Obama and the Second Amendment

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifEg1aq6Emo
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=3991

OBAMA VOTED AGAINST LEGISLATION IN 2004 TO PROTECT HOMEOWNERS WHO USED A FIREARM FOR PROTECTION IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF HOME INVASION!

Must see - Obama is an anti-gun leftist.  This is NOT change we can believe in.

Oh, you can believe in it amerifags, especially when the nigger gets in office.

No, >>2, YOU are the niggers....YOU...

Americans don't actually use guns to protect themselves. They just need them to feel manly.

>>1

Alright? Considering a landmark Supreme Court case has passed concerning guns. It's not like he can do anything about it even as president.

>>2
and then >>2 was  a zombie

>>5
"Alright? Considering a landmark Supreme Court case has passed concerning guns. It's not like he can do anything about it even as president."

The decision was 5-4.  The next president is expected to be able to appoint many Federal judges.  This is significant as this will determine how broadly or narrowly the right will be defined.  If enough judges step down, its possible he could reshape the court so radically that the decision would be overturned.  All it would take is for ONE of the five who voted properly on the court to step down...

>>7

Correct, and half of them are going to have to retire in the next five-ten years anyway.  Although gun control is one of the few issues where I take an unambiguously 'conservative' stance, the selection of president in the 2008 election promises to have a significant effect on the judicial branch, on way or the other.

>>8
And any judicial nominee one millimeter to the right of Earl Warren will get borked by the Democrats in Congress, cheerfully aided and abetted by the liberal jewsmedia.

There is a blogger who calls himself Mencius Moldbug, who has a theory that explains everything about American politics pretty damn well.

The real decisions that affect people's lives aren't made by Congress.  They are made by ideologues in places like the sociology department at Berkeley and the law department at Yale, written into "scientific" reality by other ideologues and then passed into law by the Inner Party, whom you know as the Democrats and the left-wing fringe kook judges they wish to put on the Supreme Junta, from whom there is no recourse, whose will is imposed by men with uniforms and guns.

The Outer Party, whom you know as the Republicans, are kept around mainly to be despised bogeymen that CNN and the Jew York Times can tell you are Thugs! Bullies! Extremists! Bigots! Plotting to overthrow civilization! But actually all they ever do is grumble a little for the cameras, then nudge and wink knowingly at their comrades of the Inner Party and go along with the program, even when they hold both houses of Congress plus the Presidency.

If you think you're living in anything resembling a democracy, you need to get your head examined.  What you want doesn't matter, and if voting could change anything they'd make it illegal.

Gun Control is for the good of the nation.  Hitler, Mao, and Stalin agreed, don't bother them about it.

>>10
Hitler breathed therefore breathing is evil. Enjoy your death.

>>11
Everyone breathes.  You made no point whatsoever.  But not everyone is a gun-grabbing, anti-Constitution Fascist.

>>12
The point was showing how stupid that retarded reductio ad hitlerum was, but I see that you are sensitive when it comes to guns, I presume to issues related to your insufficient manhood.

>>13
The sensitivity here is yours.  The Second Amendment is still the law of the land regardless of your gay-assed fear of it.  Those who seek to avoid lawful canceling of the Second Amendment are only Fascists.  Their regard for the rule of law is ZERO.  (That's why it's utterly moral to kill them.)

Remember, you Liberal fuckfags have recourse to the law.  You can CHANGE the US Constitution.  You can REMOVE the Second Amendment.  So, get crackin' on that, Libfags.  Your Messiah Obama says "CHANGE" a lot, doesn't he?  So, CHANGE the US Constitution ... lawfully, and in line with the clearly established procedures for doing so.

By continuing to rely on mob rule for your gun-grabbin' ways, you're only showing yourselves to be Fascists like the National Socialists in 1930s Germany.

