Europe’s push away from gasoline-powered cars has become a warning sign for some American gun owners, at least according to gun-rights commentator Colion Noir.
In a recent video, Noir argued that governments do not always need to ban something outright to make it disappear from everyday life. Instead, he said they can regulate it, tax it, restrict it, and slowly make it harder to build, buy, own, or use until people are left with fewer choices.
Noir used Europe’s tightening rules around gas-powered vehicles as the starting point for a broader Second Amendment argument. His message was that firearms could face a similar kind of gradual pressure if gun owners do not pay attention to smaller restrictions before they become larger ones.
The comparison is controversial, and cars and firearms are clearly different subjects with different laws, risks, and public debates. But Noir’s point was not that the two industries are identical. He argued that the political strategy behind regulation can look familiar across both issues.
The Car Industry As A Warning Sign
Noir said he has been a car enthusiast for years and considers himself a car guy even before becoming known for Second Amendment commentary.
He said that made a video from Austin, the owner of Valvetronic Designs, stand out to him. Austin criticized European rules that he said were pushing automakers away from internal-combustion engines and toward electric vehicles whether customers wanted that shift or not.
“It’s just a force for control,” Austin said in the clip played by Noir. “I’m so sick of all these car companies coming out and ruining their image because they’re forced to do something because of regulations.”
Noir said that statement sounded familiar when viewed through the eyes of a gun owner.
He argued that governments often avoid direct bans because they can produce immediate public backlash. Instead, he said, they can use deadlines, manufacturing restrictions, taxes, product mandates, licensing rules, and other policies that eventually narrow the market.
The result, in Noir’s view, is that people may technically still have choices, but the choices become fewer, more expensive, and less practical over time.
That is the part of his argument that may appeal beyond gun politics. People tend to react strongly when they feel a product they value is being phased out by rules they did not ask for, especially when the replacement feels less useful or less personal to them.
Noir Says He Is Not Against Electric Cars
Noir made a point of saying he does not oppose electric vehicles themselves.
He said he owns a Tesla Cybertruck and enjoys it, especially for convenience and long drives. He also described the Porsche Taycan as his favorite electric vehicle.
But he said he does not want electric cars forced on buyers by eliminating the gas-powered vehicles people still prefer.
“What I can’t stand, though, is being forced into one by killing off the thing I actually want,” Noir said.
That distinction was central to the video.
Noir was not arguing that electric cars should not exist. He argued that consumers should be able to choose between electric vehicles and gas-powered vehicles without policy making one option impossible to obtain.
His concern was less about technology and more about compulsion.
That is a useful distinction because many public debates become more heated than they need to be. People can support innovation while still questioning whether governments should push markets in one direction too aggressively.
The Smart Gun Comparison
From there, Noir connected the car debate to firearms.
He said gun owners are often portrayed as hostile to smart-gun technology, but he argued that many people are not opposed to the technology itself. Instead, they are concerned about being forced to rely on biometric locks, fingerprint readers, or other electronic systems in situations where a firearm may need to work instantly.
Noir played a clip of a person saying that no gun should be sold unless a biometric measure could activate the trigger.
He reacted strongly to that idea, arguing that the real issue is not whether smart guns can be developed, but whether they could become mandatory.
“The gun community isn’t against smart gun technology,” Noir said. “We’re against being forced to replace all of our guns with smart gun technology.”
He said people should be free to buy smart guns if they want them, just as people should be free to buy electric cars if they want them.
But Noir argued that forcing everyone into a specific technology by restricting older products is a different matter.
He said some gun owners already distrust even basic mechanical safeties and would be reluctant to depend on a fingerprint reader during an emergency. That is not an argument every gun owner will share, but it reflects a common concern about reliability, power failures, software errors, and delayed access.
“One Common Sense Rule At A Time”
Noir’s broader argument was that gun restrictions often build gradually.
He said lawmakers may not always try to ban a rifle or handgun in one move. Instead, he argued, they can introduce restrictions involving taxes, registration, magazine limits, zoning rules, waiting periods, or other rules that make ownership more difficult.
“No one passes a law to take your AR in one shot,” Noir said. “They tax it. They register it. They zone it out of existence.”
That language reflects his political position, but it captures why some gun owners are skeptical of laws described as limited or temporary.
To them, each new rule is not viewed separately. It is seen as part of a larger direction.
Critics of that view would argue that regulations can be designed to reduce harm without eliminating lawful ownership. Supporters of Noir’s position often respond that even modest restrictions can expand over time once governments establish the authority to regulate a right more heavily.
The dispute is not likely to disappear because both sides start with very different assumptions about what government power should look like.
Europe And America Have Different Legal Foundations
Noir argued that Europe’s car policies are easier to impose because people there do not have a constitutional protection comparable to the Second Amendment.
He said the United States has what he called a “firewall” in the words “shall not be infringed.”
Noir also referenced the Supreme Court’s Heller decision, saying it recognized an individual right to keep and bear arms rather than treating gun ownership as a hobby or temporary privilege.
That legal difference is important to his argument.
He said the Second Amendment gives Americans a foundation for challenging regulations that might otherwise slowly limit access to firearms. Without that foundation, he argued, governments can more easily phase out products or activities through policy changes.
Whether that comparison holds up depends on how a person sees constitutional rights, property rights, environmental rules, and public safety laws. But Noir’s message was clear: he believes gun owners should defend their rights before restrictions become too difficult to reverse.
A Debate About Choice And Control
Noir ended by returning to a simple point.
“Make the EV. Make the smart gun,” he said. “Just don’t force it on me by burying what I came for.”
That may be the cleanest summary of his argument.
He is not calling for the end of electric cars or new firearm technology. He is arguing for consumer choice and against policies that make older options disappear through regulation.
For gun owners, Noir sees Europe’s car industry as a cautionary tale. For others, it may be an example of governments trying to move transportation toward new energy goals.
Either way, the video shows how quickly one policy debate can become a symbol for another. Cars and guns may not be the same fight, but Colion Noir believes the underlying question is familiar: how much choice should people keep when governments decide the future is moving in another direction?
A former park ranger and wildlife conservationist, Lisa’s passion for survival started with her deep connection to nature. Raised on a small farm in northern Wisconsin, she learned how to grow her own food, raise livestock, and live off the land. Lisa is our dedicated Second Amendment news writer and also focuses on homesteading, natural remedies, and survival strategies. Lisa aims to help others live more sustainably and prepare for the unexpected.
