 2+4,apiece of lumber,tire iron.When a Police report was filed. The investagating Officer considered what was used to assault someone,as the "assault weapon". Does the following make sense to you.?(It is better to have a gun and not need it.Than to need a gun and not have it). said by orangelemon: There are very few legitimate uses for assault weapons, so I don't think restricting them affects freedoms in any significant way. You have to draw the line somewhere. So you see no legitimate uses for assault weapons.I see two.The first.IS my unalienable God givin right to own them as reconigized by the bill of rights in the Constitution.Second.Politicians want people to believe that bullsh*t about guns for hunting.The right to keep and bear arms has absolutely nothing to do with hunting. Everytime I look,I see nothing mentioned anywhere in the Constitution about hunting.Gun ownership has absolutely nothing what so ever to do with hunting. That is a truth that needs repeating over and over in the in the face of lies and distortions told today said by orangelemon:For example, I'm pretty sure the average American can't legally own nuclear weapons. Don't be silly like that of course they can't own something like that A comparision like that is so far out of whack it's not even funny.I can't believe you compared a pistol or rifle cartridge to a nuke. Hmmm. You said you have two legitimate reasons. They are "because I have the right to" and because "it has nothing to do with hunting". Those are pretty good reasons, eh? About the lamest ones I've ever heard.
Nuclear weapons are considered "arms". Why can't I bear those too? Isn't it my right to? I can give exactly the same two reasons you gave buddy.
By the way, we don't have a constitution. And our equivalent mentions nothing about rights to bear arms. So your arguments have no meaning here. Honestly, what you want to do inside your own country is none of my concern. If everyone wants to arms themselves to the hilt and have nightly shootouts, more power to ya. | | |
|
| said by orangelemon:said by orangelemon:said by guitarzan:said by orangelemon:You people should really consider moving north We have a lot more frhereeedoms up . How many handguns,What make,What model do you own? How many rifles are in your home? Again I ask what make,What model? How many so called "assault weapons do you have and are aloud to purchase and keep? said by orangelemon:I don't own any guns and I have no desire to. Sometimes you have to trade one freedom for another. That is your option not to own firearms.Or do you have that option at all.? Here's the thing.If we live in a society that is so free and democratic.Why would one be SOMETIMES REQUIRED to give up,a God given right for another.? That does not make much sense because it implies limited freedom.No I will not trade one for another.Fugg that bullsh*t seriously. said by orangelemon:I'd much rather restrict freedoms on handguns and assault weapons (but still allow people to have hunting rifles, etc.) and then be able to enjoy more freedoms of peace of mind and security. Thats where you and I will have to agree to disagree.What freedoms of peace of mind and security will one have when confronted with an armed criminal intent on doing harm to you.?See only law abiding citizens would turn there guns in for that so-called freedom.That would have no effect whatsoever on criminals,except to make law abiding citizens easier prey.Criminals DO get them from the same place the get Illicit drugs,the black market.Since the disregard the law.How can it apply to them.?Do you understand what I'm saying? "Assault weapons"Before the term political correctness took over.Assault weapon actually had a different meaning.Such as one was hit with a hammer,a 2+4,apiece of lumber,tire iron.When a Police report was filed. The investagating Officer considered what was used to assault someone,as the "assault weapon". Does the following make sense to you.?(It is better to have a gun and not need it.Than to need a gun and not have it). said by orangelemon: There are very few legitimate uses for assault weapons, so I don't think restricting them affects freedoms in any significant way. You have to draw the line somewhere. So you see no legitimate uses for assault weapons.I see two.The first.IS my unalienable God givin right to own them as reconigized by the bill of rights in the Constitution.Second.Politicians want people to believe that bullsh*t about guns for hunting.The right to keep and bear arms has absolutely nothing to do with hunting. Everytime I look,I see nothing mentioned anywhere in the Constitution about hunting.Gun ownership has absolutely nothing what so ever to do with hunting. That is a truth that needs repeating over and over in the in the face of lies and distortions told today said by orangelemon:For example, I'm pretty sure the average American can't legally own nuclear weapons. Don't be silly like that of course they can't own something like that A comparision like that is so far out of whack it's not even funny.I can't believe you compared a pistol or rifle cartridge to a nuke. said by orangelemon:Hmmm. You said you have two legitimate reasons. They are "because I have the right to" and because "it has nothing to do with hunting". Those are pretty good reasons, eh? About the lamest ones I've ever heard. It's as simple as that buddy,yet nowhere near as lame