5511
Comments (344)
sorted by:
555
sustainable_saltmine 555 points ago +556 / -1

Hint, hint state governors with endless "Emergency Powers". the laws you are using to wield your dictatorship are illegal

245
deleted 245 points ago +245 / -0
92
endthefed11 92 points ago +92 / -0

Preach it!

96
IncredibleMrE1 96 points ago +97 / -1

Sorry, can you yell it louder? I'm trapped behind enemy lines, surrounded by screeching Branch Covidians. :(

27
lanre 27 points ago +28 / -1

Just start being a preacher. I say all kinds of "crazy" stuff now because I stopped giving a fuck, and you'd be surprised how quickly it snaps some people out of their daze. Sure, there are true believers that will never change, but most people have only heard the opinions spouted in the MSM, and once they hear something different they start thinking for themselves.

18
deleted 18 points ago +18 / -0
14
deleted 14 points ago +14 / -0
33
deleted 33 points ago +33 / -0
20
AmericanJawa 20 points ago +20 / -0

LAW OF THE LAND!

6
IntersectionalXhe 6 points ago +6 / -0

This is the biggest misconception of all. The second amendment doesn’t give you the right to bear arms, it expressly forbids the government from infringing on your NATURAL right to do so. Thereby, any gun law is a constitutional violation.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
8
Usernameicanrecall 8 points ago +8 / -0

Nice username

6
deleted 6 points ago +6 / -0
4
deleted 4 points ago +4 / -0
110
Modus_Pwninz 110 points ago +110 / -0

reeee, masks help prevent the spread of disease among non-disease carriers. stop denying science, bigot

47
KekistanPM 47 points ago +47 / -0

I read two articles in as many days basically titled "Good news everyone! Some institution prevented a major outbreak of covid by using science!"

Both articles assumed there would actually be an outbreak, and that dozens or hundreds of lives would be saved. It doesn't matter though -- they got what they wanted: Ad revenue and a forum for Karens to whine about people who don't wear masks and to whine about the president doing a bad job while giving governors and mayors and the CDC a free pass.

-10
Modus_Pwninz -10 points ago +34 / -44

Point taken, but do remember: "Karen" is an anti-white slur. Always do thought experiments - what if a black lady acted all bitchy and you called her "Shaniqua"? Your life would be over.

"Karen" is a way to spread hate against white women. Don't use their language!

66
sometimescanbefunny 66 points ago +71 / -5

Karen has nothing to do with race. It's about the behavior. Don't let the left appropriate that. Kinda like how straight people can act like faggots. It's about the behaviors of the person.

43
Scroon 43 points ago +44 / -1

Wait...you mean you're judging people by their behavior and not by the color of their skin? How does that work?

/s

14
WhoMurderedSethRich 14 points ago +14 / -0

Yup, what a concept.

17
RiffFantastic 17 points ago +17 / -0

Hey Shaniqua, What about Becky? That was definitely a slur against white women and still is. As in Becky with the good hair. BBQ Becky. Omg Becky look at her butt.

6
sub-collector 6 points ago +6 / -0

I had a GF once named Becky... She was nice and would've made a great wife.

3
VetforTrump 3 points ago +3 / -0

Think I found her.

3
WhoDecidedThat 3 points ago +4 / -1

Becky is the ‘slur‘ gay guys use for annoying straight girls who need to ruin everything by going places they are tolerated but not welcome to and abusing any semblance of welcome by being obnoxious. It’s both funny and great to see the straights finally catch up to us, though I find it funny they settled on Karen.

6
deleted 6 points ago +6 / -0
-5
Modus_Pwninz -5 points ago +13 / -18

If it was JUST the behavior, it wouldn't be a traditionally white name.

I agree; it's the behavior...but for them, it's more about the race IMO. They don't call black bitches "karen"...for a reason.

15
sometimescanbefunny 15 points ago +17 / -2

I disagree - everyone I know uses Karen for any woman (and most cases of dudes acting like a Karen). To answer that first comment, though, I will use Shaniqua or Boqueesha or simply hoodrat... my life hasn't been cancelled yet.

11
Dr0neRec0very 11 points ago +13 / -2

There are definately black Karens... of both genders.

