Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Big_Dog

Tougher Gun Laws - Yea or Nea

2,259 posts in this topic

4 minutes ago, Optimus_Cr1m35 said:

They generally are. ish goes down, those guys are looking for the door.

 

I don't need a gun to protect myself. Between the security measures on my house, the area I choose to live in, I don't have any worries. My dog is the best form of home protection I could have. And if they get past the dog, I'm not a tiny guy.

 

Plus, if someone breaks in at 3am and I am tasked with waking up, grabbing gun, and making a decision in only a few seconds, I doubt I would make a correct or good decision. ****, I can't wake up and function at 6am, 3am is no go...

 

When I owned guns, I have a home invasion. Someone broke the window out of a door, got into the kitchen. I came home to a broken window, blood all over the kitchen, and a dog covered in blood. It wasn't hers...

I'm much like you man. I really have no interest in owning a gun. Had a former co-worker essentially call me an idiot for not packing heat to protect myself, family, property, etc. I told him that there is no guarantee I can do anything if ish hits the fan. As you said, if an intruder is breaking in my home in the wee hours of the night, I am in no frame of mind to use it safely and efficiently anyway. 

This whole gun debate is ridiculous. People getting all riled up thinking the government wants to take away their guns. That was never what the gun debate issue was about. Government aint interested taking guns away form law-abiding citizens who otherwise are eligible to purchase permit and own firearms. I just wish people were more level-headed and even-keeled when it comes to topics like this. Topics like this do not have to be provocative and heated. Every sensible citizen wants the right to bear arms for legal purposes as well as a better system of accountability and oversight. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Halcon-1 said:

This whole gun debate is ridiculous. People getting all riled up thinking the government wants to take away their guns. That was never what the gun debate issue was about.

Yes. It literally is. The Democratic field is literally saying it at every opportunity. This is a fact.

 

Government aint interested taking guns away form law-abiding citizens who otherwise are eligible to purchase permit and own firearms.

Yes. They are. Red-Flag laws without due-process. "Assault weapons" bans. Magazine capacity restrictions. Draconian ammunition taxes. These are all measures aimed at taking away guns and the ability to acquire them from anyone regardless of their eligibility or compliance with the law. Joe Biden's "Crime Prevention Act" of 1994 did just that and banned millions of firearms making "law-abiding citizens who otherwise were eligible to purchase permit and own firearms" criminals if they indeed purchased them. This also is a fact.

 

I just wish people were more level-headed and even-keeled when it comes to topics like this.

Agreed. Being informed about reality is important.

 

Topics like this do not have to be provocative and heated. Every sensible citizen wants the right to bear arms for legal purposes as well as a better system of accountability and oversight. 

Sensibility demands bureaucrats that are protected by security teams are impotent in disarming the public that pays for the very arms with which they protected.

 

Edited by Doug Carlton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Optimus_Cr1m35 said:

They generally are. ish goes down, those guys are looking for the door.

 

I don't need a gun to protect myself. Between the security measures on my house, the area I choose to live in, I don't have any worries. My dog is the best form of home protection I could have. And if they get past the dog, I'm not a tiny guy.

 

Plus, if someone breaks in at 3am and I am tasked with waking up, grabbing gun, and making a decision in only a few seconds, I doubt I would make a correct or good decision. ****, I can't wake up and function at 6am, 3am is no go...

 

When I owned guns, I have a home invasion. Someone broke the window out of a door, got into the kitchen. I came home to a broken window, blood all over the kitchen, and a dog covered in blood. It wasn't hers...

I support your right to not arm yourself

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/6/2019 at 2:11 PM, Optimus_Cr1m35 said:

Here's the issue... You don't see yourself as part of the group. You think "I am a gun owner, and I am good, therefore all gun owners are good". You think "I need to protect MYSELF". Me, I. Not Us, We.

 

The kid who shot up Newtown got the guns from his mother. His mom trained with guns, went to the range, kept them in a safe. Got shot in her home, then her legal guns were used in a school shooting. I have a buddy, he's a cop. Someone broke into his house, while he was there and sleeping, and stole 4 guns from his study. 2 were recovered during arrests later, one was used in a robbery in PA 3 years later. Killed a clerk. He's a good guy with a gun. His gun ownership resulted in the loss of life.

