Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

I'm so happy to see the Democrat Party has become 2nd Amendment protectors! Of course what it took was a Leftists fighting ICE to cause this. The 2nd Amendment gives us the right to bear arms, not the right to attack law enforcement. Try again, Democrats.

BrilynHollyhand's profile picture

Brilyn Hollyhand

235,465 subscribers

20,800 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад •via X (Twitter)

Новости и политика
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

As I said last night, complaining that the victim had a gun is a terrible explanation. The 2nd Amendment protects the right to bear arms for all law abiding American - not just law enforcement.
0:47

As I said last night, complaining that the victim had a gun is a terrible explanation. The 2nd Amendment protects the right to bear arms for all law abiding American - not just law enforcement.

Marc Short

21,236 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

.Rep. Jim Jordan goes off on the importance of protecting the 2nd Amendment: "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Plain and simple. It doesn't say the right to keep and bear muskets shall not be infringed."
1:44

.Rep. Jim Jordan goes off on the importance of protecting the 2nd Amendment: "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Plain and simple. It doesn't say the right to keep and bear muskets shall not be infringed."

YAF

277,046 просмотров • 3 лет назад

As deranged leftists mock Charlie Kirk's support for the 2nd Amendment after being shot by an assassin, listen to him share a clear argument for the right to bear arms with @awrhawkins:
1:05

As deranged leftists mock Charlie Kirk's support for the 2nd Amendment after being shot by an assassin, listen to him share a clear argument for the right to bear arms with @awrhawkins:

Breitbart News

34,604 просмотров • 9 месяцев назад

Did Trump just imply that the 2nd Amendment only ensures the right to bear Muskets?
0:31

Did Trump just imply that the 2nd Amendment only ensures the right to bear Muskets?

Ed Krassenstein

34,384 просмотров • 1 год назад

Democrats are now pro-2A Chuck Schumer: “The president seems to have forgotten the words of the Second Amendment. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
2:00

Democrats are now pro-2A Chuck Schumer: “The president seems to have forgotten the words of the Second Amendment. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

The Post Millennial

227,671 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

WATCH: Elon Musk highlights the significance of the Second Amendment: "The Second Amendment is there to stop the tyranny of government. The Second Amendment, the right to bear arms, is there to protect freedom of speech.”
0:38

WATCH: Elon Musk highlights the significance of the Second Amendment: "The Second Amendment is there to stop the tyranny of government. The Second Amendment, the right to bear arms, is there to protect freedom of speech.”

NRA

19,459 просмотров • 1 год назад

USA TODAY: Is it the White House's position that Americans have the right to show up to these ICE operations and film, document, or protest the law enforcement actions? LEAVITT: All Americans have 1st Amendment constitutional right, of course, but ...
0:34

USA TODAY: Is it the White House's position that Americans have the right to show up to these ICE operations and film, document, or protest the law enforcement actions? LEAVITT: All Americans have 1st Amendment constitutional right, of course, but ...

Aaron Rupar

2,820,295 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

.Karoline Leavitt: "President Donald J. Trump supports the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding American citizens—absolutely... while Americans have a constitutional right to bear Arms, Americans do not have a constitutional right to impede lawful immigration enforcement operations."
0:40

.Karoline Leavitt: "President Donald J. Trump supports the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding American citizens—absolutely... while Americans have a constitutional right to bear Arms, Americans do not have a constitutional right to impede lawful immigration enforcement operations."

Rapid Response 47

212,140 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

I corrected Democrat Ranking Member Nadler in Judiciary Cmte after he misquoted the literal text of the Second Amendment. We must remain vigilant. Democrats selectively reinterpret the text and the meaning of the Second Amendment to infringe on our right to keep and bear arms.
1:30

I corrected Democrat Ranking Member Nadler in Judiciary Cmte after he misquoted the literal text of the Second Amendment. We must remain vigilant. Democrats selectively reinterpret the text and the meaning of the Second Amendment to infringe on our right to keep and bear arms.

Thomas Massie

966,963 просмотров • 2 лет назад

The 19th Amendment gives women the right to vote. Republicans, afraid of women's ability to vote them out, want to repeal that Amendment. They've already taken away the right to bodily autonomy, do not doubt they'll try to repeal the 19th amendment too. ROEVEMBER IS COMING.
1:48

The 19th Amendment gives women the right to vote. Republicans, afraid of women's ability to vote them out, want to repeal that Amendment. They've already taken away the right to bodily autonomy, do not doubt they'll try to repeal the 19th amendment too. ROEVEMBER IS COMING.

