Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

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

236,089 subscribers

20,815 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

Nachrichten & Politik
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

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 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

.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 Aufrufe • vor 3 Jahren

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 Aufrufe • vor 11 Monaten

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

227,825 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

Today is the 160th anniversary of the Freedmen’s Bureau Act of 1866, which reminds us of our duty to protect Americans’ right to bear arms. DOJ Civil Rights Division has filed cases against unconstitutional restrictions of the 2nd Amendment— a Constitutional guarantee for every American!
1:38

Today is the 160th anniversary of the Freedmen’s Bureau Act of 1866, which reminds us of our duty to protect Americans’ right to bear arms. DOJ Civil Rights Division has filed cases against unconstitutional restrictions of the 2nd Amendment— a Constitutional guarantee for every American!

AAGHarmeetDhillon

78,884 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

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

2,820,422 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

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 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

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 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

.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 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

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 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

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

135,909 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

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 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

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 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

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

157,942 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten

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

11,803 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

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 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

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

1,372,152 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

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 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten