Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

Возникла проблема при загрузке этого видео. Это может быть связано с временными проблемами сети или видео может быть недоступно.

На главную

Americans need education on the Second Amendment: founders intended it for protection against tyrannical government, not hunting. Guns are inanimate objects that don't act alone. Gun control advocates ignore that drunk drivers kill 30 daily, so should we ban cars? Rifles/shotguns cause 550 deaths yearly, while knives 1,500 deaths... show more

ꪻꫝể ꪻꫝể

283,028 subscribers

17,113 просмотров • 9 месяцев назад •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

The Joe Biden Administration & Department Of Homeland Security Insist We Continue To Have A Wide Open Southern Border During These Times Lieutenant Governor of North Carolina Reminds Everyone Why We Have Our Second Amendment: “We need to remind ourselves what our Second Amendment is for. We need to remind ourselves that our Second Amendment is not for duck hunting. It's not for skeet shooting or target practice. It's not so we can sit around and compare who's got the biggest, baddest gun. Although, watch this guys, we like to do that, don't we? See, I like that guy. See, that guy, me and that guy are brothers right here. We know each other. But that's not what the Second Amendment is for. Second Amendment is for you to protect your individual liberties from whoever may threaten it, even if that should be an overreaching, overbearing government that has lost its place in this nation. And folks don't like to hear that. That's why that found, that's why that amendment is number two, right after the freedom to speak, the freedom to protect yourself, to protect your liberty.”

The Joe Biden Administration & Department Of Homeland Security Insist We Continue To Have A Wide Open Southern Border During These Times Lieutenant Governor of North Carolina Reminds Everyone Why We Have Our Second Amendment: “We need to remind ourselves what our Second Amendment is for. We need to remind ourselves that our Second Amendment is not for duck hunting. It's not for skeet shooting or target practice. It's not so we can sit around and compare who's got the biggest, baddest gun. Although, watch this guys, we like to do that, don't we? See, I like that guy. See, that guy, me and that guy are brothers right here. We know each other. But that's not what the Second Amendment is for. Second Amendment is for you to protect your individual liberties from whoever may threaten it, even if that should be an overreaching, overbearing government that has lost its place in this nation. And folks don't like to hear that. That's why that found, that's why that amendment is number two, right after the freedom to speak, the freedom to protect yourself, to protect your liberty.”

Wall Street Apes

666,616 просмотров • 2 лет назад

CNN's Kasie Hunt suggests people should be pointing guns at the Trump administration because it has become "tyrannical" citing "what we saw on the streets" of Minneapolis: "I want to bring back a tweet from Charlie Kirk in 2018. He says this, 'The Second Amendment is not for hunting. It's not for self protection. It is there to ensure that free people can defend themselves if, God forbid, government became tyrannical and turned against its citizens.' And I think a lot of people are pointing to this because, I mean, what what we saw in the streets."

CNN's Kasie Hunt suggests people should be pointing guns at the Trump administration because it has become "tyrannical" citing "what we saw on the streets" of Minneapolis: "I want to bring back a tweet from Charlie Kirk in 2018. He says this, 'The Second Amendment is not for hunting. It's not for self protection. It is there to ensure that free people can defend themselves if, God forbid, government became tyrannical and turned against its citizens.' And I think a lot of people are pointing to this because, I mean, what what we saw in the streets."

Nicholas Fondacaro

257,624 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад

Jake Paul said we need to update the Constitution because of the Second Amendment. I thought I knew where this was going. Then he said citizens may need drones, drone EMPs, RPGs, and anti-helicopter weapons. Not on my bingo card. But he accidentally made the purest 2A argument there is. Because anti-gun people love saying: “You can’t fight a tyrannical government with an AR-15.” Okay. Then let us have what the government has. That is the logical endpoint of their own argument. If the Second Amendment exists as a check on tyranny, then “the government has better weapons” is not an argument against the Second Amendment. It is an argument for taking it seriously. Where I split from Jake is simple: We do not need to rewrite the Second Amendment. We need to read it. “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Arms. It does not say pistols and shotguns only. So be honest: Did Jake Paul accidentally make the best pro-2A argument of the year?

