blackbird

One of the students succinctly pointed out that they are not going to change the 200 year old gun culture. But the 2nd amendment was put in the Constitution to enable the Americans to have an equipped militia to protect the U.S. Now the U.S. has a highly equipped military and no longer requires citizen's militias. That has become redundant. Everyone can still own hunting rifles and handguns if they are properly certified and screened, but the days of having anyone being able to acquire assault rifles are gone or should be. Those should no longer be permitted.

When the U.S. Constitution was drawn up I don't think they had the semi automatic or fully automatic assault rifles they have now. The prevalence of automatic firearms and easy availability, the widespread ownership of guns, is not going to change as far as I can see. The killing of around 14,000 citizens a year by guns in the U.S. is likely to continue for he foreseeable future. The right to own these guns has become a kind of false god or idol, which has come back to bite America in a big way. I don't agree with the argument that it's not the fault of the gun, but is only the owner who is doing it. Such a simplistic view is tragic and contributing to this enormous death toll. Obviously if unstable people or someone who suddenly develops a criminal intent has easy access or can get the guns, it makes it far more likely he will be able to kill people. It will be impossible to screen these people out beforehand. Some with behavioral issues that become known might be screened out, but I would suggest the majority of potential killers will not be screened out. It is a false hope to place the security and safety of American on some kind of screening process when guns are so readily available everywhere, including military type weapons.

The number of people killed in the U.S. each year by guns is more than some wars.

I don't care what the NRA says because it is strictly a gun rights lobby group. Statistics are what matter. One website reports: All shootings: Some 13,286 people were killed in the US by firearms in 2015, according to the Gun Violence Archive, and 26,819 people were injured [those figures exclude suicide]. Those figures are likely to rise by several hundred, once incidents in the final week of the year are counted. The U.S. has 30X as many killings by guns as the UK. Killings in the U.S. are done 60% of the time by guns; Killings in Canada are about 31% of the time by guns. The number of people killed by guns in the U.S. is up there probably near or even more than the number of casualties from the Vietnam war. I think about 50,000 soldiers were killed in the Vietnam war but that is over a number of years. So if you consider the number of people killed by guns in the U.S. over that same number of years, it may be much larger. But the gun lobby is very powerful and those who want to change the system have a huge mountain to get over.

Don't think abortion has anything to do with it. I know there are gun rights in the American Constitution, but I'm not sure that means they are unlimited. Too many innocent people are being killed now. Guns falling into the wrong hands and people owning military style automatic firearms that are costing a lot of lives and for what purpose?

I am not sure what the Canadian laws are around restricted weapons. Is there a requirement that they be locked up at a gun club or rifle range? Hunting rifles have a restriction that only allow them to hold something like 5 cartridges in the clip. Same with shotguns. They are classified as non-restricted firearms. The advantage of requiring certain firearms locked up at a gun club is they can only be accessed at certain times and used only at the gun club. They cannot be removed from the premises. And someone else such as the authorized officer of the range must unlock it and be responsible for seeing it is not taken off the range.

Who needs a semi automatic or military style automatic firearm? The only people who should have such weapons are military or police. If people want to collect those kind of weapons, they should have their internal workings removed, given to authorities, and be certified as completely unusable and impossible to return a functioning weapon. But maybe just ban them completely. Collectors would be out of that business. They can go collect something more benign .

There has to be happy medium which would bring safety and security to people. The massive number of people killed by guns can't be a solution.

There are certain beliefs or doctrines in the Bible that have been accepted by the great majority of churches down through the ages. Some of these basic beliefs have been stated in a number of confessions of faith. Examples would be the Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed, The Westminster Confession of Faith, The Heidelberg Catechism, The Canons of Dort, etc.

In BC we do have a lot of tree huggers. Their busy now protesting the Kinder Morgan pipeline. Maybe once that gets going, they will lay off and go somewhere else to protest something but I doubt it. The living is too easy here in BC and with a Green/NDP government, there no chance they will leave. Social program spending will increase under the NDP and it will encourage even more of them to move out here. I see them around from time to time with their hungry signs and tin cups, when the protesting business is slow.

Salvation depends on believing Jesus is God. When one received Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, he must understand who he is receiving as Lord and Saviour. Jesus the Messiah is the Son of God and God as the Bible teaches in various places which have already been posted. and can be googled.

The King James Bible says: "16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. " 1 Timothy 3:16 "God was manifest in the flesh" seems clear. The flesh refers to Jesus "1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." John 1:1 Here the word refers to Jesus and "the Word was God".

There is no innuendo. The Conservatives are simply calling out Trudeau and a couple of his ministers for making negative comments about the judicial system or trial, which is political interference.

Trudeau's specialty is identity politics. He virtue signals on every conceivable issue involving any minority there is, such as blacks, Muslims, aboriginals, feminism, LGBTs, etc. to continue to try to build that kind of voting base. His view of the world is very narrow and he sees systemic racism effecting every minority group and exploits it for all it's worth. The question is, is systemic racism really an issue or is it blown out of all proportion for votes?

I received some information that the Conservatives are approximately neck and neck with the Liberals right now.

I have to agree with you completely. Trump has his warts but he is on the right track.

The "peoplekind" remark could be good cannon fodder in the next election. Trudeau criticizing our justice system because he didn't like the outcome of the Bouchie - Stanley trial in Saskatchewan was bizarre to say the least. It wasn't good for "reconciliation", although I wouldn't recommend that be used in the election. A court ruling should not be used for political purposes, but maybe his commenting on it could. But it's risky because the whole issue surrounding it could be political suicide for any party that gets into it.

ISIS Islamic terrorists are a powerful force in the southern part of the Philippines. Are we not going to provide any equipment to fight Islamic terrorists because of a poor human rights record? Many countries have a poor record, but should we stand by while Islamic terrorists grow in strength and possible eventually take over a country?

Trudeau and the Liberals oppose selling helicopters that could be used to fight ISIS terrorists in the Philippines.

You don't understand how the world works. Most of the war in Iraq was against the thousands of Al Qaeda supporters and insurgents who went there specifically to fight against the U.S. in a holy war. The U.S. is simply defending itself. Obviously you can't or don't want to understand that. So I will leave it at that as I don't think we are going to get anywhere.

That's your opinion. The prisoners are classified as enemy combatants, captured as a result of a war. They are not considered as civilian or domestic criminals. The U.S. is doing what it has to do in this period of history to defend itself from international terrorism.

No. Obama released a number of terrorists from Gitmo. Some of them went on to get involved in terrorism again.

Maybe, but I still don't believe the legal system is set up to deal with terrorists that have been captured in other countries in the war on terrorism. Because of the stringent requirements for evidence, witnesses it may be very difficult to convict a terrorist in a civilian court. It could result in the world's most dangerous terrorists walking free. Many of the informants may be foreigners located in other countries who may not be willing to give information if they or their families are going to be put at risk.

That doesn't work because regular justice systems are not set up or capable of dealing with foreign terrorists, which often involve secret informants that cannot be exposed as regular courts require. Also the laws are not set up to deal with terrorists fighting in other countries.

What would the U.S. do with Al Qaeda or ISIS terrorists or other terrorists they capture?