8
Modus_Pwninz 8 points ago +13 / -5

Yes, and they should be called SHANIQUA'S! Fair is fair!

1
sub-collector 1 point ago +1 / -0

What about LaKiesha?

-1
Dr0neRec0very -1 points ago +4 / -5

Look! There's a Karen down-voting your comment right now! xD Wasn't me! Also, the male one's should all be called Spez if you don't want to just call them Karen.

3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
0
Modus_Pwninz 0 points ago +4 / -4

Meh, let 'em downvote. They simply don't understand leftist tactics.

8
idshukhov 8 points ago +8 / -0

It might have started on the left as a bit of racist slur against white women. If they were being honest though its their own base of Hillary / Warren supporters that make up the most famous "Karens". Its definitely more useful for us to call out this behavior.

7
Dr0neRec0very 7 points ago +8 / -1

"Don't use their language!" CO-OPT their language and immediately use it against them!

6
deleted 6 points ago +6 / -0
5
ShrikeDeCil 5 points ago +5 / -0

The Karenwaffen is every single person on the European Political Axis from "Use Companies to Control People" to "Just Control People Directly."

The Karens love the control.

The Karens are precisely the 4% of Republicans that are more twitterpated by their loss of control of the Party and "The Tone" than they are fighting for Freedom.

Trump fundamentally drove off the usual political axis.

16
BrownRugs 16 points ago +16 / -0

See this really gets me because my school district is sTrICtlY eNfOrCinG but they’ve also allegedly had 7 cases.

25
Modus_Pwninz 25 points ago +26 / -1

It's bullshittery.

I had to wear a mask this past week for the first time and it was EMBARASSING, despite everyone else doing it too. It's just SO FUCKING DUMB.

I had to fly for the first time in 9 months (they won't even let you approach an aircraft without a mask) and I had to work on a site where our customer required it, so I wore an American flag neck gaiter thing the entire time...Couldn't find a Trump mask; but I saw one guy in the airport with a MAGA mask and KAG hat and gave him the thumbs up!

Anyway yeah, it's a joke and as soon as I landed at my home destination I took my mask off and they were like "Sir, mask!" and I said "Or what, you'll kick me off the flight?" and that was pretty lulzy. I may now be banned from United, who knows.

14
420MAGA 14 points ago +14 / -0

I just keep a bottle of water nearby as a prop. I'm drinking water, fuck off Karen

19
Modus_Pwninz 19 points ago +19 / -0

I also did a lot of this. I went and bought drinks (large size) with straws every stop, and then just sat there with my mask off while drinking.

It's still amazing how many people look at you like you're the weirdo for not having a mask on. I used to fly monthly/bi-weekly and if I saw someone with a mask a year ago, THEY were the fucking weirdo.

10
IncredibleMrE1 10 points ago +10 / -0

Tangentially related, pretty much every bank requires you to put on a mask before coming in.

HONK HONK

10
Modus_Pwninz 10 points ago +10 / -0

Lmao, a couple years ago I entered a bank with sunglasses on and they threw a fucking fit.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
8
endthefed11 8 points ago +8 / -0

A nearby water bottle is an excellent Karen deterrent.

3
nutup_orshutup 3 points ago +3 / -0

Our state EO has several exceptions. No one is allowed to ask what your exception is since many are medically related. You could play that one 9 ways to Sunday but since I conceal carry everywhere, my personal favorite exception is the one for operating equipment.

13
deleted 13 points ago +13 / -0
16
Modus_Pwninz 16 points ago +16 / -0

People driving alone in their car wearing a mask - that is my #1 "holy shit this person is a fucking automaton" criteria. As soon as I see that, it's like screaming out you have downs syndrome but are far dumber.

12
deleted 12 points ago +12 / -0
1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
9
DontBreadOnMe 9 points ago +9 / -0

My favorites are the ones that wear the disposable gloves but then also touch their phone.

7
Modus_Pwninz 7 points ago +7 / -0

Not understanding cross-contamination has been the #1 contributor to covid, and the "experts" love and know it.

3
TruthyBrat 3 points ago +3 / -0

I Wear My Face Mask in the Car

To the tune of I Wear Sunglasses at Night.

