Texas Shootings
- Thread starter Hedgehog
- Start date
The same as the abortion argument...I don't think non-Americans really understand the Federal Government versus State rights mechanism.
My biggest issue is we have our President saying “NO” constitutional right is absolute.
Wow, no shit..that is a bold statement coming from a guy that took an oath to uphold
”OUR” Constitution. The 15th amendment gave black men the right to vote, guess that’s not absolute. The 19th gave women the right to vote. These are not absolute..? I guess not. Gun ownership is MY right as an American, I can’t help it if you feel differently. We need better security in our schools, that is obvious, let’s work on that, metal detectors come to mind. It may be a logistical issue for parents but a worthwhile one IMO. Different grades come in at different times to help scheduling, etc. put the @2nd amendment case away please. When you fuck with the 2nd, you will impact the 1st, that would be a fact!
Hey Canada, I see your little Marxist took away your pistols, isn’t he just wonderful.
Wow, no shit..that is a bold statement coming from a guy that took an oath to uphold
”OUR” Constitution. The 15th amendment gave black men the right to vote, guess that’s not absolute. The 19th gave women the right to vote. These are not absolute..? I guess not. Gun ownership is MY right as an American, I can’t help it if you feel differently. We need better security in our schools, that is obvious, let’s work on that, metal detectors come to mind. It may be a logistical issue for parents but a worthwhile one IMO. Different grades come in at different times to help scheduling, etc. put the @2nd amendment case away please. When you fuck with the 2nd, you will impact the 1st, that would be a fact!
Hey Canada, I see your little Marxist took away your pistols, isn’t he just wonderful.
Great points Bucky. Why don't you email these remarks as questions to that Peter Doocey reporter ( the guy Biden called an "idiot") at the White House and let's see if he can make Sleepy Joe and his press secretary "squirm" a little...
@HOA_KSOP
You are no doubt right when it comes to that, but like no doubt countless other countries around the world, we too have our own particularities in dealings within and between our confederation of provinces and national government. Below is how our system attempts to deal with controversial policy or jurisdiction issues that might arise between the province(s) and federal government. It’s called the notwithstanding clause.
The notwithstanding clause was created as a compromise between federal and provincial officials during debates over a new constitution in the 1980s.The notwithstanding clause allows the federal government or a provincial legislature to enact legislation to override several sections of the charter that deal with fundamental freedoms, legal rights and equality rights.
These include freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, and freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, to name a few. But a number of other charter rights cannot be overridden. These include democratic rights, mobility rights, and the equality of men and women.
Simply put, this override power allows governments to create laws that will operate in spite of (or "notwithstanding") some charter rights that the laws appear to violate.
However, this override power is temporary. Any notwithstanding clause declaration expires after five years, but can be re-enacted indefinitely. The five-year rule is deliberate, said Adams, as it ensures "there will always be an election in the interim between using it for the first time and this sunset clause”. Thus any political party who might try abuse or over-step their powers in this fashion will ultimately need to face the voter to justify their actions.
Cheers!
@Buckykatt
If one were to be of a generous nature and afford him the benefit of the doubt given his apparent difficulties with clear expression that comes with his advanced age, is it not possible, even in the slightest, that maybe what he was trying to get across was that the U.S. constitution has been amended countless times, 27 times in fact, and today some of those same amendments are no longer present. And in that sense, the amendments in the constitution are not ABSOLUTE. Maybe he just expressed it somewhat unartfully.
Still as a non-American I believe that your Presidents do not have any role whatsoever in the constitutional amendment process, other than to uphold it, and cannot unilaterally void an amendment by simple decree. In fact, I believe you have a rather rigorous democratic process involving all the States that must be followed before anything is changed, no? So, I would think your constitution is safe for now.