BrooklynDad_Defiant!☮️

545,158 просмотров • 1 год назад

White House Karoline Leavitt: "President Donald J. Trump supports the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding American citizens—absolutely. … While Americans have a constitutional right to bear arms, Americans do not have a constitutional right to impede lawful immigration enforcement operations."
0:26

White House Karoline Leavitt: "President Donald J. Trump supports the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding American citizens—absolutely. … While Americans have a constitutional right to bear arms, Americans do not have a constitutional right to impede lawful immigration enforcement operations."

NRA

135,878 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

E.D. Hill: “The First Amendment guarantees your right to assemble and your right to speak. It does not guarantee your right to physically obstruct a law enforcement officer. It does not guarantee your right to destroy government property.”
2:37

E.D. Hill: “The First Amendment guarantees your right to assemble and your right to speak. It does not guarantee your right to physically obstruct a law enforcement officer. It does not guarantee your right to destroy government property.”

NEWSMAX

59,429 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

As a firearms educator and a 2A absolutist, I believe the 2nd Amendment is both a human right and a civil right. The 2nd Amendment does not grant permission—it affirms a pre-existing, natural right of all people to keep and bear arms. The U.S. Supreme Court made this clear in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and reaffirmed in McDonald v. Chicago (2010): the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, fundamental to our system of ordered liberty, and incorporated against the states. In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), the Court further held that the 2nd Amendment protects the right to carry firearms in public for lawful purposes, especially self-defense. But lawful purpose is the key distinction. I teach my students a foundational principle: the mind is the weapon; the gun is the tool. Firearms are carried to defend and protect life, not to impose our will on others—but to ensure that others cannot force their will upon us. We are peaceful, not harmless. We are at a dangerous point in our society where radical leftists are openly taking up arms and encouraging others to do the same, not for self-defense, but to seek out violence against their fellow countrymen. That conduct is not protected by the 2nd Amendment, because the Constitution does not protect violent intent, criminal conspiracy, or political terror. The Supreme Court has been clear across constitutional law that rights do not extend to violent misuse. The 2nd Amendment protects keeping and bearing arms for lawful purposes—it does not protect threats, incitement, or plans to harm others. Just as the First Amendment does not protect true threats or incitement to violence, the Second Amendment does not shield those who seek to abuse it. As a firearms instructor, I am not the government. I am not issuing permits; I am certifying training and competency. Instructors have long-recognized professional discretion and duty of care—especially when credible threats or statements of violent intent are expressed. Is refusing to certify someone who demonstrates dangerous intent gun control, disarmament, and a constitutional violation? Or, is it a private professional judgment, grounded in safety, ethics, and responsibility? When credible threats of violence are made, is alerting law enforcement a betrayal of liberty? The Supreme Court has never held that the 2nd Amendment creates a right to anonymity in violent plotting or shields criminal intent from lawful investigation. So here’s the question I’m wrestling with—and I want your thoughts: As a firearms instructor, should I be able—or obligated—to deny concealed carry certification to individuals who express violent or extremist intent? Should instructors alert law enforcement when credible threats are made? Am I violating my principles by refusing to arm those who seek chaos—or am I upholding the true purpose of the 2nd Amendment? Let me know in the comments.
2:43

