[EyeBrock]

Maybe Yogi!

I think there should be a public inquiry into the role of the RCMP in using excessive force in the burning of the Whitehouse......

[Yogi]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Maybe Yogi!

I think there should be a public inquiry into the role of the RCMP in using excessive force in the burning of the Whitehouse......

That would just be a waste of time and $$$. 'History' shows that any Members found to have participated would just be suspended with pay for a short time, and then quietly transferred to other detachments!

[EyeBrock]

Yogi Yogi:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Maybe Yogi!

I think there should be a public inquiry into the role of the RCMP in using excessive force in the burning of the Whitehouse......

That would just be a waste of time and $$$. 'History' shows that any Members found to have participated would just be suspended with pay for a short time, and then quietly transferred to other detachments!

Maybe they only meant to singe it a bit?

[Yogi]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Yogi Yogi:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Maybe Yogi!

I think there should be a public inquiry into the role of the RCMP in using excessive force in the burning of the Whitehouse......

That would just be a waste of time and $$$. 'History' shows that any Members found to have participated would just be suspended with pay for a short time, and then quietly transferred to other detachments!

Maybe they only meant to singe it a bit?

No inquest needed. You nailed it!

[raydan]

Apologies to the Americans for the atrocities we committed during the War of 1812... full restitution coming, we even promise to reconstruct the Whitehouse. A committee has been formed to look into the matter of returning all prisoners of war immediately.

[eureka]

There is a new book out, EB, about the history of the Canadian Battalion that fought there. I have not read it but it goes into the formation of the Battalion: how the plan was for three Battalions but numbers decreed that they needed to be combined. It states that the strength was 1000 men and that at Lundy's Lane they arrived as the British were being forced to withdraw and took over the fight - successfully.

I don't recall the name of the author but he is a driving force in the renactments and an historian of the area.

[ShepherdsDog]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Yogi Yogi:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Maybe Yogi!

I think there should be a public inquiry into the role of the RCMP in using excessive force in the burning of the Whitehouse......

That would just be a waste of time and $$$. 'History' shows that any Members found to have participated would just be suspended with pay for a short time, and then quietly transferred to other detachments!

Maybe they only meant to singe it a bit?

the BBQ fire just got a little too big and the wind shifted

[Psudo]

Lemmy Lemmy:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

I have a right to keep and bear arms

No you don't. You misinterpret the amendment. You have a right to a militia. Sad you Yanks don't even understand your own constitution.

The US Supreme Court disagrees with you. I'm thinking they're a better authority on US law than you.

DC v. Heller (2008), Majority Opinion, US Supreme Court DC v. Heller (2008), Majority Opinion, US Supreme Court:

The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. [...] But apart from that clarifying function, a prefatory clause does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause. [...] ‘It is nothing unusual in acts … for the enacting part to go beyond the preamble; the remedy often extends beyond the particular act or mischief which first suggested the necessity of the law.’

[ShepherdsDog]

I think part of the problem in the interpretation of this right, is the fact that when it was written into the constitution, the US had no standing national army and its military power was based essentially on citizen militias. Citizens had to be armed because at a moments(minutemen) notice, they had to be able to mobilize and deal with a threat. With a standing military today and stae militias, doesn't that sort of render the need for all citizens to bear arms redundant?

[Zipperfish]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Myths need to be busted Zip. You guys have been propogating this one for a long time. Facts are facts and Canada should be able to handle the truth about this war.

History isn't culture. We can leave you guys to read what you want culturally for the war. The historical facts remain as is and are very well documented.

Yogi's cartoon/digi-pic demonstrates the need for facts. From that I get that the RCMP musical ride burnt the Whitehouse with George Bush in it during the War of 1812.

There's tywo kinds of myth and people confuse them. The first definition of myth simply means "false," (as in facts versus myth). But another definition is a traditional story concerning early history.

Facts are facts. No doubt about it. And 1812 is well-documented. But the view that those living in Canada at the time (British, "Canadian", Loyalists, habitants, natives, etc) were winners of the war because they successfully repelled a US invasion is perfectly conisistent with the facts. A view that the war was a tie because neither the British nor the Americans gained territory is also perfectly consistent with the facts. Same facts; two myths.

Both Canadians and Americans have interpreted this war to fit on their perceptions. Not so much the British because they've forgotten all about it.

[Psudo]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

With a standing military today and stae militias, doesn't that sort of render the need for all citizens to bear arms redundant?

Even if that were true (I think it's not), the law doesn't change itself when society changes. If the need for the 2nd Amendment were gone, the Constitution would need to be amended to modernize law to match the culture. Until that happens, it still applies.

Scratch the following paragraph; as I read further, I found where SCOTUS upheld the protection from tyrannous government defense as well. Thus, I agree with them entirely in this matter.
I would go further than the Supreme Court. They have ruled that personal security is a valid constitutional justification for the bearing of arms, with which I completely agree. But I would argue that protection from government corruption is as well; no case addressing that has come before the Supreme Court.

[Psudo]

I thought that a traditional story was the first definition of "myth," and the second definition ("false") only came about due to growing disillusionment with such stories as superstition until proven otherwise.

If it were otherwise, how could the MythBusters ever rule a myth "Confirmed"?

[Zipperfish]

Psudo Psudo:

I thought that a traditional story was the first definition of "myth," and the second definition ("false") only came about due to growing disillusionment with such stories as superstition until proven otherwise.

If it were otherwise, how could the MythBusters ever rule a myth "Confirmed"?

I would agree with that. I'm not sure who MythBusters are. Myths fell into disrepute wiht the advent of facts, which, unfortunately, have become just as overrated as what myths once were. In my opinion, facts are the lego blocks and myths are what you make out of the blocks.

[Psudo]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I'm not sure who MythBusters are.

Clearly you are less nerdy than me.

The MythBusters are the cast of a reality TV show of the same name who devise physical, essentially scientific (though not necessarily rigorous) experiments to test odd claims and declare them "Busted", "Plausible", or "Confirmed." It is hugely entertaining, and they do cool things such as elevating a person using only latex helium balloons, hook a propulsive rocket to a car (which, for safety reasons, they drive by remote control from a helicopter), and cook food over burning C4 plastic explosive.

It's Mr. Wizard all grown up with explosives. Or Bill Nye, if you prefer. Or there's the video introduction.

[Public_Domain]