First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Post Reply Quebec ‘hate speech’ law
10831 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
13 / F / California
Offline
Posted 9/6/15

zalbik wrote:

This is why you want to keep the guns in America



Pretty much.
5049 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 9/6/15 , edited 9/6/15
maple syrup over guns anyday less drive by syruping.
21448 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
46 / M / Between yesterday...
Offline
Posted 9/6/15 , edited 9/6/15

zalbik wrote:

This is why you want to keep the guns in America


No this is why we have a first amendment the belief you can defend yourself from the government with firearms is both naive and foolish. Canada unlike the United states does not have a right to speech even within the United states certain forms of speech are regulated don't believe me walk into an airport and shout bomb as loudly as you can. The resulting arrest will example enough in itself, no really go do it watch what happens.

The second amendment as I have point out time and again states a "Well regulated militia" if you are unclear as to what Jefferson,Madison and Harrison meant by this I will happily show you with the first Constitution they wrote which is the Virginia State Constitution.

Section 13. Militia; standing armies; military subordinate to civil power.

That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

It is pretty clear here what they are talking about is a militia controlled by the government which is the civil power of the state. In Washington State this takes the form of the Washington State Guard. Oregon disbanded theres as of this year since it actually cost money to keep one active and really isn't needed anymore since the role is now filled by the National Guard. So if you want to go play soldier go join the guard and swear the oath.
3412 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M
Offline
Posted 9/6/15 , edited 9/6/15

HuastecoOtaku wrote:

I never get why liberals love bashing Christianity but defend Islam.


It's not Islam, it's these foolish extremists. When the Moors invaded spain they had one of the most educated and progressive societies in all of Europe. Jews and Christians were allowed to practice in a time when heretics were still being burned by Christians.

Any religion can be manipulated by extremists fundamentalists. It's just right now Muslim extremists are more rampant. That doesn't mean they don't exist in Christianity or Judaism either, just over time foolishness like the Salem Witch Trials or using the bible to justify slavery ended. But there's always pockets like the Westboro baptist church or that ultra orthodox jew that just kiled some girl at a gay pride parade.

I don't think liberals love bashing Christianity. There are many christian liberals. They just look at many christians on the right as haughty, judgmental, and on a hypocritical pedestal like the pharisees. We have a large segment of conservatives that claim to be pro-life yet openly support the death penalty knowing full well it's typically used on minorities, and many of those on death row have been proven innocent later thanks to DNA evidence. In my own experience many Christian Conservatives remember John 3:16 but forget John 3:17 that Jesus came not to judge the world but to save it. He often spoke out against hypocrites, and people who would judge others. Yet after the pope authorized Priests to forgive women who had abortions conservatives were freaking out. They also often continue to judge and condemn gays and lesbians like they killed somebody. I feel like there are many churches in America that would give communion to a convicted murderer before giving it to a gay man. This, the death penalty, and their views on abortion puts Conservative Christian voters often squarely at odds with pro minority progressives.
Posted 9/6/15
The real mistake is living in quebec.
10831 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
13 / F / California
Offline
Posted 9/6/15 , edited 9/6/15

gvblackmoon wrote:


zalbik wrote:

This is why you want to keep the guns in America


No this is why we have a first amendment the belief you can defend yourself from the government with firearms is both naive and foolish. Canada unlike the United states does not have a right to speech even within the United states certain forms of speech are regulated don't believe me walk into an airport and shout bomb as loudly as you can. The resulting arrest will example enough in itself, no really go do it watch what happens.

The second amendment as I have point out time and again states a "Well regulated militia" if you are unclear as to what Jefferson,Madison and Harrison meant by this I will happily show you with the first Constitution they wrote which is the Virginia State Constitution.

Section 13. Militia; standing armies; military subordinate to civil power.

That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

It is pretty clear here what they are talking about is a militia controlled by the government which is the civil power of the state. In Washington State this takes the form of the Washington State Guard. Oregon disbanded theres as of this year since it actually cost money to keep one active and really isn't needed anymore since the role is now filled by the National Guard. So if you want to go play soldier go join the guard and swear the oath.


Don't believe this, it's not true.



This man is your friend.

HE FIGHTS FOR FREEDOM
82334 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
38 / M
Offline
Posted 9/7/15

gvblackmoon wrote:

Section 13. Militia; standing armies; military subordinate to civil power.