Jake Paul said we need to update the Constitution because of the Second Amendment. I thought I knew where this was going. Then he said citizens may need drones, drone EMPs, RPGs, and anti-helicopter weapons. Not on my bingo card. But he accidentally made the purest 2A argument there is. Because anti-gun people love saying: “You can’t fight a tyrannical government with an AR-15.” Okay. Then let us have what the government has. That is the logical endpoint of their own argument. If the Second Amendment exists as a check on tyranny, then “the government has better weapons” is not an argument against the Second Amendment. It is an argument for taking it seriously. Where I split from Jake is simple: We do not need to rewrite the Second Amendment. We need to read it. “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Arms. It does not say pistols and shotguns only. So be honest: Did Jake Paul accidentally make the best pro-2A argument of the year?

Colion Noir

93,700 просмотров • 16 дней назад

Clarence Thomas explained the Second Amendment in one sentence. And every politician who talks about what gun rights they are willing to “let” you keep should hear it. The Second Amendment does not grant the right. It assumes the right already exists. That means the government does not give you the right to keep and bear arms. The amendment tells the government what it cannot do to a right you already had. Rights first. Government second. That is the order. And once you understand that, every gun law looks different. Because now the government is the one that has to explain itself. Not you. Then Thomas tells a story about Justice Breyer asking what he would do if a man with a machete walked up on his porch demanding money. Thomas’s answer? He would be cleaning his guns. That is why this clip hits different. He does not just rule on the Second Amendment. He understands it. He lives it. And he connects it to the history most gun control speeches leave out: The 14th Amendment. Freed slaves. The right to defend yourself from people trying to kill you. Because a citizen who cannot protect his own life does not stay a citizen for very long. Do you think most politicians understand the Second Amendment, or do they just talk around it? Shop the America Hat here:

Clarence Thomas explained the Second Amendment in one sentence. And every politician who talks about what gun rights they are willing to “let” you keep should hear it. The Second Amendment does not grant the right. It assumes the right already exists. That means the government does not give you the right to keep and bear arms. The amendment tells the government what it cannot do to a right you already had. Rights first. Government second. That is the order. And once you understand that, every gun law looks different. Because now the government is the one that has to explain itself. Not you. Then Thomas tells a story about Justice Breyer asking what he would do if a man with a machete walked up on his porch demanding money. Thomas’s answer? He would be cleaning his guns. That is why this clip hits different. He does not just rule on the Second Amendment. He understands it. He lives it. And he connects it to the history most gun control speeches leave out: The 14th Amendment. Freed slaves. The right to defend yourself from people trying to kill you. Because a citizen who cannot protect his own life does not stay a citizen for very long. Do you think most politicians understand the Second Amendment, or do they just talk around it? Shop the America Hat here:

Colion Noir

109,757 просмотров • 24 дней назад

8. Gun Rights — The First Line of Defense Against Tyranny 🔹 America has always had guns — even in schools. But mass shootings didn’t start until something else broke: the mind, not the trigger. This isn’t a gun crisis. It’s a mental health crisis disguised as one. Blame the tool, ignore the cause — that’s the script. 🔹 The First Amendment gives you free speech. The Second ensures you keep it. Disarmament was never about protection — it was about control. And a population that can’t defend itself is one that no longer needs to be convinced — only managed.

8. Gun Rights — The First Line of Defense Against Tyranny 🔹 America has always had guns — even in schools. But mass shootings didn’t start until something else broke: the mind, not the trigger. This isn’t a gun crisis. It’s a mental health crisis disguised as one. Blame the tool, ignore the cause — that’s the script. 🔹 The First Amendment gives you free speech. The Second ensures you keep it. Disarmament was never about protection — it was about control. And a population that can’t defend itself is one that no longer needs to be convinced — only managed.

