gunny123 wrote: »

But gun rights in America are watered down to a certain extent, The 1968 NFA act for instance, you are barred from owning quite a lot of firearms.

Exactly. The laws for each state are different, and bans/limitations are already in place. Background checks already exist. In some places it's 1 hour, some a day, 3 days and up to 10 days. Cooling off periods the longer ones are called. Bump stocks were banned after Las Vegas and from what i've read most genuine shooters don't give a rat's ass because they were a novelty and frankly useless. So it's not like there is no movement at all.

However state bans are different to federal bans and the talk about age restrictions is something they see as a condition on a constitutional right. It's only aimed at the 2nd amendment, as i said above, and like saying you cannot practice any religion you want until you're 21. In a time when kids are deciding their gender at 6, 8, 10 yrs of age, the same kids eating Tide pods which caused legislators to consider introducing laws to make them less appealing to eat, and when voting can be done at 18 they [the shooting community/NRA] see it as a slap in the face that such major decisions can be made at a young age yet the right to own a firearm is limited to 21 and over.

Lastly on the age thing look at age of some of the last few mass shooters:

Anyway its not the firearms, but the people who misuse them, is what the issue is in the USA.

Exactly.

In all of the debates not one person looks at the person who carried it out. As i said above about the recent shooting there were literally dozens of red flags thrown up about Cruz, but a systemic failure allowed him to go on unchecked. So if the laws are in place and they fail how can new laws prevent similar failures and similar tragedies?

The other aspect is the fake news being peddled which leads people to not understanding the subject. People think banning the AR will solve a host of problems not realising there are hundreds of variants and other rifles of the same caliber. I've even read comments where people have said to ban the ammo that assault/automatic weapons use. They don't understand that A) they're not automatic and the ammo is the same as a host of other calibers.

I seen a video where a guy laid out a dozen rifles & handguns. People only picked out the ones that were AR/AK style as a problem. They ignored the 30-30, the 357 lever action (13 round capacity), etc. Ignorance has a lot to answer for, but those in the liberal media, and the Democratic Party have an agenda and they don't want people to be better educated. Keep them dumb, keep they afraid and they remain in control.

Canada has large firearms ownership, but it does not seem to have the same problems as their neighbours south of the border.

They also don't have a 2nd Amendment. Canadian laws are very similar to ours, mostly because we took some of our laws from the Canadian system, and we haven't had one mass shooting nor the level of gun crime that America, Canada, etc. have had.

America is unique. It's why i hate seeing the comparisons with other countries and the best one the left can trot out is Australia. However you get what they want to show, not the facts. Gun crime in Australia spiked in the mid-late 80s and then "leveled off" around the same time as the gun ban of 96 came in. Stats show that gun crime was already decreasing when the ban came in so the ban did not cause the decline in gun crime.

Look also at the term mass shooting. It's the shooting/killing of 4 or more people. However Australia has had 14+ shootings since 1996 with 3 or fewer dead and mulitple injuries in each one right up to 2014. In the same time there were multiple casualty events (over 7 i believe) including arson which caused just as much death. Also Australia has 24m people, America has 320m. Not a fair comparison, but if you judge Australia against the 8 or 9 states with the same population total and the most lax gun laws you'll see the murder rate involving guns between those states and Australia is almost the same (0.96 to 1.20 per 100,000 i believe).

http://thegatewaypundit.com/2018/03/...-viral-online/

Yeah, seen that and its a great speech. Factual, to the point and no BS. The only response from the left was "i'm offended". So in the absence of the coherent rebuttal all the left can do is cry they're upset.

The simple truth is this is the reason things are as they are. Being offended doesn't do jack and it sure as hell shouldn't be an excuse to not debate a subject. Same with the lib-tard terrorist group antifa. They stick their fingers in their ears when something they don't like is said and scream blue murder. Never debate or discuss a point and unless you see it their way you're a facist and Nazi. They are the very thing they claim to be fighting.

Gravelly wrote: »

If you follow Mike Yardley on social media

I don't know him but after a quick look, not my cup of tea.

underhand action taken against certain political (and pro shooting) views on social media in the UK.

Not just the UK.

Youtube has defunded some/most shooting channels. FB limit/ban certain topics all of which relate to shooting. For instance they blur/block or put a warning on a shooting video which may only be a rabbit being shot, but allow graphic and gory videos about road accidents, burning of people, and much worse.

Large companies are also in on the act by pulling support for shooting organisations. Like PayPal refusing to allow anything gun related be done via their site. Other companies like banks pulling support or services.

Then you have companies like Dick's, WalMart, etc. putting in place limitations that the law does not allow for. Seena video where a serving member of the Military who is also a registered gunsmith was refused ammo because he is only 20. Not a rifle, or pistol, but one box of ammo. He is a 3 year veteran, with a gunsmith qualification and cannot buy a box of ammo.

Delta airlines cut all ties with the NRA last week, but they may now face the loss of $50 million in tax breaks as a result of their "moral stance".