Trudeau explains why he's banning assault guns

[Rich2018]

Bill of Rights 1689 - Wikipedia

The Bill of Rights is not a constitution

Indeed it is not even law


(did you really think that the 1689 Bill of Rights contains the force of law?)

See above, it is the bill of rights.

To reiterate, the Bill of Rights is NOT law

Therefore it CANNOT be considered as part of the English/British constitution

Once again, you can say how the UK is constituted, but you can't actually say what the constitution is

Accordingly, you can't say the British have any constitutional rights, only legal rights


So I stand by what I said:
A lack of a written constitution means no constitution at all, simply a collection of laws and traditions, with none of them carved in stone. This means that no-one can actually say what the British constitution is
Additionally, no part of the so-called British constitution is more permanent than any law. So no law, that's regarded as defining the "constitution" has primacy over any other law

Because most countries do, even dictatorships like north korea have a constitution.

Prove it

Where's your evidence ?

The Greatest Constitutional Document of All - Independence Institute

Why do you post these links? OK, I've heard of the Magna Carta (and for the most part it focused of what powers the king gave to his barons)
Now what relevance does it have on the call called English/British "constitution" ?

England was one of the first to write a constitution which brought about the concept of a democratic country run by a parliament rather than by rule of king.

The Magna Carta was not a constitution, nor was the Bill of Rights

Neither determined how the government should be constituted for example

And england now has an uncodified constitution because it still recognises the magna carta as a legal document. A country can not have two constitutions.

Britain's "constitution" comes from a vast collection of laws

Two recent ones spring to mind, the establishment of a supreme court and the law on parliamentary terms - are they part of a "constitution" or just laws that can be repealed any time parliament wants

You have got to be kidding me. You are referring to a movie director who is talking about the contracts signed or verbal between actors and managers. You do understand the difference between a constitution of a country and the contract signed between to people?

Respectively, no I'm not and yes I am

I was drawing a parallel between the perceived worth of a Hollywood unwritten contract and the worth of an unwritten constitution.


The actor/actress had no contract at all...and neither do the British people IMO


I'll say it again, to be clear

You can say how the UK is constituted, but not what the constitution says.

 

[soylentgreen]

The Bill of Rights is not a constitution
Indeed it is not even law
did you really think that the 1689 Bill of Rights contains the force of law?).

No it's not a constitution, that is the point.
It is not a law, it is a document that protects the rights of citizens.
What it does do is set out the rules by which a parliament can govern. Common law is what is used when enforcing laws.

To reiterate, the Bill of Rights is NOT law
Therefore it CANNOT be considered as part of the English/British constitution
Once again, you can say how the UK is constituted, but you can't actually say what the constitution is
Accordingly, you can't say the British have any constitutional rights, only legal rights

The link i gave quite clearly stated that the bill of rights sets out the rights of the governed and the abilities of the governing. You are mistaking constitutional law with common law.

So I stand by what I said:
A lack of a written constitution means no constitution at all, simply a collection of laws and traditions, with none of them carved in stone. This means that no-one can actually say what the British constitution is
Additionally, no part of the so-called British constitution is more permanent than any law. So no law, that's regarded as defining the "constitution" has primacy over any other law

The bill of rights deal with the rights the english people have and the rules by which they are governed. It does not deal with common law that is something the ruling party of parliament does.

Prove it
Where's your evidence ?

List of national constitutions - Wikipedia

Why do you post these links? OK, I've heard of the Magna Carta (and for the most part it focused of what powers the king gave to his barons)
Now what relevance does it have on the call called English/British "constitution" ?

The magna carta is no longer the working constitution of england. England now has a bill of rights of which parts of the magna carta are still binding.

The Magna Carta was not a constitution, nor was the Bill of Rights
Neither determined how the government should be constituted for example

The magna carta was the original form of a constitution. It set out the rules by which a king could govern for the very first time.

