r/canadaguns • u/ywurfingglope • Jun 11 '26
Shitpost / Memes The Canadian government has their priorities messed up as usual.
94
u/mdl686 Jun 11 '26
Disarming honest people is exactly in line with the canadian governments priorities.
2
Jun 11 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
10
10
u/Dartmouth-Hermit Jun 11 '26
Judeo-capitalist? What are you even talking about? Try saying the same thing without the antisemitic dog whistle.
2
u/canadaguns-ModTeam Jun 11 '26
In accordance with the subreddit rules, your post/comment has been removed for the following reason:
[1] Disrespectful/Insulting or Hateful Comments Civility, courtesy, and politeness, is expected within this subreddit. A post or comment may be removed if it's considered in violation of Reddit's RULES, Reddiquette, and User Agreement.
Using negative generalizations on persons based upon their backgrounds, ethnicity, gender, or appearance is subject to comment removal and a possible ban from the subreddit. Keep comments directed at actions, not at individuals.
Racism, bigotry, intolerance, or otherwise extremist posts/comments/behaviour WILL NOT BE TOLERATED in this subreddit. Users doing so will be permanently banned from the subreddit.
4
u/Carsidious32 Jun 11 '26
While spending 25+ billion on the Ukraine, then begin making war weapons for them, then say they want peace, and disarm their own people... no war has ever been fought on soil that isnt worth while. Trump tried to get Greenland; why? Does he know something we don't? Probably. The REAL war IMO will be fought in manitoba/ontario mostly, where all the fresh water is... it'll be devastating. But thats just my esoteric warning...
19
16
Jun 11 '26
[deleted]
11
u/NeruLight Jun 11 '26
Lol that’s a funny idea!! Yeah, what if it’s actually ZERO , can you imagine?
11
u/FishAye5 Jun 11 '26
Of currently armed Canadians: who would defend Canada and who would be a fifth columnist? I think I would prefer every Canadian was armed to assuage my own doubts.
20
u/NeruLight Jun 11 '26
The people on r/canadaguns arguing against firearm ownership are absolutely melting my brain today
2
3
u/BotherTight618 Jun 12 '26
Yea, the delusional narcissistic ramblings of the re+ard in chief is not going to be a threat in any timeline. Canada's is going to be safe as sound. Behined Trump is over a dozen different puppet masters and special interest groups and none of them have any interest in adding Canadian sovereign territory to the US.
3
191
Jun 11 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
104
u/rastamasta45 Jun 11 '26
That’s the craziest part, criminals got reduced to no sentencing, bail is now guaranteed even for violent offenders but law abiding gun owners (huge portion is police and military) are the ones looking at 10 years in prison.
Not to mention eroding national unity with 2.5 million Canadians because the system baked in ripping them off. The lpc is a greater threat to canada than the Americans.
28
u/SelppinEvolI Jun 11 '26
This is the plan not the side affect.
Step 1) show criminal/gang activity as justification to ban some guns
Step 2) undermine public safety by reducing sentences and underfunding the police gang enforcement.
Step 3) repeat from the beginning until all legal guns are gone
24
30
u/No-Contribution-6150 Jun 11 '26
They justify it by just bleating out "Pierre would be worse" without any further rationale or justification. And then it's all good.
12
26
u/rastamasta45 Jun 11 '26
Don’t forget, blame Harper as well….11 years later they’re still blaming him
29
u/theoncomingstorms Jun 11 '26
as a lefty, I also agree, liberalism (which serves corpos who would rather see a disarmed, subservient populous) is indeed very cringe
12
u/Lord_Stetson Jun 11 '26
When Thomas Jefferson and Karl Marx agree on something it is worth taking notes.
11
u/Yamaganto_Iori Jun 11 '26
The fact that the gun buy back bill and a bill reducing sentencing for multiple crimes done with an illegal firearm were passed in the same week is one of those things that makes my brain hurt.
0
15
1
u/canadaguns-ModTeam Jun 12 '26
In accordance with the subreddit rules, your post/comment has been removed for the following reason:
[1] Disrespectful/Insulting or Hateful Comments Civility, courtesy, and politeness, is expected within this subreddit. A post or comment may be removed if it's considered in violation of Reddit's RULES, Reddiquette, and User Agreement.
Using negative generalizations on persons based upon their backgrounds, ethnicity, gender, or appearance is subject to comment removal and a possible ban from the subreddit. Keep comments directed at actions, not at individuals.
Racism, bigotry, intolerance, or otherwise extremist posts/comments/behaviour WILL NOT BE TOLERATED in this subreddit. Users doing so will be permanently banned from the subreddit.
-3
u/Armox Jun 11 '26
Liberalism is a mental illness.
Like saying democracy is a mental illness because democratic party derives it's name from it.
5
u/IndependentNinja1465 Jun 11 '26
Democracy is a form of government.. liberalism is a political stance for a group of people who are mentally retarded
7
u/Armox Jun 11 '26
You have no idea what you're talking about.
Liberalism is a political philosophy that is centuries old. It is responsible for:
-representative legislatures
-separation of powers (executive, legislature, judiciary)
-separation of church & state
-civil liberties (freedom of speech, press, religion, association)
-rule of law
-2
u/IndependentNinja1465 Jun 11 '26
Oh i absolutely do and complete agree with your statement above.
