caliking said:

WildmanWilson said:

JohnInCarolina said:

http://twitter.com/nanwhaley/status/1554888578743746560?s=20&t=dE4lQGCE3ce6KNkl-tYJqg

It would be better if they just waited on the police….

Or use a hot tub time machine to un-invent  guns. 

Putting up a sign telling crazy people to not bring them in has a great track record so maybe expand that with bolder fonts. 

Or... wait for it... support gun control that would let responsible citizens still keep their non-Rambo guns, while keeping them out of the hands of less responsible (aka loony)  folks.

I know its a novel idea, but whodathunk it would work for so many countries?? 

WildmanWilson said:

caliking said:

WildmanWilson said:

JohnInCarolina said:

http://twitter.com/nanwhaley/status/1554888578743746560?s=20&t=dE4lQGCE3ce6KNkl-tYJqg

It would be better if they just waited on the police….

Or use a hot tub time machine to un-invent  guns. 

Putting up a sign telling crazy people to not bring them in has a great track record so maybe expand that with bolder fonts. 

Or... wait for it... support gun control that would let responsible citizens still keep their non-Rambo guns, while keeping them out of the hands of less responsible (aka loony)  folks.

I know its a novel idea, but whodathunk it would work for so many countries?? 

Gun control....let me think...Oh yeah... I think I remember hearing about this somewhere. So besides being unconstitutional, explain how you can remove the many millions of guns already owned that you label Rambo guns? Are you on the panel that decides who "loony" is? Who makes that call? 

We notice how well drug control laws work. People drop dead at a much higher rate than from Rambo guns. I'm not sure why they don't listen to all the laws.

But tell me your idea of non Rambo guns that we should be "allowed" by your good grace to won.

Botch said:

WildmanWilson said:
Gun control....let me think...Oh yeah... I think I remember hearing about this somewhere. So besides being unconstitutional...

Re-read the 2nd Amendment.  There, gun control is a requirement.  

caliking said:

WildmanWilson said:

caliking said:

WildmanWilson said:

JohnInCarolina said:

http://twitter.com/nanwhaley/status/1554888578743746560?s=20&t=dE4lQGCE3ce6KNkl-tYJqg

It would be better if they just waited on the police….

Or use a hot tub time machine to un-invent  guns. 

Putting up a sign telling crazy people to not bring them in has a great track record so maybe expand that with bolder fonts. 

Or... wait for it... support gun control that would let responsible citizens still keep their non-Rambo guns, while keeping them out of the hands of less responsible (aka loony)  folks.

I know its a novel idea, but whodathunk it would work for so many countries?? 

Gun control....let me think...Oh yeah... I think I remember hearing about this somewhere. So besides being unconstitutional, explain how you can remove the many millions of guns already owned that you label Rambo guns? Are you on the panel that decides who "loony" is? Who makes that call? 

We notice how well drug control laws work. People drop dead at a much higher rate than from Rambo guns. I'm not sure why they don't listen to all the laws.

But tell me your idea of non Rambo guns that we should be "allowed" by your good grace to won.

I dunno where to start with this. Its like you're all out of rant, so you're circling back. Or, maybe you just can't keep track of your drivel. 

Firstly, and you may find this hard to believe, the US Constitution was designed to be amended. To account for the evolution of the polity... its mores, public opinion, etc. And, it has been amended many times. That's how slavery was abolished, women got the right to vote, people could sell/buy alcohol (again!), among other things. 

What to do about the millions of guns already out there? Some ideas (I've posted this for you before, but you don't read) - 

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/25/world/europe/gun-laws-australia-britain.html

Yes, The New York Times. Go ahead and fact-check the article. "Fact" being the operative word. Google up!

Lastly, I'm not the one who gets to decide who the loons are. They declare themselves (at least they do on here). Voters vote for their representatives, who are then expected to enact policy for the betterment of our communities, and society. That's not always straightforward, but that's supposedly the aim. 

If it were up to me though, you, particularly, would be flinging peas with a slingshot. 

HeavyG said:

WildmanWilson said:

caliking said:

Botch said:

WildmanWilson said:
Gun control....let me think...Oh yeah... I think I remember hearing about this somewhere. So besides being unconstitutional...

Re-read the 2nd Amendment.  There, gun control is a requirement.  

Let’s not forget the part about “ a  well regulated militia” , which so many conveniently gloss over. 

You guys really are very one tracked and simple minded. Ever hear of Heller?  The Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a militia. Also look up "shall not be infringed" while you're at it. Then a homework lesson for all of you is "weapon in common use".  

And the Heller decision was the first time a SCOTUS had decided that there was an individual right to own a gun - and specifically handguns - for home protection purposes. Antonin Scalia wrote the majority opinion and he said this:

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

So neither Heller nor any SCOTUS case since has decided that "shall not be infringed" means what you like to believe it means.

WildmanWilson said:

caliking said:

WildmanWilson said:

caliking said:

WildmanWilson said:

JohnInCarolina said:

http://twitter.com/nanwhaley/status/1554888578743746560?s=20&t=dE4lQGCE3ce6KNkl-tYJqg

It would be better if they just waited on the police….

Or use a hot tub time machine to un-invent  guns. 

Putting up a sign telling crazy people to not bring them in has a great track record so maybe expand that with bolder fonts. 

Or... wait for it... support gun control that would let responsible citizens still keep their non-Rambo guns, while keeping them out of the hands of less responsible (aka loony)  folks.

I know its a novel idea, but whodathunk it would work for so many countries?? 

Gun control....let me think...Oh yeah... I think I remember hearing about this somewhere. So besides being unconstitutional, explain how you can remove the many millions of guns already owned that you label Rambo guns? Are you on the panel that decides who "loony" is? Who makes that call? 

We notice how well drug control laws work. People drop dead at a much higher rate than from Rambo guns. I'm not sure why they don't listen to all the laws.

But tell me your idea of non Rambo guns that we should be "allowed" by your good grace to won.

I dunno where to start with this. Its like you're all out of rant, so you're circling back. Or, maybe you just can't keep track of your drivel. 

Firstly, and you may find this hard to believe, the US Constitution was designed to be amended. To account for the evolution of the polity... its mores, public opinion, etc. And, it has been amended many times. That's how slavery was abolished, women got the right to vote, people could sell/buy alcohol (again!), among other things. 