That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

It is pretty clear here what they are talking about is a militia controlled by the government which is the civil power of the state. In Washington State this takes the form of the Washington State Guard. Oregon disbanded theres as of this year since it actually cost money to keep one active and really isn't needed anymore since the role is now filled by the National Guard. So if you want to go play soldier go join the guard and swear the oath.


I don't know how you reach that conclusion from what you wrote. It is saying nearly the opposite of what you claim. The verse is broken into three thoughts with separate statements delineated by semi-colons.

1. That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
* This is stating that a a well regulated militia composed of citizens, trained in arms, is necessary for a free state. It is also stating that because this is the case, the right of the people to keep and bear arms must not be infringed. This is not referring to a standing army as brought up by the next point.

2. That standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty.
* This indicates exactly the opposite of your conclusion. In fact, the point being made here is that the government should not even be allowed a standing army or state militia during peace, because it is a danger to liberty.

3. That in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
* The military, while there is one (which should be avoided during peace as mentioned by point 2), needs to be strictly governed by civil power.

At the time, at least, there were some, including those that wrote this passage, who were rather concerned about a standing army and the dangers that could present. So, the passage was saying that there should not be a standing army during peace. Rather, the citizens should not be prevented from bearing and training in arms, because if they were needed during a time of war, they would form the state governed army. So, rather than this being a statement that citizens should not bear arms, only state run militias, it was actually stating that citizens should bear arms and that there should not be a state run militia, except in times of war.
19132 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 9/7/15

HuastecoOtaku wrote:

I never get why liberals love bashing Christianity but defend Islam.


I don't get why you're generalizing a group of people???
15947 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / Cold and High
Offline
Posted 9/7/15

TomasUsagi wrote: Something that blatantly against freedom of speech and human rights will go down eventually. Nothing really to worry about though I wonder who thought that was a good idea.
Well its not like it will just wanish its not that easy..
it still will be hidden around and that it came out loud and maybe louder next time is something to worry about.
I get the feeling some people are getting more access to control these things or make them this public/wide.


CheeseGrease wrote: Hopefully this will blow over, but you never know. It is quite perplexing to me how some folks bash all religions except for atheism.
What religion?
49109 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 9/7/15 , edited 9/7/15

HuastecoOtaku wrote:

I never get why liberals love bashing Christianity but defend Islam.


You could of stopped with "I never get"
21448 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
46 / M / Between yesterday...
Offline
Posted 9/7/15

ishe5555 wrote:


gvblackmoon wrote:

Section 13. Militia; standing armies; military subordinate to civil power.

That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

It is pretty clear here what they are talking about is a militia controlled by the government which is the civil power of the state. In Washington State this takes the form of the Washington State Guard. Oregon disbanded theres as of this year since it actually cost money to keep one active and really isn't needed anymore since the role is now filled by the National Guard. So if you want to go play soldier go join the guard and swear the oath.


I don't know how you reach that conclusion from what you wrote. It is saying nearly the opposite of what you claim. The verse is broken into three thoughts with separate statements delineated by semi-colons.

1. That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
* This is stating that a a well regulated militia composed of citizens, trained in arms, is necessary for a free state. It is also stating that because this is the case, the right of the people to keep and bear arms must not be infringed. This is not referring to a standing army as brought up by the next point.

2. That standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty.
* This indicates exactly the opposite of your conclusion. In fact, the point being made here is that the government should not even be allowed a standing army or state militia during peace, because it is a danger to liberty.

3. That in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
* The military, while there is one (which should be avoided during peace as mentioned by point 2), needs to be strictly governed by civil power.

At the time, at least, there were some, including those that wrote this passage, who were rather concerned about a standing army and the dangers that could present. So, the passage was saying that there should not be a standing army during peace. Rather, the citizens should not be prevented from bearing and training in arms, because if they were needed during a time of war, they would form the state governed army. So, rather than this being a statement that citizens should not bear arms, only state run militias, it was actually stating that citizens should bear arms and that there should not be a state run militia, except in times of war.


Just to clarify something all militias are part of the military at no time are they not part of the military they are also under direct control of the civil authority. These are the irregular forces that the state may call upon in times of defense, Texas did this recently with the Jade Helm 15 incident. The section of federal law that refers to this is Title 32 which regulates the National guard as well as any and all state run militias. In Washington state the law regulating militias is RCW 38 and lays out how they work and what they are required to do.

Your statement doesn't pan out as true since there is a prime example of how this actually works in our history. The Whiskey Rebellion in 1791 at which time President Washington with the approval of congress drew upon the state militias to put down the rebellion. In this case as well as every war since the militias have been sworn to the state and are sworn to the state the are part of since those state regulate them. Next good example of this would be the civil war since both sides used their state militias to build their armies. The militia were the first of the volunteers.

