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.

98 Upvotes

80% Upvoted

356 comments sorted by

View all comments

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.

51

u/DougMacRay617 Apr 19 '26 edited Apr 19 '26

Why stop at 20? Standard capacity applies . The end

-14

u/escv_69420 Apr 19 '26

Yeah why 20? Ten makes sense, five is annoying and any more than 10 might as well be unlimited.

15

u/DougMacRay617 Apr 19 '26

Why 10? Gangbangers in the citys are running around with full autos you think they are using pinned magazines? Lol

-6

u/escv_69420 Apr 19 '26

I agree with you. I think mag limits are kind of dumb because A: power drill go brrrr and B: illegal guns come with the illegal magazines they use. I just say 10 because it's enough for some fun shooting and a nice round number if we have to have a limit for optical/political purposes.

Just make it 10 across the board so it's not like 5 for semi CF rifles, 5 but actually 6+1+1 for tube semi shotguns, but definitely 5 for mag fed shotties, then 10 for pistols. If we're going to have gun laws, can we at least have ones that aren't confusing and stupid?

9

u/ChemtrailTruck1863 Apr 19 '26

double the maximum magazine to 20 rounds on rifle calibers

How is your math working that 20 = double?

9

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!

27

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.

6

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.

35

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. 

20

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.

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

-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.

-10

u/The_King_of_Canada mb Apr 19 '26 edited Apr 19 '26

See this is where the disconnect is the guy you're commenting on is a realist who knows whats going on. Man has my full support.

Then you come in spewing about gun rights. We don't have gun rights. Most of us don't want them. Regulating who owns guns is a good thing.

Its not pathetic.

11

u/Imaginary-Text4690 Apr 19 '26

Do you agree with the buy back program and semi auto bans? I really don’t get it why are you here

-10

u/The_King_of_Canada mb Apr 19 '26 edited Apr 19 '26

No I don't agree with them. I'm here because you're americanizing gun ownership and because gun rights don't exist and I don't want them to.

1

u/Imaginary-Text4690 Apr 19 '26

Tell that to the Czech Republic where you can concealed carry and have any capacity mag. It’s not Americanizing it’s knowing about guns place in your culture.

1

u/Imaginary-Text4690 Apr 19 '26

Garuntee there’s more of a reason to carry in Canada then Czech Republic more crime happens in Canada I’m sure but idk

9

u/_axeman_ Apr 19 '26

"Most of us don't want them" 

buddy, stick to speaking for yourself.

-3

u/The_King_of_Canada mb Apr 19 '26

But you yourself want restrictions to gun rights.

Do you want guns legally in the hands of convicted rapists, murderers, or pedophiles? No? Then either you don't want gun rights or you want restrictions on gun rights which makes it a privilege.

7

u/1955FL Apr 19 '26

This is so dumb. People who commit violent crimes give up their rights and get locked in a cage. Do you think we should be locking innocent, law abiding citizens in cages too?

-1

u/The_King_of_Canada mb Apr 19 '26

No we shouldn't lock up innocents. And they don't give up their rights they are stripped of them.

Call it what you will but if a government can strip a right from you is it still a right?

7

u/1955FL Apr 19 '26

Stripped, give up, forfeit. No need to play a semantic game. If you physically assault me you forfeit your right to not be assaulted in return. A government’s only legitimize purpose is to protect the rights of its citizens. A murderer or rapist has violated the rights of someone else and should be punished accordingly. It’s the result of their own actions. Telling me I cannot carry a firearm to protect myself and my family because someone else has done something bad is the type of “one bad apple” logic that only works in kindergarten. 

-1

u/The_King_of_Canada mb Apr 19 '26

But it's not semantics. Its a huge difference. Consenting to give up your rights is one thing but most people aren't in prison because they consented to be in prison. They were stripped of their rights and shoved in a cage. And don't get me wrong here they deserve to be in cages but that's not the topic.

So are rights actually rights or is that just another term for privileges because the government can strip you of them.

3

u/_axeman_ Apr 19 '26

Now you're gonna speak for me too? Gtfoh

0

u/The_King_of_Canada mb Apr 19 '26

Ok then speak for yourself.

Do you want guns in the hands of murderers, rapists, and pedos?

5

u/_axeman_ Apr 19 '26

Nice greasy framing of that question. I believe that citizens ought to have the option to have what they want to have.

