Get out of gun control, Apple

“Apple’s new suite of operating systems appears to replace its pistol emoji, which was an image of a six-shooter, with a squirt gun,” Jonathan Zittrain writes for The New York Times. “Apple hasn’t said why it would be making this change, but this summer, along with Microsoft, the company lobbied Unicode, the nonprofit consortium that decides which emojis should exist, against adding a separate rifle. For those emojis Unicode has already approved, like gun, it’s up to each company to create a picture for it.”

“Apple’s change is ill considered because it breaks the conceptual compatibility that Unicode is meant to establish. Anyone with an iPhone ought to be able to send a message to someone with another company’s products — like Google or Microsoft or Samsung — and have what’s delivered communicate the same idea as what’s sent,” Zittrain writes. “But with this change, a squirt gun sent from an iPhone will turn into a handgun when received by an Android device, and vice versa.”

MacDailyNews Take: From whence miscommunication is likely to arise:

Gun emoji danger

A common language has merits. Who’da thunk it?

“So what could justify a retroactive change by Apple that breaks compatibility among phones? One theory, perhaps derived from notions that toy guns are inappropriate for kids, could be that children’s exposure to gun imagery might encourage violence,” Zittrain writes. “By changing the picture into something harmless, children will be protected. If that is the concern, Apple could address the issue by simply enabling parental controls for some emojis.”

Current iOS handgun emoji (left) and Apple's replacement, a green squirt gun (right)
Current iOS handgun emoji (left) and Apple’s replacement, a green squirt gun (right)

“To eliminate an elemental concept from a language’s vocabulary is to reflect a sweeping view of how availability of language can control behavior, as well as a strange desire for companies — and inevitably, governments — to police our behavior through that language,” Zittrain writes. “In the United States, this confuses taking a particular position on the Second Amendment, concerning the right to bear arms, with the First, which guarantees freedom of speech, including speech about arms.”

“Those behind the campaign to remove the gun from the phone do not appear to be relying on arguments about kids’, or everyone else’s, malleability. Rather, they have portrayed it as a traditional grass-roots messaging campaign: ‘By removing the gun emoji,’ they write, ‘we’ll show America wants stricter access to real guns.’ Apple is surely free to favor gun control as a matter of corporate policy — but it should not be tinkering with our right to express either that or a contrary view on worldwide platforms,” Zittrain writes. “As free citizens, we acquiesce to infantilizing digital infrastructure at our peril.”

Full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: iOS 10 is still in beta, so it’s not too late for Apple to correct this issue.

One more time:

Leave it to Apple to solve the pressing issue of gun violence via text message.

What’s next, replacing the knife emoji with a spork? The bomb with a firecracker? The sword with a feather?

iOS knife, bomb, and sword emoji
iOS knife, bomb, and sword emoji

This is political correctness run amok.

And, BTW, that squirt gun doesn’t hold water, it’s full of hydrochloric acid.

Acid beaker and squirt gun emoji

Apple and the (squirt) gun emoji – August 4, 2016
In wake of London stabbing rampage, will Apple replace their knife emoji with a plastic spork? – August 4, 2016
Open Thread: Should Apple code their OSes to block video games that glorify guns and murder? – August 3, 2016
Apple jumps the shark by removing the handgun emoji; Gun owners might want to reconsider buying Apple’s products – August 3, 2016
Apple removes handgun emoji, replaces it with a squirt gun – August 1, 2016
Apple’s politics may be hurting its brand – June 29, 2016
Apple quashes rifle Emoji – June 20, 2016


  1. Oh for fsck’s sake, grow up! It’s a fscking emoji, not the end of the world.

    America: does anyone realise how astronomically ludicrous this spat appears to the rest of the civilised world? You seriously have bigger things to worry about than a few bloody pixels.

    Awaiting downvotes in 1…2…3… (not that I give a flying fuck!)


      1. Are you actually being serious? It may come as some surprise to you but the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution does NOT extend beyond the border of the USA, Apple is a global company and the vast majority of its users are not Americans.

        After the Dunblane massacre in the UK, we banned handguns entirely, and whilst I do appreciate and understand the principles of the 2nd Amendment (I say this because my father was American), the rest of the world regards this argument over a handful of pixels as jejune and pathetic.

        America in undeniably a great country, but the are times when your actions cause the rest of the world to shake their collective heads in utter bemusement.

