r/canadaguns • u/Low_Bar_804 • Apr 19 '26
News / Politics / Activism Owning guns- Right or Privilege?
So obviously here in Canada our government sees private firearm ownership as a privilege rather than a right. My question is, how you guys feel? Do you think gun ownership is a right or a privilege?
When you look at other things people view as rights, such as abortion, freedom of expression and freedom of religion etc. These are all viewed by most as inherently “good rights”, but in many countries these rights are restricted. I think, along with many others, that it is justified to ignore unjust laws that restrict human rights.
I personally believe that firearm ownership is a fundamental human right because it protects all of our other rights and freedoms from being taken away. So even though legally speaking firearm ownership is a privilege that can be taken away at any time here in Canada, I don’t agree with the way our country and many others treat firearm ownership.
160
u/SandwichDependent139 Apr 19 '26
In the past, regarding monarchies, a sign of being a ‘freeman’’ was that you were allowed to be armed and own land, in exchange you were pledged to defend the country and your freehold where called upon. Canada treats us as subjects, imo.
41
u/robot_nixon Apr 19 '26
Dude this was actually a great comment that kind of explains how I have been feeling living in this country lately... Like I dont want to shout communism yet because it seems like an exaggeration (so far)... But I feel like the government treats me like a poor stupid child that needs constant supervision, and every time I pick up a new stick they need to wrench it out of my hands.
4
u/Quirky-Delivery-3236 Apr 20 '26
Naw we pretty much are Cuba at this point a couple years ago groceries was 100 dollars now it’s 200 like it’s insane and with how mark carny was elected
6
u/DYTREM Apr 19 '26
This government has always been afraid of what an armed population would do to it since Trudeau senior.
This is because the current ruling political party knows its policies are not aimed at improving most Canadians' lives but mostly crafted to benefits the few who support/donate/lobby its members for favours in return.
It knows that its ideology, revealed at its naked core, would be unacceptable to a majority of Canadians so, it strives to have:
- a small, neutered military;
- a disarmed population; and
- the bulk of the workforce dependent on a government pay cheque..
4
1
u/outline8668 Apr 20 '26
The liberals have been slowly but steadily marching us towards communism. They won't call it that, they will call it something more palatable sounding but it will effectively be the same thing.
1
u/robot_nixon Apr 21 '26
Yep they want us a perfectly controlled peasants. They want to control how we act, speak and think.
2
u/conanap Apr 21 '26
That’s not communism… that’s authoritarianism. Please don’t just throw words around because they look “scary”, words mean something.
→ More replies (2)-1
u/InitialAd4125 Apr 19 '26
Communism means no state last I checked.
2
u/robot_nixon Apr 19 '26
Well I'm not sure about that. I don't know the text book definition to be honest. Some of my family members had the misfortune to spend some years in the gulag system. They got a free train ticket to Siberia where they participated in forced labor.
State or no state, Communism means evil as far as I'm concerned.
3
u/Chomps-Lewis Apr 19 '26
Because non-communist countries would never ship people from their homes to barren patches of land in order to make them less of a problem, amirite?
1
u/robot_nixon Apr 20 '26
So that means communism is good or something lol?
Communism has led to more mass murder and genocide then any other system right? There are few things more evil than communism in this world.
3
u/InitialAd4125 Apr 20 '26
More evil then a stateless society that has arguably never existed? More evil then the literal slave trades?
2
u/Chomps-Lewis Apr 20 '26
"Communism has led to more mass murder and genocide then any other system right?" No.
2
u/InitialAd4125 Apr 19 '26
"State or no state, Communism means evil as far as I'm concerned."
States are inherently evil sometimes they're just more evil then others.
Definition of Communism.
"Communism is a political and economic ideology aiming for a classless, stateless society based on common ownership of the means of production."
A gulag sounds an awful lot like what a state has which kind of is the opposite of what Communism is by definition.
→ More replies (2)1
u/MilkIlluminati Apr 20 '26
aiming for
...but on the way there, it for some reason needs an all-encompassing, militaristic, police state that brutally deals with
people wanting freedomcounter-revolutionary scum, but don't worry, this state will wither away in time because we'll be all out of counter-revolutionary scum.Pointing out the apparent contradiction is of course counter-revolutionary scum talk.
Pro tip: the reality of ideologies is found in reality, not the marketing pamphlets.
2
u/InitialAd4125 Apr 20 '26
"...but on the way there, it for some reason needs an all-encompassing, militaristic, police state that brutally deals with
people wanting freedomcounter-revolutionary scum, but don't worry, this state will wither away in time because we'll be all out of counter-revolutionary scum."Sounds like a state which last I checked it isn't supposed to have.
"Pro tip: the reality of ideologies is found in reality, not the marketing pamphlets."
So capitalism is a system built on wide spread slavery and mass exploitation then instead of free market magic?
1
u/MilkIlluminati Apr 20 '26
Sounds like a state which last I checked it isn't supposed to have.
According to the lore, not reality.
So capitalism is a system built on wide spread slavery and mass exploitation then instead of free market magic?
Cool meme
quoting is achieved with the
>character btw2
u/InitialAd4125 Apr 20 '26
"According to the lore, not reality."
Nah that's according to the reality if the UK claimed itself a republic but still had a monarchy would that be a republic? No it wouldn't you can name yourself whatever the fuck you want but it doesn't make it that thing.
"Cool meme"
No now that's reality something you seem to have trouble with.
"quoting is achieved with the
>character btw"I know.
2
u/odiq22 Apr 19 '26
“Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary” -Karl Marx. Real Socialists don’t want to fuck you over it’s about taking back from the elites and giving to us, the workers. We should be armed to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government and corporations. As well as protecting our lives, rights and freedoms.
3
1
24
u/Unknownuser010203 Apr 19 '26
The right to protection and private property SHOULD be one of the buildings blocks of a free country
62
u/SpectreBallistics Spectre Ballistics International (Verified) Apr 19 '26
Canadians should have property rights and that should extend to firearms.
25
u/soundssarcastic bc Apr 19 '26
The gap between "Should" and "Do" is a Government sized chasm unfortunately
4
u/PrestigiousStatus711 Apr 19 '26
I agree. Canadians should also have self defense rights and that should extend to firearms.
68
u/SniperTeamTango Apr 19 '26
The problem with firearms as a right in the US isn't that it's a right, it's that they have found ways to minimize the responsibility that comes along with said right. We need to, not do that.
That said, I continue to think the cfsc should require a proficiency element.
Additionally, there will always need to be some kind of rational stopping point (which we do not have a rational one right now), and there will ALWAYS be someone unhappy with how that affects them.
22
u/Dill_Pickle_Tears Apr 19 '26
Agreed. I view firearms ownership similarly to vehicle ownership and licensing; though, I’d need to understand counterpoints for why firearms should truly be rights, since like you said it can be a slippery slope to allow for public safety negligence and lack of accountability or enforcement as seen in the US.
