Escaping the Gun Debate Trap | David Yamane | Bridging the gap on politics.

[u/BrotherLefthand]

https://youtu.be/BzB8MX4v8ko?si=QWHy-SNhCIq5FO82

Bill C-21 and the OIC has been a significant topic in the house of commons. Regardless of which side of the aisle you stand, the conversations about guns are often polarized and emotionally charged. Misunderstandings on both sides can lead to mistrust, oversimplified stereotypes, and policies that fail to reflect the complexity of the issue. Encouraging dialogue rooted in respect, education, and shared values can help create a more informed and constructive public conversation.

Please watch the attached video and consider what Professor Yamane has to say. If we can bridge the gap between the most polarized on the firearms spectrum, I believe we can make better policy to benefit Canada.

[u/Ok-Leopard-6480 → u/[deleted]]

I think this is probably the biggest misconception. Yes and no. I agree that our government isn’t being held accountable though. In the short of it, Canada’s foundations imply an inherent civil liberty in owning guns and later explicitly named it as a right. Our modern Parliament has just regulated it out of existence. We don’t need an American solution in Canada for American problems. We don’t share their issues. But their issues often bleed over into our politics and social fabric as they are used by our politicians to score points. We need to abandon those narratives and recognize we are uniquely Canadian with our own culture and have done pretty damn well with it all up until C-21. Not only that, but if we are truly believing any threats to our sovereignty, we are being short sighted and missing an opportunity to send a clear signal to those making the threats in a language that they speak.

The long of it is…. Before confederation, and going back to the Magna Carta, the idea was of owning a gun as a citizen was implied as an inherent civil liberty as much as owning an axe would be. Owning a firearm was the same as owning a piece of property. It wasn’t explicitly carved out as an inherent right, but by reading the laws it was obviously expected that citizens would and should have firearms and was thus regulated accordingly. It was eventually explicitly mentioned in the English Bill of Rights of 1689 which is foundational to our own rights as Canadians. Sir William Blackstone, who is foundational to Canadian legal philosophy, explicitly included citizens’ rights to possess firearms for self defense as an inherent auxiliary right to self preservation. This dynamic changed much later after we went from a trusted citizenry with explicit inherent rights for self preservation and implied inherent civil liberties expectant of citizens owning firearms. We transitioned from regulations governing public safety through parliamentary process to eliminating an implied inherent civil liberty, and explicit right expressed in our foundational legal philosophy, through parliamentary processes. Instead of creating an amendment to the charter/constitution, this right has been eroded through regulation despite it being foundational. It started with the 1885 North West rebellion, continued through the subsequent 1930’s riots, and crescendoed until the repeal of the gun registry. It happened a little at time with permits, registries, police certificates, and acquisition approvals so that we went from a firearms being and expectant piece of property to be utilized as a tool and in the defense of the sovereign to possession of a firearm being implicitly criminal contraband worthy of being blocked from citizenry that couldn’t be trusted. The shift implied that the citizenry is an existential threat to public safety and the political system. That is a wholesale shift. Senator Lang, a Liberal, argued that firearms served a necessary part of everyday life as a tool and part of our unique culture. He did this while arguing against the registry and calling for the destruction of the records as a way to restore trust in the citizenry, but also faith in those governing through parliament. We have since slipped back and must regain what was bestowed on us since colonial times and as an inherent right. But to say we haven’t explicitly held that right isn’t accurate either.