blackbird

It's pointless to debate with people who think more guns is the answer. By the way there were 13 more mass shootings on this last Memorial Day weekend in the U.S. The NRA and gun advocates claim that a good guy with a gun is the solution is a sick excuse and pure insanity. In Uvalde Texas, where one guy with an AR-15 killed 19 children and 2 school teachers, there were about 19 "good" guys with guns who were prevented by their leading officer from going into the classroom to stop the shooter for around an hour. So much for good guys with guns. Your example of a woman with a gun shooting a bad guy with a gun is a very rare situation and does not in any way justify 337 million Americans having 900 million guns. It is pure nonsense. There is no human right to owning or possessing guns. That is pure fiction.

Your thinking that justice means hatred shows your complete lack of understanding of what justice means. Punishing a child for bad behavior is similar to the justice system punishing a criminal for his crime. It is not done because of hatred. That is a bizarre way of looking at justice. What do you do with a criminal who murdered someone for example? Do you reward him with a comfortable number of years in rehabilitation as if he needs health care for sickness? No, that is not what justice means. The purpose of punishment has nothing to do with hate or hatred. It's purpose is simply to provide justice for the victims, for society, and for the accused who rightfully must pay for his crimes somehow. It is exactly the same reason you must pay a fine when you get a speeding ticket or break the traffic laws in some way. It has absolutely nothing to do with hatred. Of course if a criminal can be rehabilitated at the same time he is paying for his crimes, that would be a good thing and would help protect society from having another repeat offender. But the main purpose of sentences are punishment, protection of society, and rehabilitation if that is possible at the same time.

There is a difference between vengeance and justice. You don't seem to understand that. You talk as if someone convicted of a crime should not be punished. This is classic liberalism. They believe the offender is just a misguided individual who needs rehabilitation. The Supreme Courts is totally misguided and are nothing more than a bunch of liberals, probably because they were appointed by liberals. They somehow think a convicted murderer should have the same rights as everyone else. They completely reject the principle that justice requires punishment in proportion to the seriousness of the offence. Liberals and left long ago abandoned capital punishment as a form of punishment under the misguided view that nobody should receive capital punishment, that it somehow violates their human rights even though they murdered other people. Yet they are ok with killing the unborn and giving medical assistance in dying, even to the mentally ill. Their thinking is totally warped. I have never heard of a conservative complaining that a form of capital punishment was too quick or too painless. Another lie by the lying leftist.

You are typical of the so-called freedom protesters, totally absent from reality. A denier of the Covid pandemic and the needs of governments everywhere to take action to protect their populations. For the deniers, it's a continual shrieking of me, me, me, ....blah blah blah... me, me, me. That's all that matters.

Those who think the so-called freedom convoy was a legitimate protest and believe the Emergency Act was not needed should watch the CBC's Fifth Estate program being broadcast tonight on CBC. You can probably watch it on the internet at their website. It reveals the anarchist nature of the occupation, the blockades at the borders, and the criminal type elements involved and threat to law and order. It reveals how the Ottawa police were unable to deal with it. It reveals some of the violent characters involved in the protests and danger to our country. There were even police who fraternized with protesters and simply did nothing about the things that were going on in the occupation. The Ottawa police had no real plan on how to end it.

I think you have a lot of misunderstanding on this. First, many people in the U.S. albeit mostly Democrats want to see an America without 900 million guns in the population. This has nothing to do with legitimate gun owners. Nobody needs an AR-15 or military assault rifle to begin except the armed forces. That is the first thing. They need to ban all military assault rifles from private ownership. Secondly, many Americans rightly question the need for everyone to be able to carry a handgun concealed or openly. That is like the wild west. America is probably the only country in the world that has the right to bear arms in it's constitution. That was written in a different age, perhaps 250 years ago when they lived in the wild west. We have all seen the movies where every guy in every little town carried one or two guns on his holster. That mentality still exists in America and is the reason why they have this problem now. Guns are just part of American thinking and there are far more in America than people. Average about two or three times as many guns as people counting every child, man, woman, and boy. The gun lobby ideology is still the same as the wild west. They believe everyone has a right to guns. But I don't think the 2nd amendment envisioned assault rifles or mass shooting of people which is common now. I don't think the widespread possession of firearms in cities, whether they are mostly Democrat or mostly Republican, can be justified on any moral ground. The number of shooting of people per year in America proves it is completely wrong. If I had my way, the Constitution would be changed and the only people permitted to own guns would be legitimate hunters and target shooters at a rifle range. And I would ban hand guns completely from private ownership. There are millions of people who are mentally disturbed in one way or another and there is no way to filter them out of the equation except to remove the possibility of them getting their hands on guns. I know America will never ban hand guns, so they will have to live with tens of thousands of innocent citizens being shot every year as is the case now. Mass shooting will continue. They don't need assault rifles to do it although assault rifles just makes it worse. I would completely ban assault rifles and require very strict screening to give people hunting licences. Perhaps require target shooters to require their guns be kept at the rifle or gun range in supervised lockers. No hand guns in homes or held by private citizens. All would be locked at the gun range if I had my way. But I know it will never happen. So the shootings will continue.

