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

70

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.

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. 

-12

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.

9

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

-13

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

10

u/_axeman_ Apr 19 '26

"Most of us don't want them" 

buddy, stick to speaking for yourself.

-2

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.

5

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.

4

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.

3

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.

2

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.

4

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.

5

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