For centuries liberals create the problems (conditions) for societal changes... after a bunch of people DIE... conservative pragmatism come back and try to legislate a seemingly fair compromise for future liberals to shit all over again in 20 years
6
u/Armox Jun 11 '26
That's a new one. Did you know that liberalism began as a reaction to the Catholics & Protestants slaughtering each other all over Europe? Hence separation of private and public sphere. Separation of church and state. And if I had to guess the ones doing the killing were probably more conservative than progressive.
Anyways your whole premise is false. You're still speaking from a paradigm where liberalism = progressivism and therefore in opposition to conservatism. But that's not true. One can have a conservative disposition and still support liberalism.
Also, be honest, by "conservative pragmatism" do you really mean fascism?
→ More replies (1)0
u/IndependentNinja1465 Jun 11 '26
And likewise one can have a liberal disposition and support conservatism ( because i have aspirations for my children beyond....nothing, just nothing man)
AND END UP BEING CALLED A NAZI ANYWAYS
1
u/Armox Jun 11 '26
Hey no judgment Just that the things you're saying would make a lot more sense if you were in fact a fascist. Otherwise it's quite confused.
0
-2
-1
u/madbuilder Jun 11 '26
It's not the "safest" group whatever that means. It's the only group capable of defending themselves.
13
u/Yamaganto_Iori Jun 11 '26
Legal gun owners have an all crime probability rate that is half that of the average population. Statistically legal gun owners are the safest people in the country.
2
u/madbuilder Jun 11 '26
We JUST watched legal gun owners become illegal overnight. Why do you think that reducing crime is the goal of criminalizing legal gun owners?
If they wanted to reduce crime they'd go after criminals.
3
u/Yamaganto_Iori Jun 11 '26
That's cause the goal is to disarm the people who would fight back. I'm not disagreeing with that, I'm pointing out that legal owners are the safest people in the country.
1
u/Rick_bo Jun 11 '26
Look at it this way; if I go out to get a class 1 driving licence to drive semis, I am definitely going to be more cautious about breaking traffic laws because that's now a $10k license.
Would you rather be driving beside someone that can't see their wing mirrors through the trash in the front seat, or a commercial driver off-duty?
0
u/madbuilder Jun 11 '26
I think you have this notion that the government's interested in some ill-defined notion of public safety. No. They want the populace disarmed and controlled so that they won't have opposition to their rule. That is why they go after the people who've told them they are armed. To say anything else is to believe in over-complicated conspiracy theories.
1
u/Rick_bo Jun 11 '26
I'm saying legal gun owners have more respect for the laws surrounding firearms because they have more on the line. They are less likely to commit violent crimes because it means they will likely lose their collection; making them a "safer group".
4
u/madbuilder Jun 11 '26
I hear you. It's obvious that people who follow gun laws are safer than people who break the law.
→ More replies (2)-14
Jun 11 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
10
u/mangobludden Jun 11 '26
Yeah they are actually
1
u/elementmg Jun 11 '26
Whats it like having an ego so inflated that everyone who doesn’t agree with you is mentally ill?
Honestly, that sounds like an illness in of itself.
9
u/FromDeepestFathom Jun 11 '26
If it said fascism is a mental illness would you say the same thing?
Centralist, or slight leans either way, are the only political models that fucking even remotely make sense. And Trudeau/poly were/are VERY much not even fucking close to center.
And to make it clear because people tend to be unable to read coherently and discuss politics at the same time (blinded by random rage?): the far right is bad also.
-1
u/elementmg Jun 11 '26
So you’re equating Canadian politics to communism if your question to me is asking about fascism?
lol goofy
1
u/FromDeepestFathom Jun 11 '26
Holy fuck you must be an Olympic long jumper! Cause that’s a CRAZY giant leap you just took.
I am making no such equation, I simply asked if you would have said the same thing if it was about fascism. What if it was communism instead, if that makes you happier?
The point is far left and far right politics make no sense in the real world in either case, and to be completely honest, if you think one or the other would work out, maybe mentally ill is an apt term.
→ More replies (3)
6
55
u/ivanlarav Jun 11 '26
No matter how many guns are in the hands of the public, we wouldn’t stand a chance against modern U.S. military equipment and warfare. Come on.
But also never gonna happen.
52
u/Spydude84 Jun 11 '26
Canada's conventional forces would get rolled over in a day. If the government had built a society with a strong, independent people and let them have arms and freedom, the Americans would likely be fighting guerilla resistance for 5-20 years before they gave up and went back home.
As it is, the government has made people soft and reliant. Those most willing and capable to suffer hardships for independence in the above model now trust their government the least as it has been actively antagonistic to them and their way of life, and are more open to the alternative option the Americans present.
20
u/Iokua_CDN Jun 11 '26
What I've always seen it as is this.
We wouldn't be fighting off the Invaders with our popguns, true.
But armed citizens are much harder to control than unarmed citizens. And if we were ever invaded, by anyone, I want to have guns available. Just in case a bunch of soldiers decide to spend their time looting or having their fun with the citizens on their off time.
What we saw from Ukrane is plenty of murder and assault of citizens in Russian invaded areas. I means, stuff like that has been going on, likely in every war since the beginning of time. I want to make sure I have guns in case that situation is ours.
