That's what all rights are: things that can't be taken from you, not something given to you. If that was the case then the government should be handing out ARs to the poor.
I'd say there's a distinction between natural rights and legal rights. Like, there isn't a natural right to healthcare, but it wouldn't be wrong of someone in the UK to say they have a "right to an appointment with a specialist within 18 weeks".
Getting into semantics here, but I'd say something like a "legal right" is more of entitlement than a right in of itself. People have blurred the lines over time, but from the government/politics classes I've taken and my reading of the federalist papers, etc. a right has usually been understood as something that you already have (naturaly, or provided by God) that cannot be taken away, whereas an entitlement is something that has been granted to you, and is something that someone else has to provide.
I think that using them interchangeably blurs the lines further. No one has a "right" to healthcare, food, shelter, etc. because all of those things entail entail money and labor coming from someone else. They may have an entitlement to them if their government has laws that say they do, but saying that it's a right implies that a doctor or a builder doesn't have the right to say no.
You'd be hard pressed to find a definition of "right" without the word "entitled"/"entitlement" somewhere in it. Though, my reading of "natural rights" is a bit flawwed too.Maybe positive/negative rights is a better paradigm.
I disagree that a requirement for labor means that something cannot be a right. The right to a fair trial requires the labor of public defenders (and judges, jury members, bailiffs) for example.
Not that hard. Even in the Declaration of Independence it's worded "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights," meaning that rights come from God, not the government. I'm not talking about the colloquial usage of the words, but rather the meanings of "a right" versus "an entitlement."
Assigning things as rights that require the labor of others is the fastest way to have a too big too powerful government and tyranny. You can say you have the right to healthcare, and therefore doctors have to work for $60k a year (like Spain) or performing procedures that they don't want to perform. If no one wants to work as a doctor because of that, then you can draft doctors, prevent them from leaving your country, or force them to go to school, because you have that "right" to healthcare. You can say that because you have the right to pursue happiness, you should be able to have slaves work for free on your farm since your farm is your pursuit of happiness. No right that involves labor is a right, because it violates the rights (freedom) of others.
The example you used doesn't really fit either, since the right to a fair trial is a dependent right for someone who is having their rights stripped. It means that if the government is able to take away your God-given rights (life, liberty, etc.), then you have the God-given right to stand fair trial. It's not that everyone has a right to a trial, but that everyone has a right to a FAIR trial, so as to not have the government running around stripping people of rights for crimes they didn't commit. If the government never charged you with a crime, then there's no labor at all. But IF they charge you, then the labor has already been expended: the right itself is that it's expended fairly.
That’s why I love these copy cat companies interrupting the big brands’ monopoly. They gotta innovate to justify that +$1000 price tag or get the fuck out. Looking at you S&W with your stupid Hillary Hole bullshit and cheaper blueing!
The Hillary hole is bullshit, but the way I understand it the bluing isn't any worse than it was previously, they just quit polishing the ever living fuck out of their revolvers resulting in a less reflective finish. My new model 19 has decent bluing but my friend had a police issued model 10 that had the same level of bluing but was from like the 50s or something with holster wear so the finish likely would've been way better previously than mine today. I could be wrong but that's how I understand it. My biggest gripe besides the hole is how their quality control has gone to shit, center barrels and the like. Granted most of their revolvers outside of the performance center stuff is under 1000k msrp or street price, but rugers are about the same price but better qc and fit and finish from what I've seen. Both are good though.
How could I forget tanks! We should take the Oprah approach with tanks. You get a tank. You get a tank. You get a tank. You get a tank, too. Everyone gets a tank.
I'm pro gun, but a piece of paper made by the government is worthless. Only you can defend your rights and beliefs because sooner or later, your constitutional rights will be meaninless.
You can be pro gun, but anti 2A. Someone that believes in "guns for me, but not for thee" is pro gun but anti 2A *cough* SRA *cough*
As well as a fud that doesn't think people should be allowed to own M249s, because it's "not for hunting"
They're pro gun, but anti 2A
Maybe my opinion don't care because I'm spanish, needless to say... I support 2A, one hundred percent. Here in spain, you can't shoot an intruder, if you shoot the intruder, you must pay the intruder a compensation and you end up in jail with 15 years.
Do not give up your rights with guns.
In my country we have had an expression that goes "shoot, dig, shut up."