I think we have a right for the opportunity to enter the licensing process, to participate in hunting and sport, and to have OPTIONS (i.e. banning firearms is stupid) once we are licensed - provided we show competency and proficiency. Just like driving, you can lose your license and your privilege to own and operate a firearm if deemed to be a risk to others. Not sure how rights vs privileges affect this from a legal or philosophical perspective though.
2
Apr 19 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/SniperTeamTango Apr 19 '26
I'd say driving a car needs to be more strict than it is. I don't think either license should be renewable. Re take the test every 5-10 years or every x amount of points. Same could apply for guns, especially if you want higher performance guns (I'm not saying you shouldn't be allowed to have them, but I'm okay with a logic that says prove you can be responsible)
3
u/MilkIlluminati Apr 20 '26 edited Apr 20 '26
I’d need to understand counterpoints for why firearms should truly be rights
I have a right to defend myself
I am a 110 pound, 5 foot tall, 70 yearold woman with a walker.
Therefore for me to have a right to self-defence in any real way rather than just lip service, I must also have a right to some tool that bridges the violence gap between me and a 220 pound, 6'4, 22 year-old male criminal on meth.
That's a gun.
I have the rights to a gun.
Funny enough, cases of self-defence with firearms that the courts gave a thumbs up to already exist in real life. Licensing is essentially on a shall-issue basis. Provisions for public concealed carry exist (albeit basically nobody passes that bar under current interpretations).
But we still have to do the stupid dance around how these are pieces of recreational sports equipment and absolutely nothing else.
5
u/Spydude84 Apr 19 '26
The right is the inherent ability. For firearms, it's to defend yourself and others and protect against state tyranny. Firearms are the current best tool for this, and while I believe they can be regulated in a way that is not onerous, such as requiring reasonable safety training, it should not be used as a tool to limit ownership otherwise. The CFSC and the CFP are a reasonable step. What is not reasonable is the wait times and lack of transparency of the process at times. 28 days should be a maximum limit, not a minimum. Waiting months or years is not reasonable. Magazine capacity limits are not reasonable, banning firearms by make or model or features is not reasonable. Registration is not reasonable since it only serves to disarm the population. There is no real way to get a carry license in Canada for personal protection, and while I think it's reasonable to have an easy proficiency test for this, it cannot be unreasonably expensive and the license should be attainable to anyone (with a firearms license).
4
u/InitialAd4125 Apr 19 '26
Not really? Last I checked driving on public roads was a privilege but last I checked you don't need a license to drive on public land and you don't need a license to buy a car as far a I'm aware.
3
u/general_bonesteel on Apr 19 '26
To transfer ownership of a vehicle usually requires proof of insurance which you need a license for. At least that's what I've experienced here in Onterrible. Maybe there's hedge cases for display/show cars.
3
u/InitialAd4125 Apr 19 '26
Maybe I honestly don't know like I've heard you can do some pretty wild stuff with farm vehicles that never leave the property.
1
Apr 20 '26 edited May 06 '26
[deleted]
1
u/SniperTeamTango Apr 20 '26
So while I agree with you, what I will remind you of is that every time you experience someone being an idiot on the road, is someone who passed a test once.
I think we can tell the government to squarely fuck off only once ongoing education/training is the norm. But yeah, Im not a fan of how we have gotten to the point that appearance of guns is enough to decide they are illegal or not. 2015 is really starting to feel like it was the "peak"
52
u/Thistimetmrrr Apr 19 '26
Yeah, I have the right to defend myself with whatever tool I so choose. A judge and jury can do what they feel necessary. But I assure you, no law created by man will stop me from defending myself and my property with whatever means I deem necessary. The government can say whatever the fuck it wants, but when push comes to shove, if they have a gun, they’re going to use it to defend themselves, whether it be their own personal firearm, or the 5 security guards he pays with tax payer dollars.
So, the government will say it’s a privilege. But they’ll treat it like a right for themselves. Therefore, firearm ownership is a right.
37
u/BrightOrdinary4348 Apr 19 '26
Every debate in this country can be summed up by the intention of you last paragraph:
Every citizen should have the same rights as elected officials.
24
u/robot_nixon Apr 19 '26
I remember the first announcement of the gun bans when Bill Blair went on the radio and said something like "people are telling me that they need a gun to protect themselves ... Protect themselves against other Canadians... What a load of crap". This guy was the former chief of police and has a police escort 24 7.
7
2
53
u/buckshot95 Apr 19 '26
The 1689 Bill of Rights guaranteed Protestant men the right to own weapons for their own defense. So there is precedent in our system.
I think more important than specifically firearms rights though is strong property rights that would include protecting our firearms.
16
u/Necessary_Field_8424 Apr 19 '26
Canada did not have a Bill of Rights until 1960.
36
u/petrop36 Apr 19 '26
Correct,but as the Dominion of Canada is still part of the British Empire/Commonwealth the Bill of 1686 applies to Canada and other parts of the British Empire that still are part of the British Crown.
14
u/drugstoremechanic Apr 19 '26
I think they're referring to English common law as the system, which is the foundation of our legal system here in Canada.
6
u/jimmythemortician Apr 19 '26
Are you suggesting no one in Canada had rights before 1960?
1
u/petrop36 Apr 19 '26
Canada had only liberal system until the 80's. In the 80's Canada became a Liberal Democratic. Can someone tell me why?
→ More replies (1)1
u/Intrepid_Pop269 Apr 19 '26
Canadian constitution pretty intentionally does not include property rights. I think there are some treaties/interpretations that protect native hunting rights and the tools needed to hunt, so there is that. (Kinda talking out my ass here - I really dunno too much about treaties)
→ More replies (11)
11
u/NiagaraBTC Apr 19 '26
Self defense is a human right.
Guns are the most effective tool for self defense.
15
u/Scary-Detail-3206 Apr 19 '26
I interact with politicians from all levels of government through my work. The vast majority are imbeciles. To accept what these people tell me I can and cannot do with my life and property would be pathetic.
I don’t care what they think, I will live my life based on principles I know to be true.
6
u/some_guy2024 Apr 19 '26
Agreed. There is absolutely nothing virtuous about following the edicts of the most craven and self-serving individuals in our society.
39
u/Eat_Cantaloupe_ Apr 19 '26
A population that is entirely prohibited from owning a firearm is a population of slaves. The rifle in the home of the average person is an important symbol of democracy. A modern rifle.
Even if it isn't like in the states, there still needs to be a reasonable path to ownership that the average person without a criminal record can achieve.
Without that, I do not believe we are a free or truely democratic country
14
58
u/DougMacRay617 Apr 19 '26 edited Apr 19 '26
Free men don't ask for permission
I dont need a piece of paper to tell me that i have the right to liberty & self preservation
And im definitely not about too be told by some guy who wasn't even born in this country that im not responsible enough to own a certain type of property.
16
8
u/Icy-Veterinarian8662 Apr 19 '26
You're right. Natural rights are absolute, while governments can choose to respect those rights or not.
