The NAU

Originally posted by SBDAL
It's only fair, because each country, I'm sure, won't see eye to eye on everything. So you sacrifice some things in order to make a more cohesive unit. People like me?

No, it isn't fair for anyone, worldwide, to give up rights... period. Which is why I am willing to label you a disinfo agent and/or an ignoramus (at least).

People like you... the disinfo/ignoramus that feel it's ok for anyone, worldwide, to give up rights for any reason at all... are that type of person.

Originally posted by SBDAL
I'm no hypocrite... not eveyrone here believes, lmao, Dick Cheney is actually a reptilian alien or that unicorns are galloping around somewhere. I do not go into, nor am I interested in, that part of ATS. I cannot discredit ATS as a whole for the rantings of some people, no matter how delusional their claims might sound to some. The majority of this site is dedicated to other topics I find interesting (9/11 conspiracies, NWO, weaponry and such). The website I provided a link to you is some really off the wall stuff, that I find a bit "cultish". I asked for a link with the same type of rhetoric and you provided none, so I wouldn't even dare put ATS and that "other" site in the same ballpark.

Yes, you are hypocritical. You've made it clear that the website in question is "cultish", thus discredited, due to it's content... but it's ok here on ATS (for the same reasons) because you don't visit those sections. Hell, don't visit that section on the website in question and it would essentially become "creditable". If you can't discredit ATS for the rantings of some people, no matter how delusional their claims might sound to some, then how can you do so for any other website? "It's ok for one, but not for others"... that is what makes you hypocritical.

Originally posted by SBDAL
I just don't see what you're seeing. If you believe that nothing but lies are being spewed onto the populus, then you have some paranoia issues (no offense). The government also does some good, whether you choose to believe that or not.

As I stated, the government has made their own precedence as to the issues at hand. I don't have an issue with paranoia. The federal government has an issue with responsibility and accountability.

I agree, the government does "some" good, however, it's normally the exact opposite as you might see it.

Originally posted by SBDAL
Let's reverse this "situation". Let's say you were a Mexican citizen living in Mexico. Would you be for this union with Canada and the US? It would make your quality of life better... for you and your family. That's exactly what would happen to families living south of the border, but no you don't want that to happen because you want to be able to polish your shotgun on Sundays. That's really been your argument. Stop being so selfish and think of humanity. You tell us to read between lines and do our own research... that just leads me to believe you don't have any proof (not speculation, opinion or rants). I am still waiting for you to pick the Myth vs Fact sheet apart from the SPP website. I might end up seeing what you're seeing.

That scenario has no weight on this issue at all. As stated in the 1st paragraph of my response... "No, it isn't fair for anyone, worldwide, to give up rights... period. Which is why I am willing to label you a disinfo agent and/or an ignoramus (at least)."

By the US only joining with Canada... and me (or any other American citizen) giving up any rights (which would be a step "down" to match Canada) to form any type of union... how does that make it better for me and my family? Oh, let me guess... the issue of natural resources? HA! Like I said before, that's why we've got a thing called "trade"... not unionization.

If the citizens of Mexico want a better life, then they need to address that with their own government. Not ours. If their government can't fix the problem... then they always have the choice to come to American and become a legal American citizen.

"Polishing my guns on Sunday" is my real argument? As an American citizen, I have the right to polish my guns on any day I wish, and no one can tell me different. Can citizens of Canada and Mexico do that? Oh wait, they don't have the right to "possess and bear arms" now do they?

Yes, I've asked that you do your own research as to prevent you from feeling the need to label me as "discredited", however, you've obviously missed the entire point. Here... let me say it again....

No, it isn't fair for anyone, worldwide, to give up rights... period.

Do I need to say it again?

No, it isn't fair for anyone, worldwide, to give up rights... period.

