Comments (14) (Please sign in to comment)

1. 

   mikefive said, 10 months ago

   I would not want to be president of a country in a region where political differences are solved by assassination.
2. 

   dtroutma said, 10 months ago

   ^Aurora, Colorado?
3. 

   Radish said, 10 months ago

   JFK, RFK, MLK?
4. 

   MortyForTyrant said, 10 months ago

   Egypt is different. The people love and trust the military. We can not understand this. Everywhere else the military is always a subfunction of government. In Egypt it’s more of a free-standing entity.
5. 

   DrCanuck said, 10 months ago

   @MortyForTyrant

   Oh, Americans love and trust their military also. Which is why they all collect guns to protect themselves against it.
6. 

   MortyForTyrant said, 10 months ago

   @DrCanuck

   Naaah, they’re just afraid of the black helicopters (which, somehow, are always “Government” but never “Military”). That’s what you get for using cheap, thin tin-foil for your hat…
7. 

   Jeff Kiser said, 10 months ago

   @DrCanuck

   Yes, the idea of a revolution for freedom from Great Britian or anyone else deemed a tyrant can best be done without guns, and it makes so much sense….. to Canadians
8. 

   Jeff Kiser said, 10 months ago

   @Radish

   JFK, lone commie gunman, hardly a political party. RFK, suprise surprise, Sirhan Sirhan, which political party did he represent? Martin Luther King, killed by a democrat, but did that democrat represent the beliefs of the party? I would be afraid to hash that one out, but I will let you democrats do so.
9. 

   DrCanuck said, 10 months ago

   @Jeff Kiser

   Indeed. We separated from Great Britain through the courts and legal negotiations. Achieved the same thing you did without the bloodshed. We are a nation of laws; you are a nation of guns.
10. 

    DrCanuck said, 10 months ago

    @DrCanuck

    Both Canada and the US had a westward expansion. Your settlers went first and the law followed later, so disputes were settled by six-guns and rifles. In Canada, the law went first (the NWMP) so when the settlers arrived, the laws were in place. We are a nation of laws, you are a nation of guns.
11. 

    DrCanuck said, 10 months ago

    Both Canada and the US ran into indigenous peoples in their westward expansion. The US sent in the cavalry with guns blazing (see Custer). Canada negotiated treaties, giving them large sections of the land (see Nunavut). We are a nation of laws; you are a nation of guns.
12. 

    DrCanuck said, 10 months ago

    Both Canada and the US developed problems between extant cultures. When your south wished to separate, they picked up their guns, so did the north. When the Quebec French wished to separate, they held a referendum, so it was decided by vote and courts. Both achieved unity, we without the bloodshed. We are a nation of laws, you are a nation of guns.
13. 

    DrCanuck said, 10 months ago

    Is anyone still puzzled why gun violence is so much higher in the US than in other countries? It’s how you do things.

    
    (Ok, I’ll shut up now.)
14. 

    DrCanuck said, 10 months ago

    And one more: agriculture at the point of a gun. Canada never had slavery.
15. Refresh Comments.