as living in Canada.You being canadien it would be lame to you..I would not expect you to understand.Comparing ICBM's and nukes to pistol or rifle cartridges.That is lamer than lame to the point of being retarded. eh?hoser. Just like any canadien law would be absolutely positively lame to me.YOUR WORDS(we don't have a constitution.And our equivalent mentions nothing about rights to bear arms)What your really saying is your only allowed freedom as your government sees fit.I do not see how it's possible to make a false assertion as this then.YOUR EXACT WORDS(We have a lot more freedoms up here.). I ask a simple question to your^ claim and what do I get? Idiotic comparsion of balistic missles and nukes and (lamest ones I've ever heard.)What else would i expect from a Canouk?The Canadien policies are just swell and jim dandy for you and Canada.So your following statement (I'd much rather restrict freedoms on handguns and assault weapons).Are just fine for you and Canada.As long as they stay in Canada.However it makes your claim (You people should really consider moving north.We have a lot more freedoms up here)Lame to the point of laughable does't it? said by orangelemon: Nuclear weapons are considered "arms". Why can't I bear those too? Isn't it my right to? I can give exactly the same two reasons you gave buddy. By the way, we don't have a constitution. And our equivalent mentions nothing about rights to bear arms. So your arguments have no meaning here. Honestly, what you want to do inside your own country is none of my concern. If everyone wants to arms themselves to the hilt and have nightly shootouts, more power to ya. | |
| You don't have a clue dude. We have a Charter of Rights & Freedoms. This stops the government from arbitrarily taking away any rights we have.
Your rights have been trampled all over in the good ol' US of A. Have you read the Patriot Act? What about the DMCA? How about all those state referendums which resulted in constitutional amendments in those states prohibiting same-sex marriage? How about being thrown in jail for possessing a couple grams of marijuana?
None of that would ever happen here. Yes, some more "extreme" weapons are illegal, but other than that, we have a hell of a lot more freedoms, especially for the average citizen. I don't know many people here who are upset that they can't own assault weapons. However, I know a ton of Americans that are upset about the things I've mentioned above. | |
| said by orangelemon:You don't have a clue dude. We have a Charter of Rights & Freedoms. This stops the government from arbitrarily taking away any rights we have. said by orangelemon: Your rights have been trampled all over in the good ol' US of A. Have you read the Patriot Act? What about the DMCA? How about all those state referendums which resulted in constitutional amendments in those states prohibiting same-sex marriage? How about being thrown in jail for possessing a couple grams of marijuana? Don't you mean what little actually remain of them? Yes I have read the Patroit Act,You know what? It is scarier than any horror movie hollywood can ever produce. Voyager you are totally,totally correct.I don't use drugs myself,nor would I have much pity on the person that would get my kids,nephews,neices hooked on that garbage in the first place. As for same sex marriage,if thats your thing,I don't mean you personally,just go do what floats your boat,Why make an issue out of it.?There are more important pressing issues going on in the world as it is.(just my opinion) You know what? I'll tell you something Anybody who would try the "sneak and peak".Had best be prepared for what they will face on the other side of the door.I have the nicest pitbulls in the world.Were you to not know what the breed looks like.You would never guess the one licking you face is a pit.Woe to the unlucky person(s) that breaks in.They will not bark to alert you to their presence.They will attack silently and swiftly. There is no argueing with a dog,you cant out run it.It will not let go.Needless to say more than ones arms will be fucked up in a heartbeat.Let alone by six purebreds.They are not dog nor human aggressive,Only when commanded to protect The inside of my house.You my friend are looking down the barrel of a loaded gun called the DMCA.The same bullshit that I face.To be brutaly honest my reply to DMCA is fuck it,it no longer applies to me .It's possible it may taken off the table this year when Parilment adjurns this year.I'm sure it will be tabbled next session,to be reintroduced. said by orangelemon: None of that would ever happen here. Yes, some more "extreme" weapons are illegal, but other than that, we have a hell of a lot more freedoms, especially for the average citizen. I don't know many people here who are upset that they can't own assault weapons. However, I know a ton of Americans that are upset about the things I've mentioned above. Voyager I appoligize to you for being coarse and harsh un-nescarially.We have enough enemies as it is already.I'm sorry for calling you any names.Reading daily what is happening here in the U.S. and abroad is frustrating. Seeing your original post,well became a target(no pun intended)to lash out at.I'm sorry for that I appoligize.I have no beef or quarrel with you or Canada.Although it sure looked that way.Besides,you have some of the best fishing spots in the world. | |
|