>>10

>Gun Control is for the good of the nation.
>Hitler, Mao, and Stalin agreed

Enough with that putrid-con punditry.
Hitler never practiced gun control, at least not confiscation.

http://heretical.org/pubs/heinz.html

I guess the idea is to make the following association:

Leftists = Nazis = Anti-semantics = Unamericans

I'm not buying it.

>>15 "Hitler never practiced gun control"

wat

So, do you have any source for that other than what looks like some kind of bizarre Holocaust-denier page?

>>15
>Leftists = Nazis = Anti-semantics = Unamericans
Yeah, that's the whole point.
In other news;

Hitler and Stalin had a mustache - the US Constitution doesn't say anything about a mustache, therefore you are unamerican nazi-commie (because in retard-grade logic, they are the same too) if you have a mustache.

>>15
>>17

No you stupid fuckers.  It's more like:

Lefties = gun grabbers =
"Fuck you and your right to defend yourself!  It doesn't matter that you and your family will be dead before the police arrive, they're the only ones we can trust with guns.  We don't care if your mother gets raped in a dark alley, she can't be trusted with a tool to defend herself!  It doesn't matter that areas with strict gun control have more violent crimes (DC anyone?), our pussies shrivel up with fear to think that anyone but a roided out police officer could be carrying a gun.  WE NEED MORE LAWS BECAUSE IF WE MAKE THEM TOUGHER CRIMINALS WILL FOLLOW THEM!!!!"

I full agree, your American Second Ammendment is absurd. Giving civilians the option of having firearms is a dangerous and insane choice. Not only should they not have them, but there should be no reason for them to have it.

The only reason the Second Ammendment is even in place is because America doesn't understand how to run a country, the government is required to provide the security so that their people do not need to defend themselves.

Believe or not America, but the leftist view is superior because it shows a caring hand instead of the slap you've given your people and their illusion of 'right'.

>>19
We will not need to defend ourselves after the niggers and spics are rounded up and "liquidated."

>>19
It's OK that you think that.  And you know what, gungrabbing fag?  The US Constitution already has a mechanism for changing it.  It's been started about 11000 times in the US Congress, and has resulted in less than 30 amendments in over 200 years.  Gungrabbing fags like yourself in the USA have every recourse to the amendment system.  Notice, however, they don't like to use it.  They prefer to have OTHER gungrabbing fags like yourself pass laws and then dare citizens to spend time and money in the courts knocking them down.

You gungrabbing fags realize that we're ARMED, right?  Just checking.

>>19
How fucking retarded do you have to be to believe the government will be able to protect each and every person all the time?  When some burnout crack whore breaks into your house looking for money are the police just going to be there to protect you?  No, you'll call 911 and the cops will show up just in time to draw a line around your body.

Criminals don't give a fuck about what laws or bans are put in effect.  They're going to get a gun if they want, and they'll use it on law abiding victims because they know they'll be met with no resistance.  And there is no reasonable or affordable way the government can protect everyone, especially not in a country as large as the US.

OH LOOK AT ALL THE GUN CRIME
LET'S PASS ANOTHER LAW AGAINST GUNS
OH LOOK CRIMINALS DON'T OBEY THE LAW ANYWAY
HURR HURR HURR HURR HURR HURR
AT LEAST IT LOOKS LIKE WE'RE DOIN' SOMETHIN'

Of course, line #2 contains an error, in that all these gun laws are largely UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

lol RedCream why do you rant on and on about shit being "unconstitutional" when you're (supposedly) not even American and bitch about how awful Americans and the American government are anyway

>>20
Is not the civilian protection agencies equipped enough to defend the civilian population? If not, thats where the focus should be, they should be equipped, not the people they're protecting.

>>21 / >>23
I'm trying to understand what you're saying, and I apologize if I get it wrong. You're saying that it would be unwise to remove the right from civilians to have firearms, because people who do not follow the law would still have them.

