blackbird

Can't compare the two countries on that basis. The U.S. is ten times the size in population and has 52 states. Far more governments in the U.S. if you count each state. Canada has a tiny population in comparison.

Do some research on the thinking of the American founding fathers and their beliefs and remember they had the goal of building a free country. I am not saying Canada is not a free country. There are a number of aspects to this and history is another complex subject. Just picking little tidbits of information here and there doesn't really give us a complete picture. It is a very difficult subject, complex, and I don't have a lot of time to spend on it. The two systems are quite different. There are good points in both systems and I am sure they are not exactly the same. Lets not forget one is Republican and the other is a Constitutional Monarchy. I prefer the Constitutional Monarchy, but it is not perfect. No system is. It depends on the personal beliefs of the people who are in charge too. Canada's Supreme Court consists of mostly people who are liberals which means they think and rule with a liberal point of view. The U.S. Supreme Court has a majority of conservatives in it at this time, although that has varied over time and at times it is a majority of liberals. Their system of picking Supreme Court judges is different than Canada's too. So there is that aspect. Conservatives are generally known to be stronger defenders of freedoms like property rights. Canada has been governed by liberals most of its history and liberals are less supportive of individual property rights and more in favour of big government and control.

There have been many heretical groups down through history. Your postings sounds like it is just another far out tale. The King James Bible is based on very solid manuscripts. For example the New Testament is based on I believe over 95% of the early manuscripts. We are talking about over 5,000 manuscripts or parts of manuscripts. The claims you are posting are erroneous information probably from heretical individuals or sects. There is a vast amount of information on the origin and defense of the King James Version. These are all reasons why the KJV should be trusted and other erroneous writings which contradict it should be rejected. Satan is constantly working to undermine the Bible with false information and theories. The King James Bible Defended - by Pastor Edward F. Hills (jesus-is-savior.com) "16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. 18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. 19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: 20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. " 2 Peter 1:16-21 KJV

Maybe you should read the Bible. Don't know where you got all that nonsense about Egypt. "What the Bible says about Egypt as Sin" What the Bible says about Egypt as Sin (bibletools.org)

Here is an interesting and valid point of view posted on a social media platform: "CHARTS and LOTS OF FACTS...NOT FICTION!! Complete article in the LINK BELOW has other links to SOURCED FOOTNOTES in blue type face. Energy, not ideology, is the modern economy. The net-zero theology is “sound and fury, signifying nothing” but dystopian misery. ***** FEB.17, 2023...HEADLINE: New geological study proves that the GREEN ENERGY movement is IMPOSSIBLE to achieve. QUOTED FROM THE LINK: The math doesn’t support the NET ZERO activist movement’s rhetoric. Eliminating indispensable fossil fuels, as Germany is experiencing at an accelerating rate, without replacing it with the equivalent of alternative energy, would quickly COLLAPSE modern society. Think of it as the “Jonestown Massacre” on a global scale. The renewable energy FANTASY GOAL is achieving NET ZERO carbon emissions by 2050. Carpet-bombing PROPAGANDA has convinced the public to accept the extravagant claim that technology currently exists to reach net zero carbon emissions. Like carnival barkers, the NET-ZERO FANATICS say renewable energy is affordable, sustainable, scalable, and not an economy wrecker. The goal is to create a first-generation green power grid relying on wind turbine farms, solar array farms, and power storage battery banks replacing fossil fuel and nuclear power plants. In addition, the new power grid would power a global fleet of electric vehicles that would replace the internal combustion engine. Western society has taken 150 YEARS of progress to achieve a fantastically complex energy system using the dense source of cheap hydrocarbon energy...THE MASTER RESOURCE!! Yet the NET-ZERO devotees believe that the complex energy system can be dismantled with minimal disruption and replaced with a low-density renewable energy grid that is intermittent and non-scalable, in LESS THAN 30 YEARS!! Well, I have horrible news for the NET ZERO devotees... THE GREEN ENERGY FANTASY COLLIDES WITH THE LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS!! The GREENIES NEVER RESEARCHED whether or not there are sufficient base and rare earth metals and adequate time to mine and build out the technologies to accomplish the NET ZERO carbon 2050 target date. Energy, not ideology, is the modern economy. The net-zero theology is “sound and fury, signifying nothing” but dystopian misery. READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE HERE>>> https://www.lifesitenews.com/.../new-geological-study.../ https://www.lifesitenews.com/.../new-geological-study.../ This information would of course contradict Trudeau's Church or fighting climate change, net zero, and transitioning. Just another example of how leftism is destroying western civilization.

