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

261

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.

123

u/Scary-Detail-3206 Apr 19 '26

100%, this is fundamentally everything that is wrong with this country. Rights are absolute, not suggestions.

7

u/K0bra_Ka1 Apr 19 '26

Your right to express yourself cannot come at the expense of my right to be safe and secure.

43

u/theawesomedude646 Apr 19 '26

Driving is a privilege. It comes at the expense of your right to be safe and secure.

Guns should not be treated any differently. Sure cars might functionally be more important, but that's secondary to the value of wider freedoms.

49

u/Candid-Tomato2971 Apr 19 '26

New OIC just passed, your gasoline car is now a prohibited item, amnesty ends in 6 months. Surrender to the government or deactivate it, otherwise face criminal liability.

23

u/ablemount Apr 19 '26

Not a joke; it's on the way.

-22

u/handen Apr 19 '26

And monkeys might fly out of my butt.

4

u/I-LOVE-HENRY-RIFLES Apr 19 '26

If they do can I have one

3

u/kookiemaster Apr 20 '26

I used this example to explain how the OiC came off as ... and asked them how they would feel if their vehicle, possibly based on its colour was suddenly called "terrorism-style vehicle" and that this was the rationale for them becoming prohibited and you might or might not get compensated.

6

u/InitialAd4125 Apr 19 '26

Arguably driving isn't even the privilege part it's more like driving on public roads is a privilege. Which I can get behind a bit more because you the individual didn't pay for all the fucking roads.

5

u/ragnar_lodbrok_ Apr 20 '26

The driving example is a good counter to the pretense of the 'saving lives' argument. Orders of magnitude more people are killed by cars compared.

These murder machines are right out of Death Race, designed to drive at 100s of km/h. There's no reasonable purpose for these assault vehicles to be able to go more than 10s of km/h besides for the purposes of maximizing the number of people they can maim or kill. And the larger military style trucks or SUVs are something straight out of a combat zone.

They should be outlawed and a voluntary buyback program put in place where people can turn in these death chariots and receive a small percentage of the vehicles current value. The buyback budget will have a small one-time amount set aside to cover 1-2% of owned vehicles at the determined discounted values. After the voluntary turn in period ends any owners still possessing these assault vehicles will be arrested.

4

u/DYTREM Apr 20 '26

The same should be done with alcohol, sugar and gluten. Much worse killers than firearms in Canada.

But who is moving the government in this direction?

1

u/outline8668 Apr 20 '26

Amusingly in regards to drugs our government seems to be moving in the opposite direction.

2

u/yummybunnybear Apr 19 '26

This supposed distinction and subordination between "rights" and "privileges" is just stupid semantics. A "privilege" is something you have to work toward to earn, but once you have that privilege, it's your right to exercise it. For driving, getting a license is a privilege, but once you have it, you have the right to drive. Heck, we even call it "right of way" not "privilege of way" even though getting into that driver's seat would be a privilege at the outset. It's a privilege to own real estate, but once you have it, it's your legal right to have possession of it. Likewise, getting a firearms license is a privilege, but once you have it, it's your right to exercise lawful firearm ownership. The real debate it whether firearm ownership should be a constitutionally protected right or a legislated right. So this abstract debate about whether firearm ownership should be a privilege or a right is kind of pointless.

0

u/DYTREM Apr 19 '26

I disagree.

Driving is the act of quiet enjoyment of my legally acquired property as long as it is done in respect of the laws enacted to make driving safe for everyone.

Also, it is not a privilege, it is a necessity in this country.

1

u/GreynBent Apr 20 '26

Not even close to a necessity. This country was built before the automobile. Although now you can't have horses in Calgary. Or cows. You can have chickens, though.

0

u/theawesomedude646 Apr 19 '26

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

You aren't born with a driver's license, and it can be revoked. Therefore, it's by definition a privilege.

Being a "necessity" has no bearing on the core ethical argument as the value of life vs the value of freedom.

0

u/DYTREM Apr 20 '26

Interesting how the origins of drivers licenses gets distorted in favour of a certain outcome during the "ethical" debate.

https://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/trcircular/458/458-008.pdf

Laws are never the result of just an ethical debate in reality. Political and economic interest often twist the outcome as it is in the debate about gun ownership.

21

u/Scary-Detail-3206 Apr 19 '26

My right to express myself is every bit as important as your right to be safe and secure, that’s how rights work.