Britain's "constitution" comes from a vast collection of laws
Two recent ones spring to mind, the establishment of a supreme court and the law on parliamentary terms - are they part of a "constitution" or just laws that can be repealed any time parliament wants

It is a mix of both constitutional and common law. Which is the point of being an unwritten constitution. Unlike countries like america where the constitution has become a religious article, unchangable.
Constitution of the United Kingdom - Wikipedia

Respectively, no I'm not and yes I am
I was drawing a parallel between the perceived worth of a Hollywood unwritten contract and the worth of an unwritten constitution.
The actor/actress had no contract at all...and neither do the British people IMO
I'll say it again, to be clear

No, there is no comparison here. Goldwyn was referring to a verbal contract where as the english do have a written document . The english people do have rights.

You can say how the UK is constituted, but not what the constitution says

https://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/political-and-constitutional-reform/The-UK-Constitution.pdf

By popular mandate, we establish this
Constitution:
To recognise every citizen as an equal partner in government—at a local, regional, and national level. To affirm that each citizen is entitled to fair and equitable treatment under the law. To establish the principle of equality of opportunity for
all citizens. To eradicate poverty and want throughout the nation. To protect and cultivate community identities within the four great countries of the union: England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. To preserve our common environment, and to hold it in trust for future generations. To safeguard freedom of thought, conscience, and assembly; and to facilitate peaceable dissent. And to protect these fundamental rights against the encroachment of tyranny and the abdication of reason.

 

[COTO]

No, that is not true. Presently the liberal government in canada is a minority government and tredaue is dependent on the cooperation of the minority parties for support.

Right. I forgot the recent election.

All the same, I'm sure the NDP is more than happy to grab some guns. If not, I'm sure P.M. Trudeau can by them off by promising to spend more. :shrug:

 

[Rich2018]

No it's not a constitution, that is the point.
It is not a law, it is a document that protects the rights of citizens.

How can the 1689 Bill of Rights protect citizens if it doesn't carry the weight of law ?

What it does do is set out the rules by which a parliament can govern. Common law is what is used when enforcing laws.

It may have done at one point, the although the BoR is still on the UK statute books, it has long since ceased carrying any legal weight

"The common law ensures that the law remains 'common' throughout the land. However, as it is the House of Lords and the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) that create the legal precedent in relation to criminal matters in England and Wales, it is the decisions made by these higher courts that bind the lower courts."

The link i gave quite clearly stated that the bill of rights sets out the rights of the governed and the abilities of the governing. You are mistaking constitutional law with common law.

"The Bill of Rights remains in statute and continues to be cited in legal proceedings in the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth realms, particularly Article 9 on parliamentary freedom of speech. Following the Perth Agreement in 2011, legislation amending the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement 1701 came into effect across the Commonwealth realms on 26 March 2015 which changed the laws of succession to the British throne."

So most has been superseded by newer laws

The bill of rights deal with the rights the english people have and the rules by which they are governed....

In 1689, it may have done, yes

The magna carta is no longer the working constitution of england. England now has a bill of rights of which parts of the magna carta are still binding.

Parts of the Magna Carta and the 1689 are still in force in England and Wales today:

"For the main part, the clauses do not deal with legal principles but instead relate to the regulation of feudal customs and the operation of the justice system. ... Only four of the 63 clauses in Magna Carta are still valid today - 1 (part), 13, 39 and 40."


However they are not a constitution or anything like it

They're just examples of historic laws

The magna carta was the original form of a constitution. It set out the rules by which a king could govern for the very first time.

I would dispute this

It was a (sort of) legal document, but more of a treaty than a constitution
It made no effort determine how the government was constituted and was repudiated by Kin John later in his reign

Unlike countries like america where the constitution has become a religious article, unchangable.

There have been 27 amendments to the US Constitution

Goldwyn was referring to a verbal contract where as the english do have a written document . The english people do have rights.

Yes, the English/British people have rights, they're covered by various laws (of which England & Wales and Scotland have about 10,000)

For example the right to remain silent was standardized by the 1994 the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act (prior to that every police force gave its own warning), not by any medieval document.


In Britain, there is NO restriction on government that it can't shake off
There is/was an ongoing debate as to whether one parliament could bind the hands of a subsequent one. And seemingly it can't
Parliament might pass a law granting everyone a right today and tomorrow it can just as easily repeal it.

