The US has about 500 million guns. Trying to get them back on mass in forceful way will fail like prohibition against alcohol failed. Attempted mass disarmings that were resisted have shown to result in many deaths. Attempting to disarm tens of millions who resist would result in millions of deaths and still it would fail.
Obama put in more legislation around gun control and it increased gun sales.
Rifles (all types): 150-200 million.
100 million shotguns.
More Powerful/Advanced Rifles ( semi-auto AR-15 style, AK variants, often labeled assault weapons): ~25-30 million in circulation.
The Kirk shooter used a WW1 era technology gun. A bolt action rifle. High-powered bolt-action rifle—an older-model Mauser .30-06, a design rooted in 1898 German WW1-era technology (the Mauser 98 action)—yet built more recently as an imported reproduction.
These are underestimates—private sales, 3D-printed ghost guns and unreported heirlooms add millions. Annual sales: ~15.5 million in 2025
Rifles account for ~20-30% of violent crime.
Why Forcible Disarmament Fails: Historical and Practical Realities
Existing guns can’t be gotten back without catastrophe.
With ~500 million guns, even 10% non-compliance means 50 million hidden (buried, smuggled, or traded on black markets).
Prohibition (1920-1933) failed spectacularly—alcohol went underground; guns would too, fueling cartels (as in Mexico today).
Disarming groups of 400+ risks Waco/Ruby Ridge-style sieges, but scaled up. ~20-25% of owners are current/former military (per surveys), trained in asymmetric warfare.
England tried to disarm irish (1969-1998), where ~3,500 died over disarmament and ethnic issues.
Post-WW1 Germany (Weimar Republic) tried disarmament and was part of fueling Nazi rise.
Soviet Russia’s 1918 gun confiscations led to purges.
In the US, post-Civil War black codes disarmed freed slaves, enabling lynchings.
Brian Wang is a Futurist Thought Leader and a popular Science blogger with 1 million readers per month. His blog Nextbigfuture.com is ranked #1 Science News Blog. It covers many disruptive technology and trends including Space, Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, Medicine, Anti-aging Biotechnology, and Nanotechnology.
Known for identifying cutting edge technologies, he is currently a Co-Founder of a startup and fundraiser for high potential early-stage companies. He is the Head of Research for Allocations for deep technology investments and an Angel Investor at Space Angels.
A frequent speaker at corporations, he has been a TEDx speaker, a Singularity University speaker and guest at numerous interviews for radio and podcasts. He is open to public speaking and advising engagements.
Firearm homicide rates per 100,000 people across different groups and countries, showing higher rates for U.S. Black (25-30) and Hispanic (6.4) populations compared to U.S. White (1.7), Finland (3.3), Austria (2.8), France (2.6), Canada (1.8), and the Czech Republic (1.7). The data is attributed to OECD, WHO, and CDC sources.
Unpopular opinion: considering that ~75% of the guns in the US are owned by the White population, we can see that race is the problem, not guns.
The current administration has shown that it is legal for the national guard and Marines to be deployed by the President against the wishes of states and cities to take on police duties. And hundreds of billions of dollars can also be spent on masked secret federal police operations. So this could be done for gun control as well. “Mass Deportations Now” can also simply be changed to “Mass Gun Confiscations Now”.
35% of US private arms are imported, Trump can start by putting a 1000% tariff on weapons imports, ammunition and parts and still claim he is making America great again.
What part of “You’re fantasizing that your political foes agree with you and will spare you the need to actually defeat them to get your program implemented” do you not understand?
I don’t like the right, absolutely. The bloodiest war in Europe in the last 80 years began under right-wing slogans. Nevertheless, as a resident of those very places where blood is flowing today, I can say that no criminal violence can compare with the horror of state terror. The right to bear arms is necessary, an armed population is necessary no matter what victims it brings in everyday life. You have simply never seen an alternative.
It is not a matter of technical jurisprudence or numbers.
Italy, Germany and Japan they were ALL disarmed after WWII and all enforced restrictions to gun handling. And all these nations experienced the dissolution of the armies and all had a significant portion if not the totality of the male population in fighting age that had access to military grade weapons, and likely took them home for safety (or to fight guerrilla style in case of italy in the second part of the war when it was occupied by nazi).
It took DECADES to collect all the weapons around, and recover/destroy the thousands of tons of explosives laying around as hidden ordinance or unexploded bombs.