4

u/K0bra_Ka1 Apr 19 '26

But you do not have the absolute right to express yourself. There is a limit to your right becuase it can infringe on mine.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 19 '26 edited Apr 19 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/K0bra_Ka1 Apr 19 '26

Neither is more important and neither is absolute. That's what happens when you live in a society. Ultimately it may be decided by the courts as to what is the most reasonable solution.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 19 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/K0bra_Ka1 Apr 19 '26

I've been very consistent that no right is absolute. You can pretend otherwise all you would like.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 19 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/K0bra_Ka1 Apr 19 '26

Almost as if I said exactly that....

"Neither is more important and neither is absolute. That's what happens when you live in a society. Ultimately it may be decided by the courts as to what is the most reasonable solution."

→ More replies (0)

1

u/DYTREM Apr 19 '26

Do you mean "express yourself" as choosing to own/use firearms vs the right to be safe and secure from one's fear of firearms owners?

Sound dangerously like supporting Poly's policies.

1

u/K0bra_Ka1 Apr 19 '26

No. I said nothing of the sort. That's a very specific and kinda weird misinterpretation of what I wrote.

1

u/DYTREM Apr 19 '26

Roger that. Was just asking for clarification, not trying to troll. Thank you.

2

u/ArrowMountainTengu Apr 19 '26

rights are social constructions, no matter what we choose to believe about that. If they were truly absolute, a gov't couldn't deny or restrict them, but as we know, a gov't absolutely can do that.

-17

u/curseyouZelda Apr 19 '26

If it can be taken away it’s not a right. Fundamentally wrong with this country?

Brother we couldn’t see things any differently, this is one of the best countries in the world for many things. Education, life expectancy, quality of living. Are we the tippy top of all those things no, but fundamentally wrong? I think not.

30

u/Scary-Detail-3206 Apr 19 '26

“Birds born in a cage think flying is an illness” -Alejandro Jodorowsky

The government metrics aren’t telling the real story. I’ve travelled the world extensively, people are much happier and freer in countries without such tyrannical governments.

-22

u/69sullyboy69 Apr 19 '26

Tyrannical government? Give me a break, dude.

35

u/EnvironmentBright697 Apr 19 '26

I’d say government goons coming to throw me in prison or kill me if I refuse to hand over my legally obtained personal property, for doing absolutely nothing wrong as pretty tyrannical. Freezing peoples bank accounts for donating $20 to a gofundme at the time seen as a simple protest, quite tyrannical imo. Surveillance state spying Bill C-22 that infringes on everyone’s privacy? Also tyrannical imo.

-24

u/ArrowMountainTengu Apr 19 '26

utter and complete nonsense, dude. You live in an incredibly free country with a very high happiness index, and one of the best performing economies in the G7. The american propaganda effort works incredibly well to constantly rile up the emotions in this way, but it is actual nonsense, no matter how you feel about it.

20

u/EnvironmentBright697 Apr 19 '26

Key Youth Happiness Metrics in Canada:

Global Rank (Under 25): 71st.

Regional Ranking: Canadian youth under 30 are significantly less happy than those over 60, who rank in the top 10.

Trend: The decline in youth happiness is among the worst in the world, with only a few nations (e.g., Lebanon, Afghanistan) seeing worse drops.

Overall Country Rank: 25th, falling from 18th in 2025 and 5th in 2011.

Generational Disparity:

Over 60: This demographic ranks 8th globally, indicating a significant happiness gap between young and older Canadians.

Under 30: This group now ranks 58th or lower in global sub-rankings (depending on the specific report year 2024/2025).

The youth picture tells the story, because the youth is the future. As usual, CBC brainwashed boomers think Canada is still the best country in the world.

17

u/zero-the-hero-0069 Apr 19 '26

Don't forget the amount of taxes we as a populace pay for the privilege of getting fucked in the ass by the government, for services that are getting exponentially worse every year.
The Canadian government and system used to be very good. Now it's broken.
Nothing but corruption and propaganda, eaten up by the sheep of this once thriving nation.

5

u/InitialAd4125 Apr 19 '26

Yep like I'm fine with high taxes if they amount to actual positive changes but the government seems unable to do anything but waste our money.

17

u/Scary-Detail-3206 Apr 19 '26

I encourage you to actually go out and see the world, to meet people in other countries and form your opinions that way, rather than relying on Canadian media propaganda

2

u/ThrowRA_That_Owl_25 Apr 19 '26

You are either a bot or government shill. You are not blind, are you?

