In the United States, individuals who posses firearms must follow and practice the gun laws that are set in the state they live in.  Some states have different laws, which allow the bearing of firearms at all times. Gun laws are based on the states jurisdiction and restrictions. A very limited amount of states require registration or a license for the purchase of a firearm. This allows for ultimate protection for citizens. As the rest of the states that do not regulate the purchasing of firearms, allows for citizens to carry an unconcealed weapon on themselves or have with them at all time. In June 2016, a 29 year old security guard deliberately murdered 49 people, and wounded 59 in a hate crime inside a gay night club in Orlando, Florida. After this tragic event many people saw that gun laws needed to be re looked at. People saw the regulations as a means as an "easier way to commit a crime". After the gun regulations were questioned by the government. Conflict broke out about human rights being abused or taken away, which guns allowed citizens to feel a sense of safety and security being brought into their own hands. Many citizens also felt that their safety and security was at risk, but unauthorized individuals were allowed to purchase and bear firearms without any question.  Obama was questioned about the regulation of gun control 11 days before the shooting in Orlando. “This massacre is therefore a further reminder of how easy it is for someone to get their hands on a weapon that lets them shoot people in a school, or in a house of worship, or a movie theater, or in a nightclub.” he begin to say, "there is a way to have common sense gun laws, there is a way for us to make sure that lawful, responsible gun owners like yourselves for sporting and hunting, protecting yourself. But the only way we are going to do that is if we don have a situation in anything that is proposed is viewed as some tyrannical destruction of the second amendment" Barack Obama continued to protest the gun control as this marks the 15th time since the Orlando shooting, that gun regulations have been brought up, he decided it was time for a change. On the opposing view, citizens would wouldn't support the change would argue the means of not being safe, and ultimately being a target. Citizens support having guns whenever they would like due to the events and terrors that the US has developed over time. Its safety for themselves, and they wont have to rely on the cops.

 In my opinion, States that fail to uphold gun laws and regulations should reestablish new gun laws that provide the safety and security for citizens without taking away the human rights that individuals are entitled to. Citizens need to put their trust into their local police and armed forces to keep them safe at all times.  The limitation of gun rights is justifiable due to the safety and security of citizens being put at risk. Guns should be banned from private ownership, this makes accomplishing crimes more difficult to achieve.  Based on all shootings in the United States 13,286 people have been killed in the US by a firearm in 2015, and 26,819 were injured. This just proves of the regulations and gun laws that should be strictly in place to protect the lives of citizens. 

Omar Khadr, a 15 year old child soldier was interrogated and accused  for throwing a grenade that resulted in killing an American soldier. He continued to be tortured and abused to the point where he confessed to killing this soldier even though he had no memory of the fire flight as he was severely wounded. It was first thought that Khadr was tried as an adult by the U.S government for war crimes and killing the American soldier,  but the Canadian government stated that if he would of been charged as an adult he would of been given a life sentence not 8 years. He pleaded guilty to attempted murder in violation of the law of war, spying on the U.S. forces, providing material that would support terrorism and conspiring with al Qaeda. Omar forcefully admitted to killing the soldier because of the fear of being sent back to Guantanamo Bay as he was tortured, threatened, and mistreated daily. Throughout his trial, he was continuously called a terrorist and a murderer to the press as well as in court. Omar Khadr's case would go against the Universal Declaration of Rights as human is entitled their own rights. With the torture Omar experienced, his human rights were not followed. A group that supported Omar is the King's University in Edmonton. They supported him with long distance curriculums for him to follow and began to tutor him. After he was in Edmonton, they tutored him personally and offered him a placement after he was released from prison. This university has helped him become educated after the abuse he went through. 

In my opinion, Omar Khadr was not treated properly by the american soldiers due to the killing of Christopher Speer. As Omar was continuously tortured, it went against the Universal declaration of rights. Every person is entitled to their own rights no matter what their race, culture, or ethnicity is. No human deserves to be tortured to the point of admitting to killing another soldier. Through the fear, torture, and disrespect that Omar received, the audacity of government to purposely hurt a young boy with absolutely no evidence put them in the wrong. No 15 year old child, should ever be mistreated the way Omar was in America. If he was in Canada, he would have been given different options to uphold his punishments. No child should be forced to be a child soldier and be a person they don't want to be because of the influences of their parents. I find it terrible that one child had to go through this and experience this at such a young age let alone ever.

Fighting in Normandy after D-Day led to high casualty rates among the infantry. The Minister of National Defence, was convinced that it was essential to send conscripts overseas as reinforcements. When his Cabinet colleagues couldn't agree, King forced him to resign and turned to General McNaughton as the new Minister in his last effort to avoid conscription. But McNaughton too, despite his great effort he was also unable to find enough NRMA men willing to volunteer. On November 22, 1944, King was forced to revoke his promise and order conscripts overseas.

Conscription during time of war is a decision to be made by people in power to protect their nation and it's allies to prevent a war entering their homeland by having no 'home defence'.

Due to the widespread issue that is distracted driving, all provinces and territories (excluding Nunavut) have some form of legislation/ law in place to punish those that drive distractedly. Newfoundland and Labrador was the first province to issue a distracted driving law in the year 2003. Other provinces followed this trend, starting with New Brunswick and Yukon in 2011, and ending with British Colombia adopting the law in June of 2016. To drive distracted means to have your attention occupied by something other than the task that is driving. Distractors include using your phone to talk/ communicate, play games, watch videos; looking after your children, eating/ drinking, smoking, and reading. If one is doing these things, it can take their attention away from their primary goal, which is driving/ paying attention to the road around them. Fines can range from $80 to $1200 depending on the amount of times you were caught driving distractedly. This law was put in place to prevent avoidable collisions, accidents, injuries and fatalities. Over a period of time, it was the majority of Canada that put these laws in place. These distracted driving laws vary from province to province as the amount of demerits given and the fine issued change in amount.

Those that support these laws are individuals that wish to drive in a safe environment. PADD (People against Distracted Driving) is a prominent group that supports these laws. Their reason being the need to prevent the loss of life that would heavily impact families and friends. Another Group, Mothers against Drunk/ Distracted Driving support these laws due to similarly mentioned reasons.

In one's opinion, it is a brilliant idea to have these laws in place. While it may put a limit on our freedoms, it ultimately keeps our safety in mind. Everyone is entitled to their own actions until they either directly or indirectly cause harm to another. If these laws weren’t in place, potential threats would go unchecked/ unpunished. According to the statistics on CAA Distracted Driving, 80% of collisions and 65% of near crashes are due to some form of distractor. Well over half of theses instances are caused by a distracted driver. The distracted driving laws are put in place to limit the amount of people toying with others’ lives.

I believe that Churchill’s actions during the war were completely justifiable. In such times of emergency, the people must have someone to unify around and to believe in, and Churchill was exactly that. He gave rousing speeches and inspired the people to stay strong during the war. He made them understand that restricting rights and freedoms are essential for the British resistance. The majority of citizens were in full support of Churchill. In fact, public opinion polls show that never less than 78% of citizens said that they approved of Churchill as minister. This in itself shows that Churchill’s actions were not an abuse of the people’s freedoms, but instead, a pivotal part of the safety and security of the British Empire. Those against Churchill’s policies were, of course, the Germans who were eventually defeated by the allies. 

On June 16th 2015, Donald Trump announced his candidacy as well as his end goal of building an impenetrable wall between the USA and Mexico.  The idea behind this, is based upon immigration controls, to increase wages and offer jobs to American citizens first. Trump said he wants to protect the economic well being of immigrants already living in the United States by inhibiting uncontrolled foreign work admissions. Donald Trump’s most crucial immigration laws he would like to implement as President are:  enforcing the immigration laws of the United States and reinstate the entrenched rule of law with which America’s prosperity and security depend. Choose immigrants based on their success in the United States and their capability to be financially stable.  Lastly, screen applicants to ensure they support America’s values, and temporarily suspend immigration from areas that encourage terrorism, and where safe screening can’t immediately be protected.  Consequently, not only did Trump say this wall with cost between 8 billion and 12 billion dollars, but has assured the public that United States will not be paying for this, but Mexico. To which Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto responded with “No way”.  Groups or individuals that stand for Trump’s wall are the republicans of the United States, especially those who hold traditional values and believe that the illegal immigration is only harming Americans by taking away jobs that citizens of the United States should be entitled to. Along with Republican Americans, conservative parties such as American Freedom Party and the Conservative Party of New York State agree with these goals, simply because their economic and political views of immigration fall into line with those of Trump. 

In my opinion the views that Donald Trump has towards immigration policy are unrealistic and borderline racist. The ramifications go beyond affecting just Mexican citizens, but affect the wildlife and environment in and around the area as well. Thousands of habitats will be destroyed in the process just to establish a boundary for the prevention of illegal immigration. Trump claims that he is doing this for the safety and security for the millions of Americans, but in all reality deems undocumented immigrants as “unlawful amnesties”. Another point to justify my reasoning is the ridiculous amount of money it will cost. Instead you could use that money to implement positive change, such as building schools, installing renewable energy, or using that money to send veterans to college/university. This wall will deplete the critical relationship with Mexico as allies, ultimately ruining trade and national security aspirations. The wall that Donald Trump seeks to construct if elected is that of an illiberal action, and only outrage and negative repercussions will follow. 

 I believe that this was an illiberal act as it unreasonably restricted their right of expression to the point of isolation between parents and children.  A restriction that was unjust was the Potlatch Ban (http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/potlatch/) which was to prevent a ceremonial feast on the northwest coast primarily.  At these Potlatches, functioned to bestow status or rank upon someone.  This kind of ceremony could not do harm to anyone.  There is also the goal of the Indian act which was assimilation.  Through these reasons, I believe that the Indian Act was an abuse of our freedoms.

The United States of America used the draft lottery during the Vietnam War to fill vacancies in the armed forces by drafting men ages 19 - 25. It was done by randomly picking numbers from 1 - 366 which corresponds to a person’s birthday, and all men within the said age that shares the same picked out birthday was called to serve in the military. Patriotic people would completely be fine with the idea of conscription as it would really help their country’s armed forces in wars. On the other hand, young educated adults would be a group that would go against it as it infringe on the rights of the people and because a lot of the people who are forced to serve has other plans with their life and serving for a couple of years would delay their pursuit of it. 

In my opinion, conscription is something that is unnecessary especially if your country decided to be involved in a war they’re not needed in. Vietnam War is pretty much just a battle between the ideas of communism and democracy, in a way it is part of the Cold War, a battle between the ideals of the USSR and the US. Conscripting people to fight for you in a battle you shouldn’t be in at the first place is simply unjust and it violates those people’s human rights. The Vietnam War costed the US a lot, by November 1967, 15,058 were killed and 109,527 were wounded which came in with the $25 billion expenses per year. It is also important to take note that majority of the people sent were poor and were part of the minorities. Conscription is sometimes justifiable when done right at the right situation but the Vietnam War is not one of those.