Gun Control : A message from the Canada Party

Gun Control - A message from the Canada Party
As American elections increasingly resembled a production of CATS performed by actual cats, U.S. citizens are looking for a new leader. That leader is Canada, and they want your vote for president of the United States.
Since launching their video campaign in January 2012, the Canada Party has gone viral, with over a million views on KZbin and coverage ranging from CNN, BBC, CBC and CPAC to the Huffington Post and German State Television. Their book, AMERICA, BUT BETTER: THE CANADA PARTY MANIFESTO, balances the doctrine of American exceptionalism with a dose of Canadian humility and common sense in an effort to secure Canada as the new leader of the free world, by proxy.
BOOK REVIEWS
"The authors use humor to map the glaringly wide - and ever expanding - divide between American Democrats and Republicans, and when the duo strike a soft spot, such as America's overestimation of its cultural and global importance, their bite is on par with that of the Daily Show, Stephen Colbert, and Bill Maher."
- Publishers Weekly
"America, But Better is a beguiling little bagatelle in a dispiriting
political year, and Chris Cannon and Brian Calvert are to be thanked
for adding maybe the only dash of humour to the entire
proceedings...their manifesto possesses the key to reforming our
politics."
- David M. Shribman, the Globe and Mail
Their promises: One gay couple will be allowed to marry for every straight couple that gets divorced. The phrase "job creators" will be changed to "job creationists," and they will be given seven days to actually create some. Corporations will still be people, but if they can't provide a birth certificate they will be legally obligated to care for your lawn. Corners will be installed in the Oval Office, and timeouts given to congressmen who can't play nice.
Devoted to restoring America to its former glory, the Canada Party will soon have the whole world chanting, "Yes We Canada."
Twitter ( / thecanadaparty )
Facebook ( / thecanadaparty )
The Canada Party Manifesto (Book) - (AmericabutBetter.com)
The Canada Party KZbin Playlist - ( • The Canada Party #Can... )
Publishers website - (www.douglas-mcintyre.com/searc...)
Gabby Gifford's initiative (americansforresponsiblesolutio...)
Written & Performed by Chris Cannon
Edited & Performed by Brian Calvert
Directed by Louvens Remy (BlackSunrisePictures.com)
Camera Operator / DOP Guy Roland

[@llobinske]

Love it! Don't listen to the idiots, you guys are right on!

[@sebastienholmes548]

No, they are not.

[@cpscott15]

This one is really a stretch...

[@TheEsomers]

I especially like the Heston picture at the end. Subtle, yet powerful, on many levels. Well played.

[@Raiderthepirate]

Cars can be weapons too ... Guns don't kill murderers do!

[@jnielsen90]

So CANADIAN like poetry eh!

[@mickey5779]

Oh no! Not you again, LOLOLOL!! 😂😂😂🤣

[@jnielsen90]

Who me? Seems we have some similar haunts once in a while......don't want to assume but curious where are you from? Just for fun my guess is either Canadian also or Aussie or Kiwi, or as we call them here.....Desert Canadians and they call us Snow Australians@@mickey5779

[@mereboccan]

Love!

[@sanjuacharya]

I LOVE THIS!!!

[@TheEsomers]

Excellent!

[@LeeNTien]

The sketch continues down below in the comments. It's priceless. XD

[@formerhunter2]

This shit is hilarious! If I wasn't already Canadian, I'd vote Canadian 100%!

[@jerseyjess7826]

I'm not Canadian (sadly, I'm American). I would LOVE to vote for the Canada party! I especially love the most recent "platform" and political ads they've uploaded this election. It's both sad and hilarious that the guy making the most sense this election is a Canadian KZbinr!! Please Canada Party, come and rescue those of us Americans who haven't totally lost our minds!

[@batlad]

Um... Maybe not in real life... There actually was a real Canada Party at one time. It only existed for a short time and ran 56 candidates in the 1993 federal election (the one and only election where they fielded enough candidates to be considered a real political party). The glitch is that it was an offshoot of the Nazi Party of Canada (which was an actual thing until the mid 80s) Not surprisingly, they didn't win any seats but claimed to have gotten 2% of the popular vote -- can't be confirmed because Stats Can puts them under "Other" in the election stats. The party existed until 1997 when it was folded into the "Canadian Action Party" -- another right wing party at the federal level, but is more regionally focused in Alberta. CAP still exists, as far as I know. Perhaps that's part of the joke (that Canadian Nazis are a viable alternative to Trump and Clinton).

[@jerseyjess7826]

Villnius That was interesting. I had no idea about that until now. We have something similar here, it's called the Alt-right. Unfortunately for us they have now become a pretty big presence in the Republican Party (one of the 2 main and biggest parties). Every country had its crazies but if that guy were to run here I'd vote for him in a heartbeat! Provided his Canada Party is nothing like the one you just described!

[@Greyman137]

Sophistry

[@genuinepenguinproductions4547]

Car Brian I see what you did there like carbine

[@StHappyfaces]

I like that this highlights the regulations that are already in place. We don't need more control, we have perfectly helpful laws right there, yet people still complain about too much control.

[@JohnSmith-zg2id]

People crying propaganda just because they can't refute with actual claims.

