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.

123

u/Scary-Detail-3206 Apr 19 '26

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

-29

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? 

-17

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.

11

u/ThrowRA_That_Owl_25 Apr 19 '26

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

1

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?

6

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.

2

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.

5

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?

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.

0

u/The_King_of_Canada mb Apr 19 '26

Then explain how it works. Why would a tyrannical government let the 2nd amendment stand?

1

u/ThrowRA_That_Owl_25 Apr 19 '26

The 2nd is in place. You cant just remove it. Are you a child? They are infringing on 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.

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.

1

u/ArmyM3dic Apr 20 '26 edited Apr 20 '26

You're very passionate about your opinion, that much is clear.

Monopolies in Canada are a huge problem, but that's not what we were discussing and you're trying to move the goal post to score a win. But making a monopoly illegal would require the limiting of an entity's privilege of operating in Canadian markets, the same way as making firearms illegal limits the privilege of using firearms in Canada. One is good because it doesn't affect you directly and the other is bad because it does? And since firearm ownership isn't a right in Canada, it can't be infringed upon.

So far the only intelligent thing you've said is that our security of person hasn't always been guaranteed, but through protests and petitions that is being changed. Just recently there was someone who used a firearm to defend themselves against a home invasion in Ontario. The defendant is not being charged and had been congratulated by multiple politicians. Change is slow, but you can either cry about it or help change move along.

You're allowed to have whatever opinions you want, but pretending your opinions are the way society should actually be is hilariously selfish and short sighted. You should probably learn a little more about how the world works and how people have organized themselves throughout history. Even better, you should learn what rights (or a lack thereof) look like when there isn't a democratic government in power to grant and guarantee those rights. If you think Canada is "violently enforcing" anything you need to go see other places in the world. Should we look at the Sudan civil war? What about Eritrea? Mali? Myanmar? North Korea? Iran? Syria? Which one of these countries is a shining example of anarchy? And, if rights truly exist in these people minds, why is it okay that their rights are being violated? Who would be responsible for guaranteeing those rights in anarchy? I find it funny that you keep agreeing with me that people decide what they want to have as rights and then organize themselves in such a way to ensure and defend those rights, you just don't like that in a modern context it is a government that guarantees and grants rights.

Now stop, before you say your nonsensical statement about how the government doesn't respect our rights in Canada, just take a second to breathe and remember that the Canadian government granted us or rights through the charter of rights and freedoms, and not from u/InitialAd4125's day dreams.

Lol, another well thought out libertarian argument. When you're done checking your notes, go read a book about how our governmental and judicial systems work. Not liking something doesn't mean that it isn't fact.

And protesting doesn't work? The Ontario Conservative party just bought a $30M plane for travel, the people of Ontario protested and the government subsequently announced that it shouldn't have purchased the plane and it's going to sell it now.

You can be salty about how modern Canada isn't the land of opportunity that we were promised growing up, but that doesn't make your fantasy ideas the right path forward. You just end up looking like another uneducated individual getting worked up in the comments section of Reddit because reality doesn't align with their desires.

I have been talking about reality (specifically in regards to the gun ban that we are discussing), but please, keep telling me about the way you want it to be in your head.

You obviously would rather cry about what it's not than intelligently discuss what it is. You can lead a Redditor to facts but you can't make him listen... I mean, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

Thanks for the chat, have a good one.

2

u/InitialAd4125 Apr 20 '26

"Monopolies in Canada are a huge problem, but that's not what we were discussing and you're trying to move the goal post to score a win. But making a monopoly illegal would require the limiting of an entity's privilege of operating in Canadian markets, the same way as making firearms illegal limits the privilege of using firearms in Canada. One is good because it doesn't affect you directly and the other is bad because it does? And since firearm ownership isn't a right in Canada, it can't be infringed upon."

A right infringement on who a fucking corporations because last I checked none of those cartels are owned by just one person. Unlike firearms which are owned by individuals which rights are supposed to be for individuals.