MatrixMysteries

450,151 просмотров • 1 год назад

Young conservative woman picks apart MSNBC contributor’s claim that more guns = more gun violence TIM MILLER: “I think it’s basically the guns.” WOMAN: “First of all… almost 50% of all homicides caused by guns are in cities where the gun per capita is much lower.” “Secondly, I’d like to bring up that from the 1990s to the early 2000s, we had a major decrease in homicides by guns, but we had an increase of guns by nearly 50%.” MILLER: “We had an assault weapons ban during that time.” “The pro-gun side in this country is always trying to cut and dissect the demographics down… The only reason you can do that kind of statistics is that we have so many fricking gun deaths in this country.” “I don’t know why we have to come up with other convoluted reasons why we have all these deaths in this country.” WOMAN: “First of all, I think that fatherless homes is a big part of it… 76% of people who commit violent acts come from fatherless homes.” “Additionally, I think a second problem that we have is releasing criminals back into the street. It’s our criminal justice system.” “The majority, 76% of people who cause violent crimes in the United States have a criminal record of some sort.” “So we need to stop releasing people back to the streets.” TIM MILLER: “I agree.”

Young conservative woman picks apart MSNBC contributor’s claim that more guns = more gun violence TIM MILLER: “I think it’s basically the guns.” WOMAN: “First of all… almost 50% of all homicides caused by guns are in cities where the gun per capita is much lower.” “Secondly, I’d like to bring up that from the 1990s to the early 2000s, we had a major decrease in homicides by guns, but we had an increase of guns by nearly 50%.” MILLER: “We had an assault weapons ban during that time.” “The pro-gun side in this country is always trying to cut and dissect the demographics down… The only reason you can do that kind of statistics is that we have so many fricking gun deaths in this country.” “I don’t know why we have to come up with other convoluted reasons why we have all these deaths in this country.” WOMAN: “First of all, I think that fatherless homes is a big part of it… 76% of people who commit violent acts come from fatherless homes.” “Additionally, I think a second problem that we have is releasing criminals back into the street. It’s our criminal justice system.” “The majority, 76% of people who cause violent crimes in the United States have a criminal record of some sort.” “So we need to stop releasing people back to the streets.” TIM MILLER: “I agree.”

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

857,859 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

#WATCH | Delhi: On media reports that the central government is likely to bring a bill to curb the powers of the Waqf Board over assets, Former Vice Chairman Of National Commission For Minorities Atif Rasheed says, "The Waqf Act was formed in 1954. The then government in 1995 changed it completely. In 2013, a lot of amendments were made to the act. So, now if an amendment is taking place, it does not need to be taken negatively. We should trust the government, it is dedicated to 'Sabka Sath, Sabka Vikas'... As per the reports, it seems that there are going to be around 32 amendments in the act. If it is about registration with the Collector or a judicial inquiry, then why should one have a problem with it? In 2013, it was amended that the government should map it every 10 years... This is not an interference in the Shariat and it does not decrease the power of the Waqf..."

#WATCH | Delhi: On media reports that the central government is likely to bring a bill to curb the powers of the Waqf Board over assets, Former Vice Chairman Of National Commission For Minorities Atif Rasheed says, "The Waqf Act was formed in 1954. The then government in 1995 changed it completely. In 2013, a lot of amendments were made to the act. So, now if an amendment is taking place, it does not need to be taken negatively. We should trust the government, it is dedicated to 'Sabka Sath, Sabka Vikas'... As per the reports, it seems that there are going to be around 32 amendments in the act. If it is about registration with the Collector or a judicial inquiry, then why should one have a problem with it? In 2013, it was amended that the government should map it every 10 years... This is not an interference in the Shariat and it does not decrease the power of the Waqf..."

ANI

14,687 просмотров • 2 лет назад

#BREAKING:🔥Rampell: "You know it's interesting because I remember when these VERY SAME (rightwing) voices were decrying government tyranny, government tyranny under Obama, government tyranny under Biden, so much government tyranny that that's why we all need guns, that's why we should tolerate gun deaths because we need to arm ourselves against that government tyranny, and yet these are the VERY SAME voices, and their listeners, who are CHEERING ON this president as he sends out ICE agents to SHOOT U.S. citizens in the face, as he sends out the military to occupy U.S. cities, as he tries to get comedians taken off the air because they hurt his feelings, as he deploys forces to snatch Brown people off the streets for no apparent reason other than the fact that they look Brown, they might be immigrants..."😳

