Marjorie Taylor Greene mocked for saying Canada’s new gun laws could spark Russian invasion

‘Trudeau foolishly completely ignores how taking guns away from his people makes his country weak and vulnerable to being invaded,’ says the Republican congresswoman

Rep Marjorie Taylor Greene has made a novel argument against Canada’s proposed new gun control legislation: It invites a Russian invasion.

“Trudeau foolishly completely ignores how taking guns away from his people makes his country weak and vulnerable to being invaded and easily taken over by another stronger country,” the US congresswoman opined on Twitter. “Like, perhaps Russia, who is very angry at America right now.”

Canada’s prime minister, Justin Trudeau, introduced the legislation on Monday in the wake of last week’s deadly school shooting in Uvalde, Texas. The bill would ban the sale and purchase of handguns, effectively capping their numbers in Canada. In addition, Mr Trudeau proposed a mandatory buyback program for assault weapons – including AR-15s, like the one used in Uvalde – which have been banned in Canada since 2021.

Ms Greene was outraged. Without guns in the hands of its citizens, she reasoned, Canada would be powerless to stop Russian invaders.

“Canada has an incredibly weak military & now with Trudeau’s gun grab, his people are left defenseless not only by a criminal attacker, but also defenseless against another country’s military invasion,” the Republican tweeted. “This is a terrible violation of rights to innocent Canadians by their Gov.”

Ms Greene offered no evidence that Russia plans to invade Canada. Many readers on Twitter, some of them Canadian, were perplexed.

“If Russia is angry with America right now, why would Russia invade Canada?” one asked.

“Wait, am I currently expected to own a gun and am *personally* responsible for defending my country against Russia?” another responded. “Missed that memo…”

Others wondered what good handguns would do against Russian bombs.

“So to make sure I understand: allowing citizens to have handguns, AR-15s, whatever, will be enough to defend the country against tanks, major artillery, mortars, howitzers, rockets, missiles, possibly even nuclear weapons?” someone else tweeted. “Okay then.”

Others pointed out that the Canadian “rights” Ms Greene trumpeted may not exist. Unlike in the United States, where the Second Amendment enshrines a right “to bear arms,” nothing in Canada’s constitution explicitly protects gun ownership.

“We have a different constitution, with different rights and responsibilities,” one Canadian commented. “It doesn’t include a Second Amendment. We defend our country from foreign invasion with our military in concert with treaties (see NATO), not our civilians. So we don’t have many mass shootings.”

Others turned Ms Greene’s argument around on her.

“Why does the US need to spend so much on their military since they are so safe with all the civilian guns?” someone asked.

The Independent has reached out to Ms Greene’s office for comment.