The Canadian federal government is working diligently (well, “diligently” by civil service standards) to disarm Canadians, and have been doing so for decades now. Rather than cracking down on criminal use of firearms, which would be difficult, they concentrate their efforts on literally the most law-abiding group of Canadian citizens — legal gun owners … because it’s easy, safe, and gets them lots and lots of friendly media coverage from the equally anti-gun Canadian media (few of whom even know any gun owners personally).
One of the constant replies when legal gun owners protest against yet another gun grab or tightened legal restriction is along the lines of “this doesn’t affect you: you can still hunt” … but hunting is only a part of Canadian gun ownership, and not the largest part. On the social media site formerly known as Twitter, Gun Owners of Canada explains why “you can still hunt” is neither helpful nor constructive in the larger conversation:
We keep hearing the same tired line:
“You can still hunt.”
But that’s not what this is about.
That phrase exists because it’s simple, relatable, and politically convenient for people who don’t understand Canada’s firearm laws or their history. If you do understand them, you’re in the minority.
For most Canadian firearm owners, shooting has never been just about hunting. Yes, we hunt — but the bulk of our time is spent at the range, participating in recreational and competitive target shooting. That’s where families gather, skills are learned, friendships are built, and the next generation is introduced to safe, responsible firearm ownership.
Sport shooters are the backbone of the firearms community and the industry that supports it. We shoot year-round, we buy ammunition regularly, and we keep ranges and retailers alive. Many hunters will bring the same box of ammo to camp year after year. Both matter — but they are not the same.
Over the past six years, lawful firearms have been prohibited, replaced, and then prohibited again. Models that once brought families together at the range can no longer be used. That experience — one many of us grew up with — is increasingly out of reach for our kids.
This admin grew up at the range with parents and grandparents deeply involved in Canadian shooting sports. That’s where lifelong relationships were formed. Many of those people don’t hunt at all — but they are responsible, licensed, community-minded Canadians.
So when restrictions strip away lawful, safe activities while violent criminals face little consequence, don’t expect silence — or gratitude.
This isn’t about hunting.
It’s about what’s been taken, who it’s been taken from, and who’s expected to quietly accept it.
Don’t accept it. Get involved. It’s not like there aren’t enough advocacy groups to join and political avenues to get involved in.
For my own part, I no longer have the resources to do any shooting, but I was always interested in target shooting, not hunting. It was fun, and isn’t that what your hobbies should be for? Back when I sometimes travelled on business, I used to envy my American co-workers who had legal access to a plethora of shooting ranges and a much-less restrictive licensing regime. Every chance I got to go out to the range and try new-to-me rifles and pistols was like an adult version of a trip to the candy store. The one time I was nearly shot, ironically, was on a military target range when I was in the army reserves … an idiot (who out-ranked me) had a misfire with his submachine gun and turned away from the target towards me as the round fired. Fortunately, the bullet went in a safe-ish direction and nobody was hurt.
Update, 19 December: Welcome, Instapundit readers! Please do have a look around at some of my other posts you may find of interest. I send out a daily summary of posts here through my Substack – https://substack.com/@nicholasrusson that you can subscribe to if you’d like to be informed of new posts in the future.
[…] FORTUNATELY WE HAVE THE SECOND AMENDMENT. WHERE HUNTING ISN’T MENTIONED: “You can still hunt”. […]
Pingback by Instapundit » Blog Archive » FORTUNATELY WE HAVE THE SECOND AMENDMENT. WHERE HUNTING ISN’T MENTIONED: “You can still hunt” — December 19, 2025 @ 03:12
Moreover, the nearly all the people who are saying “You can still hunt” absolutely despise hunting and hunters, and will happily ban it whenever and however possible.
Comment by David Lawler — December 19, 2025 @ 04:18
And the difference is? I mean…the difference between hunting and sports shooting. You’re still left with the same argument, and if those are the only two reasons you have for owning guns, your argument is extremely weak. You will never win the…What’s more important, preserving your ability to hunt and go to the range, or saving children’s lives?…argument.
Americans have always understood that, yes, we have a right to hunt, and got to the range. But the reason for gun ownership by the people is to first, keep the government in check, and secondly, to defend oneself. When you reduce your right to bear arms to the ability to engage in hunting and sports shooting, the loss of your firearms is inevitable.
Comment by Jim Harr — December 19, 2025 @ 05:15
“You can still hunt.”
That’s today. Tomorrow:
“…international anti-gun activist Rebecca Peters has an answer for you, as expressed during her recent debate with Wayne LaPierre: “Get another hobby.”
Comment by Henry — December 19, 2025 @ 17:03
“Fortunately…nobody was hurt.” Fortunately, you say?
The proper outcome would see OC Range and NCO instructors deal out an immense hurt to the incompetent that put you in danger.
Comment by Jim Whyte — December 20, 2025 @ 00:24
You’re not wrong … but as a barely-minted corporal I carried no weight with the senior NCOs, as it was a long-time Master Corporal who had the brain fart.
Comment by Nicholas — December 20, 2025 @ 09:46