This is where the government control comes in, as I said above. The police force should be equipped to handle this, it works in most other civilized and equipped countries (See: Western World), and it should easily work in America, since you are the 'richest and most powerful nation in existance' (Rabblerabblerabble)

>>22
With a right wing agenda, I agree, a nation cannot protect its citizens, but instead of going across the world destroying peoples lives, they should bring back their own forces to protect their own citizens. Even a country like America it is very possible and quite easily done with your massive armed forces.

>>25
Ok, I see where you're coming from.  It's true that if our nation put all it's resources efforts in the right places we'd be a lot better off, and maybe citizens wouldn't need firearms.  But there are still a few things you have to understand.

1.  Posse Comitatus - The military cannot be used to police citizens.  We could get around it if we hired more police and less soldiers, but most americans don't want to live in a police state.

2.  Drug policies / failed war on drugs.  As it stands our drug policies end up creating criminals out of thousands, if not millions of non-violent offenders.  They go to prison and learn how to be a whole lot worse.  Current policies also make possible a very lucrative black market for drugs and guns, leading to even more crime and government corruption on many levels.  Check out a documentary called "American Drug War."  You'll learn a lot about how badly corrupted the system is.

3.  The right to bare arms was not created only for personal protection.  The founding fathers, who had just emancipated themselves from England's harsh rule, recognized that the people should be able to defend themselves from tyrannical governments.  That is why the second amendment is said to protect all other rights.

So, if you really wanted to disarm the civilian population without screwing over the masses you'd really have to change the entire culture of the country and find a way to ensure that as little corruption as possible finds its way into the government.  And that's just not possible.

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.

The right to bear arms argument comes with 2 problems.  1)it is referring to a militia, not the right to keep guns in your house.

and second problem is the fact that the gunfags who bitch about this forget 2 very important words.  "Well Regulated."  as a posed to drunk and blowing the shit out of everything

>>27
as a posed

Fail.  Your opinion is no longer valid.  gb2/middle school/

>>28
you try to spell after being educated in the Kentucky School System

>>26
(Refer to each point by number)
1. I'm not an American, so I am not positive as to your laws and regulations as to Military conduct in a civilian population, if I make a few mistakes, bare with me and correct me - I'm trying!
2. I agree, Western policies for the most part have been much too strict on drugs, even ones that aren't directly harmful to ones health (Aka, cannabis). One needs only to look towards a country in the Netherlands and see that they're doing it the correct way.
3. In the time of the Founding of America, I agree - It was a very useful commitment and it worked and was needed. Then, however it is the 21st century and the United States is much more stable then it was back in the 17th century. (I don't think England is going to sail over and start taking back her colonies, eh?)

Therefore, modernization of all aspects of your government really should happen, look North to your neighbours in Canada, in 1982 they rewrote their Constitution and made it modernized and removed a lot of the flab and older aspects that aren't needed to do.

The same thing could, and should really happen to your own, times change and you truly do need to adapt. I am not saying to do it overnight, progress and change needs to happen over time - However it needs to happen, especially in the world we're living in now with the rising gas prices, having the general civilian population with access to violent ways to 'protest' isn't a safe bet for everyone.

A more leftist way, by moving resources from war and being able to mobilize a huge force at a moments notice to infrastructure and social programs will do wonders.

>>27
A milita isn't civilians with weapons, in their houses, doing what they will. A milita comes in action only in the defense of the nation and is controlled by the government, much more different and very acceptable.

>>27
You fail basic English comprehension, since you are indoctrinated in the Liberal mindset.  The sentence in the Second Amendment CLEARLY states that you have to have the right TO BEGIN WITH, before any militia business is enacted.  That means you CAN own and handle and store guns in your home, on your person, and in fact anyplace that you personally control (car, storage unit, etc).

You're just a huge gungrabber FAG.  You look at a clear English sentence and refuse to admit it says what it says.  Well, the SCOTUS just PWND your fuckass and now you have to either amend the US Constitution, or SHUT THE FUCK UP!

