Owning guns- Right or Privilege?

[u/Low_Bar_804]

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.

[u/theawesomedude646]

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

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privilege_(law))

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.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights#Types_of_rights

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.

[u/Certain_Low_4565 → u/theawesomedude646]

The fairest take of all