Natural human rights are not created based on your random spawn RNG
→ More replies (10)5
9
u/Ov3rReadKn1ght0wl Apr 19 '26
Historically, the distinction between people whose bodies were limited by an external contract such as serfdom or slavery versus those that weren't was an allowance to carry a weapon. All societies across the continents had an iteration of this.
Many of the human rights and the democracies we have today were brought about as a result of the demographic balance equalizing between those whose bodies weren't their own compared to those who enjoyed that sovereignty. With that came the dismantling of hierarchies and better access to the means of life through property enfranchisement. In the long run, we even worked to eradicate systems of subjecthood.
As far as I see it, it's not guns in the strictest sense, it's arms themselves that are the guarantee of sovereignty of the person. Arms create a buffer that forces conversation and compromise. If there is an imbalance in arms, then one side has a leg up over the other and hence any terms become imposed rather than negotiated. As such, in our time where firearms are the arms du jour, the effective guarantee of all rights rest in the ability to have a firearm. Not necessarily as an overt means of hostility, but as a badge of individual personhood in a democratic system.
4
u/some_guy2024 Apr 19 '26
Very well said. The biggest problem with those advocating for firearms to be a privilege, albeit with whatever limitations that they deem acceptable, is that all privileges granted by the state can and will be taken back by the state. This is where we are currently. So even if these supplicants were to get the system of privileges they desire, the next govt could simply curtail said privileges. The reality is that the more the govt infringes on what people see as their natural rights (and the right to bear arms is one, imo) the lower trust that society becomes and people start only following the laws they agree with or those whose consequences (or the likelihood of getting caught is high) they fear. That’s where this country is currently.
8
u/No-Night-48 Apr 19 '26
It should be a right. Going by history (look at the US, Palestine etc.) governments become corrupted on a routine basis. We're experiencing the rich coincidentally disarming us in Canada just before robots and AI potentially take over the work force in a capitalist country. Switzerland has a very healthy gun culture that Canada should adapt. The militia is just as important as the army when a country is being invaded. I DO NOT want anyone having a gun on their hip in public or full autos by all means. But, we should be able to shoot a handgun or semi auto rifle on our rural property or range.
5
u/ZealousidealCrew7764 Apr 19 '26
I think the process to get a gun is really appropriate in Canada! You should probably have a criminal background check, and know how to use a gun safely before you buy one, but the restrictions are so ridiculous, legal gun owners are half as likely to commit crimes as the average citizen, I should probably be able to buy a hand gun.
67
u/NefariousNatee Apr 19 '26
We aren't a country that was founded under war.
Yes firearms serve as a legitimate tool for hunting
No it shouldn't be a universal blessing to own firearms.
My stance is this, reverse the May 2020 firearms ban, drop the incoming amnesty period that ends October 30th, double the maximum magazine to 20 rounds on rifle calibers. No cap on handguns, and continue the existing vetting process for firearms license.
This is a conversation that needs to be had not only amongst firearm enthusiasts but the wider public.
52
u/DougMacRay617 Apr 19 '26 edited Apr 19 '26
Why stop at 20? Standard capacity applies . The end
→ More replies (3)8
u/ChemtrailTruck1863 Apr 19 '26
double the maximum magazine to 20 rounds on rifle calibers
How is your math working that 20 = double?
8
u/Italian_Greyhound Apr 19 '26
Think about it, 5 times 2 = 20. It's simple math really. It's commerce math, how they set prices of gas and bacon!
21
u/Beginning-Marzipan28 Apr 19 '26
We aren't a country that was founded under war.
wtf? You’re just going to ignore the first 200 years of our history?
25
u/Canadian-AML-Guy Apr 19 '26
Canada the nation was not founded via war, as compared to the USA which was. That isn't to say wars did not happen within Canada's (or the entities that would eventually make Canada) borders, or that our history isn't bloody.
But we asked the crown nicely for independence and it was granted. The USA seized their independence via force.
7
u/_axeman_ Apr 19 '26
Absolutely critical difference IMO and explains a TON about the cultural differences between us and USA.
We're like siblings; USA got in a fistfight with Dad at 15, won, and moved out. Now they're thriving and have made up with Dad.
Canada lived in mommy and Daddy's house until 30 and then sorta moved out but mommy still comes over to do our laundry and doesn't like it when we put up posters of that one rock band so we don't.
1
u/DYTREM Apr 20 '26
Wrong! The part of New France that became Canada was captured by Britain and French Canadians deported to Louisiana.
And we have not signed the Constitution because we were not given recognition. We still feel the sear in Quebec.
And before that, French, English and Natives constantly fought each others. In fact, french colonists had a duty to bear arms to defend New France.
Know your history before blabbing nonsensical propaganda.
2
u/Canadian-AML-Guy Apr 20 '26
The part of New France that became Canada was captured by Britain
Wasnt that like 100 years before confederation?
And before that, French, English and Natives constantly fought each others. In fact, french colonists had a duty to bear arms to defend New France.
Yea man I know, I didn't say we have a bloodless history, we most certainly do not. I am referring specifically to confederation, where we did not fight a war against Britain to secure Canada's independence.
37
u/1955FL Apr 19 '26
No wonder gun rights in Canada keep being stripped away. Even the “pro gun” people in this country want to limit their own rights. Absolutely pathetic.
19
u/Scary-Detail-3206 Apr 19 '26
Canada was founded by loyalists who fought for the King rather than for their own independence. That subservience is deeply ingrained in Eastern Canadian culture.
5
2
u/Imaginary-Text4690 Apr 19 '26
When you have a bunch of fuds in the community it’s hard to be able to have full freedom
→ More replies (24)1
u/Imaginary-Text4690 Apr 19 '26
You should’ve hear the one guy on here. Bro was saying “I get your frustration with mag capacity limit but what would you want it to be” and went on to say it shouldn’t be much more then it is. Bro doesn’t even understand how gun works fuck this shit.
2
u/Eisgeschoss Apr 19 '26 edited Apr 19 '26
"My stance is this, reverse the May 2020 firearms ban, drop the incoming amnesty period that ends October 30th, double the maximum magazine to 20 rounds on rifle calibers. No cap on handguns, and continue the existing vetting process for firearms license."
I agree with all of this, but in addition my stance is that we should repeal the Section 91 Criminal Code amendments and return to how things worked under the FAC system until the mid-90s; i.e. we need to decriminalize "unlicensed" possession of Non-Restricted firearms, because in my opinion there is no legitimate reason for an innocent person to be thrown in jail for merely possessing an ordinary firearm (criminal acts done with a firearm, as well as cases where someone is demonstrably too dangerous to be trusted with a firearm, are already both covered under other laws/regulations; possession alone has no business being treated as a "crime"), like imagine an elderly farmer with no criminal record being arbitrarily hauled away for simply having a hunting rifle/shotgun that he rightfully bought at the hardware store 50+ years ago (back when licensing was minimal or non-existent), and other oppressive situations like that.