It has been done multiple times.
The only reason why has not been done in the states is because the right wing parties embraced a pro weapon rhetoric.
But Trump is steering towards authoritarianism and regimes do not like free weapons so I would not be too surprised if finally trump will force gun control, not to save kids, but because the radical left is so dangerous (ignoring the fact that all the evidence indicate that is the radical right that is way more violent).
Sorry but your comparison is garbage 😀
sorry you cant compare apples with banannas . in Germany we had war ..an all out war like japan had. And the majority of civilian didnt own guns! Only the military .(and yes i now at the end of the war even the youth had to fight) But germany was completely destroyed .There was no use for guns to defend anyone or anything . it was difficult to own a gun even befor the war .germany was never a country where million of people could get their hands on 5-10 guns like in the US .
And in japan it was even harder . Especially when the samurai time ended.
So germany and Japan have nearly the same starting point in regards to buy or own guns.
but the USA are something different .owning a gun is part of their short history and i think there is no western or civilizied country in the world where everybody owns a gun.(if you just look at the selled guns in the last 30 years or so)
so it was never done to demilitarized a whole country :D.
And the Text is very accurate. I mean it could work in germany but in the violence Usa no its not possible .there will be too many casualties.especially with the education system.
“ignoring the fact that all the evidence indicate that is the radical right that is way more violent”
Never have there been a more dishonest, conniving group of people on this planet than leftists. The nerve of mounting off about right wing violence right after assassinating a guy for the crime of saying that your side is wrong , trying assassinate Donald Trump twice, trying assassinate Rand Paul THREE times, and the over 100 million people that were murdered by communists in the 20th century. The only thing worse than the leftist’s capacity for lying is their capacity for violence.
Check for yourself, or if you are lazy, ask ChatGPT (or even Grok), the data is there
Check the source of the data. It’s ADL compiled and grossly misrepresents the truth by including prison violence etc as right wing political violence. Beyond misleading.
All those who complain about the data should simply provide the data on which their different opinion is based. It is not enough to say, “fake news!”How do you know it is fake? if you do not provide documentation explaining why it should be considered fake. All the available data confirm what I said.
“How do you know it is fake?”
He explained that: It came from the ADL. For anybody who knows the ADL, that’s explanation enough.
Again, what data do you have to disprove the source?
Where was your data claiming most violence came from right wingers?!? You provided nothing. Also, there was nothing stopping you from looking up claims from the other side. You leftists must think that hypocrisy is a virtue otherwise you would have taken your own advice.
Do BLM and similar riots count as left wing political violence?
This is a remarkably anti-historic description of what actually happened.
In the early 20th century, both major parties were, by modern standards, extremely pro-gun. Machine guns were legal for civilians to buy new. MAIL ORDER! They were just taxed heavily.
Even when I was a child, there was practically nothing we’d today call gun control. There were anti-tank rifles like the 20mm Sothburn being sold mail order in the backs of magazines. Children could be sent to the hardware store to buy ammo for their parents. The idea of a actually disarming people would have been considered absurd!
Sure, we disarmed the Axis countries, but why would we treat ourselves like the losers in a war?
Then the Democratic party, but only the Democratic party, turned hostile to civilian gun ownership, while the Republican party remained relatively friendly to gun owners.
Gun owners didn’t take over the GOP, anti-gunners took over the Democratic party.
“The only reason why has not been done in the states is because the right wing parties embraced a pro weapon rhetoric.”
The ‘only’ reason is that the US is a functioning democracy, and disarming the population is unpopular.
What you say is factually incorrect.
A 2024 Pew Research Center poll found 58% favor stricter gun laws; 26% say gun laws are about right, and 15% favor less strict laws. This data is up compared to a Gallup (Oct 2023) poll that found 56% want stricter gun laws.
So no, the majority of Americans want stricter gun laws, but the fact that Republicans significantly distorted the weight of the individual votes ensures that 56% of citizens interested in a certain legislation is not enough. So, again, the only reason it is not done is because a certain party is not interested in following the will of the majority of the electorate, which, by definition, is not a sign of a functioning democracy.
And yet, when asked what they want done, it turns out that all or almost all, are either current law (some dating back to over 50 or 100 years ago) ,or are things that have been tried and found to have a zero or negative effect.
What you fail to notice is that gun control proposals regularly poll 20-30% better with pollsters than they do at the ballot box.
Opinions have two dimensions, direction AND intensity. While a majority will SAY they want gun control, for most of that ‘majority’ the intensity is essentially zero, unlike the people who oppose it, who typically oppose it strongly.
One might even say that people who don’t care about the issue, under the impression that gun control is actually popular, just lie to blend in.
Concealed carry didn’t spread across most of the country by some diabolical conspiracy. It won democratically.
Gun controllers live in something of a bubble, they’re simply in denial about how popular their own obsession is.
I cited data,
You do not like the data, if you think the data are not correct, provide the data on which your opinion is based.
Since you are speaking about “bubbles” please bear in mind that in the rest of the world, gun safety is not a matter of left and right (the same as vaccines). I had the luck of living in different countries; Italy, Switzerland, US and Sweden and I saw how things work.
-In italy, weapons are all strictly regulated, and owning a handgun is quite frowned upon (unless you are police, or private security). Hunting guns are regulated too (my grandfather and father had hunting license). Generally speaking, Italy ranks quite low in gun deaths (and we have the mafia!). Italy has approximately 14.4 guns per 100 resident (please also note that the number of gun owners is around 7% of the population because having a permit is difficult and expensive, and those who get permits usually have more than one hunting gun or handgun) . This is obviously an underestimate because, as I said, there are criminal organizations that do not register guns. Nonetheless, Italy’s firearm homicide rate is very low (where firearm homicide is measured as the number of homicides linked to firearms/per 100k inhabitants).
-Italy firearm homicide rate is 0.103 per 100k inhabitants
-Switzerland has 27.6 guns per 100 inhabitants, and the related gun homicide rate goes up to 0.137 gun homicides per 100k. Most of these guns are part of the permanent military training (many Swiss citizens have to serve periodic training in the army each year, and ammunition is not usually stored at home).
-Sweden has a situation closer to the US in terms of gun ownership (you have normal “private” guns but you still require a permit, although is not as restrictive as italy). Sweden has fewer guns per capita than Switzerland, 23.1 per 100 inhabitants (also in this case the gun owners are fewer than 23% since those who own a gun usually own more than one), but Sweden has 0.597 firearm homicides per 100k inhabitants, And this year we also got our first school sh**ting! Which was also a h*ate crime because it was a school for foreigners! Yay!.
But obviously even these numbers pale in comparison to the US data where you have more than 120 guns per 100 residents and 13,7 gun-related deaths per 100k inhabitants (so it is 100 times the score of Switzerland).
All the rest of the world sees what happens in the US, and everybody knows it is a gun proliferation issue, that becomes a public safety issue. I am sorry, really, but the US citizens who tell themselves this is “normal” are the ones in the bubble.
I’ll say it one last time, then quit this thread:
If your position was genuinely as popular as you pretend, you would have no problem at all repealing the 2nd amendment, you would already have prevailed at the ballot box.
You’re fantasizing that your position is popular, and is being defeated by some diabolical conspiracy. When the truth is you’re losing because you’ve failed to persuade the electorate.
Polls are rigged as a deliberate act of deception. “Submit to our demands because the majority agrees with us”. The 2016 polls all said Hillary Clinton would win all of the battleground states.
https://media-cldnry.s-nbcnews.com/image/upload/t_fit-760w,f_avif,q_auto:eco,dpr_2/newscms/2017_34/2127636/realclearpolitics_general_election_polling_average_aug-nov_clinton_trump_chartbuilder.svg
WikiLeaks also revealed that Democrats will sample areas that vote majority Democrats and pass them off as random, non-bias polls.
Not that it should matter as gun ownership is in the Second Amendment and if you really have such overwhelming support for giving the government a monopoly on firearm ownership and that we just trust them to protect us which they aren’t legally obligated to do, then you people should have no trouble calling for a constitutional convention and have a new amendment to the US Constitution to abolish the 2nd Amendment and even giving a new constitutional right for criminals to be safe to victimize innocent people by taking away their means of self defense.
The Axis Powers were occupied by a military power for…actually they’re still occupied by some definition of the word. Nobody’s gonna do that for or to the USA and I expect Americans would have some opinions about it too
As I stated in another comment. The majority of Americans want to restrict access to weapons
The only thing that currently exists to protect ALL of the rights written in the Constitution are those 500 million guns. I don’t trust either side of the political fence to decide what part of Constitution is obsolete or inconvenient.