Fighting off an army isn't likely but shooting a drunk soldier or two that wants to hurt your wife or daughter or son is a real threat. You'll likely have to flee after that, bit it's better than the alternative of just standing there and doing nothing.
→ More replies (1)1
u/Nilotaus Jun 16 '26
What we saw from Ukrane is plenty of murder and assault of citizens in Russian invaded areas. I means, stuff like that has been going on, likely in every war since the beginning of time. I want to make sure I have guns in case that situation is ours.
This is why I firmly believe that the U.N. is practically enabling genocide with their 2030 mandate. Hell Russia only had the balls to even think about invading Ukraine after they voluntarily gave up their nuclear weapons.
There will still be arms. There will still be arms production. There will still be corrupt ranking forces members or even arms producers themselves looking to make an extra dime. There will still be nefarious types seeking out those arms for their own ill-intentions.
"Never again" my ass.
17
u/Yamaganto_Iori Jun 11 '26
All the Americans have to do to beat the average Canadian is turn off the Wi-Fi. We have grown that soft.
9
u/IndependentNinja1465 Jun 11 '26
Yeah.. maybe in 1895, today we'd all be begging for hot food and a dry bed after about a day..
Have you ever been camping mate??
22
u/rudthedud Jun 11 '26
Right because the Tabian was defeated by the US and the Viet Cong? The US hasn't beaten an opponent for a long time. Look at Iran they can't even beat them.
Yes they can cause damage but beat Candians, no way.
10
u/Dartmouth-Hermit Jun 11 '26
Do you know how to build an IED or a culvert bomb? Because I don't.
15
9
u/Iokua_CDN Jun 11 '26
I remember someone on the main Canada sub telling me that they would make molotov cocktails and be a freedom fighter if we were invaded. I replied something along the lines of "You know, doing that would be even more effective if you had a gun. Not just bottles and gasoline. And likely you'd live a bit longer since you don't need to be I'm throwing range of them."
3
u/Nilotaus Jun 24 '26 edited Jun 24 '26
"Drone" this, "Drone" that...
I'm pretty sure I can find combat footage of drone teams on both sides of the Russian invasion of Ukraine getting wiped from SOF teams infiltrating behind the front lines because the sentry either did a shit job or just got unlucky in not spotting the intruders in time.
When the country that has pioneered drone combat still issues their pilots with guns & armour, that's a message practically being shouted from the rooftops.
Also, did you show them the photos of the aftermath of a saboteur attempting to take out a Russian bmp in a convoy with a molotov, only to be shredded by canon fire?
3
u/Iokua_CDN Jun 24 '26
I should have! And great point on arming the drone pilots because they are in the middle of the conflict too, not safe and cozy far away
1
u/RGundy17 Jun 12 '26
Do you think those were commonly-taught skills in Vietnam or Afghanistan before their wars?
10
u/gamercast1337 Jun 11 '26
Yes they would beat canadians, because we have no reason to fight besides a very tiny group. Its the will to keep fighting that lead to the viet cong, taliban and others to win agaisnt the Americans. That, and the sheer distance away making it seem like a "we are sending our boys to die in literal fuvking whoville ".
Why would PAL owners fight for the Canadian government? So they can get taxed to death? Have their rights taken away? Live under a government that hates them? Ask yourself that about any group of people and no one would fight cor this government besides invalids and the elderly, if they actually wanted to uphold their luxury beliefs.
You can go die in a A10 CAS "kill a mf" runs in the hills of fuckville-river Ontario idgaf. i, like most people of this nation have a renters mindset now because there is nothing holding us to this self-sabotaging shithole of a nation. We have no ties to this nation, we reason to support it since it actively oppresses us or makes our lives miserable.
So tell me why exactly I should fight for it? And dont day nationalism or patriotism because thats muh evil maple maga!!
-6
u/NeruLight Jun 11 '26
Reading this diatribe is very much a “you should leave then” moment
9
u/gamercast1337 Jun 11 '26
If you want to die for a government that actually hates your existence, go ahead. Im not going to fight for a nation that has been passing non stop authoritarian bills while simultaneously lowering minimums / getting rid of them for criminals, while also at the same time kneecapping itself economically so more and more people turn to crime to be able to live.
→ More replies (4)21
u/Armed_Accountant Whoever wants to touch my guns has to touch me first. Jun 11 '26
The Taliban were, and are, ultra ideologically driven and highly protective of their native lands. Theyve been fighting for centuries and know how to live off the land.
We, spoiled fat Canadians, who already hate our country won't last a week without McD. And all it'll take is doing what the Nazis did when an uprising happens - start punishing civilians harshly and publicly.
26
u/PteSoupSandwich The 10/22 Dude Jun 11 '26 edited Jun 11 '26
One thing no one mentions is ... the number of casualties on the Vietnamese and Taliban side. Sure, the US lost Vietnam, but they inflicted 840k to 1.1 million casualties; I dont think the average Canadian has the stomach for those kind of losses.
8
u/Saskatchewan-Man sk Jun 11 '26 edited Jun 11 '26
Our kids and grandkids might get pretty motivated once a bunch of their family is killed or interned indefinitely though.