#BREAKING:🔥Rampell: "You know it's interesting because I remember when these VERY SAME (rightwing) voices were decrying government tyranny, government tyranny under Obama, government tyranny under Biden, so much government tyranny that that's why we all need guns, that's why we should tolerate gun deaths because we need to arm ourselves against that government tyranny, and yet these are the VERY SAME voices, and their listeners, who are CHEERING ON this president as he sends out ICE agents to SHOOT U.S. citizens in the face, as he sends out the military to occupy U.S. cities, as he tries to get comedians taken off the air because they hurt his feelings, as he deploys forces to snatch Brown people off the streets for no apparent reason other than the fact that they look Brown, they might be immigrants..."😳

Emoluments Clause

160,646 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад

Think About This TikTok Ban For A Second “I don't think enough people are talking about the fact that 535 elected officials sat in a room, and the only thing they could collectively agree on was - not minimum wage - not the border crisis - not inflation - not health care - not helping out with the homeless problem No. The only thing that they could all collectively agree upon that was a problem for America was banning the app TikTok. So while millions of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck, can barely afford rent, and are honestly struggling just to make it on a daily basis, these elected officials would not only rather take down the platform where these people can go and voice their disdain about what these officials that we elected are doing, but those also elected officials that we put into power care way more about making sure that their pockets are full so they can be richer than they need to while majority of us can barely afford eggs.”

Think About This TikTok Ban For A Second “I don't think enough people are talking about the fact that 535 elected officials sat in a room, and the only thing they could collectively agree on was - not minimum wage - not the border crisis - not inflation - not health care - not helping out with the homeless problem No. The only thing that they could all collectively agree upon that was a problem for America was banning the app TikTok. So while millions of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck, can barely afford rent, and are honestly struggling just to make it on a daily basis, these elected officials would not only rather take down the platform where these people can go and voice their disdain about what these officials that we elected are doing, but those also elected officials that we put into power care way more about making sure that their pockets are full so they can be richer than they need to while majority of us can barely afford eggs.”

Wall Street Apes

1,918,506 просмотров • 2 лет назад

The Supreme Court just handed gun owners a **9-0 win**. But here’s the part nobody saw coming: The ACLU was on the side of the gun owner. The gun-control groups were on the side trying to keep the ban. Read that again. This case wasn’t just about weed and guns. It was about the government trying to shut off someone’s Second Amendment rights by putting them in a category. No proof he was dangerous. No proof he hurt anyone. Just a label. And once the label sticks, the right disappears. That’s the game. Today it’s “drug user.” Tomorrow it’s whatever label they decide comes next. The Supreme Court basically said: Prove the person. Not the category. So here’s the question: Should the government be able to take your gun rights based on a label alone? Or should they have to prove you’re actually dangerous? Drop your answer below — and send this to the friend who still thinks every gun law is about “safety.” Extended 15% OFF Fathers Day sale Code : 2ADAD

The Supreme Court just handed gun owners a 9-0 win. But here’s the part nobody saw coming: The ACLU was on the side of the gun owner. The gun-control groups were on the side trying to keep the ban. Read that again. This case wasn’t just about weed and guns. It was about the government trying to shut off someone’s Second Amendment rights by putting them in a category. No proof he was dangerous. No proof he hurt anyone. Just a label. And once the label sticks, the right disappears. That’s the game. Today it’s “drug user.” Tomorrow it’s whatever label they decide comes next. The Supreme Court basically said: Prove the person. Not the category. So here’s the question: Should the government be able to take your gun rights based on a label alone? Or should they have to prove you’re actually dangerous? Drop your answer below — and send this to the friend who still thinks every gun law is about “safety.” Extended 15% OFF Fathers Day sale Code : 2ADAD

