cross-posted from: https://mander.xyz/post/46886810
The American president has invited Canada to become his country's "51st state," an idea that has infuriated most of Canada's 40 million citizens.
...
Hence this suggestion: Why not expand the EU to include Canada? Is that so far-fetched an idea? In any case, Canadians have actually considered the question themselves. In February 2025, a survey conducted by Abacus Data on a sample of 1,500 people found that 44% of those polled supported the idea, compared to 34% who opposed it. Better the 28th EU country than the 51st US state!
One might object: Canada is not European, as required for EU membership by Article 49 of the EU Treaty. But what does "European" actually mean? The word cannot be understood in a strictly geographic sense, or Cyprus, closer to Asia, would not be part of the EU. So the term must be understood in a cultural sense.
...
As [Canadian Prime Minister Mark] Carney said in Paris, in March: Thanks to its French and British roots, Canada is "the most European of non-European countries." He speaks from experience, having served as governor of the Bank of England (a post that is assigned based on merit, not nationality). Culturally and ideologically, Canada is close to European democracies: It shares the same belief in the welfare state, the same commitment to multilateralism and the same rejection of the death penalty or uncontrolled firearms.
Moreover, Canada is a Commonwealth monarchy that shares a king with the United Kingdom.
...
Even short of a formal application, it would be wiser for Ottawa to strengthen its ties with European democracies rather than with the Chinese regime. The temptation is there: Just before heading to Davos, Carney signed an agreement with Beijing to lower tariffs on electric vehicles imported from China.
...
For no good reason other than guns lead to deaths. That's a pretty good reason.
Cars are just as deadly as firearms however, we aren’t going and saying Red Honda Civics cause a larger percentage of fatality rates so we’re just going to ban them.
It makes no sense just like how our current government has decided to ban hundreds of thousands of firearms based on appearance and not function.
And while people bicker about licensed firearm owners statistically speaking majority of firearm related crime in Canada is caused by illegal firearms that are typically smuggled in, shouldn’t our resources not focus on the root cause of the issues we face?
Cars should be much more heavily regulated, IMO. But, they have escaped outright bans because they serve a clearly important purpose that's beneficial to society. A gun doesn't.
We can agree to disagree on this sentiment here, licensed firearms owners receive a daily background check by the RCMP whereas those who have a drivers license do not, the only time a person with drivers license gets a background check is when they’re pulled over and checked by a cop.
So you’re saying farmers who defend their property from varmints don’t serve a purpose to society? How about folks up north in research stations typically in polar bear territory? How about people who simply enjoy forest camping and want a means of defence against a predator?
Firearms certainly serve a purpose to society.
Farmers serve a purpose. Guns don't.
Varmint hunting involves firearms.
Edit: Just going to add that if our Wildlife Conservation Officers believe the use of these now prohibited rifles is the best defence against a grizzly bear than shouldn’t we have access to these same tools? If our government says to us the public to use bear spray against a bear (which admittedly may work) then why are we sending these officers into the forest with rifles?
Do you live in an area where you're at threat from grizzly bears?
No, but I certainly camp in such regions frequent enough where such a threat is serious. Hell last time I camped 40ish kilometres up a trail (crown land) with some friends and heard bears most of our night.
And yes, we got the fuck outta there quite quick but if we didn’t have our firearms things could’ve gone ugly.
So, you shot at the bears?
I never said that, not that it matters as it would have been self defence even if we had, but to satisfy your need we had shot away from the bears solely to make noise as a show of force and presence.
Not an uncommon practice hence why bear bangers exist.
So, you don't need guns.
Deterrence is not a replacement for defence.
If you’re facing a predator that is larger than you are you going to gamble with your life with just bear spray and bear bangers?