[Scape]

ridenrain ridenrain:

One of the pundits pointed out that no one, including the president should have a constitutional exempt zone.

Freedom is ultimately grounded in private-property rights. The owner of a newspaper has the right to publish or not publish materials because the newspaper belongs to him. As the owner of the newspaper, he has the right to refuse anyone’s request to communicate through his newspaper.

Gun rights have the same tempo. There has been no area where guns are not allowed lawfully unless uninvited as in this instance with the SS as it interferes with their responsibility to protect the president and thus they haven’t permitted it. That is, when a person enters the town hall, he does so on terms established by the owner of the town hall, which implicitly include a rule against disturbing the other patrons. If they were to state no guns, then no gun are to be allowed as is their right. However, what is being done here is crowds are forming outside at the entrance the only possible reason for that public display of firepower is simple intimidation.

[ridenrain]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

ridenrain ridenrain:

One of the pundits pointed out that no one, including the president should have a constitutional exempt zone.

Well the already jam cell phone signals so what's the dif? I can't make a phone call infront of the prez because I might detonate a bomb, but I can carry an assault riffle? Besides, shouldn't bombs be covered under the right to bear arms? Should I be able to wear a suicide vest as a display of my "rights"?

Exercising your straw man again?
Just out of curiosity, did we see any woman in burquas? If we're worried about security problems, I'd always be worried about what I can't see than what I can't.

[Mustang1]

ASLplease ASLplease:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Arming yourself is the highest and purest form of political protest. Americans established a tradition of just this kind of thing in 1775. Used to be the English carried some very beautiful daggers quite publicly to distinguish themselves as free men. I'd say the charming young fellow at the rally in Arizona carried his properly safed AR-15 as a similar demonstration.

Free people are free to responsibly bear arms and as and where they see fit.

Anyone who is not free to do the same is not quite as free, are they?

Well written, Bart. I wish that more Canadians could apreciate this idea.

Canadians do "appreciate" it, but many still reject it. Many Canadians also realize it's the 21st century and invoking archaic historical illustrations really isn't a persuasive argument. Americans can have their "rights" and they can keep them there. Again, all this does is make me glad to be Canadian.

[ASLplease]

As a Canadian, I wish that the definition of 'freedom and liberty' did not mean ' well if it isn't included in the charter of rights, then it isn't a right'

Canadians truly have a pathetic attitude towards freedom and liberty

[ridenrain]

Scape Scape:

ridenrain ridenrain:

One of the pundits pointed out that no one, including the president should have a constitutional exempt zone.

Freedom is ultimately grounded in private-property rights. The owner of a newspaper has the right to publish or not publish materials because the newspaper belongs to him. As the owner of the newspaper, he has the right to refuse anyone’s request to communicate through his newspaper.

Gun rights have the same tempo. There has been no area where guns are not allowed lawfully unless uninvited as in this instance with the SS as it interferes with their responsibility to protect the president and thus they haven’t permitted it. That is, when a person enters the town hall, he does so on terms established by the owner of the town hall, which implicitly include a rule against disturbing the other patrons. If they were to state no guns, then no gun are to be allowed as is their right. However, what is being done here is crowds are forming outside at the entrance the only possible reason for that public display of firepower is simple intimidation.

Are you presuming to suggest that you know the law better than the police involved? I'm far more intimidated by bus loads of union stooges than I am of one man with a rifle. The man with a rifle only has one vote where the union goons have many.

[ASLplease]

lunch break is over, see ya guys!

[ManifestDestiny]

Did anyone here ever think if the protesters in Iran last month had the right to keep and bear arms.

Always love your country, never trust your Goverment!

[ridenrain]

Mustang1 Mustang1:

Canadians do "appreciate" it, but many still reject it. Many Canadians also realize it's the 21st century and invoking archaic historical illustrations really isn't a persuasive argument. Americans can have their "rights" and they can keep them there. Again, all this does is make me glad to be Canadian.

