Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

227

If guns were never supposed to be bannable, then what else would the government ever need to ban? Why not just double down and say the government could never ban ANYTHING of your possible ownership?

It would also double as a second 2A as well.

If guns were never supposed to be bannable, then what else would the government ever need to ban? Why not just double down and say the government could never ban ANYTHING of your possible ownership? It would also double as a second 2A as well.

(post is archived)

[–] [deleted] • 5 pts

It doesn't matter what the laws say if those in power can ignore them without repercussions. The problem isn't that we need more clear laws, the problem is that jews now hold power in all branches of government so simply ignore any restrictions on their power they don't want to obey.

[–] • 4 pts

Pointless and stupid. This is already established by the 4th and 10th.

The solution to those not following the words is force not more words.

[–] • 1 pt

We have lived similar situations in Europe. I can tell you that no matter what the constitution says, if those in power don't face any opposition they will breach it without thinking twice and then send the troops against those who protest.

Granted, USA has a history of respecting the constitution, but there's always a turning point.

[–] • 1 pt

What's happening to the US I think is good in a point in that's it's humbling the US back to it's brotherhood with the europe.

It's happening in the opposite direction as well. Europe used to piss all over, up and down every day with every ounce of existence for americans culturally merging with apefricans etc. Now Europe is being over run.

It's actually quite annoying that americans would look down on europeans for not having the constitution (like we saw in a recent thread here). It does not mean europe couldn't have affectively had the same provisions in place and had control of their own country anyways.

[–] [deleted] • 1 pt

Laws and rights are man-made constructs so it doesn't matter. You could piss all over the constitution and make a new one with the right support.

[–] • 1 pt

The government funds an insane amount of cutting edge technology and development of things that don't always work out. If they pay to develop it, ex GPS and crypto communication, they should have at least a decade before anybody else gets it.

The way it works now is that the gov funds the military complex to develop and produce. Anybody who wants the technology needs permission from the appropriate agency to own it.

If any international military needs specialized American hardware, they also need permission to buy it. A real world example is mitsubishi heavy ( MHI). We are friendly with the Japanese, we generally allow MHI to buy american grade hardware for their uses, the dod ( et al.) gives them special paperwork permissions which allows them to buy certain technology, and ship it out of the states. My understanding is that this paperwork alone costs them an extra mil+, and that the dod requires them the pay through the nose for our assets. Of course American manufacturers don't mind dealing with picky japanese clients when they can mark it up 4x the USG price.

I think a slightly more nuanced approach would work. The government is not allowed to use any technology on it's people that it's people cannot access. They can't use LRAD on us , if we can't use it on them. They can't fire on us, if we aren't allowed firearms. if they want to drone bomb somewhere else, they may, but not on it's own citizens. Given that the gov needs to control the technology it's created, I think this simple rule would maintain our rights, while keeping our hard learned technology out of our enemy's hands.