 

Whether you like it or not, the problems with guns outweigh the problems they solve. It's just a fact. If you take any explosive situation, add a firearm, it gets exponentially worse.

Hating on Gun Owners because of some bad apples in the group is the new form of ism. No different then someone hating on all Muslims because some are terrorist. No different then people hating on all illegals because some might be members of the drug cartels, belong to MS13, and /or do sex trafficking. Many of the illegals coming across are good christian people who know nothing but hard work and want to do the christian thing and provide for their family the best they can. judging and punishing a group of people based on the bad apples in the group is morally wrong. The world will be a better place when the hate is gone and people quit blaming whole groups of people for the bad apples in a group all forms of ism needs to die.

Edited by Brehus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Brehus said:

Hating on Gun Owners because of some bad apples in the group is the new form of ism. No different then someone hating on all Muslims because some are terrorist. No different then people hating on all illegals because some might be members of the drug cartels, belong to MS13, and /or do sex trafficking. Many of the illegals coming across are good christian people who know nothing but hard work and want to do the christian thing and provide for their family the best they can. judging and punishing a group of people based on the bad apples in the group is morally wrong. The world will be a better place when the hate is gone and people quit blaming whole groups of people for the bad apples in a group all forms of ism needs to die.

Wait... What?

 

Lets be clear... This isn't about the people who own guns. It's about guns. It's about the 3 times this week that a toddler was shot and killed by a legal gun in my hometown. 3 in a week. It's about my wife having to do lock-down drills with a bunch of 1st graders, and not being able to explain that it's just a drill. It's about my kids having to do lock-down drills, and growing up thinking that's normal.

 

My beef with the people who own guns is that a percentage is willing to force their children, my children through that sorta thing so they can go play rambo with watermelons. So they can carry their .45 and say stupid **** like "rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6". So they can make themselves feel better. So they can think they have some control or power.

 

I'm not talking about the dude who has a gun at home for protection and a shotgun that he hunts with. You know the turds I'm talking about. It's the turds with the AR loaded for bear even though it has no practical purpose in the world. It's the turd who fully decks out his Glock with "Thin Blue Line" BS, you know, to match the sticker he got for his truck, even though he was never a LEO. It's the turd wearing the Punisher shirt, cause Chris Kyle was a badass, but, he never served, cause he had bad knees... It's the turds who go to a handful of training classes and consider themselves "more competent than most police or even FBI agents".

 

You want people to stop judging your group? Tell your group to stop looking like such turds.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Optimus_Cr1m35 said:

Wait... What?

 

Lets be clear... This isn't about the people who own guns. It's about guns. It's about the 3 times this week that a toddler was shot and killed by a legal gun in my hometown. 3 in a week. It's about my wife having to do lock-down drills with a bunch of 1st graders, and not being able to explain that it's just a drill. It's about my kids having to do lock-down drills, and growing up thinking that's normal.

 

My beef with the people who own guns is that a percentage is willing to force their children, my children through that sorta thing so they can go play rambo with watermelons. So they can carry their .45 and say stupid **** like "rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6". So they can make themselves feel better. So they can think they have some control or power.

 

I'm not talking about the dude who has a gun at home for protection and a shotgun that he hunts with. You know the turds I'm talking about. It's the turds with the AR loaded for bear even though it has no practical purpose in the world. It's the turd who fully decks out his Glock with "Thin Blue Line" BS, you know, to match the sticker he got for his truck, even though he was never a LEO. It's the turd wearing the Punisher shirt, cause Chris Kyle was a badass, but, he never served, cause he had bad knees... It's the turds who go to a handful of training classes and consider themselves "more competent than most police or even FBI agents".

 

You want people to stop judging your group? Tell your group to stop looking like such turds.

 

Again how am I responsible for some gun owners acting like turds. That is like asking a law abiding please loving Muslim for force a radical from be a terrorist. I will continue to be a law abiding gun owner and don't care what people with ism issues have to say.