By definition , someone with one of the labels you've described has committed a crime.

When people commit a crime, their rights are curtailed as a consequence. Prisoner's possessions are generally limited to the clothes on their back (provided by the institution) and so they don't have guns.

Before they offend or are apprehended they already can and do get their hands on guns.

I don't believe in law enforcement by way of crystal ball. I'm all for proactive preventative measures but not by curtailing the freedoms of 99% of people who aren't dickheads. 

0

u/The_King_of_Canada mb Apr 19 '26

Ok so you're missing my point and dodging the question.

What about when a criminal served their time. Do you want them to have access to firearms then?

I can't speak for you but personally? I don't want convicted criminals to have access to firearms which means restrictions of "gun rights" and any restriction makes it less of a right. Which means limits to rights.

0

u/_axeman_ Apr 19 '26

I didn't dodge your question, I answered it directly. I think you need to figure out and then state exactly what you think a 'right' is. 

The only inalienable rights you have are ones YOU personally can defend, everything else is a covenant with other people; in this case society. It's a contract that says 'Here are things/concepts we won't fuck with unless you fuck with my ability to do the same'. An agreement is by nature subject to conditions, even if that condition is merely 'we both think that this is true '.

A privilege, on the other hand, is something with criteria that you have to meet in the first place to enjoy. For example, driving a car = get training and a license, privilege. Freedom of movement, like walking somewhere or using a taxi service, is a right. You have the right to go places (not inalienable by the way) but you don't have the right to do it as efficiently as possible (driving) because there's risk.

When it comes to defending your life, I believe you should have the RIGHT to use the absolute best means available because it's far more important than getting to work faster. Doesn't mean you get carte blanche to fuck with other people.

Whether 'reformed' criminals can have guns is a nuanced topic that does and should have many factors to consider, but it's also moving the goalposts from speaking for other people.

3

u/Imaginary-Text4690 Apr 19 '26

I think I’m a realist and understand how firearms and humans work, and I think you let the media and the left get to your feelings and make you think you should be ok to walk around town. There’s crazies everywhere and nothing is stopping them from getting guns from the largest unguarded border in the world into the country.

5

u/Humblebf109 Apr 19 '26

The people who don't want gun rights are the same people that think guns are the problem. There are a handful of European countries who are also armed and tragedies almost never happen, proving its the people, not the object.

Not that it needed proving but some people still don't get it.

3

u/The_King_of_Canada mb Apr 19 '26

Guns aren't the problem. People are the problem. Thats where licensing comes in. To weed out the problem people and prevent them from owning guns.

Some of those European countries have mandatory military service so everyone capable of training has been trained, which is a couple of steps further than a simple PAL course and of course restricts other freedoms.

But you are right. Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

1

u/Imaginary-Text4690 Apr 19 '26

You can concealed carry in Czech Republic and have any capacity mag you want. Ya with a license but it’s a right to them.

1

u/Imaginary-Text4690 Apr 19 '26

Have fun with the liberals. Do you think pinned mags should be illegal? All it takes is removing a pin and it’s “ full assault rifle nuclear devastation” in the eyes of you and the liberals. It doesn’t make that big a difference in the context that matters of an unarmed group of people being attacked. It doesn’t really matter as long as you can shoot off a couple rounds then reload. Mag capacity mostly matters when fighting someone else who’s armed when it comes to suppressive fire and fire superiority. Doesn’t really matter when no one else can defend themself. Have fun declaring all your prohibs.

4

u/The_King_of_Canada mb Apr 19 '26

Buddy your issue is you're going too far in the other direction. You're acting like a Liberal anti-gunner, just with the opposing position. Now you're painting me as one of them because I disagree with idea of gun rights.

We gotta be realistic. We gotta have logical and reasonable arguments, and youre making this harder for all of us gun owners.

1

u/Imaginary-Text4690 Apr 19 '26

I still think mag capacity limits don’t prevent casualties and I’m sure a lot of people will agree you can make a bomb pretty easily for fucks sake it’s about control and emotion you gotta get it together your not pro gun you are anti gun standard capacity magazine are ok

1

u/Imaginary-Text4690 Apr 19 '26

You can un pin a mag you can 3d print mags it doesn’t matter the law

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.