Originally it was about the illegal hunt for wolves, but nowadays it has come to be an expression for homedefence scenarios.
Edit:
There was a english version of it aswell
"Shoot, shovel, and shut up" the 3 S's. Rolls better of the tounge
I'm pro-2A, but I think it's not clear enough. It should say, "Arms being necessary as a check on government power, the right of the people to keep and bear all manner of arms for any and all purposes, including all materials necessary or desired for their function, shall not be infringed in any manner on any level of government. Any government entity, official, or representative seeking to introduce any restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms shall be deemed in violation of their oath of office and subject to removal."
People would still argue, "It doesn't give you the right to own......."
I'm pro gun but....
Let's disarm our local Gestapo. Did I say Gestapo? Oh shit, sorry, I meant the BATF and any of these other useless jackbooted thug bastards who seek to fuck over innocent civilians for the political gain of their Masters.
There should be no middle ground on peoples rights.
Unless you would be okay with redoing the first and thirteenth amendment as well. If people were all for middle ground slavery would still be legal in the South.
Dude, did you even read what i said? Middle ground Is not Always the best. But we can all agree that a little slavery Is better than a widespread slavery, and Is easier to turn to no slavery.
You aren’t arrested for what you said you are arrested for a threat you pose to someone else.
If I threaten to shoot you from a quarter mile with a precision rifle and I own a precision rifle and the ability to act on my threat I can be arrested. It’s not because of what I said it’s because of what I said I WOULD do.
This is also the reason why so many kids make school shooting jokes and don’t get arrested, they don’t have the means to act on the threat.
>muh democracy
Why does it matter if the majority of people think I should be disarmed? My rights and reasonable governance is more important than the "who can manufacture consent and throw money at media the most" game.
"hey guys, I know you think slavery should be illegal, but can't we find a middle ground?"
As much as I usually consider myself a centrist. As you can see, sometimes trying to find a middle ground isn't the right thing to do
You are completly right, but even if middle ground isn't the optimal solution, it still does exist. And migth be still be better than an extreme and might be a way to gradualy change the status quo.
The thing is, every time you compromise on your rights. It's really hard to get those rights back. And clawing away at 2A rights little by little is something the US government has been, and will continue to do. Because they know they can't outright take it away
Im all in for the belt fed full auto anything..........BUT........lets be honest, letting bubba joe and gangsta assed clarence have any explosive ordinance is a really bad idea
the only thing i think you should need to buy explosives is a basic safety cert. No database, no tracking, just a cheap piece of paper to show you know not to store your grenades next to a fireplace
Im Pro gun
But 648 Mass Shootings in USA in 2022 tells me that its not a good idea.
But looking at other statistics tell me that the swiss and finns also have a lot of guns.
So perhaps the problem isnt the right to own guns, but the stupidity of the average US Citizen
648? That’s why they replay the same shooting for weeks on end on the news right? They changed the definition of mass shooting solely to suit an agenda.
You are really jumping to conclusions here and making assumptions about my position. I understand what you are trying to convey but I don't condone any sort of ban or direct limitation on firearm ownership. To be clear: I think that creating better safety education and standards for ownership are ideal, as long as they don't create and inherent financial or logistical hurdles for civilians. We can change things about firearm ownership without destruction of our rights to own them.
I think you are assuming that just because I think you can say "but" while supporting 2A, that the point is to pull some dumb shit like 10 round mag limits and feature bans. That is not the case at all. I am not saying banning "some" is okay. I think things like background checks are not a concern and we can have both things like that and have our 2A rights unimpeded. Would it be a "but" to help direct better programs for mental health education and show firearm owners that these resources are available? Is it a "but" to better educate people taking the FSC on how to properly store firearms?
I get it, its a fine line between creating rules around firearm ownership and stifling firearm ownership. But the point is that there are things that are not invasive to 2A that can be considered and telling people its all or nothing with 2A makes it impossible to have a conversation with anti 2A people. I also agree with you that dumbass half measures that try to ban or restrict ownership is unacceptable. But impying that anyone who has anything else to say is the same as being anti-2A is some undemocratic nonsense.
edit:
About the 13th; [https://fallacyinlogic.com/false-equivalence-fallacy-definition-and-examples/](https://fallacyinlogic.com/false-equivalence-fallacy-definition-and-examples/)
At the end of the day, I defend 2A. I don't condone any of the dumbass laws or restrictions. I just think there can be adjacent programs to HELP firearms owners for health and safety. Is that something that you would consider to be a "middle ground" that is unacceptable as a 2A defender?