I appreciate your very carefully worded, well meaning and civil rebuttal.

As I've stated above, I am not an American - I do not know the Constitution by heart, nor do I want to. However what I say still holds true in a true milita, it should be in government control and not in the hands of civilians to oversee by themselves.

As for your second paragraph, I'm sorry to say that I don't understand enough of it to comment, :) .

>>32
You're not even an American. GTFO subhuman.

>>24 This.

>>33
<3 I feel the respect. Well, as even a 'subhuman' I can have an opinion and a view that may be more correct than your own. (Hey, its bound to happen sometime, isn't it?!)

>>33
LOL. As I said, YOU'RE NOT AN AMERICAN! THEREFORE YOUR OPINION MEANS NOTHING!! TRY FIXING THINGS IN YOUR TURD WORLD COUNTRY BEFORE SPOUTING OFF ABOUT AMERICA!

>>36
Ha, wow. I wonder, you must have some sortof attention disorder to feel the need be forced to use all capitals to convey your message.

Anyway, believe it or not - Non-Americans have opinions that do mean something, and are not worthless. And, as a country - Canada is doing pretty fine, hows that healthcare working out for you, America?

I apologize for feeding the Troll, but I felt kind today. To restate my arguement, the removal of the Second Ammendment in America would be a step in the right direction. Civilians do not need free access to firearms, there is no logical reason our day and age. Therefore, kudos to the first elected official that has the 'guts' and courage to remove it, you'll be a hero a decade later.

>>37
The health care in America is the best in the world, fool. That's why your filthy countrymen flock here for it.

Also, Americans see the right to self defense as a right we are born with, our government doesn't grant us that right, like in your country.
If your government doesn't trust it's own people with firearms then the FAIL belongs to you and your countrymen.

I could do with a hard black cock up my ass right about now.

I suppose I must use a tripcode now, grand. I was truly hopeing that because this was a text board, I could have  more mature debate, especially about politics.

Though I must say most  of you have been wonderful.

Oh, I must apologize - I did not see your reply >>38.

I have to disagree, as a majority, if Canadians do leave the country for medical care, we go down to our friends in Cuba, it is much more affordable and the quality of service is on par with your own.

The right to self defence is just that, defending your person, with your person. Not defending yourself with a weapon that could kill, to plead self defence one must use only as much force as required to get out of the situation - A firearm won't (or at least should not) count, because it will go way over the requirements for escape.

Its not a matter of trust, its human nature - Humans, given weapons, will want to play with them - On each other. Remove the weapons, put them under the control of people disciplined to only use them when required and you have peace. It makes sense.

>>41
How about removing the niggers and the wetbacks instead, as they are the root of the problem?

>>30
1.  If you have the time and inclination I highly recommend reading the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, along with the Bill of Rights.  It'll help you understand the situation the country is in, and if nothing else they're among the world's greatest written works - worth reading just for the heck of it.

2.  Since we both agree the drug polices are out of whack, wouldn't it make sense to fix those, BEFORE dealing with the issue of guns?  The effect wouldn't be immediate, but it would reduce a great deal of violent crime in the country, and people would have less reason to need guns for protection.  But still, given the prevailing attitudes and the abysmal education on the subject it'll be monumental task to fix drug policies.

3.  Just because something is old doesn't mean it's not useful.  And in fact I think the 2nd Amendment is more important now than ever.  The government is MUCH larger now than it ever was, and it's increasingly intrusive in the lives of the citizens.  The past eight years alone have been an atrocity with regard to the constitution and civil liberties.  The people of the nation are entitled to protect themselves from a government gone mad.  It's what safeguards the nation from becoming a hellhole like China or Russia.

I believe you're placing FAR too much faith in government, assuming the people in it are all just chummy and nice.  The truth is, people who seek out political power always want more.  And if there's nothing to keep them in check they can do whatever they want.  I don't know how things work in Canada, but corruption and lies ALWAYS finds tehir way into politics.  It doesn't matter how "modern" the system is, people will abuse it.