What to do about the millions of guns already out there? Some ideas (I've posted this for you before, but you don't read) - 

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/25/world/europe/gun-laws-australia-britain.html

Yes, The New York Times. Go ahead and fact-check the article. "Fact" being the operative word. Google up!

Lastly, I'm not the one who gets to decide who the loons are. They declare themselves (at least they do on here). Voters vote for their representatives, who are then expected to enact policy for the betterment of our communities, and society. That's not always straightforward, but that's supposedly the aim. 

If it were up to me though, you, particularly, would be flinging peas with a slingshot. 

I can't read your link without signing up. I see its about Australia though. The old lib go to...

Quite a different country from America don't you think? Their population is about like Florida. They also never had a very high homicide rate. If you look at the data you will see the rate of murders goes up and down a little just like it does here. They have gun control and we don't. We still see these fluctuation regardless. Only thing is, if they have 30 less one year vs 30 more another, it makes it look like a big difference statistically. 

Americas homicide rates dropped from the 90s and that's with a huge influx of gun ownership and carry permits. According to you clueless fools, we should have a dramatic increase in homicides as more guns are sold. What we are seeing in the last year or so is an uptick and its likely due to the democrat policies of turning people back on the street and defunding the police and not prosecuting criminals. 

And its predictable that you are butt hurt and want me disarmed because I stand up against the radical left wing commies on here. For nothing more than voicing an opinion, you want my rights taken because you don't like what I say. There, is why people like you and your entire radical jerk buddy boy band are dangerous to the Republic.

By the way...have you seen how the government is treating the citizens of Australia now? Although y'all probably like it.

Britain, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Norway: All had a culture of gun ownership, and all tightened restrictions anyway. Their violence statistics now diverge sharply from those of the U.S.

A prayer vigil for the victims of the Uvalde Elementary School shooting held in downtown Houston on Tuesday.Credit...Mark Felix for The New York Times

By Max Fisher

May 25, 2022

The world over, mass shootings are frequently met with a common response: Officials impose new restrictions on gun ownership. Mass shootings become rarer. Homicides and suicides tend to decrease, too.

After a British gunman killed 16 people in 1987, the country banned semiautomatic weapons like those he had used. It did the same with most handguns after a 1996 school shooting. It now has one of the lowest gun-related death rates in the developed world.

In Australia, a 1996 massacre prompted mandatory gun buybacks that saw, according to some estimates, as many as one million firearms melted into slag. The rate of mass shootings plummeted from once every 18 months to, so far, only one in the 26 years since.

ADVERTISEMENT

Continue reading the main story

Canada also tightened gun laws after a 1989 mass shooting. So did Germany in 2002, New Zealand in 2019 and Norway last year.

Only the United States, whose rate and severity of mass shootings is without parallel outside of conflict zones, has so consistently refused to answer those events with tightened gun laws.

Though such restrictions have always brought some controversy, most were broadly embraced by voters in other countries.

Even in Australia, where conservative-leaning politics and rural traditions had long favored gun ownership, citizens broadly accepted the buyback. Some even surrendered weapons they were legally permitted to keep, in a show of support for their country’s tightening gun laws.

Every mass shooting is, in some sense, a fringe event, driven by one-off factors like the ideology or personal circumstances of the shooter. The risk is impossible to fully erase.

Still, the record is clear, confirmed by reams of studies that have analyzed the effects of policies like Britain’s and Australia’s: When countries tighten gun control laws, it leads to fewer guns in private citizens’ hands, which leads to less gun violence — and to fewer mass shootings.

Britain: Sweeping Bans

Image

Scenes in Hungerford, Berkshire, following a shooting in the town that became known as the Hungerford massacre, on Aug. 19, 1987.Credit...Reading Post/Mirrorpix/Getty Images

Britain today has one of the strictest gun control regimes in the developed world, with even many police unarmed. But it was not always that way.

The country’s history of sport hunting had ingrained a long cultural tradition of gun ownership, especially in rural areas.

That began to change in 1987, with the so-called Hungerford massacre, named for the small English town where it took place. A 27-year-old local man used two semiautomatic rifles and a handgun, which he owned legally, to kill 16 people. His motives remain unclear.

Britain’s Conservative government swiftly banned rifles like those he had used and mandated that shotgun owners register the weapons with police.

The 1996 school shooting in a small Scottish town, where a local man killed 15 students and one teacher, prompted more sweeping changes. A government inquiry recommended restricting access to handguns.

The Conservative government went even further, banning all but the smallest-caliber handguns, which a subsequent Labour government banned the next year.

The reforms also require owners of permitted firearms to pass a strict licensure process, which involves interviews and home visits by local police, who can deny approval if they deem the would-be owner a potential public safety risk.

Mass shootings did not completely disappear in Britain: An attacker killed 12 in 2010, and another killed five in 2021. But all forms of gun-related violence have dropped significantly.

Today, there are about five guns per 100 people in Britain (except in Northern Ireland, where this number is higher), one of the lowest rates in the developed world. The gun homicide rate is about 0.7 per million, also one of the lowest.

Australia: Nationwide Buybacks

Image

Family and friends of those killed in the Port Arthur massacre during a memorial service in 2006 to mark the 10th aniversary of the shooting in Port Arthur, Australia.Credit...Ian Waldie/Getty Images

American gun control activists often cite Australia’s sweeping buybacks. Though no country rivals the United States’ gun ownership rate, which is more than double that of second-place Yemen, Australia has had similar cultural and political affinities for gun ownership.

Despite this, after a mass shooting in 1996 in which a gunman killed 35 people in the town of Port Arthur, authorities successfully imposed sweeping new restrictions.

The nationwide buyback ultimately took between one in five and one in three privately held guns out of circulation. This mostly targeted guns like semiautomatic rifles and many shotguns that, under new laws, were no longer permitted.

The country also reframed gun ownership from being an inherent right, as it is in only a handful of countries like the United States, to becoming a privilege that citizens had to affirmatively earn.

Australia’s would-be gun owners now face a national registry, a 28-day wait period and a licensing process that requires demonstrating a valid reason for owning a gun.

Since then, mass shootings have effectively disappeared in Australia. What was once an almost annual event has only happened once since the reforms, with a 2018 attack that left seven dead.