2
FliesTheFlag 2 points ago +2 / -0

This one always cracks me up and I make sure to try and make eye contact with them and laugh.

3
Sumarongi 3 points ago +3 / -0

I honk honk at them, and then flip them off

4
deleted 4 points ago +4 / -0
5
Dr0neRec0very 5 points ago +6 / -1

I've done everything I can to avoid putting on the coward's mask. I work independently. I haven't needed to put on one of those things yet. I came close when a shipment got held up at the post office, but I still didn't need to put one on. Protesting the mask is THE most important protest anyone could carry on today, because it's a broad-sweeping and very personal attack on human rights. As you can see, the mask nazis are pleased to give up your rights for you: "It's just a mask! PUT ON YOUR MASK!!!" Nope! If you don't control your own face, you control nothing. They can do ANYTHING they want to you after that.

7
Modus_Pwninz 7 points ago +7 / -0

Agreed. I didn't do it this past week to selfishly keep my job; I did it because i like my job and didn't want to put my boss in a bad place. He also thinks it is absolute bullshit, but said it's a must; because it's a new customer and we're trying to make a good impression or whatever,. We're trying to gain business, not make statements. So, I did what I had to do.

That said, I'm home now. No more mask. I went in to pick up my truck from getting work done (fucking HAIL!) and didn't wear a mask and no one said shit, and it was all good. If they had, I'd have told them to eat my cock with extra mayo. Granted, I live in rural America, but...I'd still have done it if I didn't. I am so sick of these fucking tyrants and their little flunkies.

3
Dr0neRec0very 3 points ago +4 / -1

Glad you're pushing back. Thank you.

2
Dr0neRec0very 2 points ago +3 / -1

Ah, man, I totally understand. Every time a job is lost or a shop closes up, the degenerate Marxist fucks win a little.

1
FliesTheFlag 1 point ago +1 / -0

Drive Thrus that ask for you to be wearing one are hilarious to. No one does where I am except the Karens and I am in a shitblue county. One guy thats been working one of them for a few years recognizes me, im like I need to put this fucking thing on, nope just give me your money.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
14
Dr0neRec0very 14 points ago +15 / -1

The masks do two things and neither of them are preventing the spread of a virus:

-The masks serve as a constantly-present protest banner, used to remind the normies that something is wrong during mean orange man's presidency.

-The masks give users an entirely FALSE sense of security, INCREASING the spread of a virus through the resulting behavior (please see: "three months of record-breaking [protests]" for more information).

3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
32
TrudopesEyebrow 32 points ago +32 / -0

..edicts, decrees and executive orders, that go against the Constitution are NULL AND VOID.

These police officers need to get this fucking memo

20
deleted 20 points ago +20 / -0
11
DNC_Ballot_QATeam 11 points ago +11 / -0

Don't vote for a politician that will appoint a Tranny Health Director.

7
Nomoralcompass89 7 points ago +7 / -0

We can take it a step farther. Don't be neighbors with people that will vote for a politician that will appoint a tranny health director.

6
DNC_Ballot_QATeam 6 points ago +6 / -0

I just put a huge Trump flag up to prevent them from buying. I don't move because of leftist.

4
deleted 4 points ago +4 / -0
2
ConservConsciousness 2 points ago +2 / -0

So what can be done? How do we protect our constitutional rights?

11
unable_afternoon 11 points ago +11 / -0

If they can do it in broad daylight and never face even an attempt at repercussions then “illegal” is just a mere verbalism.

5
Chelsea_hubbell 5 points ago +5 / -0

And if you break one of these illegal laws, they are still going to charge you. The average Joe doesn’t have the money or time to fight this shit. They know what they’re doing, it’s calculated beyond measure.

182
badorangeman 182 points ago +182 / -0

Shall not be infringed!

62
NomadicKrow 62 points ago +62 / -0

The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed!

50
Modus_Pwninz 50 points ago +50 / -0

Didn't you notice the asterick where it says "Unless muh safety and feels"?

11
RedditIs4Retards 11 points ago +12 / -1

So what if you get arrested for "illegally" possessing guns?

Serious question...

5
NomadicKrow 5 points ago +5 / -0

Fight it in court. Most of these people don't have the money to battle a government agency, though.