Punishing a group of people due to radicals is morally wrong. If the type of belief or behavior you guys are displaying would not be tolerated toward any other group would be called a form of ism.

Edited by Brehus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trying outlaw gun ownership, punish and talk down to gun owners due to a minority of the group doing stupid stuff that 98% of the group doesn't condone is ignorant

Is as ignorant as the people who want to outlaw Islam because of some radicals doing stupid stuff the most Muslims don't condone.

It is as ignorant as the people who dislike Hispanics coming here because some are MS13 and cartel members

When are you people going to wake up and realize this type of behavior is stupid and intolerable.

Great now. Some american's have Gun Owner Phobia now.

 

Edited by Brehus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Brehus said:

Again how am I responsible for some gun owners acting like turds. That is like asking a law abiding please loving Muslim for force a radical from be a terrorist. I will continue to be a law abiding gun owner and don't care what people with ism issues have to say.

Punishing a group of people due to radicals is morally wrong. If the type of belief or behavior you guys are displaying would not be tolerated toward any other group would be called a form of ism.

"It's not my fault that some guy killed a family when he was driving drunk. I'm a responsible drinker. How dare you make rules around when I can drink and drive"

 

"It's not my fault that some guy headbutted his steering wheel and died because of a fender bender. How Dare you make me wear my seatbelt in my car!"

 

"It's not my fault that some kid drove his car too fast and lost control. How dare you enforce this unreasonable speed limit on me. I'm a responsible driver who is trained in operating my vehicle..."

 

"It's not my fault that some guy wrecked his motorcycle and slammed his head on the pavement. How dare you force me to wear a helmet!"

 

You were saying?

 

 

This is how the rules work. If group "A" is well behaved, Group "A" is left alone. No changes needed.

If 3% of group "A" starts being turds, group "A" is going to be labeled as such. Now, depending on the circumstances, Group A may have more leeway than group B.

 

There are 2 groups of gun owners. There are people who own guns, but don't "live" for guns. They're generally ok with regulations, they don't post pics on Facebook with ARs, they keep them for hunting and protection.

 

Then, there's group 2. They have Avi's with guns in them, they talk about "tyrannical gov'ts", They love letting everyone know about their guns via Facebook, Teeshirts, "Protected by Glock" stickers, etc.

 

 

Which one are you?

Edited by Optimus_Cr1m35

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Optimus_Cr1m35 said:

"It's not my fault that some guy killed a family when he was driving drunk. I'm a responsible drinker. How dare you make rules around when I can drink and drive"

 

"It's not my fault that some guy headbutted his steering wheel and died because of a fender bender. How Dare you make me wear my seatbelt in my car!"

 

"It's not my fault that some kid drove his car too fast and lost control. How dare you enforce this unreasonable speed limit on me. I'm a responsible driver who is trained in operating my vehicle..."

 

 

You were saying?

Nothing wrong making rules to say you can't drink and drive. We already have laws saying it is against the law to kill people.

The problem is if we applied your type of belief to drinking and driving then we would be looking to take it to the extreme to and outlaw cars so no one can drink and drive this punishing all law abiding drivers

Gun owner phobia to extreme you can keep you discriminating ways to yourself

 

Edited by Brehus
WalkingTheDawg and JDaveG like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Brehus said:

Nothing wrong making rules to say you can't drink and drive. We already have laws saying it is against the law to kill people.

The problem is we applied your type of belief to drinking and driving then we would be looking to take it to the extreme to and outlaw cars so no one can drink and drive this punishing all law abiding drivers

Gun owner phobia to extreme you can keep you discriminating ways to yourself

 

I was a gun owner. I still have a CCW. I carried for YEARS. I had reasons, I didn't live in a great part of town, I worked security for a couple bars in the area, My day job took me to some pretty rural spots where I ended up face to face with an angry raccoon or possum on more than one occasion.

 

This isn't about a phobia. It's about the unhealthy obsession some of you guys have with guns. You treat your gun as an extension of yourself, because without it, you're almost always terrified cowards. That's the truth. I know dudes who won't leave the house without their gun. Won't leave. Too scared. I know people who won't go places where guns aren't allowed. Too risky. The gun makes them feel strong, makes them feel like they have some power.

