As far as I'm concerned, this is just bullshit meant to shift the goal post. They shouldn't be able to confiscate guns at all, warrant or not. If an individual is too dangerous to own a gun, they are too dangerous to be free.
We have a right to be armed. Not a right to be armed unless our government gets a warrant.
This isn't a win. This is just a strategy to make you argue the wrong thing.
Warrants receive a 99.999% approval rating. They should be lower than that just based on spelling mistakes alone!
Warrants are a joke, yet somehow they still seem to skip over them.
Our entire government is a joke but so many fall for bullshit like this. Even the ones on our side don't realize that they are just shifting the argument past what we actually need to be demanding.
"We have rights to be armed!"
Well. We can't argue that. How do we disarm them now?
"You need a warrant to take my guns!"
Court orders that a warrant is needed to confiscate weapons and everyone celebrates.
That was easy.
They should have something like jury duty, but only for warrants. To get a warrant issued the police have to convince 12 people that it's needed instead of one judge. Perfect? Not even close, but probably better than a compromised judge.
That wouldn't be a bad idea. The time it would take would be an issue though.
Seriously. A warrant just means a judge signed off on it. Who gives a fuck?
When the national guard come and try to disarm people in a disaster area, for example.
If the national guard actually follows through with that, it's time for war. A lot would argue we are overdue.
Exactly. A warrant is supposed to mean something to me when it comes to our rights? I'm not sure if warrants have always been this way, but lately they are just another violation of our rights signed by another jackass government employee.
Exactly. The kikes only rule it unconstitutional out of fear.
Do what must be done, and the laws will follow.
(post is archived)