5
u/PteSoupSandwich The 10/22 Dude Jun 11 '26
I bet if they were promised a house and/or a job that pays a living wage, a lot more would be pretty motivated.
8
u/Natural_Comparison21 Jun 11 '26
That ain’t the point of Guerrilla warfare. Let me put it to you this way. Imagine a pro MMA fighter is about to throw hands with a average guy who has next to none or completely zero fighting experience. Sure the MMA fighter is going to kick the shit out of the guy but let’s say that for every hit and kick the MMA fighter does that only makes the average guy more angry and more driven to keep fighting. Which he might not physically get that many hits in but when he does it’s embarrassing as hell for the MMA fighter. As you just let a nobody average dude hurt you. It’s also very resource draining for the MMA fighter. Compared to the average guy who is fighting for his life.
Now is Canada that average guy? No. We largely do not have the will power to stomach that many hits and kicks.
7
9
u/rudthedud Jun 11 '26
Things change very quickly, yes we a generation that has not been forced into war. But people adapt and can put up one hell of a fight when they want to. Have you met northern folk they will be the ones leading that shit.
11
u/FromDeepestFathom Jun 11 '26
Half the north is pissed enough at their own government absolutely dog fucking them for the last decade+ that they’d welcome an invasion lol
7
u/Yamaganto_Iori Jun 11 '26
I've said it a thousand times and I'll say it a million more: the USA removes a lot of Canadian firearms owners from the fight by promising second amendment rights when they're finished. It may not stop people from fighting but a lot of gun owners are gonna question why would they fight for a government that hates them.
9
u/FromDeepestFathom Jun 11 '26
Even just actual rights in general. Yknow like the right to defend your actual LIFE, the right to own property, etc. we have fuck all up here.
3
u/Murray3-Dvideos Jun 11 '26
Id argue they could if it really came down to it. The US hasn't fought a war since WW2 where its existence was actually threatened. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan were essentially Gov pet projects.
9
u/Tone-knee Jun 11 '26
The Taliban was funded, supported and trained
If you think some people with rifles and a 30 round mag are going to make a difference against CAS/Artillery/Mortars etc you are very much mistaken
The Taliban lost huge portions of a shooting war, they had people travelling internationally to join them which kept numbers up. Speak to CAN/US/UK veterans if you think that wasn't a thing.
The lack of a political goal is what lost Afghanistan, there was no long term plan, the military would come fight, swap teams and fight some more. So the opposition just waited everyone out.
8
u/Apologetic-Moose Jun 11 '26
The Taliban was funded, supported and trained
The average person in this sub has better training than the Taliban, come off it.
The Taliban lost huge portions of a shooting war
Insurgencies don't win shooting wars against the most powerful military in human history. They win wars of attrition against enemies who are inept at nation-building in occupied countries - which is essentially everyone. The foundation of a robust insurgency is that it cannot be defeated with violence alone. The only way to actually succeed in a COIN operation is to turn the populace against the insurgents, which is extremely difficult for a foreign occupying force to achieve.
If you think some people with rifles and a 30 round mag are going to make a difference against CAS/Artillery/Mortars etc you are very much mistaken
If you think the threat of small arms behind every blade of grass won't make an occupation extremely difficult for a country that has to supply CAS/arty across 10 million square kilometres of hostile territory while dealing with a restless domestic population, then you're the one who's mistaken here.
1
u/Tone-knee Jun 11 '26
Honestly, you think the Taliban didn't have tiers of training?
How confident are you that a neighbor would be able to create some low metal content IEDs, or cook up some TATP without destroying half the block they live in.
The other portion you miss is the ideology, Canadians aren't used to living in the level of discomfort that was rife in Afghanistan, they aren't motivated to the same level. You might have an idea of how to run an insurgency from watching Red Dawn, but sure as shit hardly anyone else does.
Oh, and depending on how they chose to fight COIN, you will find the few which worked were from an unyielding use of violence. It doesn't work when you make people thing good vs bad, more it works when you make people scared to reach out and support.
Above all this is performative nonsense, the same as any LCpl on guard thinks about when he is bored at 2am.
If you think the US is going to turn and attack a NATO ally, you are every bit as deluded as the far right.
4
u/Apologetic-Moose Jun 11 '26
Honestly, you think the Taliban didn't have tiers of training?
Have you seen their "special forces?" If you're even going to try to claim they have training beyond what civilian Canadians have access to, you're either out of your depth or smoking some real good shit.
How confident are you that a neighbor would be able to create some low metal content IEDs, or cook up some TATP without destroying half the block they live in.
About as confident as I am in the Taliban doing so. More, even, given the number of qualified chemists in Canada is likely exponentially higher and the average education level is similarly disproportionate.
The other portion you miss is the ideology, Canadians aren't used to living in the level of discomfort that was rife in Afghanistan, they aren't motivated to the same level.
The same way all of Europe wasn't used to living with the strife that the Troubles or WWII or the Balkans conflicts brought, and yet partisans persisted nonetheless. There will always be some degree of insurgency whenever a foreign country invades a functioning sovereign nation, even if that only involves passive sabotage in the best case scenario.
Oh, and depending on how they chose to fight COIN, you will find the few which worked were from an unyielding use of violence.