You, SBDAL, have done nothing except advocate the loss of rights, freedoms, and liberties. You feel any reason of all... including the well being of another nation... would be suffice for "anyone" to give up their rights. And that, my friend, is dead wrong. You've already "won the debate" for me without even knowing it. You've proven to yourself, and to anyone else reading this thread, of how the NAU would be bad, without even realizing it.


And for that... I thank you kindly.

Originally posted by Infoholic
"Polishing my guns on Sunday" is my real argument? As an American citizen, I have the right to polish my guns on any day I wish, and no one can tell me different. Can citizens of Canada and Mexico do that? Oh wait, they don't have the right to "possess and bear arms" now do they?

You should check your facts,it might suprize you how similar the US and Canada are.

Look HERE

Originally posted by FreeSpeaker
You should check your facts,it might suprize you how similar the US and Canada are.

Look HERE

Did you read that article or did you just notice the headline and think it was right up your alley?

CANADIAN GUN CONTROL: SHOULD THE UNITED
STATES LOOK NORTH FOR A SOLUTION TO ITS
FIREARMS PROBLEM?
Hmm? Since when did the United States have a "firearms problem"? The only problem that we, the US citizens have with firearms is the federal government's restrictions on them. (again, that's another topic)

Here's couple snippets from the article describing "gun rights" in Canada, taken from your provided source.

III. New Restrictions in 1977

The push for the current version of gun control laws in Canada began in 1974 after two incidents in which boys with rifles ran amok in public schools. The public demanded executions but the government responded by offering stricter gun control to distract public attention away from the death penalty.[54] (p.10)Many ideas were discussed, and in 1977, Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau's government introduced Bill C-58 which would have required a prospective gun purchaser to receive police approval to buy a weapon and to supply the police with two character references. Although public sentiment generally appeared to favor Bill C-58, it was met with over fifty amendments in the House of Commons and a firestorm of protest from gun owners. As a result, the Trudeau government withdrew C-58 and introduced a milder measure, Bill C-51, which became the Criminal Law Amendment Act.[55]

Huh... police approval before Canadians can get a weapon? They have to provide "character references"? Now that sounds like "rights" to me.

IV. Civil Liberties

Magistrates may issue warrants for home searches and gun confiscation whenever they believe that it is not in the interest of the person or not in the interest of the public that a person should have a firearm in his possession.

Even warrantless home searches of ordinary long-gun owners are allowed when the peace officer reasonably believes that possession of the firearm "is not desirable in the interests of the safety of that person, or of any other person ... and that it would not be practicable to obtain a warrant."

WHA!?!?!?!

Canadians owning a firearm is up to the discretion of the Magistrates!?

Originally posted by FreeSpeaker
You should check your facts......

it might suprize you how similar the US and Canada are NOT.

Hey
Those laws are almost identical! It is a wonder the us and canada havent merged already. Lots of similarity there.

Info:

This was never a debate on my side. So I feel I lost nothing, lol. These are my opinions of things. If you have such a beef with this government and it's future, then why not move to switzerland or something? I have unconditional love for my country, no matter what road it takes. That might sound strange to you, but I'm the one who has to deal with it.

"Yes, you are hypocritical. You've made it clear that the website in question is "cultish", thus discredited, due to it's content... but it's ok here on ATS (for the same reasons) because you don't visit those sections."

Again, Infoholic, that site is purely on that type of "cultish" material. If you could show me something deemed "cultish" to people (or you), in ATS, then by all means share a link. I searched, but was unsucessful in finding someone going on and on about a spaceship coming to Earth to take people to a utopia in space.

"If the citizens of Mexico want a better life, then they need to address that with their own government. Not ours. If their government can't fix the problem... then they always have the choice to come to American and become a legal American citizen. "

Do you have any idea how many want to do that (come to this country), but can't? They can't because they live in deplorable conditions. How on Earth will they come up with the money to buy a plane, train or bus ticket to come here? Who would they stay with when they're here? Would they rent a hotel room for $50 bucks a night? It's not as easy as just moving here and poof! you get a job, house, car and citizenship

If you have such a beef with this government and it's future, then why not move to switzerland or something?