4
NormaJeanRocks 4 points ago +8 / -4

You would be breaking the law for the reason you aren't allowed to possess them. Valid

4
deleted 4 points ago +4 / -0
3
NormaJeanRocks 3 points ago +3 / -0

Nope, have no idea about that and is bullshit, why? I was meaning felons, and even that is a stretch sometimes, but I do believe some people should never be allowed to touch a gun, depends.

1
Desert_Covfefe 1 point ago +1 / -0

If we hung felons (after a fair trial of their peers), we wouldn't have to mull over which rights to restrict.

164
MythArcana 164 points ago +164 / -0

Welp, there goes half of California's laws.

75
PleaseHonk 75 points ago +75 / -0

Half of John Roberts rulings too.

OPEN OUR CHURCHES

12
Tallsie 12 points ago +12 / -0

Open them ourselves!

2
SkyEater2 2 points ago +2 / -0

Get yourself some bolt cutters.

23
7_17_24 23 points ago +23 / -0

Unfortunately, they never seem to get fought in court.

3
DivvyDivet 3 points ago +3 / -0

The only way it gets fought in court is mass public non-compliance and then fighting the charges at risko of jail.

Civil disobedience could work with enough people willing to risk their freedom and some great lawyers willing to work for little to nothing.

Or it could start snowing in San Diego and we could build a snowman or a big igloo.

4
deleted 4 points ago +4 / -0
125
Toughsky_Shitsky 125 points ago +127 / -2

Open our country!

64
Modus_Pwninz 64 points ago +64 / -0

Open carry in our country

34
itsokaytobereggie 34 points ago +34 / -0

Open carry in our open country

16
Mr_Clit_Beastwood 16 points ago +16 / -0

If you can lift it, you can carry it. (Howitzer Cannons for the stronger patriots)

6
EndOfTyranny 6 points ago +6 / -0

National Cannon Association needs to happen.

2
AmericanJawa 2 points ago +2 / -0

What is a cannon if not a giant rifle?

6
Modus_Pwninz 6 points ago +6 / -0

Also, love your name, fellow Ruski bot!

114
GreyKnight 114 points ago +114 / -0

Our Constitution is currently Swiss cheese. It is basically illegal to have a communist party or any law that violates the constitution, yet here we are.

5
deleted 5 points ago +7 / -2
13
deleted 13 points ago +14 / -1
4
deleted 4 points ago +4 / -0
2
dingocaloocan 2 points ago +3 / -1

In america you are free to do what you want, except subvert the foundation of the nation. Hence, it's ok to burn any flag you want but an american one, because nowhere else would you have this freedom

0
ivan_iii_of_russia 0 points ago +1 / -1

Even speech we disagree with is free speech; don't be a hypocrite.

Censorship is for leftists, not for freedom-loving Americans. When you censor people, you only make their movement stronger and give them justification for claiming to be oppressed.

Let's attack communism and socialism using different, more convincing, more consistent, and frankly more moral means. Trust me, giving up free speech won't convince more people to become red-pilled. Only by red-pilling a vast majority of the population can we defeat communism and socialism.

Instead of becoming like big-tech, let's be reasonable people who point out the many problems with socialism and communism while showing that our side is the side of reason and free speech. If our side gives up free speech, nobody will be left who will defend it, surely turning the debate of ideas into "whoever is in power tells people what they can and can't say".

5
GreyKnight 5 points ago +5 / -0

Communism and socialist are not so much a system of government as they are an insidious means of creating a sociopolitical climate in which advocates see the only means of resolving the situation is the dissolution. Socialist or Communist acting under any assumed party name do not seem to have the protections of the Constitution. We are currently in a situation where either of the three following could be used.

  1. Communist Control Act

§842. Proscription of Communist Party, its successors, and subsidiary organizations

The Communist Party of the United States, or any successors of such party regardless of the assumed name, whose object or purpose is to overthrow the Government of the United States, or the government of any State, Territory, District, or possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein by force and violence, are not entitled to any of the rights, privileges, and immunities attendant upon legal bodies created under the jurisdiction of the laws of the United States or any political subdivision thereof; and whatever rights, privileges, and immunities which have heretofore been granted to said party or any subsidiary organization by reason of the laws of the United States or any political subdivision thereof, are terminated: Provided, however, That nothing in this section shall be construed as amending the Internal Security Act of 1950, as amended [50 U.S.C. 781 et seq.]

