The natural right to protect oneself and those they care about against those who wish to do them harm, known as the concept of self preservation, is one of the most important social issues to me. To me, the debate surrounding self preservation in American politics transcends simple social policy and moves into a debate over morality and what it means to truly champion personal freedom. Those who wish to limit the ownership of firearms today have little to contribute to the debate other than their personal biases, untrue generalities, and emotional reactions to what they see and hear in the media. Wanting to strip away the ability to purchase and own firearms from the general populace in response to mass shootings and other tragic events is extremely ignorant and is a perfect example of too much faith in government. Individuals must have be able to protect and defend themselves from threats in a society where public emergency services can take half an hour or more to reach them, and to think otherwise is both unrealistic and misinformed. Not to mention, most countries that have low gun crime along with strict gun control only works due to their majority homogenous cultures and small populations. In the US, the places where violent and gun related crime runs rampant are the densely populated, urban areas where major gun control regulations are in place, so the idea of confiscating and/or outlawing certain types of firearms, attachments, or modifications is counterintuitive and is yet another way to further strip individual freedom.
🇺🇸🐍 Fundamental, God given rights can never be superseded merely by the feelings or personal biases of others 🐍🇺🇸
The pipeline being built in western Canada is a bit of a nuanced issue. First, when Justin Trudeau was running for prime minister, he promised not to build any pipelines. He backtracked after being elected, and the pipeline in question was approved. In British Columbia, from what I understand, the liberals were voted in but the NDP and green party formed a coalition government, essentially overruling the election result. The BC government and protesters have blocked the pipeline, and Trudeau hasn't done much more than address the situation.
I want to make this perfectly clear: I think that the environment needs to be protected, but you won't have much of a country without a strong economy. We need a balance, a middle ground between corporatism and primitivism.
Personally, I would prefer if oil from the prairies could be transported by rail, as it would help the railway industry as well as the oil industry. That being said, it is also more dangerous to transport it by rail.
What do you guys think? Tell me what you think in the comments!
A lot of news outlets in Ontario are talking about this story. It's kinda easy to respond to but it's the first one I found.
Let me give you some background. The Jane and Finch street corner is viewed as the most dangerous part of Toronto by many locals. Low income housing and government housing, along with a lack of low skill job opportunities has made this area as bad as it is today. Couple this with the rising gun-related homicides in the city, mostly from gang related incidents, and the statement in question becomes a lot more reasonable.
It's clear that the statement by Andrea Horwath was a bad move, as it doesn't even make sense in the context. She was likely trying to smear her political opponent in a way that the far left has been doing for at least a decade.
If we're not allowed to address the crime problem in our cities, how are we supposed to solve them?
What do you guys think? Discuss in the comments!