 

Trust me when I say this, the guy that's willing to drop the gloves and fight one on one without any weapons is much scarier than the guy who has to run to his truck to get his gun anytime a conflict arises.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Optimus_Cr1m35 said:

I was a gun owner. I still have a CCW. I carried for YEARS. I had reasons, I didn't live in a great part of town, I worked security for a couple bars in the area, My day job took me to some pretty rural spots where I ended up face to face with an angry raccoon or possum on more than one occasion.

 

This isn't about a phobia. It's about the unhealthy obsession some of you guys have with guns. You treat your gun as an extension of yourself, because without it, you're almost always terrified cowards. That's the truth. I know dudes who won't leave the house without their gun. Won't leave. Too scared. I know people who won't go places where guns aren't allowed. Too risky. The gun makes them feel strong, makes them feel like they have some power.

 

Trust me when I say this, the guy that's willing to drop the gloves and fight one on one without any weapons is much scarier than the guy who has to run to his truck to get his gun anytime a conflict arises.

Ok but why punish 98% of the gun owners for the 2% who act stupid. No different then punishing any race or group of people because of the bad apples judging a group and / or race of people because what a minority of the race or group of people do is called ism where I come from

I am calling a spade a spade

Edited by Brehus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Brehus said:

Ok but why punish 98% of the gun owners for the 2% who act stupid. No different then punishing any race or group of people because of the bad apples judging a group and / or race of people because what a minority of the race or group of people do is called ism where I come from

I am calling a spade a spade

Because that 2% is detrimental to society.

 

There are 225 MILLION drivers in the US. 10497 people were killed in drunk driving deaths last year. That's 0.00004665333333333333%. Yet, we have drunken driving laws, right? The punishment for being caught is pretty severe. Oh... And we deemed the driving deaths as such a problem that we require Training, Testing, and Insurance to do it, even sober.

 

We have roadside checkpoints. We have DUI Patrols. We entire police units devoted to checking for drunk drivers, even though they are a minimal portion of the population. We also all pay for any problems caused by a drunk driver. Our insurance rates go up. Our taxes pay for the DUI checkpoints.

 

So lets apply the same principles. The same math. there were 33636 gun deaths in this country. Estimated 118 million gun owners. That means, 0.0002850508474576271% of gun owners are responsible for a death. Small number. But, significantly higher that the percentage of people injured by Drunk drivers. So, why should we address a problem that is much more likely to cause a death?

 

How about this... You can keep your guns, but, you get to insure them, you get to train, you get tested. Oh, and like drunken drivers, you get to share in the insurance costs when someone does something stupid. If the likelihood of a shooting increases, your rates go up. If the insurance company deems your age group or sex to be more of a risk, you pay more. If your area has more shootings, and more insurance payouts, you pay more. We do it with cars, which you gun folks love to compare guns to, so lets apply the same principles to guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Optimus_Cr1m35 said:

Because that 2% is detrimental to society.

 

There are 225 MILLION drivers in the US. 10497 people were killed in drunk driving deaths last year. That's 0.00004665333333333333%. Yet, we have drunken driving laws, right? The punishment for being caught is pretty severe. Oh... And we deemed the driving deaths as such a problem that we require Training, Testing, and Insurance to do it, even sober.

 

We have roadside checkpoints. We have DUI Patrols. We entire police units devoted to checking for drunk drivers, even though they are a minimal portion of the population. We also all pay for any problems caused by a drunk driver. Our insurance rates go up. Our taxes pay for the DUI checkpoints.

 

So lets apply the same principles. The same math. there were 33636 gun deaths in this country. Estimated 118 million gun owners. That means, 0.0002850508474576271% of gun owners are responsible for a death. Small number. But, significantly higher that the percentage of people injured by Drunk drivers. So, why should we address a problem that is much more likely to cause a death?