I don't accept the words "not a right" because it is misleading and deceptive. That's not how decisions are made.

Yes, but that was not an arbitrary decision. The government made that decision based on what they believe is public safety, not on the basis that "it is not a right". They had to have a good reason to outlaw the purchase of handguns. So the bottom line is decision still have to be supported by reason, not arbitrary claims that they can do it because they can do it.

You obviously missed what I posted. The point I am making is it is irrelevant to argue about whether it is a right or not a right. The historic practice is that you can do certain things like drive a car, own a gun, if you meet the requirements such as take a course, pass an examination, and get the permit. That's the bottom line. Arguing whether or not it is a right is meaningless. It is just a simpleton trying to create an argument for no reason. Governments cannot arbitrarily abolish something like driving or owning a gun in Canada because it is an historical practice, or established precedent. The actual practice is what matters, not what some judge or individual proclaims as a right or not a right. That means little to nothing. Reality is what counts.

If you pass the necessary exams, are medically fit, you can drive a care, fly an airplane, or own a gun. That is just how the system works. It is silly to argue about whether that means it is a right or not a right. The thing that matters is how the system works. That's all that matters. Whether you want to say it is a right or not a right is a mute point. Means nothing. The reality is what counts.

Not necessarily. Did you read what I wrote? The historic right to own long guns is well-established in Canada within the framework of training, passing an exam, and receiving a permit. That cannot be arbitrarily taken away. You seem to have a problem in admitting certain facts. Courts are not going to arbitrarily take away an historic right like that. That's not how the legal system works.

The fact that the Charter of Rights in Canada is weaker that the U.S. Constitution is also demonstrated by the lack of property rights in Canada. Here is an article which I can somewhat agree with. Terence Corcoran: Property rights? No way, man. This is Canada! (msn.com)

" Slavery was abolished in the (British) colonies by buying out the owners in 1833 by the Slavery Abolition Act 1833." - Wikipedia Canada officially came into existence in 1867. " The courts, to varying degrees, rendered slavery unenforceable in both Lower Canada and Nova Scotia. In Lower Canada, for example, after court decisions in the late 1790s, the "slave could not be compelled to serve longer than he would, and... might leave his master at will." Upper Canada passed the Act Against Slavery in 1793, one of the earliest anti-slavery acts in the world." -Wikipedia Slavery was almost non-existent in Canada and even that ended about two hundred years ago. So there is no justification for making a great to-do out about the subject in Canada. This woman doesn't know beans about it.

It just depends how you look at it. It may be a matter of semantics and point of view. To millions of gun owners, they would say that is their right. The anti-gun lobby would say it is not a right. But ownership is an historic established practice which cannot be arbitrarily taken away. I guess you could say it is a privilege in the sense there are hoops one must jump through to own guns, but the right to do that exists in reality and cannot be arbitrarily taken away.

Not correct. There were early Christians that lived in the Apostolic age before 100 A.D. and experts say the New Testament was essentially completed before 100 A.D. Some of the New Testament books were addressed to the Christian churches that existed in places that the Apostle Paul had travelled to. Nothing to do with France. "The Date of the New Testament Writings: Internal Evidence Critics claim that the Gospels were written centuries after the lifetimes of the eyewitnesses. This would allow for myths about Jesus' life to proliferate. Were the Gospels written by eyewitnesses as they claim, or were they written centuries later? The historical facts appear to make a strong case for a first century date. Jesus' ministry was from A.D. 27-30. Noted New Testament scholar, F.F. Bruce, gives strong evidence that the New Testament was completed by A.D. 100. Most writings of the New Testament works were completed twenty to forty years before this. The Gospels are dated traditionally as follows: Mark is believed to be the first gospel written around A.D. 60. Matthew and Luke follow and are written between A.D. 60-70; John is the final gospel, written between A.D. 90-100." The Historical Reliability of the Gospels | Bible.org Of course copies were made and distributed around the Roman world in the centuries following the Apostolic age.