Because your 1st amendment right...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

"if you have a beef with this government" you are allowed to petition the government for a redress of grievances. I have no doubt the current administration would love everyone who has a problem with them to "move to switzerland". That is not the american way. Many, many americans have died so that we have the right to petition the government; so IMHO for someone to run away to another country when they don't like what the government does is unamerican. The 2nd amendment was put in place to ensure the right to petition the government will not disapear.

You win because you want the US to be "free" at the expense of another nation's well being.

Was that not how the U.S. obtained said freedom in the first place. If the founding fathers used that logic there would be no U.S.A. "Well it is gonna hurt England and the king if we revolt and declare independance so we better not"...Not a quote from the founding fathers fortunatly for us all.

and...

when all you're trying to do is convince people their government is out to hurt them

Well just what are the governments intentions? Intentions as to domestic wiretaps,federal attorneys,outright lies as to why to go to war,no open investigation of sept 11th,outing undercover cia operatives....ect
Gee who would think their government is out to hurt them under those conditions?

[edit on 16/3/2007 by shooterbrody]

[edit on 16/3/2007 by shooterbrody]

[edit on 16/3/2007 by shooterbrody]

[edit on 16/3/2007 by shooterbrody]

Shooterbrody:

"Was that not how the U.S. obtained said freedom in the first place. If the founding fathers used that logic there would be no U.S.A. "Well it is gonna hurt England and the king if we revolt and declare independance so we better not"...Not a quote from the founding fathers fortunatly for us all."

Uh, we're not at war with Canada or Mexico... so... I really don't know what point you're trying to make. I agree with you on one count. I agree that the US is what it is on the expense and well being of other nations... and to add to that, other races as well.

"Well just what are the governments intentions? Intentions as to domestic wiretaps,federal attorneys,outright lies as to why to go to war,no open investigation of sept 11th,outing undercover cia operatives....ect
Gee who would think their government is out to hurt them under those conditions?"

I am not a government official nor do I know anyone who has any type of governmental power... so I can't give you any intentions the government has, only speculation (that doesn't count around here). My DISCUSSION, not DEBATE, was on the SPP later forming into the NAU. If you want we can discuss all that (9/11 and such) in the appropriate arena.

"Many, many americans have died so that we have the right to petition the government"

Many, many non-americans have died as well for the same reason.

Uh, we're not at war with Canada or Mexico... so... I really don't know what point you're trying to make. I agree with you on one count. I agree that the US is what it is on the expense and well being of other nations... and to add to that, other races as well.

Point being the U.S. is not responsible for the well being of other nations. The U.S. govts responsibility is to serve the people of the U.S. Not the canadians or mexicans or any other nation for that matter.

I can't give you any intentions the government has

You are quick to point out the govt is not here to hurt people. I used to think our govt would not hurt us either.

Many, many non-americans have died as well for the same reason.

Examples please.

Shooterbrody:

"Point being the U.S. is not responsible for the well being of other nations."

They sure feel responsible when it's in their best interest, ahem, Iraq.

"You are quick to point out the govt is not here to hurt people. I used to think our govt would not hurt us either."

I would like to believe that my government is not out to hurt me. People, excuse me, adults act like teenagers sometimes. If the government (parent) sets a new bill into law that the populous (child) doesn't approve of, they get mad. But in long run, the child looks back and sees that his/her parent was right, and saw the reasoning behind it. You see, we may or may not like wiretapping on our phones, but belive me it's for our safety.

"Examples please. "

Only 50,000 Americans died to free themselves from the British and get these rights you speak of. How many Non-Americans have died in order to keep that right? Far more than American casualties.

At least 5,000 black men in the Revolutionary War. Many were promised freedom in return for service (which they didn't get), some forced to. I was not alive back then, but assume blacks were not considerd Americans.