        I am very proud of my American ancestry, and yet utterly confused at the way you seem to constantly shoot yourselves in the metaphorical foot.


        1. Censorship, of even an appearance of the most benign, is a slippery slope whose motivation is to control by one party what another party is allowed to read or see or listen. It is indeed, the seed of all tyranny that free men must always be vigilant.

          So, yes, I’m serious as a heart attack.

          1. … the Bill of Rights makes “censorship” illegal in the US. People who have read the document (freely available in all public libraries in the US) should understand – unless they are Trump supporters – that said document only limits the GOVERNMENTS ability to restrict a citizen’s rights.
            So! While the Feds or the State of Paranoia cannot censor a citizen, Trump can toss objectors out of his rallies – and thus CENSOR them.
            (there are also “dictionaries” in all US public libraries to help Trumpettes try to figure out what I said that makes them so angry. They were already ‘mad’.)

            1. The American citizen is not “mad”, he’s furious at the treachery of the Democratic nominee, the globalist RINOs and the Yellow Stream Media all controlled by a Jew who changed his last name to rat-out his own people to the Gestapo.

              Fück the New World Order.

              Kaine & Unable
              “Wronger Together™”

            2. … TRUMP supporter, not ‘the American citizen’, I claimed was ‘mad’. Differentiating it from ‘angry’.
              Still don’t get it? “INSANE”.
              There. NOW do you understand my comment?
              Wait … no, you obviously can’t. You couldn’t even bother to hold my entire thought in your head to formulate a somewhat sensible response! Never mind.
              Talking to you is like talking to an angry rattlesnake: much piss and poison and not a lick of understanding.

            3. I can see how you can get really, really pissed off when someone improperly uses the ‘Name’ field when posting comments (oh, the humanity!). Clearly, he doesn’t care for the form and structure on this forum, and I’m sure by now there is a consensus here that such people should be shot dead.

      2. When exactly did exercising one’s 1st amendment freedoms become censorship? You can’t hate gun control and then in the same breath love language control.

          1. …from a land where persons and entities (newspapers, CATV companies, Apple) get to decide for themselves what to say (or not say, in the case of a gun emoji).
            At least in the marketplace of ideas, nobody dies.

            1. I can’t believe you don’t understand this. It is really very simple!

              Nobody is suppressing or censoring Apple. Apple is free to do as they please, and nobody should force them to say or not say anything they don’t want. They get to decide for themselves. That is the privilege they get from your 1st Amendment.

            2. Nobody is censoring your speech. You are free to say whatever you wish (the right which you clearly wantonly exercise on this forum).

              Apple, much like most other large companies, has social responsibility. And as many other companies, they will take action and support the causes they believe in. If any of those causes or action is against your own beliefs, you have (again) the right to not give them your money by not purchasing their products, or to voice your disagreement to them directly, to their board, or shareholders.

      3. Relax. If some are truly emasculated by this and feel more insecure about their manhood, then just imagine that the weapon Apple shows is actually Marvin the Martian’s Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator. Done! Now you can feel all macho and trigger-happy while using your emojis.

      4. That you throw around the word ‘censorship’ implies that you either don’t understand what it means or you’re being hyperbolic. Apple not having an actual gun as an emoji isn’t even in the universe of censorship.

        Though my question is why do you need an emoji of an actual gun. How important, how relevant is it really to–I don’t know–your way of life?

        The answer is more likely than not that it isn’t, though for some reason you feel the need to complain about something that literally amounts to nothing.

        Americans (and I assume you are one) who whine about such relatively silly issues need to spend some time in places where censorship is a very real thing, where what you say or do could cost you your life.

        That I suspect will but this matter in its proper perspective.

        Though if it bothers you that much, don’t use Apple devices or make do without a gun emoji.

        Problem solved.

      1. Totally agree.

        I will say though, the panic with which gun advocates are taking this sort of thing is evidence that we need gun control. People this paranoid and scared are too unstable to be trusted with instruments of death.

        Seriously, why is the Right such a bunch of scared babies? They so fear other drivers that they drive enormous Hummers. They so fear their neighbors, fellow students, and friends that they arm themselves with automatic weapons. They so fear people of different religions and skin colors that they would elect a mad man to launch war against them all. And now, they fear that a lighthearted emoji is a threat to their principles of fear and hate.