Also, we need to abolish the blanket classification of all handguns as Restricted, because certain types of handguns (long-barrelled and/or single-action revolvers, etc.) should rightfully be Non-Restricted.
1
u/Barbarian_818 Apr 19 '26
The problem is, "we need more gun control" always plays well with the general public. A demographic that largely has no clue about the level of gun control we already have.
Every shooting in the news leaves a silty deposit of fear about what the world is coming to. Every shooting is quickly grabbed into by politicians who can spend millions, even tens of millions promising to make the danger go away.
This tactic doesn't require the public actually listen to both sides, educate themselves on the reality and actually think about the issue, actually understand the distinction between a drug dealer or home invader and a law abiding gun owner.
Getting an actual informed and thought provoking dialogue among the public on any subject is enormously difficult. Trying to achieve that on the subject of firearms, in the face of preexisting fear in the public mind, is far harder.
And, as I've said before, there are many who think that "the gun lobby" and firearms ownership somehow recruits and indoctrinates people into a conservative, misogynistic and even dangerously radical antisocial mindset. So the thinking goes that if we can somehow rid the world of every "tactical" firearm, every "military lineage" firearm, that we will breed fewer radical self appointed militias and mass casualty event shooters. That's why it is as much a war in gun culture as it is the guns themselves.
21
Apr 19 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/SakanaToDoubutsu Apr 19 '26
Just because its old doesn't mean its invalid, yet these old documents seem to be tossed by the wayside and ignored.
Chronocentrism is the cognitive bias or belief that one's own time period is the most important, central, or superior in history, often seeing the past as primitive and the future as dramatically different, like a historical turning point, a concept similar to ethnocentrism but focused on time rather than ethnicity. It leads people to judge history through present needs, overlook past achievements, and fall for "this time it's different" fallacies, hindering long-term thinking, especially in areas like policy and sustainability.
I always find it funny to me how people will say "history always repeats itself then at the same time go "the people of the past were wrong and we know better now".
6
u/K0bra_Ka1 Apr 19 '26
Women were not considered "persons" in Canada until 1929. Not all old laws are right or just.
There are lots of people in this country that have no business owning firearms.
7
2
u/Marilius Apr 19 '26
The magna carta was issued in 1215 and makes no mention of owning weapons for self defense.
1
Apr 19 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Marilius Apr 19 '26
Said that Protestant men could own firearms for self defense. And explicitly says "as allowed by law". The firearms act and the criminal code of Canada supersedes it.
18
u/Lopsided_Ad3516 Apr 19 '26
Owning property should be a right, and whether it's codified or not, it's a fundamental human right.
Everything else stems from that.
3
u/EntropyRX maplegun.ca Apr 19 '26
It’s a right that comes with responsibilities. It can be lost if you don’t fulfill the responsibilities, but it surely not a “privilege”.
3
u/Icy-Veterinarian8662 Apr 19 '26
I believe it should be a right. That doesn't mean it's without limits.
But every person who is of sound mind should be allowed to do the safety course and purchase a firearm
3
u/swpz01 Apr 20 '26 edited Apr 20 '26
There's a king, everyone in Canada are property/subjects of the king even if that power has yet to be exercised. There are no such things as "rights" when one is/are property/subjects. Rights are for free men. This applies to everything and anything, firearms are just one thing we like to talk about. Covid showed that they could lock Canadians in the country and prohibit them from being able to leave.
Abolish the monarchy, form a republic, and we can talk about rights. But the chance of Canada doing this voluntarily is essentially zero. Canadians, after all, are descended from people who *wanted* to be owned by a king rather than be free as the Americans chose.
Canada has done an excellent job hiding from the world that they are all but a dictatorship/monarchy wherein the regime holds absolute power even if the regime is "elected" (who are we kidding though, the same party wins 70% of all elections across the last 4 decades which is tinpot dictatorship levels of hilarious). Canada pretends to be democratic when there's nothing democratic about it beside being able to "vote" for a local representative who can influence policy in no meaningful way anyways (leader holds absolute power and can evict people from the party at will). Neither is there accountability (see South Korea where presidents are impeached and thrown in prison/sentenced to death, etc).
3
u/MaxBuildsThings Apr 20 '26
I view it as both. You have the right to go through the process of getting the license, doing the CFSC and get checked by the RCMP, but being approved and keeping the license is a privilege, dependent on you not breaking the laws.
Also we have property rights in Canada, given by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, you have the rights to enjoy your property, and to not be deprived of you property. Therefore once you have your pal and buy guns legally it's your rights to keep and use them, though that's dependant on not breaking the law which nulls those rights, which kind of makes them a privilege instead.
Regardless or right or privilege though, the government shouldn't be allowed to take away my property rights when I haven't broken the law in regards to my use or ownership of said firearms. That's like taking away someone in BC's driver license when a drunk driver runs over a kid in Ontario.
5
u/Johnny-Unitas Apr 19 '26
We should have more rights in this country, including firearms. Sadly, it seems to be going the other way.
25
u/Frreed Apr 19 '26
It's a privilege.
It's like a car. Everyone CAN own one, but everyone shouldn't. A car, like a gun is a tool. When used correctly they are safe, provided a purpose, and are enjoyable. When used wrongfully or in the wrong hand.... we know what happens
2
Apr 19 '26 edited Apr 19 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Frreed Apr 19 '26
It was an example, not saying they should be treated like cars. They are tools like cars
14
u/Plumbercanuck Apr 19 '26
The goal of the government is to make you dependent on them. Denying you of the ability to defend yourself or provide for yourself is often a motive hidden in many decisions.
12
u/I_Am_JackMasta Apr 19 '26
Guys, rights don't exist naturally. You make and then defend your rights using these very items
11
u/damac_phone Apr 19 '26
Human rights come from being a human, not from a government letting you have them
8
u/Scary-Detail-3206 Apr 19 '26
Human rights don’t exist if you can’t back them up with something. They are just words on paper without a proper defence.
6
2
u/Icy_Possible_6010 Apr 19 '26
There was never a case in human history where rights didnt come from spilt blood. Simply being a human means nothing because most people in recorded human history were slaves at some level.
2
u/itsagrapefruit Apr 19 '26
There is such a thing as a pre-political right. Right to life is one of the most fundamental, which is why these items should be considered a core component of that.
2
u/GonZo_626 Apr 19 '26
I consider it a right to own guns. But, as there always is, but, there is always a line where your rights end. I dont want a free for all, mcnukes and all that, but I also believe the line has been moved to far into restricting our rights and will argue to move the line towards less gun control.
2
u/A_Kazur Apr 19 '26
Human beings have certain natural rights and governments should be beholden to their constituents.
2
u/InitialAd4125 Apr 19 '26
"Do you think gun ownership is a right or a privilege?"