A basic knowledge of political science would demonstrate that most successful COIN approaches centre around security assurances and meaningful quality of life improvements to the recruiting base of the insurgency. The only time overwhelming violence "works" against counterinsurgency is by employing literal genocide. I hope you see why I'm not counting that as a likely possibility. Further, Israel has been flattening Gaza, a tiny strip of land, for nearly 3 years now, and yet Hamas still exists. That directly contradicts your argument.
If you think the US is going to turn and attack a NATO ally, you are every bit as deluded as the far right.
A) Please read back to me again where I said I thought the US was going to suddenly attack a NATO ally. Every statement I made applies just as much to any other invading nation, if not more so.
B) Trump is actively removing the US from NATO actions in Europe, which is the continent NATO was originally built around defending. Everything he does telegraphs a reduced involvement in NATO, he's threatening NORAD, he's threatening NAFTA/CUSMA, he's just causing a whole lot of bullshit for no good reason. He is not someone we can rely on.
Do I think Trump is likely to invade Canada? No, I think his dogshit diet will catch up to him sooner than later. But I do believe there is a possibility that a future, more hostile US, or whoever succeeds the current iteration of the US as a global hegemon, poses a real threat to the freedom of Canadians. And also I believe the only way to adequately defend ourselves against such an event is to take the Swiss approach.
3
u/HungryFollowing8909 Jun 11 '26
You wanna know a really important factor in why it was so difficult for americans in each of those situations?
Here's a hint: Giant bodies of fucking water.
0
u/Otherwise_Rub_9515 Jun 11 '26
Buddy they could bomb us into oblivion without stepping foot on our soil.
7
4
u/Rippin_Fat_Farts Jun 11 '26
At the rate they're burning through missile over in the desert rn we probably have a good decade to figure out our shit
5
u/ivanlarav Jun 11 '26
Just wishful thinking, my man.
4
u/Rippin_Fat_Farts Jun 11 '26
As you said, it'll never happen.
More likely they'll have a civil war before they try to takeover Canada with force.
4
u/mangobludden Jun 11 '26
That's why we need nuclear weapons lol, why the hell should we follow the NPT anyways?
6
u/NeruLight Jun 11 '26
The problem with needing nuclear weapons is if we tried to acquire them the us would probably invade or interfere lol
6
u/mangobludden Jun 11 '26
That is unfortunately true, if only we had the capacity for self-sufficiency. Maybe then we could survive those sanctions
-3
u/ivanlarav Jun 11 '26 edited Jun 11 '26
The only path forward is to elect leaders who are reasonable and willing to sit at the table and compromise. Only then can we find a way to move forward that is fair and beneficial for both countries.
Violence is never the solution and won’t benefit either side. Let’s not forget that our firearms are tools for sport shooting and hunting, not instruments of war or violence.
3
2
u/NeruLight Jun 11 '26
Ahh yeah so Americans don’t need the second amendment either then huh glad to see where you stand lmfao. I guess a us land invasion of Iran is easy as shit too right
1
u/Bulky_Load5312 21d ago
You're right, not because guns aren't effective but because 75% of the population would surrender so they can be liberated from the Canadian government. 😂😂😂
-1
9
5
u/JrSpesh Jun 12 '26
US Invasion? The public doing the fighting? Too many people fantasizing being a hero
3
u/Ok_Pipe6417 Jun 11 '26
Isn't it both? Didn't some of the military eggheads state that using the civilian population is our best hope of defending against an on the ground invasion at our borders?
33
u/Funny-Quantity-6865 Jun 11 '26
Can we stop with the US invasion? It is never going to happen.
20
u/NeruLight Jun 11 '26
On a long enough timeline some Americans have, historically, disagreed with that sentiment. Also try to appreciate that venezuela’s 75 million AKs is at least a factor in US military planning. Im not saying the Usa couldn’t rush just about any country, but it’s a -factor- for sure.
1
u/Iokua_CDN Jun 11 '26
Like I'd hope America wouldn't invade us in our lifetime. But I certainly have seen enough to worry. It's felt like the US was been probing and feeling out what it can accomplish. Speaking loudly of forcing Canada to join the US, or taking over Greenland was met with resistance by the world, especially Europe. Attacking Venezuela and Iran, and indirectly Attacking Cuba was met with not so much resistance.
I fully believe, if they didn't have resistance from Europe for taking over Greenland and Canada, they would do it. Instead they've targeted countries with less agreeable governments so that other countries don't intervene. Someday that might not be the case though.
3
u/NeruLight Jun 11 '26
You are very correct in pointing out that the loud European objections are a factor. I think the armchair generals all downplay the significance of small arms in influencing military planning. A million Basij are absolutely a reason the USA isn’t just rolling up on Kharg island, no matter what Trump clowns about. I believe greatly in preparedness for preparedness sake and I reject defeatism. We’re also lucky Trump is so stupid, in some ways.
18
u/LordRevan1996 Jun 11 '26
I think it’s low low chances, but never zero. More likely is simple foreign interference/espionage. Not historically unheard of either, like during the Cold War.
7
u/Iokua_CDN Jun 11 '26
Feels like there is a ton of US interference here in Canada. Our "Independence" groups have basically swapped from wanting to be independent to instead wanting to join US. And a lot if funding for it is coming straight from USA. They might not being invading, but they are certainly Influencing and interfering with us at a much higher rate.
