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

262

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.

124

u/Scary-Detail-3206 Apr 19 '26

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

-26

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.

18

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? 

-16

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.

-3

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?

5

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.

1

u/ThrowRA_That_Owl_25 Apr 19 '26

We are not talking about the concept of rights. Before you barged on this conversation we were talking about the 2nd ammendment right. Yes, it is a concept that a small bunch of people representing a big bunch of people stood behind and became part of US constitution.

The other guy tried unsuccessfully to convince me that the 2nd amendment is not a right. Ok. What is your point? Could you make it clear!?

→ More replies (0)

9

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.

1

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.

4

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.

2

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?

1

u/ThrowRA_That_Owl_25 Apr 19 '26

It's in your quoted response to me. I know it is hard for you to believe it but that's what it there for.

Too bad Canada's constitution is not worth the paper it is written on.

→ 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.

2

u/InitialAd4125 Apr 20 '26

"But one does not get to decide what is a right or a privilege for themselves."

Frankly it sounds like a person does do just that.

"Society as a collective does that through organizing institutions that represent their constituents and their desires on topics such as rights."

Oh so you think this faux democracy is a real one? Tell me when did we vote on having grocery cartels in Canada? And no again society doesn't decide that because society is not a monolith the powers that be decide that and then enforce it onto society. The powers that be give the illusion that we choose them when in reality if voting changed anything they'd have made it illegal.

"These institutions then grant rights and privileges because they are they ones who would be granting the right and privilege."

No these institutions don't grant rights privileges yes but not rights because rights already exist because someone believes in it. Rights exist only because someone or multiple someone's believes in it states merely choose which ones they wish to respect and even then they love to stomp on them.

"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?"

Ah see now that's different and that's what I've been pointing out the states of the world attempts to guarantee a right or rights although they do a pretty shit job at it.

"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?"

Who is responsible now?

"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."

Not really it's more like the institution that violently enforces it's will onto people and gives us privileges that they're more then willing to take away when it feels like it as seen many times historically.

"Do they always get it right? Nope, but it's better than anarchy."

Nah I'd argue anarchy or the political philosophy of anarchism is better. Because all states do is amplify any existing violence and make any minor conflict massive.

"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.""

How the hell is it crying wolf when it is a clear infringement hell even in there own system they claim we have a right to security of person but the love to stomp on that all of the time.

"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."

Yes because they're the violent thugs in charge who have all the real people to get to decide what they want to do because as I said before rights exist in a peoples minds governments merely enforce which ones they like.

"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."

Ah yes the courts totally set up for us normal folks and not checks notes the literal fucking monarch and rich of Canada. Ah protesting let me check how those work out. They don't change anything? Wow who would have guessed.

"That sounds like respecting our rights to me."

Nah that's call pretending to respect our rights when in reality governments don't believe in rights they just believe in how to squash them when convenient.

"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."

As seen in history the government can do whatever the fuck it wants in reality and suffer no real consequences.

→ More replies (0)