        Grow up, little bitches.

          1. … what realistic use might you have for a fully automatic weapon? Shooting your neighbor – AND his family – perhaps? If the Zombies come, I can shot them, one at a time and at range, until the ammo runs out. Then I have my choice of swords.
            Maybe your problem is that you didn’t get a Marksman medal 4 years in a row while in the military. Or maybe you think you and your neighbors are treasonous scum who think they can declare war on the US military?

  2. I was hoping for something more to be outraged about today. Thanks for the help! Hey, let’s remember this moment for later in the week if we begin to feel at peace with life and civilization and need to give ourselves a little jab of righteous indignation!

  3. When MDN needs clicks, it revisits the old squirt gun emoji icon. Nothing riles up MDN comments (on both sides of the argument) like a good gun control slugfest!

    By the end of the day, someone will mention Hitler (according to Godwin’s Law).

      1. No, this one is squarely on MDN’s shoulders. NY Times publishes many, many articles every day. MDN chooses, not just form NY Times, but from many other publications. MDN has a broad variety of choices what to publish, and this particular article is essentially a repeat (if not a word-for-word reprint) of posts already made in weeks earlier.

        What’s particularly interesting about those is not so much the substance (they all talk about the misguided emoji change), but the three (or more) pages of comments below the articles.

        Something has to pay the rent, and if it is a water pistol emoji, so be it.

    1. There is a difference. They sell other peoples songs, films and books about guns or violence.

      Here, they themselves must draw the gun. They must make the choice about what they think the gun emoji should look like. Whatever they draw, they are showing the world what that thing means to them. There is an element of expression inherent in their own artistic interpretation.

      Actually, making that statement, saying this is what they see, think and feel, IS an act of free speech.

      PS. Why did no one care when MicroSoft presented a ray gun?

      1. Apple’s not censoring anybody, they’re making their own speech, but they’re doing so only in their own corner of a much broader consortium. It creates confusion.

        Equivalent to Safari actively re-rendering the word “asshole” on web pages with “meanie.” It’s a choice that can/will lead to confusion. Their reasons for doing so are their own, but the result is a bit messy.

        The better choices are to lobby the Emoji Consortium to remove the gun, or to discontinue support of Emojis in their product.

        1. Breaking news to Apple Apologist. You don’t create your EXCLUSIVE SPEECH.

          That is an imperial and repressive point of view. Direct enemy of FREE SPEECH.

          You either use speech or you ban speech.

          Unfortunately, I don’t expect you to understand.

          Have a good one.

  4. Gun worship and gun violence in the US has become such an issue that many countries are currently warning their people about the risks of visiting the US. People who look as though they might be Muslim, or who have Muslim names are especially fearful about travelling to the US these days.

    Recently, warnings have been issued by France, United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand, Germany, Bahamas and the United Arab Emirates.

    One quote from that article succinctly sums up what many people believe. “America has surprised a lot of the world, especially the Europeans, because of all the mass shootings and the attitudes on gun control, or lack of it”.

    The US is a nation with a huge problem and yet a significant proportion of the population completely refuse to accept that there is any problem at all.

    1. ““America has surprised a lot of the world, especially the Europeans,” Actually Europe was not surprised, in fact they were begging America to come bail them out in WWII. We had guys who knew how to use guns. Few Europeans did, and it did not go well for them until we showed up. My father was one of them, he voluntarily gave up 4 years of his life.

      1. What you are saying makes no sense. You either never asked your father about his years spent in Europe in WWII (although I can’t imagine any of the WWII American soldiers ever spent four years in battle over there — Americans entered that war at the very end), or you are simply making stuff up.

        Americans provided significant help in WWII and it helped end that war, but make no mistake (and read any history book), the Nazis were already losing that war. The cost to the European population would have been greater, and the conflict would have lasted longer, but the Nazis would have lost it and the Allies won. Nobody was begging anyone, though. American soldiers weren’t any better at using guns than any other properly trained soldiers (and there were many throughout Europe). Moreover, the natives had much stronger motivation: they were fighting for their homeland, and most soldiers actually fought less than 100km away from their home. Americans fought a war overseas, in a land where nobody even spoke their language, for an abstract cause of world peace, against evil Nazis. They fought gallantly and valiantly, but many were in awe of the fearlessness and determination of the natives. French lost over 200,000 soldiers in combat in that war, not to mention some 2 million civilians (almost 10% of the entire population). Other countries lost even greater portions of their populations.