-17
u/Funny-Quantity-6865 Jun 11 '26
It is a zero chance.
16
1
u/Extra-Dimension-276 Jun 11 '26
People thought it was a zero chance hitler would invade the soviet union. There are no absolutes in history.
5
u/airchinapilot Jun 11 '26
Even Stalin knew a war with Hitler was inevitable. He just thought it would come later and was more distrustful of his own internal enemies that he didn't trust his own intelligence.
1
u/LordRevan1996 Jun 11 '26
Even PM king thought Hitler was a man of peace after meeting him. Tho Mackenzie king was an odd duck.
8
u/greendoh Jun 11 '26
As with all asymmetric invasions, you have to think about it this way: From day 1 the entirety of the Canadian military will be destroyed. Expect that. The best approach is to 'let the wave pass' - both civilians and military need to just bleed away. Then the guerilla warfare starts - hit & fade. Canadians are also extremely well equipped to form an effective fifth column within the United States. We look, sound, act just like Americans. Can we shoot down a B2 with a SAM system? Probably not. Can we destroy a B2 on the runway at Whiteman Air Force base with a $50 drone and some explosives? Maybe.
12
u/NeruLight Jun 11 '26
While the Ukrainians were passing out AK-47s these guys would have told them to just surrender .. lol
1
Jun 11 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/canadaguns-ModTeam Jun 11 '26
In accordance with the subreddit rules, your post/comment has been removed for the following reason:
[1] Disrespectful/Insulting or Hateful Comments Civility, courtesy, and politeness, is expected within this subreddit. A post or comment may be removed if it's considered in violation of Reddit's RULES, Reddiquette, and User Agreement.
Using negative generalizations on persons based upon their backgrounds, ethnicity, gender, or appearance is subject to comment removal and a possible ban from the subreddit. Keep comments directed at actions, not at individuals.
Racism, bigotry, intolerance, or otherwise extremist posts/comments/behaviour WILL NOT BE TOLERATED in this subreddit. Users doing so will be permanently banned from the subreddit.
0
8
u/julienjj Jun 11 '26
Yup. And giving each canadian a drone with a grenade mounted on it would be a way stronger deterrant.
It’s really not on the same plane to compare national defense with my hobby.
Both subject are valid, but I kinda just want to enjoy my hobby without gov interferance.
Like they fucking ruined RC plane with newer drone rules, now they are actively fucking with shooting sports. What’s next ? Motorcycles ?
7
5
u/airchinapilot Jun 11 '26
What’s next ? Motorcycles ?
How about going into nature period? There's always some keyboard warrior bemoaning that humans have the audacity going into our Crown land and walking through places where wild animals exist.
2
u/gspotcowboy Jun 12 '26
Motorcycles?
Quebec already tried that by making sport-style motorcycles insanely expensive to insure. This was 20ish years ago but I remember the glut of sport bikes coming out of that province for cheap becauae it was like $2K a year to keep a supersport on the road
7
u/sirdkuyp Jun 11 '26
Could we stop a US invasion if we wanted too? Nope. Give every single person in the country an sks. Does the answer change?
13
u/TeQuila10 Jun 11 '26 edited Jun 11 '26
A successful resistance to a US invasion would look more like the Taliban or the IRA. Guns are going to be less useful than explosives.
4
u/NeruLight Jun 11 '26
This is such a bad take. Your way of thinking is an argument for repealing the US second amendment lmfao.
3
u/sirdkuyp Jun 11 '26
If the argument is about being able to stop a US invasion, we flat out couldn't if we wanted too. Even if everyone had guns it would make no difference.
I don't want the government to take my guns and I fully support the 2nd ammendment in the states.
I'm just saying it wouldn't make a difference. It's not a bad take. It's an opinion that hurts your feels.
1
0
u/sirdkuyp Jun 11 '26
Guess I did hurt you in the feels for you to resort to insults, delete your comment all you want, I still got the notification.
Projection much? I Hope you have the day you deserve.
0
u/NeruLight Jun 11 '26
I deleted the comment because I got a warning. Meanwhile you’re tilting and arguing for disarming the population. I have nothing further to say to you.
1
u/sirdkuyp Jun 11 '26
What are you blathering about.
No where in my post that hurt your feelings did I allude to any of that.
I'm not at all in favor of disarming the population.
I'm not in favor of the government banning weapons.
I just said we wouldn't stand a chance IF the US invaded Canada.
Arming the population would not change that.
Typical close minded, see / hear what you want to see / hear gun owner.
-2
u/mangobludden Jun 11 '26
I wouldn't say stop, but if we had nuclear weapons we could deter them. However, our government are a bunch of cowards so it's not happening
→ More replies (4)0
3
u/eatittt Jun 11 '26
Then they act like they have any chance if the usa ever decided to invade. All because the government cant/wont do sh!t about illegal guns coming into the country and being used in crimes. Way to fall for another game the government plays on you, you cant even fix your doctor's from leaving but let's spend billions that we ALL will br paying for in our rising taxes.
9
u/scotheath Jun 11 '26
Canada is a cartoon country at this point. Can’t even make this shit up any more
2
2
u/lennylenny10 Jun 11 '26
Ive had this convo with my father in law. He thinks America is gonna invade Canada. I said you maybe believe that but our govt doesn't. They are disarming the populous, why would you do that if you're anticipating an invasion?
