It is not debatable. Rights were taken from individuals during COVID. That's not debatable.

 I think it is.  People think they have a lot of "rights" that are nothing more than basic privilege.  They also consider the Constitutionally sound action of restriction to be equal to "taken away", no different than MnSpring insisting that if we can't carry a gun, we have our right to defend ourselves "removed" - which is obviously not true.  Like if I don't carry a gun I can't punch someone.  If a man tries to rape a woman in a gun-free zone she has to let him because her right to defend herself was "removed"?

 All gun restriction does is remove my ability to use a gun to defend myself.  It does not violate my rights.


 Remember when JoG insisted no laws existed in TX regarding public quarantine and there were literally 3 specific to quarantine that had been there for over 50 years.  Those laws restricted things like public assembly, which is Constitutional, because restricting rights for the public good - like not allowing inmates in prison to own guns - has always been practical application.

 
 Now that doesn't mean all the restrictions were correct, or that I agree with them.  I just don't cry "my rights were taken!!" every time I disagree with something.

Has happened, in THIS Country.
And it is rather normal in many other countries,
especially when one can
pay more than the one attacked.
Or the,  (Hands Up) LIE is used !!!!!


 Your right to defend yourself has not been removed.  You can defend yourself.  

 People in bars have defended themselves for hundreds of years with gun restrictions in place.  The argument that a no-gun zone "removes" or has "taken away" your right to defend yourself is not true, it is a poor, and amateur, complaint for a real problem.  Statements like that only reduce the chances of succeeding in retaining real gun ownership rights.

  I do not think you truly believe if a woman does not carry a gun, she has had the right to defend herself removed and must either let a man assault her, or be prosecuted for trying to stop him by using something other than a gun.  

A NO GUN ZONE, 'allows' you to defend yourself,
      With a stick/club/fists/etc
          (JUST NOT A GUN)

      A-Yep !!!!!!
You can defend yourself, with out a gun,
     when a DFI
is SHOOTING AT YOU !!!!!


 Exactly.  So insisting that gun-free zones "removes" your right to defend yourself is wrong.  It is untruthful and completely pointless to even say.

Gun free zones are there to allow law enforcement to assume any gun is a threat in that area
In highly populated areas, a bunch of gun toters would be too much danger for them to cover safely
This gives them assurance that legal attendees will abide by these rules and respect the law and they can protect safely

You can't take your UZI on a plane
Duhhhhhhhh  

In highly populated areas, a bunch of gun toters would be too much danger for them to cover safely

 This is not necessarily true.  It has been my experience that LEO prefer armed citizens at major events as it reduces the chance of a mass-shooting.

 I've personally done thousands of active shooter exercises for agencies worldwide over the past 2 decades, I've commented on these before,  and can reliably say no-gun zones are no safer.  The perception that if one criminal is actively shooting, LEO will have to draw down on every human there with a gun is fundamentally flawed.

 Perpetrators and victims of crime have distinct behavioral variances.  It's not perfect by any means, violence is very messy, but the idea that LEO can't tell who is a criminal so everyone can get shot literally applies to every single gathering.