Colion Noir

57,611 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

$As requested, I'm posting the whole video, which makes it even look worse. ➤ He compares guns to cars. False equivalence. Cars are built for transport. Guns are built to injure or kill. Car deaths fell sharply because of regulation and engineering. He argues to tolerate gun deaths instead of regulating to reduce them. ➤ He sets up a straw man: “you’ll never get gun deaths to zero.” Nobody claims zero. Other rich countries got firearm-homicide rates down to tiny fractions of the U.S. using basic laws. Latest UNODC/OWID data show Western Europe around ~0.1–0.3 per 100k, with Sweden an outlier ~0.4 per 100k; the U.S. is ~4.4 per 100k. That’s an order of magnitude gap. ➤ Country snapshots (firearm homicide, per 100k, latest 2021–2023 window): • UK: typically ~0.02–0.07 • Germany: ~0.05–0.10 • France: ~0.20–0.35 • Italy: ~0.20–0.40 • Spain: ~0.05–0.10 • Netherlands: ~0.15–0.30 • Poland: ~0.05–0.10 • Sweden: ~0.35–0.45; Europe avg ≈ 0.16 per 100k. U.S.: ≈ 4.4. ➤ His core line wasn’t “out of context.” It is the context: “I think it’s worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment… That is a prudent deal.” He is explicitly pricing in dead civilians as acceptable. ➤ “Guns protect against tyranny” collapses under law and force. The president can deploy federal troops and federalize the Guard under the Insurrection Act. That is the explicit statutory exception to Posse Comitatus. Rifles in civilian hands do nothing against armored units, ISR drones, electronic surveillance, and lawful military deployment. This is not theory; it’s black-letter authority and modern capability. ➤ Practical reality: a semi-auto rifle can’t contest air assets, armored vehicles, signals intelligence, or coordinated urban operations. Modern doctrine and tools end such resistance quickly. RAND and U.S. Army War College analyses document how sensors, drones, armor, and comms make small-arms resistance futile against a modern force. ➤ Translation: the long clip makes him look worse because it shows a considered position, not a slip. He equates public-health regulation with tolerating preventable deaths, waves away working policies other countries use, and sells a fantasy about “tyranny” that modern law and military reality render void.$

As requested, I'm posting the whole video, which makes it even look worse. ➤ He compares guns to cars. False equivalence. Cars are built for transport. Guns are built to injure or kill. Car deaths fell sharply because of regulation and engineering. He argues to tolerate gun deaths instead of regulating to reduce them. ➤ He sets up a straw man: “you’ll never get gun deaths to zero.” Nobody claims zero. Other rich countries got firearm-homicide rates down to tiny fractions of the U.S. using basic laws. Latest UNODC/OWID data show Western Europe around ~0.1–0.3 per 100k, with Sweden an outlier ~0.4 per 100k; the U.S. is ~4.4 per 100k. That’s an order of magnitude gap. ➤ Country snapshots (firearm homicide, per 100k, latest 2021–2023 window): • UK: typically ~0.02–0.07 • Germany: ~0.05–0.10 • France: ~0.20–0.35 • Italy: ~0.20–0.40 • Spain: ~0.05–0.10 • Netherlands: ~0.15–0.30 • Poland: ~0.05–0.10 • Sweden: ~0.35–0.45; Europe avg ≈ 0.16 per 100k. U.S.: ≈ 4.4. ➤ His core line wasn’t “out of context.” It is the context: “I think it’s worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment… That is a prudent deal.” He is explicitly pricing in dead civilians as acceptable. ➤ “Guns protect against tyranny” collapses under law and force. The president can deploy federal troops and federalize the Guard under the Insurrection Act. That is the explicit statutory exception to Posse Comitatus. Rifles in civilian hands do nothing against armored units, ISR drones, electronic surveillance, and lawful military deployment. This is not theory; it’s black-letter authority and modern capability. ➤ Practical reality: a semi-auto rifle can’t contest air assets, armored vehicles, signals intelligence, or coordinated urban operations. Modern doctrine and tools end such resistance quickly. RAND and U.S. Army War College analyses document how sensors, drones, armor, and comms make small-arms resistance futile against a modern force. ➤ Translation: the long clip makes him look worse because it shows a considered position, not a slip. He equates public-health regulation with tolerating preventable deaths, waves away working policies other countries use, and sells a fantasy about “tyranny” that modern law and military reality render void.