        There are some Americans (mostly uneducated ones) who continue to display this annoying arrogance (in addition to ignorance) over the WWII and the American contribution. Every European nation (and especially the French) are quick to acknowledge the American contribution to the hastening of the war, but it is extremely annoying to hear the idiotic proclamations about the Americans swooping into the enslaved, incapacitated and powerless European continent and single-handedly kicking the Nazi butt.

        There are still many living veterans from that war. You should talk to some of them, they’ll tell you exactly how it was.

        1. And to quote the famous American war correspondent from WWII, Earnie Pyle (who was embedded with the soldiers and was killed by the Japanese machine gun near the end of the war):

          …“They seemed terribly pathetic to me. They weren’t warriors. They were American boys who by mere chance of fate had wound up with guns in their hands, sneaking up a death-laden street in a strange and shattered city in a faraway country in a driving rain. They were afraid, but it was beyond their power to quit. … And even though they weren’t warriors born to the kill, they won their battles. That’s the point.”

        2. Let us not forget, the Soviet (Russian) soldiers were responsible for 80% of all the Nazi military losses. Of all the countries engaged in WWII, Russia paid the heaviest price (oveer 20 million dead). In a single battle (Stalingrad), Russians had lost more soldiers than America had in the entire war, on all fronts (including the Pacific, which was a slaughterhouse for both sides). So, yes, the Americans helped, but Russians were the ones that won the WWII. Without them, all of Europe would be speaking German today.

    2. Hey brainless, GUN WORSHIP Is for the GOOD GUYS.

      GUN VIOLENCE is for the BAD GUYS.

      The largest mass shooting in U.S. History was committed by a ideological criminal and BOUGHT LEGALLY!

      What YOU don’t understand and will not recognize is criminals DO NOT FOLLOW LAWS?!?!?!

      Got it brainless? Good. 🔫🔑🇺🇸

      1. But that is the point! An ideological criminal was able to easily (and legally) obtain a gun. As are so many non-ideological, garden-variety criminals.

        Most gun violence in USA is committed with legally purchased guns. If there were meaningful gun control, those wouldn’t have been purchased.

        Most simple, easy-to-understand common sense. What part do you not understand?

        1. The ridiculous argument you are making is like the one-percenters of bikers make the other 99 percent look bad. Same parallel construction with gun ownership.

          The majority of Americans die at home or in hospital beds or on the streets in motor vehicles while victims in the thousandths of a percent die in gun violence. Over half of gun deaths in the U.S. are also SUICIDES. Unless I missed one, I did not read that fact anywhere in your subtle smug posts.

          The thousandths of a percent of mass shootings generate 99.99999% of the media coverage and dupe fools like you with dubious opinions masked as credible statistics.

          I don’t care where you live but in the U.S. we have our freedoms enshrined in the Constitution. And that thousandths of a percent of BAD GUYS with a gun will never intimidate the overwhelming numbers of GOOD GUYS with a gun.

          What part do you not understand?

          1. Your numbers are totally off (which makes your argument null).
            In America, guns kill over 30,000 people every year. Yes, heart disease kills more (about 18x more, some 600,000 people), but that is not 10,000x more (as you implied, saying “thousandth of a percent die in gun violence).

            And according to data, vast majority of those gun deaths were preventable with proper gun regulation. People died only because the killer had easy access to a gun. Same for suicides; in states with strict gun control, suicide rates are significantly lower than in those with no gun control. And in states where stricter gun control was introduced at some point, suicide rates dropped significantly (and non-gun suicide didn’t go up).

            In the past 15 years, America had 51 mass killings. Germany had 3. UK had one. And Australia and Japan had none. These are places with very strong gun control.

            The NRA simply has no valid argument to promote gun ownership, other than the fig leaf of the 2nd amendment. Massive amounts of research and data clearly shows that guns cause unwanted death, and when they are well regulated, those unwanted deaths are significantly lower. And the freedoms that they are supposed to protect, well that is probably the feeblest argument of all. What good all those hundreds of millions of guns in private hands do to the Americans if they still have the totalitarian government that has been destroying the country for the past eight years, forcing government health care with death panels, forcing gay marriage upon people, breeding domestic terrorism (to use your arguments)…?