Are you serious? "Defined most commonly as any shooting in which four or more people—not including the perpetrator—are injured or killed, mass shootings happen every day in America, and sometimes more often. In 2019, there were 417 such assaults. In 2020, there were 610—nearly two mass shootings per day—killing 513 people and injuring 2,543. But mass shootings represent a tiny fragment of the problem. Nearly 20,000 people were murdered by guns last year, and another 40,000 injured. That doesn’t even account for the approximately 24,000 suicides by gun in 2020. Another way to look at it: Guns are involved in 75 percent of all murders and 51 percent of all suicides." Gun Violence Statistics in the United States in Charts and Graphs | Reader's Digest (rd.com) So how do you figure the 20,000 people murdered by guns last year was "lawful"? We can't easily control or prevent people from falling, especially older people who have poor balance, but society can eliminate the massive number of guns and assault rifles.

It is shameful that the NRA is holding it's convention in Texas a few days after the massacre of 19 children and 2 teachers at the school in Uvalde, Texas. And it is equally deplorable that Trump is scheduled to make an appearance at the NRA convention. Many Americans still don't get it that the widespread number of guns and the easy availability of assault rifles is killing countless Americans. The 18 year old suspect that killed all the children and teachers could not go into a bar to buy liquor, but he could easily go into a gun shop and buy two AR-15 assault rifles and ammunition. Madness. Americans reportedly own 900 million guns in the population of 337 million people. Total insanity.

You're lying a bit there. Everyone has a right not be infected if reasonable measures can avoid it. Unvaccinated people were never kept out of grocery stores, drug stores or essential services. Only restaurants which were not considered essential for unvaccinated people. They could still get take out food. They could ride buses if they wear a mask. They could not fly on aircraft because of close quarters and the possibility of likely spread if they carried the virus, which is reasonable. Getting vaccinated was not such a big deal and if people want to work in close quarters to others, the responsibility is with them to get vaccinated. Other people who got vaccinated should not have to put themselves at risk working with ignorant people would refused to get a jab. Makes sense.

"There can be competing rights, and balancing them doesn’t mean all freedom is lost — unless your definition of freedom is the four-year-old’s simple mantra of “me — me — me — me.” Wangersky: Consider carefully how 'freedom' is defined by advocates (msn.com)

Arming teachers would not stop these kind of tragedies. All it would do is make teachers the number one target. It would be like putting a bulls eye on their back. So it would not stop the killings. More people armed is not the answer either. The first thing that needs to happen is Americans need to wake up and realize that the so-called right to bear arms is nonsensical. Enabling every individual to arm him or herself is beyond comprehension. There needs to be a major change but I don't have the answer on how it could happen.

You may be talking about birth, death, marriage, baptism records of church members in a particular parish which is a different thing than historical records of staff and students in residential schools that were shut down long ago. Parish records from a particular church are not the same kind of records as residential school records. If some records are public that is a decision of that Church. If some other records are not available to the public, the organization has that right too. There may be names of individuals who worked in the residential school system at one time or another who did nothing wrong and they may not wish to have their names in the public where they can be falsely accused by red power activists who already accuse everyone in general of genocide or atrocities. Maybe they do not wish to have their houses burned down by radicals or mentally-challenged people. On top of that people who worked at one or another in the residential schools may have living relatives who do wish to have their names put out there for reasons of security. There are many radicals out there who might take revenge or retaliate against innocent citizens as they have already done in burning down many churches. So there is no general right to confidential records that might exist.