(Aug. 24, 1954, ch. 886, §3, 68 Stat. 776 .) https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title50-section842&num=0&edition=prelim

  1. The Hatch Act, because communism/socialism operates essentially like a criminal organization, this was meant to prevent rank and file employees from using their positional power to influence elections. CNN likes to cite the act incorrectly, attributing it to appointees which are not rank and file. We have seen numerous charges laid against individuals who are cannot endorse candidates, and are working for the government towards an end to affect the election. The specific part;

§1502. Influencing elections; taking part in political campaigns; prohibitions; exceptions

(a) A State or local officer or employee may not—

(1) use his official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election or a nomination for office;

(2) directly or indirectly coerce, attempt to coerce, command, or advise a State or local officer or employee to pay, lend, or contribute anything of value to a party, committee, organization, agency, or person for political purposes; or

(3) if the salary of the employee is paid completely, directly or indirectly, by loans or grants made by the United States or a Federal agency, be a candidate for elective office.

(b) A State or local officer or employee retains the right to vote as he chooses and to express his opinions on political subjects and candidates.

(c) Subsection (a)(3) of this section does not apply to—

(1) the Governor or Lieutenant Governor of a State or an individual authorized by law to act as Governor;

(2) the mayor of a city;

(3) a duly elected head of an executive department of a State, municipality, or the District of Columbia who is not classified under a State, municipal, or the District of Columbia merit or civil-service system; or

(4) an individual holding elective office.

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/[email protected]/part2/chapter15&edition=prelim

  1. The Insurrection Act is pretty straight forward.

§251. Federal aid for State governments

Whenever there is an insurrection in any State against its government, the President may, upon the request of its legislature or of its governor if the legislature cannot be convened, call into Federal service such of the militia of the other States, in the number requested by that State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to suppress the insurrection.

(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 15, §331; renumbered §251, Pub. L. 114–328, div. A, title XII, §1241(a)(2), Dec. 23, 2016, 130 Stat. 2497.)

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/[email protected]/subtitleA/part1/chapter13&edition=prelim

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
4
Sum_devil 4 points ago +4 / -0

There’s free speech for them, not for us. We get fact checked, or banned, or shadow banned.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
65
Drew 65 points ago +65 / -0

The problem is that they are brazen enough to mandate unconstitutional “laws” anyway. Then fine and/or arrest you. And basically bully you in general. What is your recourse? To sue the state months or years later? They don’t care.

-13
phil_d_snutz -13 points ago +5 / -18

I’ll probably get voted down, but this is the one reason why I kinda agree with the rioting going on now.

22
Seenev 22 points ago +22 / -0

Why? They are rioting because they want to. Not because any injustice has been done to them.

4
phil_d_snutz 4 points ago +10 / -6

I think most of them are rioting because they’re idiots who just want to cause mayhem and get free stuff, but there’s probably also a small minority who are doing it because of unjust laws.

3
Detective51 3 points ago +3 / -0

Which unjust laws?

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

I don’t know. You’ll have to ask the rioters.

3
philandy 3 points ago +3 / -0

They've been asked. The answer was Rolex bread.

1
IntergalacticWalrus 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yeah I won’t downvote you. I want to hear this perspective.

1
Jeffersonian_Man 1 point ago +1 / -0

I'm fine with the rioting as it brings us closer to the collapse. They're just idiots though.

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

I only like the rioting because they're destroying already shit cities

44
hashtag6zer0s 44 points ago +44 / -0

State emergency powers, all gun control legislation — REPUGNANT TO THE CONSTITUTION!!!! ILLEGAL!!

17
Notablitheringidiot 17 points ago +17 / -0

I’m pretty sure diversity quotas run contrary to “freedom of association” as well.

Should be allowed to hire whoever you want

2
momspaghetti 2 points ago +2 / -0

It really irks me how many infringements we have on our 2a rights.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
41
5minutes2midnight 41 points ago +43 / -2

...🤔main reason Trump told the governors they could handle their own state decisions on the Covid 19 was to expose which governors were not Constitution based I believe.