Pete

20,600 просмотров • 1 год назад

Being Dominant means being the One in Control. Some people love it and some hate it, but either way, there is always someone in control and the areas where you are not the one in control, are where you have given that control to someone else! Being the one in control means being the one people TRUST to lead, to be in charge. And for us to hold that responsibility, we gotta be not only comfortable with that role, but to love it! To want it. Control holds negative connotations, yet if it is exerted by someone with positive intentions, it is very healthy. It means you trust yourself and don't need to rely on others to direct you. NOT being in control means chaos. It means helplessness. It means inability to make decisions. Or to take initiatives. It means you are the one that follows. And if that is what you actually desire you have to be conscious of that choice. Otherwise you fall into that role and then wonder why nothing goes as you want. And if you choose to follow, choose your leader wisely. There always is someone in control, someone in charge, someone that leads. There is always a power dynamic. Truth is, we feel safe with those in control. Especially when they show us that them being in that role is positive for us. But so many people trust others more than they trust themselves! Which means being constantly influenced by everyone else's option and advice... which makes then the ones in control of your life! Decide WHO you want to take control when you want or need it, but also choose when YOU should be The One in charge. Developing that self-trust requires radical self responsibility. Which is what people struggle with. Nobody wants to be responsible for anything. And then we blame everyone for why our lives are not what we want them to be. And if you DO want to dominate, start by controling your own Self, your own thoughts, your own life. You can't expect others to trust YOU if YOU don't. Think about it... those that are in control are the people that have the most influence in the world. So if conscious people who desire to create a positive change take more control/responsibility, it would literally change society as we know it.

Being Dominant means being the One in Control. Some people love it and some hate it, but either way, there is always someone in control and the areas where you are not the one in control, are where you have given that control to someone else! Being the one in control means being the one people TRUST to lead, to be in charge. And for us to hold that responsibility, we gotta be not only comfortable with that role, but to love it! To want it. Control holds negative connotations, yet if it is exerted by someone with positive intentions, it is very healthy. It means you trust yourself and don't need to rely on others to direct you. NOT being in control means chaos. It means helplessness. It means inability to make decisions. Or to take initiatives. It means you are the one that follows. And if that is what you actually desire you have to be conscious of that choice. Otherwise you fall into that role and then wonder why nothing goes as you want. And if you choose to follow, choose your leader wisely. There always is someone in control, someone in charge, someone that leads. There is always a power dynamic. Truth is, we feel safe with those in control. Especially when they show us that them being in that role is positive for us. But so many people trust others more than they trust themselves! Which means being constantly influenced by everyone else's option and advice... which makes then the ones in control of your life! Decide WHO you want to take control when you want or need it, but also choose when YOU should be The One in charge. Developing that self-trust requires radical self responsibility. Which is what people struggle with. Nobody wants to be responsible for anything. And then we blame everyone for why our lives are not what we want them to be. And if you DO want to dominate, start by controling your own Self, your own thoughts, your own life. You can't expect others to trust YOU if YOU don't. Think about it... those that are in control are the people that have the most influence in the world. So if conscious people who desire to create a positive change take more control/responsibility, it would literally change society as we know it.

Ms. Malissia

18,589 просмотров • 2 лет назад

Trump is not a gun guy. But he may still be the most pro-Second Amendment president we’ve ever had. And this clip explains why. He’s sitting in the White House with a room full of ranchers talking about walking through wolf country. Then he basically asks: Do people actually walk around without guns? Come on, man. That is the most normal, instinctive, plain-English Second Amendment answer you could give. Most politicians do the same routine: “I support the Second Amendment, but…” Then everything after the “but” is a restriction. Trump skipped the “but.” For him, it’s simple. Bad things happen. You carry a gun for protection. Now was he perfect? No. Bump stocks were bad. “Take the guns first” was bad. But the bump stock ban got thrown out by a Supreme Court he helped build. And without Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, we probably don’t get Bruen. That’s the case that forced every state to give regular people a pathway to carry. So no, Trump may not know guns like a gun guy. But he understands why you own one. That matters. Labor Day Sale is live now at Use code LaborDay15 for 15% off almost everything in the store. Would you call Trump the most pro-2A president ever? Drop your answer below.