But the greater impact may have been on other forms of violence. A 2011 survey of crime and suicide data concluded that the program “seems to have been incredibly successful in terms of lives saved.”

Australia’s gun-related homicide rate subsequently halved, as did the rate of firearm suicides, the study found. Non-firearm homicides and suicides did not increase. Subsequent research confirmed these findings.

The reforms were initially controversial, including within the ranks of the conservative government that passed them, as well as some rural communities. But fears of electoral backlash or even violent resistance — Australia’s prime minister, John Howard, wore a bulletproof vest during one address — never materialized.

ADVERTISEMENT

Continue reading the main story

“Few Australians would deny that their country is safer today as a consequence of gun control,” Mr. Howard wrote in 2013 in The New York Times.

Still, Australian gun ownership rates have crept back up in recent years, as have rates of gun-related killings.

Canada and Norway: Gradual Change

Image

Mourners filing past caskets at the University of Montreal on Dec. 10, 1989, as they pay their respects to some of the 14 women killed in a shooting at the university.Credit...Tom Hanson/Canadian Press/Associated Press

Not all reforms have been as dramatic as Britain’s or Australia’s.

Canada tightened restrictions on gun ownership in response to a 1989 mass shooting that killed 14 female college students. Licenses became required for shotguns and rifles, and those firearms had to be registered with authorities. Similar rules already applied to handguns.

But the new rules, which proved controversial in rural communities, were not applied until 1995, six years after the shooting, and were mostly abolished in 2012.

While Canada’s gun rules remain far stricter than those in the United States, they are looser than in most other countries. Its gun ownership rates, gun homicide rates and frequency of mass shootings all follow a similar pattern: a fraction of America’s, but higher than in most other developed countries.

Norway, too, has moved relatively slowly in the wake of a 2011 far-right terrorist attack that killed 77 people.

Though the country has one of Europe’s highest gun ownership rates, it has relatively lower rates of gun-related violence. The country has had strict rules for years, including mandatory gun safety classes and an involved licensing process. But it took seven years after the 2011 massacre to enact a ban on semiautomatic weapons that was inspired by the attack. It went into effect at the end of last year.

New Zealand, which like Norway has traditionally had a high gun ownership rate but tight restrictions, along with low rates of gun violence, moved more quickly.

When a far-right extremist killed 50 mosquegoers in 2019, authorities took less than a week to announce a ban on military-style semiautomatic rifles and high-capacity magazines like those the attacker had used.

But Norway, New Zealand, Canada and Australia are all outliers in one important way: Each began with high rates of gun ownership, relatively few restrictions or both.

In most countries, there are fewer guns or pre-existing gun rights to restrict in the wake of a mass shooting — and, perhaps as a result, there are also far fewer mass shootings in those countries.

Still, such governments often act. In Germany, after a gunman killed 16 people, the government raised the minimum age for carrying what few weapons were permitted to 21 years old, from 18.

When another attack hit Germany seven years later — both were exceedingly rare events in a country with little gun violence — lawmakers set new rules allowing for random police checks on gun owners.

With gun ownership already strictly controlled, there were simply few other measures left to impose.

caliking said:

WildmanWilson said:

caliking said:

WildmanWilson said:

caliking said:

WildmanWilson said:

JohnInCarolina said:

http://twitter.com/nanwhaley/status/1554888578743746560?s=20&t=dE4lQGCE3ce6KNkl-tYJqg

It would be better if they just waited on the police….

Or use a hot tub time machine to un-invent  guns. 

Putting up a sign telling crazy people to not bring them in has a great track record so maybe expand that with bolder fonts. 

Or... wait for it... support gun control that would let responsible citizens still keep their non-Rambo guns, while keeping them out of the hands of less responsible (aka loony)  folks.

I know its a novel idea, but whodathunk it would work for so many countries?? 

Gun control....let me think...Oh yeah... I think I remember hearing about this somewhere. So besides being unconstitutional, explain how you can remove the many millions of guns already owned that you label Rambo guns? Are you on the panel that decides who "loony" is? Who makes that call? 

We notice how well drug control laws work. People drop dead at a much higher rate than from Rambo guns. I'm not sure why they don't listen to all the laws.

But tell me your idea of non Rambo guns that we should be "allowed" by your good grace to won.

I dunno where to start with this. Its like you're all out of rant, so you're circling back. Or, maybe you just can't keep track of your drivel. 

Firstly, and you may find this hard to believe, the US Constitution was designed to be amended. To account for the evolution of the polity... its mores, public opinion, etc. And, it has been amended many times. That's how slavery was abolished, women got the right to vote, people could sell/buy alcohol (again!), among other things. 

What to do about the millions of guns already out there? Some ideas (I've posted this for you before, but you don't read) - 

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/25/world/europe/gun-laws-australia-britain.html

Yes, The New York Times. Go ahead and fact-check the article. "Fact" being the operative word. Google up!

Lastly, I'm not the one who gets to decide who the loons are. They declare themselves (at least they do on here). Voters vote for their representatives, who are then expected to enact policy for the betterment of our communities, and society. That's not always straightforward, but that's supposedly the aim. 

If it were up to me though, you, particularly, would be flinging peas with a slingshot. 

I can't read your link without signing up. I see its about Australia though. The old lib go to...

Quite a different country from America don't you think? Their population is about like Florida. They also never had a very high homicide rate. If you look at the data you will see the rate of murders goes up and down a little just like it does here. They have gun control and we don't. We still see these fluctuation regardless. Only thing is, if they have 30 less one year vs 30 more another, it makes it look like a big difference statistically. 

Americas homicide rates dropped from the 90s and that's with a huge influx of gun ownership and carry permits. According to you clueless fools, we should have a dramatic increase in homicides as more guns are sold. What we are seeing in the last year or so is an uptick and its likely due to the democrat policies of turning people back on the street and defunding the police and not prosecuting criminals. 

And its predictable that you are butt hurt and want me disarmed because I stand up against the radical left wing commies on here. For nothing more than voicing an opinion, you want my rights taken because you don't like what I say. There, is why people like you and your entire radical jerk buddy boy band are dangerous to the Republic.

By the way...have you seen how the government is treating the citizens of Australia now? Although y'all probably like it.

Source? Did you get that from the party in your inbox?

