Thoughts about the Canadian Gun Ban

Time to read
1 minute
Read so far

Thoughts about the Canadian Gun Ban

Posted in:

Following the Nova Scotia shootout where a man, illegally using a real police uniform, driving a police cruiser illegal replica, and using an illegally acquired firearms, killed several people, Canada has arbitrarily violated its citizens rights, violating as well the founding principles of a free democratic country.

Chiappa Firearms M-four sport replica in .22 caliber: an example of the "Assault Weapons" that Canada has banned

Canada has always been a shining example of a democratic, free country.

Oh, well… I won’t insult your intelligence by reminding you that no law ever prevented any criminal from doing harm. We will give this for acquired.


Let's start instead by stating unequivocally that owning arms is a fundamental human right. And even carrying them, under specific, authorized circumstances. And also, let’s clearly state one for all that there is only one technically correct definition for "assault rifle": a rifle chambered for an intermediate cartridge capable of selective full automatic fire.


Now, going back to my initial definition of Canada as a “shining example of a democratic, free country”… NONE of the banned firearms fall under the technically acceptable definition of “assault rifle”.


The United States of America may be the only Nation that has explicitly written this right down in their constitution, but even if it's implicit, it stays nonetheless true. This because the fundamental human rights to life and health aren’t worth the paper on which they are written without the means to defend them against those who want to violate them.

Thoughts about the Canadian Gun Ban

Next, here a quick recap of some of the basic principles a democratic, free country is based upon:

  • responsibility is personal and individual. No one can be punished for the crimes of another, nor can a group of individuals be collectively punished for the crimes of one of its members.
  • limitations of personal freedom and rights can only be the consequence of direct personal actions violating the responsibilities that come with such freedom and the duties that come with such rights. They cannot be preemptive.


These criteria are not sufficient to have a democratic, free nation (meaning that you need others as well), but they are necessary (meaning that you take either one away, and you no longer have a democratic, free nation, no matter what other criteria the nation may meet).


There are no such things as a “partial democracy” or “degrees of democracy”. It’s like being pregnant: you either are, or you are not. If you are not a democracy, then you are something else. The “something else” other than a democracy, is a regime. And yes, there are several degrees of regime: it can be a "soft" regime that respects some or even several human rights and democratic principles, or a hard one, that respects none, but even a soft regime is still a regime, not a democracy. 


Now, there is a two-year timeframe within which Canadian legal gun owners can resort to courts to invalidate this ban and Canada can prove itself (and the World) once again to be a democratic, Free Country.

Failing this, we won't be able to define Canada a Free Country or a Democracy anymore.

Thoughts about the Canadian Gun Ban

(source: Canadian Shooting Sports Association)