            1. did you actually READ my message??? Not only did I not ignore them, I quoted them, and then gave you the actual, real numbers (which are 10,000 times higher).

              So, yes; your numbers ARE off (way, way off).

              Notice how I avoid using profanities and insults. Message works much better when you argue with facts, rather than profanities. You should try it.

            2. Your numbers are way off and most are half-truths which skew the full picture. Which makes your point, null. And you have ignored some of my numbers because you only care about your own. Moving on …

            3. Gun deaths in America: over 30,000 per year (says CDC:

              Heart disease deaths in America: over 600,000 (says CDC:

              And I addressed all your numbers (one thousandth of one percent, 99.9999%, suicides), debunking every one of them with data (from CDC, among other corroborating sources). You quoted no sources, just some bogus number pulled out of thin air (or some orifice on your body…).

              I know it is much easier to simply make up your own facts when you don’t like the real facts, but that doesn’t really mean much.

              Now we can move on…

            4. For decades yearly gun deaths in America have been over 30,000. You wrongly assume I don’t know that and I sense a smug response, whatever.

              Now tell me statistics one, how many of the over 30,000 deaths are suicides?

              Now tell me statistics one, how many of the over 30,000 deaths are mass shootings?

              This one is really going to twist your noodle: How many of the over 30,000 deaths are good citizens, police, etc. — killing bad guys with a gun?

              And I won’t get into numbers of incidents each year where a good citizen prevented gun violence without firing a shot. You would never believe or admit a gun has a noble purpose, understood.

              Parting shot: you do know that thousands more people are killed by motor vehicles each year. I don’t read you want to ban licensed, regulated, taxed motor vehicles.

              Both are inanimate objects, correct?


              Now we can move on.

            5. Profoundly naïve (not to mention, strawman).

              You never mentioned the 30,000 yourself, so I had to assume you didn’t know the number. You quoting “one thousandth of one percent” reinforced that assumption. I’m sorry for making that assumption and am glad that you actually know this number.

              That makes it all the more difficult to understand your thinking. You know that 30,000 people get killed every year in America, yet you argue that guns shouldn’t be regulated. Meanwhile, cars kill as many people in America, and you regulate them heavily. You require drivers to take lessons, pass a written test, pass a practical test, you require them to obtain a license (making it a public record), you require cars to be registered (with the government) and to pass an inspection every year. So, why not guns, since they are as lethal as cars? Not to mention that cars serve other purpose (not just to kill other people, but to transport them), while guns serve only one purpose — to kill a person.

              As for other statistics, of those 30,000+ deaths, more than half are suicides, and with proper gun regulation, most could be avoided. As for mass shootings, they are less than 2%.

              And finally, the 30,000 number does not include police killing suspects. As for “good guys with guns” killing “bad guys with guns”, the percentage is actually very low (single-digits). The majority of gun deaths that aren’t suicides are homicides or various types of accidental deaths (adult or children).

              The point is, and I’m sure you know this, but were hoping that I don’t, guns are rarely used for defense. When they are used, someone usually dies, and most often, it isn’t a bad guy.

              Those are the sad facts of guns in America.

              Parting shot: exactly where in any of my posts on this forum did you see me talking about banning guns? This is the most annoying quality of all gun lovers; when you argue against gun regulation, your position is always all or nothing; you either allow guns with no restriction, or you flat-out ban them. If you regulated guns the same way you regulate cars, you would have a much, much safer America. By the same token, if you were to regulate cars the same way you regulate guns (i.e. practically no regulation), you would have significantly more car deaths. It is quite comparable, and parallels are there. You should really not use cars as argument.

              Can we move on now?

      2. The largest mass shooting in U.S. history is still the Battle of Gettysburg by a landslide. No other incident comes close to that mind boggling time when thousands and thousands of Americans shot and killed each other around a hill in Pennsylvania.

        1. The battle you refer to was a WAR between ARMIES for a prolonged period of time.

          Not a defenseless mass shooting by one person for a couple hours.

          What, no American history books in your school? 🇺🇸🔫🐎

    3. And you forgot to mention in you myopic world view, just how dangerous it is for an American to travel to Europe, Middle east, or Asian countries. Yes it goes both way, and Americans are juicy targets for extremists in those countries.