Insofar as our Prime Minister is concerned, it should be noted that contrary to how things are often framed in the MSM, he does not rule by proclamation, but rather by the rules of our Parliamentary democracy. That is, it is in the end the individual Parliamentarians who are democratically voted to Parliament by the Canadian citizens to represent their interests, after appropriate debate must vote in the majority to pass any such legislation, before it could become law. This as I understand it is how a representative democracy is expected to work. And if at the next election, these same citizens do not think their elected representatives worked appropriately on their behalf they can vote for someone else, and the law could be potentially changed.
Now this may seem strange to our some of our American brethren, but recent polling suggests 66% of Canadian are in fact in favour of stricter gun legislation.
So, while I might personally see this latest handgun proposal this as simply yet another venal politician looking to improve his poll numbers by appearing to be doing something, that will accomplish nothing. (He’s currently polling in the low 40’s favourability). I appear to be in the minority on the value of this particular remedy for the problem it is expected to address.
Cheers !
I stand by my comments
Right. That's why your Premier just took away your handguns. And if you don't have that election in 5 years? Better start stockpiling torches and pitchforks.
I mean, look how your prime Minister and government overreacted to the trucker strike. My goodness.
@ HOA_KSOP
My fault for confusing the two issues. The PROPOSED gun legislation would NOT be a constitutional issue as our constitution makes no provision for Canadian citizens to have the RIGHT to own a gun. So IF it were to pass Parliament it would become the law of the land as would any other legislation, unless subsequently changed by another political party after an election. Which is what happened to our long gun registry.
But to repeat, this is at the moment only PROPOSED legislation, nothing has been taken away from anybody at this time.
Also you seem to start from the premise that Canadians share the same affinity for guns that our American cousins do. F.Y.I. at the present time only 26% of Canadian households have a gun in their household and I would wager that the vast majority of these gun owners live in rural or wilderness regions where guns are kept primarily for farm & livestock pest control, and for sport & sustenance hunting.
In addition whereas in the U.S. there were 14 reported mass shootings just over the Memorial Day weekend alone, Canadians as a rule do not feel the need to arm themselves for personal protection when walking their dog or as a threat against government overreach.
And as I mentioned to Buckykatt, in a recently published Forbes poll, 66% of Canadians are in favour of stricter gun laws, so I don't imagine there will be a run on torches or pitchforks anytime soon.
By the way, in that same poll 60% of Americans were also in favour of stricter gun control. One would think that in a truly representative democracy that sentiment would be acted upon by ones elected representatives, no?Cheers !
@HOA_KSOP,
I agree, while I personally abhor how the government reacted to the truckers protest, one should also keep in mind that polling at the time suggested that a vast majority of Canadians were opposed to the trucker protests then taking place.
But to your point, are you suggesting that somehow this outcome would have been different if the truckers were all armed?
Cheers !
Canadas population is 38 million
Californias population is 39 million
United States population is 350 million
United States population in 1950 was around 150 million
I wonder how many mass shootings there were in 1950 in the US?
Just sayin…
Californias population is 39 million
United States population is 350 million
United States population in 1950 was around 150 million
I wonder how many mass shootings there were in 1950 in the US?
Just sayin…
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2015
- Messages
- 2,138
- Reaction score
- 1,616
- Location
- Ontario, Canada
- Website
- www.lesliesoftware.com
Just saying what? You want to go back to the 1950s? I'll pass on joining you thanks.
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2015
- Messages
- 2,138
- Reaction score
- 1,616
- Location
- Ontario, Canada
- Website
- www.lesliesoftware.com
LOL oh please. Do you seriously think the the Liberal party of Canada is Marxist? I mean if you are just being hyperbolic to poke Canadians then fine I'll switch to ignoring such on the face ridiculous comments. If you are serious think you need to do a little introspection.
Communism is not good I agree with you if you believe that
Liberal part of Canada does not believe in Communism.
Canada has its very own Communist party that very nearly everyone completely ignores.
Labelling anything you don't like as communist is intelectually bankrupt and dishonest - please stop.
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2015
- Messages
- 2,138
- Reaction score
- 1,616
- Location
- Ontario, Canada
- Website
- www.lesliesoftware.com
Interesting I can only guess where you got such a silly idea.