33
KekistanPM 33 points ago +33 / -0

I don't think it was 4D chess to expose them; I think he really expected the states and cities to handle their own issues as he offered his help to remove barriers. It's not for the president to micromanage all fifty states; that's an impossible task. I don't understand how people can think a president, even GEOTUS, can do that.

8
Afeazo 8 points ago +8 / -0

I think it was simply just to expose how shit our political system is. Why the fuck does the POTUS need to step in when something is happening in a random city in this country? Where is the mayor? The governor? State senators and house reps?

The fact that Trump is being blamed for situation on a city scale shows me just how incompetent all those politicians are. I do not think the left realizes that by criticizing Trump for these things, they are saying that every single level of government below Trump has failed spectacularly.

In my opinion the federal government should only manage the military and a couple other national services, there is absolutely zero reason for the POTUS to be as powerful as he is. Why does a guy in DC have influence over what happens thousands of miles away? Why don't we give these powers back to states and counties? If there are people who want UBI and taxpayer funded healthcare and illegal immigrants, let them. Fuck it, this is America, if you want to be retarded and destroy your own community you should learn your lesson the hard way without forcing it onto 330 million other people.

1
Jeffersonian_Man 1 point ago +1 / -0

Why can't we have communist, fascist, libertarian, etc states all under America? Let people be governed how they want. Leave it to the states. Federal should be military and few other things, you're correct.

7
ProdigalPlaneswalker 7 points ago +7 / -0

I don't understand

Leftists: muh dictatah propaganda

Patriots: Gawd Emperah hype (I sometimes get caught up in this)

We have to realize that President Trump is still human, even if his opponents are not.

6
Scroon 6 points ago +6 / -0

Whether or not it was 4D chess (it was), the situation still revealed the politicians who would happily run counter to the Constitution and those who would uphold it.

6
deleted 6 points ago +6 / -0
30
TexSolo 30 points ago +30 / -0

The Constitution doesn't exist to the radical left. That's why they are working so hard at unconstitutional actions, if there are no consequences to being unconstitutional, it's unnecessary and easier to throw away, change and start over with a socialist platform.

16
KekistanPM 16 points ago +16 / -0

"I don't need the Constitution. I'm a wise Latina. I'm wiser than all of our founding fathers plus Thomas Sowell put together."

7
TexSolo 7 points ago +7 / -0

AOC is that you?

9
DrGEOTUS 9 points ago +9 / -0

Nah, more like a certain fat diabetic that is helping pull a Weekend at Bernies with RBG's corpse.

7
Seenev 7 points ago +7 / -0

Sotomayor?

2
Everquest4Life 2 points ago +2 / -0

So laughably unqualified. What a joke!

Obama was the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.

8
deleted 8 points ago +8 / -0
2
thuggishruggishtrump 2 points ago +2 / -0

ItS oUtDaTeD

30
TheOutlawPepeWales 30 points ago +30 / -0

Only the brave can be free. The meekly obedient will ever only be slaves.

24
KekistanPM 24 points ago +24 / -0

I used to think the answer was "Well lets follow the law until the Supreme Court saves the day by formally declaring it unconstitutional."

Not anymore.

6
deleted 6 points ago +6 / -0
3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
22
deleted 22 points ago +22 / -0
9
deleted 9 points ago +9 / -0
7
anon1011101 7 points ago +7 / -0

I'm in MA. send help. I can't even possess ammunition without a license.

5
The_Almighty_Kek 5 points ago +5 / -0

That's insane. I just walked into a store the other day and bought a nice big box of boom boom capsules without even showing ID.

21
eupraxia128 21 points ago +21 / -0

Also, The Constitution was written to be understood in plain English.

If a lawyer or a judge says Shall NOT Be Infringed, means something else, that person is a clown.

4
CastleBravo 4 points ago +4 / -0

Imagine an 18 year old knowing what the word "infringed" means, but after a university education they are no longer sure of the meaning b/c it's "complicated".

19
Modus_Pwninz 19 points ago +19 / -0

The left would argue the definition of "repugnant" to the point where "repugnant" means "agrees with".

it's part of newspeak - redefine words. Have you noticed that anyone who isn't an overt Marxist is "a Nazi"? Not an accident!

