Mastodawn

'Canada, better the 28th EU member than the 51st US state'

https://mander.xyz/post/46887014

'Canada, better the 28th EU member than the 51st US state' - Mander

cross-posted from: https://mander.xyz/post/46886810 [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. > > … > > Archive link [https://archive.ph/LXoVq]

WanderingThoughts Feb 5

Meanwhile USA east and west coast are looking into joining Canada (and EU?) while Trump is looking into convincing Canada’s oil producing provinces to join becoming states.

People wanted change. They’re going to get it. Not the one they voted for probably.

Any US state that wanted to join Canada would have to reckon with the “guns” thing. Even states that align with Canada in most ways still have a lot of gun nuts, even left-leaning gun nuts. Meanwhile, Canada has slowly been tightening already fairly restrictive gun laws. One glance across the border makes Canadians convinced that guns just escalate problems, they don’t solve them.

ohshit604 Feb 5

Meanwhile, Canada has slowly been tightening already fairly restrictive gun laws.

Tightening them for no good reason, the whole kick-off for the “buyback” program was the 2020 NS mass shooting which wasn’t caused by someone who had a possession and acquisition license or had legally obtained their firearms.

It’s been 6 years on now and firearms owners are on the edge of their seats because the government intends to criminalize hundreds of thousands of people by the end of October.

Everyone knows they’re not to blame for what happened in 2020 hence the major pushback from provinces and police organizations.

For no good reason other than guns lead to deaths. That’s a pretty good reason.

ohshit604 Feb 6

Cars are just as deadly as firearms however, we aren’t going and saying Red Honda Civics cause a larger percentage of injury rates so we’re just going to ban them.

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.

ohshit604 Feb 6

Cars should be much more heavily regulated, IMO.

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.

they have escaped outright bans because they serve a clearly important purpose that’s beneficial to society. A gun doesn’t.

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 who defend their property from varmints don’t serve a purpose to society

Farmers serve a purpose. Guns don’t.

ohshit604 Feb 6

Varmint hunting involves firearms.

Varmint hunting or varminting is the practice of hunting vermin — generally small/medium-sized wild mammals or birds — as a means of pest control, rather than as games for food or trophy.

The term “varminter” may refer to a varmint hunter, or describe the hunting equipments (such as a varmint rifle) either specifically designed or coincidentally suitable for the practice of varmint hunting.

Varmint hunting - Wikipedia

shouldn’t we have access to these same tools?

Do you live in an area where you’re at threat from grizzly bears?

ohshit604 Feb 6

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 with some friends and heard bears all night.

It’s not nearly as uncommon as you think.

if we didn’t have our firearms things could’ve gone ugly.

So, you shot at the bears?

ohshit604 Feb 7

I never said that, not that it matters as it would have been self defence, but to satisfy your need we had shot away from the bears solely to make noise as a show of force and presence.

hence why bear bangers exist

So, you don’t need guns.

ohshit604 Feb 7

Deterrence is not a replacement for defence.

fuck_u_spez_in_particular Feb 7

Bear spray is very effective, probably more so than a gun, if you shit your pants at least at the sight of a bear (but usually it’s the other way around too).

As a European that just shakes his head about Muricas love for kill tools, you don’t need a gun as average person. For rare cases there are strictly regulated permits. But otherwise I’m very glad that I don’t have to fear being shot by MAGAts. Or have basically no school-shooting etc. I sometimes think you’re stuck in the middle age or wild western or something like that…

ohshit604 Feb 7

Bear spray is very effective, probably more so than a gun

No doubt bear spray is effective but there is always a chance the predator does not give a shit and is hungry enough to fight through it.

As a European that just shakes his head about Muricas love for kill tools, you don’t need a gun as average person.

I’m not too sure on Europe’s hunting history however, a lot Canadians still hunt for meat and resources, it’s tradition to a lot of people and has been rooted into our history.

And certain people ultimately have no choice, they live so deep in Canada that getting a grocery store can be hours away.

I sometimes think you’re stuck in the middle age or wild western or something like that…

Everyone has different lives man, I’m sure there are things in your life that others could not relate to.

fuck_u_spez_in_particular Feb 11

No doubt bear spray is effective but there is always a chance the predator does not give a shit and is hungry enough to fight through it.

Do you have any evidence for that, I very much doubt it. For one it’s extremely rare that a (brown/black) bear attacks when they’re hungry. And I doubt there’s even a documented case where it continues to attack after being sprayed in the face. Keep in mind bearspray is pepper-spray on steroids.

So all you have likely done with your gun is kill an otherwise relatively peaceful animal, congratulations…

I’m not too sure on Europe’s hunting history however, a lot Canadians still hunt for meat and resources, it’s tradition to a lot of people and has been rooted into our history.

Although I’m not a big fan of hunting, I think it’s a different situation and it’s also where permits are given - after careful psychological evaluation.

Great tradition hoarding killing tools. I’m really happy I’m not contributing to this “society” of yours (that’s at least with one foot deep into fascism)… USA really managed in no time being a laughing stock to the rest of the world…

Are you going to gamble your life with just a shotgun? The only way to truly be safe from a bear is with a rocket propelled grenade.

Anyhow, the point is you were lying / wrong when you said “if we didn’t have our firearms things could’ve gone ugly”, because you didn’t actually need your firearms, since you didn’t use them, at least not as firearms.

ohshit604 Feb 7

Are you going to gamble your life with just a shotgun?

If it were a life or death situation and I had to pick between bear spray, bear bangers or a 3” slug traveling at 1000 feet per second I will take the slug every time.

because you didn’t actually need your firearms, since you didn’t use them, at least not as firearms.

I fail to understand how you came to this conclusion, firearms serve multiple purpose and in our situation they were to ward off predators which they worked beautifully for such task.

You used them as a noisemaker, so you didn’t need a weapon. You sound like you are treating your gun as a security blanket. It makes you feel good to have it, even if you don’t actually need it. Maybe you cuddle with it, I don’t know.

ohshit604 Feb 8

This argument is getting quite repetitive now.

You used them as a noisemaker,

Yes,

so you didn’t need a weapon

What makes you say that? Regardless of camping I target and clay shoot on my free time as a hobby.

It makes you feel good to have it, even if you don’t actually need it.

I’ll refer you to the many times I mentioned predator defence.

Maybe you cuddle with it, I don’t know.

If I wanted too I legally could. But I don’t.

What makes you say that?

That you only used a noisemaker. This isn’t complicated.

I’ll refer you to the many times I mentioned predator defence

I’ll refer you to the time when you claimed that without your gun you would have been in trouble, when in fact you admitted you only used it as a noisemaker.

ohshit604 Feb 8

That you only used a noisemaker. This isn’t complicated.

It’s not complicated to grasp the idea of self defence either.

I’ll refer you to the time when you claimed that without your gun you would have been in trouble, when in fact you admitted you only used it as a noisemaker.

What difference does it make? We used them as noise makers opposed to firing directly at bears?

I never said them being noisemakers were effective either, I said we had left the area quickly afterwards avoiding the conflict all-together, ultimately the bears were approaching our campsite.