That the way the country of laws works. It is not a free-for-all. Just because native activists demand things, doesn't mean they get to have everything they wish or demand. If someone or an organization has a legitimate reason for demanding some records, they can make their case to a judge in a court of law and the judge will decide if they have a right to certain records which are the private property of another organization. That's how law and order works.

You are making a lot of assumptions. The church has said they would release records. Remember records are still the property of those who created them (the Church), and unless there is a court order in a criminal investigation, they may not be legally required to just hand records over to anybody. If there is no legal reason or court order to hand them over, but just a fishing expedition, that is a whole different matter. But who decides who gets what records? Who decides what records to release? The records are still the property of the church and they have a right to decide how and to whom they will release them. There are issues of confidentiality which I already pointed out. Also, unless one is a close relative of someone they want records for, why should they release any records? If you want records for a fishing expedition and you are not related to the person you want records on, I don't think that will be sufficient grounds to expect records. It is a lot more complicated than you make it sound. We do live a country of laws where people and organizations own private property and have rights too.

There are thousands or tens of thousands of records in Ottawa and in the organizations who ran the residential schools. But Ottawa did say they released a lot of records to the Truth and Reconciliation Committee recently. We have heard nothing about them. The records are being kept confidential for several reasons. People's names create a legal issue of confidentiality. I'm not sure how they get around that. This problem of confidentiality has existed for years. Nobody wants to release records and who exactly could legally have a right to the records? It would open up a can of worms and a gold mine for lawyers to sue government and the church authorities for violating confidentiality. If there was actually genocide or atrocities committed, then somebody should be able to give the RCMP the evidence or grounds for an RCMP investigation, but we have heard nothing about investigations. Probably because there is no real investigation or evidence.

CTV and CBC have been lying continuously about the unmarked graves. They also have had red power activists on their programs repeatedly promoting the lies. There never has been any proof of genocide or atrocities. One priest reported that the grave markers at Kamloops had fallen down and were rotting away and he asked that they be maintained, but nobody listened. Now we hear an endless false narrative of what happened there and the PM and GG go there for photo ops and exploit the whole thing. If people really want to get at the truth, why don't they excavate the graves and find out who is buried there and how they died. Because it's worth more not investigated.

The concept of "intent" in the court trial proceedings is a gold mine for lawyers and creates a vast avenue for ongoing argument, discussion, and debate in every case. Without the concept of "intent", the court proceedings would probably be a lot faster and less hours spent in court cases for lawyers. Thus the potential for less money being earned. The more defences that are available, the more time and money required to pursue them.

Quote The bias of evolutionary leaders It is a fallacy to believe that facts speak for themselves—they are always interpreted according to a framework. The framework behind the evolutionists’ interpretation is naturalism—it is assumed that things made themselves, that no divine intervention has happened, and that God has not revealed to us knowledge about the past. Evolution is a deduction from this assumption, and it is essentially the idea that things made themselves. It includes these unproven ideas: nothing gave rise to something at an alleged ‘big bang,’ non-living matter gave rise to life, single-celled organisms gave rise to many-celled organisms, invertebrates gave rise to vertebrates, ape-like creatures gave rise to man, non-intelligent and amoral matter gave rise to intelligence and morality, man’s yearnings gave rise to religions, etc. Professor D.M.S. Watson, one of the leading biologists and science writers of his day, demonstrated the atheistic bias behind much evolutionary thinking when he wrote: Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.1 Further down the article says: Many evolutionary books, including Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science, contrast religion/creation opinions with evolution/science facts. It is important to realize that this is a misleading contrast. Creationists often appeal to the facts of science to support their view, and evolutionists often appeal to philosophical assumptions from outside science. While creationists are often criticized for starting with a bias, evolutionists also start with a bias, as many of them admit. The debate between creation and evolution is primarily a dispute between two worldviews, with mutually incompatible underlying assumptions. Unquote Refuting Evolution chapter 1: Evolution & creation, science & religion, facts & bias - creation.com

No, I would not have supported the Nazis. Why do you support anarchists and fight against God? Nobody can win that one.

