[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
…I might suggest you try Canada first…
[/quote]
I would tend to agree. I believe many and I mean many folks should try Canada first.
Not necessarily saying the OP should, however. He sounds like the kind of immigrant we should welcome. He would probably eventually learn that the US did not stay out of both world wars; the Marshall Plan cost 103 billion in today’s dollars which deserves more than “Yeah, that is good but…;” what an “insane interest rate” really is.
Wouldn’t you agree?
[/quote]
Push, you’ve spent some time in Canada. Don’t know which part, but from what I hear, there’s really not much difference between, say, Ontario and Ohio, Alberta and Idaho, or Vancouver, Washington and Vancouver, British Columbia. What were the major differences you encountered, beside the obvious lack of an unambiguous, unalienable second-amendment guaranteed right to keep and bear arms?
[/quote]
They have a nanny state in many respects. The US does too but in different ways. They are more repressive in First Amendment rights (as per the America’s First Amendment rights).
Alberta is definitely the exception in terms of the general outlook on life that its people have. They tend to detest much of their federal government as well as their progressive provincial brethren. I get along very well with Albertans.
They are a much smaller country, population wise (about the same or less as California but spread out among the planet’s second largest land area) so they have not had as many social problems as the US. They’ve also greatly benefited, as has Europe, from having the US taxpayer defend it so they do not have to nail their taxpayers in that respect. Their cost of freedom has been borne by their big southern brother. That frees up a lot of dough.
But the Second Amendment deal is a big one. They would behave like sheep if invaded by a foreign power or were taken over internally by a tyrannical government; they’d have no choice.
I do like Canadians. Have done business in BC, Alberta and Ontario. They are good people although I do believe (and many of them do too) they’ve overdone it on the immigration issue. They are losing their national identity in some respects due to a virtual open border to all who want to come. They have not been careful enough in who they’ve admitted. Ask them. They’ll tell you the same thing, I bet.[/quote]
Thanks. That was a good, thoughtful answer.
I wonder, though, if those differences you identified won’t narrow progressively as the years pass, as government surveillance and gun control in the United States continue to rear their ugly heads.
And really, what percentage of the American people do you think would actually fight if they were “invaded by a foreign power, or were taken over internally by a tyrannical government”? America has a lot of guns, that’s for sure, and a lot of highly competent people owning them. However, these competent and athletic gun owners are in the overwhelming minority when compared to the broad swath of fatass dumbasses who would behave like the very sheep you say Canadians would turn into.
As for Immigration, I think the Canadians have been pretty fortunate. While we get all the poor, uneducated peasants from Honduras, El Salvador and Mexico, they get all the smart rich people from Hong Kong. Not bad.
For the record (I know you know this, but for those who don’t) the gun laws in Canada do not result in complete or semi-complete bans as in Britain or Australia. Military assault rifles and battle rifles are legal, provided they are not fully automatic, and the barrel length is over 18.5 inches. Also, handguns with a barrel length over 4 inches are legal, but restricted. In 2012 the requirement to register non-restricted weapons as lifted in all provinces except Quebec, which is understandable inasmuch as it is a hotbed of rebel separatists, French people, and Charles Poliquin.