1326
Comments (113)
sorted by:
74
Allister 74 points ago +74 / -0

You should never need a permit to exercise a right, as it's no longer a right if you need a government permission slip to exercise it...

14
WakeMeUpTrump 14 points ago +14 / -0

Furthermore... We need to campaign for the abolishment of ALL gun laws. We don't need a single one of them. They must all go.

Background checks, magazine limits, trigger regulations, 922r compliance for ratios of gun parts, permits to own, carry, or conceal a weapon, even the limitation of felons being unable to own a weapon. If they can't own a weapon in society, they haven't served their time and are not suitable for release anyway.

4
orange_dit 4 points ago +4 / -0

And sodomite unions are not constitutional rights.

1
TakenusernameA 1 point ago +2 / -1

They are an affront to the Lord and our Christian forefathers.

1
NOTWOKE 1 point ago +1 / -0

baby steps. You are 1000% right

51
Forty_Five 51 points ago +51 / -0

The 2nd amendment to the constitution is our permit.

9
StairsVsBiden 9 points ago +9 / -0

yeah and blue states shit on it, and some red states too.

and federal government issues licenses and tracks serial numbers…. want silencer wait a year, want auto - no can do, background checks required. tons of fucking laws infringing.

all that shit needs to go away. but i don’t see republicans trying at all. they too don’t give any fucks about our actual rights.

faggots and abortions are their priorities.

2
ufkyflflfguio 2 points ago +2 / -0

faggots and abortions are their priorities.

Can you blame them? Look how hard the NPCs here jerk off about those things.

10
FreedomDeliveries 10 points ago +10 / -0

it's the govt's obligation to respect your rights unless and until you are found guilty in a court of law by a jury of your peers and a judge then sees fit to remove some of your rights for specific reasons. which means law abiding citizens should not ever be breaking a law by carrying a weapon, unless there is reasonable suspicion that someone should not have that right and it is then proven to be the case.

5
ufkyflflfguio 5 points ago +5 / -0

The 2nd amendment says nothing about losing your rights because you were found guilty of a crime.

1
FreedomDeliveries 1 point ago +1 / -0

True. What it comes down to, is a armed society is a polite society.

at least 1/3-1/2 of people concealed or openly carrying guns. at first people are wary, violence breaks out and the offenders are killed or defeated quite quickly.

Murderers would seldom kill more than once. Bring back the death penalty for once they are in prison and secure the border. Vet applications for immigration. suddenly the violence would be dealt with and we would have lasting peace with little recurrence.

1
ufkyflflfguio 1 point ago +1 / -0

The federal government has no authority to restrict immigration. Turn off all welfare and suddenly the only people who want to immigrate here will be the ones we want. No need for more government red tape.

5
barwhack 5 points ago +5 / -0

Permits to breed, yet breeding is impossible for the sterile group to whom the permit is extended (and besides, breeding is not prevented, if no permit is granted). What even is this limp-wristed "permit"? Oh... religion... and leftist violationism.

And permits to obtain a constitutional right of our once-republic. More leftist violationism.


Anti-humans hate humanity, folks. Such leftism is cancer of the soul: proven by this, and so much else in post-modernity.

5
ufkyflflfguio 5 points ago +5 / -0

Nah, there should be no such thing as a permit to carry. My permit to carry is the 2nd amendment itself.

1
FreedomFlowerDelta 1 point ago +1 / -0

It's not a permit. It's an unalienable right GRANTED BY GOD HIMSELF

4
Henry_nance 4 points ago +4 / -0

Better yet they should recognize the 2nd amendment and no one should carry a permit.

4
Agent_86 4 points ago +4 / -0

It's unconstitutional WTFU.

3
Homemade-Soap 3 points ago +3 / -0

The permit to carry is called the Bill of Rights.

3
BailoutsAreSocialism 3 points ago +3 / -0

Dumb is dumb.

There should be no fucking PERMITS ... for guns OR MARRIAGE !

3
TheAttackTitan 3 points ago +3 / -0

You’re all piling on her, saying she’s tacitly accepting the DoMA, but its really the sentiment that matters. If the federal gov is gonna force states to recognize a law they don’t like, then the same ought to be applied to guns.

2
Honkey_McCracker 2 points ago +4 / -2

Gay marriage is neither.

2
CommunismIsForFags 2 points ago +2 / -0

See you faggots are why it's so bad.

You don't start something just as illegal. You ignore the illegal law.

The goal is to empower the Fed you retards

1
FreedomFlowerDelta 1 point ago +1 / -0

Wrong. All states must recognize 2A. Fuck your permit

1
TraitorJoes 1 point ago +1 / -0

That's (D)ifferent.