I'd appreciate you didn't try to speak for all Canadians. That's a "Canadian" value I've never appreciated.

[Mustang1]

ridenrain ridenrain:

Mustang1 Mustang1:

Canadians do "appreciate" it, but many still reject it. Many Canadians also realize it's the 21st century and invoking archaic historical illustrations really isn't a persuasive argument. Americans can have their "rights" and they can keep them there. Again, all this does is make me glad to be Canadian.

I'd appreciate you didn't try to speak for all Canadians. That's a "Canadian" value I've never appreciated.

Where did I say I spoke for all Canadians? I said many Canadians reject a constitutional amendment that allows private citizens to bear arms. Is that wrong? Is there currently a groundswell of populism that supports it? Do we have a legal/constitutional history that supports it?

I'd appreciate it if you think before posting as it saves me the time to correct your litany of comprehension issues and argumentative fallacies.

[Scape]

ridenrain ridenrain:

I'm far more intimidated by bus loads of union stooges than I am of one man with a rifle. The man with a rifle only has one vote where the union goons have many.

Even if it was only one gun it is a loaded gun with magazine loaded with many bullets. What if the union stooges had guns as well?

[Praxius]

ASLplease ASLplease:

Praxius Praxius:

ASLplease ASLplease:

I was think of packing an unloaded pellet handgun on a side holster, just to show that I'm still a law abiding citizen and you paranoid libs have no reason to fear me.

Well if you're in Canada, don't complain if the cops gun you down.

correction.....I'll get tasered while I'm agreeing to co-operate fully with their requests.

Sorta like when Cleveland was stopped by the officer.

"Officer Down" *Thud*

[ridenrain]

These public meetings are about votes and that's why the bussed in union goons are far more intimidating than someone in the back ground with a gun. From the videos, it was the union goons that were pushing folks around, not the orderly, law abiding gun owners.

[Praxius]

ridenrain ridenrain:

One of the pundits pointed out that no one, including the president should have a constitutional exempt zone.

The thing about Pundits is that anybody can be one if they got a big enough mouth... I know I qualify.

And if I lived in the US and you came to my house with a gun, I have the right to tell you to disarm or leave. You do not have the right to come onto my property or into my house armed.

And if you made a fuss about it, then I also have the right to defend my home as I see fit.... which is actually where this whole Right to Bear Arms came about in the first place.....

..... besides anybody who owns a firearm based on this right are also supposed to uphold their obligations to serve in their local militia.... which many seem to have ignored down there and feel it's a green light/open door to carry guns of any kind, or any size, anywhere they please.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Since the US has such a torrid love affair with firearms, why don't you just shit and get off the pot. Make it mandatory that EVERY citizen over the age of 16 MUST carry one. Then you can alll relive the "glory days" of the Old West, since y'all seem to act like it already is anyway.

And Jesus Christ Bart, fucking grenades???? Where the hell was Bill Clinton that day, in the Middle East?
I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be an asshole. I used to own a .270 Winchester in my hunting days but I just can't wrap my head around why a supposedly law abiding citizen needs assault weapons and/or anti-personnel explosives, and then carry them in public. Even the assault weapon I can kind'a understand but something that has a blast radius of effect seems more than a little extreme.

[Praxius]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Impressive, isn't it?

Frankly, the people who say that they can't trust anyone with a firearm...well, that usually tells me that they can't trust themselves with a firearm so I guess we're all better off when anti-gunners don't own guns.

Once again, another flawed perspective.

I trust myself with a firearm.... I trust others who have had proper education, training, safety/background checks and understanding of firearms.

I don't trust just any fool with a driver's license with a gun who has no formal experience or background checks with a gun.

The only difference between them and some gang member, is one obtained their gun legally, and the other didn't.... their backgrounds, education, training, etc. are all still unknown until they actually commit a crime.

So of course I wouldn't trust either in any case.

I might as well give a Uzi to a kid..... Oh wait:

Boy Accidentally Kills Himself With Uzi
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/ ... ated_story