Guns in Canada

Golfman25 said:
That’s why your government gets away with the chit they do. There is no “check and balance“ from the people. You give up liberty for the illusion of safety. Good luck.
Click to expand...
Not true. The people vote in the government they want. And in democracies, the majority decides. I may or may not like who the majority votes in. So the government "gets away with" what they are voted in to do. In Canada the majority wanted a Liberal government under Trudeau the last two times. I hate that, but I respect the democratic process. I try to make change by how I vote and how I talk to others and expose the problems with the policies of the left in Canada. I don't need guns to overthrow a government that was elected, but that some of us disagree with. That is not how civilized western democracies work. That's how banana republics work (pick an African county), and communist authoritarian regimes (China, Russia), and governments based on religious ideologies (e.g., Afghanistan and the Taliban, Iran).

Liberty is not complete freedom to do what you want whenever you want. If that was the ideal, there would be no laws whatsoever. There would be no need for any government. Freedom has boundaries, and that is a good thing, as long as the boundaries are not abused or overextended. But the majority of the citizens determine what those boundaries are, by who they elect. Like it or not.
 
Skybolt said:
This^^^

Sanity has been out the window for years now and the "Need" as @Creekwood stated is real for some in this conversation. Meaning since the current administration allowed the BLM riots to happen and did nothing to stop them, is cause enough for every household to have a small armory.

Let's face it the Second Amendment is from a time when a militia took over and created this country. They wanted to make sure what they fought for never happened again.

We live in a time where that could never happen again. No matter how strong the "militia" got, fighting the US military is an impossibility. Democracy? That is not what we live in now. We the people can not change a dam thing even if we try. We have to hope that are elected officials will do what they say and what needs to be done. Ha - we're just along for the ride and we don't even have brakes.
Click to expand...
This is the most pessimistic thing I have ever read.
 
Creekwood said:
Not true. The people vote in the government they want. And in democracies, the majority decides. I may or may not like who the majority votes in. So the government "gets away with" what they are voted in to do. In Canada the majority wanted a Liberal government under Trudeau the last two times. I hate that, but I respect the democratic process. I try to make change by how I vote and how I talk to others and expose the problems with the policies of the left in Canada. I don't need guns to overthrow a government that was elected, but that some of us disagree with. That is not how civilized western democracies work. That's how banana republics work (pick an African county), and communist authoritarian regimes (China, Russia), and governments based on religious ideologies (e.g., Afghanistan and the Taliban, Iran).

Liberty is not complete freedom to do what you want whenever you want. If that was the ideal, there would be no laws whatsoever. There would be no need for any government. Freedom has boundaries, and that is a good thing, as long as the boundaries are not abused or overextended. But the majority of the citizens determine what those boundaries are, by who they elect. Like it or not.
Click to expand...
We are not a democracy. The majority does not rule here.
 
Creekwood said:
Not true. The people vote in the government they want. And in democracies, the majority decides. I may or may not like who the majority votes in. So the government "gets away with" what they are voted in to do. In Canada the majority wanted a Liberal government under Trudeau the last two times. I hate that, but I respect the democratic process. I try to make change by how I vote and how I talk to others and expose the problems with the policies of the left in Canada. I don't need guns to overthrow a government that was elected, but that some of us disagree with. That is not how civilized western democracies work. That's how banana republics work (pick an African county), and communist authoritarian regimes (China, Russia), and governments based on religious ideologies (e.g., Afghanistan and the Taliban, Iran).

Liberty is not complete freedom to do what you want whenever you want. If that was the ideal, there would be no laws whatsoever. There would be no need for any government. Freedom has boundaries, and that is a good thing, as long as the boundaries are not abused or overextended. But the majority of the citizens determine what those boundaries are, by who they elect. Like it or not.
Click to expand...
As Highslice said, we are not a true democracy. Majority doesn't necessarily rule. Sure freedom has boundaries, but it's not the people who determine those boundaries. Our Constitution, by design, protects the minority position. In the USA, we have certain rights that the majority cannot trample, yet they try. The 2nd Amendment is ensure those right are secured should the other three branches of government break down.
 
Skybolt said:
You actually think the military would not step in if there were a coup? And you think we the people are in a position of strength? The military are Americans, yes, but they fight for the country, that means the current government and not the opposing force.

BTW, the US Military fears no one.
Click to expand...
1. The members of the US military are sworn to defend the Constitution, not the President, the government, or party in power.

2. A coup? Never been attempted in the US and to be successful would require the concurrence of the US military (see part one).
 
highslice said:
This is the most pessimistic thing I have ever read.
Click to expand...

How so? You think we the people can rise up and take this country back? You think we're in a good place now? Hell if it continues as it has, we're not even going to have are second amendment rights much longer.

Pessimistic yeah, but when factions are allowed to riot in the streets and burn buildings and rob without recourse. Show me the optimism in that and where we have gone since. Ten years ago I would not have believed it possible for that to have happened.
 
BlueYonder said:
1. The members of the US military are sworn to defend the Constitution, not the President, the government, or party in power.

2. A coup? Never been attempted in the US and to be successful would require the concurrence of the US military (see part one).
Click to expand...