Have you heard of the Indian Removal Act of 1830?
www.state.gov...

The western gold rush? About 250,000 Native Americans were reduced to less than 20,000 in California alone. They were killed in the interest of land, securing the shore to shore "empire"... securing YOUR rights.

Two nuclear bombs in WWII killing more than 200,000 where
the "overwhelming majority of the deaths were those of civilians".
en.wikipedia.org...
Two nuclear bombs to secure The United States as a superpower. To secure US influence and secure YOUR rights.

These are just four examples, which total 435,000. That number could easily be higher. 435,000 lives lost to secure America, to secure its dominance and to secure YOUR rights and liberties.

Originally posted by SBDAL
They sure feel responsible when it's in their best interest, ahem, Iraq.

I'm going to kick myself for wasting my time arguing with you SBDAL, however, I just can't get my A.D.D. to let go of this comment.

The Bush Administration used the facts of Saddam committing crimes against humanity to gain public support to invade Iraq... or was it he was a threat to the US?... or was it the Weapons of Mass Destruction?... or was it the oil?... or was it....

Anyway, the American people already know they were lied to and manipulated in order to gain the support needed to gain authorization to use the Armed Forces in Iraq.


Surely you can see the difference of the Bush Administration's "best interest" in Iraq as opposed to the alleged "best interest" of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America.

If you can't tell the difference between the two situations, then your are sadly more ignorant that I gave you credit for.



Info.
**runs off to chase the cat***.............

[edit... caught the cat[/edit]

[edit on 3/17/2007 by Infoholic]

Hmmm... where to begin?

They sure feel responsible when it's in their best interest, ahem, Iraq.

Gee you make my point for me as to the credibility of the current administration. Did we go there for WMD's,terrorists,freedom for the iraqi people, or for oil. Yeah the bush administration gained alot of credibilty with that fiasco. The bush administration took advantage of the unity of the american people brought by sept. 11th and used it to go to war to line the pockets of bush's fat cat oil buddies and cheney's haliburton contacts. Iraq alone is reason enough to not trust this administration.

I would like to believe that my government is not out to hurt me. People, excuse me, adults act like teenagers sometimes. If the government (parent) sets a new bill into law that the populous (child) doesn't approve of, they get mad. But in long run, the child looks back and sees that his/her parent was right, and saw the reasoning behind it. You see, we may or may not like wiretapping on our phones, but belive me it's for our safety.

...have to breath.......Whew
Either you have no grasp of how the govt works or you had no parents wonder which it is. The govt of the U.S. is in place to SERVE the people not to pass bills the people do not approve of. Parents are not in place to SERVE children; parents RAISE children. I know it is a difficult concept to grasp but, someday you will get it.
Wiretapping our phones is for our "safety"? Wonder if hitler used the same excuse? It has nothing to do woth our safety. It has to do with expansion of powers. Before the bush administration there were already methods in place to gather this intelligence. Those methods had nothing to do with spying on american citizens. www4.law.cornell.edu...
That is a link to the FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT. It was passed in 1978. The act was put in place because of abuse of powers of the Nixon administration. These laws,courts and procedures were in place before sept. 11th 2001. There is no reason the govt needs expanded rights to tap americans phones. That is why the administration folded like a house of cards when this issue came to court. The methods to gain the "intelligence" they say they despirately need were already in place.

These are just four examples, which total 435,000. That number could easily be higher. 435,000 lives lost to secure America, to secure its dominance and to secure YOUR rights and liberties.

While I disagree with your opinion as to how and why you listed those numbers, that is 435,000 lives lost to secure my rights. If I do nothing to maintain those rights the 435,000 lives were lost in vain. I am not willing to do that because the govt says I need "safety". Perhaps they have a different definition of safety than I do.

Info:
"I just can't get my A.D.D. to let go of this comment."

See... I KNEW it was something...