[@DiabloRed24]

I'd like to see any claims being made. Other than "LOL GUN OWNERS ARE TOO SERIOUS XD CHILL OUT GUYS"

[@428ghost]

Well, that was a specious display of logic. Yes, I get the humour, and the use of specious logic will always be humorous, but for the cognitively lazy this 1:06 of red herring needs to be broken down. 1) Equating a handicapped parking spot to firearms ownership: the handicapped are provided privileged status to help overcome disability. They have a special status. Firearms ownership is a fundamental right for the protection of life and liberty. It does not advocate for a privileged group. If you advocate for strict firearms control then you are advocating for firearms consolidation in the hands of the state. As someone who was in the employ of the state and trained to kill people and break things in the name of the state, I can attest that no right minded person should want all weapons in the hands of a privileged class alone. The state is not benevolent, it is coercive and parasitic. 2) "Seems kind of dangerous" is a pre-supposition that not providing handicapped stalls is somehow a public threat. As applied to the scenario it is a non-sequitur that not affording a privileged placed to the handicapped is in all cases a danger. As applied as a parallel to firearms ownership it is a red herring that the existence of firearms in all cases is a danger. The spectre of danger as grounds to ban something is an intolerance to risk, and intolerance to risk is not a reasonable imposition of fundamental human rights because there will always be, and have always been, risks to human welfare. Mitigation of risk is prudent, intolerance to risk is impossible. 3) "I think blockading the handicapped is a freedom I can do without" As extended to a parallel argument to regulate firearms, Brian here is saying his right to life isn't worth protecting by having access to firearms. If he's cavalier with his own welfare I take no exception to that, but if he's cavalier with other people's right to life by removing their ability to protect themselves then I think he's shown his character as an ultimately selfish person. 4) "Great, now I'm gonna get towed" "Your car is in your garage" This is a pretty forced and clumsy parallel to firearms ownership. If the privileged group argument is being extended here to firearms, then a violation against the handicapped parking, by a car, results in a tow. All cars with non-handicapped drivers parked in a handicapped stall are towed. Being non-handicapped in the handicapped spot is the conditional, not the car. I think they're trying to equate the car to a firearm, which is nonsensical. 5) "They can have my steering wheel when they pry it from my cold drunk fingers" This pre-supposes a pejorative view of car drivers (firearms owners) as incapable of responsible ownership. It's poisoning the well that because you own a firearm, you are somehow irresponsible and dangerous, and that anything you say in favour of ownership is somehow not with standing. 6) "Cars don't get towed, people get towed" Again, the towing metaphor is nonsensical here. They're obviously trying to force the analogy to "guns don't kill people, peopled kill people.' Considering the vast number of firearms in existence and the comparatively small murder rate with firearms, the sentiment that "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is true. The conditional is not firearms, or people, it is people with malicious intent that have firearms. The fact that there are murders by other means than firearms tells me that banning the instrument of murder is a facile effort when people with malicious intent are clearly finding a way to carry through with their intentions. Banning the instrument does not prevent murder. Stepping back, I think both sides of the debate are talking past each other. For me, the debate needs to be coached in terms of the right to life, and the implied right to defend that life. That right to defend yourself requires means, of which firearms are one means, and by virtue of how mature the technology now is, is the premier means. That may change. Perhaps the Star Trek phasor will become a thing and we can dial from stun to fricassee in terms of the level of force, but for now we have firearms as the most mature, easy to use and effective technology to protect our lives. The belief that protecting us is the job of the state is profoundly wrong-headed. Considering how many police we have, and the fact that murder rates by all means are what they are, tells me not that the police fell down on the job that many times, but that it is by nature impossible for them to protect us. That leaves the onus on the individual to protect their lives and those closest to them. Removing access to the means for self protection in the name of an impossible to achieve standard of safety is simply inhuman.

[@mickey5779]

As a Canadian, I found your deconstruction of the numerous fallacies in this video to be absolutely brilliant! This video has nothing to do with gun control n'or is gun control ever implicated other than its misleading title. Poorly fed to the public as a humerous appeal to ignorance. Your conclusion says it all with the answer I was looking for..."but that it is by nature impossible for police to protect us. That leaves the onus on the individual to protect their lives and those closest to them. Removing access to the means for self protection in the name of an impossible to achieve standard of safety is simply inhuman". WOW!! Canada has somehow managed to maintain this "impossible standard" of safety when you consider it has 10 times less the poplulation of the United States coupled with the understanding that firearm ownership is considered a "privilege" instead of a right. Climate may pose as a factor as well. The right to bear firearms is NOT in Canadian constitution. This creates a discernable difference, so much so for me to conclude that the subject may not even be open for debate since the variables are far too wide to exist in the same arena let alone the same universe. Thing is, the right questions need to be asked...if the US was to adopt Canadian laws regarding firearm restrictions, what would happen? I think you may have answered that already. And curiously, what would happen if Canada was to adopt the right to bear arms in its Charter of Rights and Freedoms? In Canada, restricted firearms like handguns must be reported to police when they're intended to be transported or moved from one's residence to elswhere and back. This does not apply to non-restricted firearms like hunting rifles and shotguns, however; both restricted and non-restricted firearms require a license to posess. Firearm registration requirement depends on the governing body at the time.

[@Beemerboy324]

LOL! This is great!

[@angelaraber]

Perfect metaphor... 👍

[@sebastienholmes548]

Wrong

[@builderallguy5365]

LMAO. Cars arent mentioned in the constitution ...guns are.

[@MilesBader]

Brilliant!

[@BillericayGirl]

Genius, loved it.

[@pbilk]

Hehehe! XD

[@glennt939]

If your afraid of guns dont buy one,but stay the hell out of others buisiness

[@ZRSUNIT]

First?

[@spencerhocking614]

Your other videos accurately represented a Canadian citizen, but this video.... Its your political view as an individual...not Canada as a whole. you shoulda just been like-----:EH THERE American NEIGGHBURS ! U can do whatever u want wit yo guns just abide by our gun laws when ya move up here bud !!!] ....not really a canadian right to change their 2nd amendment. ✌🏼️