What else happened in the 90's in the US? Maybe a ban on assault weapons? But, that could only be a coincidence, right?

You'll have to explain to me what you mean by Australia being the "old lib go to...". I imagine it has something to do with how effective their gun control policies have been, and hence often being cited as an example of what could work. Also,  I don't think you actually know what's going on re: human rights violations in Australia (hint: its not quite their citizens who are suffering these). Once you find out who they are mistreating, I'll bet you and your ilk will be all in. 

Lastly, I'm not worried about responsible, sane gun owners. Its the paranoid delusional ones that concern me. You're doing a good job of demonstrating which one describes you.

Kudos for attempting to put together a cogent argument. Even if it was feeble. 


PS: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/25/world/europe/gun-laws-australia-britain.html

Other Countries Had Mass Shootings. Then They Changed Their Gun Laws.

Britain, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Norway: All had a culture of gun ownership, and all tightened restrictions anyway. Their violence statistics now diverge sharply from those of the U.S.

A prayer vigil for the victims of the Uvalde Elementary School shooting held in downtown Houston on Tuesday.Credit...Mark Felix for The New York Times

By Max Fisher

May 25, 2022

The world over, mass shootings are frequently met with a common response: Officials impose new restrictions on gun ownership. Mass shootings become rarer. Homicides and suicides tend to decrease, too.

After a British gunman killed 16 people in 1987, the country banned semiautomatic weapons like those he had used. It did the same with most handguns after a 1996 school shooting. It now has one of the lowest gun-related death rates in the developed world.

In Australia, a 1996 massacre prompted mandatory gun buybacks that saw, according to some estimates, as many as one million firearms melted into slag. The rate of mass shootings plummeted from once every 18 months to, so far, only one in the 26 years since.

ADVERTISEMENT

Continue reading the main story

Canada also tightened gun laws after a 1989 mass shooting. So did Germany in 2002, New Zealand in 2019 and Norway last year.

Only the United States, whose rate and severity of mass shootings is without parallel outside of conflict zones, has so consistently refused to answer those events with tightened gun laws.

Though such restrictions have always brought some controversy, most were broadly embraced by voters in other countries.

Even in Australia, where conservative-leaning politics and rural traditions had long favored gun ownership, citizens broadly accepted the buyback. Some even surrendered weapons they were legally permitted to keep, in a show of support for their country’s tightening gun laws.

Every mass shooting is, in some sense, a fringe event, driven by one-off factors like the ideology or personal circumstances of the shooter. The risk is impossible to fully erase.

Still, the record is clear, confirmed by reams of studies that have analyzed the effects of policies like Britain’s and Australia’s: When countries tighten gun control laws, it leads to fewer guns in private citizens’ hands, which leads to less gun violence — and to fewer mass shootings.

Britain: Sweeping Bans

Image

Scenes in Hungerford, Berkshire, following a shooting in the town that became known as the Hungerford massacre, on Aug. 19, 1987.Credit...Reading Post/Mirrorpix/Getty Images

Britain today has one of the strictest gun control regimes in the developed world, with even many police unarmed. But it was not always that way.

The country’s history of sport hunting had ingrained a long cultural tradition of gun ownership, especially in rural areas.

That began to change in 1987, with the so-called Hungerford massacre, named for the small English town where it took place. A 27-year-old local man used two semiautomatic rifles and a handgun, which he owned legally, to kill 16 people. His motives remain unclear.

Britain’s Conservative government swiftly banned rifles like those he had used and mandated that shotgun owners register the weapons with police.

The 1996 school shooting in a small Scottish town, where a local man killed 15 students and one teacher, prompted more sweeping changes. A government inquiry recommended restricting access to handguns.

The Conservative government went even further, banning all but the smallest-caliber handguns, which a subsequent Labour government banned the next year.

The reforms also require owners of permitted firearms to pass a strict licensure process, which involves interviews and home visits by local police, who can deny approval if they deem the would-be owner a potential public safety risk.

Mass shootings did not completely disappear in Britain: An attacker killed 12 in 2010, and another killed five in 2021. But all forms of gun-related violence have dropped significantly.

Today, there are about five guns per 100 people in Britain (except in Northern Ireland, where this number is higher), one of the lowest rates in the developed world. The gun homicide rate is about 0.7 per million, also one of the lowest.

Australia: Nationwide Buybacks

Image

Family and friends of those killed in the Port Arthur massacre during a memorial service in 2006 to mark the 10th aniversary of the shooting in Port Arthur, Australia.Credit...Ian Waldie/Getty Images

American gun control activists often cite Australia’s sweeping buybacks. Though no country rivals the United States’ gun ownership rate, which is more than double that of second-place Yemen, Australia has had similar cultural and political affinities for gun ownership.

Despite this, after a mass shooting in 1996 in which a gunman killed 35 people in the town of Port Arthur, authorities successfully imposed sweeping new restrictions.

The nationwide buyback ultimately took between one in five and one in three privately held guns out of circulation. This mostly targeted guns like semiautomatic rifles and many shotguns that, under new laws, were no longer permitted.

The country also reframed gun ownership from being an inherent right, as it is in only a handful of countries like the United States, to becoming a privilege that citizens had to affirmatively earn.

Australia’s would-be gun owners now face a national registry, a 28-day wait period and a licensing process that requires demonstrating a valid reason for owning a gun.

Since then, mass shootings have effectively disappeared in Australia. What was once an almost annual event has only happened once since the reforms, with a 2018 attack that left seven dead.

But the greater impact may have been on other forms of violence. A 2011 survey of crime and suicide data concluded that the program “seems to have been incredibly successful in terms of lives saved.”

Australia’s gun-related homicide rate subsequently halved, as did the rate of firearm suicides, the study found. Non-firearm homicides and suicides did not increase. Subsequent research confirmed these findings.

The reforms were initially controversial, including within the ranks of the conservative government that passed them, as well as some rural communities. But fears of electoral backlash or even violent resistance — Australia’s prime minister, John Howard, wore a bulletproof vest during one address — never materialized.

ADVERTISEMENT

Continue reading the main story

“Few Australians would deny that their country is safer today as a consequence of gun control,” Mr. Howard wrote in 2013 in The New York Times.

Still, Australian gun ownership rates have crept back up in recent years, as have rates of gun-related killings.