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (not Bush) went to war with another nation to "free" them and according to you steal oil. In the process they killed many, many Iraqis:
59,000-64,000 (roughly) according to this webiste www.iraqbodycount.net...
OR
over 100,000 according to this one
news.bbc.co.uk...

Not to mention an estimated 2,000,000 (3,000 per day as of Nov. '06) Iraqis have fled Iraq and another 1,700,000 displaced WITHIN Iraq! 7% of Iraq's population have fled since Mar. '03. All in the name of freedom.
en.wikipedia.org...

"Surely you can see the difference of the Bush Administration's "best interest" in Iraq as opposed to the alleged "best interest" of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America. "

That comment of mine you quoted was a general comment, not specific to SPP or NAU. That comment was made because Shooter stated "the U.S. is not responsible for the well being of other nations" and his other comment "Was that not how the U.S. obtained said freedom in the first place" (in response to THIS comment of mine "You win because you want the US to be "free" at the expense of another nation's well being"). He was saying the US obatined said freedoms at the expense of another nation's well being, but that we're not responsible for anothers... OOOKAY!

Originally posted by SBDAL
See... I KNEW it was something...

mmkay. Hope you got something to back that unspoken assumption up.

Originally posted by SBDAL
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (not Bush) went to war with another nation to "free" them and according to you steal oil. In the process they killed many, many Iraqis:
59,000-64,000 (roughly) according to this webiste www.iraqbodycount.net...
OR
over 100,000 according to this one
news.bbc.co.uk...

I, and many many more American citizens were against the "Commander in Chief's" decision to attack/invade Iraq. You honestly believe "we" went there to free the Iraqis?

Originally posted by SBDAL
Not to mention an estimated 2,000,000 (3,000 per day as of Nov. '06) Iraqis have fled Iraq and another 1,700,000 displaced WITHIN Iraq! 7% of Iraq's population have fled since Mar. '03. All in the name of freedom.
en.wikipedia.org...

And I feel for those that have been killed or displaced by the Bush Administration.

Originally posted by SBDAL
That comment of mine you quoted was a general comment, not specific to SPP or NAU. That comment was made because Shooter stated "the U.S. is not responsible for the well being of other nations" and his other comment "Was that not how the U.S. obtained said freedom in the first place" (in response to THIS comment of mine "You win because you want the US to be "free" at the expense of another nation's well being"). He was saying the US obatined said freedoms at the expense of another nation's well being, but that we're not responsible for anothers... OOOKAY!

I understand you were talking about two different things. As I pointed out, the situations are completely different.

I agree with shooterbrody. There's no way in hell that you or anyone else can get me to concede to the thought of giving up one person rights or freedoms would be any benefit to anyone worldwide. That's just stupid. I'm not calling you stupid, but the idea is. That would be advocating for hardships worldwide, simply because things are better in one place as compared to another. Why don't the UK merge with Mexico. The UK's got it better. Don't give me the run around of they're not neighboring countries, it's just an example.

The fighting in Iraq is not about bringing freedom. Again, there's no comparison between the two situations.

I believe another point shooterbrody was trying to get across to you was that the United States is not the world's police. Personally, I feel it should be each own nations' government that takes care of their people. If they won't, then those people need to instill a government that will. We can't do it for them.

I'll give you credit for a couple ideas you shared pointing where the US took land by force for their own benefit, or at the expense of other people (were the Native Americans you refer to actually a "nation"?), but you also shared a couple more that are more or less on the same lines as the fighting in Iraq.

Anyway, like I said, I was going to end up kicking myself for replying.... here we go again.

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (not Bush) went to war with another nation to "free" them and according to you steal oil.

It was not the american people screaming for war, it was not congress screaming for war, it was the bush administration. The bush administration has given so many reasons I'm sure freedom is among the but I'm sure it was not the original one.

He was saying the US obatined said freedoms at the expense of another nation's well being, but that we're not responsible for anothers

We did(at the expense of england) and we are responsible only for the U.S. Is U.S. law valid anywhere but the U.S.?
These are only general comments though.....

Shooter:

"Gee you make my point for me as to the credibility of the current administration. Did we go there for WMD's,terrorists,freedom for the iraqi people, or for oil. Yeah the bush administration gained alot of credibilty with that fiasco. The bush administration took advantage of the unity of the american people brought by sept. 11th and used it to go to war to line the pockets of bush's fat cat oil buddies and cheney's haliburton contacts. Iraq alone is reason enough to not trust this administration."

When did I lend ANY credibility to the current administration (regarding Iraq)? All I said was when it's in the US's best interest, they feel responsible for another nation's well being (whether they're lying or not about it).

"Either you have no grasp of how the govt works or you had no parents wonder which it is. The govt of the U.S. is in place to SERVE the people not to pass bills the people do not approve of."

That's my analogy I choose to use. Our government makes the rules, no? Don't parent's do the same to their children? If we screw up, the government puts us on "timeout" (prison). Our weekly (biweekly in some cases) pay checks are our allowance for doing our chores (going to our job). I NEVER said the governments place was to pass bills the populous does not approve of. They DO, however, pass some bills that the populous (or some) disagree with. Another analogy I could use is the government is the pimp and we're just its whores, lmao.

"It was not the american people screaming for war, it was not congress screaming for war, it was the bush administration. The bush administration has given so many reasons I'm sure freedom is among the but I'm sure it was not the original one."

Weren't polls, shortly after 9/11, showing more than half of the populous wanting to go to war? I agree that the current administration wanted it as well. It's not important if it was an original or true reason. It was a reason they gave to the populous and the populous believed them.

"While I disagree with your opinion as to how and why you listed those numbers, that is 435,000 lives lost to secure my rights. If I do nothing to maintain those rights the 435,000 lives were lost in vain. I am not willing to do that because the govt says I need "safety". Perhaps they have a different definition of safety than I do."

I listed those numbers to show you that far more NON-American (soldiers of an enemy or innocent civilians) lives have been lost securing your rights as opposed to American.

Info:

"mmkay. Hope you got something to back that unspoken assumption up. "

LMAO... relax jack, it was a joke.

"I, and many many more American citizens were against the "Commander in Chief's" decision to attack/invade Iraq. You honestly believe "we" went there to free the Iraqis?"

Whether I believe Bush (saying US was there to free Iraqis) or not is not the question. It was a reason he gave... it was a reason the populous bought. As I asked Shooter (please correct me if I am wrong), weren't the polls shortly after 9/11 showing that more than half of Americans wanted the war?

"The fighting in Iraq is not about bringing freedom. Again, there's no comparison between the two situations."

Then what is all this "building a democracy in Iraq" about? Look, whether or not it was a real or true reason is beside the point. Even if it's #209 on the priority list... it's happening... steps are being taken to make Iraq a democracy. If that is not for the freedom of the Iraqi people then I don't know what is.

"Why don't the UK merge with Mexico. The UK's got it better. Don't give me the run around of they're not neighboring countries, it's just an example. "

I would't have a problem with the two merging. Ask their respective governments why the haven't.

"I believe another point shooterbrody was trying to get across to you was that the United States is not the world's police. Personally, I feel it should be each own nations' government that takes care of their people. If they won't, then those people need to instill a government that will. We can't do it for them. "

Well you may not see the United States as the global cop on beat, but many do, especially myself. So by your statement the US shouldn't have gotten involved in WWI? Or even made an attempt to stop the slaughter of Jews in Germany, simply because it was a foriegn affair?
Check this out:
www.turkishweekly.net...
This is what the US does. We have been involved in many affairs concerning another country, for our best interests and for well being, as well.

