When did this recent with gun rights start and why?

Look at the flip flop on the police:

We don’t want them

Wait put them back

We only want them if they do it this way

NYC just this week reduced qualified immunity, a move I support emotionally. Logic tells me it’s bound to either not be put into practice or fail if it is.

You want to police this way because of police brutality. At the same time you want to disarm the citizenry because of mass shootings. It is proven daily, including mass shootings, that the police cannot and have no intention of protecting us. They can’t even protect themselves. Yet the savages remain in the streets with another movement to let them go if they are prosecuted at all.

What do you expect to happen when you throw the citizens to the wolves?


Completely subjective.

It’s “we can’t change because change is bad” vs “we need to change because not to change is bad”.

Culture isn’t a monolith.

The relentless promotion of “if you pass a single law pertaining to guns, they will eventually take them away” did not start until the 1970’s.

Did we not effectively ban machine guns and sawed off shotguns/rifles in the 30’s, during the Capone prohibition era to curtail crime?

Did the NRA fight that law then?

Better than what? You don’t want the police doing it, you don’t want to lock up the savages, you don’t want citizens doing it - you think the savages are going to stop being savages if you do better? That is Utopia.


There we go.

That is the strawman that has become the basis to rile up gun owners/enthusiasts.

It has been quite effective.

Wow…hardly any of that is true as well.

Many other countries have less crime, and do not have a weaponized citizenry and a military type police.

We are obviously doing it wrong.

1 Like

No, it didn’t. The laws were accepted as “reasonable” (they weren’t bans, just hoops) and we were convinced to believe in “greater good”. Plus, nobody believed they could do anything about it.

Just another example of giving up rights out of fear.

But it didn’t stop there, did it?

Even the 1994 ban wasn’t challenged on 2nd Amendment grounds I don’t believe for some odd reason.

You keep pushing, eventually somebody is going to push back.


Wow… just wow! I just can’t with this right now! Not even!

Every bit of it is true. You don’t live in other countries, you live in this one. This one is not like other ones.

They don’t have militarized police? You don’t know what you’re talking about. The media just doesn’t show them. And a lot of them use their actual military when they need to. Bobbies with night sticks didn’t take down Princess’ Gate or the killing of police in London.

1 Like

Lets just implement this on all firearms, since they are reasonable.

The NFA was originally enacted in 1934. Similar to the current NFA, the original Act imposed a tax on the making and transfer of firearms defined by the Act, as well as a special (occupational) tax on persons and entities engaged in the business of importing, manufacturing, and dealing in NFA firearms. The law also required the registration of all NFA firearms with the Secretary of the Treasury. Firearms subject to the 1934 Act included shotguns and rifles having barrels less than 18 inches in length, certain firearms described as “any other weapons,” machine guns, and firearm mufflers and silencers.

What other countries have 1.3M home invasions each year?


They are not reasonable. They are stupid. There’s nothing special about 18 inches. “Mufflers and silencers”? Hearing protection. Just ignorant fear-based nonsense no different than collapsible stocks, vertical foregrips or black paint.

What mass shooter has used an automatic weapon? You think they can’t get them?

Let’s just implement this: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

Then we can put some effort into mental health.

1 Like

No, it is not true.

Many western European countries has specialized police to deal with specific situations that calls for more force. In general, they do not have any where near the violence perpetuated by police as we do here (that you acknowledge exists here)

We use our National Guard when we need to as well…which is fine, if the situation calls for it.

I can read, and I have traveled, and I have many friends from a few different countries in Europe.

You’re wrong.

I am not wrong. Spending a weekend in a hotel in a tourist trap does not give you insight. You want to compare to other countries? Compare to Mexico. We don’t share a border or a culture with Norway. How’s it working in Mexico? You think crime is “better” in England? Might want to get off the tour bus.

This romantic vision of Europe is ridiculous.


How is this relevant?

If you are suggesting that sine we have so many burglaries/invasions, a person should be able to own a firearm for protection, you will not get a disagreement from me.

I simply think in order to get that gun, one has to prove proficiency of use of gun, and knowing all the safety requirements. Register the gun like a car. Have liability insurance like a car.

Those are reasonable regulations, which have been deemed constitutional.

Why is the 1st Part of the 2nd is rarely mentioned.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”

What is the 3rd word? Regulated.

You’re wrong.

For what? We aren’t discussing crowd control. What do you think the NG clearing out a gang nest in a building would look like?

You have what you advocate already in the lab - Illinois. California. Colorado. Connecticut. Now you will say, “It has to be nation-wide! They bring on the guns from Indiana and Arizona!” Then it has to be world-wide. Criminals don’t respect international borders any more than they do state lines.

How does your theory work with drugs?

Pulling a wolf’s tooth does not make him a puppy.

Are they still banning knives in England?



I have spent much more than a weekend in Europe, and have visited many more places than Norway. And since I have friends over there, we see much more than just the tourists spots.

When I was in Paris, and did do the touristy thing, and visited the Louvre, there were police, that were carrying what appeared to be something like an AK47.
Did not bother me at all.

The crime and violence in Mexico is directly linked to the drug war, and our use of illegal drugs.

Decriminalize drugs here, and we take the funding away from the cartels.
No guns needed for that.

Because it is an affirmative statement on the need for a militia, not a condition of the right. You want the central government overthrown?

What is to be well-regulated, the militia or the right? Does it say “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall be well-regulated”?

Why is “shall not be infringed” never mentioned?


Getting a gun from another country, would be a bit more difficult than driving a few hundred miles to a neighboring state with lax gun regulations.

Decriminalize drugs. All of them. It is a health issue. Not a crime issue.

See: Portugal

Sure you have.

Why would it bother you if somebody else did then?


Of course. There is no organized crime in Europe.

What are the cartels trafficking in this month?

1 Like