Anonymous #1 2d

1870 was the time in which democrats were trying to maintain slavery… so no i don’t think i did

4

Anonymous OP 2d

Hence that’s a reason to vote for the republicans, but only in 1870, not today. It is a joke, about how the republicans haven’t been the good guys in a very long time.

21

Anonymous #3 2d

…clearly their parents didn’t? Because abortion was legal when they were born????? What a weird attempt at a gotcha.

12

Anonymous #3 2d

Dude trump is doing the opposite of all of these. He’s spending taxpayer dollars to argue to the Supreme Court that occasional marijuana use should make someone ineligible to possess their legally obtained firearm 💀

13

Anonymous #3 2d

Lower taxes for billionaires but higher taxes for regular people. Small government only for the departments that help people, but huge government for ice and military and militarized cops. Strong national defense with antagonizing all our neighbors and allies. “Border security” that includes imprisoning US citizens without trial. “Law and order” except if they’re rich fraudsters and pedos. “Energy independence” by importing Venezuelan oil.

7

Anonymous #1 2d

“Second amendment rights” unless you protest against ice or are a black person. “Conservative judicial appointments” is pretty self-explanatory in how much it sucks. “Traditional social values” is also self-explanatory in how much it sucks. And that’s only ever applied as hating gay people and not about the president cheating on his wife.

7

Anonymous #3 2d

Your parents could’ve benefited from one👀

12

Anonymous #3 2d

“Traditional social values” gtfo lmao

6

Anonymous #2 2d

He actually brought a marijuana/gun case to SCOTUS, it's not like Biden or any of these "pro weed" dems were doing that. Also FRTs, SBRs, suppressors.

3

Anonymous #6 2d

That being said, a much better example of a pro 2a republican is Massie. For one, he doesn't touch kids

13

Anonymous #6 2d

It sorta matters what that case is lol, you wanna argue in favor of taking peoples guns because they smoke weed on occasion like the trump admin is?

8

Anonymous #2 2d

No, but bringing it up in front of SCOTUS is a much better chance of the law getting stricken down or narrowed than just prosecuting it.

1

Anonymous #2 2d

Shit like this is literally how we got the Bruen decision, and despite the Trump admin's best efforts to give this case a terrible vehicle, it really seems like SCOTUS will rule in Hemani's favor.

1

Anonymous #6 2d

I’m not sure we really need to give trump credit for his horrible case ending up being beneficial if the Supreme Court disagrees with him. Like sure it’s better in the long run but it’s not like he had valid goals in mind

1

Anonymous #2 2d

I mean like I said, he's not a great example of a Pro 2A republican. Compared to the blue team though, he's a saint of gun rights.

1

Anonymous #2 2d

Everytown would have had Biden crucified if he pulled something like this

1

Anonymous #6 2d

Even dems who are in favor of gun control don’t call someone a domestic terrorist just because they legally had a gun on them. Unlike the Trump admin.

3

Anonymous #1 2d

Yeah, the dems just have the ATF kill them and don't respond to comments

1

Anonymous #6 1d

you mean like when trump let the las vegas shooting happen so the atf could ban bump stocks. Those fucking dems bro

1

Anonymous OP 1d

Still think that one was the Saudis doing leadership purges

1

Anonymous OP 1d

Bump stocks don't give you a cyclical consistent rate of fire for hundreds of rounds, belt feds do

1

Anonymous OP 1d

There are also videos from that showing that the shots were coming from multiple directions

1

Anonymous #6 1d

yeah 100% the government did it. and who was in charge of the gov ?

1

Anonymous OP 1d

Guess we got a bone to pick with King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud

1

Anonymous #6 1d

look maybe that’s the explanation but i definitely think the theory that the government was going on and on about bump stocks, this killing happens, they blame bump stocks then ban them. open and shut

1

Anonymous #6 1d

i mean we did yeah, trump backs MBS bc of his personal business deals

1

Anonymous OP 1d

I don't doubt that the bump stock ban was a part of the coverup, but Trump wasn't covering for himself. He was covering for the Saudis who had just committed the biggest mass shooting in American history trying to take out a Saudi Prince

1

Anonymous #6 1d

i mean realistically it could be both …?

1

Anonymous OP 1d

I just don't see what Trump gains from shooting up a random concert or banning bump stocks. At most it won him a few points from already slightly right leaning left wingers, but it lost him more with his own party

1

Anonymous #6 1d

truthfully, you might be right that might not be the reason, but whatever the reason is, there was a motivated either political or psychological operation on US soil that killed a fuck ton of people, and we aren’t even able to ask questions about it. And I can’t think of anything like that that ever happened under A. Democrat other than maybe the Oklahoma City bombings.

1