WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2024 Poal.co

741

(post is archived)

[–] 5 pts (edited )

The irony of them arguing that you shouldn't own a particular gun because it was designed specifically to kill people is that the constitution doesn't protect recreational equipment, nor even weapons. It protects arms. AKA, military equipment designed to kill people. Designed to kill people in a military setting is precisely the qualification that makes it protected. A full auto belt-fed has more business being protected by the constitution than a recreational .22. I'm still for being able to own a .22 for sure, but the understanding of what an arm is has completely inverted.

[–] 2 pts

Designed to kill people in a military setting is precisely the qualification that makes it protected.

This is the single key point I try to make when having this discussion. It is the sole reason for the amendment.

[–] 2 pts

They can outlaw all forms of hunting but it's always open season on tyranny.

[–] 1 pt

Yet in this thread right right now you couldn’t even seriously talk about doing it. How do you plan anyone actually take it up?

[–] 1 pt

N

[–] 0 pt

I

[–] 0 pt

Good evening, Special Agent

[–] 0 pt

Don't eat pills handed to you by some nigger you just met.

[–] 0 pt

Was just trying to redpill my faggot friend on the jq with this type argument.