Canada and Norway: Gradual Change

Image

Mourners filing past caskets at the University of Montreal on Dec. 10, 1989, as they pay their respects to some of the 14 women killed in a shooting at the university.Credit...Tom Hanson/Canadian Press/Associated Press

Not all reforms have been as dramatic as Britain’s or Australia’s.

Canada tightened restrictions on gun ownership in response to a 1989 mass shooting that killed 14 female college students. Licenses became required for shotguns and rifles, and those firearms had to be registered with authorities. Similar rules already applied to handguns.

But the new rules, which proved controversial in rural communities, were not applied until 1995, six years after the shooting, and were mostly abolished in 2012.

While Canada’s gun rules remain far stricter than those in the United States, they are looser than in most other countries. Its gun ownership rates, gun homicide rates and frequency of mass shootings all follow a similar pattern: a fraction of America’s, but higher than in most other developed countries.

Norway, too, has moved relatively slowly in the wake of a 2011 far-right terrorist attack that killed 77 people.

Though the country has one of Europe’s highest gun ownership rates, it has relatively lower rates of gun-related violence. The country has had strict rules for years, including mandatory gun safety classes and an involved licensing process. But it took seven years after the 2011 massacre to enact a ban on semiautomatic weapons that was inspired by the attack. It went into effect at the end of last year.

New Zealand, which like Norway has traditionally had a high gun ownership rate but tight restrictions, along with low rates of gun violence, moved more quickly.

When a far-right extremist killed 50 mosquegoers in 2019, authorities took less than a week to announce a ban on military-style semiautomatic rifles and high-capacity magazines like those the attacker had used.

But Norway, New Zealand, Canada and Australia are all outliers in one important way: Each began with high rates of gun ownership, relatively few restrictions or both.

In most countries, there are fewer guns or pre-existing gun rights to restrict in the wake of a mass shooting — and, perhaps as a result, there are also far fewer mass shootings in those countries.

Still, such governments often act. In Germany, after a gunman killed 16 people, the government raised the minimum age for carrying what few weapons were permitted to 21 years old, from 18.

When another attack hit Germany seven years later — both were exceedingly rare events in a country with little gun violence — lawmakers set new rules allowing for random police checks on gun owners.

With gun ownership already strictly controlled, there were simply few other measures left to impose.

Max Fisher is a New York-based international reporter and columnist. He has reported from five continents on conflict, diplomacy, social change and other topics. He writes The Interpreter, a column exploring the ideas and context behind major world events.

WildmanWilson said:

caliking said:

WildmanWilson said:

caliking said:

WildmanWilson said:

caliking said:

WildmanWilson said:

JohnInCarolina said:

http://twitter.com/nanwhaley/status/1554888578743746560?s=20&t=dE4lQGCE3ce6KNkl-tYJqg

It would be better if they just waited on the police….

Or use a hot tub time machine to un-invent  guns. 

Putting up a sign telling crazy people to not bring them in has a great track record so maybe expand that with bolder fonts. 

Or... wait for it... support gun control that would let responsible citizens still keep their non-Rambo guns, while keeping them out of the hands of less responsible (aka loony)  folks.

I know its a novel idea, but whodathunk it would work for so many countries?? 

Gun control....let me think...Oh yeah... I think I remember hearing about this somewhere. So besides being unconstitutional, explain how you can remove the many millions of guns already owned that you label Rambo guns? Are you on the panel that decides who "loony" is? Who makes that call? 

We notice how well drug control laws work. People drop dead at a much higher rate than from Rambo guns. I'm not sure why they don't listen to all the laws.

But tell me your idea of non Rambo guns that we should be "allowed" by your good grace to won.

I dunno where to start with this. Its like you're all out of rant, so you're circling back. Or, maybe you just can't keep track of your drivel. 

Firstly, and you may find this hard to believe, the US Constitution was designed to be amended. To account for the evolution of the polity... its mores, public opinion, etc. And, it has been amended many times. That's how slavery was abolished, women got the right to vote, people could sell/buy alcohol (again!), among other things. 

What to do about the millions of guns already out there? Some ideas (I've posted this for you before, but you don't read) - 

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/25/world/europe/gun-laws-australia-britain.html

Yes, The New York Times. Go ahead and fact-check the article. "Fact" being the operative word. Google up!

Lastly, I'm not the one who gets to decide who the loons are. They declare themselves (at least they do on here). Voters vote for their representatives, who are then expected to enact policy for the betterment of our communities, and society. That's not always straightforward, but that's supposedly the aim. 

If it were up to me though, you, particularly, would be flinging peas with a slingshot. 

I can't read your link without signing up. I see its about Australia though. The old lib go to...

Quite a different country from America don't you think? Their population is about like Florida. They also never had a very high homicide rate. If you look at the data you will see the rate of murders goes up and down a little just like it does here. They have gun control and we don't. We still see these fluctuation regardless. Only thing is, if they have 30 less one year vs 30 more another, it makes it look like a big difference statistically. 

Americas homicide rates dropped from the 90s and that's with a huge influx of gun ownership and carry permits. According to you clueless fools, we should have a dramatic increase in homicides as more guns are sold. What we are seeing in the last year or so is an uptick and its likely due to the democrat policies of turning people back on the street and defunding the police and not prosecuting criminals. 

And its predictable that you are butt hurt and want me disarmed because I stand up against the radical left wing commies on here. For nothing more than voicing an opinion, you want my rights taken because you don't like what I say. There, is why people like you and your entire radical jerk buddy boy band are dangerous to the Republic.

By the way...have you seen how the government is treating the citizens of Australia now? Although y'all probably like it.

Source? Did you get that from the party in your inbox?

What else happened in the 90's in the US? Maybe a ban on assault weapons? But, that could only be a coincidence, right?

You'll have to explain to me what you mean by Australia being the "old lib go to...". I imagine it has something to do with how effective their gun control policies have been, and hence often being cited as an example of what could work. Also,  I don't think you actually know what's going on re: human rights violations in Australia (hint: its not quite their citizens who are suffering these). Once you find out who they are mistreating, I'll bet you and your ilk will be all in. 

Lastly, I'm not worried about responsible, sane gun owners. Its the paranoid delusional ones that concern me. You're doing a good job of demonstrating which one describes you.

Kudos for attempting to put together a cogent argument. Even if it was feeble. 