Here you are just after you accused me of falsely saying you were lying and I apologized. Now you're back at twisting the truth and adding things to what I said. I never said "kids swearing in McDonalds should be arrested". I suggest people swearing in places like McDonalds should be fined. Being fined for illegal parking or using fowl language in a public place is not the same as being arrested. Or people using fowl language could also be kicked out and if necessary, banned from an establishment, either temporarily or permanently. I support freedom of speech as a basic right. That doesn't include hate speech that incites violence or profane or obscene language. Freedom of speech includes the right to oppose or criticize false ideology or false religion in a rational way.

Some humans have enough wisdom to know the difference between right and wrong, or good and evil and realize that this is God's universe and he created us and we belong to him. Some men fear God. Others not so much. The Bible says the knowledge of God is the beginning of wisdom. Without that, one does not have wisdom. Men loved wickedness. That is why God destroyed the earth with the flood (Genesis). Perhaps the men who wrote the US Constitution had some fear of God. "7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction." Proverbs 1:7 KJV

Ok, if I falsely called you a liar, I apologize.

You and bcsapper are birds of a feather. Nothing surprises me. Shows the level of intelligence, which we all knew anyway.

Actually I find it repulsive to hear blasphemous language in McDonalds or a public place. There should be some law and a fine for that kind of disrespectful behavour, don't you think?

Yes, I admit I erred. I would go for the blasphemy laws but for things like blasphemous movies. I don't know if I would agree with punishing people for burning a book or using profane language. That may be extreme. Islamic countries will give the death sentence for blasphemy. I don't agree with anything like that.

I don't know. Maybe some doctors will give a kid a prescription. Is there a law that says they can't? I am not an expert of how young people could get prescriptions to start with. Pointless to go further on that. Maybe they could; maybe not.

I also added I don't think blasphemous movies against Christianity should be allowed. I am having second thoughts and thinking maybe the blasphemy law should be maintained for certain cases such as a blasphemous movie. Yes, those things should be against the law.

No, he was not an abusive parent. He was trying to protect his daughter from the perverted system. Parents who want to protect their children from the abusive school system and abuse of transitioning school kids are not being abusive. They are being responsible. It is child abuse to teach kids they can transition if they feel like it. Do you realize how crazy it sounds to support kids transitioning? You are sick man. I am not afraid to talk about it. I never said schools give drugs. Obviously drugs are provided by prescriptions and pharmacies. I never said drugs are given in all cases. You just started implying I said schools give drugs. Never said that.

The blasphemy law was removed from the books a few years ago. That's fine. Then why did you claim people want blasphemy laws today? I have never heard of any Christian who wants such laws. Blasphemy laws exist in Islamic countries. Nobody in Canada wants them here. Lots of things happened in the past and there were lots of strange laws. Your problem is you have a hate for Christians and are very biased against them. You have false ideas about Christianity it looks like. I would question the idea of having hateful, blasphemous movies against Christianity though. If someone put out a movie against transitioning or LGBTQ or specifically against Islam, I imagine there would be accusations of hate and attempts to shut it down.

"Ontario school trustee barred from meetings after questioning gender transition policy Linda Stone was censured by the Durham District School Board for questioning their policy of coordinating the gender transition of students without parental consent" "An Ontario school trustee has been barred from attending board meetings in part because she publicly questioned the district’s stated policy of accommodating a student’s decision to switch genders while keeping it a secret from their parents." This school trustee's freedom of speech was blocked by the school board as well. Ontario school trustee barred after questioning trans policy | National Post There was a case in B.C. which went to court. The mother supported the daughter who was transitioning to a boy and the father opposed it and opposed any kind of medical treatments to support transitioning. The judge ruled against the Father and imposed a silence order on him so he could not speak about it on social media or publicly. The father's rights as a parent were denied and also his freedom of speech taken away.