"when do we get to use the guns?

[C_Clayton_Jones]

so far we dont know if it was a fair election,,

Wrong.

That it was a fair, honest, lawful, and Constitutional election was never in question.

 

[progressive hunter]

Wrong.

That it was a fair, honest, lawful, and Constitutional election was never in question.

maybe in your mind,, but thankfully youre not the only mother fucker in the country,,

so your premise is another lie,,

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

At what point do we conclude the political and legal process has failed, and we take up arms?

Never.

There is nothing in the text, history, or caselaw of the Second Amendment that supports insurrectionist dogma.

There is nothing in the text, history, or caselaw of the Second Amendment that supports the wrongheaded notion that a lawfully elected government reflecting the will of people may be ‘overthrown’ through force of arms.

There is nothing in the text, history, or caselaw of the Constitution that establishes a criterion of tyranny or authorizes lawless armed insurrection.

The Second Amendment doesn’t ‘trump’ the First – it does not take from the people their right to petition the government for a redress of grievances through the political or judicial process.

That a minority of the people might subjectively and incorrectly perceived that either the political or judicial process has ‘failed’ is not ‘justification’ to destroy that government by an act of treasonous, violent rebellion.

The Framers did not amend the Constitution to authorize the destruction of the Republic they just created.

It is therefore an ignorant and idiotic question.

 

[danielpalos]

This is what Trumpism has brought us and it`s not good. They`re no longer just Deplorables, they have murder on their minds as we witnessed on Jan. 6th.

'When Do We Get to Use the Guns?': TP USA Audience Member Asks Charlie Kirk When Can 'We Kill' Democrats? (Video)

An audience member asked a disturbing and stunning question at a speech given by close Trump family ally and Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk in Idaho on Monday, but instead of denouncing and disavowing the question itself as being anti-democratic, morally repugnant, illegal, based on...

www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

 

[progressive hunter]

Never.

There is nothing in the text, history, or caselaw of the Second Amendment that supports insurrectionist dogma.

There is nothing in the text, history, or caselaw of the Second Amendment that supports the wrongheaded notion that a lawfully elected government reflecting the will of people may be ‘overthrown’ through force of arms.

There is nothing in the text, history, or caselaw of the Constitution that establishes a criterion of tyranny or authorizes lawless armed insurrection.

The Second Amendment doesn’t ‘trump’ the First – it does not take from the people their right to petition the government for a redress of grievances through the political or judicial process.

That a minority of the people might subjectively and incorrectly perceived that either the political or judicial process has ‘failed’ is not ‘justification’ to destroy that government by an act of treasonous, violent rebellion.

The Framers did not amend the Constitution to authorize the destruction of the Republic they just created.

It is therefore an ignorant and idiotic question.

your premise is a lie,,

its only an insurrection if it goes against the constitution,, youre thinking of a marxist revolution,,

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

why are you leaving out people like Feinstein that has been trying to take guns for decades along with other dems??

This is a lie.

No one advocates ‘taking away’ anyone’s guns – including Feinstein.

Feinstein advocates for a new AWB – and like the 1994 measure, those in possession of assault weapons would be allowed to keep such weapons; no guns ‘confiscated,’ not guns ‘taken away.’

NRA leader mangles Feinstein quote about taking guns

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., has offered a bill to ban bump fire stocks after police found 12 rifles equipped with t

www.politifact.com

 

[progressive hunter]

This is a lie.

No one advocates ‘taking away’ anyone’s guns – including Feinstein.

Feinstein advocates for a new AWB – and like the 1994 measure, those in possession of assault weapons would be allowed to keep such weapons; no guns ‘confiscated,’ not guns ‘taken away.’

NRA leader mangles Feinstein quote about taking guns

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., has offered a bill to ban bump fire stocks after police found 12 rifles equipped with t

www.politifact.com

does she know that??

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

This is a lie.

No one advocates ‘taking away’ anyone’s guns – including Feinstein.

Feinstein advocates for a new AWB – and like the 1994 measure, those in possession of assault weapons would be allowed to keep such weapons; no guns ‘confiscated,’ not guns ‘taken away.’

