Only in Canada….
Having sex with a drunken 14-year-old he had plied with alcohol was not a criminal offence by former Calgary man, a judge ruled yesterday.
But McIntyre did find Niebergall guilty of sexual assault for placing his genitals on the girl’s face after she passed out — an act the offender captured on his cellphone camera and showed to co-workers.
lmao…so I guess this one is a goner too?
No problem with this one, DV, unless you say “Damn Straight, I’m moving to Canada!!”
Thank god. I will just keep doing what I do and if Jason chooses to keep editing my shit I will take my hottness to a new place along with the 3 readers I brought here!
as Delaware’s toughest blogger I may have to challenge him to a cage match if this shit keeps up!
LOL. Uh oh. Threats! Civil War! Delaware Liberal torn asunder!
DV…
If this was Daily Kos you would have been banned months ago for sockpuppetry. You are DTB, DAB, DHB and DV.
tea bagging just aint right
DD, is it wrong for me to point out that my summer vacation is in Canada?
I wonder what DD’s thoughts on the 2nd Amendment are! Chirp-chirp… 😉
Bastard!
I staying out of it. Well, no I won’t. Here goes.
I used to believe that the Second Amendment did not provide an individual right to the bear arms. I used to believe that it established the right to bear arms in order to form well regulated state militias (national guards).
But since the US Supreme Court has finally laid that argument to rest, and since individual citizens to have a right to bear arms, we now have to define what “arms” mean. For surely “arms” mean weapons, but logically it is not reasonable to say you have a constitutional right to possess a nuclear weapon. So obviously the government will have the right to define what arms you are legally and constitutionally entitled to. And thus obviously gun control is perfectly constitutional. You have no constitutional right to bear nuclear weapons, or bombs, or AK-47s, or armour-piercing bullets. You do have a right to possess a weapon, and that can be a handgun, a rifle, or a shotgun.
Concur.
Sadly enough, my 2A beliefs were what SCOTUS now thinks is correct….ugh, hate being on the same wavelength with those wackos!
I always interpreted the “right to bear arms in order to form well regulated state militias”-reason as one of many the Founders could have used to justify the right.
It could have been right to bear arms in order to hunt for food! A little silly now, yes, but very relevant at the time!
Now that’s bizarre. Does that mean there’s no age of consent law in Canada? I find that hard to believe. On the other hand, when I was in Montreal for the Formula 1 race this June, I was surprised at how many people were smoking pot. In the grandstands, even!
Its sad to see Canada drift down this path
you hid your comment in this post you bastard!
put it on that other one you SOB. I want to see a lawyer debate 🙂
Delawaredem, SCOTUS said that the militia was not the only purpose. That does not mean the limits what individuals can own have been determined.
I do not think you have to worry about a single citizen owning a nuke at this time. I doubt if a single citizen could afford the means to create one. Plus tritium is regulated by the federal gov’t. Biologicals are usually regulated under health safety. So if Dr Doom is whipping up a batch and he is not in a research program, public health laws can apply. Health laws can be quite draconian, as some infectious citizens in history have suffered.
However citizens do own tanks, mortars, artillery, ships that are armed, planes that can carry ordnance. The ordnance would be restricted under federal regulations.
With naval ships being decommissioned then a very wealthy man could buy one if he could store it. Live ordnance would not be sold with the ship. He would have to go through an illegal arms dealer for ordnance or steal it from the military. So that type of shells and ordnance are kept from ordinary citizens. Now a corporation or NGO might be able to get that type of military ordnance. I bet they would have to jump through a lot of hoops though.
Think of Hollywood movies, they use a lot of old military stuff and they must get it somewhere and buy or rent these items. Not all movies use digital creations.
Delawaredem, SCOTUS said that the militia was not the only purpose. That does not mean the limits what individuals can own have been determined.
I do not think you have to worry about a single citizen owning a nuke at this time. I doubt if a single citizen could afford the means to create one. Plus tritium is regulated by the federal gov’t. Biologicals are usually regulated under health safety. So if Dr Doom is whipping up a batch and he is not in a research program, public health laws can apply. Health laws can be quite draconian, as some infectious citizens in history have suffered.
However citizens do own tanks, mortars, artillery, ships that are armed, planes that can carry ordnance. The ordnance would be restricted under federal regulations.
With naval ships being decommissioned then a very wealth man could buy one if he could store it. Live ordnance would not be sold with the ship. He would have to go through an illegal arms dealer for ordnance or steal it from the military. So that type of shells and ordnance are kept from ordinary citizens. Now a corporation or NGO might be able to get that type of military ordnance. I bet they would have to jump through a lot of hoops though.
Think of Hollywood movies, they use a lot of old military stuff and they must get it somewhere and buy or rent these items. Not all movies use digital creations.