 

[soylentgreen]

Right. I forgot the recent election.

All the same, I'm sure the NDP is more than happy to grab some guns. If not, I'm sure P.M. Trudeau can by them off by promising to spend more. :shrug:

By the lack of protest from the general populace it could be seen that many canadians do support the ban. They too look upon americas do nothing but give thoughts and prayers as abhorrent. Better to make the symbolic gesture that tells everyone that violence is not an answer to problems than to be like many americans and be demanding the right to kill and use more violence to deal with problems.

 

[soylentgreen]

How can the 1689 Bill of Rights protect citizens if it doesn't carry the weight of law ?




It may have done at one point, the although the BoR is still on the UK statute books, it has long since ceased carrying any legal weight

"The common law ensures that the law remains 'common' throughout the land. However, as it is the House of Lords and the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) that create the legal precedent in relation to criminal matters in England and Wales, it is the decisions made by these higher courts that bind the lower courts."





"The Bill of Rights remains in statute and continues to be cited in legal proceedings in the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth realms, particularly Article 9 on parliamentary freedom of speech. Following the Perth Agreement in 2011, legislation amending the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement 1701 came into effect across the Commonwealth realms on 26 March 2015 which changed the laws of succession to the British throne."

So most has been superseded by newer laws




In 1689, it may have done, yes




Parts of the Magna Carta and the 1689 are still in force in England and Wales today:

"For the main part, the clauses do not deal with legal principles but instead relate to the regulation of feudal customs and the operation of the justice system. ... Only four of the 63 clauses in Magna Carta are still valid today - 1 (part), 13, 39 and 40."


However they are not a constitution or anything like it

They're just examples of historic laws

The bill of rights deals, as it says, with the rights of the english , not the laws of the english.

The parts in bold back my point. The magna carta is still a legal document of england.
And no, that is the whole point. They are not a written constitution. And no, the magna carta is a historical document. The bill of rights is an updated document that is in effect today.

I would dispute this

It was a (sort of) legal document, but more of a treaty than a constitution
It made no effort determine how the government was constituted and was repudiated by Kin John later in his reign

Sigh! There was no government then.
1066 : William the Conqueror introduced the feudal system,
1215 : the tenants-in-chief secured Magna Carta from King John,
1264 : Montfort summoned the first parliament in English history

There have been 27 amendments to the US Constitution

And there are millions of american christians that demand the 2nd amendment is a god given right.

Yes, the English/British people have rights, they're covered by various laws (of which England & Wales and Scotland have about 10,000)

For example the right to remain silent was standardized by the 1994 the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act (prior to that every police force gave its own warning), not by any medieval document.


In Britain, there is NO restriction on government that it can't shake off
There is/was an ongoing debate as to whether one parliament could bind the hands of a subsequent one. And seemingly it can't
Parliament might pass a law granting everyone a right today and tomorrow it can just as easily repeal it.

Yes, you are starting to get the idea of how an uncodified constitution works. Unlike america it is not bound by what a bunch of long dead people thought was right but is able to respond to the needs of the people that exist today.
And unlike america it is a westminster type government meaning that it can and is responsive to how the people vote for it. Any changes it makes will be reflective on the next general election.

 

[Rich2018]

The bill of rights deals, as it says, with the rights of the english , not the laws of the english.

A right not enshrined in law, is no right at all

Every right the people of the UK have is granted by a law

The magna carta is still a legal document of england.

England & Wales

Yes, I didn't deny this....but also I mentioned there are about 10,000 laws on the statute books - I'm not sure if that includes Scotland and NI as well)
And no, that is the whole point. They are not a written constitution. And no, the magna carta is a historical document. The bill of rights is an updated document that is in effect today.

There was no government then.

There's always been a government, ever since there was a king or tribal chieftain

And there are millions of american christians that demand the 2nd amendment is a god given right.

Yet they can't point to any authoratative list

The best they have are 10 Commandments that make no mention of rights, only duties

you are starting to get the idea of how an uncodified constitution works.