NRA leader mangles Feinstein quote about taking guns

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., has offered a bill to ban bump fire stocks after police found 12 rifles equipped with t

www.politifact.com

Assume you are right (you're not).

Haven't we already proved in spades that the fucking bullshit 1994 assault weapons ban did absolutely COCKSUCKING shit?

Do you need a refresher course?

You know good and goddamn well the assault weapons ban does nothing. It is a step, a gateway to more bans.

The proponents of an assault weapons ban know good and goddamn motherfucking well that it will do cocksucking shit, and when violence continues, they will call for tighter restrictions and more bans.

You are not fooling anyone you gun-grabbing fuck.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Let me know when a single gun is taken away from a law abiding citizen.

Which of course will not happen.

In order for guns to be ‘confiscated,’ a law would need to be enacted authorizing ‘confiscation.’

Needless to say, no such law would be enacted because it would not pass Constitutional muster on Second Amendment and Fifth Amendment grounds.

Gun ‘confiscation’ and ‘taking away’ guns are nothing more than rightwing lies and demagoguery.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The left is hoping to provoke rightwing violence

Which is the purpose of the daily Black Lies Matter and ANTIFA riots in blue cities across America for the past 18 months

No, the ‘left’ is trying to combat rightwing violence.

The violent, lawless right is perfectly capable of committing acts of violence on its own.

 

[DrLove]

Which of course will not happen.

In order for guns to be ‘confiscated,’ a law would need to be enacted authorizing ‘confiscation.’

Needless to say, no such law would be enacted because it would not pass Constitutional muster on Second Amendment and Fifth Amendment grounds.

Gun ‘confiscation’ and ‘taking away’ guns are nothing more than rightwing lies and demagoguery.

They are afraid of SOOOO many things that don't affect them in the slightest. Having their guns grabbed, CRT, LGBTQs, Blacks, Browns, and of course SOCIALISM!

 

[M14 Shooter]

Never.

The founding fathers disagree with you, having obviously found a point where the answer was "now"
How are they wrong?

 

[M14 Shooter]

This is a lie.

Says the known liar.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Which of course will not happen.
In order for guns to be ‘confiscated,’ a law would need to be enacted authorizing ‘confiscation.’

Anyone who supports red flag laws supports the confiscation of guns from the law abiding.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It happens every time someone invokes a red flag law.

This is a lie.

Risk protection orders do not authorize the ‘confiscation’ of firearms – they are perfectly Constitutional and in no manner violate the Second, Fourth, or Fifth Amendments.

Only a judge can authorize an order and the gunowner is afforded comprehensive due process allowing for the return of his firearm.

 

[progressive hunter]

This is a lie.

Risk protection orders do not authorize the ‘confiscation’ of firearms – they are perfectly Constitutional and in no manner violate the Second, Fourth, or Fifth Amendments.

Only a judge can authorize an order and the gunowner is afforded comprehensive due process allowing for the return of his firearm.

due process would be to dispute of them being taken not getting them back you nazi fuck,,,

 

[M14 Shooter]

This is a lie.
Risk protection orders do not authorize the ‘confiscation’ of firearms

What happens when someone evoked a red flag law?
A gun is confiscated. Usually from someone who has broken no law.
Oh look. You lied.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Was the South justified in starting the Civil War?

No.

The states that engaged in treasonous, lawless rebellion against the United States in 1861 is further proof that insurrectionist dogma is devoid of merit, un-Constitutional, and in no manner supported by the Second Amendment.

 

[Mac-7]

No, the ‘left’ is trying to combat rightwing violence.

Nonsense

Almost 2 years of non stop violent lib riots in blue cities prove otherwise

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I'd caution Trump supporters that this street runs both ways.
There are lots of liberals (like me), who like and enjoy using their guns.

Correct.

Liberals own guns, enjoy the shooting sports, and possess guns for lawful self-defense.

Unlike conservatives, liberals don’t lie about gun laws to advance a wrongheaded political agenda.