1

u/DYTREM Apr 20 '26

Boomers' level of happiness is not equal to all Canadians' level of happiness. Enough with the projection, please.

-28

u/The_King_of_Canada mb Apr 19 '26

Bruh. Rights are never absolutes. A right is just what the presiding government thinks you should have. This is the same everywhere.

17

u/1955FL Apr 19 '26

So your opinion is that a person born in North Korea should not be entitled to the same rights as you because of where they happen to live? 

-15

u/The_King_of_Canada mb Apr 19 '26

No. My position is that a person in North Korea does not have the same rights that i do. They should but they don't.

Because rights are not absolute. Human rights exist internationally but at the end of the day rights are whatever your government is willing to give you and whatever the people are willing to fight for.

12

u/ThrowRA_That_Owl_25 Apr 19 '26

Government nevet gives you are rights. You are confusing rights with privilages.

-2

u/The_King_of_Canada mb Apr 19 '26

I'm not. If a government can strip you of your rights then you have rights because the government says so.

If a right can be stripped then is it even a right?

4

u/ThrowRA_That_Owl_25 Apr 19 '26

Lol Thats a twisted-ass logic, if you ask me.

1

u/InitialAd4125 Apr 19 '26

No it makes some sense if you don't believe in the concept of rights which I get but at the same time don't. Like I guess it's how someone defines what a right is.

3

u/ThrowRA_That_Owl_25 Apr 19 '26

It's called infringement on your right(s). You are just naive to see that many governments, including Canadian, do not want to protect people's rights but because of that rights dont seize to exist.

I hope I've given you a lot to think about and you need time to process it.

2

u/InitialAd4125 Apr 19 '26

"You are just naive to see that many governments, including Canadian, do not want to protect people's rights but because of that rights dont seize to exist."

It's more like rights are just concepts that we have come up with via the mind of humans they are not physical they only exist because we believe they do. Now if that is enough grounds for something to exist then they exist if not then they don't.

→ More replies (0)

11

u/Dependent_Account603 Apr 19 '26

This is why the American view of rights is the correct one. They are natural rights that humans have. Ever since the dawn of humanity, one of the things that separates us from monkeys, is the ability to wield weapons. Thus it is a natural right. Its not the government that grants you the right. Its the government that's not allowed to interfere with it.

3

u/The_King_of_Canada mb Apr 19 '26

Alex Pretti was a law abiding gun owning citizen practising his natural rights and they beat him, put him on his knees, disarmed him and executed him.

Some states would rather let women die than get an abortion. Some states are willing to execute people on flimsy evidence. They don't even respect the most basic natural right to life and have done everything to circumvent it.

Rights are just whatever the prevailing government is willing to give you.

Lets take the 2nd amendment people think its a right to over throw the government with force. If that was true why were Trumps repeated assassination attempts crimes? Because rights are whatever the prevailing government is willing to give you.

In the states they just lie about what rights their citizens have to get elected.

4

u/InitialAd4125 Apr 19 '26

"Rights are just whatever the prevailing government is willing to give you."

Could it not be argued rights always exist it's just that the prevailing governments simply don't respect them?

0

u/The_King_of_Canada mb Apr 19 '26

I mean not really.

The governing body is the one that decides which rights their citizens should have, through our consent of course, a right doesn't exist until it's on paper.

1

u/Dependent_Account603 Apr 19 '26

If rights depends on the governing body, then there's no such thing as a right that's discernible from a privilege. Which leaves the only meaningful definition of right to be a natural one.

1

u/InitialAd4125 Apr 19 '26

"The governing body is the one that decides which rights their citizens should have, through our consent of course, a right doesn't exist until it's on paper."

Does it though? Like arguably a "right" is merely an idea that's it same with the piece of paper. It's just a piece of paper. The only 100% real things are material reality and even then people can precisive that differently. All the governing body decides to do is just enforce what it chooses to belief are "rights" and only when convenient.

1

u/ThrowRA_That_Owl_25 Apr 19 '26

Actually, yes, 2nd is for fighting tyrannical government. But an assassination attempt by one individual does not represent that fight. Also, Trump government is not tyranical.

1

u/The_King_of_Canada mb Apr 19 '26

Actually, yes, 2nd is for fighting tyrannical government

My biggest issue is that that's redundant. You don't need a law telling you it's ok to overthrow the government. If you overthrow the government you're saying that the rule of law is wrong.

And isn't tyranny subjective? Libertarians will tell you that a drivers license is tyranny. So what's the cut off?