Sort of? Like I'm pretty skeptical of the idea any rights at all exist however I guess if we are to say they exist then yes it is a right because it falls under what I'd consider a basic human right i.e in nature we'd come up with ways to gather food and defend ourselves. A gun is simply that idea but carried on. Hell I'd take it a step further then guns an individual should be allowed any tool they as an individual can operate individually so RPG's and the like as well. However an individual should not own any item for self defense that requires multiple individuals to operate that should be held communally i.e a tank you need a tank crew. I think the Swiss materialize this fairly well with the idea of there militia where an individual is given a rifle but not a tank.
2
u/soylentgreen2015 Apr 19 '26
George Carlin discussed rights the best when he talked about the Japanese internment. It can be easily found on YouTube
2
u/blitz2377 Apr 19 '26
it's a right. it's not a privilege. privilege hey taken away, by the power that pretend to be, all the time.
2
2
u/el-warhorse69 Apr 19 '26
I believe It’s my god given right to feed myself and protect myself and my family however I see fit.
2
u/Barbarian_818 Apr 19 '26
Legally, it is, in the direct case, a privilege. But it is also indirectly a right.
You have the right to own property. As long as you use that property in safe and peaceful ways, you should still be allowed to exercise that right. Requiring education, licensing, transport and storage rules does not infringe on that right. Under our legal framework, these are "reasonable" restrictions needed to enhance safety. (Which is why opponents of the assault style weapons program stress the "no effect on public safety" aspect of this boondoggle.)
Similarly, but even less directly, it should be a right that is tied to one's right to self defence. We have the legal right to self defence. But generations of legal precedent and legislation have created a definition of that right that is extremely narrow. And it forbids the carrying of anything with the intent to use it for self defence.
A woman fending off a rapist is permitted to use whatever comes to hand to stop him. But she is supposed to only use "reasonable force" to end the assault. And whatever she uses, whatever force she employs will be tested in court. If the judge concludes that she overreacted or used excessive force, then she faces jail time.
Meanwhile, the criminal has all the time in the world to pick a victim, plan and prepare for his attack on a person he can comfortably assume will be unarmed and unable to fight him off. And for him, compared to the sentence for rape, carrying a weapon to make himself safer is a minor concern.
Somehow I don't think a woman caught by surprise, overwhelmed with force, and only armed with an improvised weapon, has much chance to overcome her attacker. In my opinion, the law infringes on her right to be safe from sexual assault in order to preserve the criminals right to life.
The right to self defence doesn't mean much when there is a long standing systematic and systemic effort to deny everyone the means to do so.
3
u/InitialAd4125 Apr 19 '26
Hell if we're just arguing within Canada's legal system if our judges weren't shit they'd realize security of person is a lot easier with a gun.
1
u/Barbarian_818 Apr 19 '26
I think they do realize. But it's just given a LOT less weight than the risk of giving criminals a fig leaf to disguise their possession and carrying of weapons.
There is the saying that when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. But the corollary to that is that it's easier for police and judges that way. Because then it becomes easier to say a person carrying a firearm is a criminal. You don't need to get into the grey and messy area of intent. Does he have a gun, or a knife? Boom, he's a criminal on that alone.
3
u/InitialAd4125 Apr 19 '26
"But it's just given a LOT less weight than the risk of giving criminals a fig leaf to disguise their possession and carrying of weapons."
But criminals do that either way are the judges stupid?
"There is the saying that when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. But the corollary to that is that it's easier for police and judges that way."
Easier then having a conceal carry license? Like this seems to be them being lazy and not caring about how the stomp on peoples rights to self defense.
"You don't need to get into the grey and messy area of intent. Does he have a gun, or a knife? Boom, he's a criminal on that alone."
Again easy fix does he have a license to carry in public? No then he's a criminal just as easy a fix. By this fucking logic we wouldn't let people drive cars.
1
u/Barbarian_818 Apr 19 '26
You don't know he has a license until you stop him and ask.
2
u/InitialAd4125 Apr 19 '26
"You don't know he has a license until you stop him and ask."
Oh so the same standard as a car? A thing far more deadly then most firearms. Like that doesn't seem like that hard a thing to do.
2
u/Natural_Comparison21 Apr 19 '26
You also don’t know if he has a weapon until you stop him and ask if he’s doing something called conceal carrying. You know. The whole purpose of which is to conceal your weapon?
1
u/Barbarian_818 Apr 20 '26
Oh I agree. I'm just saying the logic is that, as soon as they detect a weapon, they can immediately react to take control of the guy and arrest him. Because under our stupid laws and legal precedent, only criminals will ever be seen in possession of a weapon in public. It doesn't have to be true in reality, it doesn't have to be exception free. It just has to be "reasonable" and consistent to people sitting in courts and boardrooms.
Remember that our legal precedents say you can't carry anything with the intent of using it for self defense. Even though the Firearms Act clearly states "defense of life" as a valid reason to issue a permit to carry a pistol. If you are issued a type III ATC, you become exempt from that legal precedent.
And the Firearms Program has had a long standing agreement between CFOs to never issue a self defense ATC. Last I heard, there was only 1 in actual existence. The Firearms Program agrees with the courts, that there is never sufficient reason to carry a weapon for self defense. So much so that the ATC application forms don't even mention the possibility. If you call and talk to a rep, they will say there is no such thing.
I'd read, anecdotally that pretty much the only way to get one is to be a politician or judge with active death threats and a local police chief willing to say that his dept can't guarantee your safety. That chief can call the CFP and request that one be issued to you. And that it will automatically be revoked at any time if you cause a problem or after a year if you can't go through the entire process again to justify continued possession.
2
u/Natural_Comparison21 Apr 20 '26
“I'm just saying the logic is that, as soon as they detect a weapon, they can immediately react to take control of the guy and arrest him." Can't they literally immediately react by saying "Hey you got a license?"
"Because under our stupid laws and legal precedent, only criminals will ever be seen in possession of a weapon in public. It doesn't have to be true in reality, it doesn't have to be exception free. It just has to be "reasonable" and consistent to people sitting in courts and boardrooms." Which honestly fuck that consistency. That consistency is why people are being forced to rely on the police who show up after the crimes been committed seldom during.
"Remember that our legal precedents say you can't carry anything with the intent of using it for self defense. Even though the Firearms Act clearly states "defense of life" as a valid reason to issue a permit to carry a pistol. If you are issued a type III ATC, you become exempt from that legal precedent." Which which is hilarious if you ask me.
"And the Firearms Program has had a long standing agreement between CFOs to never issue a self defense ATC. Last I heard, there was only 1 in actual existence. The Firearms Program agrees with the courts, that there is never sufficient reason to carry a weapon for self defense. So much so that the ATC application forms don't even mention the possibility. If you call and talk to a rep, they will say there is no such thing." The people who are in charge of the firearms program hate the idea of peons having the ability to defend themselves. As then that makes the need for cops just a little bit less. Which cops hate that as that threatens there job security. Like I remember a AMA with a CFO and they straight up were being incredibly anti self defense. These people live in different realities then pretty much everyone else. Because if you are on the firearms program or end up becoming a judge chances are you had a incredibly privileged life growing up.