“…The only reason why has not been done in the states is because the right wing parties embraced a pro weapon rhetoric…”
Of course there is this little problem of firearm ownership being written right into the Constitution and there’s no doubt what so ever they meant the people to be armed to control the government if it became to odious.
And as usual we are gas-lighted about the problem and the solution. The problem is not guns but the evil way people use them. This is a SOLVED problem Back in the 1950’s or so New York State had a law that if you committed a crime, any crime, with firearm you got the death penalty, immediately. 2 weeks, trial, electrocuted. They had next to no gun crime and in fact little to no crime at all. Every shop keeper had a baseball bat and if you tried to rob them you would be beaten silly so criminals, being adverse to having their heads caved in, and not willing to be electrocuted if they had a gun, just did not do a lot of robbery.
This typical behavior to try and corral us into one or the other outcomes by completely ignoring the ones that actually work. The confiscation of guns is merely the elites and their politicians trying to crush the population without them being able to shoot back. All these gun grabbers have armed guards most of the time.
The real problem isn’t guns, it’s the massive mental health crisis that stems from multiple other issues.
Taking guns away from law-abiding people seems like an excuse for not actually addressing the underlying problems, such as wealth disparity, healthcare, and many others.
This is a fallacy to compare guns to alcohol. One is simply a modern manchild toy, second is an addicting substance with usage tradition spanning generations. A social lubricant.
It is intellectually dishonest to compare the two in such way.
The issue with alcohol is that it is a prehistoric level of technology, and distillation is also centuries-old technology. Everyone with the will and a couple of bottles and pots can brew/ferment, and distil. It is not so easy to manufacture reliable firearms (even with the 3d printing stuff). So, no, the comparison with alcohol and prohibitionism is not fitting, in my opinion.
Actually, building a functional firearm is about as hard as building a production still.
Such defeatist talk (“let’s do nothing”)…
Whereas Australia had a highly successful gun buyback/disarmament initiative following the 1996 Port Arthur Massacre. The National Firearms Agreement (NFA) banned semi-automatic rifles and shotguns and required a nationwide gun buyback. About 650,000 firearms were turned in and destroyed—approximately 20% of the privately owned guns at the time. The US has allowed the NRA to capture the 2nd amendment and pervert it, draping itself in the “guardian of liberty”–while the national guard is sent into US cities and the gun advocates remain silent.
Oh drop it.
There is nothing the NRA has said rhat perverts the 2nd Amendment and that wasn’t already reinforced by SCOTUS ruling.
Typical leftist.
and yet, Australia had a highly successful gun buyback/disarmament initiative following the 1996 Port Arthur Massacre. The National Firearms Agreement (NFA) banned semi-automatic rifles and shotguns and required a nationwide gun buyback. About 650,000 firearms were turned in and destroyed—approximately 20% of the privately owned guns at the time. The US has allowed the NRA to capture the 2nd amendment and pervert it, draping itself in the “guardian of liberty”–while the national guard is sent into US cities and the gun advocates remain silent.
So, a 20% enforcement rate in a country where gun ownership wasn’t as common, and isn’t a constitutional right, strikes you as highly successful?
A lot of their success came from lying to the public telling them they just want to register guns and that they weren’t going to snatch all of the guns. It’s a lesson that pro-freedom Americans have taken to hearts and will never believe you people’s lies ever again.
A number of things have to be done to stop the exceptionally high homicide rate in America.
1. Make it a– federal crime– to use or possess a firearm while committing a felony. It should be a standard ten year sentence in a Federal prison. Afterwards the felon would have to spend time in a state prison for the state felony committed. Double that federal sentence if its the criminal’s second felony. And triple that sentence for any subsequent felonies involving a fire arm.
2. The federal government and state governments should be able to slap a tax (up to 100%) on all firearms and ammunition sold in the US.
3. All– high powered assault — weapons should be banned in the US. And a $1000 fee should be charged to any individual in possession of such a weapon by the Federal government. And an additional $1000 fee could be charged by a state government.
4. All firearms in your possession should be registered by the federal government and also by the state government within 10 days after purchase with a $10 fee charged for each weapon registered. Individuals will be charged a $1000 fee for any weapon not registered. Individuals can turn in any unregistered firearm– without penalty– to the local police department.
