American Breakfast as seen by Europeans
- Thread starter StevieC
- Start date
- Status
I didn't care much for that particular breakfast thread. I feel nauseated.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted by maxdustington
I have an AR-15 but no where to shoot it, or any of my guns other than far away locations or a range. It's a daily background check for me, having guns in Canada is a precarious privilege. There were shootings here in Toronto this summer, and the mayor tried to ban handguns and "handgun ammunition" which means ALL ammunition. We're getting to the point in Toronto where the police and government are too PC to racially profile, but won't trust us to carry guns to protect ourselves. They just want to throw police overtime at it to look like they are doing something. Our media and politicians are all anti gun except a recently formed federal party and the election is a year away. Toronto was a nice safe city until the population exploded, now children are getting shot like dogs in the streets. All anyone wants to do is virtue signal, deflecting the blame by grabbing legally owned guns. I think most people are waking up and beginning to understand what the problem really is, but dissent is still silenced even after recent humiliating defeats at the polls in Ontario and most recently Quebec.
Yup, see my earlier post in case you missed it.
Your point about the AR-15 is why I don't own one and likely why I'll buy an XCR or something else instead. I can't stand the idea of not being able to just go out to the country and target shoot when I have the time with friends.
I have an AR-15 but no where to shoot it, or any of my guns other than far away locations or a range. It's a daily background check for me, having guns in Canada is a precarious privilege. There were shootings here in Toronto this summer, and the mayor tried to ban handguns and "handgun ammunition" which means ALL ammunition. We're getting to the point in Toronto where the police and government are too PC to racially profile, but won't trust us to carry guns to protect ourselves. They just want to throw police overtime at it to look like they are doing something. Our media and politicians are all anti gun except a recently formed federal party and the election is a year away. Toronto was a nice safe city until the population exploded, now children are getting shot like dogs in the streets. All anyone wants to do is virtue signal, deflecting the blame by grabbing legally owned guns. I think most people are waking up and beginning to understand what the problem really is, but dissent is still silenced even after recent humiliating defeats at the polls in Ontario and most recently Quebec.
Yup, see my earlier post in case you missed it.
Your point about the AR-15 is why I don't own one and likely why I'll buy an XCR or something else instead. I can't stand the idea of not being able to just go out to the country and target shoot when I have the time with friends.
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by maxdustington
I have an AR-15 but no where to shoot it, or any of my guns other than far away locations or a range. It's a daily background check for me, having guns in Canada is a precarious privilege. There were shootings here in Toronto this summer, and the mayor tried to ban handguns and "handgun ammunition" which means ALL ammunition. We're getting to the point in Toronto where the police and government are too PC to racially profile, but won't trust us to carry guns to protect ourselves. They just want to throw police overtime at it to look like they are doing something. Our media and politicians are all anti gun except a recently formed federal party and the election is a year away. Toronto was a nice safe city until the population exploded, now children are getting shot like dogs in the streets. All anyone wants to do is virtue signal, deflecting the blame by grabbing legally owned guns. I think most people are waking up and beginning to understand what the problem really is, but dissent is still silenced even after recent humiliating defeats at the polls in Ontario and most recently Quebec.
Yup, see my earlier post in case you missed it.
Your point about the AR-15 is why I don't own one and likely why I'll buy an XCR or something else instead. I can't stand the idea of not being able to just go out to the country and target shoot when I have the time with friends.
Totally, but that along with all handguns are the guns they are going to ban first. I don't regret buying it at all. All of the shootings this summer has made me want to pick up a pistol, handgun bans are just a terrorist attack or two away.
Originally Posted by maxdustington
I have an AR-15 but no where to shoot it, or any of my guns other than far away locations or a range. It's a daily background check for me, having guns in Canada is a precarious privilege. There were shootings here in Toronto this summer, and the mayor tried to ban handguns and "handgun ammunition" which means ALL ammunition. We're getting to the point in Toronto where the police and government are too PC to racially profile, but won't trust us to carry guns to protect ourselves. They just want to throw police overtime at it to look like they are doing something. Our media and politicians are all anti gun except a recently formed federal party and the election is a year away. Toronto was a nice safe city until the population exploded, now children are getting shot like dogs in the streets. All anyone wants to do is virtue signal, deflecting the blame by grabbing legally owned guns. I think most people are waking up and beginning to understand what the problem really is, but dissent is still silenced even after recent humiliating defeats at the polls in Ontario and most recently Quebec.
Yup, see my earlier post in case you missed it.