1
LLegendary 1 point ago +1 / -0

It doesn't work that way. Bake the cake bigot. Private businesses can censor what they want, no free speech for you.

1
Relictus_Patriae 1 point ago +1 / -0

She has the spirit. Truly a strange time when Christians and Muslims have more in common than the American Elite.

1
deleted 1 point ago +2 / -1
1
nomoreprinkles 1 point ago +1 / -0

My state requires no permit, ergo I should be allowed to carry in DC, in churches, banks, schools, etc

-12
deleted -12 points ago +3 / -15
7
vote_for_MAGA_2020 7 points ago +9 / -2

Faggots aren’t entitled to getting married

1
ufkyflflfguio 1 point ago +2 / -1

Says who?

1
vote_for_MAGA_2020 1 point ago +2 / -1

People with common sense

1
ufkyflflfguio 1 point ago +2 / -1

"Common sense" is that people can do whatever they want to do without you interfering with their lives, retarded leftist.

3
vote_for_MAGA_2020 3 points ago +3 / -0

Including faggots not forcing normal people to bake a cake they don’t want to bake, right?

0
ufkyflflfguio 0 points ago +1 / -1

Yes, retard.

Funny how, just like a leftist, you understand it perfectly well but only sometimes. When it comes to your personal religion, you lose all access to reason.

2
vote_for_MAGA_2020 2 points ago +2 / -0

Just do us all a favor and throw yourself off a bridge. Libshit infiltrators are so blatantly obvious.

... continue reading thread?
-1
TakenusernameA -1 points ago +1 / -2

God.

If you have a problem, you can take it up with Him.

2
ufkyflflfguio 2 points ago +2 / -0
  1. God never said anything on it. Only men did.

  2. If God wanted that to be the rule, he could have made it physically impossible. Yet it is physically possible.

-6
Msmcontrolsnarrative -6 points ago +3 / -9

Faggots like you think your narrow view of the world should be forced on others.

1
vote_for_MAGA_2020 1 point ago +5 / -4

Wrong. Just KYS already. You’re a miserable individual. No one will miss you.

-6
Msmcontrolsnarrative -6 points ago +2 / -8

You first, faggot

4
vote_for_MAGA_2020 4 points ago +5 / -1

Never. You libshits will never get the satisfaction.

-3
Msmcontrolsnarrative -3 points ago +1 / -4

I was MAGA long before you even thought about it.

Must really get your panties in a bunch that Trump supports gay marriage.

0
vote_for_MAGA_2020 0 points ago +1 / -1

Sounds like somebody is triggered lol 😆

... continue reading thread?
4
Kinkinnatus 4 points ago +5 / -1

Equal protection for the privilege of state-sanctioned marriage, but not for the God-given right to bear arms. That's the point you've missed or ignored.

2
ufkyflflfguio 2 points ago +3 / -1

"State-sanctioned marriage" is not a thing. The state has no authority to sanction marriages.

0
Kinkinnatus 0 points ago +1 / -1

They didn't have the authority until they took it, frankly. The government considers marriage a vested interest of theirs, and they regulate it. It's treated virtually as an entitlement. There are legal and tax benefits under the law, and the law doesn't apply to marriage not sanctioned by the state. So while it shouldn't exist, state-sanctioned marriage does exist and is even the norm. That's exactly why it's such a fucked up institution at this point, with most "marriages" failing.

-3
Msmcontrolsnarrative -3 points ago +1 / -4

We are talking about concealed carry here.

That's the point you missed.

No State ignores a citizens right to legally own a gun.

2
Kinkinnatus 2 points ago +3 / -1

We're talking about the right to bear arms, actually. There is no distinction in the Constitution, the rightful authority to which you yourself are appealing. So the point stands.

0
Msmcontrolsnarrative 0 points ago +1 / -1

No ...the title of OPs post refers to "Permit to Carry" not Right to Bear Arms.

So your point is pointless.

1
Kinkinnatus 1 point ago +1 / -0

Are you slow? The issue is reciprocity. If Alabama should have to recognize some NY fag "marriage", then NY should have to recognize an Alabama carry permit. You are completely incorrect.

0
Msmcontrolsnarrative 0 points ago +1 / -1

The right to own o gun is a Constitutional Right.

The right to conceal that gun while you carry it is not.

You don't seem to understand what a Constitutional Right is.

0
Kinkinnatus 0 points ago +1 / -1

You're just flailing at this point. The Constitution makes no distinction. And there's no difference between me not being able to conceal carry and you not being able to marry another dude. You go find where the Constitution says the right to bear arms can be infringed but not the privilege to have a fag marriage.

