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

261

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.

120

u/Scary-Detail-3206 Apr 19 '26

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

-27

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.

10

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.

3

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.