Your point about the AR-15 is why I don't own one and likely why I'll buy an XCR or something else instead. I can't stand the idea of not being able to just go out to the country and target shoot when I have the time with friends.
Totally, but that along with all handguns are the guns they are going to ban first. I don't regret buying it at all. All of the shootings this summer has made me want to pick up a pistol, handgun bans are just a terrorist attack or two away.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted by maxdustington
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by maxdustington
I have an AR-15 but no where to shoot it, or any of my guns other than far away locations or a range. It's a daily background check for me, having guns in Canada is a precarious privilege. There were shootings here in Toronto this summer, and the mayor tried to ban handguns and "handgun ammunition" which means ALL ammunition. We're getting to the point in Toronto where the police and government are too PC to racially profile, but won't trust us to carry guns to protect ourselves. They just want to throw police overtime at it to look like they are doing something. Our media and politicians are all anti gun except a recently formed federal party and the election is a year away. Toronto was a nice safe city until the population exploded, now children are getting shot like dogs in the streets. All anyone wants to do is virtue signal, deflecting the blame by grabbing legally owned guns. I think most people are waking up and beginning to understand what the problem really is, but dissent is still silenced even after recent humiliating defeats at the polls in Ontario and most recently Quebec.
Yup, see my earlier post in case you missed it.
Your point about the AR-15 is why I don't own one and likely why I'll buy an XCR or something else instead. I can't stand the idea of not being able to just go out to the country and target shoot when I have the time with friends.
Totally, but that along with all handguns are the guns they are going to ban first. I don't regret buying it at all. All of the shootings this summer has made me want to pick up a pistol, handgun bans are just a terrorist attack or two away.
Oh, I know. Gang bangers shooting each other in Regent Park? Better take Grandpa Joe's pump 12 away
This virtue signalling nonsense is out of control.
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by maxdustington
I have an AR-15 but no where to shoot it, or any of my guns other than far away locations or a range. It's a daily background check for me, having guns in Canada is a precarious privilege. There were shootings here in Toronto this summer, and the mayor tried to ban handguns and "handgun ammunition" which means ALL ammunition. We're getting to the point in Toronto where the police and government are too PC to racially profile, but won't trust us to carry guns to protect ourselves. They just want to throw police overtime at it to look like they are doing something. Our media and politicians are all anti gun except a recently formed federal party and the election is a year away. Toronto was a nice safe city until the population exploded, now children are getting shot like dogs in the streets. All anyone wants to do is virtue signal, deflecting the blame by grabbing legally owned guns. I think most people are waking up and beginning to understand what the problem really is, but dissent is still silenced even after recent humiliating defeats at the polls in Ontario and most recently Quebec.
Yup, see my earlier post in case you missed it.
Your point about the AR-15 is why I don't own one and likely why I'll buy an XCR or something else instead. I can't stand the idea of not being able to just go out to the country and target shoot when I have the time with friends.
Totally, but that along with all handguns are the guns they are going to ban first. I don't regret buying it at all. All of the shootings this summer has made me want to pick up a pistol, handgun bans are just a terrorist attack or two away.
Oh, I know. Gang bangers shooting each other in Regent Park? Better take Grandpa Joe's pump 12 away
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by shDK
Originally Posted by Alan Moore
People should not fear their government. The government should fear its people.
The government should respect the people, be a part of the people, there is no need for fear on either side.
History has demonstrated otherwise. You folks were occupied by the Germans during WWII, a group operating under the stewardship of a government that was massacring its own people. It's neighbour was doing similar; Stalin was no less a butcher. No population should ever be that helpless; no government should be able to seize such absolute control.
Here in the GWN, we are somewhere between you folk (though our firearms laws are quite recent) and our southernly neighbours. We enjoy lower taxes than in Europe, but higher than theirs. We also have socialized medicine, low poverty...etc. And a massive landmass that's sparsely populated.
You also have insanely high electricity prices that are 4x what the average US or Canadian pays; 10x what they pay in Quebec. That's a cost that many other places, like here, are unwilling to shoulder. You may have chosen that route, and that's fine, you get to live with it, but that's not security for the weak or any other righteous atta' boy back-slap, rather it is the cost of allowing government to pursue agenda at great cost unchecked. The same thing has happened in Germany with their insane Energiewende program that has resulted in more reliance on coal and crippling rates.
You seem to forget that Hitler was actually highly popular and elected by the German people. He was a mass murdering psycho. But he never was not holding his people down with weapons. The same thing can partly be said about Lenin, and later Stalin. And Mussolini.