"I'd read, anecdotally that pretty much the only way to get one is to be a politician or judge with active death threats and a local police chief willing to say that his dept can't guarantee your safety. That chief can call the CFP and request that one be issued to you. And that it will automatically be revoked at any time if you cause a problem or after a year if you can't go through the entire process again to justify continued possession." Yep. Because for some reason politicians or judges who receive death threats deserve more rights and freedoms then anyone else who receives death threats.
2
u/KAYD3N1 Apr 19 '26
It’s a right, now hat we’ve had recent court rulings where legal owners used them to defend their lives inside their homes. Precedent has been set.
2
u/piper-down Apr 20 '26
You have no rights here. In Canada firearm ownership is seen only as a problem. Neither right or privilege. Count your blessings they still let you breathe their air. 🤷♂️
2
u/Hevmetal Apr 20 '26
Rights are self evident, and no other rights exist without the right to self defense. Self defence doesn't exist unless you can use the most effective tools. Therefore it is self evident that firearms ownership is a right, regardless of what any government says.
2
6
u/iz296 Apr 19 '26
I see the inherent value with the 2nd amendment, and what it was designed to do.
I do believe that, as a whole, firearms should be a right, with firearms ownership being considered a privilege on an individual level.
A right, ideally, with no real restrictions on full auto/semi auto. Own whatever you want, to any capacity, as long as you maintain the ability to safely do so.
A privilege, for those vetted and licensed, and who maintain a clean and clear criminal record, who carry the mental capacity to safely use and store them.
What is the reason we see so few shootings in Canada (with legally owned firearms) compared to the States? Population size? Access to mental health services? Our current licensing program and daily checks?
→ More replies (6)
5
Apr 19 '26
[deleted]
1
u/ArrowMountainTengu Apr 19 '26
the Canadian Bill of Rights does exist
2
u/InitialAd4125 Apr 19 '26
Yeah and it's pathetic. Having not just one but to carve outs for the powers that be to ignore our alleged "rights"
3
u/soundssarcastic bc Apr 19 '26
Technically, it's a privilege in Canada.
I just want consenting adults to be able to do what they like, broad spectrum.
10
u/xpingux Apr 19 '26
It should be a right.
The way the charter of Rights and freedoms is written there should be no limitation on the cool things we have, EXCEPT they added the word "reasonable".
Which means all the people that hate fun and happiness can say "oh no one reasonably should own x" and the whole charter ends up being worthless.
4
2
u/Strong_Bid_947 Apr 19 '26
As an American, I'd love to say that it's a right, because I am vehemently pro-gun.
However, realistically, I know that rights only seem to exist as much as your cause is willing and able to fight for them, literally and figuratively.
I have the "right to bear arms" but have had that right violated in the past by American LEO's, to myself as an individual - that said, of the times LE has attempted to infringe on that right whilst I was in an organized group of armed people (supporting a protest against the various neonazi groups that are indigenous to my local area, whom had been showing with the intent to cause harm/harass protestors) - they backed down, and my rights were not infringed upon.
It fills me with sadness seeing how anti-gun things are up north, I wish there was some kind of way we could help you... Unfortunately we've got a helluva lot of our own issues right now and helping anyone who isn't a billionaire doesn't seem like something that this current government would like to do.
I guess at the end of the day, our rights come from our ability to preserve, protect and implement said rights and sometimes that can be a nerve-racking and unpredictable situation - I don't really feel that any document, ethos, etc will ever actually protect a right, it has to come from the people/individuals.
1
u/escv_69420 Apr 19 '26
It's a privilege for sure and the 2A sort of "defend muh freedumbs" arguement is outdated, kooky and stupid. Our rights get peeled away like an onion all over the western world, the powers that be are being comically overt about it these days, and no one is doing shit.
It was a great idea to keep European powers from re-invading the colonies in the 18th century, but these days a western nation would bring horrors beyond human comprehension to bear against a rebellion. People who think that being able to own machines guns would save them are kooks. Few casualties in modern war are caused by bullets, and you can't afford a 5th gen attack aircraft, a MANPAD or even a fleet of good drones. The true resistance in the 21st century is sig-int, cyber attacks and electronic warfare. Your gun won't save you when they know everything about you and can cook your brain with some kind of directed energy horror weapon.
I think we should have guns just because they're fun. The pre-2020 system we had going on up here worked well enough and gun crime using legally owned guns was super low. The current happenings aren't about "disarming the populace" because even if we had something like an absolutely unrestricted right to bear arms, we'd get vaporized if it came to that. It's just about publicity stunts to get votes from urban Canadian moms. Cripplingly more boring than the "first step to dictatorship" all the kooks blabber about.
1
u/canadianloom Apr 19 '26
I definitely agree with thinking it should be a right. Tho we will never have it as a right because technically we don’t really have “rights” at all do to section 1 that allows the government to violate every right if they believe it’s in the “best interest of the collective”
1
u/Spydude84 Apr 19 '26
Rights are endowed by our Creator and I believe firearms are one such right bestowed, as a consequence of being able to defend ourselves and others and determine our own destinies. Firearms are empowering
The government may not see it this way, but they also don't see freedom of speech as a strict right either.
I also see being able to own a car and drive on public roads as a right, though capable of being beholden to licensing. The right here is moreso the ability to travel, and cars are society's current best method for doing so. Any licensing process must be reasonable and not onerous, which for the most part I believe the current system provides for.
2
u/InitialAd4125 Apr 19 '26
Well the licensing is more of a privilege because those roads aren't yours alone. The car though should be.
2
1
1
u/general_bonesteel on Apr 19 '26
Kinda both? Like, it's.a privilege to be able to get them in the first place but you should have property rights of something you own.
Once you're proven to be a responsible owner, within the scope of obtaining the license, that you should be trusted. Unfortunately, our government wants to use it as a political wedge issue and frame it beyond a proven trusted group of individuals who own something.
Like a car you need a licence to get but once you have it, it can't just be arbitrarily taken away.
1
Apr 19 '26
[deleted]
1
u/InitialAd4125 Apr 19 '26
God? Which one? Because a lot of them seem to just kill us whenever they feel like it. However you are right about the massive fucking hypocrisy of the state.
1
u/No_Praline_1835 Apr 19 '26
I see it as a come take it from me if you think it's worth it kind of deal. We all have a right to defend ourselves and families from hunger and threats. So, taking away something you never gave doesn't make sense.
1
u/I-LOVE-HENRY-RIFLES Apr 19 '26 edited Apr 19 '26
Self defence is a human right. Now what tool you do it with is a different story. I think having a constitutional right like the Czechs do to self defence with any tool including guns is good. Because that way you can still implement background checks and stuff while allowing guns to be used for defence.
At the end of the day you are actually free and have a lot of free will.
1
u/slashcleverusername Apr 19 '26
Everything starts out being a right until the government says no. In order to do so, it has to explain the benefits of saying no. Unless it can do that in a convincing way, the law will be struck down by the Courts.
