On the surface what you state would seem plausible to many who are not students of the Constitution. If you read Heller however, you are bound to come to an entirely different conclusion. Canadian and U.S. law (except for State law in Louisiana) both stem from English common law. Scalia successfully argued in Heller that, regardless of the Second Amendment, the right to own and use firearms is inalienable. Naturally, Scalia's argument would hold doubly in Canada, from a U.S. Court perspective. In other words, from the perspective of settled U.S. Law, gun ownership in neither Canada nor in the U.S. is a privilege; instead it is an inalienable right in both countries. Paraphrased, what Scalia wrote in Heller, that is now the official opinion of the Court, was that this inalienable right which is incorporated by and delineated further in the Second Amendment, is not an unlimited right. In fact, Scalia goes on at length in his 64 page Opinion to make it clear that nothing in the Opinion would preclude reasonable restrictions on the types of firearms that could be owned, but that the requirement of the D.C. law, that all firearms kept in the home be inoperative, was unreasonable and too restrictive and violated Heller's Second Amendment Rights. We have for years restricted the types of firearms that may be owned. We banned completely automatic firearms! And that ban has never been successfully challenged. The Court's ruling in Heller reaffirmed that the second Amendment right is not, however, an unlimited Right! From the perspective of D.C. v. Heller, the current law of the land, there is no reason to think that Canada's Law applied in the U.S. would not be entirely consistent with the Second Amendment.
It's not like they're forcing people to give to their cause regardless of whether the person supports it or not like, oh I don't know, unions?
Actually, McDonald V. Chicago is the current law of the land which was decided two years after Heller. Heller advanced the ball in regard to the right to own a firearm but it was also a bit unique because it only decided the power of the Federal Government to restrict gun rights in a federal enclave- also known as Washington D.C. where states rights do not even come into play. In the Chicago case, the Court decided that the 2nd Amendment rights pass down to the states via the 14th amendment. Without the Chicago case, some states were arguing "well we have rights under the constitution that Washington DC does not have because they are not even a state, and we have the right to restrict even if the feds do or don't." Ahhh, no.
Sorry Mr. piezoe but you may want to brush up on the Federalist Papers, the Constitution, Heller, and U.S. & Canadian gun laws. "Not an unlimited right" does not mean an unlimited right to restrict. To claim that Canadian gun laws are not overly restrictive is simply incorrect. One restriction that easily makes this point is that, under Canadian law, ALL firearms that are "capable of discharging centre-fire ammunition in a semi-automatic manner" are "Restricted" or "Prohibited." http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/fs-fd/restr-eng.htm A quick review of Canada's "permitted purposes for a restricted firearm" shows that they are not only incompatible with the primary purpose of the Second Amendment, but also with Scalia's statement in Heller that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding." BTW, we have not "banned completely automatic firearms." They're highly regulated but not banned. That's reasonable but restricting an entire class of semiautomatic weapons as they've done in Canada is not. And before you claim the original purpose of the Second Amendment is outdated, Scalia also wrote in Heller: "what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct." P.S. I'm also very interested in hearing how any type of gun ban could be successfully implemented in the U.S. in practice, not in theory.
If the Federal government in the U.S. can highly regulate (restrict) fully automatic weapons and rocket launchers then it is reasonable that they can also restrict other types of guns, large magazines, and other equipment (e.g. bump stocks) related to firearms. As soon as the U.S. opened the door and started restricting (regulating) cannon and tommy guns in 1934 (thank Donnie and Clyde) then it is clear -- even with the second amendment in place -- the U.S. government can restrict other firearms and related equipment. The argument that the second amendment stops the government from putting regulations and restrictions related to firearms in place at the federal level is going to dry up pretty soon. The people who believe they have unrestricted rights to every type of firearm are going to lose their "battle" over time... the 2nd amendment grounds they are standing on are eroding -- primarily due to all the previous examples of the government and courts regulating firearms in our history.
It still will not change the fact that implementing these bans is not feasible in the real world. And I'm waiting for someone to tell me how so that we can begin that debate.
If you're saying that because the government can highly regulate some things, it can highly regulate anything, that's simply not the case. Heller makes this clear. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html
I'd also point out where local and state governments have tried to regulate the 2nd amendment, and have lost when challenged (sometimes they have won as well). But just because the government can do something doesn't mean it is legal.
That's an excellent point and I'm sure there are many existing gun laws that couldn't withstand scrutiny by SCOTUS.