Your suggestions 2-4 are constitutional violations, so long as the 2nd amendment is in place, and what I’m pointing out is that they will be understood to be, and treated as, a constitutional violation.
People don’t feel guilty about violating laws, when they understand the law itself to be a criminal act by the government! And the government simply can’t enforce laws where nobody subject to the law thinks it deserved to be obeyed. Better than 90% of enforcing a law has to be the public’s acceptance and voluntary compliance, because the government just doesn’t have the sheer RESOURCES to enforce a wildly unpopular law.
And you’re just not grasping that your program doesn’t have enough public support to be adopted in the first place, because, it may drive you crazy, but the 2nd amendment is actually pretty popular. Gun rights are actually INCREASING in most of the country, the few states where your program would have any chance of enactment are outliers.
You need people to trust the government in order to get them to voluntarily disarm, and “Disarm or we’ll attack you!” is not trust inducing. The very effort to disarm Americans makes Americans more resistant to being disarmed!
So, in a country where hardly anybody thinks there’s a constitutional right to addictive drugs, and where most people despise them, the government can’t stamp out drugs. But you think that in a country where most people understand gun ownership to be a right, and half the population own them, you think it’s different?
As already started and substantiated by data, the majority of the citizens want stricter gun laws. And the constitution is not set in stone. Indeed the 2nd amendment is an AMENDMENT, so a change to the constitution. Simply put the republican party is not interested in following the will of the people.
Well, then you should have no trouble at all repealing the 2nd amendment. Better get started!
With respect to…
Point 1: 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) already makes it a crime to use, carry or possess a firearm during, or in furtherance of, a crime of violence or drug trafficking. Also, I don’t think deterrents work very well. Most people who commit crimes of violence already know they risk jail or prison time, yet still commit the crimes because they either think they won’t get caught, or else get caught of in the moment, and don’t consider the consequences.
Point 2. The cost of acquisition, if too high, will only enable a black market to undercut prices. Cost won’t stop anyone who’s determined to acquire a firearm.
Point 3. Handguns are overwhelmingly the most common firearm used in crimes. Even mass shooters could use small firearms.
Point 4. Fine.
Normally peaceful, law abiding citizens would be turned into armed patriots. Even hard core big government leftist should be scared of waking that giant. The left knows this and their plan seems to be slow but sure incrementalism – death by a thousand laws and higher and higher taxation on guns and ammo.
Exactly. They can only incrementally tighten the screws.
Only, democratically, the screws are actually being loosened, outside of a few places like California. And I don’t think the country is going to tolerate those outlier states deliberately attacking a civil right for much longer.
And they start with the low hanging fruits- the semi auto rifles that account for like 0.1% of gun deaths. They won’t start with handguns that are used in most of them because of too much blow back. Do that later.
Eventually, you’re confiscating knives like in jolly old UK. Look where that has gone.
All these “2nd amendment warriors” BY DEFINITION, are NOT law abiding, if they believe that they need to carry weapons to prevent the government to enforce laws they do not like. And since we are at it: how would you feel if a democratic governor asked their citizens to march against the national guard? Because, you know, deploying the national guard without the consent of the local authorities is illegal? The truth is that right wing built this narrative of freedom, but they are perfectly fine with an authoritarian government and they would scream in outrage if the left said or did 1% of what the right says and does. How would have you reacted if Boden/harris sent the national guard in Alabama? Censured fox news? Sued Murdoch for billions of dollars? Cancelled press credentials to Fox “because they are mean”? And again, what if they were the one promoting an insurrection? Would you be fine with that? I don’t think so.
Deaths from a single shot weapon are going to happen in any society. Any sensible gun control measure limits the ability for civilians to acquire military grade armaments, automatic and semiautomatic weapons. Brian is correct in his assessment but the argument is weak as it takes the extreme view of removing all guns which is an unattainable goal.
Rifles account for ~20-30% of violent crime. This is very likely false. It would be wrong to classify the unknown types as all rifles. Likely most of the “unknown” are also handguns.
45.7% Handguns
23.9% Unknown
1.4% Shotguns
2.6% Rifles
https://www.criminalattorneycolumbus.com/which-weapons-are-most-commonly-used-for-homicides/
The most fundamental obstacle is that the 2nd amendment actually IS in the Constitution, which means that even if by some miracle you could get a bare majority of the population to support disarmament, the minority would rightfully be morally certain that the action was illegitimate.