>>41
Firstly, why is it that you Canadians never acknowledge that some people in your country have to wait obscene amounts of time to receive important medical procedures?  No one ever seems to recall that one of your judges ruled that a place on a waiting list is not the same as actual heath care.
The only real thing you have going for your current system is the affordablity of prescription drugs.  When it comes to actual medical procedures you fail miserably.  (That's why world leaders come to America when they are sick, not Canada).

>>Its not a matter of trust, its human nature - Humans, given weapons, will want to play with them - On each other. Remove the weapons, put them under the control of people disciplined to only use them when required and you have peace. It makes sense.

You can't really prove this since no one reports crimes/murders that don't happen.  And even if you were to take away all guns people would just start hurting one another with knives or large rocks.

>>43
1.) If I continue to have to refer to issues like this within it, I may take a look at it - I do agree, I am at a bit of a disadvantage when it comes to people quoting it. But, I cannot see that most Americans know it by heart as well. And I do agree, it is some piece of work!

2.) If I know correctly, drugs are more of a state thing - And yes they are out of wack even if they're a Federal responsbility. However they're more of a cultural shift that will go through soon no matter what. (When the majority of the population is using them in some way or another - There will be change).

As for changing it and seeing the gun control come as a consequence of that change, I don't think it would. While drugs are involved in a large amount of violence, they're just a bit of it - Gun violence will remain steady even if the drug aspect is removed.

3.) Yes, the Constitution should be respected, but as I said - It was made back in the 18th century and it just isn't prepared for our modern life and it needs to be wrote so that it does. Don't have 'the oldest legal constituion' hold you back from recreating it to fit your world more perfectly, it just wouldn' tbe fair to everyone in the nation if you did.

I would point out such lacking items as a Human Rights section/clause in your constitution as a big part of your problems right now, in it it just doesn't layout exactly what peoples modern rights are.

To close, I do put extensive faith in the government, in a democracy it is elected, it is watched, the people are involved and the officials and staff cannot 'get away' with much. There may be corruption, but since government works in a huge scale, peer checking should make it all work out.

>>44
Oh, there is problems with the Canadian medical care, I'll be the first to admit - But at least we have it, and we don't have to go into debt to use it. Once you get in however, our medical care is spot on and at the top - I Don't know why you think it isn't. And yet again, we go to Cuba a huge majority more than to America.

>>You can't really prove this since no one reports crimes/murders that don't happen.

You can, look at the average age, look at the happiness, look at the productivity - It'll show there in its increase from the lack of people brutally murdering.

A lot of shootings happen by inexperienced people, or people that really aren't professional criminals, but in the head of the moment killed/hurt someone. Remove the easiest way and it starts getting gorey and bloody and a lot of people will sober up at that thought of having to bash in someones brains all over the floor.

>>43
1.) If I continue to have to refer to issues like this within it, I may take a look at it - I do agree, I am at a bit of a disadvantage when it comes to people quoting it. But, I cannot see that most Americans know it by heart as well. And I do agree, it is some piece of work!

2.) If I know correctly, drugs are more of a state thing - And yes they are out of wack even if they're a Federal responsbility. However they're more of a cultural shift that will go through soon no matter what. (When the majority of the population is using them in some way or another - There will be change).

As for changing it and seeing the gun control come as a consequence of that change, I don't think it would. While drugs are involved in a large amount of violence, they're just a bit of it - Gun violence will remain steady even if the drug aspect is removed.

3.) Yes, the Constitution should be respected, but as I said - It was made back in the 18th century and it just isn't prepared for our modern life and it needs to be wrote so that it does. Don't have 'the oldest legal constituion' hold you back from recreating it to fit your world more perfectly, it just wouldn' tbe fair to everyone in the nation if you did.