I think I know better than you how an unwritten constitution works

Unlike america it is not bound by what a bunch of long dead people thought was right but is able to respond to the needs of the people that exist today.

I've always felt the US Constitution was more like a ball and chain than some sort a keys to freedom

And unlike america it is a westminster type government meaning that it can and is responsive to how the people vote for it. Any changes it makes will be reflective on the next general election.

British style parliamentary government is the template for every democratic government in the developed world except the USA (and that abortion of a constitution they have in France*)
The US presidential form of government is favored by third world tin-pot dictators, ironically what Trump calls s******e countries


*a curious blend of parliamentary and presidential forms of government.

 

[soylentgreen]

A right not enshrined in law, is no right at all

Every right the people of the UK have is granted by a law
England & Wales

Yes, I didn't deny this....but also I mentioned there are about 10,000 laws on the statute books - I'm not sure if that includes Scotland and NI as well)
And no, that is the whole point. They are not a written constitution. And no, the magna carta is a historical document. The bill of rights is an updated document that is in effect today.

No, they are not a written constitution. They are a uncodified constitution which is still legally binding on the government to uphold.

There's always been a government, ever since there was a king or tribal chieftain

No, that is just using the word governing. Parliament, the rule by a democratic representative form of government did not exist at the time of king john.

Yet they can't point to any authoratative list

The best they have are 10 Commandments that make no mention of rights, only duties

That is not the point. As far as they are concerned the american constitution is an act of god. They are not concerned with reality or law. Only their own weird belief system.

I think I know better than you how an unwritten constitution works

Yet you seem to think it behaves as written constitution.

I've always felt the US Constitution was more like a ball and chain than some sort a keys to freedom


British style parliamentary government is the template for every democratic government in the developed world except the USA (and that abortion of a constitution they have in France*)
The US presidential form of government is favored by third world tin-pot dictators, ironically what Trump calls s******e countries
*a curious blend of parliamentary and presidential forms of government.

Agreed

 

[COTO]

By the lack of protest from the general populace it could be seen that many canadians do support the ban. They too look upon americas do nothing but give thoughts and prayers as abhorrent. Better to make the symbolic gesture that tells everyone that violence is not an answer to problems than to be like many americans and be demanding the right to kill and use more violence to deal with problems.

Canadians "support" the ban because so few are firearms hobbyists/collectors. Guns aren't a big part of our culture, hence few Canadians mind as gun rights are incrementally stripped away. You can call this "support" if you want. I call it "not caring enough to dissent".

Having said this, since firearm hobbyism/collecting is the primary benefit for keeping firearms legal, and more guns in circulation means a statistically higher number of deaths, one would expect the line to be drawn differently in Canada due to the increased risk:reward ratio. What irks me is this line constantly being moved as a mindless reaction to any gun-related tragedy, especially when the move is costly and clearly won't do anything to prevent similar tragedies.

 

[TurtleDude]

Canadians "support" the ban because so few are firearms hobbyists/collectors. Guns aren't a big part of our culture, hence few Canadians mind as gun rights are incrementally stripped away. You can call this "support" if you want. I call it "not caring enough to dissent".

Having said this, since firearm hobbyism/collecting is the primary benefit for keeping firearms legal, and more guns in circulation means a statistically higher number of deaths, one would expect the line to be drawn differently in Canada due to the increased risk:reward ratio. What irks me is this line constantly being moved as a mindless reaction to any gun-related tragedy, especially when the move is costly and clearly won't do anything to prevent similar tragedies.

In the face of a crisis or tragedy, politicians pander-it is what they do. When you can pander and not lose many votes, it is a win for the pimps in office

 

[soylentgreen]

Canadians "support" the ban because so few are firearms hobbyists/collectors. Guns aren't a big part of our culture, hence few Canadians mind as gun rights are incrementally stripped away. You can call this "support" if you want. I call it "not caring enough to dissent".

