[MBates]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I don’t disagree with you and personally I typically enjoy reading your takes but in this case you seem to be trying really hard to put words in my mouth.

I was genuinely not looking to put words in your mouth. I guess I started with responding to one of your quoted posts and then attempted to shift back to the broader topic but managed to leave it looking like I was directly criticizing your positions. Sorry for the confusion.

That said, I am interested to pick up this part of the exchange where I agreed with the point that the current apparent arbitrary actions of the government could lead to widespread non-compliance by gun owners who have to this point been faithful law abiding citizens (and actually therefore significantly increase the problem of black market guns and create many new criminals for no reason).

You suggest I made an assumption "that rationality isn’t subjective and citizens are incapable of opposing a law that the majority considers to be rational."

I mean, maybe I was thinking about it from too much of a constitutional point of view (and to be clear I am in no way suggesting there is a constitutional right to own firearms), but for a law to be rationally connected to its objective means to analyze it for objective reasonableness. The idea is that if the government claims a prohibition is to advance purpose 'x' that in an evidence-based and logical way they should be able to connect the legal measure to that purpose.

Nothing close to perfection is required, and there can be many reasonable (rational) ways for a government to approach its goals.

So my intended point is to say - as it relates to handguns and actual 'weapons of war' most people, even gun advocates, can connect the dots rationally. They might not like losing more of the firearms they would otherwise like to own, and safely and legally use, but they can at least see the argument why people who do not share their views would seek to use regulatory steps to prohibit them.

What has sparked the current debate is that continuing with this stated purpose or 'rationale' for gun bans, the government has arguably jumped the shark with its recent amendment.

We are no longer talking about only banning weapons that have an elevated public safety risk. And while they have objectively entered into a phase of banning some obvious hunting / sporting rifles and shotguns, the Minister responsible and all members of cabinet continue to stand and declare that water is not wet, the sky is not blue, and what we can all see with our own eyes is not actually what they are doing.

So for me (and I suspect many others) the issue is as much about government misleading citizens as it is about where to draw the exact line on gun ownership.

If the government needs to ban a single shot hunting rifle in the Ruger No. 1, because weapons of war are killing too many Canadians then that is, in my opinion, completely ridiculous. If the government contends a Ruger No. 1 is not a hunting rifle, (because they say they are not banning any such rifles) then it ought to really be simple to provide the rational explanation.

I contend that cannot be done. If someone can do it and prove me wrong, I am literally asking for it.

I am not saying you have said it can be done or that you have been defending the legislation, but I am interested in your view. If nobody in government can explain why guns were added to the ban list as late amendments and now even some Liberal back benchers are decrying the banning of some hunting rifles and shotguns (in spite of the government claim that is not happening) do you agree the law could end up being seen as a 'silly' law and lead to major non-compliance from current gun owners who have previously followed the existing laws religiously?