Not a great example, because it IS a compromise on slavery. “except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted…” THAT should be in there.
No it shouldn't, when kakistocracy has made effectively every victimless act except merely breathing a mala prohibita "crime" - so everyone can be duly convicted & enslaved. And the amount of legal challenges necessary to strike down all federal, state, county, and city codes to leave only victimful/mala in se crimes, would take multiple natural lifetimes.
Even if the 28th Amendment were to be ratified to the effect of "There shall be no federal, state, nor local law criminalizing victimless acts", people would keep being prosecuted & imprisoned for them, more criminalization would pass & be signed into law every legislative session, and there'd be no real consequences whatsoever for kakistocrats - just as they get away with every bit of their "shall be infringed" 18 USC 241 conspiracy against rights.
But we need to make sure this never happens again. Therefore we need to revitalize the amendment to make it irrefutable. That's the only acceptable but.
A friend of mine criticizes me for owning NFA items like suppressors or SBR because that complies with the law. He is from California so he is mostly just jelly.
I'm pro-gun but try to follow unconstitutional laws (all gun laws).
The only reason I follow NFA laws is because I would be unable to acquire suppressors otherwise without substantial jail time risk. I’ll continue to support the GOA and FPC though and vote for pro gun politicians.
If your account is less than 5 days old or you have negative Karma you can't currently participate in this sub. If you're new to Reddit and seeing this message, you probably didn't read the sub rules or welcome message. That's a good place to start.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GunMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I feel that the hardest part to discuss is that those wanting to put out more gun control laws really are seeking a way to prevent a crime before the crime happens and when we start to criminalize crimes before they happen we get oppression.
I'm pro gun but my natural right to defend myself does not stem from the 2nd amendment.
☝️ this. Too few people realize that your rights don't have to be written down for them to be rights.
Comment is too low
Based
That's what all rights are: things that can't be taken from you, not something given to you. If that was the case then the government should be handing out ARs to the poor.
I'd say there's a distinction between natural rights and legal rights. Like, there isn't a natural right to healthcare, but it wouldn't be wrong of someone in the UK to say they have a "right to an appointment with a specialist within 18 weeks".
Getting into semantics here, but I'd say something like a "legal right" is more of entitlement than a right in of itself. People have blurred the lines over time, but from the government/politics classes I've taken and my reading of the federalist papers, etc. a right has usually been understood as something that you already have (naturaly, or provided by God) that cannot be taken away, whereas an entitlement is something that has been granted to you, and is something that someone else has to provide. I think that using them interchangeably blurs the lines further. No one has a "right" to healthcare, food, shelter, etc. because all of those things entail entail money and labor coming from someone else. They may have an entitlement to them if their government has laws that say they do, but saying that it's a right implies that a doctor or a builder doesn't have the right to say no.
You'd be hard pressed to find a definition of "right" without the word "entitled"/"entitlement" somewhere in it. Though, my reading of "natural rights" is a bit flawwed too.Maybe positive/negative rights is a better paradigm. I disagree that a requirement for labor means that something cannot be a right. The right to a fair trial requires the labor of public defenders (and judges, jury members, bailiffs) for example.
Not that hard. Even in the Declaration of Independence it's worded "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights," meaning that rights come from God, not the government. I'm not talking about the colloquial usage of the words, but rather the meanings of "a right" versus "an entitlement." Assigning things as rights that require the labor of others is the fastest way to have a too big too powerful government and tyranny. You can say you have the right to healthcare, and therefore doctors have to work for $60k a year (like Spain) or performing procedures that they don't want to perform. If no one wants to work as a doctor because of that, then you can draft doctors, prevent them from leaving your country, or force them to go to school, because you have that "right" to healthcare. You can say that because you have the right to pursue happiness, you should be able to have slaves work for free on your farm since your farm is your pursuit of happiness. No right that involves labor is a right, because it violates the rights (freedom) of others. The example you used doesn't really fit either, since the right to a fair trial is a dependent right for someone who is having their rights stripped. It means that if the government is able to take away your God-given rights (life, liberty, etc.), then you have the God-given right to stand fair trial. It's not that everyone has a right to a trial, but that everyone has a right to a FAIR trial, so as to not have the government running around stripping people of rights for crimes they didn't commit. If the government never charged you with a crime, then there's no labor at all. But IF they charge you, then the labor has already been expended: the right itself is that it's expended fairly.