Originally Posted by shDK
Originally Posted by Alan Moore
People should not fear their government. The government should fear its people.
The government should respect the people, be a part of the people, there is no need for fear on either side.
History has demonstrated otherwise. You folks were occupied by the Germans during WWII, a group operating under the stewardship of a government that was massacring its own people. It's neighbour was doing similar; Stalin was no less a butcher. No population should ever be that helpless; no government should be able to seize such absolute control.
Here in the GWN, we are somewhere between you folk (though our firearms laws are quite recent) and our southernly neighbours. We enjoy lower taxes than in Europe, but higher than theirs. We also have socialized medicine, low poverty...etc. And a massive landmass that's sparsely populated.
You also have insanely high electricity prices that are 4x what the average US or Canadian pays; 10x what they pay in Quebec. That's a cost that many other places, like here, are unwilling to shoulder. You may have chosen that route, and that's fine, you get to live with it, but that's not security for the weak or any other righteous atta' boy back-slap, rather it is the cost of allowing government to pursue agenda at great cost unchecked. The same thing has happened in Germany with their insane Energiewende program that has resulted in more reliance on coal and crippling rates.
You seem to forget that Hitler was actually highly popular and elected by the German people. He was a mass murdering psycho. But he never was not holding his people down with weapons. The same thing can partly be said about Lenin, and later Stalin. And Mussolini.
Originally Posted by shDK
I really don't care how you or your fellow countrymen prefer to run your country. But there do tend to be a lot of lies when describing European societies. It's strange to me, here a poverty rate of 13 % would be a disgrace, you see it as freedom. When we see high taxes as a fair trade to secure the weak..You see it as communism. And so on and so on.
But what you completely overlook is that we have actually chosen the way we run the country our self. If I remember right. The US usually have a voter turnout at about 53-55 %. We usually have a turnout about 85-88 % that alone indicates the our democracy is in better shape then that of the US.
I think that goes both ways, as there tends to be a lot of stereotyping when describing American societies on the European side, and I can assure you, poverty is not considered "freedom" in the United States.
There are a lot of homeless individuals receiving public assistance and living off "the fat of the land" so to speak, and while I agree it isn't a substantial amount they receive, many individuals are able bodied, despite being alcoholics or drug addicts, who are getting a check out of taxpayer's money for nothing because it is easy for them. They could be put to work to do much of the labor that illegal aliens are doing now, without putting them to work for the federal government Soviet style, but I'll not get into that. The verdict here is, most individuals do not want to play Robin Hood on their dime and "secure the weak" who are, at a bare minimum, capable of working to look after themselves. That money could be used for other, more productive endeavors.
Without getting into our own political problems, California has the highest income tax rates in the nation, and when you're done paying for other things like Social Security, Medicare and all the rest of it, you are out of pocket a substantial amount of money that goes to pay for things like "sanctuary cities" costing the U.S. taxpayer ~$27 billion a year. U.S. citizens residing abroad are also taxed, unlike many other nations whose citizens are under expatriate status.
I don't think voter turnout is an effective method or indication of a "better democracy" either. We have our midterm elections coming up next month, and regardless of where you are in the world, as an American, you have full voting rights overseas.
I really don't care how you or your fellow countrymen prefer to run your country. But there do tend to be a lot of lies when describing European societies. It's strange to me, here a poverty rate of 13 % would be a disgrace, you see it as freedom. When we see high taxes as a fair trade to secure the weak..You see it as communism. And so on and so on.
But what you completely overlook is that we have actually chosen the way we run the country our self. If I remember right. The US usually have a voter turnout at about 53-55 %. We usually have a turnout about 85-88 % that alone indicates the our democracy is in better shape then that of the US.
I think that goes both ways, as there tends to be a lot of stereotyping when describing American societies on the European side, and I can assure you, poverty is not considered "freedom" in the United States.
There are a lot of homeless individuals receiving public assistance and living off "the fat of the land" so to speak, and while I agree it isn't a substantial amount they receive, many individuals are able bodied, despite being alcoholics or drug addicts, who are getting a check out of taxpayer's money for nothing because it is easy for them. They could be put to work to do much of the labor that illegal aliens are doing now, without putting them to work for the federal government Soviet style, but I'll not get into that. The verdict here is, most individuals do not want to play Robin Hood on their dime and "secure the weak" who are, at a bare minimum, capable of working to look after themselves. That money could be used for other, more productive endeavors.