 

How about this... You can keep your guns, but, you get to insure them, you get to train, you get tested. Oh, and like drunken drivers, you get to share in the insurance costs when someone does something stupid. If the likelihood of a shooting increases, your rates go up. If the insurance company deems your age group or sex to be more of a risk, you pay more. If your area has more shootings, and more insurance payouts, you pay more. We do it with cars, which you gun folks love to compare guns to, so lets apply the same principles to guns.

 you need to do an apple to apple comparison as you a taking about drunk drivers killing people (Vehicular homicide) vs all gun deaths including accidents.  If you want to include all gun deaths then we need to include all car related deaths including accidents.

14,542 firearm homicides deaths in the U.S. in 2017.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/FASTATS/homicide.htm

 

 

Edited by Brehus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/25/2019 at 3:55 PM, Brehus said:

 you need to do an apple to apple comparison as you a taking about drunk drivers killing people (Vehicular homicide) vs all gun deaths including accidents.  If you want to include all gun deaths then we need to include all car related deaths including accidents.

14,542 firearm homicides deaths in the U.S. in 2017.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/FASTATS/homicide.htm

 

 

If I do apples to apples, it's much worse for you. I did drunk drivers since you'll claim that gun murders aren't caused by law abiding gun owners. I've had this debate enough to know exactly what talking points you'll regurgitate.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/25/2019 at 1:18 PM, Brehus said:

Ok but why punish 98% of the gun owners for the 2% who act stupid. No different then punishing any race or group of people because of the bad apples judging a group and / or race of people because what a minority of the race or group of people do is called ism where I come from

I am calling a spade a spade

It's even worse than that.  When he lived in a bad neighborhood, he carried.

Now that he doesn't, screw the **** poors.

It is simply elitism, like so much of leftist ideology today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/25/2019 at 0:55 PM, Optimus_Cr1m35 said:

Because that 2% is detrimental to society.

 

There are 225 MILLION drivers in the US. 10497 people were killed in drunk driving deaths last year. That's 0.00004665333333333333%. Yet, we have drunken driving laws, right? The punishment for being caught is pretty severe. Oh... And we deemed the driving deaths as such a problem that we require Training, Testing, and Insurance to do it, even sober.

 

We have roadside checkpoints. We have DUI Patrols. We entire police units devoted to checking for drunk drivers, even though they are a minimal portion of the population. We also all pay for any problems caused by a drunk driver. Our insurance rates go up. Our taxes pay for the DUI checkpoints.

 

So lets apply the same principles. The same math. there were 33636 gun deaths in this country. Estimated 118 million gun owners. That means, 0.0002850508474576271% of gun owners are responsible for a death. Small number. But, significantly higher that the percentage of people injured by Drunk drivers. So, why should we address a problem that is much more likely to cause a death?

 

How about this... You can keep your guns, but, you get to insure them, you get to train, you get tested. Oh, and like drunken drivers, you get to share in the insurance costs when someone does something stupid. If the likelihood of a shooting increases, your rates go up. If the insurance company deems your age group or sex to be more of a risk, you pay more. If your area has more shootings, and more insurance payouts, you pay more. We do it with cars, which you gun folks love to compare guns to, so lets apply the same principles to guns.

Unfortunately your party has been trying to block the purchase of liability  insurance by gun owners.

"the governor issued in September that effectively banned the sale of insurance products that provide liability coverage to gun owners making it virtually impossible for concealed carry holders in New Jersey to get coverage."

https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/dangerous-and-unconstitutional-nj-governor-bans-sale-of-insurance-to-gun-owners/

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wartownfalcon said:

Because those tough gun laws work so well in Chicago huh?

The laws is working as attended to disarm law abiding citizens it doesn't disarm criminals.

wartownfalcon likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JDaveG said:

It's even worse than that.  When he lived in a bad neighborhood, he carried.

Now that he doesn't, screw the **** poors.

It is simply elitism, like so much of leftist ideology today.

Incorrect, thanks for playing though.

 

It wasn't about the bad neighborhood, it was about positions that I put MYSELF into. It was about working at bars, where a significant number of situations were bound to arise. It was about me being in areas I probably should've stayed out of. It was about generally being braver than I should've been because I felt a little more confident with a Glock on my back.

