doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com sad situation for Canadians

They have to come with their own money, I�m not responsible for keeping them in fish and chips. Also, they occasionally take a header, ie, Harvey Weinstein. There is no �get out of jail free card� like an English Royals �get out of jail free card�.

Best,
Ted

Ted, the Royals do come with their own money. A lot of it. And what they get from the taxpayers is more than covered by the tourism dollars they generate.

Nobody pays to look at Epstein�s front door. Lol

If your OK with the whole �Royal� thing, then I�m OK with it, James.

For you.

Best,
Ted

Americans, in a way, seem as hooked on royal celebrity as our enthusiastic monarchists judging from all their gushing at Buckingham Palace and attendance on the royals when they visit their shores.

When the Kennedys arrived they became an instant dynasty as King Arthur's court called Camelot, remember? I don't know if it was an adman's dream or wished upon themselves but they became for a time America's royalty.

Was there anything like it before or since? (I'm not OK with the whole Royal" thing, Ted. I admire the Queen for how admirably she's done her job. We won't see her likes again.)

What's going on, James? You're sounding like a Diefenbaker man of the British connection. You come from a distinguished line of Red Tories. Was it your uncle or grandfather Canada was looking to for leadership when things seemed to be going to hell?

Ted, in truth my point was only that there are nuances to each of our nations�s political culture that may be hard for outsiders to see. While at the same time, sometimes outsiders see what we are blind to.

King, Canada today would be unrecognizable to my uncle, never mind my great grandfather, Sir Rodmond. Trudeau pere and fils have irreparably divided the nation. The west is now slowly realizing they have always been a colony, the Laurentians just won�t admit it. You won�t likely see it but there is no going back. The place is too big, too diverse and too undemocratic to survive. The ruling cartel have made it plain their distaste for the West. Trudeau is too stupid to hide it effectively. I�ll happily work to see the end of Canada as we know it. I consider it a failed nation.

In reading Madison, and Hamilton's "Federalist Papers" I've come to the personal conclusion that the right to bear arms, the right to defend your family, along with the responsibility that goes with it, is one of the most fundamental of rights for a free people who are not beholden to the apparatchiks of a central government or to a King. There are few countries left who trust their citizens (their peons?) with this right and we are fortunate to have had our founding fathers foresight:

The right definitely came out of English common law and the English constitution (which England and its "colonies" appears to have forgotten). This from Wikipedia (cited because it is convenient):

The American understanding of the right to keep and bear arms was influenced by the 1689 English Bill of Rights, an Act of Parliament, which also dealt with personal defence by Protestant English subjects.

The Bill of Rights did not create a new right to have arms but rather rescinded and deplored acts of the deposed King James II, a Roman Catholic, who had forced the disarming of Protestants, while arming and deploying armed Catholics contrary to Law (among other alleged violations of individual rights). The Bill of Rights provided that Protestants could bear arms for their defence as permitted by law. It also established that the power to regulate the right to bear arms belonged to Parliament, not the monarch.[8]

Sir William Blackstone wrote in the eighteenth century about the right to have arms being auxiliary to the "natural right of resistance and self-preservation", but conceded that the right was subject
to their suitability and allowance by law.

The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.
.
.
.
The American understanding of the right to keep and bear arms was influenced by the 1689 English Bill of Rights, an Act of Parliament, which also dealt with personal defence by Protestant English subjects.

The Bill of Rights did not create a new right to have arms but rather rescinded and deplored acts of the deposed King James II, a Roman Catholic, who had forced the disarming of Protestants, while arming and deploying armed Catholics contrary to Law (among other alleged violations of individual rights). The Bill of Rights provided that Protestants could bear arms for their defence as permitted by law. It also established that the power to regulate the right to bear arms belonged to Parliament, not the monarch.[8]

Sir William Blackstone wrote in the eighteenth century about the right to have arms being auxiliary to the "natural right of resistance and self-preservation", but conceded that the right was subject to their suitability and allowance by law.

The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.
.
.
.
Historically, the right to keep and bear arms, whether considered an individual or a collective or a militia right, did not originate fully formed in the Bill of Rights in 1791; rather, the Second Amendment was the codification of the six-centuries-old responsibility to keep and bear arms for king and country that was inherited from the English Colonists that settled North America, tracing its origin back to the Assize of Arms of 1181 that occurred during the reign of Henry II. Through being codified in the United States Constitution, the common law right was continued and guaranteed for the People, and statutory law enacted subsequently by Congress cannot extinguish the pre-existing common law right to keep and bear arms.[26]

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution refers to a pre-existing right to keep and bear arms:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.[27]

The right is often presented in the United States as being an unenumerated, pre-existing right, such as provided for by the Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution,[26] interpreted by some as providing for unenumerated rights, and therefore implicitly a right to keep and bear arms:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

I feel the West has frittered away one of its peoples rights and also duties of an informed and free citizenry. My opinion won't change the actions of "enlightened" Progressive-Socialists, who are convinced they have the truth AND YOU BETTER OBEY YOU SHIRKING PEASANTS! Like CB said above, it is what it is as sad as it seems, and as King said, unless there is a movement by citizens to protect their freedoms, it is frittered away

And one of the problems of taking rights from peoples...is that at some point they will have had enough and move to take them back.... Gov, Northam of Virginia, famous for blackface, is going to find this out; Ottawa and Trudeau (who loves to dress up in fancy dress - his visit to India was a farce) may find that he has irredeemably divided the nation....(this from a respectful observer and Kibittzer).

keith, all of that is in your hashtag: bad enough to think that way but published as your credo clearly to the world--- Anyone who doesn't agree with me on anything, from abortion to unbridled zealotry, is a disloyal and ignorant.

Have you considered what definition of 'rights' is being taught in our schools and sold as fact to enough hypocritical voters? I notice we haven't traced the origins of the right to free abortions or right to carbon credits for select donors?

deleted