As a firearms educator and a 2A absolutist, I believe the 2nd Amendment is both a human right and a civil right. The 2nd Amendment does not grant permission—it affirms a pre-existing, natural right of all people to keep and bear arms. The U.S. Supreme Court made this clear in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and reaffirmed in McDonald v. Chicago (2010): the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, fundamental to our system of ordered liberty, and incorporated against the states. In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), the Court further held that the 2nd Amendment protects the right to carry firearms in public for lawful purposes, especially self-defense. But lawful purpose is the key distinction. I teach my students a foundational principle: the mind is the weapon; the gun is the tool. Firearms are carried to defend and protect life, not to impose our will on others—but to ensure that others cannot force their will upon us. We are peaceful, not harmless. We are at a dangerous point in our society where radical leftists are openly taking up arms and encouraging others to do the same, not for self-defense, but to seek out violence against their fellow countrymen. That conduct is not protected by the 2nd Amendment, because the Constitution does not protect violent intent, criminal conspiracy, or political terror. The Supreme Court has been clear across constitutional law that rights do not extend to violent misuse. The 2nd Amendment protects keeping and bearing arms for lawful purposes—it does not protect threats, incitement, or plans to harm others. Just as the First Amendment does not protect true threats or incitement to violence, the Second Amendment does not shield those who seek to abuse it. As a firearms instructor, I am not the government. I am not issuing permits; I am certifying training and competency. Instructors have long-recognized professional discretion and duty of care—especially when credible threats or statements of violent intent are expressed. Is refusing to certify someone who demonstrates dangerous intent gun control, disarmament, and a constitutional violation? Or, is it a private professional judgment, grounded in safety, ethics, and responsibility? When credible threats of violence are made, is alerting law enforcement a betrayal of liberty? The Supreme Court has never held that the 2nd Amendment creates a right to anonymity in violent plotting or shields criminal intent from lawful investigation. So here’s the question I’m wrestling with—and I want your thoughts: As a firearms instructor, should I be able—or obligated—to deny concealed carry certification to individuals who express violent or extremist intent? Should instructors alert law enforcement when credible threats are made? Am I violating my principles by refusing to arm those who seek chaos—or am I upholding the true purpose of the 2nd Amendment? Let me know in the comments.

Alicia Garcia

33,744 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

The second Amendment is part of the U.S. constitution that protects the right of people to keep and bear arms.
1:05

The second Amendment is part of the U.S. constitution that protects the right of people to keep and bear arms.

JOKAMRREDPILLZ

157,826 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад

Another deranged liberal saying the second amendment gives them the right to shoot ICE
0:23

Another deranged liberal saying the second amendment gives them the right to shoot ICE

RedWhite&Right

11,753 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

BASH: “So are you saying it's not okay for him to exercise his Second Amendment right – not to mention his First Amendment right to be there in the first place – but his Second Amendment right to carry a gun? And if you do, you can be shot by federal law enforcement?” BOVINO: "No, I didn't say that, Dana. I never said that. What I'm saying is we respect that Second Amendment right. But those rights don't count when you riot and assault, delay, obstruct and impede law enforcement officers."
1:34

BASH: “So are you saying it's not okay for him to exercise his Second Amendment right – not to mention his First Amendment right to be there in the first place – but his Second Amendment right to carry a gun? And if you do, you can be shot by federal law enforcement?” BOVINO: "No, I didn't say that, Dana. I never said that. What I'm saying is we respect that Second Amendment right. But those rights don't count when you riot and assault, delay, obstruct and impede law enforcement officers."

State of the Union

37,354 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

J6 cop Michael Fanone says to shoot ICE agents "It’s time for the American people to organize and utilize their 2nd Amendment right to protect themselves from what has clearly become an unaccountable and lawless agency that’s killing Americans”
1:14

J6 cop Michael Fanone says to shoot ICE agents "It’s time for the American people to organize and utilize their 2nd Amendment right to protect themselves from what has clearly become an unaccountable and lawless agency that’s killing Americans”

Breitbart News

1,371,894 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

Explain to me why we shouldn't have the right to bear arms to defend our homes? We need the Castle Law Doctrine and the Right to Bear Arms! Tell me that not I'm wrong! What are we waiting for?
1:58

Explain to me why we shouldn't have the right to bear arms to defend our homes? We need the Castle Law Doctrine and the Right to Bear Arms! Tell me that not I'm wrong! What are we waiting for?

The People's King Elvis

25,803 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

Republicans need to take a stand. This is an assault on the Constitution. 1st Amendment: the right to peacefully assemble. 2nd Amendment: Alex Pretti was a lawful gun owner. 4th Amendment: unreasonable search and seizure. You can’t call yourself a defender of liberty if you won’t defend it when it counts.
1:08

Republicans need to take a stand. This is an assault on the Constitution. 1st Amendment: the right to peacefully assemble. 2nd Amendment: Alex Pretti was a lawful gun owner. 4th Amendment: unreasonable search and seizure. You can’t call yourself a defender of liberty if you won’t defend it when it counts.

Amy Klobuchar

181,628 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад