Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Leaders are the ones who don't follow the herd. We've always forged out own path and many more times than not have made the right choices. History proves that.
Enjoy being a sheep.
At least on guns, no one in the world seems eager to follow your lead.
Leaders are the ones who don't follow the herd. We've always forged out own path and many more times than not have made the right choices. History proves that.
Enjoy being a sheep.
Canadians certainly don't feel like sheep. Having more than two parties to vote for gives us a whole spectrum of politicians in which to choose from. Many of us vote one way provincially and another federally depending on the moment.
The government is doing what the majority of citizens want and agree with. Imagine that!
Leaders are the ones who don't follow the herd. We've always forged out own path and many more times than not have made the right choices. History proves that.
Enjoy being a sheep.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnathon Hills
Good point. I think a lot ofus Americans would like to see our neighbors to the north embrace the concepts surrounding freedom and personal responsibility like we do down here. I guess Canadians pre-disposition towards the nanny state rules the day. Pity.
We are being leaders and forging our own way in our own right. We are not following your own herd of sheep that you want to put us into.
What you don't seem to be able to comprehend is that we don't care that a lot of you Americans want Canadians doing things the American way. We don't care what you approve of, and we don't care that YOU want to be our American nanny with your own American rules and regulations and ways of doing things placed on us instead of us Canadians having the Canadian nanny of our own choosing.
We reject you as our nanny. Accept that. We reject your bullyragging. We disapprove of how a lot of you Americans do many, many, many things down there. The fact that a lot of you Americans want Canadians to do things your own American way is irrelevant to us. We don't care what you want. You can proselytize about it until the cows come home about your American concepts surrounding freedoms and responsibilities done the American way but it is still irrelevant to our own Canadian concepts surrounding freedoms and responsibilities done the Canadian way. The proper way.
A lot of you Americans come to troll the Canada forum to criticize, complain, patronize, proselytize, argue, throw insults, get angry, preach and bullyrag on Canadians to live our lives the way a lot of you Americans want it done. It still isn't going to make any difference, your demands are still preposterous and irrelevant to us and are still rejected.
So maybe y'all should just give it up and go do the trolling and bullyragging within your own place, eh?
Good point. I think a lot of us Americans would like to see our neighbors to the north embrace the concepts surrounding freedom and personal responsibility like we do down here. I guess Canadians pre-disposition towards the nanny state rules the day. Pity.
Coming from an American that trite nonsense is tantamount to an affirmation and compliment.
We have nothing but the best of wishes for your success in your avowed mission to make it to 1850 again.
If people are comfortable living with a disarmed citizenry, I think they should be able to have that, and if people think they should have the ability to defend themselves and their families against tyrannical government, they should be able to have that. I would never feel comfortable telling people not to live the way they think is best, as long as it goes both ways.
That being said, for the few here who are open minded about this topic, I think it is worth considering the following:
in the 20th century, over 150 MILLION people were killed via genocide by their own governments. In order for mass shootings to even come close to this number over 100 years, armed civilian criminals would have to kill 1.5 MILLION people EVERY YEAR for the next 100 years
Maybe you think it's unlikely any first world government would abandon philosophical liberalism for fascism or socialism. On this point I would absolutely have to disagree. I think there is strong evidence that radical politics could absolutely materialize and much sooner than people think. And nobody knows what the political landscape will be like in 50 years, or 100 years.
As to the plight of armed civilians against their own tyrannical government, and how they would be squashed in a day: how well did Vietnam do against the United States? How about all those endless wars in the Middle East? If they all got squashed in 24 hours it's turning out to be a long multi-decade 24 hours.
I'm not at all dismissing the thousands of people who have lost their lives to armed criminals in the United States. I just want to make sure open minded people understand the trade offs involved here. There are dishonest people acting as though the choice is between thousands of people dying in mass shootings every year, or everything being totally benign, and it's just not obvious to me that that's the case.
If people are comfortable living with a disarmed citizenry, I think they should be able to have that, and if people think they should have the ability to defend themselves and their families against tyrannical government, they should be able to have that. I would never feel comfortable telling people not to live the way they think is best, as long as it goes both ways.
That being said, for the few here who are open minded about this topic, I think it is worth considering the following:
in the 20th century, over 150 MILLION people were killed via genocide by their own governments. In order for mass shootings to even come close to this number over 100 years, armed civilian criminals would have to kill 1.5 MILLION people EVERY YEAR for the next 100 years
Maybe you think it's unlikely any first world government would abandon philosophical liberalism for fascism or socialism. On this point I would absolutely have to disagree. I think there is strong evidence that radical politics could absolutely materialize and much sooner than people think. And nobody knows what the political landscape will be like in 50 years, or 100 years.
As to the plight of armed civilians against their own tyrannical government, and how they would be squashed in a day: how well did Vietnam do against the United States? How about all those endless wars in the Middle East? If they all got squashed in 24 hours it's turning out to be a long multi-decade 24 hours.
I'm not at all dismissing the thousands of people who have lost their lives to armed criminals in the United States. I just want to make sure open minded people understand the trade offs involved here. There are dishonest people acting as though the choice is between thousands of people dying in mass shootings every year, or everything being totally benign, and it's just not obvious to me that that's the case.
Many good points but let's put everything aside, let's not get astray with US vs. Canada and so on....let's stay on the topic and re-focus and why this ban is totally useless and simply a way to impose what is deemed socially acceptable to others.
- 81 death from mass shooting in Canada since 1969...that includes every type of firearm...of these 81 death how many were killed with stolen/smuggled firearms where no amount of law would have prevented?? Crickets...
- The ban at the moment does not extend to semi auto hunting rifles as far as I understand and definitely not to manually repeating firearms, this alone makes the ban a farce unless people really think that a future mass murderer may be prevented from killing people because his option of firearms does not look cool enough.
- You could statistically save many more lives per year banning smoking or fast cars or requiring a proficiency license for power tools and so on....this is a simple "I do not like people owning and doing certain things so I will ban it" cheaply dressed as moral imperative....I cannot believe people do not see it for what it is.
P.S.
Since people wants to bring the US in this discussion, this Canadian ban may actually hurt the Democrats is certain crucial districts because the Republicans will quickly point the finger at "this is coming to America"...you still need some rural votes to win a presidential election in the US.
Last edited by saturno_v; 05-03-2020 at 06:38 PM..
...... As for your comment above, again, history bears this comment to be incorrect. Facts.
I'm sorry but your comment above doesn't make any sense to me because it doesn't actually say anything meaningful. Facts? I see no facts presented by you. "Fact" is just another word like "falsehood" is a word. Neither word means anything if it isn't accompanied by historically irrefutable proof to back something up as a fact or a falsehood.
So, can you back up your statement that my comment is incorrect by providing proof of it? I'm requesting irrefutable proof from you to show how American concepts surrounding American freedoms and responsibilities have been demonstrated to be relevant to Canadian concepts surrounding Canadian freedoms and responsibilities.
Please pay very careful attention and scrutiny to my own wording above so that you don't get side-tracked.
^^It can't affect the Democrats - you guys never think of us.
Sure politicians do when is convenient to them...if you do not think the Canadian ban will not come out during the campaign to scare rural voters (especially in the "blue wall") I have a bridge in New York to sell....
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