12
KekistanPM 12 points ago +12 / -0

I triggered a leftist pretty hard once without even trying in a chat room. They were saying something about Nazis causing some problem somewhere in the city, and I replied that the Nazi party was disbanded after WW2. They responded with "NEO-NAZI!" and posted a Wikipedia link to "neo-nazi" in chat, followed by a rant about how they're everywhere.

I've only lived here a few years but I don't remember seeing any neo-nazi parades, neo-nazi gangs causing havoc downtown, nazi flags on any signs or houses, or anyone giving nazi salutes anywhere.

17
20MagnusKonrad20 17 points ago +17 / -0

Trump 2020 will herald the coming of a new wave of constitutionalism, mark my words.

4
deleted 4 points ago +4 / -0
16
0nDaFence 16 points ago +16 / -0

And the constitution and Bill of Rights is there to protect AGAINST the governments infringement on un-alienable, god given rights. It does not grant rights. It protects those rights.

14
patslimmy1 14 points ago +15 / -1

looks like a weiner

9
rob0Pede 9 points ago +9 / -0

Maybe you should go to the doctor...

6
patslimmy1 6 points ago +6 / -0

the weiner doctor?

13
AlohaChris 13 points ago +13 / -0

The entire NFA and GCA are unconstitutional on their face.

You know it, I know it, everyone knows it, yet the ATF still exists, and men are rotting in prison for violating these “laws of the land”.

There’s no way to force the Supreme Court to hear a case they chose not to hear, so the infringement goes on, unchecked.

9
sometimescanbefunny 9 points ago +9 / -0

Violent revolution is made inevitable because they make peaceful revolution impossible. Note here that revolution means simply returning to the legal law of the land and a return to freedom. What a crazy thought.

12
D_Plainview 12 points ago +12 / -0

Too bad SCOTUS refuse to read the constitution

5
deleted 5 points ago +5 / -0
11
OGTD1 11 points ago +11 / -0

All gun laws are unconstitutional.

11
Sodium_miner 11 points ago +11 / -0

I’ve been saying for years there are thousands of laws that are void. Try making that argument in court and see how that holds up.

10
GodEmperor 10 points ago +10 / -0

"The price of Liberty is everlasting vigilance."

10
Axegrinder 10 points ago +10 / -0

Now if we can get some republican lawyers to get off their asses and start suing we will be doing something. The gym owner in New Jersey should be first in line.

10
ridleybourne 10 points ago +10 / -0

I don’t think many legislators have been legislating accordingly. Repugnancy levels: all time high.

10
Stonesolo 10 points ago +10 / -0

Why are the Democrats above the law...just tell me why!

7
ProdigalPlaneswalker 7 points ago +7 / -0

Evil triumphs when good men do nothing.

10
2016TrumpMAGA 10 points ago +10 / -0

"Fuck the Constitution." Earl Warren, Warren Berger, John Roberts.

9
GulagDweller 9 points ago +9 / -0

We have us a "SHITLOAD" of repugnant unconstitutional laws and even more repugnant lawmakers.

9
WakingKnowledge 9 points ago +9 / -0

So all guns laws in America are null and void and never were if they infringe on your right to bear arms.

9
TrailerTrashKilla 9 points ago +9 / -0

Thats why bears should not eat Mexican food.

2
meals23 2 points ago +2 / -0

hehe i get it

bear eat taco go pffft

9
JehovahJoestar 9 points ago +9 / -0

2nd Amendment anyone?

8
Sesquame 8 points ago +8 / -0

Nowadays we don't even get as far as statutes passed by legislators, instead we are slaves to executive decree or worse, judicial decree.

7
Shalomtoyou 7 points ago +7 / -0

A lot of our problems are stemming from bad decisions by the supreme court.

7
hk7335 7 points ago +7 / -0

It's true, but sadly the only way that the end-runs around the Constitution known as "codes" and "statutes" created by lawyers and politicians will ever be nullified is when police actually know the basis of the laws they are enforcing. They need the knowledge and support to be able to refuse to enforce unlawful policies. I support and respect police, and understand the very real need for them, but it seems that due to corruption and lack of training in actual law they have been rendered almost equivalent to mob enforcers. A lot of sheriffs seem to get it, as many stated they would not enforce mask edicts. It would be nice if LEOs got back to being Peacekeepers, instead of "policy enforcers" for tyrants. A good start would be to make police chiefs elected, like Sheriffs instead of appointed by mayors. That way they would be working for us.