I live in Ottawa, police underacted to the occupation in Ottawa and in the other border towns. Blocking commerce and disrupting free movement of people and goods is *not* protesting.
Ottawa is the capital we are very used to protests. Protests even temporarily cause road closures, no one I know has any issue with that. But that is not what the free dumb idiots were doing.
For contrast a couple of years ago there was a Black Live Matter protest occupied a major intersection. I believe they were there for under 48 hours. The police, in the middle of the night, swooped in in full riot gear and arrested everyone. Wow that's some glaring inconsistency. Granted some level of miss placed tolerance was given to the rail blockades a few years ago but even they were ended by police action and were not tolerated as long as the free dumb occupation.
You might be annoyed that I refer to it as free dumb but too damn bad. Their stated goal was to take over the government and install their own in a completely extra constitutional way. The seditionist leaders of the movement have been trying to get people to fall for their ridiculous ideas for years. Only frustration over covid restrictions managed to get some public support. But make no mistake the support for fascists, racists and authoritarian take over of our government are vanishingly small in Canada.
The U.S. is not a representative democracy, and never has been. The U.S. is a Republic.@ HOA_KSOP
My fault for confusing the two issues. The PROPOSED gun legislation would NOT be a constitutional issue as our constitution makes no provision for Canadian citizens to have the RIGHT to own a gun. So IF it were to pass Parliament it would become the law of the land as would any other legislation, unless subsequently changed by another political party after an election. Which is what happened to our long gun registry.
But to repeat, this is at the moment only PROPOSED legislation, nothing has been taken away from anybody at this time.
Also you seem to start from the premise that Canadians share the same affinity for guns that our American cousins do. F.Y.I. at the present time only 26% of Canadian households have a gun in their household and I would wager that the vast majority of these gun owners live in rural or wilderness regions where guns are kept primarily for farm & livestock pest control, and for sport & sustenance hunting.
In addition whereas in the U.S. there were 14 reported mass shootings just over the Memorial Day weekend alone, Canadians as a rule do not feel the need to arm themselves for personal protection when walking their dog or as a threat against government overreach.
And as I mentioned to Buckykatt, in a recently published Forbes poll, 66% of Canadians are in favour of stricter gun laws, so I don't imagine there will be a run on torches or pitchforks anytime soon.
Cheers !
Thank you for educating me about Canadian government responses to truckers exercising the right to free speech. Let me get a few things straight. You don't live in the USA, so why any foreigner would want to lecture a US citizen about what rights they need to give up is, well, pointless. Second, I really don't care to hear people "tut, tut, tut" us for the government we live under and the problems in the US. We know we have problems, but so do you, so really, quit lecturing Americans on what you think our gun laws need to be. Do you know why there is an America? Because the people that live here didn't want to live under your respective governments' rules. So cut the holier than thou bullshit and move along. If you don't like our gun laws, fine, and if you don't like our culture, fine. We get it. But stop with the pontification. Your utopia's have flaws too.
Nort I wouldn't expect non-US people to know that, simply because 95% of our own people don't know that either.
So the "House of Representatives" means what...? The USA is a republic but is also a representative democracy. The people elect representatives to sit in a legislature to make and pass laws - ideally they should be a reflection of the people on an election day. Australia 'stole' many of the ideas from America representative democracy in setting itself up in the 1890's ahead of it's official formation in 1901. A bit from the UK and a bit from the USA. Among other things we took the name of our two chambers from the USA.
Most democracies around the world a representative democracies.
Most democracies around the world a representative democracies.
In a true democracy, the majority rules. In a republic, elected representatives vote on behalf of their constituents to determine how society will be run. That is why the U.S. not a democracy in the true sense of the word. I think if you research the Electoral College you will see one way how the U.S. is not simply a “majority rules.” The term you use … representative democracy … in the eye of a U.S. citizen conflates two very different concepts into one incompatible idea. You either are a democracy, on the one hand, or you are a republic, on the other hand.
Last edited: