2
marishiten 2 points ago +2 / -0

We have UNREASONABLE gun safety laws now. You know what stops gun violence? More guns. That's it. You're going to be less apt to fuck with me if you don't know if I'm armed. It's that simple. If you want to shoot up a grocery store, the odds of someone in there being armed and can react to killing you is high. This will create a deterrent.

We have background checks. The fuck do you think the clerk does when he picks up the fucking phone when you're buying a gun? Calling his girlfriend? He's calling the ATF and doing a background check on you.

"People who will have been found to be a danger to themselves and others should not be able to purchase a gun."

This is what she REALLY wants. Look at how that's worded. These faggots are lawyers and they all use the same bullshit lingo and lawyers are usually very specific. This comment is NOT specific. This literally means "if we feel like it, we'll just make sure you don't get to have a gun". The fuck does "Danger to themselves or others" mean? If I threaten to kick your ass online, that would mean I'm a danger to others. This kind of latitude is INSANE.

We have UNCONSTITUTIONAL gun laws already. Gun laws, by themselves are unconstitutional if we want to get technical. Laws DONT WORK. Because CRIMINALS DONT CARE ABOUT LAWS.

2
marishiten 2 points ago +2 / -0

LUL.

We have "Assault Weapons" (The fuck is an assault weapon. A weapon, by definition is designed to assault) Kuntmala isn't to protect us against eachother, you stupid bitch. It's to put fear into YOU. So you leave us the fuck ALONE.

That's why. The Second Amendment is designed as a check against a tyrannical government that oversteps its bounds. It's mutually assured destruction. It's not hard to figure out.

The government should fear it's people. That's what is supposed to keep them honest. They take advantage of our patience and goodwill. But those eventually run dry and it'll be tapped out if any gun control law is passed or an EO is pushed through. You will see people in the streets in every city armed with "assault weapons".

Also notice how they're not saying "Assault Rifles" anymore? Now it's "Assault Weapons"? They're looking to make a move on ALL firearms.

1
marishiten 1 point ago +1 / -0

Cocaine isn't nearly as huge of a problem anymore. It's like Biden thinks it's 1981 instead of 2021.

Fent comes from China. Meth comes from Mexico. Don't fucking worry about Columbia. Just because Biden's Son is a piece of shit and smokes crack doesn't mean everyone does. Hunter is just a druggie fucking loser and he'd be a loser with/without crack.

4
marishiten 4 points ago +4 / -0

It might be sooner than you think if they're going to try to follow though on the gun bans/confiscations.

That's a line in the sand for millions of Americans

2
marishiten 2 points ago +2 / -0

Shit, the people at the capitol on the 6th don't even get bail.

ANTIFA/BLM burns cities down and they're out in 4 hours.

1
marishiten 1 point ago +1 / -0

That's not entirely true.

Dictators repress because that's how they exert their control. When you have full control, the only way to reinforce that control is to use it to it's fullest extent. Dictators would never let people just "live". Scared or not.

I get what you're saying though.

4
marishiten 4 points ago +4 / -0

He can't. You can't prosecute a sitting US President. For anything.

You have to impeach him first and strip his qualified immunity away to be able to prosecute him.

It's why liberals said that Trump became President because he was going to be arrested or something.

3
marishiten 3 points ago +3 / -0

No they're not.

Go back to TGA.

Not everything is a psyop.

They're pushing to take away guns. Because that's the lynchpin in it all. Without the second amendment, you cannot defend your first fourth or ninth.

If it came down between guns and election fraud on which is the bigger issue? It's fucking guns.

Understand?

4
marishiten 4 points ago +4 / -0

Idaho is already done.

We're literally overflowing with faggots from California selling their double wide trailers for 400k and moving to Idaho and building a house in the suburbs, destroying our farmland and subverting our cities.

Boise has a Democrat for a Mayor now, thanks to California pieces of shit.

2
marishiten 2 points ago +2 / -0

No, I'm pretty sure a dude that gang rapes an innocent woman who they had to drug and then later died from the rape that likely lasted HOURS is a fucking monster.

I'm pretty fucking sure that's the definition of a monster.

Look. If you steal from an employer, do some credit card fraud, maybe some assault, some drug possession/busts, I could understand defending someone and saying they're not a monster, because they're probably not.

But a guy that gang rapes a woman to DEATH? That's a monster. 100%. Fuck dude, even if she didn't die, he'd be a monster. You don't drug a woman, then take turns raping her in a hotel. That's straight up monster shit.

by Clabber
1
marishiten 1 point ago +1 / -0

She's already in charge. He's so fucking weak willed and brained he can't even deal with a little backlash on his own shitty policies and he can't defend them.

This is what a tired, inept, incompetent, lying, old man looks like everyone.

1
marishiten 1 point ago +1 / -0

I guess the case got denied by the 9th circuit because they said "Look, it's for the states to decide if you can constitutional carry". So the Federal Government is deferring to the states to enact their own policies for it.

Which I think is bullshit, but it's not as bad as people are saying it is.

1
marishiten 1 point ago +1 / -0

But do they? And SHOULD THEY?

They joined the union under the explicit instruction that the Constitution would be the ultimate law of the land and that no other laws can conflict.

So if the Second Amendment says "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" I take that to mean "You can't tell people that they can't walk around with firearms. License or not." I get the 10th amendment, but it's like, when we differentiate "Concealed/Open" "License/permit" it seems like semantics.

Either you can bear arms or not. And "SHALL" is a pretty strong word that, to me, means, you cannot interfere with any citizen owning or bearing a firearm under any circumstance (including barring them because of a stupid fucking permit/license).

7
marishiten 7 points ago +7 / -0

This is the ultimate pain of a fake media industry we have. You have one side that will believe nothing BUT the media, then you have the other side that will literally believe the OPPOSITE of what the media says.

It's mental illness on both sides.

1
marishiten 1 point ago +1 / -0

I think this is about open carry.

But I'm confused why only these states are targeted. If they're saying the right to open carry is "Illegal", then why isn't it affecting all states like Idaho and Texas? Both of those states are "Open Carry" "Constitutional Carry" "Right To Carry" states.

And why can't those specific states just make state law saying they can open carry. We know CA, OR, WA, and HI won't, but guns are kind of NEEDED in AK and MT. What if you want to hunt? Are you just not allowed to carry a rifle even if you have a deer tag? Like what the fuck is this?

3
marishiten 3 points ago +3 / -0

Of course she isn't when she gets to define what familiar means.

She could say "Familiar" would be if she was there, in person, 2 feet from the exchange, so she can't be lying!

All these people do is take words and twist them, trying to change the definition.

2
marishiten 2 points ago +2 / -0

I'm also not sure why this only applies to like 6 states. Why don't those states just say "Constitutional Carry is fine" like all the other states that have it have done?

The Federal Government isn't telling them they can't institute that. Otherwise all the states would be in jeopardy of losing constitutional carry.

view more: ‹ Prev Next ›