I would point out such lacking items as a Human Rights section/clause in your constitution as a big part of your problems right now, in it it just doesn't layout exactly what peoples modern rights are.

To close, I do put extensive faith in the government, in a democracy it is elected, it is watched, the people are involved and the officials and staff cannot 'get away' with much. There may be corruption, but since government works in a huge scale, peer checking should make it all work out.

>>44
Oh, there is problems with the Canadian medical care, I'll be the first to admit - But at least we have it, and we don't have to go into debt to use it. Once you get in however, our medical care is spot on and at the top - I Don't know why you think it isn't. And yet again, we go to Cuba a huge majority more than to America.

>>You can't really prove this since no one reports crimes/murders that don't happen.

You can, look at the average age, look at the happiness, look at the productivity - It'll show there in its increase from the lack of people brutally murdering.

A lot of shootings happen by inexperienced people, or people that really aren't professional criminals, but in the head of the moment killed/hurt someone. Remove the easiest way and it starts getting gorey and bloody and a lot of people will sober up at that thought of having to bash in someones brains all over the floor.

COMRADE POLITIK YOU ARE NICE I LIKE YOU

>>45
You haven't read the US Constitution, then.

Its "human rights" section is Amendments 1 through 10.

People who appear unable to differentiate between real and unreal experiences, logical and illogical thoughts, or appropriate and inappropriate behavior may be diagnosed by a health professional as suffering from schizophrenia. Their opinion are not supported or rejected by laboratory tests, and may be mistaken for other problems (such as allergies to common foods).

Schizophrenia is an opinion, a label, applied to people who appear to lose contact with a cultural or shared reality. No cure for schizophrenia is accepted by Western medicine. If people diagnosed with schizophrenia find lasting drug-free solutions - it wasn't schizophrenia.

The duration of symptoms is critical. A combination of bizarre behavior, disorganized speech, decreased expressiveness and/or social withdrawal may follow a few days of sleep deprivation (for example following flights from Hawaii to Europe) and last a few days. The same symptoms, if lasting for a few months, may be diagnosed as schizophrenia.

The terrible label of schizophrenia, as much as the symptoms, can devastate lives. Many people labeled as schizophrenic kill themselves, and many more attempt suicide.
 

In Soviet Russia, some dissidents were diagnosed with schizophrenia without symptoms and were imprisoned. Similar phenomena may occur in military organizations and prisons, and in other cult-like organizations. People with views not accepted by the leaders may be defined as sick.

Psychosis is exaggerated normality!
Teresa Mocna
 

The symptoms associated with schizophrenia can impair a person’s ability to work, study, enjoy relationships, or take care of oneself. Some people diagnosed with schizophrenia are hospitalized to prevent them harming themselves - or others. Tragically, many homeless street people seem to exhibit symptoms associated with schizophrenia, but cannot afford medical treatment or specialized care.

The medical and the systemic coaching models are different in how behavior is perceived and interpreted. Yet medicine and Soulwork both start from observed symptoms and both aim to provide appropriate treatment via accurate diagnosis. Ana Pejcinova, PhD
 

Schizophrenia Symptoms
Symptoms of schizophrenia can be arranged into three overlapping groups: positive symptoms (excesses of thought, emotion and behavior), negative symptoms (deficits of emotion and behavior) and psychomotor symptoms. While positive symptoms can often be treated with antipsychotic drugs, negative and psychomotor symptoms may prevent people living independently. These symptoms may limit personal or working relationships, and disrupt everyday social events.

The more obvious positive symptoms are inappropriate behaviors: unexpected movements and disorganized speech, describing delusions (for example of persecution), heightened perceptions and hallucinations. These symptoms indicate chaotic internal organization and an inability to differentiate between subjective thinking and objective reality.

