451
Comments (23)
sorted by:
21
Gans 21 points ago +21 / -0

Faggot can't grasp even the simplest of concepts.

8
AmericanScholar373 8 points ago +8 / -0

How do people become so hopelessly cucked? I seriously suspect every notable person who pushes gun infringement of being involved in the kind of corruption that they should be hunted down and executed for.

13
Restore_Sanity_alt 13 points ago +13 / -0

.. or ammo.

3
hungryfreaksdaddy 3 points ago +3 / -0

Or heavy artillery. During the Revolution some patriots had privately-owned cannons, and even warships.

9
RepublicofNY45 9 points ago +9 / -0

SHALL NOT

2
MakeMineMassive 2 points ago +2 / -0

Pretty simple stuff.

1
kornesque 1 point ago +1 / -0

But...

7
todayabetterme 7 points ago +7 / -0

"Water is wet." Do you believe this means water is wet?

6
I_am_the_glowie 6 points ago +6 / -0

Such a faggot.

5
Captain_MAGA 5 points ago +5 / -0

He is STILL going, nonstop damage control.

1
PNWstill 1 point ago +2 / -1

I think it's because he's looking for validation that his right. Probably lives in a bubble where no one disagrees with him. He shouldn't have to defend himself this hard if he were correct but he's not. Just let him bring more attention to his ignorance, I guess.

3
kornesque 3 points ago +3 / -0

Yes, I believe the government has no right to infringe on my rights.

1
BeardedNinjaPede 1 point ago +1 / -0

The main purpose of the government is to protect our rights. We've come a long way away from that.

3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
3
Deadpool 3 points ago +3 / -0

In the days on the signing of the constitution you could own as many cannons as you wanted. You could own a literal war ship. And if you owned a battleship of the day you could be hired by the US government to be a privateer. Look up the Puckle gun, a precursor to the Gatling Gun which existed at the time they were writing the constitution.

This faggot Bill needs a history lesson, and to stop being such a faggot 👌

2
BidensEarPeice 2 points ago +2 / -0

Not even convicted felons should have their right to bear arms removed.

1
colers 1 point ago +1 / -0

My opinion is that shit should work with a legal injunction, only based on clear evidence an immediate and credible threat, requiring you to be charged with an offense, and demanding an investigation of the alleged danger with the injunction never lasting past the initial court date. Basically, if you have access to arms restricted because you send a text to your ex telling her you were going to shoot her, it will expire the second the restraining order is in place.

It's ridiculous that it works with a seperate system. It should just work on an injunction system instead of the arbitrary bullshit it's based on now. If you aren't charged with a crime, every infringement of your rights is an abomination, and until you are charged.

2
13FOX 2 points ago +2 / -0

I would go so far as to say convicted

2
colers 2 points ago +2 / -0

Again, injunction, which would require a judge to give and can be appealed. And only in charges where it would be pertinent to the charge, like threats of violence with a deadly weapon, reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon, or stalking, untill an intermediary solution is reached like a conviction, restraining order or removal of the endangered individuals from your custody.

Red flag laws, if they are to exist, should follow the same standards of due process and due cause the rest of the legal system had

1
13FOX 1 point ago +1 / -0

agreed

1
k_the_c 1 point ago +1 / -0

I agree with this. It's not perfect, but it's clear. How do you feel about people owning firearms after they've been released form prison?

4
13FOX 4 points ago +4 / -0

I feel their time is served.....unless they committed a violent gun crime. Getting caught with a gram of weed should not preclude you from exercising your right to bear arms

0
PNWstill 0 points ago +1 / -1

Part of the point of our 2nd amendment is to be able to defend ourselves from a tyrannical government. Foreign or domestic. So no, the government has no right to infringe. They don't have the power. Civil rights ARE ALL about empowering the citizens. It limits the government and they hate it.