Without getting into our own political problems, California has the highest income tax rates in the nation, and when you're done paying for other things like Social Security, Medicare and all the rest of it, you are out of pocket a substantial amount of money that goes to pay for things like "sanctuary cities" costing the U.S. taxpayer ~$27 billion a year. U.S. citizens residing abroad are also taxed, unlike many other nations whose citizens are under expatriate status.
I don't think voter turnout is an effective method or indication of a "better democracy" either. We have our midterm elections coming up next month, and regardless of where you are in the world, as an American, you have full voting rights overseas.
It is a major misunderstanding that you receive anything from the state simply because you don't wan't to work. It simply doesn't work that way. If the state believe you can work. You will be forced to work for your social welfare.
I believe you are right about the stereotype's flooding the media on both sides. Won't say that European Media is any better Them the US.
We often hear that we are less free then you people in the US. Please tell me. Besides the right to buy weapons. Where are my freedom more restricted then yours ? What is it you are free to do, that I am not ?
I would say that voting turnout it a very good way to judge a democracy. If almost half the people who can vote chose not to, or are simply to lazy. You have a bit of a problem.
I believe you are right about the stereotype's flooding the media on both sides. Won't say that European Media is any better Them the US.
We often hear that we are less free then you people in the US. Please tell me. Besides the right to buy weapons. Where are my freedom more restricted then yours ? What is it you are free to do, that I am not ?
I would say that voting turnout it a very good way to judge a democracy. If almost half the people who can vote chose not to, or are simply to lazy. You have a bit of a problem.
Ridiculous repetitive stereotyping. America is and will remain the finest place to live where you have a real chance of success. Of course a European may have a different view.
Since we defend your continent like it was our own perhaps you could mention that?
Since we defend your continent like it was our own perhaps you could mention that?
It is great you feel that way about your country.. believe or not, but I feel exactly the same about my fatherland. There is no need to start that argument, we will never agree anyway.
This might surprise you, but we are not that far from each other when it comes to the US vs European foreign policy. I believe the European continent has spend way to little on our security, and yes.. the US has bin carrying a way to big part of the expenses.
However.. I do not for one second accept that the US did this all because of a good heart.. after the ww2 the us needed a staple European continent. A continent at war would mean no one to do trade with, and at that time. The us had no other places to export to. At the same time the US wanted to dominate the world militarily, and you could not do that without NATO. It also gave you massive advantages being able to deploy large amounts of troops and heavy weapon on the European continent. Of course that was a great advantage for us as well.
We often hear in American movies how the US came and saved Europe. That is not without truth..but Hollywood does have a tendency to oversell it. 1. If Great Britain had fallen durring the Battle og britain there World have bin no war to join..remember that the US felt no nede to join the war before Pearl Harbor. 2. if hitler hadn't bin stupid enough to go for Moscow. His forces would have bin placed in west Europe and the US probably would be unable to win. 3 When germany invaded poland, the US army forces was about the size of the Netherlands army. They where not able to do any major difference.
There is a saying here that the ww2 was Won with British spirit, Russian blood and American steel. It is simplified but not without truth.
This might surprise you, but we are not that far from each other when it comes to the US vs European foreign policy. I believe the European continent has spend way to little on our security, and yes.. the US has bin carrying a way to big part of the expenses.
However.. I do not for one second accept that the US did this all because of a good heart.. after the ww2 the us needed a staple European continent. A continent at war would mean no one to do trade with, and at that time. The us had no other places to export to. At the same time the US wanted to dominate the world militarily, and you could not do that without NATO. It also gave you massive advantages being able to deploy large amounts of troops and heavy weapon on the European continent. Of course that was a great advantage for us as well.
We often hear in American movies how the US came and saved Europe. That is not without truth..but Hollywood does have a tendency to oversell it. 1. If Great Britain had fallen durring the Battle og britain there World have bin no war to join..remember that the US felt no nede to join the war before Pearl Harbor. 2. if hitler hadn't bin stupid enough to go for Moscow. His forces would have bin placed in west Europe and the US probably would be unable to win. 3 When germany invaded poland, the US army forces was about the size of the Netherlands army. They where not able to do any major difference.
There is a saying here that the ww2 was Won with British spirit, Russian blood and American steel. It is simplified but not without truth.
Originally Posted by shDK
It is a major misunderstanding that you receive anything from the state simply because you don't wan't to work. It simply doesn't work that way. If the state believe you can work. You will be forced to work for your social welfare.
