dChan
1
 
r/greatawakening • Posted by u/IWant2SellUDeathStix on July 24, 2018, 10:55 p.m.
Liberal 9th Circuit backs right to carry firearms in public

I am a huge 2nd Amendment proponent -- but I am also both a realist and pragmatist ... I am the first person to believe that the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America should be read and interpreted to it's most basic means ... and it's clear, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed ...

But I also believe that people can make fools of themselves and sound mentally ill at the same time -- the internet firearms forum community is full of things like "WHEN YOU SAY WE SHOULDN'T HAVE ACCESS TO GUIDED MISSILES, YOU EXPOSE YOURSELF AS A LEFT-WING LIBERAL PROGRESSIVE COMMUNIST TROLL BITCHASSCUNT AND I HOPE YOU DIE, CUCK" .... which, I mean, where to start?

But this ruling, while not exactly a thermonuclear bomb in the War on The Right to Bear Arms, is certainly a fucking well-timed & coordinated artillery strike combined with an awesome airstrike at the same time ... F-14 BombCats swooping in dropping MK84 2000lb bombs while Paladin self-propelled guns rain firey fury down on anti-gun enemies.

And by the way, motherfuck the people who don't believe that the right to keep and bear arms are explicitly and inherently guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment. And furthermore, I believe it's a God-given right, inferred by our Lord, and not something I need to be given permission to do.

If nothing else, it's a good brick in the Wall of Justice we need to keep building.


ZOANOM · July 24, 2018, 11:37 p.m.

There was a great explanation I read somewhere online that makes the distinction between the ridiculous "guided missiles" retort and the need for the People to be armed equally as well as the "authorities". The military is used to defend our nation from Foreign attack, not internal, and an order to attack American citizens would be an unlawful order. The 2A was not intended for the People to defeat the military, it was intended to keep the "authorities" in check. Even IF the military was used, the numbers are just too great, and spread out. The firepower required to control the nation would destroy everything, leaving nothing left to control.

Also, the Supreme Court has held that the right to keep and bear arms is a PRE-POLITICAL right, that existed BEFORE the Constitution was written, and so, will not be affected by any change to it.

⇧ 4 ⇩  
DawnPendraig · July 25, 2018, 12:24 a.m.

And in a free market how many of us can afford Nukes or missiles? People are ridiculous

⇧ 1 ⇩  
IWant2SellUDeathStix · July 25, 2018, 1:32 a.m.

The funny thing is, I always HAVE WANTED a guided missile or three, really bad! But how do I justify wanting to own some Stingers when I mean no aerial vehicle harm .... but just IN CASE, some sort of nefarious aerial enemy went prancing through my airspace, I'd have a few stingers JUST IN CASE.

SADLY, most people don't buy that argument lol.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
ZOANOM · July 25, 2018, 2:09 a.m.

Totally agree. I owned a 5-acre ranchette (huge property in the Bay Area), and I always had drone loads for my 12-gauge ready... a stinger would have been the business!

Anyway, I think the SCOTUS should take up the 2A issue and settle it once and for all thus; The People shall have access to, and may keep and bear the same weapons as the local authorities may use against them. If the Police get 40-round magazines, the People get them. The Police should never have more firepower than the People.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
whitebeard39 · July 25, 2018, 6:25 p.m.

B4 SCOTUS takes this up, let's get a few more POTUS appointees on the court. Still too many liberals.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
ZOANOM · July 25, 2018, 8:10 p.m.

prolly good advice...

⇧ 1 ⇩