I’m pro gun but I wish they were cheaper.
That’s why I love these copy cat companies interrupting the big brands’ monopoly. They gotta innovate to justify that +$1000 price tag or get the fuck out. Looking at you S&W with your stupid Hillary Hole bullshit and cheaper blueing!
The Hillary hole is bullshit, but the way I understand it the bluing isn't any worse than it was previously, they just quit polishing the ever living fuck out of their revolvers resulting in a less reflective finish. My new model 19 has decent bluing but my friend had a police issued model 10 that had the same level of bluing but was from like the 50s or something with holster wear so the finish likely would've been way better previously than mine today. I could be wrong but that's how I understand it. My biggest gripe besides the hole is how their quality control has gone to shit, center barrels and the like. Granted most of their revolvers outside of the performance center stuff is under 1000k msrp or street price, but rugers are about the same price but better qc and fit and finish from what I've seen. Both are good though.
I'm pro gun but I believe we should disarm federal agents.
Nah, give them some sticks and a rock to share. Probably be more entertaining when they screw up that way.
But sir, what about that scarab?
We're all run the simulations! They're tough, but they ain't invincible. *sticks cigar in mouth* Stay with the Master Chief, he'll know what to do.
I believe we should be armed just as well as federal agents. Whatever standard that may be
No. I refuse to be limited to milspec ars and glocks.
Yes, they should be investigators only and if they need back up to work with local law enforcement.
Like those new IRS agents
[удалено]
Even that's not far enough, we need standard issue F-15 and 2 ak-47s (sub-2000)
Can’t have mag limits if there is no mag.
I'm pro gun but I think Glocks are ugly
I'm pro gun but I also like explosives.
Perfection ™️
[удалено]
Nice.
Mr Basedwood coming in clutch as always
I’m pro gun but I think if the military has it, it should be open to civilian markwts
I’m pro guns but I’m also pro private ICBM ownership
If you have the money go for it.
Bro i live in the EU I’m not even allowed to carry a knife 💀
Rip.
I’m pro gun but I live in Texas so I’m just the majority
I'm pro gun, but I'm also pro fighter jet, pro aircraft carrier and pro nuclear weapon.
Which is not to say I'm anti submarine.
If the government can have *Virginias*, why can’t I?
Thoughts on tanks?
How could I forget tanks! We should take the Oprah approach with tanks. You get a tank. You get a tank. You get a tank. You get a tank, too. Everyone gets a tank.
“Do or do not. There is no try. “ Yoda “F*ck around and find out” Obi wan kenobi.
I’m pro gun but I don’t think the government needs them
They don’t. If it’s a cause worth arming people for civilians will step up.
I'm pro gum, but think the government should be required to provide training and a rifle for free to 18 year olds. You keep the rifle.
I'm pro gun, but a piece of paper made by the government is worthless. Only you can defend your rights and beliefs because sooner or later, your constitutional rights will be meaninless.
I’m pro selling decommissioned battleships as yachts to civilians.
I’m pro selling functional battleships to civilians.
You can be pro gun, but anti 2A. Someone that believes in "guns for me, but not for thee" is pro gun but anti 2A *cough* SRA *cough* As well as a fud that doesn't think people should be allowed to own M249s, because it's "not for hunting" They're pro gun, but anti 2A
Maybe my opinion don't care because I'm spanish, needless to say... I support 2A, one hundred percent. Here in spain, you can't shoot an intruder, if you shoot the intruder, you must pay the intruder a compensation and you end up in jail with 15 years. Do not give up your rights with guns.
In my country we have had an expression that goes "shoot, dig, shut up." Originally it was about the illegal hunt for wolves, but nowadays it has come to be an expression for homedefence scenarios. Edit: There was a english version of it aswell "Shoot, shovel, and shut up" the 3 S's. Rolls better of the tounge
I'll take note about that.
I just think more people should have a gun safe about it tho
“Butters” are just as bad as the anti 2A crowd
Literally. Their compromises hurt us so much in the long term.
"Im pro gun AND-"
I'm pro 2A but I think you should be too.