PS: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/25/world/europe/gun-laws-australia-britain.html

Other Countries Had Mass Shootings. Then They Changed Their Gun Laws.

Britain, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Norway: All had a culture of gun ownership, and all tightened restrictions anyway. Their violence statistics now diverge sharply from those of the U.S.

A prayer vigil for the victims of the Uvalde Elementary School shooting held in downtown Houston on Tuesday.Credit...Mark Felix for The New York Times

By Max Fisher

May 25, 2022

The world over, mass shootings are frequently met with a common response: Officials impose new restrictions on gun ownership. Mass shootings become rarer. Homicides and suicides tend to decrease, too.

After a British gunman killed 16 people in 1987, the country banned semiautomatic weapons like those he had used. It did the same with most handguns after a 1996 school shooting. It now has one of the lowest gun-related death rates in the developed world.

In Australia, a 1996 massacre prompted mandatory gun buybacks that saw, according to some estimates, as many as one million firearms melted into slag. The rate of mass shootings plummeted from once every 18 months to, so far, only one in the 26 years since.

ADVERTISEMENT

Continue reading the main story

Canada also tightened gun laws after a 1989 mass shooting. So did Germany in 2002, New Zealand in 2019 and Norway last year.

Only the United States, whose rate and severity of mass shootings is without parallel outside of conflict zones, has so consistently refused to answer those events with tightened gun laws.

Though such restrictions have always brought some controversy, most were broadly embraced by voters in other countries.

Even in Australia, where conservative-leaning politics and rural traditions had long favored gun ownership, citizens broadly accepted the buyback. Some even surrendered weapons they were legally permitted to keep, in a show of support for their country’s tightening gun laws.

Every mass shooting is, in some sense, a fringe event, driven by one-off factors like the ideology or personal circumstances of the shooter. The risk is impossible to fully erase.

Still, the record is clear, confirmed by reams of studies that have analyzed the effects of policies like Britain’s and Australia’s: When countries tighten gun control laws, it leads to fewer guns in private citizens’ hands, which leads to less gun violence — and to fewer mass shootings.

Britain: Sweeping Bans

Image

Scenes in Hungerford, Berkshire, following a shooting in the town that became known as the Hungerford massacre, on Aug. 19, 1987.Credit...Reading Post/Mirrorpix/Getty Images

Britain today has one of the strictest gun control regimes in the developed world, with even many police unarmed. But it was not always that way.

The country’s history of sport hunting had ingrained a long cultural tradition of gun ownership, especially in rural areas.

That began to change in 1987, with the so-called Hungerford massacre, named for the small English town where it took place. A 27-year-old local man used two semiautomatic rifles and a handgun, which he owned legally, to kill 16 people. His motives remain unclear.

Britain’s Conservative government swiftly banned rifles like those he had used and mandated that shotgun owners register the weapons with police.

The 1996 school shooting in a small Scottish town, where a local man killed 15 students and one teacher, prompted more sweeping changes. A government inquiry recommended restricting access to handguns.

The Conservative government went even further, banning all but the smallest-caliber handguns, which a subsequent Labour government banned the next year.

The reforms also require owners of permitted firearms to pass a strict licensure process, which involves interviews and home visits by local police, who can deny approval if they deem the would-be owner a potential public safety risk.

Mass shootings did not completely disappear in Britain: An attacker killed 12 in 2010, and another killed five in 2021. But all forms of gun-related violence have dropped significantly.

Today, there are about five guns per 100 people in Britain (except in Northern Ireland, where this number is higher), one of the lowest rates in the developed world. The gun homicide rate is about 0.7 per million, also one of the lowest.

Australia: Nationwide Buybacks

Image

Family and friends of those killed in the Port Arthur massacre during a memorial service in 2006 to mark the 10th aniversary of the shooting in Port Arthur, Australia.Credit...Ian Waldie/Getty Images

American gun control activists often cite Australia’s sweeping buybacks. Though no country rivals the United States’ gun ownership rate, which is more than double that of second-place Yemen, Australia has had similar cultural and political affinities for gun ownership.

Despite this, after a mass shooting in 1996 in which a gunman killed 35 people in the town of Port Arthur, authorities successfully imposed sweeping new restrictions.

The nationwide buyback ultimately took between one in five and one in three privately held guns out of circulation. This mostly targeted guns like semiautomatic rifles and many shotguns that, under new laws, were no longer permitted.

The country also reframed gun ownership from being an inherent right, as it is in only a handful of countries like the United States, to becoming a privilege that citizens had to affirmatively earn.

Australia’s would-be gun owners now face a national registry, a 28-day wait period and a licensing process that requires demonstrating a valid reason for owning a gun.

Since then, mass shootings have effectively disappeared in Australia. What was once an almost annual event has only happened once since the reforms, with a 2018 attack that left seven dead.

But the greater impact may have been on other forms of violence. A 2011 survey of crime and suicide data concluded that the program “seems to have been incredibly successful in terms of lives saved.”

Australia’s gun-related homicide rate subsequently halved, as did the rate of firearm suicides, the study found. Non-firearm homicides and suicides did not increase. Subsequent research confirmed these findings.

The reforms were initially controversial, including within the ranks of the conservative government that passed them, as well as some rural communities. But fears of electoral backlash or even violent resistance — Australia’s prime minister, John Howard, wore a bulletproof vest during one address — never materialized.

ADVERTISEMENT

Continue reading the main story

“Few Australians would deny that their country is safer today as a consequence of gun control,” Mr. Howard wrote in 2013 in The New York Times.

Still, Australian gun ownership rates have crept back up in recent years, as have rates of gun-related killings.

Canada and Norway: Gradual Change

Image

Mourners filing past caskets at the University of Montreal on Dec. 10, 1989, as they pay their respects to some of the 14 women killed in a shooting at the university.Credit...Tom Hanson/Canadian Press/Associated Press

Not all reforms have been as dramatic as Britain’s or Australia’s.

Canada tightened restrictions on gun ownership in response to a 1989 mass shooting that killed 14 female college students. Licenses became required for shotguns and rifles, and those firearms had to be registered with authorities. Similar rules already applied to handguns.

But the new rules, which proved controversial in rural communities, were not applied until 1995, six years after the shooting, and were mostly abolished in 2012.