2
11
u/BertaBeef778 Jun 11 '26
Invasion🚫 Liberation✅️
-6
Jun 11 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
12d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/canadaguns-ModTeam 11d ago
In accordance with the subreddit rules, your post/comment has been removed for the following reason:
[1] Disrespectful/Insulting or Hateful Comments
Civility, courtesy, and politeness, is expected within this subreddit. A post or comment may be removed if it's considered in violation of Reddit's RULES, Reddiquette, and User Agreement.
Using negative generalizations on persons based upon their backgrounds, ethnicity, gender, or appearance is subject to comment removal and a possible ban from the subreddit. Keep comments directed at actions, not at individuals.
Racism, bigotry, intolerance, or otherwise extremist posts/comments/behaviour WILL NOT BE TOLERATED in this subreddit. Users doing so will be permanently banned from the subreddit.
1
u/canadaguns-ModTeam 11d ago
In accordance with the subreddit rules, your post/comment has been removed for the following reason:
[1] Disrespectful/Insulting or Hateful Comments
Civility, courtesy, and politeness, is expected within this subreddit. A post or comment may be removed if it's considered in violation of Reddit's RULES, Reddiquette, and User Agreement.
Using negative generalizations on persons based upon their backgrounds, ethnicity, gender, or appearance is subject to comment removal and a possible ban from the subreddit. Keep comments directed at actions, not at individuals.
Racism, bigotry, intolerance, or otherwise extremist posts/comments/behaviour WILL NOT BE TOLERATED in this subreddit. Users doing so will be permanently banned from the subreddit.
2
u/Blood-Wolfe Jun 12 '26
LOL, I would love to see the US invade out of spite right now (but I know it won't ever happen because I have a brain) because I am pretty sure all gun owners wou;d refuse to fight for a government run by psychos trying to brand us all as criminals. I served in CF (infantry) so I know how to fight, but I would stand down and not get in the way of the US military. The "elbows up" crowd can deal with them lol.
I still can't believe they put that absurd hypothetical plan together though for something we all know will NEVER happen. If they didn't try to disarm us, they'd have over 2 million of us willing to stand up, not the 400,000 or so they put in those plans lol. This government is such a fucking joke!
5
u/EuroTrash_84 Jun 11 '26
If the Americans invade I am putting up the white flag and switching to the winning team.
Why would anyone fight for this garbage ass country?
1
2
u/bigb3nny Jun 11 '26
If the US invades dont bother fighting back lol. The term shooting fish in a barrel comes to mind.
2
u/Blizburn Jun 12 '26
They wouldn't need to invade. The fuck canada gonna do. The entire military is 70k people that's including civilian jobs. Lol. Canadian politicians are so soft they'd be defeated by harsh language.
1
1
u/Windwraith77 Jun 12 '26
Imma be real, the blue button is.... Just going to cause more unnecessary casualties....
Remember, the last few ground conflicts, the US had its hands tied behind its back with some dumb RoE
1
Jun 12 '26 edited Jun 12 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/canadaguns-ModTeam Jun 12 '26
[9] Trolling/Spam/Disruptive Behaviour This subreddit is intended for constructive discussions. Trolling, bad-faith participation, spam, or behaviour intended to provoke, derail, or inflame discussion is not permitted.
This includes, but is not limited to:
Posts or comments made solely to bait, antagonize, or misrepresent others. Repeated off-topic derailment. Posts or comments made solely to bait, antagonize, or misrepresent others • Repeated off-topic derailment • Low-effort inflammatory remarks or drive-by provocations • Repetitive posting, copy-pasted content, or flooding threads • Ban evasion • Publicly arguing moderator decisions within threads
• Users are expected to participate in good faith. Content or behaviour determined to be disruptive may be removed, and users may be temporarily or permanently banned at moderator discretion.
• Accounts flagged by Reddit’s spam filters will have their content automatically removed.
• Accounts less than 30 days old, that have negative karma, or have a history of posting rule breaking content, while also actively engaging in trolling, spam or disruptive behaviour, may without warning, be temporarily or permanently banned at moderator discretion. • Argumentative/fighting/mudslinging comment threads may be subjected to locking or outright removal, if deemed disruptive, at Moderator discretion. In egregious cases, at Moderator discretion, users can even be temporarily or permanently banned. • Please do not engage with the rule breaking content itself. Report the content and let the moderators handle it.
1
u/TyrannasaurusRecht 29d ago
More like groot.
Explain everything clearly, they nod, walk them through logic step by step, they nod, slowly walk them through the options step by step and they confidently pick the wrong one repeatedly.
-7
u/AlbertaFree16 Jun 11 '26
The US can’t and won’t ever invade Canada and I’m really sick of it.
If the US invades Canada they will be in a war with literally the entirety of NATO.
Let’s stop fear mongering
26
u/Some-Ebb-3464 Jun 11 '26
NATO isn’t coming to save Canada if the US invades. There would be some strong outrage, some token gestures, but within time it would be begrudgingly accepted as an acceptable sacrifice to the US’ sphere of influence, and the world would move on. We are on our own, and all it will take is a US leader with the ability to pull it off (not Trump), a semi-plausible casus belli, and we’re there. I expect it in my lifetime. Likely some excuse related to water, energy, minerals, security etc. We were on track to get there (the steady Americanization of everything in Canada, from media, business, culture, etc.) before Trump came and said the quiet part out loud and likely set things back a bit, but he also simultaneously planted the seed out loud into the American public mindset.