The reason militias are no longer need at the state level is this role is now filled by the National Guard and the Air National Guard. The only to standing branches of the military that the founders saw need for at any given time where the Coast Guard and the Navy. The first works at enforcing tax laws in port and control shipping lanes in domestic waters and the second defended shipping lanes in international waters.
15259 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / UK
Offline
Posted 9/7/15
I waiting for the perpetrators of this appalling hate speech to be brought to justice
10831 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
13 / F / California
Offline
Posted 9/7/15

gvblackmoon wrote:


ishe5555 wrote:


gvblackmoon wrote:

Section 13. Militia; standing armies; military subordinate to civil power.

That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

It is pretty clear here what they are talking about is a militia controlled by the government which is the civil power of the state. In Washington State this takes the form of the Washington State Guard. Oregon disbanded theres as of this year since it actually cost money to keep one active and really isn't needed anymore since the role is now filled by the National Guard. So if you want to go play soldier go join the guard and swear the oath.


I don't know how you reach that conclusion from what you wrote. It is saying nearly the opposite of what you claim. The verse is broken into three thoughts with separate statements delineated by semi-colons.

1. That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
* This is stating that a a well regulated militia composed of citizens, trained in arms, is necessary for a free state. It is also stating that because this is the case, the right of the people to keep and bear arms must not be infringed. This is not referring to a standing army as brought up by the next point.

2. That standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty.
* This indicates exactly the opposite of your conclusion. In fact, the point being made here is that the government should not even be allowed a standing army or state militia during peace, because it is a danger to liberty.

3. That in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
* The military, while there is one (which should be avoided during peace as mentioned by point 2), needs to be strictly governed by civil power.

At the time, at least, there were some, including those that wrote this passage, who were rather concerned about a standing army and the dangers that could present. So, the passage was saying that there should not be a standing army during peace. Rather, the citizens should not be prevented from bearing and training in arms, because if they were needed during a time of war, they would form the state governed army. So, rather than this being a statement that citizens should not bear arms, only state run militias, it was actually stating that citizens should bear arms and that there should not be a state run militia, except in times of war.


Just to clarify something all militias are part of the military at no time are they not part of the military they are also under direct control of the civil authority. These are the irregular forces that the state may call upon in times of defense, Texas did this recently with the Jade Helm 15 incident. The section of federal law that refers to this is Title 32 which regulates the National guard as well as any and all state run militias. In Washington state the law regulating militias is RCW 38 and lays out how they work and what they are required to do.

Your statement doesn't pan out as true since there is a prime example of how this actually works in our history. The Whiskey Rebellion in 1791 at which time President Washington with the approval of congress drew upon the state militias to put down the rebellion. In this case as well as every war since the militias have been sworn to the state and are sworn to the state the are part of since those state regulate them. Next good example of this would be the civil war since both sides used their state militias to build their armies. The militia were the first of the volunteers.

The reason militias are no longer need at the state level is this role is now filled by the National Guard and the Air National Guard. The only to standing branches of the military that the founders saw need for at any given time where the Coast Guard and the Navy. The first works at enforcing tax laws in port and control shipping lanes in domestic waters and the second defended shipping lanes in international waters.


wrong
21448 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
46 / M / Between yesterday...
Offline
Posted 9/7/15 , edited 9/7/15

VZ68 wrote:

wrong


Really how so are we not a nation of laws which are defined by the Constitution? All military power this include militias fall under civilian authority at no time are they a power unto themselves if they are they are in rebellion and should be dealt with swiftly and effectively. The statement you keep making is flawed in it's logic the belief that a private individual can create a militia that is outside of the control of the civilian authority is false all of them fall under the control of the government at no time are they not under civilian control. A private militia that refuses control of the civil authority is in rebellion and should be treated as such.
10831 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
13 / F / California
Offline
Posted 9/7/15 , edited 9/7/15

gvblackmoon wrote:

Really how so are we not a nation of laws which are defined by the Constitution? All military power this include militias fall under civilian authority at no time are they a power unto themselves if they are they are in rebellion and should be dealt with swiftly and effectively. The statement you keep making is flawed in it's logic the belief that a private individual can create a militia that is outside of the control of the civilian authority is false all of them fall under the control of the government at no time are they not under civilian control. A private militia that refuses control of the civil authority is in rebellion and should be treated as such.




First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.