Having said this, since firearm hobbyism/collecting is the primary benefit for keeping firearms legal, and more guns in circulation means a statistically higher number of deaths, one would expect the line to be drawn differently in Canada due to the increased risk:reward ratio. What irks me is this line constantly being moved as a mindless reaction to any gun-related tragedy, especially when the move is costly and clearly won't do anything to prevent similar tragedies.

I do not see it as mindless but instead a specific statement against gun violence. A way of saying that violence will never be seen as an answer to problems. As you say it effects only a minority and not much of an effect at that as they are still free to collect guns if they choose. All that has been removed is one type that has no other function than to kill people.

And as you can see from turtledudes response it also makes canadians look less like a bunch of paranoid nutjobs intent on pushing their strongly held belief that it iis their right to answer violence with more violence and their right to kill.

 

[Rich2018]

No, they are not a written constitution. They are a uncodified constitution which is still legally binding on the government to uphold.

An unwritten constitution = uncodified constitution

If you think they differ, please explain how

No, that is just using the word governing. Parliament, the rule by a democratic representative form of government did not exist at the time of king john.

You don't need a parliament to govern. A government does not need to be democratic at all

The Romans employed governors...they governed....their administration was the local government

That is not the point. As far as they are concerned the american constitution is an act of god. They are not concerned with reality or law. Only their own weird belief system.

Please point to an individual or organization in the USA that believe the Constitution is an act of god

You might find those who'll tell you that the "rights" enshrined in it are "god given", but they'd also tell you that a parent has the right to kill a disobedient son/daughter

Or that a man can take a slave

Yet you seem to think it behaves as written constitution.

Really, what post(s) of mine gave you that idea ?

 

[joko104]

Says the man who lives in a country where the nra can buy politicians.

At your next high school shooting be sure to send prayers and thoughts because that is all you will ever do.

Most progressives would never pray for anyone (but themselves) and think about no one but themselves.

 

[joko104]

The MSM and press marketed this by 100% dishonesty. EVERY story read "Gunman kills 22" - would lead people to believe 22 people had been killed by a gun.

 

[soylentgreen]

An unwritten constitution = uncodified constitution

If you think they differ, please explain how

They do not differ. Both mean the same. A written constitution and a uncodified constitution do differ.

You don't need a parliament to govern. A government does not need to be democratic at all

The Romans employed governors...they governed....their administration was the local government

Your applying the word govern . King john governed badly and as a result the people created the first governing body that was not a feudal system government.
The difference here is you are simply using the word govern where as i am pointing out a specific type of governemt.

Please point to an individual or organization in the USA that believe the Constitution is an act of god

You might find those who'll tell you that the "rights" enshrined in it are "god given", but they'd also tell you that a parent has the right to kill a disobedient son/daughter

Or that a man can take a slave

Really! My turn then. Please point to an individual or organization in the USA that believes a parent has the right to kill a disobedient son/daughter

Or that a man can take a slave.

If you have never come across anyone on the internet making the claim that your rights are god given then that would be because you personally have not bothered to look.
Here's a psychology paper on the subject of people who claim rights a re god given.

The Danger of Claiming That Rights Come From God | Psychology Today

Really, what post(s) of mine gave you that idea ?

None really, my mistake. I should have said you simply just do not understand how an unwritten constitution works.

 

[Rich2018]

They do not differ. Both mean the same. A written constitution and a uncodified constitution do differ.

Britain's constitution is unwritten but large parts (most) of it is codified in various laws

Which opens up other questions:
Can a constitution be made up of normal laws ?
Can a constitution be covered by several documents and still be considered a constitution ?

Your applying the word govern. King john governed badly and as a result the people created the first governing body that was not a feudal system government.

Actually it was the land barons not "the people" and they were just as much a part of the feudal system as the king
(asnd I'm sure there were plenty of kings who governed just as badly as John did - his brother Richard I comes to mind

The difference here is you are simply using the word govern where as i am pointing out a specific type of government.

And what type of government is that ?

Are you simply suggesting that Magna Carta shifted a monarchy into an oligarchy ?
Because it didn't
John later renounced Magna Carta

Please point to an individual or organization in the USA that believes a parent has the right to kill a disobedient son/daughter

Any church believing the Bible to be the word of god and to be taken literally and in its entirity

Are you aware of the 4th Commandment ?