Not arguing that and I am not the one who brought up coup, it was mentioned that the news did as a result of the 6th. Your taking that out of context. BTW, I said the US Military wouldn't allow it. Please re-read what I posted.

The military may be sworn to uphold the constitution, they also are sworn to defend enemies both foreign and domestic. Both are in the first sentence of the oath. The military doesn't work on it's own, POTUS is the commander and chief of the military. So your first point isn't true.
 
Skybolt said:
How so? You think we the people can rise up and take this country back? You think we're in a good place now? Hell if it continues as it has, we're not even going to have are second amendment rights much longer.

Pessimistic yeah, but when factions are allowed to riot in the streets and burn builds and rob without recourse. Show me the optimism in that and where we have gone since. Ten years ago I would not have believe it possible for that to have happened.
Click to expand...
Perhaps I overstated the pessimism. No, we are not in a good place. But I do believe that "We the people" can rise up and effect change. And if that has to be an armed uprising, I believe that is possible. Now, living in the Midwest and being surrounded by people who think like me, gives me a vastly different outlook than you east coast folks.
 
Skybolt said:
Not arguing that and I am not the one who brought up coup, it was mentioned that the news did as a result of the 6th. Your taking that out of context. BTW, I said the US Military wouldn't allow it. Please re-read what I posted.

The military may be sworn to uphold the constitution, they also are sworn to defend enemies both foreign and domestic. Both are in the first sentence of the oath. The military doesn't work on it's own, POTUS is the commander and chief of the military. So your first point isn't true.
Click to expand...
There is nothing untrue about my statement. A military officer is sworn to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. If the President were to order the military to do something that violated the Constitution, that would be an unlawful order and a military officer would be required to disobey that order.
 
highslice said:
Perhaps I overstated the pessimism. No, we are not in a good place. But I do believe that "We the people" can rise up an effect change. And if that has to be an armed uprising, I believe that is possible. Now living in the Midwest, and being surrounded by people who think like me, gives me a vastly different outlook than you east coast folks.
Click to expand...

Not much different from where I live now, you would be surprised. I just don't think anyone can go up against the US Military and expect to win. That is only for world powers to attempt.
 
BlueYonder said:
There is nothing untrue about my statement. A military officer is sworn to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. If the President were to order the military to do something that violated the Constitution, that would be an unlawful order and a military officer would be required to disobey that order.
Click to expand...

So you think that if there were an uprising of the American people that were trying to take over the government with lethal force, that the military would not be called in and protect it? You think the military would stand idly by? I can see you have little to no experience with the US Military. Because that would be the domestic enemies they are sworn to fight against, and would. Period.
 
Golfman25 said:
Maybe we can when the Sec of Defense ain't around? :)
Click to expand...

Sorry for my intense conversation on this subject. It is one I had over the holiday with my family, who are all ex COPS and military. All are sickened by the current state of affairs and would like to do something about it.
 
BlueYonder said:
1. The members of the US military are sworn to defend the Constitution, not the President, the government, or party in power.
Click to expand...
Where the fark did you go to school? Or did you? JFC.

The presidential oath requires much more than the general oath of allegiance. This clause enjoins the new president to swear or affirm: "I will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
 
Skybolt said:
You actually think the military would not step in if there were a coup? And you think we the people are in a position of strength? The military are Americans, yes, but they fight for the country, that means the current government and not the opposing force.

BTW, the US Military fears no one.
Click to expand...
I think much of the military would side with the citizens, if the government became tyrannical. A lot of the rest of our military are stuck overseas. And another large part would go home to protect their own families. This is not from my mind or thinking. This is from someone in the military in a higher up position that I have had this conversation with. Sure the military has a lot of equipment the civilians currently do not have. But as he said it would not take long before civilians and ex military also had some.
Now just a plain coup would be a different story because of the difficulty to organize. But for the reasons the 2nd exists . I do believe it keeps our government in check.
 
Flyer5 said:
I think much of the military would side with the citizens, if the government became tyrannical. A lot of the rest of our military are stuck overseas. And another large part would go home to protect their own families. This is not from my mind or thinking. This is from someone in the military in a higher up position that I have had this conversation with. Sure the military has a lot of equipment the civilians currently do not have. But as he said it would not take long before civilians and ex military also had some.
Now just a plain coup would be a different story because of the difficulty to organize. But for the reasons the 2nd exists . I do believe it keeps our government in check.
Click to expand...

A good friends brother is a 4 star of the army. He said something similar, but he also said it would be a disaster at first, not the words he used, but the meaning. If something were so organized and actually tried, I am not sure how it go. I can say this, no military personnel would desert, possibly stand down and not follow through, but not desert.

I do agree on the 2nd and does seem to be working for the moment and why they want it gone.
 
Pirate Lady said:
Where the fark did you go to school? Or did you? JFC, the stupidity on this thread.

The presidential oath requires much more than the general oath of allegiance. This clause enjoins the new president to swear or affirm: "I will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Click to expand...

While I agree with you, the oath I referred to was the military oath.

"... I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed ..."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
113,357
Messages
1,431,076
Members
61,209
Latest member
96dancer250w454
Back
Top