"Guns" are not a hobby.
Bearing arms for defense against fellow man and tyrannical governments is a God given right, which is not currently formally acknowledged by "our" government.
There is no such thing as a god (note the lower case). The concept of a god is imaginary so nothing more to say about that. So where does that leave your statement? Relying on unproven concept of a god to try and prove a point just weakens the argument.
God, in this context, is a philosopher's shorthand for natural law.
If a dog corners a cat, the cat will defend itself.
If you corner a skunk, the skunk will defend itself.
If you take a bear's cubs, the bear will defend its cubs.
If you are being beaten, your arms will come up to defend yourself by autonomic reflex. You have no control over this, it just happens. You may not be victorious, but you will fight or flight.
These are natural laws, from which your "Right To Life" arises, which is in our Charter.
One can deny a person has a "Right To Life" (and several countries have, and then there's genocide) but you may as well deny that Gravity exists. It simply is.
From that comes "Right To Self Defence" which is ingrained in Canada's Criminal Code and Common Law, which is not in Charter but is nonetheless a thing.
From those comes the "Right To Bear Arms", again not in Canada's Charter.
Sir William Blackstone wrote in the 18th century that the right to have arms was auxiliary to the "natural right of resistance and self-preservation". Blackstone's "Commentaries on the Laws of England" have been required reading for lawyers (and thus most Parliamentarians) for a couple centuries.
Neanderthals picked up sticks as clubs, sharpened rocks became swords, then gunpowder then whatever. Statistically a firearm is the only tool for self defence that reduces your harm in a violent encounter, and thus the firearm is the only tool that supports your Right To Self Defence. Militaries across the world know this.
In R. v. Kerr SCC commented that a person is not expected to fight off an assault with only tooth and nail.
The USA put theirs into their Constitution. They did that because England (and thus Canadians) had the 'constitutional' Right To Bear Arms so they were adopting that. They did it because the War Of Independence (1776) started when the British tried to seize guns and powder. They did it because they'd successfully fought back using a militia that brought their own personal guns, and without keeping the militia armed they were vulnerable. They did it because Locke was a strong influence on the Founding Fathers. Their Constitution gives their supreme court unlimited power to overrule legislatures in case of conflict.
England had a Right To Bear Arms, long before the The Bill of Rights 1689. Indeed it was the King's attempt to pass Acts that restricted that right that bore the birth of the codifying of that right in The Bill of Rights 1689. Unlike Canada and the USA, England doesn't actually have a Constitution. They have a handful of Bills that are traditionally viewed as 'constitutional'. But they have a 'supremacy of parliament' which is unlimited power, and so they can revoke any Bill at any time. Since they don't have a constitution, their supreme court is completely subservient to the supremacy of parliament. This has lots of side effects, with parliament and the Home Office infringing not only on the Right To Bear Arms, but also the Right To Free Speech, and other Rights. Essentially English citizens have no Rights, except those privileges which parliament hasn't taken from them.
Canada is a mix between the two. We have a Charter which gives power to our supreme court, but we have the notwithstanding clause so that the supremacy of parliaments can dismiss the Charter. In the case of the Right To Bear Arms, as a side effect of English tradition, The Bill Of Rights 1689, the English Right To Bear Arms, the Right To Bear Arms in Canada has been expressed in Parliament several times throughout Canada's history as a reason not to enact, or not to go too far, with gun control. The first time this was completely thrown to the wind was 1995's C68 Firearms Act, which enabled licencing, which in turn effectively made it a privilege although that was uncertain at the time if that would hold.
C68 was challenged, eventually making it to our supreme court in Firearms Act Reference 2000. When it was argued in the lower courts (superior court, appellant court), that lawyer knew the Right To Bear Arms history and was prepared to argue it. But at the supreme court, he was replaced by an older lawyer who had argued before the supreme court before, and that lawyer did not know the Right To Bear Arms arguments and never raised them although questions asked by supreme court justices could have had those answers. Indeed, even today, there are arguments of multiple constitutional rights violations of the Firearms Act that were not argued in 2000, and there are Right To Bear Arms arguments that have been to court and not properly argued (Montague's attempt was not optimal. Dr. Edward B. Hudson's was pretty good, but was after R. v. Wiles 2005 so it was crushed)
Although several court cases have correctly stated that the Right To Bear Arms is not in the Charter,
in R. v. Wiles 2005, the supreme court for apparently no good reason, just threw it out there that firearms ownership is a privilege.
The right to bear arms is part of tradition and British common law, that is it. It can be taken away so it has to be fought for. It is not enshrined in any [Canadian] constitution or charter. Trudeau the elder made sure of that.
Yep.
The Right To Bear Arms is a Quashed Right.
I kind of regret getting into this hobby because it's turning me into a real cynic.