I believe you are right about the stereotype's flooding the media on both sides. Won't say that European Media is any better Them the US.
We often hear that we are less free then you people in the US. Please tell me. Besides the right to buy weapons. Where are my freedom more restricted then yours ? What is it you are free to do, that I am not ?
I would say that voting turnout it a very good way to judge a democracy. If almost half the people who can vote chose not to, or are simply to lazy. You have a bit of a problem.
Touching on my European past experiences, having lived in the UK for a very long time, I have seen firsthand an influx of immigrants who have simply immigrated for economic reasons. Individuals, who have no intention of assimilation, or even learning the language, let alone calling themselves "British" after naturalization. They have brought about with them their culture, their language and the expectation that the native inhabitants of the nation will assimilate to them instead. These individuals then go on to tax the welfare system of the country - unemployment benefits, housing, education, you name it, without contribution and even after naturalization. I have, for quite some time, worked as a professional interpreter in this line of work and have pretty much "seen it all". At one point in time, it was considered shameful to be on government assistance, but boy have times changed.
This, unfortunately, isn't any different in the United States. But it isn't just immigrants, legal or illegal. Instead of trying to better themselves or look for opportunities to get off government aid, certain individuals who may be natives, have no intentions of ever bettering their lives and instead, consider handouts to be a sufficient form of income to make a living, if you even call it that. Restricted welfare, e.g. eligibility for government assistance restricted to three months, after which you have to find a job and are on your own, may be one school of thought. But I personally do have a problem with people attempting to live off taxpayer's contributions, who work hard and long hours to make their living.
I believe what we have moved onto here is a comparison of different cultures and perspectives, and have gone way off topic. Every nation has evolved differently and will have their own set of values accustomed to throughout their own history. What one considers freedom might not be freedom to another. Take, for example, the rights of women to vote in Persian Gulf states. To women in that region, that is a freedom, but taken for granted in Europe or North America, where women have been voting for a very long time.
Having said that, America was founded on individualism; rights are individual, not collective.
As an example, access to healthcare may be considered a right by many, just as the right to free speech, but that right is rationed, controlled and managed by the government in countries where universal health care is the norm. It is dependent on several factors such as one's age, one's health and obviously cost. But if it is rationed, which means a fixed amount of it is dispensed to each individual, how can it be a right? Do we do the same with free speech, or the right to bear arms as you have brought up? Should the government decide on your behalf where and when you should have access to your firearm or what type of firearm you can have, and whether or not you keep it loaded? In short, these are collective, which subjects them to ration, control and restrictions by the government.
Some consider it a right to have income and to redistribute it to benefit the "weak", a right to education as the government deems fit or the right to parenting, so long as it fits a certain set of "ideals". To an individualist, these lead to you giving up your personal liberty and freedom to the government.
An individualist believes in less government interference and regulation, but more liberty to the individual. Moreover, natural rights as given by God, untouchable by the government or other bodies. Rights are not collective or depended on a "common good". Rights are unalienable, and cannot be deprived from an individual. You will find this is something many Americans feel very strongly about.
It is a major misunderstanding that you receive anything from the state simply because you don't wan't to work. It simply doesn't work that way. If the state believe you can work. You will be forced to work for your social welfare.
I believe you are right about the stereotype's flooding the media on both sides. Won't say that European Media is any better Them the US.
We often hear that we are less free then you people in the US. Please tell me. Besides the right to buy weapons. Where are my freedom more restricted then yours ? What is it you are free to do, that I am not ?
I would say that voting turnout it a very good way to judge a democracy. If almost half the people who can vote chose not to, or are simply to lazy. You have a bit of a problem.
Touching on my European past experiences, having lived in the UK for a very long time, I have seen firsthand an influx of immigrants who have simply immigrated for economic reasons. Individuals, who have no intention of assimilation, or even learning the language, let alone calling themselves "British" after naturalization. They have brought about with them their culture, their language and the expectation that the native inhabitants of the nation will assimilate to them instead. These individuals then go on to tax the welfare system of the country - unemployment benefits, housing, education, you name it, without contribution and even after naturalization. I have, for quite some time, worked as a professional interpreter in this line of work and have pretty much "seen it all". At one point in time, it was considered shameful to be on government assistance, but boy have times changed.