The so-called negative symptoms or deficits may seem to show a lack of interest in other people and in the world. Their inexpressive faces, monotonic and monosyllabic speech, few gestures, inability to feel pleasure or act spontaneously may motivate other people to shy away.

The psychomotor symptoms include awkward movements, repeated grimaces and unusual gestures. These symptoms may take the extreme form called catatonia, and include stupor, rigidity and posturing. Some movements may appear to be made for magical or religious reasons.

People labeled as schizophrenia often research the symptoms - and become depressed or suicidal. This depression can be a reaction to their diagnosis - not to their symptoms.
 

Most symptoms associated with schizophrenia develop between the ages of 15 and 30. This is the age range where most people wish to commence a committed partnership leading to parenthood. Some people cannot consider partnership or parenthood due to identity issues and toxic relationship bonds. Their abreaction to this lost chance of happiness may be severe; and they may cling to their symptoms to justify their inability to communicate.

My son was diagnosed with schizophrenia and takes drugs to control his symptoms ... However he likes his symptoms and sometimes stops taking his drugs to enjoy "other-world" communications that he does not want to lose. IR, Warsaw, Poland
 

Symptoms often become less severe as people grow older. About 25% of people with symptoms of schizophrenia become symptom-free later in life, perhaps as the genetic imperatives and emotional demands for partnership and parenthood are diminished or replaced.

Suicide . Bipolar Disorder . Depression . Mental Illness

Coaching & Therapy

We find that people are whole, creative and resourceful …and sometimes people are unable to access or use their own resources. If you suspect that a person shows psychotic behavior, you can refer that person for medical or psychiatric evaluation. Use systemic coaching not to treat disorders, but to coach people to explore their emotions and improve their relationships.

Coaches don’t “treat” mental health disorders

Coaches are collaborators rather than experts

Therapy focuses on a person’s past; coaching focuses on the present and future

Coaching focuses on a person’s whole life; psychotherapy targets specific symptoms

Therapy seeks to fix unresolved issues; coaching helps people be involved with their lives

Therapists may seek theories and treatment plans; coaches seek the person's own wisdom

We coach some people with schizophrenic symptoms to express their feelings appropriately and how to adjust their voices and facial expressions with family members and in other relationships. This may include rehearsing various social interactions and exploring the emotions that surface.

In the end - we become who we pretend to be
 

Consult a physician about any opinions about schizophrenia or other medical conditions.

>>48
I suppose I stated that incorrectly, yes - Your nation does have human rights, but they're lacking, your refusal to adapt or implement any of the UNDR for the most part really shows your inability to deal with the rights of the people in your nation.

>>50
Our Constitution is a model and example for the world.

What are rights, if not the obligations of the state toward the citizen under the social contract?  What would be the benefit of tearing up the social contract and beginning anew?  We already have a state with more and better obligations to its people than any competitor I can think of.

>>51
Your Constitution as a model and an example to the world, three hundred years ago. Now it is lacking and has been outdone by most Western nations.

As for a better competitor, look North - Healthcare, social security, all the stuff that you as a nation should giving your people, but missing is there. Or perhaps Sweden, or most European countries. Around the world most first world nations take better care of their citizens than America.

>>52
Nice try, Comrade Sukadik.
Nobody believes any of that bullshit about Canada being good at anything.

CANADA IS FAIL.

>>52
Those are not rights.  Freedom of speech, of religion, freedom to associate, the right to self defense, the right to trial by jury, the right of habeas corpus, these are examples for the world.

Speaking of freedom of speech, in Canada and most of Europe it is illegal to say certain things in a public place, is it not?  People have been arrested for asking the wrong questions about the Holocaust, for saying the wrong things about Arab immigrants, etc.

And they are political prisoners, because they have been imprisoned for their beliefs.

As long as Canada jails people for holding politically incorrect beliefs, I think you might want to refrain from lecturing us.  Lecture us about freedom and civil rights when you no longer have "hate speech" laws, not before.  Don't you agree?