      1. No, that’s not really relevant.

        His point is quite clear; throughout the modern history, people had traveled to the US without any fear. It is only NOW that many western nations are issuing official warnings to their nationals traveling to the US that it has become dangerous because of the mass shootings and lack of any meaningful gun control.

        Yes, it is dangerous to travel to many parts of the world, but that is NOT what the message was about. It was squarely about how America has become dangerous for tourists because of its lack of gun control and consequent massive proliferation of guns (every American gun owner owns the average of almost 10 firearms, which is simply bizarre).

        1. In the aftermath of the recent Munich shootings (another case of illegal guns in the hands of those intent on illegal acts) the authorities thought there were three gunmen on the loose and the whole of Munich was sent to “shelter in place,” cowering in fear and DEFENSELESS. If lawless gunmen had shown up to break into their apartments, these helpless, unarmed subjects and their wives and children would be shot dead, too, if not raped first.

          Americans have the right to bear arms to protect themselves, their families, and to protect themselves from government (the U.S.A. was born of revolution from an oppressive government). Germans, currently being invaded by an unending tide of Syrian refugees (caused by the blunders of Obama/Clinton and aided by the equally stupid “progressive” Angela Clinton, sorry: Hillary Merkel) cannot protect themselves from invaders or from out-of-control governments, with which Germany, of all places, is all too well familiar.

          The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country. — Adolf Hitler, April 11, 1942

          In the U.S., we are citizens. In most of the disarmed areas of the world, they are subjects. Powerless. Defenseless. A controlled populace. Sheep.

          1. That sounds very powerful, with the one important point: it has no basis in reality.

            No matter how you look at statistical data, it paints a clear picture: America has by far the highest number of mass shootings in the world. And despite the well-armed nation, none of those shootings were prevented, or at least stopped by a “good guy with a gun”. Meanwhile, in countries with tightly regulated guns, such events are exceptionally rare.

            The myth of the “good guy with a gun” is relentlessly perpetuated in America by those who love guns, but there is simply nowhere to be found any basis in reality to support it.

            America has a two-party dictatorship. You can either have a Republican or a Democrat in power (others simply have absolutely no chance, as the system is such that they can’t possibly win, no matter what). Developed countries of the world (Western world) has genuine multi-party democracies, which makes it significantly easier to simply remove from power those who try to take too much of it in their own hands.

            America being a dictatorship probably does need a well-armed populace, to prevent their “elected” dictator from usurping power (not that it helps much, apparently). The truly democratic countries don’t need to worry that much, since there is proper system in place that guarantees genuine democracy and true freedom of choice.

            Despite all the guns in America, the population clearly remains sheep (judging by whom they elect into presidency).

            1. Those are profoundly scary, not to mention irresponsible. Both of those situations could have easily gone the terribly wrong way, with plenty of innocent casualties. In both situations, everyone was extremely lucky.

              And for every one of such situations, there are ten where the “good guy with a gun” dies trying to defend himself and people around him.

              This is precisely what is wrong with the gun lovers in America. They misguidedly believe that these two videos represent the strong argument that they can defend themselves with their guns against any assailants. But data tells us that they really can’t. In vast majority of situations, the only safe outcome for everyone is when the assailants are the only ones with a gun. If they are simple, ordinary robbers, they’ll collect their loot and leave without harming anyone. And if they are deranged mass murderers, no “good guy with a gun” will prevent them from killing others. There were plenty of “good guys with guns” in practically all of the recent mass shootings in America, yet none of them stopped them. The mother of the Sandy Hook school shooting had plenty of guns at her home. Little did those help her (she was killed with a gun by her son).

          2. Wow, so strident yet so wrong.

            1st, your imagined scenario (a variation on “they’re raping grandma”) never happened. Are you suggesting that when a shelter in place order goes out, gun owners should swagger around on the streets?

            As for Out-of-control governments…the German people voted that one in. Who were they supposed to be intimidating with their little guns?

            1. No. Shelter-in-place while armed sure as hell beats being a sitting duck, fool.

              The Germans are subjects. They have no recourse. If Merkel decided to change the government structure tomorrow and name herself Queen Angela of the Islamic Refugees and rededicate herself to fully destroying the German culture within the decade, then the only recourse the German subjects would have is the ability to march with placards and risk being shot while doing so.