Trump is not a gun guy. But he may still be the most pro-Second Amendment president we’ve ever had. And this clip explains why. He’s sitting in the White House with a room full of ranchers talking about walking through wolf country. Then he basically asks: Do people actually walk around without guns? Come on, man. That is the most normal, instinctive, plain-English Second Amendment answer you could give. Most politicians do the same routine: “I support the Second Amendment, but…” Then everything after the “but” is a restriction. Trump skipped the “but.” For him, it’s simple. Bad things happen. You carry a gun for protection. Now was he perfect? No. Bump stocks were bad. “Take the guns first” was bad. But the bump stock ban got thrown out by a Supreme Court he helped build. And without Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, we probably don’t get Bruen. That’s the case that forced every state to give regular people a pathway to carry. So no, Trump may not know guns like a gun guy. But he understands why you own one. That matters. Labor Day Sale is live now at Use code LaborDay15 for 15% off almost everything in the store. Would you call Trump the most pro-2A president ever? Drop your answer below.

Colion Noir

72,072 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Elizabeth Warren just made the gun rights argument. She just didn’t mean to. When talking about non-citizens voting, her position was simple: It is already illegal. There are already laws to prevent it. People who break those laws should be prosecuted. Cool. Now do guns. It is already illegal to murder someone with a gun. Already illegal for a felon to have one. Already illegal to steal one. Already illegal to buy one for someone who cannot legally own it. Every gun sold by a licensed dealer already goes through a background check. Lying on that form is already a federal felony. So by her own standard, the answer should be enforcement. But the second the subject becomes guns, that logic disappears. Now existing laws are never enough. Enforcement is never enough. And anyone who asks why we need another restriction gets accused of not caring about dead children. That is the double standard. When it is a right they care about, new laws are an attack. When it is the Second Amendment, new laws are “sensible measures.” So here’s the question: If the conduct is already illegal, what is the new law actually for? Drop your answer below.

Elizabeth Warren just made the gun rights argument. She just didn’t mean to. When talking about non-citizens voting, her position was simple: It is already illegal. There are already laws to prevent it. People who break those laws should be prosecuted. Cool. Now do guns. It is already illegal to murder someone with a gun. Already illegal for a felon to have one. Already illegal to steal one. Already illegal to buy one for someone who cannot legally own it. Every gun sold by a licensed dealer already goes through a background check. Lying on that form is already a federal felony. So by her own standard, the answer should be enforcement. But the second the subject becomes guns, that logic disappears. Now existing laws are never enough. Enforcement is never enough. And anyone who asks why we need another restriction gets accused of not caring about dead children. That is the double standard. When it is a right they care about, new laws are an attack. When it is the Second Amendment, new laws are “sensible measures.” So here’s the question: If the conduct is already illegal, what is the new law actually for? Drop your answer below.

Colion Noir

48,702 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Thailand just gave America a warning. Two shootings happened in less than a week. And within days, the Prime Minister suspended new permits to purchase firearms. No new law. No long debate. No vote from the people. He said it, and the legal pathway to buying a gun shut down. That is what happens when gun ownership is permission instead of a right. And here’s the part that makes the entire crackdown collapse on itself: Thailand already has an estimated 10.3 million guns in circulation. Only about 6 million are registered. That leaves more than 4 million guns already off the books. So the government’s solution is to stop the people still trying to follow the rules. The criminals keep what they already have. The illegal guns stay where they are. And the person who doesn’t have a gun yet just got told they can’t legally get one. That is why the Second Amendment matters. A bad week should not be enough for the government to take away a right. Because if you need permission to exercise it, it was never really a right. Do you think America is protected from this, or are some states already trying a smaller version of it? Drop your answer below.

Thailand just gave America a warning. Two shootings happened in less than a week. And within days, the Prime Minister suspended new permits to purchase firearms. No new law. No long debate. No vote from the people. He said it, and the legal pathway to buying a gun shut down. That is what happens when gun ownership is permission instead of a right. And here’s the part that makes the entire crackdown collapse on itself: Thailand already has an estimated 10.3 million guns in circulation. Only about 6 million are registered. That leaves more than 4 million guns already off the books. So the government’s solution is to stop the people still trying to follow the rules. The criminals keep what they already have. The illegal guns stay where they are. And the person who doesn’t have a gun yet just got told they can’t legally get one. That is why the Second Amendment matters. A bad week should not be enough for the government to take away a right. Because if you need permission to exercise it, it was never really a right. Do you think America is protected from this, or are some states already trying a smaller version of it? Drop your answer below.

Colion Noir

48,280 просмотров • 1 месяц назад