This, unfortunately, isn't any different in the United States. But it isn't just immigrants, legal or illegal. Instead of trying to better themselves or look for opportunities to get off government aid, certain individuals who may be natives, have no intentions of ever bettering their lives and instead, consider handouts to be a sufficient form of income to make a living, if you even call it that. Restricted welfare, e.g. eligibility for government assistance restricted to three months, after which you have to find a job and are on your own, may be one school of thought. But I personally do have a problem with people attempting to live off taxpayer's contributions, who work hard and long hours to make their living.
I believe what we have moved onto here is a comparison of different cultures and perspectives, and have gone way off topic. Every nation has evolved differently and will have their own set of values accustomed to throughout their own history. What one considers freedom might not be freedom to another. Take, for example, the rights of women to vote in Persian Gulf states. To women in that region, that is a freedom, but taken for granted in Europe or North America, where women have been voting for a very long time.
Having said that, America was founded on individualism; rights are individual, not collective.
As an example, access to healthcare may be considered a right by many, just as the right to free speech, but that right is rationed, controlled and managed by the government in countries where universal health care is the norm. It is dependent on several factors such as one's age, one's health and obviously cost. But if it is rationed, which means a fixed amount of it is dispensed to each individual, how can it be a right? Do we do the same with free speech, or the right to bear arms as you have brought up? Should the government decide on your behalf where and when you should have access to your firearm or what type of firearm you can have, and whether or not you keep it loaded? In short, these are collective, which subjects them to ration, control and restrictions by the government.
Some consider it a right to have income and to redistribute it to benefit the "weak", a right to education as the government deems fit or the right to parenting, so long as it fits a certain set of "ideals". To an individualist, these lead to you giving up your personal liberty and freedom to the government.
An individualist believes in less government interference and regulation, but more liberty to the individual. Moreover, natural rights as given by God, untouchable by the government or other bodies. Rights are not collective or depended on a "common good". Rights are unalienable, and cannot be deprived from an individual. You will find this is something many Americans feel very strongly about.
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by maxdustington
I have an AR-15 but no where to shoot it, or any of my guns other than far away locations or a range. It's a daily background check for me, having guns in Canada is a precarious privilege. There were shootings here in Toronto this summer, and the mayor tried to ban handguns and "handgun ammunition" which means ALL ammunition. We're getting to the point in Toronto where the police and government are too PC to racially profile, but won't trust us to carry guns to protect ourselves. They just want to throw police overtime at it to look like they are doing something. Our media and politicians are all anti gun except a recently formed federal party and the election is a year away. Toronto was a nice safe city until the population exploded, now children are getting shot like dogs in the streets. All anyone wants to do is virtue signal, deflecting the blame by grabbing legally owned guns. I think most people are waking up and beginning to understand what the problem really is, but dissent is still silenced even after recent humiliating defeats at the polls in Ontario and most recently Quebec.
Yup, see my earlier post in case you missed it.
Your point about the AR-15 is why I don't own one and likely why I'll buy an XCR or something else instead. I can't stand the idea of not being able to just go out to the country and target shoot when I have the time with friends.
I have since traveled to the U.S. for business and shopping trips and I notice that I get asked more frequently both by US customs and Canada Customs upon re-entry if there is any firearms, ammunition on-board. Is that the same for you? Just curious. I've also been pulled in for a "random" secondary inspection twice out of 15 trips where I hadn't ever been before and I have always declared everything all the time. (Not worth fooling around)
Originally Posted by maxdustington
I have an AR-15 but no where to shoot it, or any of my guns other than far away locations or a range. It's a daily background check for me, having guns in Canada is a precarious privilege. There were shootings here in Toronto this summer, and the mayor tried to ban handguns and "handgun ammunition" which means ALL ammunition. We're getting to the point in Toronto where the police and government are too PC to racially profile, but won't trust us to carry guns to protect ourselves. They just want to throw police overtime at it to look like they are doing something. Our media and politicians are all anti gun except a recently formed federal party and the election is a year away. Toronto was a nice safe city until the population exploded, now children are getting shot like dogs in the streets. All anyone wants to do is virtue signal, deflecting the blame by grabbing legally owned guns. I think most people are waking up and beginning to understand what the problem really is, but dissent is still silenced even after recent humiliating defeats at the polls in Ontario and most recently Quebec.
Yup, see my earlier post in case you missed it.
Your point about the AR-15 is why I don't own one and likely why I'll buy an XCR or something else instead. I can't stand the idea of not being able to just go out to the country and target shoot when I have the time with friends.