So if your mayor and city council ban listening to nickelback because they don’t like it, they may have good taste but they can’t expect that bylaw to pass muster or survive a court challenge, there’s no good reason for it other than “I don’t like it.”
If they ban playing any music too loud after ten pm, maybe that law will survive. They could make the case that, yes it interferes with your rights to listen to a full-blast outdoor concert whenever you damnwell feel like it, but people need a chance to sleep for health and wellbeing, they have shit to do the next day, and you could go to a concert indoors or even just listen to a recording on your headphones if you’re that desperate for loud music at 3 am.
The point is they have to make the case, and they need a reason that is as important as the rights they’re meddling with, and they need to be able to explain it clearly to the courts.
And our Charter of Rights is pretty stern about this stuff: it lists a whole bunch of examples of things that are specifically protected. But it adds a bit that laws can only limit our rights “subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”
So the test our government faces actually goes beyond our borders. If there is a free country somewhere in the world who has figured out how to do something important, but in a less-meddlesome way, the government can find its laws falling due to the example set by other countries. Our Supreme Court is not required to stick to Canadian law for precedents or examples like this. Court decisions in Australia or the UK are definitely not binding on Canada. But our Courts are free to look at those and say “Yeah they made a good point” and adopt similar reasoning in similar cases here.
The particular rights here are probably from the Constitution Act, 1867. We all have a constitutional right to “peace, order, and good government.”
So we can start out assuming we have the right to gun ownership (it doesn’t matter if it’s listed or not since the government would need a reason to block it anyway). But we also obviously have a right to peace and order, it’s right in the text. So if someone else’s gun is the cause of disorder and disrupting the peace, the rest of us have our own right to have the government stop that person from owning a gun.
It is up to the government to prove they’re doing that in the most reasonable and least meddlesome way possible. Which means maybe they can’t ban ownership. Maybe they can only require training and screening. Again, the standard they face is “What is so important that you’re trying to achieve it at the expense of some Canadians doing what they want?” And then “Prove to us this is the least meddlesome way possible.”
And I don’t think our current gun laws have been fully tested in that way, so probably all or part of them will fall with the right court challenges.
1
u/DYTREM Apr 19 '26 edited Apr 19 '26
When government starts referring to your right to own legal property as a privilege, may it be pension, cars, wealth, guns, etc., it's time to remove the incumbents and replace them with politicians who promise to respect our rights.
The Crown adores granting/removing privileges, as it is done at the whim of caucus instead of in a court of law where logic and facts are applied in the search for the truth, fairness and equity.
Notice how of late CPP has become a benefit instead of your contribution matched by the government, and driving your owned vehicle has become a privilege instead of quiet enjoyment of one's property.
We have to reverse this trend and force the symbolic Crown to respect our rights instead of trampling them at the request of lobbyists for political ends.
1
u/mossyturkey Apr 20 '26
Its Both
I have the privilege of having the opportunity to go through the vetting process. Once I complete the government mandated process and prove that I am a responsible citizen, they award me the right to have a firearm. If I violate the agreement, I should lose that right, and not have the privilege to obtain that right again.
1
1
u/kookiemaster Apr 20 '26
The problem I have with it being a "fundamental" right is that some people definitely should not be given the right to own firearms, but base it on cold hard facts like a proven history of using them to commit crimes and such.
It would be nice if it was a bit more like the right to drive. You need to prove your competence, and if there are signs you are no longer safe, you can be asked to prove that you are (like those driving tests a doctor might request) but ultimately, there needs to be some solid evidence that the right should be removed. My understanding is that the bar to remove a driver's licence is pretty high and there is often a clear path to regaining it.
1
u/Bate_Hoomers Apr 20 '26
rights arent negotiated, its a constant fight. Our gun lobby and the pro gun people are happy with pinned mags are happy with the crap laws we had before C21, so it remains a privilege.
1
u/GreynBent Apr 20 '26
We SHOULD have rights from both the Magna Carta and the BNA Act of 1867.
BUT Canadians are too comfortable letting Big Brother decide whatever he wants and we go, oh, I'm sorry.
The current crop of working Canadians between 25 and 60, should they live long enough will see their great grand-children engage in a bloody revolution to try to restore the rights we let successive WEF-type elites remove one by one.
Guns are but a small part of it. Large protest: jail, beatings, a la Toronto G20. Larger protest: jail, bank seizures (and not just for protesters - supporters of protesters). Coming soon: nasty notes on the internet - fines and service denial. Do nothing remotely bad: we'll be checking all your posts and emails.
1
u/TarkovSundays Apr 20 '26
I’d say in a perfect world it would be a privilege. To me it’s a right at this moment in time. No matter what you do to me you will never remove firearms from my possessions at this time even if you took my guns, got rid of my pal. I’d find a way. It’s too dangerous and the government has no means to protect you. If this country was truly safe and everything was sunshine and rainbows I’d say you have to earn the right to have a firearm. I wouldn’t say that’s the case now with how many bums there are and how many illegal weapons on the street.
1
u/Ilikechainsaws09 Apr 20 '26
We have an actual fucking KING. We are subjects with no rights and/or they can be stripped away by the government at will as the charter is subject to them doing whatever they want. Only way to be truly free is to dissolve and make a republic with enshrined rights, like self defence and property.
1
u/JumpinJacker081 Apr 22 '26
I wouldnt even say its a privilege because that implies that if we behave (which we have) we can keep our guns.
1
1
u/Ritchie_Whyte_III Apr 19 '26 edited Apr 19 '26
I believe that any person should have the right to do pretty whatever they want if proven they can do it safely and without hurting others.
That being said we don't hand WMD's out for good reason. A person should have the ability to take training and prove themselves responsible to own everything from a .22 to a Sherman Tank. BUT the process to get that level of responsibility should be clear and revokable if the situation changes.
I personally think the 2 day PAL course is a great gateway to hunting rifles, pump shotguns and lever guns. IMHO the "restricted" licence, which was only a few more hours more was treated a little lightly. I'm all in favor of graduated licencing with increased training to step up one by one with something like this:
single shot--> semi auto --> handgun --> concealed --> automatic --> explosive/military
-1
u/theawesomedude646 Apr 19 '26 edited Apr 19 '26
i think it'll be helpful to paste in some definitions first because i apparently had a wrong understanding of the terms before this post prompted me to google it
A privilege is a certain entitlement to immunity granted by the state or another authority to a restricted group, either by birth or on a conditional basis. Land-titles and taxi medallions are examples of transferable privilege – they can be revoked in certain circumstances. In modern democratic states, a privilege is conditional and granted only after birth. By contrast, a right is an inherent, irrevocable entitlement held by all citizens or all human beings from the moment of birth
Natural rights are rights which are "natural" in the sense of "not artificial, not man-made", as in rights deriving from human nature or from the edicts of a god. They are universal; that is, they apply to all people, and do not derive from the laws of any specific society. They exist necessarily, inhere in every individual, and cannot be taken away. For example, it has been argued that humans have a natural right to life. These are sometimes called moral rights or inalienable rights.