Or that a man can take a slave.

Leviticus 25, v 44-46

If you have never come across anyone on the internet making the claim that your rights are god given then that would be because you personally have not bothered to look.

I think I said I'm not aware of an individual/organization that thinks the Constitution is the work of god
I am aware of many who claim the right granted within it are God given


However few have actually stuck their necks out and been willing to state that the Constitution affords an exhaustive list of God given rights

As stated, the 4th commandment gives belivers the right to kill a disobedient son/daughter

None really, my mistake. I should have said you simply just do not understand how an unwritten constitution works.

And to reiterate

I think I know how an unwritten constitution works, probably better than you do.

It works with a mixture of individual laws and traditions (though slowly those practices - like the composition and functions of the House of Lords) are being replaced by codified law.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Trudeau explains why he's banning assault guns

LOL...

Words have meaning. How many people can even afford an assault gun?

 

[Rich2018]

LOL...

Words have meaning. How many people can even afford an assault gun?

He's referring to small arms, not Self Propelled Artillery Pieces.


(though I suppose some posters will be falling over themselves to find an army that assigns such weapons to others arms of service than the artillery).

 

[Lord of Planar]

He's referring to small arms, not tracked artillery pieces.

I quoted the thread title. Not Trudeau.

I just nitpick at word meanings. When people use the incorrect words, it conveys the wrong meaning.

Words have meaning. Too often people dispute things because they are ignorant of what is being said. The media and the left purposely misuse words also, and people need to step up their word acuity a bit, and see the deceptions out there.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I see the term "assault rifle: also being used, which is not the same as "assault weapon."

The schools these days are really doing their students an injustice.

Again.

Words have meaning, and people who constantly misuse them will not make it far in life. They will be seen as below average intelligence by employers for hiring and promotions.

 

[Rich2018]

I quoted the thread title. Not Trudeau.

I just nitpick at word meanings. When people use the incorrect words, it conveys the wrong meaning.

Words have meaning. Too often people dispute things because they are ignorant of what is being said. The media and the left purposely misuse words also, and people need to step up their word acuity a bit, and see the deceptions out there.

Don't be like a couple of posters on here and seize on wordings to nitpick and make a big deal of a poorly worded phrase


We all know that Trudeau and some Democrats here want to ban "assault-type" weapons

Really I think they just mean semi-automatic "civilianized" versions of military assault rifles (and of course older genuine assault rifles that've been in private hands since before new sales of them were banned).

 

[Fledermaus]

Don't be like a couple of posters on here and seize on wordings to nitpick and make a big deal of a poorly worded phrase


We all know that Trudeau and some Democrats here want to ban "assault-type" weapons

Really I think they just mean semi-automatic "civilianized" versions of military assault rifles (and of course older genuine assault rifles that've been in private hands since before new sales of them were banned).

Criminals will still have weapons....

 

[Rich2018]

I see the term "assault rifle: also being used, which is not the same as "assault weapon."

The schools these days are really doing their students an injustice.

Again.

Words have meaning, and people who constantly misuse them will not make it far in life. They will be seen as below average intelligence by employers for hiring and promotions.

Well yes, "assault rifle" in military terms means a rifle firing an intermediate round that's controllable on full auto and capable of selective fire.

They don't have to have a pistol grip but I'm not aware of any that don't.

There's also the commonly used term "battle rifle" that in many cases looks like an assault rifle but is chambered for a larger round on is not as controllable on full auto and may not even have that capability.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Don't be like a couple of posters on here and seize on wordings to nitpick and make a big deal of a poorly worded phrase


We all know that Trudeau and some Democrats here want to ban "assault-type" weapons

Really I think they just mean semi-automatic "civilianized" versions of military assault rifles (and of course older genuine assault rifles that've been in private hands since before new sales of them were banned).

Are you enabling ignorance?

 

[Rich2018]

Are you enabling ignorance?

No, in my experience it enables itself.

As certain posters on here are walking proof of.