I have since traveled to the U.S. for business and shopping trips and I notice that I get asked more frequently both by US customs and Canada Customs upon re-entry if there is any firearms, ammunition on-board. Is that the same for you? Just curious. I've also been pulled in for a "random" secondary inspection twice out of 15 trips where I hadn't ever been before and I have always declared everything all the time. (Not worth fooling around)
Last edited:
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted by shDK
You seem to forget that Hitler was actually highly popular and elected by the German people. He was a mass murdering psycho. But he never was not holding his people down with weapons. The same thing can partly be said about Lenin, and later Stalin. And Mussolini.
That's exactly what the Gestapo did, they held down the people with weapons, while rounding up Jews and other unfavorables for execution.
Hitler was elected initially, sure. Most of these cases of people who get into power, disarm their population (if armed) and then things go sideways start off in that manner. The idea here is to keep checks in place so that this can't happen. That's the spirit of the 2nd amendment.
You seem to forget that Hitler was actually highly popular and elected by the German people. He was a mass murdering psycho. But he never was not holding his people down with weapons. The same thing can partly be said about Lenin, and later Stalin. And Mussolini.
That's exactly what the Gestapo did, they held down the people with weapons, while rounding up Jews and other unfavorables for execution.
Hitler was elected initially, sure. Most of these cases of people who get into power, disarm their population (if armed) and then things go sideways start off in that manner. The idea here is to keep checks in place so that this can't happen. That's the spirit of the 2nd amendment.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted by shDK
It is a major misunderstanding that you receive anything from the state simply because you don't wan't to work. It simply doesn't work that way. If the state believe you can work. You will be forced to work for your social welfare.
This system is easily exploited, and well known to be here in Canada. We have career welfares who simply need to demonstrate that they are "looking" for employment (without actually finding it) and they will continue to be subsidized by the system, put up in public housing with their utility costs covered...etc. Also, since you get more money the more kids you have, these folk tend to have a number of children to capitalize on those benefits. You get somebody else in there with them milking disability and you have a semi-comfortable income and free housing all on the taxpayer's dime. There are literally generations of people who have never worked living in the community housing projects here.
Originally Posted by shDK
I would say that voting turnout it a very good way to judge a democracy. If almost half the people who can vote chose not to, or are simply to lazy. You have a bit of a problem.
This is where perspective is important. Your population is less than the GTA here in Ontario by 1 million people. Your entire power needs could be easily met by a single nuclear power plant. Your land mass could fit inside Nova Scotia, our 2nd smallest province, which has a population of less than a million people. You have 10x the population density but a fraction of the overall population. It's far easier to encourage and maintain participation in something like voting when your entire voting base is less than many US cities.
It is a major misunderstanding that you receive anything from the state simply because you don't wan't to work. It simply doesn't work that way. If the state believe you can work. You will be forced to work for your social welfare.
This system is easily exploited, and well known to be here in Canada. We have career welfares who simply need to demonstrate that they are "looking" for employment (without actually finding it) and they will continue to be subsidized by the system, put up in public housing with their utility costs covered...etc. Also, since you get more money the more kids you have, these folk tend to have a number of children to capitalize on those benefits. You get somebody else in there with them milking disability and you have a semi-comfortable income and free housing all on the taxpayer's dime. There are literally generations of people who have never worked living in the community housing projects here.
Originally Posted by shDK
I would say that voting turnout it a very good way to judge a democracy. If almost half the people who can vote chose not to, or are simply to lazy. You have a bit of a problem.
This is where perspective is important. Your population is less than the GTA here in Ontario by 1 million people. Your entire power needs could be easily met by a single nuclear power plant. Your land mass could fit inside Nova Scotia, our 2nd smallest province, which has a population of less than a million people. You have 10x the population density but a fraction of the overall population. It's far easier to encourage and maintain participation in something like voting when your entire voting base is less than many US cities.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted by StevieC
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by maxdustington
I have an AR-15 but no where to shoot it, or any of my guns other than far away locations or a range. It's a daily background check for me, having guns in Canada is a precarious privilege. There were shootings here in Toronto this summer, and the mayor tried to ban handguns and "handgun ammunition" which means ALL ammunition. We're getting to the point in Toronto where the police and government are too PC to racially profile, but won't trust us to carry guns to protect ourselves. They just want to throw police overtime at it to look like they are doing something. Our media and politicians are all anti gun except a recently formed federal party and the election is a year away. Toronto was a nice safe city until the population exploded, now children are getting shot like dogs in the streets. All anyone wants to do is virtue signal, deflecting the blame by grabbing legally owned guns. I think most people are waking up and beginning to understand what the problem really is, but dissent is still silenced even after recent humiliating defeats at the polls in Ontario and most recently Quebec.