When did I lend ANY credibility to the current administration (regarding Iraq)?

here

Finally, you win becuase I want to make you feel good... thinking you're actually doing good, when all you're trying to do is convince people their government is out to hurt them.

here

I would like to believe that my government is not out to hurt me.

When the govt continues down a path against the peoples will I believe that "is hurting" them.

That's my analogy I choose to use. Our government makes the rules, no? Don't parent's do the same to their children? If we screw up, the government puts us on "timeout" (prison). Our weekly (biweekly in some cases) pay checks are our allowance for doing our chores (going to our job). I NEVER said the governments place was to pass bills the populous does not approve of. They DO, however, pass some bills that the populous (or some) disagree with. Another analogy I could use is the government is the pimp and we're just its whores, lmao.

Hmmm...... here we go again
Government officials are ELECTED. Government does not put anyone in prison(at least not yet). Breaking laws leads to arrest which leads to conviction(maybe) which leads to prison. Paychecks are not paid by the government(at least not mine). Elected officials are to be the "voice" of the people; parents or pimps neither are the voices for children or whores. You have a skewed view of what govt is supposed to be. We do not live in a socialist state. Our govt is not supposed to take care of us from cradle to grave. Nor is our govt supposed to have all encompassing power of its people.

Weren't polls, shortly after 9/11, showing more than half of the populous wanting to go to war?

Polls? seriously polls? I will bet right now fox news has a poll showing pres bush is doing a great job. You keep believing the polls bub.

I listed those numbers to show you that far more NON-American (soldiers of an enemy or innocent civilians) lives have been lost securing your rights as opposed to American.

A testiment to the fact we WON those wars and kept our freedoms. And as I said before ALL those lives lost would be in vain if we stand by idly and allow our freedoms to be revoked. Am is supposed to be sad we won? Sorry I am glad we won. I am glad we are dominant. I intend to do eveything in my power to keep it that way. When the rest of the world catches up and grants liberty and freedom to their people perhaps I will change my mind.

Originally posted by Infoholic
it might surprize you how similar the US and Canada are NOT.

Canada has one of the highest rates of gun ownership in the world. There are almost as many rifles per capita in Canada as in the United States.[1] Although there are important cultural differences, Canada and the United States "probably resemble each other more than any two nations on earth," observes sociologist Seymour Martin Lipset
Source

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association.
Source

Bill of Rights
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Source

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Legal Rights
7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.
9. Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.
Source

Bill of Rights
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Source

So besides the lack of the second ammendment,which doesn't seem to affect law abbiding Canadians from obtaining guns,where's the difference?

[edit on 19-3-2007 by seridium]

So besides the lack of the second ammendment,which doesn't seem to affect law abbiding Canadians from obtaining guns,where's the difference?

for one

Congress shall make no law

Our government can't even take these rights away from us.
as opposed to

Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms

The govt telling you what freedom you have
oh and this

and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

We in the U.S. can legally protest our govt and petition for a redress of grievances; which is much more than the right to peacably assemble.

In the U.S. we have the right to life,liberty,and the persuit of happiness without exception.

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice

No where in the Canadian version does it list the use of a warrent.

So besides the lack of the second ammendment,which doesn't seem to affect law abbiding Canadians from obtaining guns,where's the difference?

The second ammendment is KEY to the constitution; it is what maintains the other freedoms in the constitution.(IMHO of course)

Originally posted by seridium
So besides the lack of the second ammendment,which doesn't seem to affect law abbiding Canadians from obtaining guns,where's the difference?

seridium,

1st, on this website, are these the actual rights that Canadians have? ..True and correct as correlated by Canadian Parliament?

2nd, this website article is completely ludicrous and is not argueable due to it's headline, "CANADIAN GUN CONTROL: SHOULD THE UNITED STATES LOOK NORTH FOR A SOLUTION TO ITS FIREARMS PROBLEM?"..... because, as I stated before, there is no problem with firearms in the United States... which I provided my input in this post.



I greatly anticipate your written reply.

Info.