Is that what happened in other countries?

But apparently only small arms. Anything significant is still heavily restricted. Heck even automatic weapons are pretty much only in the hands of the military.

In fact the only thing the 2A seems to protect are the weapons that allow citizens to go out and cause maximum harm to each other. All the 'arms' that would actually allow a citizen militia to be effective, either against the state or as a supplement to the army against a foreign aggressor, are restricted and for the most part can't be purchased by civilians.

How do you explain that?

Yes, and there is a process for doing that. Although there is no precedent for changing the Bill of Rights.

I can explain it by the legislative branch infringing on our rights in the past, just because they've done it before doesn't mean they should keep doing it.

You can't compare the us with other countries, it's a different culture.

Why would bad guys who already currently use weapons in robberies, home invasions, etc stop once law abiding citizens are disarmed? Would make more sense for them to increase the rate of which they commit those crimes.

I don't know about the rest of you guys but I have Bingo.

Explain?

With the amount of weapons already out on the street how do you propose solving the dilemma?

If you would have banned all weapons 100 years ago it probably would have worked, there is no feasible way to get all weapons of the street now.

And what did the word 'free' mean, in the United States in the 1780s? It was used to distinguish certain Americans from certain other Americans.

The purpose of the Second Amendment, as written and as pushed by the Southern states, was to allow the arming of the Southern states' slave patrols. The Second Amendment is about keeping 'em down.

Also, an aside to the ft. Lauderdale incident. I check my pistol when I fly to states with cpl reciprocity

I actually do the same thing that the gunman did, go into the bathroom and arm myself.

Say that airport wasn't a gun free zone in the baggage area and unbeknownst to me I follow him out of the bathroom. He pulls his weapon and starts shooting, I pull mine a shoot him. Would that be a better outcome from your guy's side? Maybe instead of 5 dead only 2 are killed.

There are, however the NRA have spun up the 2A rhetoric so much that there is no political will to do it.

Possibilities:
Confiscation; any weapons found during any kind of police interaction are confiscated and destroyed.
Buyback; offer real money for weapons.
Checkpoints; Much like dui checkpoints but for weapons.
Immunity; allow anyone to turn in their weapons without fear of prosecution for owning them
Criminalize selling them; stop the supply so weapons removed from the streets aren't being replaced.

None of these would be 100% but they don't have to be, they would start the reduction of guns on the street. Combine this with banning the sell of ammunition and you could make a difference.

It's a reference to the common forum practice of creating drinking game style bingo cards of predictable and eternally repeated talking points.

Case in point: your argument that the US is a super-special snowflake that just cannot be compared to or learn anything from any other nation.

Other examples:
"Chicago has a weapons ban and high violent crime rate"
"swimming pools kill people, too. do you wanna ban swimming pools?"
etc.

I have already answered that upthread.

So if we start now we could get rid of all weapons in 100 years? Sounds like we should start sooner rather than later.

Louis,

How do you feel about Switzerland?

I'm not military

You're for everyone who has a gun in their house having military training? That's pretty far away from what the NRA wants but I'd love to have strict training be required before someone could own a firearm.

It's a beautiful country. They make the best chocolate in the world. Considering the size of the country their economic and cultural achievements are impressive. Their German dialect though is grating to the ears of a German like me.
Do you have a specific question?

He's going to bring up that Swiss citizens keep military assault rifles in their homes and they don't have the murder rate the US does.

I think I have a bingo.

We'll never change each other's mind but the reason I want to be able to carry a weapon is the SE reason you guys want to ban them.

Sometimes bad people do bad things.

While your first assertion is objectively false, I will not fault you too much because it is still a significantly high % to be worth noting. And yes, I do support stricter training / certification for gun ownership in the US.

Maybe you should clarify why you're bringing up the Swiss in a gun control thread.

I don't think he will be embarassing himself that way. He must certainly know that while many Swiss keep their rifles at home they do not have easy access to ammunition. So it must be something else.

This is also objectively untrue and you are presenting a falsehood concerning the control of ammunition among Swiss citizens. Rather embarrassing.

But I will save you two from making further incorrect assertions and link you to a nice primer on Swiss gun law: Swiss Gun law info.

I am a little disappointed though you are unable to see why I even asked you your opinion on Swiss gun law in the first place though Louis Though not surprised you completely failed to even offer up an answer.

Unfortunately these definite sex havers are busy shooting up bird sanctuaries and pizza places. Nice fantasy though.

I own an LOL-NRA 69 Special, regularly used to fire bullets of truth into the skulls of idiots.

So you're a murder then?