pro or con the second amendment?

[Zebra]

pro ot con?

 

[Donald H]

It was serving a purpose until the call to arms to save a stolen election was completely ignored.

So forget about any 2A bullshit coming to the rescue to stop criminal government takeover of murica!

 

[Auld Phart]

pro or con?

yes

 

[JGalt]

I can't imagine any American citizen actually being against the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution. That's like saying you don't have the right to free speech, the right to vote, or the right to worship whatever religion you want.

 

[Hossfly]

pro ot con?

Our 2nd Amendment is the only thing that is keeping America from becoming another 3rd Reich. Period.

 

[toobfreak]

pro ot con?

PROS: Self-autonomy able to defend yourself and help keep crime in check.

CONS: Makes for a real bad day for the sucker who thought he was going to jack you up.

 

[Crepitus]

pro ot con?

Pro.

But pro the way it way written, not the way it's been reinterpreted by the RWNJs.

 

[JGalt]

Our 2nd Amendment is the only thing that is keeping America from becoming another 3rd Reich. Period.

And the Second Amendment is the only thing keeping the liberal's precious First Amendment alive. It certainly doesn't work the other way around, as if our right to free speech protects our right to defend ourselves.

Can you imagine confronting a tyrannical government with cardboard signs, printed flyers, and computer blogs? They'd laugh in your face and then flatted your ass with a tank.

 

[Auld Phart]

Pro.

But pro the way it way written, not the way it's been reinterpreted by the RWNJs.

But pro the way it way written,

that the right was given to the people, not the militia?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Pro.
But pro the way it way written, not the way it's been reinterpreted by the RWNJs.

The way we “RWNJs” “reinterpret” it is exactly the way it is written. It identifies a specific right, it states that this right belongs to the people, and it forbids this right from being infringed.

It is those of you on the left wrong that keep trying to interpret it away from its very clear, explicit meaning.

And it is no mystery what your motive is for wanting to deny the right that it so explicitly affirmed. You are on the side of tyrants and terrorist and criminals and perverts, and all other manner of subhuman filth; and you want human beings to be unable to defend ourselves against the predations of those filth whose side you take against that of humans.

The desire to strip American citizens of our right to keep and bear arms is always rooted in desires, intentions, and motives which, if acted on, would give us just cause to use our arms in opposition thereto. Always.

 

[skye]

What a question OP

Of course pro.

 

[Crepitus]

that the right was given to the people, not the militia?

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Dumbass.

 

[Crepitus]

The way we “RWNJs” “reinterpret” it is exactly the way it is written.

No, it isn't.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

that the right was given to the people, not the militia?

Not “given to”.

Affirmed as existing, independent of whether government recognizes or upholds it, or not.

“The right to keep and bear arms exists separately from the Constitution and is not solely based on the Second Amendment, which exists to prevent Congress from infringing the right.”—United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)​

 

[progressive hunter]

Pro.

But pro the way it way written, not the way it's been reinterpreted by the RWNJs.

the way it was written was to include military grade weapons just like the ones you would defend yourself from,,

 

[MisterBeale]

It was serving a purpose until the call to arms to save a stolen election was completely ignored.

So forget about any 2A bullshit coming to the rescue to stop criminal government takeover of murica!

I thought you were Canadian?

Tell me again why anyone should give a shit about your opinion on Constitutional matters again?

Sane folks don't bring guns to a protest.


stahp yer trolling.

 

[Auld Phart]

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Dumbass.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

of course

Dumbass.

Not close.

 

[whitehall]

Pro or con on the 1st Amendment or just parts of the 1st Amendment? How about the 5th Amendment. You don't get to make that call.

 

[Hossfly]

the way it was written was to include military grade weapons just like the ones you would defend yourself from,,

During that time there was no such thing as a military grade weapon versus a civilian weapon. They never foresaw an M-16, night vision goggles or laser sights. But they did realize there would be advancements in technology. So it doesn't matter whether we are in 1775, 2023 or 3050. Those amendments were written to include advancements of everything. Liberal arguments would have us going back to horse and buggy or flintlock firearms or even using a corner of a bedsheet for a condom..

 

[Crepitus]

Sane folks don't bring guns to a protest.

So these guys are all insane, right?