If America ever desperately needs water, do you honestly believe 300+ million angry and thirsty Americans will be stopped by convention, good will, and Europe? Delusional if you think so. Manifest destiny is coming for us eventually.
8
u/CloneFailArmy Jun 11 '26
Europe doesn’t have logistic power to send troops over. They’d be sunk by the US navy.
We have the power to be snow insurgents to make the war unpopular. We could win the same way the Taliban and vietnam won
4
u/gamercast1337 Jun 11 '26
And who exactly would be these insurgents? Who would view the cost benefit analysis of being an American and think "yeah ill get obliterated in a dronestrike over this"? I sure as fuck wouldnt. Im a renter, I will ALWAYS be a renter in this nation, unable to build a life here. Why should I fight for it?
5
u/airchinapilot Jun 11 '26
Both the Taliban and Vietnamese had the benefit of supply chains. Unfortunately, in North America we could only rely on supply by sea or some sort of underground supply from U.S. itself. That last one is an interesting thought exercise to have because if an actual U.S. invasion ever happened the Americans themselves would be in a very harsh state of affairs already.
2
5
u/BaldCobraChicken Jun 11 '26
American militias are better equipped than much of our military. Russian is using non-official fighters in Ukraine as to not break the law by using its proper military forces
2
u/mangobludden Jun 11 '26
NATO won't do anything, they aren't obligated to help Canada. They won't gain anything from it either, most of NATO are just minions of America. Even if they did help, it wouldn't be much since most of them lack the capability to conduct expeditionary warfare with the exception of the UK and France. Those are the only two that could do something but still, NATO at most would just issue a strong worded statement since they wouldn't dare go against their master.
4
u/Kromo30 Jun 11 '26
US and Canada are both nato members.
NATO requires everyone to respond to wars between a member and non member.
But it does not require anyone to respond to a war between members.
Get your facts straight before spewing.
-1
u/Funny-Quantity-6865 Jun 11 '26
I say anyone that still says this line of the US invading Canada is most likely a Liberal.
4
u/Some-Ebb-3464 Jun 11 '26
And I say anyone who dismisses the possibility of the US invading at some point is just a conservative who deep down really wants it to happen and is in denial of that reality, or hopes that by dismissing it as possible helps keep Canada underprepared for it.
I imagine many neighbours of Ancient Rome had people just like you walking around. “The Romans? The bloodthirsty, world conquering, war-as-culture menace? No, they won’t invade us, we have trade relations with them, we’re the lucky ones!”
When an empire runs out of people to conquer, it looks inward and collapses. It very well may come to it that America invades us merely to stave off civil strife. We are not immune to the gaze of the American war machine, and history shows us that we are in extreme peril.
→ More replies (6)3
0
u/mangobludden Jun 11 '26
Canada is literally a resource colony with no sovereignty unfortunately, only a matter of time before the American's annex us. Also I am NOT a liberal, I am a leftist.
-5
1
u/Terrible-Possible471 Jun 11 '26
At this point you better off being a criminal. More options, no taxes, special treatment, every now and then you go to jail for vacation on taxpayer dime. Is being a low abiding citizen even worth it any more?
1
u/Sweetchildofmine88 Jun 11 '26
Are we planning on shooting missiles and drones with semi automatic weapons? Some of you really need to get a CT scan to check if your brains are still in there!
1
u/Happyman321 Jun 12 '26
Totally against the banning of weapons but don’t get in your head about defending some kind of US invasion.
-7
u/Intrepid_Pop269 Jun 11 '26
Sorry my Red Dawn fans, none of the guns civilians would own, even under more reasonable gun ownership laws, would do much to halt an invasion by a modern military.
15
20
u/Ok-Target3363 Jun 11 '26
The point isn’t to stop the invasion but to wage the war of the flea .. Afghanistan is the solidified case study
9
u/NeruLight Jun 11 '26
The people who say America could crush us aren’t wrong, I don’t disagree, but that also doesn’t mean you should roll over and -fucking take it- either lmao
1
u/thecoolernameistaken Jun 11 '26
This is such a dumb ass delusional take. Afghanis grew up around war and harsh conditions. They had experience in combat with the Russian invasion. Your average Canadian is overweight or obese, doesn’t have any experience outside of a major city, lives within an hour of the border and more important does not have the firearm logistics to handle so much as a skirmish.
But go ahead and lead le resistance with your busted ass wk180
10
u/mr_cake37 Jun 11 '26
I don't think anyone rationally thinks armed Canadian civilians could stop the US military. I think what they're getting at is that the US would handily win the war, but they'd never win the peace as long as the populace could resist. There's plenty of recent historical examples to back that up.
11
u/mangobludden Jun 11 '26
Even if we did, to conduct guerilla warfare we need popular support. The problem is that most of our population are mindfucked goycattle who only care about their 9-5 and netflix.
-1
-1
73
u/FailedCoder86 Jun 11 '26
Did they ban something else?