I love all the anti-gun rhetoric still and how an armed populace can do “nothing” against the US Military. My question is then to them, why do authoritarians always take away guns then if against a military they’re “useless.”
The best part is how many of them are using the exact same language that they (rightfully) complained about people using to try and sensationalize and fear monger other cases of civilian firearm ownership. "Oh, it was semi-automatic! (like literally every handgun in existence) And had dozens of rounds (like any modern handgun).
Exact same fucking shit as people would use to bitch and sensationalize other incidents, but in this case Alex Pretti wasn’t a fucking mass murderer. They’ll complain about the media calling the gun a mass child murderer uses an “assault weapon”, but the moment someone actually exercises their 2nd Amendment rights properly, suddenly they’re happily repeat the same shit because it benefits them.
Likewise, while I appreciate a lot of people waking up to it, it’s frustrating how many people on “the left” (liberal Dems mostly) who were unbelievably ignorant about firearms and were vehemently opposed to any amount of private firearm ownership, suddenly caring about the 2nd Amendment and parroting off “shall not be infringed”, as I feel like it’s not a principled stance and they’re just saying it because it’s “their side” now. If they’re actually realizing it’s kinda important, good for them, but it’s still frustrating how many people care solely because it’s “their side”
I’ve been a leftist gun owner for about ten years now, and I’m happy to see people on my side coming over. I still think it should be limited to well organized militias (like it says in the constitution), but that would still let states defend themselves from the federal government.
Wow. Republicans sure gave up the second amendment really fast. I figured that one would take a little longer.
I love all the anti-gun rhetoric still and how an armed populace can do “nothing” against the US Military. My question is then to them, why do authoritarians always take away guns then if against a military they’re “useless.”
The best part is how many of them are using the exact same language that they (rightfully) complained about people using to try and sensationalize and fear monger other cases of civilian firearm ownership. "Oh, it was semi-automatic! (like literally every handgun in existence) And had dozens of rounds (like any modern handgun).
Exact same fucking shit as people would use to bitch and sensationalize other incidents, but in this case Alex Pretti wasn’t a fucking mass murderer. They’ll complain about the media calling the gun a mass child murderer uses an “assault weapon”, but the moment someone actually exercises their 2nd Amendment rights properly, suddenly they’re happily repeat the same shit because it benefits them.
Likewise, while I appreciate a lot of people waking up to it, it’s frustrating how many people on “the left” (liberal Dems mostly) who were unbelievably ignorant about firearms and were vehemently opposed to any amount of private firearm ownership, suddenly caring about the 2nd Amendment and parroting off “shall not be infringed”, as I feel like it’s not a principled stance and they’re just saying it because it’s “their side” now. If they’re actually realizing it’s kinda important, good for them, but it’s still frustrating how many people care solely because it’s “their side”
I’ve been a leftist gun owner for about ten years now, and I’m happy to see people on my side coming over. I still think it should be limited to well organized militias (like it says in the constitution), but that would still let states defend themselves from the federal government.
back then that idiom meant “for our rights to continue to exist, the right to use weapons will not be infringed.”
I still don’t see the point of muddling what it meant then now, when the 🇺🇲 has been crushing well organized militias for centuries.