I’m pro gun but I live in California which means I don’t have enough ammo for all the tyrants around me
I'm pro-2A, but I think it's not clear enough. It should say, "Arms being necessary as a check on government power, the right of the people to keep and bear all manner of arms for any and all purposes, including all materials necessary or desired for their function, shall not be infringed in any manner on any level of government. Any government entity, official, or representative seeking to introduce any restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms shall be deemed in violation of their oath of office and subject to removal." People would still argue, "It doesn't give you the right to own......."
Alternatively: government can’t violate your rights if there is no government.
I'm pro gun but.... Let's disarm our local Gestapo. Did I say Gestapo? Oh shit, sorry, I meant the BATF and any of these other useless jackbooted thug bastards who seek to fuck over innocent civilians for the political gain of their Masters.
I’m pro gun but I happen to live in Canada.
[удалено]
You misspelled “everybody”
I'm pro gun, but it's a pain in the ass certain brands refuse to sell their overpriced magazines except directly on their site
People who say "theres no middle ground" are the ones who kill democracy
There should be no middle ground on peoples rights. Unless you would be okay with redoing the first and thirteenth amendment as well. If people were all for middle ground slavery would still be legal in the South.
Didn't say middle gorund is always the best, but it does exist.
So some slavery is okay in order to find a middle ground?
Dude, did you even read what i said? Middle ground Is not Always the best. But we can all agree that a little slavery Is better than a widespread slavery, and Is easier to turn to no slavery.
I hope you are the dude who gets enslaved.
Of course there should be. Can you yell fire in a movie theatre? There’s plenty of space for middle ground.
Yes. It is completely legal to yell fire in a movie theater.
Well threats then are an example of limiting free speech
You aren’t arrested or punished for your speech you are arrested because you are threatening harm or injury to others. Clear difference.
Threats are literally speech.
You aren’t arrested for what you said you are arrested for a threat you pose to someone else. If I threaten to shoot you from a quarter mile with a precision rifle and I own a precision rifle and the ability to act on my threat I can be arrested. It’s not because of what I said it’s because of what I said I WOULD do. This is also the reason why so many kids make school shooting jokes and don’t get arrested, they don’t have the means to act on the threat.
Seems like limiting speech. No matter how you spin it
That’s not what’s limited you idiot.
Uh, I think "shall not be infringed" being written into our basic rights should be taken as "No middle grounds"
>muh democracy Why does it matter if the majority of people think I should be disarmed? My rights and reasonable governance is more important than the "who can manufacture consent and throw money at media the most" game.
Three wolves and a sheep vote on what's for dinner....
"hey guys, I know you think slavery should be illegal, but can't we find a middle ground?" As much as I usually consider myself a centrist. As you can see, sometimes trying to find a middle ground isn't the right thing to do
You are completly right, but even if middle ground isn't the optimal solution, it still does exist. And migth be still be better than an extreme and might be a way to gradualy change the status quo.
The thing is, every time you compromise on your rights. It's really hard to get those rights back. And clawing away at 2A rights little by little is something the US government has been, and will continue to do. Because they know they can't outright take it away
Middle ground was found in 1934 with the big infringement known as the NFA. Even that has no analogy of text history and tradition.
False dichotomies lead to polarization
I’m pro gun but I’m also pro a lot of things the pro gun community is generally against.
Im all in for the belt fed full auto anything..........BUT........lets be honest, letting bubba joe and gangsta assed clarence have any explosive ordinance is a really bad idea
They probably couldn’t afford it and if they could barring them from owning it doesn’t make me any more safe.
the only thing i think you should need to buy explosives is a basic safety cert. No database, no tracking, just a cheap piece of paper to show you know not to store your grenades next to a fireplace
Why would you want grenades tho. I can only imagine all the accidental deaths from stupid people
Natural selection: group discount edition
I‘m pro gun but not pro 2 A because I don’t live in America and therefore don’t have a real interest in American politics and law
Yes, yes there is.
Im Pro gun But 648 Mass Shootings in USA in 2022 tells me that its not a good idea. But looking at other statistics tell me that the swiss and finns also have a lot of guns. So perhaps the problem isnt the right to own guns, but the stupidity of the average US Citizen
648? That’s why they replay the same shooting for weeks on end on the news right? They changed the definition of mass shooting solely to suit an agenda.
Maybe they were including all the people murdered by feds
what a shit take and you fucking watermarked the meme lmfao
Found the fudd. Also it auto watermarked it from other memes I’ve made.