            2. No. Germans could simply vote her out of office at the next election. You see, Merkel is NOT a queen; she was elected by the popular vote in an open, transparent and democratic election. And unlike in America, where people don’t really have a choice (other than two parties, which is not really much better than just one, like in China), in Germany, there is a multitude of political parties, and the power often shifts between them.

              The whole argument that well-armed population can actually fight the tyranny of government is quite delusional today. While in 18th century it may have been possible, when the most powerful weapon in the hands of government wasn’t much more deadly than an ordinary musket, today’s governments have weaponry against which your ten hand guns or semi-automatic rifles are practically useless.

              There is really no valid argument in defense of civilian population owning weapons other than the hiding behind the constitution (the 2nd amendment). All other arguing is pointless, as it can be easily debunked. Just say that any gun control is in conflict with your constitution and be done with it.

            3. You have a very funny way of trying to save your country (arming yourselves to the teeth, mass shooting each other up).

              Since you have all those weapons (hundreds of millions of them in private hands), why didn’t you do what you say your 2nd amendment is for (and what one of your current presidential candidates seems to suggest) and “save your own country” by taking matters in your own hands?

              Your preferred candidate Trump (as well as most of his competitors whom he defeated in the primaries) keep saying that America has been destroyed by 8 years of liberal policies and that they have to take their country back, “Make America Great Again”, etc. So, what will have to happen before you and others like you take your guns and “take the country back”?

              I am not trying to make a political statement, I am just genuinely curious, since many 2nd amendment defenders have stated here that its primary purpose was to protect freedom from oppressive tyranny, and most of same people seem to agree that the last eight years were exactly that.

            4. If that will make you feel better, than OK.

              You still haven’t answered my question:

              What will it take for you “second amendment people” (to quote your Trump) to overthrow your current dysfunctional, tyrannical government? I mean, you aren’t really demonstrating the power and purpose of that 2nd amendment if none of all those weapons are used for anything other than occasional robbery, assault or mass murder…

        2. Seriously,
          Come to California, and you can see the 20,000+ gun control laws we have here. Those do not stop CRIMINALS, that do not care about any laws. Get it ? Criminals intent on violence do not care or listen to LAWS. Amazing how this point does not get across to dense europeans, etc.

          1. You picked the wrong state to support your argument, dude!

            California is near the bottom of the list of gun deaths per 100,000 people, together with New York and Hawaii, all states with heavy gun regulation. Meanwhile, the highest number of gun deaths per capita is in Alaska, Montana, Luisiana — all states with high gun ownership and low or no gun regulation.

            Year after year, this list tells a clear message: in states with gun control, the per-capita number of gun deaths is significantly lower than in states with little gun control laws. While crime rate isn’t always related to guns, there is some correlation between gun ownership, gun regulation and crime rate as well. It is important not to confound the two, since they require different ways to combat them. Crime is an extremely broad category, and only some part involves guns. Gun deaths include crime, but also accidental deaths and suicides by guns. This is important because these deaths could be entirely avoided by regulating gun ownership. Obviously, additional benefit from reducing the annual number of over 33,000 gun deaths in US would also be a lower crime rate. Even if that doesn’t change, lowering the number of preventable deaths is clearly a valid reason for gun regulation.

            Exactly WHICH part of this message is not clear to those dense 2nd amendment champions?

          2. I would add effete sanctimonious elitist European snobs. In a socialist state of day to day living, they have NO respect for American freedoms they are DENIED. 🔫🔑🇺🇸🔫🔑🇺🇸

  5. What about a compromise? A gun metal colored pistol with a red tip and handle? I mean sure it’s a gun one way or another. In the days where anything shaped like a gun and referred to it that way, in our public schools, can get you suspended or expelled, how else do you think a California company might feel or respond to the nature of the symbol?

  6. The bottom line is that it should be PEOPLE CONTROL. Because banning inanimate objects does nothing. If we ban every object used to murder people, the list is endless. Cars, knifes, shovels, rocks, etc. You get the picture. You cannot fix crazy, these things will happen no matter what laws are out there. And that is human nature, since the beginning.

    1. Expertly stated, TDude. Well done.

      Gun bad guys, aka criminals, use all types of inanimate objects to wreak chaos and killing.

      The socialist left-wingnuts like Predrugged prefer to blame lead, steel and wood. Unbelievable.


Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.