Legal rights, in contrast, are based on a society's customs, laws, statutes or actions by legislatures. An example of a legal right is the right to vote of citizens
A liberty right or privilege, in contrast, is simply a freedom or permission for the right-holder to do something, and there are no obligations on other parties to do or not do anything.
the current PAL system, by definition, makes gun ownership in Canada a privilege. It's a bit complicated because as much as I value the ability to be allowed to do things and general personal freedom, I hope nobody here believes that guns should be available to *absolutely everybody* including children, the mentally ill, and criminals.
I think it should be something like a very wide privilege, maybe with tiers. In my ideal, nothing would be outright banned or unobtainable, just that the things with less utility and more danger would cost more to maintain licensing and encroach more on your right to privacy. taken to the extreme, it'd be something like legally owning a fully functional and armed tank at the cost of paying for weekly psychiatric assessments and security inspections.
now carrying any weapons for self defence however, i think that should be a right. at the moment it really seems like the government doesn't want self defence to be a right at all but even they recognize saying it outright would be too stupid so they just make it functionally impossible.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Jayardia Apr 19 '26 edited Apr 19 '26
I don’t see this issue quite as simply as “right or privilege”.
My scope and perspective would include the words “obligation”, “responsibility”, “conditional”, and “duty” -along with the “right” and “privilege”.
(If it’s a binary, “either-or” question, I’d certainly lean to “privilege”… but with much explanation needed.)
I generally despise the bad-faith ridiculousness that has happened with Canada’s firearm laws in the past decade or so.
Nor am I a fan of the loose, irresponsible nature of the American format of gun culture overall.
I’m a pretty big fan of thoughtfully meshing freedoms and responsibilities in a way that is meticulously sensible, and fosters human flourishing and competence- both as individuals and as a whole.
There are people who- (by example of their established patterns of behaviour) -shouldn’t be trusted with a burnt-out match, let alone a firearm.
There are others, who- through practice, training, ability, and long-term demonstration of peak human sensibility, -I would trust to carry generally any firearm (openly or concealed) on their person at any or all times, at their discretion.
Most of us recognize that the problems that have existed (and continue to exist) as a consequence of “humans with firearms”, -it’s the humans that are invariably the problem factor at issue.
I believe in varying forms of official licensing when it comes to firearms… the training, responsibilities, and allowances would increase at each level. …I’d be thinking of 4 to 5 levels in this notion. I have a base, general framework in mind for the requirements/allowances of each level, but the details of those levels would be worked out by those more knowledgeable than myself. I’d view the “Level 1” as something that approaches a “common right of passage” toward base human competence… similar to learning to swim, or basic cooking. -Not everyone is capable of all these things, -for a variety of reasons, and that makes sense.
You wanna use firearms for basic independent target/training shooting or hunting? …Level 2. That’s going to be much more advanced than 1.
Sport / competitive shooting and wilderness carry permit for handguns? Level 3.
And so on… the highest I’d be interested in would be 3. …4 and 5 would be quite different, and likely “lifestyle-altering” levels of duty, competence, and ongoing recertification training.
1
u/scott3845 Apr 19 '26
Privilege, in the same way driving a car or having a fishing license is.
If you're blind, you shouldn't be able to drive a car.
If you're dynamiting lakes, you shouldn't have a fishing license.
If you're a danger to yourself or others, you shouldn't own a gun
BUT
You should have the right to defend yourself and your home if your life or your families' life is on the line
1
u/InitialAd4125 Apr 19 '26
"If you're blind, you shouldn't be able to drive a car."
In a way that would endanger people tell me if someone is driving on there own land who are they endangering?
"If you're a danger to yourself or others, you shouldn't own a gun"
Isn't everyone inherently a danger to themselves and others?
1
u/scott3845 Apr 19 '26
Are you insinuating if you give a crazy and/or unstable and/or dangerous person a gun and tell them they can shoot stuff but only on their own land, they're going to abide by that for sure?
I'm not saying regular people shouldn't have access to firearms; I'm saying that crazy neighbor that threatens to shoot you and your family because you started keeping chickens shouldn't be allowed to have a gun. Because fuck that guy.
1
u/InitialAd4125 Apr 19 '26
"Are you insinuating if you give a crazy and/or unstable and/or dangerous person a gun and tell them they can shoot stuff but only on their own land, they're going to abide by that for sure?"
Where did you state crazy or unstable. Again everyone is dangerous you're going to need a certain cut off for what you deem acceptable levels of danger.
"I'm not saying regular people shouldn't have access to firearms; I'm saying that crazy neighbor that threatens to shoot you and your family because you started keeping chickens shouldn't be allowed to have a gun. Because fuck that guy."
Again that's the crazy/unstable and dangerous but they aren't dangerous because they're unstable or crazy the dangerous because they're capable of doing something dangerous.
1
u/scott3845 Apr 20 '26
So I'm not getting into a ridiculous semantical argument so I'm not replying after this.
Access to drinkable water is a right. Breathing fresh air is a right. You get both no matter what. You could be incarcerated for murdering people, it's still your right to have both.
Owning a gun is a privilege. Yiu don't get one no matter what and saying that anyone and everyone should be able to get one no matter the circumstances is crazy talk.
1
u/InitialAd4125 Apr 20 '26
"Access to drinkable water is a right."
Yeah as can be found in nature.
"Breathing fresh air is a right. You get both no matter what."
Do you? Like you should but a lot of places have shit water or no water and some places have garbage air quality. So the whole you get both no matter what is more like you shouldn't be deprived of either but frankly no not everyone does get them no matter what because of simple material realties should we change that reality yes but as of right now not everyone gets said thing no matter what.
"Owning a gun is a privilege."
Why because the state tells you that it is?
"Yiu don't get one no matter what and saying that anyone and everyone should be able to get one no matter the circumstances is crazy talk."
Did I say that they should?
1
u/Impressive_Usual_923 Apr 19 '26
The right to defend yourself, your family and your property is God given. If you live otherwise you are a slave.
1
u/PrestigiousStatus711 Apr 19 '26
You have the right to defend yourself and you have the right to possess the tools to adequately do so. Possessing and carrying firearms falls well within that.
-3
u/dirkdiggler2011 Apr 19 '26
It's a privilege as you have to prove you're responsible.
Having children is a right. Freedom of religion is a right.
There is a difference.
5
u/Low_Bar_804 Apr 19 '26
How? Who gets to pick and choose?
1
u/dirkdiggler2011 Apr 19 '26 edited Apr 19 '26
Can't follow safety rules, no gun.
Willing to take course and follow safety rules later, gun.
264
u/EnvironmentBright697 Apr 19 '26
Truth is, we don’t have any “rights” whatsoever in Canada. The “reasonable limits” clause in the charter basically invalidates the entire thing and lets the government decide what is “reasonable” or not.