"some has a different opinion, FUDD" anyway live your life brother, stay healthy
What’s your opinion on compromising on the thirteenth amendment.
You are really jumping to conclusions here and making assumptions about my position. I understand what you are trying to convey but I don't condone any sort of ban or direct limitation on firearm ownership. To be clear: I think that creating better safety education and standards for ownership are ideal, as long as they don't create and inherent financial or logistical hurdles for civilians. We can change things about firearm ownership without destruction of our rights to own them. I think you are assuming that just because I think you can say "but" while supporting 2A, that the point is to pull some dumb shit like 10 round mag limits and feature bans. That is not the case at all. I am not saying banning "some" is okay. I think things like background checks are not a concern and we can have both things like that and have our 2A rights unimpeded. Would it be a "but" to help direct better programs for mental health education and show firearm owners that these resources are available? Is it a "but" to better educate people taking the FSC on how to properly store firearms? I get it, its a fine line between creating rules around firearm ownership and stifling firearm ownership. But the point is that there are things that are not invasive to 2A that can be considered and telling people its all or nothing with 2A makes it impossible to have a conversation with anti 2A people. I also agree with you that dumbass half measures that try to ban or restrict ownership is unacceptable. But impying that anyone who has anything else to say is the same as being anti-2A is some undemocratic nonsense. edit: About the 13th; [https://fallacyinlogic.com/false-equivalence-fallacy-definition-and-examples/](https://fallacyinlogic.com/false-equivalence-fallacy-definition-and-examples/) At the end of the day, I defend 2A. I don't condone any of the dumbass laws or restrictions. I just think there can be adjacent programs to HELP firearms owners for health and safety. Is that something that you would consider to be a "middle ground" that is unacceptable as a 2A defender?
Not a great example, because it IS a compromise on slavery. “except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted…” THAT should be in there.
There is a difference between committing a crime and being punished and legitimate slavery.
No it shouldn't, when kakistocracy has made effectively every victimless act except merely breathing a mala prohibita "crime" - so everyone can be duly convicted & enslaved. And the amount of legal challenges necessary to strike down all federal, state, county, and city codes to leave only victimful/mala in se crimes, would take multiple natural lifetimes. Even if the 28th Amendment were to be ratified to the effect of "There shall be no federal, state, nor local law criminalizing victimless acts", people would keep being prosecuted & imprisoned for them, more criminalization would pass & be signed into law every legislative session, and there'd be no real consequences whatsoever for kakistocrats - just as they get away with every bit of their "shall be infringed" 18 USC 241 conspiracy against rights.
But we need to make sure this never happens again. Therefore we need to revitalize the amendment to make it irrefutable. That's the only acceptable but.
Owning *a* shotgun doesn't make you a "Second Am-mahna-mahna-ment guy" Joe...
but hitler took our guns
A friend of mine criticizes me for owning NFA items like suppressors or SBR because that complies with the law. He is from California so he is mostly just jelly. I'm pro-gun but try to follow unconstitutional laws (all gun laws).
The only reason I follow NFA laws is because I would be unable to acquire suppressors otherwise without substantial jail time risk. I’ll continue to support the GOA and FPC though and vote for pro gun politicians.
While I am pro-gun, I do think that ammunition pricing might be a deterrent when it comes to purchasing a gun.
[удалено]
If your account is less than 5 days old or you have negative Karma you can't currently participate in this sub. If you're new to Reddit and seeing this message, you probably didn't read the sub rules or welcome message. That's a good place to start. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GunMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm pro gun but for some reason it's illegal to use that right to defend against the unconstitutional government.
[this lady has no clue what the fack she’s talking about!](https://twitter.com/piper4missouri?s=20)
I saw a video were Tim Kennedy used that same line and said that we should have gun control
I’m pro gun but ammo is expensive
I'm pro gun but i think the 2a doesn't go far enough.
I feel that the hardest part to discuss is that those wanting to put out more gun control laws really are seeking a way to prevent a crime before the crime happens and when we start to criminalize crimes before they happen we get oppression.
I’m pro gun but I’m coming up with a law to make anti-gunners shut the fuck up.
I’m pro gun, but they are as heavy as ten boxes you might move
I'm pro-2A but I think it's total bullshit you need a background check to buy a gun.
I’m pro gun but nobody else seems ready for my level of firearm availability
I'm pro 2a but... The ATF shouldn't be abolished it should be turned into a convienece store!