"So far the only intelligent thing you've said is that our security of person hasn't always been guaranteed, but through protests and petitions that is being changed. Just recently there was someone who used a firearm to defend themselves against a home invasion in Ontario. The defendant is not being charged and had been congratulated by multiple politicians. Change is slow, but you can either cry about it or help change move along."

Our security of person is never guaranteed all you can do is make yourself more secure.

"You're allowed to have whatever opinions you want, but pretending your opinions are the way society should actually be is hilariously selfish and short sighted."

More like society or in reality the powers that be forces it's way of being on everyone else even if they want it or not hence why you see separatist movements which could be easily solved if you just split the land up. I.e split just parts of Quebec and Alberta so you give people and option to leave that they can actually achieve unlike now where they claim you can leave when in reality that isn't a thing for a considerable amount of the population.

"You should probably learn a little more about how the world works and how people have organized themselves throughout history. Even better, you should learn what rights (or a lack thereof) look like when there isn't a democratic government in power to grant and guarantee those rights."

Yeah they've organized via violence or the threat of it to become the main power that's where all power and change comes from via the monopoly on violence and the challenging of said monopoly.

"If you think Canada is "violently enforcing" anything you need to go see other places in the world."

Ah the classic because some places are worse Canada has no problems. Tell me if someone breaks a law in Canada do they go to prison? And if they resist do they get killed by the state? Then I'd say that's pretty violent because all states are built on it some are just more clean with there violence.

"Should we look at the Sudan civil war? What about Eritrea? Mali? Myanmar? North Korea? Iran? Syria? Which one of these countries is a shining example of anarchy?"

None because they're all nation states or proto nation states do you know what the hell anarchism even is?

"And, if rights truly exist in these people minds, why is it okay that their rights are being violated?"

It's not but they have no means to ensure said rights and the powers that be don't give a shit about them.

"Who would be responsible for guaranteeing those rights in anarchy?"

The individual and community.

"I find it funny that you keep agreeing with me that people decide what they want to have as rights and then organize themselves in such a way to ensure and defend those rights, you just don't like that in a modern context it is a government that guarantees and grants rights."

Because it's clearly been wildly corrupted it's no longer the people deciding that. It's a small group of violent thugs who fuck children, steal from everyone and poison the planet.

"Now stop, before you say your nonsensical statement about how the government doesn't respect our rights in Canada, just take a second to breathe and remember that the Canadian government granted us or rights through the charter of rights and freedoms, and not from u/InitialAd4125's day dreams."

No they came up with "rights" they'd like to think we have but made massive cave outs for themselves to not actually respect said rights because we don't have any in Canada only when it's convenient for the state.

"Lol, another well thought out libertarian argument. When you're done checking your notes, go read a book about how our governmental and judicial systems work. Not liking something doesn't mean that it isn't fact."

And this is in response to what exactly?

"And protesting doesn't work? The Ontario Conservative party just bought a $30M plane for travel, the people of Ontario protested and the government subsequently announced that it shouldn't have purchased the plane and it's going to sell it now."

Nor really. Wow so they decide to not do what corrupt thing among many corrupt things they do? They give you back peanuts after stealing everything else.

"You can be salty about how modern Canada isn't the land of opportunity that we were promised growing up, but that doesn't make your fantasy ideas the right path forward. You just end up looking like another uneducated individual getting worked up in the comments section of Reddit because reality doesn't align with their desires."

Canada was never the land of opportunity. My ass even realized that growing up. But sadly it would appear you're the one lacking the education on how states actually work. See in Canada since the beginning when Europeans first started to show up it relied on waves of an exploitable underclass that you can even see today. Look at how the railroads were built for example and in modern day the TFW program. Frankly maybe my "fantasy ideas" are not the right way forward but what we have currently is horse shit and getting worse.

"You obviously would rather cry about what it's not than intelligently discuss what it is. You can lead a Redditor to facts but you can't make him listen... I mean, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink."

Oh so like you who thinks the state is your friend and surely wouldn't kill you if it found it convenient because you think it actually cares about your "rights".

→ More replies (0)