... continue reading thread?
1
rebuildingMyself 1 point ago +4 / -3

Yet you're probably first in line to grab guns, right?

-2
Msmcontrolsnarrative -2 points ago +3 / -5

You have the reading comprehension of a two year old.

0
BringTheCat789 0 points ago +1 / -1

Equal protection under the law only applies if it is an inherent characteristic of you, not your choice. Being gay is a choice.

This argument is exactly why they spent so long pushing the "born this way" bullshit. But now, ironically, they're saying sexuality is something you can change whenever you want.

Either way, "equal protection" doesn't cover choices you make. Otherwise it would cover if a person "chooses" to murder someone. It also doesn't cover preferences, even if you believe that preferences aren't explicit choices, otherwise it would cover if a person "prefers" to murder someone.

1
ufkyflflfguio 1 point ago +2 / -1

When did you choose to be straight?

And where does the constitution say anything about choice vs inherent? You choose to own a gun.

0
BringTheCat789 0 points ago +2 / -2

When did you choose to be straight?

Every moment of every day when I decide to not go out and suck a cock. What kind of question is this?

You choose to own a gun.

We are talking about equal protection under the law, which is guaranteed by the 14th amendment. It is completely separate from the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment guarantees you the right to own a gun, even though that is a choice. The 14th amendment guarantees equal protection under the law.

If someone were to try to argue that gun laws are unconstitutional based on the equal protections guaranteed by the fourteenth amendment by claiming that the law applies to them differently as they are a "gun owner," I would call them retarded. Gun laws are unconstitutional based on something completely separate.

Where does the constitution say anything about choice vs inherent?

That's just what "equal protection under the law" means. Those are my words to explain how it works.

If being gay is indeed a choice, a law that prohibits gay shit is not a law that only applies to gay people, just the same as a law that prohibits theft wouldn't be considered a law that only applies to thieves.

If a thief argued in court that laws against theft were unconstitutional because he, as a thief, should be guaranteed the same protections under the law as a non-thief, what would you say to him?

0
ufkyflflfguio 0 points ago +2 / -2

Every moment of every day when I decide to not go out and suck a cock. What kind of question is this?

That's not what I asked. When did you CHOOSE to be straight? When did you decide that you preferred pussy over dick?

That's just what "equal protection under the law" means. Those are my words to explain how it works.

No it doesn't, retard. You're literally pulling shit out of your ass. I mean this interpretation is worse than anything I've ever heard a leftist say.

0
BringTheCat789 0 points ago +1 / -1

When did you decide that you preferred pussy over dick?

Every moment of every day.

But I understand the point you are arguing, so let's go with it. Essentially you're saying that my preference for pussy over dick isn't a conscious choice. You're saying that a gay man can't wake up one day and say "you know what, I'm going to start liking pussy." Just the same as I can't wake up one day and say, I dunno, that I'm going to start liking a certain food or something.

It's a fair point, but let's roll with it. Let's say I concede that being gay isn't a choice, because being gay is an inherent preference.

Even still, "preferences" can't be protected under equal protections guaranteed by the 14th amendment. Think of all the laws that couldn't exist if that were the case.

Should a person who "prefers" to diddle kids, which wouldn't be a conscious choice based on your argument, be allowed to? Are they, as pedophiles, guaranteed equal protections under the law?

What about more innocuous things? I prefer the taste of raw milk over pasteurized milk. Are the laws forbidding it to be sold to me a violation of the 14th amendment, because I, as a raw milk lover, should be guaranteed equal protections under the law?

You're pulling shit out of your ass.

No, I'm not. Every law on the books would be unconstitutional if the 14th amendment applied to "preferences."

You're literally arguing that pedophilia should be constitutional if you believe the "preferences," since they are not conscious choices, should be protected under the 14th.

1
ufkyflflfguio 1 point ago +1 / -0

Every moment of every day.

Ok so what you are telling me is that you get raging boners around other men, but you just choose not to act on those boners?

Even still, "preferences" can't be protected under equal protections guaranteed by the 14th amendment. Think of all the laws that couldn't exist if that were the case.

What the fuck are you talking about? Your religion is a preference.

Should a person who "prefers" to diddle kids, which wouldn't be a conscious choice based on your argument, be allowed to? Are they, as pedophiles, guaranteed equal protections under the law?

Children are not consenting to being diddled. The basis for prosecuting pedos isn't that they have a preference that we just don't like, it's the fact that they engage in sex with people who don't or can't consent. No different than people who prefer to rape adults. The principle here is not "we get to discriminate on certain preferences." It is "people have the right to not be sexed on without their consent, and children physically cannot consent."