It’s not like Prohibition, which, while a minority opposed it, was clearly legally legitimate, so people participating in the black market at least understood themselves to be behaving illegally; In the case of gun confiscation, gun owners understand the gun confiscators to be the criminals.
It’s not the stuff of a black market, more likely a civil war.
An outdated amendment unfortunately, for example Swiss a lot a people get a gun but the ammunition is stored at the town hall and not at home , it will be distributed in case of invasion.
A well armed populace keeps government (and leftists) at bay.
agree
2nd amendment was designed to keep government in check, it has nothing to do with external invasion
so you would be fine if citizens in democratic states and cities marched against the deployment of the national guard (because deploying the national guard without the governor’s consent is illegal)? I don’t think so. This 2nd amendment myth is the spinning the right does to respond to things they do not like. But if the left did the same, they would scream that is terr*rism, the communist revolution and so on…
I would be. I think this deployment of the military in various States is a horrendously bad precedent. Local police are bad enough and constantly violate people’s civil rights. It’s difficult enough to reign them in. US troops, it would be near impossible. However, due to the blatant flooding of the country so that Democrats can stay in power with illegals and masses of immigrants I would favor a time limited, much enhanced Federal role, but only to deport these people. While I like A LOT of stuff Trump does, and some he says, I have never trusted him. I think he’s a shyster and we have no real understanding of what he’s trying to accomplish much of the time. It’s not all together clear that this vast force he is assembling, to supposedly, get rid of the illegals, is not up to some other long range plan. They do not appear to be deporting people in anywhere near the numbers needed for such a mass of officers. And we certainly don’t need swamp concentration camps. The idea is to get rid of them not house them. What are these camps for???
If you think it’s outdated, I direct your attention to Article V: Repeal it!
No effort is ever made to do so, because people who agree with you know that they’re a minority in this country.
I would suggest that the GOP decided to erase the words “well regulated militia”, filled the country with guns, then say “what can you do”?
I’d suggest you you that you don’t know what the 2nd amendment’s reference to a well regulated militia actually means.
First, in the 1700’s, “well regulated” was not a reference to being regulated by bureaucrats, it meant “to be made regular”, which is to say, it meant a militia that was well equipped and trained.
You don’t, obviously, make sure a militia is well equipped by banning guns, or make sure it’s well trained by keeping people from practicing with those guns.
Second, you have to understand that a militia is to a military what a volunteer fire department is to a regular fire service: It consists of an armed population familiar with those arms, from which a military force can be raised in an emergency.
The point is to eliminate the potential to use the military against the population, by seeing to it that the military IS the population.
To that end, the objective actually IS that as many Americans as possible be armed in a fashion that is militarily effective. And to see to that, being armed was made a right, not of the militia, but of the people, so that you couldn’t just dismiss it by not bothering with having a formal militia.
At the time the bill of rights was being debated, a number of the founders would publish newspaper editorials explaining the amendments. Here’s what the founders were saying in that debate:
https://sightm1911.com/lib/rkba/ff_militia.htm
Tench Coxe, for instance, wrote: “As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”
Madison WROTE the 2nd amendment, and as part of his estate you can find a letter from him to Coxe, thanking Coxe for writing this. So don’t even try to claim Coxe was misrepresenting it…
It’s become commonplace for people who want to render the 2nd amendment moot, to conflate the militia with the army, and claim that the 2nd amendment, hilariously, only guarantees a right to be armed during military service. (That was Justice Stevens’ dissenting position in the Heller case.)
It’s nothing but an effort to ‘interpret’ the amendment in a manner that renders it toothless. As Patrick Henry said, “The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.”
And modern gun owners understand the amendment the same way the founders did, and any effort to disarm us is properly understood as an effort to render the country easier to subject to tyranny by virtue of being defenseless.
Every effort to disarm Americans convinces Americans all the more that they don’t dare let themselves be disarmed. Any really serious effort to disarm America would result in a civil war.
“Every effort to disarm Americans convinces Americans all the more that they don’t dare let themselves be disarmed.”
Or as the State of Ohio Constitution’s version of the national 2nd Amendment states:
“The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power”.
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-2/
Nothing to do with hunting/fishing/target shooting/or even national defense per see; at least not of the external invasion sort.