While Canada’s gun rules remain far stricter than those in the United States, they are looser than in most other countries. Its gun ownership rates, gun homicide rates and frequency of mass shootings all follow a similar pattern: a fraction of America’s, but higher than in most other developed countries.

Norway, too, has moved relatively slowly in the wake of a 2011 far-right terrorist attack that killed 77 people.

Though the country has one of Europe’s highest gun ownership rates, it has relatively lower rates of gun-related violence. The country has had strict rules for years, including mandatory gun safety classes and an involved licensing process. But it took seven years after the 2011 massacre to enact a ban on semiautomatic weapons that was inspired by the attack. It went into effect at the end of last year.

New Zealand, which like Norway has traditionally had a high gun ownership rate but tight restrictions, along with low rates of gun violence, moved more quickly.

When a far-right extremist killed 50 mosquegoers in 2019, authorities took less than a week to announce a ban on military-style semiautomatic rifles and high-capacity magazines like those the attacker had used.

But Norway, New Zealand, Canada and Australia are all outliers in one important way: Each began with high rates of gun ownership, relatively few restrictions or both.

In most countries, there are fewer guns or pre-existing gun rights to restrict in the wake of a mass shooting — and, perhaps as a result, there are also far fewer mass shootings in those countries.

Still, such governments often act. In Germany, after a gunman killed 16 people, the government raised the minimum age for carrying what few weapons were permitted to 21 years old, from 18.

When another attack hit Germany seven years later — both were exceedingly rare events in a country with little gun violence — lawmakers set new rules allowing for random police checks on gun owners.

With gun ownership already strictly controlled, there were simply few other measures left to impose.

Max Fisher is a New York-based international reporter and columnist. He has reported from five continents on conflict, diplomacy, social change and other topics. He writes The Interpreter, a column exploring the ideas and context behind major world events.

You gun grabbers always pick the gun grab in Australia as some measure of great success. You simply are really sucky at understanding data.

I pointed out that Australia has very few gun homicides period. Chicago has more in a few months than they do all year. They never had many mass shootings to start with. So taking guns from a population that hardly had any to start with doesn't prove much.

Now as far as the AW ban. The rates were on a downward trend already. Also, do you think they just took all the ARs away and people didn't have any around? No ! No one lost any of them. They were still out there by the millions. The ban did nothing to stop anything. Do you actually think the bad guys just left them in the closet because the ban was on?

 I don't know how many times I must show the data that AWs make up just a speck on the chart of the homicides each year. Its like your brains are glazed over and not willing to see that. If you are honest, and you're not, you would admit taking every AW ever made will do almost nothing statistically to lower the homicide rate. So to your point...the ban can not and did not make a difference because statistically they were just a blip on the radar. You simply can not make up your own facts that a ban made a huge difference. Homicides with a gun from 2007 to 2017 were about 104,000. 495 were mass shootings. 253 were with an AR. This means that mass shootings involving AWs were 0.17 percent during that time period. 

 But lets get down to the real plan. Its not just ARs they want. They just picked them because they can get the simple minded folks to all buy in. They are weapons of war...no one needs these evil black gun...Fat boy Jerry Nadler just admitted to God and the whole world they want much more and they wish to take many guns in common use. Not just the black ones that are so scary.

A note on the suicide rates in Australia. Yeah they did drop after the gun grab. But suicide rates fell substantially during the same time period in Canada, Europe and the US.  In recent years, suicide rates in Australia and the US have climbed upward again. They are now backup to where they were before the drop.

HeavyG said:

You strike me as the sorta bloke that says:

"These illegal immigrants come here and take all our jobs."

AND also says,

"These illegal immigrants just come here to collect welfare checks and never work."

You're a very confused fellow...

HeavyG said:

Our highly trained professionals...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/08/05/shooting-police-library-manslaughter/

Quite sad. And infuriating.

HeavyG said:

WildmanWilson said:

HeavyG said:

WildmanWilson said:

HeavyG said:

WildmanWilson said:

caliking said:

Botch said:

WildmanWilson said:
Gun control....let me think...Oh yeah... I think I remember hearing about this somewhere. So besides being unconstitutional...

Re-read the 2nd Amendment.  There, gun control is a requirement.  

Let’s not forget the part about “ a  well regulated militia” , which so many conveniently gloss over. 

You guys really are very one tracked and simple minded. Ever hear of Heller?  The Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a militia. Also look up "shall not be infringed" while you're at it. Then a homework lesson for all of you is "weapon in common use".  

And the Heller decision was the first time a SCOTUS had decided that there was an individual right to own a gun - and specifically handguns - for home protection purposes. Antonin Scalia wrote the majority opinion and he said this:

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

So neither Heller nor any SCOTUS case since has decided that "shall not be infringed" means what you like to believe it means.

No one ever said the right was unlimited. You can't take that as a shortcut to say you can't have a gun in common use because I say you can't. That's not what unlimited means.

The case wasn't necessary until more gun grabbers continued to push the issue of gun confiscation and gutting the second amendment. Its people like you that believe you have the right, or at least your government has the right, to strip you and give you a single shot 20 gauge as being "good enough". Heller has stood and been used in other cases to uphold this individual right.

In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects “arms ‘in common use at the time’ for lawful purposes like self-defense” and arms that are “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” Such arms are “chosen by American society,” not the government.

Look up McDonald vs Chicago while you're at it.

Wildthing says:

"Also look up "shall not be infringed" while you're at it."

AND then also says,

"No one ever said the right was unlimited."

You strike me as the sorta bloke that says:

"These illegal immigrants come here and take all our jobs."

AND also says,

"These illegal immigrants just come here to collect welfare checks and never work."

You're a very confused fellow...

Australia Suicide Rate 2000-2022 | MacroTrends

This is 2000-2021 Just a few years after the ban started. You can see it dipped then returned up. My data is just fine.

You also didn't address how banning assault weapon will make a huge difference. I gave you the data showing they have a minimal impact. You even know its true. You just will not admit it. Typical.

I don't recall me ever even mentioning the Aussies.

I guess maybe I did and just forgot about it cuz my head is still spinning trying to decipher your "shall not be infringed/No one ever said the right was unlimited" explications cuz...

