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/1955FL]

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. 

[u/The_King_of_Canada → u/1955FL]

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.

[u/_axeman_ → u/The_King_of_Canada]

"Most of us don't want them" 

buddy, stick to speaking for yourself.

[u/The_King_of_Canada → u/_axeman_]

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.

[u/1955FL → u/The_King_of_Canada]

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?

[u/The_King_of_Canada → u/1955FL]

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?

[u/1955FL → u/The_King_of_Canada]

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. 

[u/The_King_of_Canada → u/1955FL]

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.

[u/_axeman_ → u/The_King_of_Canada]

Now you're gonna speak for me too? Gtfoh

[u/The_King_of_Canada → u/_axeman_]

Ok then speak for yourself.

Do you want guns in the hands of murderers, rapists, and pedos?

[u/_axeman_ → u/The_King_of_Canada]

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. 

[u/The_King_of_Canada → u/_axeman_]

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.

[u/_axeman_ → u/The_King_of_Canada]

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.