 

 

Had nothing to do with being elite, or poor, or rich. When I sold my guns, I was still in poverty, think I was making like $11/hr, not in a great neighborhood (actually, I was still in the same house that I bought the guns to protect). It had to do with simple statistics, math, my research on the subject. That's what changed my mind. I actually looked at the numbers, I actually looked at the facts, instead of looking at how much I liked guns. Critical thinking came into play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, wartownfalcon said:

Because those tough gun laws work so well in Chicago huh?

We've already discussed this, extensively...

 

Gun laws only work if you stop the flow of guns from places where laws are lax. Chicago gets their guns from Indiana. You can literally drive less than an hour and hit any number of gun shows. As I've already pointed out, Crown Point Indiana has a few thousand people, but 4-6 gun shows a month. How can a small, rural, Indiana town support such a high number of gun shows? Oh, right, it's an hour from Navy Pier to Crown Point. Its a thing. In fact, people will go to Crown Point, stock up, and resell in Chicagoland.

 

https://www.thedailybeast.com/where-mass-murderers-weapons-of-choice-are-sold-with-a-smile

 

Not just making this up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Brehus said:

The laws is working as attended to disarm law abiding citizens it doesn't disarm criminals.

It does though. Criminals literally get their guns from law abiding citizens. Between 200 and 400k guns are stolen every year. If you reduce the number of legal firearms, there's less to steal. If there's less to steal, there's less in circulation. And if there's less in circulation, the cost goes up. Just facts man.

 

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/guns-crime/reports/2017/07/25/436533/stolen-guns-america/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Optimus_Cr1m35 said:

We've already discussed this, extensively...

 

Gun laws only work if you stop the flow of guns from places where laws are lax. Chicago gets their guns from Indiana. You can literally drive less than an hour and hit any number of gun shows. As I've already pointed out, Crown Point Indiana has a few thousand people, but 4-6 gun shows a month. How can a small, rural, Indiana town support such a high number of gun shows? Oh, right, it's an hour from Navy Pier to Crown Point. Its a thing. In fact, people will go to Crown Point, stock up, and resell in Chicagoland.

 

https://www.thedailybeast.com/where-mass-murderers-weapons-of-choice-are-sold-with-a-smile

 

Not just making this up.

So are we going to make alcohol illegal due to the high number of drunk driver caused deaths? Crime is going to happen no matter what. People who aren’t allowed to own guns will always own guns

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Optimus_Cr1m35 said:

It does though. Criminals literally get their guns from law abiding citizens. Between 200 and 400k guns are stolen every year. If you reduce the number of legal firearms, there's less to steal. If there's less to steal, there's less in circulation. And if there's less in circulation, the cost goes up. Just facts man.

 

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/guns-crime/reports/2017/07/25/436533/stolen-guns-america/

And if there is less guns, Nazi Germany will happen again

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JDaveG said:

It's even worse than that.  When he lived in a bad neighborhood, he carried.

Now that he doesn't, screw the **** poors.

It is simply elitism, like so much of leftist ideology today.

this is utterly ridiculous 

Optimus_Cr1m35 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, wartownfalcon said:

And if there is less guns, Nazi Germany will happen again

Ahh... The tyrannical gumbermint.

 

You realize that they have tanks, right? And Apaches? And robot planes that can shoot a tomahawk down your throat from 20 miles away?

 

You also realize that this was almost exclusively put into place for racist reasons, right? The "Tyrannical Govt" issue really came back to life during the Obama admin, you know, the black guy. The constitutional origins were almost exclusively for the southern states to protect slavery. And whenever a minority group tries to use the same argument, the NRA and gun supporters in general tend to side on the side of gun control. See the Black Panthers. In the 60s, they carried guns to protect mostly black areas from tyranny, the NRA supported gun control as a way to keep guns out of the hands of "Militant blacks".

 

https://www.history.com/news/black-panthers-gun-control-nra-support-mulford-act

 

 

But sure, it's about Nazi Germany (which is it's own fallacy that has been debunked numerous times by numerous historians...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0