WildmanWilson said:

HeavyG said:

WildmanWilson said:

HeavyG said:

WildmanWilson said:

HeavyG said:

WildmanWilson said:

caliking said:

Botch said:

WildmanWilson said:
Gun control....let me think...Oh yeah... I think I remember hearing about this somewhere. So besides being unconstitutional...

Re-read the 2nd Amendment.  There, gun control is a requirement.  

Let’s not forget the part about “ a  well regulated militia” , which so many conveniently gloss over. 

You guys really are very one tracked and simple minded. Ever hear of Heller?  The Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a militia. Also look up "shall not be infringed" while you're at it. Then a homework lesson for all of you is "weapon in common use".  

And the Heller decision was the first time a SCOTUS had decided that there was an individual right to own a gun - and specifically handguns - for home protection purposes. Antonin Scalia wrote the majority opinion and he said this:

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

So neither Heller nor any SCOTUS case since has decided that "shall not be infringed" means what you like to believe it means.

No one ever said the right was unlimited. You can't take that as a shortcut to say you can't have a gun in common use because I say you can't. That's not what unlimited means.

The case wasn't necessary until more gun grabbers continued to push the issue of gun confiscation and gutting the second amendment. Its people like you that believe you have the right, or at least your government has the right, to strip you and give you a single shot 20 gauge as being "good enough". Heller has stood and been used in other cases to uphold this individual right.

In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects “arms ‘in common use at the time’ for lawful purposes like self-defense” and arms that are “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” Such arms are “chosen by American society,” not the government.

Look up McDonald vs Chicago while you're at it.

Wildthing says:

"Also look up "shall not be infringed" while you're at it."

AND then also says,

"No one ever said the right was unlimited."

You strike me as the sorta bloke that says:

"These illegal immigrants come here and take all our jobs."

AND also says,

"These illegal immigrants just come here to collect welfare checks and never work."

You're a very confused fellow...

Australia Suicide Rate 2000-2022 | MacroTrends

This is 2000-2021 Just a few years after the ban started. You can see it dipped then returned up. My data is just fine.

You also didn't address how banning assault weapon will make a huge difference. I gave you the data showing they have a minimal impact. You even know its true. You just will not admit it. Typical.

I don't recall me ever even mentioning the Aussies.

I guess maybe I did and just forgot about it cuz my head is still spinning trying to decipher your "shall not be infringed/No one ever said the right was unlimited" explications cuz...

I guess you struggle with the meanings because you never had a grasp on the second amendment and its purpose. Shall not infringe, means the right of the people to own and use, weapons in common use, and no government has the right to take that right from you.

By not unlimited....Just like the first amendment has some limitations, the second amendment has limitation in that you maybe limited to not using fully automatic machine guns or nuclear warheads. You may not be able to take them into a private business if they so choose. No one said there are absolutely no laws to follow. 

The problem you guys have in your little snowflake brains is you take that as a way to just limit whatever you think we don't need. Just like you think its okay to limit speech from the right but you don't. Your feelings isn't what determines the guns I own or what I get to say. Sorry bub. 

Legume said:

WildmanWilson said:

HeavyG said:

WildmanWilson said:

HeavyG said:

WildmanWilson said:

HeavyG said:

WildmanWilson said:

caliking said:

Botch said:

WildmanWilson said:
Gun control....let me think...Oh yeah... I think I remember hearing about this somewhere. So besides being unconstitutional...

Re-read the 2nd Amendment.  There, gun control is a requirement.  

Let’s not forget the part about “ a  well regulated militia” , which so many conveniently gloss over. 

You guys really are very one tracked and simple minded. Ever hear of Heller?  The Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a militia. Also look up "shall not be infringed" while you're at it. Then a homework lesson for all of you is "weapon in common use".  

And the Heller decision was the first time a SCOTUS had decided that there was an individual right to own a gun - and specifically handguns - for home protection purposes. Antonin Scalia wrote the majority opinion and he said this:

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

So neither Heller nor any SCOTUS case since has decided that "shall not be infringed" means what you like to believe it means.

No one ever said the right was unlimited. You can't take that as a shortcut to say you can't have a gun in common use because I say you can't. That's not what unlimited means.

The case wasn't necessary until more gun grabbers continued to push the issue of gun confiscation and gutting the second amendment. Its people like you that believe you have the right, or at least your government has the right, to strip you and give you a single shot 20 gauge as being "good enough". Heller has stood and been used in other cases to uphold this individual right.

In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects “arms ‘in common use at the time’ for lawful purposes like self-defense” and arms that are “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” Such arms are “chosen by American society,” not the government.

Look up McDonald vs Chicago while you're at it.

Wildthing says:

"Also look up "shall not be infringed" while you're at it."

AND then also says,

"No one ever said the right was unlimited."

You strike me as the sorta bloke that says:

"These illegal immigrants come here and take all our jobs."

AND also says,

"These illegal immigrants just come here to collect welfare checks and never work."

You're a very confused fellow...

Australia Suicide Rate 2000-2022 | MacroTrends

This is 2000-2021 Just a few years after the ban started. You can see it dipped then returned up. My data is just fine.

You also didn't address how banning assault weapon will make a huge difference. I gave you the data showing they have a minimal impact. You even know its true. You just will not admit it. Typical.

I don't recall me ever even mentioning the Aussies.

I guess maybe I did and just forgot about it cuz my head is still spinning trying to decipher your "shall not be infringed/No one ever said the right was unlimited" explications cuz...

I guess you struggle with the meanings because you never had a grasp on the second amendment and its purpose. Shall not infringe, means the right of the people to own and use, weapons in common use, and no government has the right to take that right from you.

By not unlimited....Just like the first amendment has some limitations, the second amendment has limitation in that you maybe limited to not using fully automatic machine guns or nuclear warheads. You may not be able to take them into a private business if they so choose. No one said there are absolutely no laws to follow. 

The problem you guys have in your little snowflake brains is you take that as a way to just limit whatever you think we don't need. Just like you think its okay to limit speech from the right but you don't. Your feelings isn't what determines the guns I own or what I get to say. Sorry bub. 

Where does 2A draw the line at automatic weapons?  This was asked on page 10, you ignored and are now borrowing the same argument.  You don’t get to decide where the line is, bub.  

Why do you think people are trying to actually take your guns?  Who has said that is a lib goal or whatever, vs sensible gun control?