Yup, see my earlier post in case you missed it.
Your point about the AR-15 is why I don't own one and likely why I'll buy an XCR or something else instead. I can't stand the idea of not being able to just go out to the country and target shoot when I have the time with friends.
I have since traveled to the U.S. for business and shopping trips and I notice that I get asked more frequently both by US customs and Canada Customs upon re-entry if there is any firearms, ammunition on-board. Is that the same for you? Just curious. I've also been pulled in for a "random" secondary inspection twice out of 15 trips where I hadn't ever been before and I have always declared everything all the time. (Not worth fooling around)
Nope, never an issue. But I have a visa, so that may be a contributing factor.
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by maxdustington
I have an AR-15 but no where to shoot it, or any of my guns other than far away locations or a range. It's a daily background check for me, having guns in Canada is a precarious privilege. There were shootings here in Toronto this summer, and the mayor tried to ban handguns and "handgun ammunition" which means ALL ammunition. We're getting to the point in Toronto where the police and government are too PC to racially profile, but won't trust us to carry guns to protect ourselves. They just want to throw police overtime at it to look like they are doing something. Our media and politicians are all anti gun except a recently formed federal party and the election is a year away. Toronto was a nice safe city until the population exploded, now children are getting shot like dogs in the streets. All anyone wants to do is virtue signal, deflecting the blame by grabbing legally owned guns. I think most people are waking up and beginning to understand what the problem really is, but dissent is still silenced even after recent humiliating defeats at the polls in Ontario and most recently Quebec.
Yup, see my earlier post in case you missed it.
Your point about the AR-15 is why I don't own one and likely why I'll buy an XCR or something else instead. I can't stand the idea of not being able to just go out to the country and target shoot when I have the time with friends.
I have since traveled to the U.S. for business and shopping trips and I notice that I get asked more frequently both by US customs and Canada Customs upon re-entry if there is any firearms, ammunition on-board. Is that the same for you? Just curious. I've also been pulled in for a "random" secondary inspection twice out of 15 trips where I hadn't ever been before and I have always declared everything all the time. (Not worth fooling around)
Nope, never an issue. But I have a visa, so that may be a contributing factor.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted by shDK
I am sure your facts are right. But i fail to se why that should keep people from voting. Even though we are such a small country. We can vote by mail. I assume you can do the same.
I think our voter turnout is higher than the US; most recent Provincial election here in Ontario had a turnout of 58%, last Federal election was 68.5%. But we also have fewer ghettos. Demographic-wise, you have groups that don't vote. If they comprise a significant portion of your population, you end up with lower voter turnout. This can be rural folk who feel their voice doesn't matter, which is an issue in both Canada and the US due to the size of the countries, or elderly who can't navigate the process of doing it through other means and are physically unable to make it to a polling station, which again, relates to geography and demographics. It could be native groups that are disenfranchised with the idea of any administration or Mennonites that don't participate.
I would expect voting turnout to be higher in a very dense physically small country with perhaps a less diverse demographic, than one that is more sparsely populated with disparate clusters of population of varying sizes.
I am sure your facts are right. But i fail to se why that should keep people from voting. Even though we are such a small country. We can vote by mail. I assume you can do the same.
I think our voter turnout is higher than the US; most recent Provincial election here in Ontario had a turnout of 58%, last Federal election was 68.5%. But we also have fewer ghettos. Demographic-wise, you have groups that don't vote. If they comprise a significant portion of your population, you end up with lower voter turnout. This can be rural folk who feel their voice doesn't matter, which is an issue in both Canada and the US due to the size of the countries, or elderly who can't navigate the process of doing it through other means and are physically unable to make it to a polling station, which again, relates to geography and demographics. It could be native groups that are disenfranchised with the idea of any administration or Mennonites that don't participate.
I would expect voting turnout to be higher in a very dense physically small country with perhaps a less diverse demographic, than one that is more sparsely populated with disparate clusters of population of varying sizes.
You do make some good point to why certain parts of a population chose not to vote, don't have faith in democracy or simply don't care.
But when large parts of a population are not listened to..it is a weakness in an election, and therefore a problem in a functioning democracy. You cannot argue against that.
But when large parts of a population are not listened to..it is a weakness in an election, and therefore a problem in a functioning democracy. You cannot argue against that.
- Status
Similar threads