What about more innocuous things?

Government should have no say over such things. No victim = no crime.

Every law on the books would be unconstitutional

And the vast majority of them fucking ARE unconstitutional. The reason the left keeps winning is because "the right" fundamentally agrees with the left that government is the supreme sovereign and the people must obey.

You're literally arguing that pedophilia should be constitutional

Strictly speaking, the federal government has no authority to make such laws, but since such behavior involves a victim, the states have that authority. The purpose of the federal government is not to rule over us as a nation, it is to coordinate among the 50 sovereign states.

1
BringTheCat789 1 point ago +1 / -0

You get raging boners around other men

This becomes irrelevant since the rest of my comment addresses "preferences" even if they aren't consciously decided.

Your religion is a preference.

Sure. And your religion isn't protected under the 14th amendment. It is protected under the first.

You did the same thing with guns and I explained that guns weren't protected under the 14th, they are protected under the second.

No victim = no crime

I agree. I'm not here to argue the merits on these laws. I'm here to argue that "equal protections" isn't the argument.

Where in the 14th amendment does it talk about whether there is a victim or not?

The federal government has no authority to make such laws.

Yes, but not under the 14th amendment. That is in the tenth.

The federal government should not be involved in marriage, per the tenth amendment. But states should be permitted to ban homosexual marriage, if that is the will of the people of that state, as there is no amendment that guarantees homosexual marriage because the fourteenth amendment doesn't apply to "preferences."

... continue reading thread?
-1
deleted -1 points ago +1 / -2
0
Thundfin87 0 points ago +1 / -1

If they're producing female hormone levels of estrogen they need to stop being a bitch and start actually working, going outside, doing things. It's their body telling them to stop being a fucking pussy, they should listen to it.

0
Msmcontrolsnarrative 0 points ago +1 / -1

This fucking incel idiot doesn't have the first clue as to how the reality of biology works, does he?

Stop being a little bitch, complaining about how you think others need to live their lives.

1
Thundfin87 1 point ago +1 / -0

Show me one example of a bitch tits male that actually exercises regularly and goes outside. It's not hard not to have bitch tits, Bob.

0
Msmcontrolsnarrative 0 points ago +1 / -1

You're a fucking idiot who doesn't have the first clue as to how biology and science works.

1
Thundfin87 1 point ago +1 / -0

One of my friends in high school had bitch tits all 4 years. After high school I talked him into getting a summer Valet Attendant job. He lost the bitch tits in 2 months. Science is hard

... continue reading thread?
-1
BringTheCat789 -1 points ago +1 / -2

The fuck are you talking about? We're talking about the gays, not the trannies here.

"Sexual orientation" is about preference. And the progressives will claim that isn't a choice.

Preferences are closely related to temptations. And, since you bring up God, I think you should have a thorough understanding of what temptations are and what we are taught to do with them.

Giving in to homosexual temptations is no different than Eve taking a bite of the forbidden fruit.

I have no idea why you decided to bring up people switching sexes or whatever. And I resent your idea that fringe edge cases with actual, objective, scientific backing are anything close to the "norm" or any sort of reason why we should accept people who aren't affected by these conditions to "change their gender" at will.

Furthermore, if a person has a hormonal imbalance that causes a man to grow breasts... they are still a man. It would make sense if that person claimed that is how God made them and kept the breasts. Or it would make sense if they treated it like a disease and sought medical treatment to get their hormones back in check. But what doesn't make sense is deciding the breasts mean you're a woman, then chopping your dick off.

0
Msmcontrolsnarrative 0 points ago +1 / -1

So hard for you to break free of your simplistic view that it is only a penis which makes an individual a male, isn't it?

Then how do you decide regarding hermaphrodites?

I'll tell you how.....your argument then (for people who are born with both a penis and vagina) is that they know whether they are male or female (by nature) because of how they feel on the inside. That feeling is determined by their respective levels of female hormones vs male hormones.

So it's not just a genital appendage which determines a person's nature, is it?

-1
BringTheCat789 -1 points ago +1 / -2

I'm certain you're just copy-pasting this shit from somewhere to troll because that doesn't respond to anything I said.

-2
viking65 -2 points ago +3 / -5

They also have the same right as anyone else. No one is stopping them from getting married to a woman. It's their right to marry, as a man and a woman.

They have the same rights as anyone else. But they don't have extra rights.

1
ufkyflflfguio 1 point ago +2 / -1

Where does the constitution say that?