The 2nd amendment is a token law designed to make people feel good. It doesn't actually do anything, which is why there's so much debate about what it actually means and why people have interpreted it to mean gun ownership.

3

u/ThrowRA_That_Owl_25 Apr 19 '26

You are wrong on all accounts!

2

u/The_King_of_Canada mb Apr 19 '26

Then what's the point of it?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/ablemount Apr 19 '26 edited Apr 19 '26

Most states allow you to murder babies.

0

u/The_King_of_Canada mb Apr 19 '26

Zero states do.

1

u/ablemount Apr 19 '26

AIM

Abortion Is Murder

1

u/NOBOOTSFORYOU Apr 19 '26

We are apes not monkeys. Other apes use weapons.

1

u/InitialAd4125 Apr 19 '26

What about the Bonobo?

-1

u/ArmyM3dic Apr 19 '26

I see your argument and I respect your opinion and thoughts, but I think the fact that humans are capable of weilding a weapon is a loose argument for it to be a right. For exemple, other animals, particularly chimpanzees use weapons the same way we do, to hunt, fight, and intimidate rivals. The fact that chimps use weapons does not give them or us the right to use weapons, just the ability to do so. Additionally, humans are capable of many other things that aren't rights, such as driving. Driving is a privilege in modern society to protect society as a whole, and gun ownership is a privilege to protect society as a whole, too.

This all being said, I disagree with the recent sweeping firearm bans because they are a waste of money and only target law abiding citizens. But this does not mean we automatically ignore public safety and allow everyone to be armed all the time. There is a reason the US has insane amount of firearm violence.

Edit: fixed a spelling mistake

1

u/InitialAd4125 Apr 19 '26

"Driving is a privilege in modern society to protect society as a whole"

Arguably in my opinion driving should be seen as a right but driving on public roads should be a privilege.

"There is a reason the US has insane amount of firearm violence."

Because it's a shithole that treats it's people like garbage.

1

u/ArmyM3dic Apr 20 '26

Arguably, everything could be called a right, but one's opinion doesn't change what the government chooses to grant us as rights or privileges. I was commenting on the fact that gun ownership is currently a privilege in Canada similar to driving a vehicle. Still, your opinion agrees with mine. You state that you believe there should be regulations governing what people do in shared public spaces, regardless of whether you classify something as a right or not.

I am pro gun, and I believe everyone should be a lawful and educated gun owner, and I think this gun ban is asinine, but I also think that people believing they have the right to poses a firearm in Canada is laughable. We have never had the legal right to own firearms in the same way the US does. Canadian governments, conservative and liberal, have always treated gun ownership as a privilege requiring a training course necessary to obtain a license, and the strict legislation governing how and when one can use a firearm.

2

u/InitialAd4125 Apr 20 '26

"Arguably, everything could be called a right, but one's opinion doesn't change what the government chooses to grant us as rights or privileges."

Governments don't grant us rights they just either respect and uphold them or they ignore them. Rights if they so exist come from our minds.

"Canadian governments, conservative and liberal, have always treated gun ownership as a privilege requiring a training course necessary to obtain a license, and the strict legislation governing how and when one can use a firearm."

Exactly the treat it as a privilege because they don't respect certain rights.

1

u/ArmyM3dic Apr 20 '26

Lol. I guess you're allowed to believe whatever you want. But one does not get to decide what is a right or a privilege for themselves. Society as a collective does that through organizing institutions that represent their constituents and their desires on topics such as rights. These institutions then grant rights and privileges because they are they ones who would be granting the right and privilege. Just out of curiosity, who do you believe guarantees your right to drive, or own a firearm, or insert any other thing you want to be a right? What do you do when someone is injured accidentally or on purpose when someone is carrying out actions involved in their rights, who is responsible?

Though you may not like it, hell I don't even like it most of the time, the government is the institution that guarantees our rights and freedoms. Do they always get it right? Nope, but it's better than anarchy. And pretending that something is tyranny because you don't agree with it is just crying wolf, especially when using a nonsensical argument like "it should be my right, but the government never agreed with me." I think the gun bans are an infringement on the privileges of law abiding citizens that don't deserve such treatment, but the government is well within it's jurisdiction to limit the firearms available for private ownership in Canada. If we don't like it, we are within our rights to legally protest and fight the legislation on the courts, which is how the system is designed to function. That sounds like respecting our rights to me. It just sounds like you don't like the answer, which is fine, but don't make it seem like the government is doing something it's not allowed to do.

→ More replies (0)