The God of the Bible calls Christians to obey the government and those in authority. People like Lich and the so-called freedom convoy are rebels against the government because they break the laws and incited others to do the same. They claim they are fighting for freedom and some wanted to overthrow the government. They wanted to force the government to abandon the battle against Covid and all restrictions lifted. That makes them anarchists and they are also fighting against God. God says in Romans chapter 13 to obey the authorities. That is clear. They have no excuse.

quote It is an error to say that God never supports a war. Jesus is not a pacifist. In a world filled with evil people, sometimes war is necessary to prevent even greater evil. If Hitler had not been defeated by World War II, how many more millions would have been killed? If the American Civil War had not been fought, how much longer would African-Americans have had to suffer as slaves?War is a terrible thing. Some wars are more “just” than others, but war is always the result of sin (Romans 3:10-18). At the same time, Ecclesiastes 3:8 declares, “There is…a time to love and a time to hate, a time for war and a time for peace.” In a world filled with sin, hatred, and evil (Romans 3:10-18), war is inevitable. Christians should not desire war, but neither are Christians to oppose the government God has placed in authority over them (Romans 13:1-4; 1 Peter 2:17). The most important thing we can be doing in a time of war is to be praying for godly wisdom for our leaders, praying for the safety of our military, praying for quick resolution to conflicts, and praying for a minimum of casualties among civilians on both sides (Philippians 4:6-7). unquote What does the Bible say about war? | GotQuestions.org This is why you need to study the Bible. You don't understand we live in a sinful, evil world. If the allies had not gone to war to fight against Hitler, he might have killed millions more people and imposed his evil Nazi regime on much of the world. There would have been nothing to stop Hitler. So war in that case was justified. The problem is the human heart is corrupt and wicked. That is why there are wars and hate in the world. That is why everyone needs to be born again and given a new heart. The only way to be born again is by God's gift of grace in salvation. Salvation is only by faith in Jesus Christ. But each individual must make that choice. Everyone has to decide for themselves what they believe and each will go to his own destination, either heaven or hell.

Alberta is strongly divided down the centre. Kenney had the Covid deniers in the countryside and small places demanding no Covid restrictions and some of his cabinet or caucus agreeing with that, and on the other hand, he had much of population in the cities expecting Covid health restrictions. The difference between this situation is Alberta was far more divided because there are a lot of radicals such as the freedom convoy. So there is no way Kenney could win in that situation. He tried to please both sides but it was an impossibility. It was impossible to have no Covid restrictions because the hospitals were already at the brink of collapse. Then he made the mistake at the beginning of summer implying that Covid was over and had to retract that. That just made both sides more angry with him. It was a classic no-win situation for poor Kenney. Well he tried, but I don't know if anyone else could have done better in a place like Alberta. Notley was fortunate not to be premier during Covid. She may well get back in as a result of this mess in the UCP and the people of Alberta will be much worse off.

Sad, you don't understand the concept of self defence, the defence of one's nation, land, and people. Military has nothing to do with civilians carrying weapons. That sounds more like an excuse to not support the military. Faith in the God of the Bible includes the right to defend one's self, property, family, and nation. Why else have police, bylaw officers, and why have a military if one doesn't believe in defence of one's country and people? With your attitude, I don't think anybody would want you in the police, or military. You would be more of a liability than an aid. Others would have to use valuable resources to defend you which police and military can't afford to do. You need to study the Bible and have a complete change in thinking. I don't know where you came from but there is hope. But only God can change you.

Yes, you are a true pacifist, living in Fantasyland. You need to read the history of the world. It's all wars and conquering. If you don't have a strong military, your country is done for sooner or later. You can't expect to live off the military of other countries. Why should they look after you like a baby? Canada belongs to NATO which means we also have the responsibility to defend Europe and all NATO members from Russia. Obviously you have not been paying attention to what is going on in the world. We are already very weak militarily, with practically no Navy or Air Force to speak of. Don't expect the U.S. to look after you. Sending a few hundred soldiers to Latvia is almost nothing. If Canada is going to be serious, as Trudeau claims to be in the world, then they better shape up build a proper military. Doesn't mean we need nuclear weapons, but there are many other things we need in the military.

If you don't believe we need a much stronger military, you are no use to Canada for a citizen and would let the likes of Putin walk in and take over. You're more of a liability because you can vote for the pacifist government we have.