3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
7
magabirdlady 7 points ago +7 / -0

Thanks for posting OP. Can't ever go wrong with the Constitution.

6
SemperFree 6 points ago +6 / -0

All laws restricting 2a are null and void

2
lucasmcducas 2 points ago +2 / -0

all the way up to a rocket launcher?

2
SemperFree 2 points ago +2 / -0

Yes, tank even.

6
deleted 6 points ago +6 / -0
2
Red_Turtle 2 points ago +2 / -0

Michigan failed in its lawsuit. The court decided that the State Constitution beat out any claim of violation of THE Constitution. They also claimed some out of date law from WWII or something somehow grants Whitmer the right to emergency powers to violate the Constitution under the (BS) claim of public necessity. I'm glad two states managed to gain their freedom back. This just highlighted how corrupt Michigan courts are.

The prostate story backs up why I refuse to go to a doctor unless I NEED to. I'm female and the medical profession has been forcing pelvic and pap exams on women for decades. They do virtually nothing, if not nothing, for asymptomatic individuals, yet we're bullied, coerced, and blackmailed into submitting (they won't give us treatment/meds for our REAL problems unless we submit). I'd never heard of a patient (male or female) being physically attacked like that. I hope he sued for more than just machismo violation, include rape in there too because that's what it was. They don't get a different term for it just because it was medical professionals who did it, it wasn't just "forced medical examination" either.

3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
5
SoYuge 5 points ago +5 / -0

This goes for all gun restrictions too.

There is no logical way to read "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" to mean "Well that's an okay infringement". It simply isn't how logic works.

You can argue it's a bad amendment and try to change it, that's at least an argument. But saying it means infringements are okay isn't.

5
4more 5 points ago +5 / -0

Seems so simple. Forward this to John Roberts.

4
CaptainChrisPBacon 4 points ago +4 / -0

This ☝

5
deleted 5 points ago +5 / -0
5
deleted 5 points ago +5 / -0
5
deleted 5 points ago +5 / -0
1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
3
Moviefone_Kramer 3 points ago +3 / -0

This is so good. Notice Reagan said the feds should be protecting peoples constitutional rights. It's a shame the feds have never been actually used to come in and enforce constitutional rights like the 2nd.

2
x-irradiance 2 points ago +2 / -0

Great interview! It’s a weird artefact of human society and economics that the answer is almost invariably ‘free markets’, but that notion can always be attacked by asking for specifics about how that might work, for that is unknowable, so the answer must come down to ‘I don’t know, it just works’. Whereas, someone proposing regulatory measures can always claim superior understanding because they only need to explain how their measure works in the limited context of their system of rules.

5
Blurpy 5 points ago +5 / -0

Delicious. Everyone needs to knows this, because they aren't teaching it in the Indoctrination Centers, er, uh, I mean schools.

5
yallsegregationist 5 points ago +5 / -0

somebody tell the mask nazis

4
lixa 4 points ago +4 / -0

I only wish the founding fathers had been a little more specific, like overly redundant with our 2nd Amendment.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
4
ds420 4 points ago +4 / -0

Repugnant = Democrat party!

4
PropagandaWizard1984 4 points ago +4 / -0

90% of people I explain this too make a sour face and say "But Blah Blah Blah!"

NO! FUCK YOUR "BLAH BLAH BLAH"! US Constitution is the most basic and supreme law of AMERICA! FULL STOP, FUCK COMMIES!

4
_Cabal_ 4 points ago +4 / -0

All anti-2a 'laws' BTFO

4
Nainya 4 points ago +4 / -0

Shall not be infringed?

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
4
Sup_squidy 4 points ago +4 / -0

Marbury vs. Madison exists: NY: "I'm going to pretend I didn't see that"

4
SanFranShitty 4 points ago +4 / -0

Hey this means that my right to bear arms “shall not be infringed”. God I hate the left!

4
NorCal2Ayyy 4 points ago +4 / -0

Shall not be infringed!