Anonymous #1 3w

Both would be good

28

Anonymous #1 3w

The same party that has 2a absolutists isn’t exactly itching to make mental health care easier to access. Shit, a good portion of them will straight up call you a pussy for even wanting to talk to a therapist

9

Anonymous #3 3w

I’m a moderate

1

Anonymous #1 3w

But I believe in the right to bear arms. Especially with a government that has wayyy too much power

1

Anonymous #1 3w

Or ban guns all tg. Better learn to use yall hands to fight 😂😂

1

Anonymous #4 3w

Aye I got swords lmao Ik I can’t throw hands😂

3

Anonymous #1 3w

I’m a leftist. I believe in the right to bear arms as well. But let’s not lie and say that it’s so we can stand up to the government. The vast majority of people that own guns are pussies. The people that aren’t don’t compare to our military if it was enforced on us. It’s not the 1700s anymore. The citizens don’t have access to the same technology. Enforce stricter laws AND increase mental health access and we will see a drop

7

Anonymous #1 3w

do you think a revolution would be fought with legal registered firearms? and do you think that a revolution is going to happen in our lifetime? it just seems to me like the tyranny thing doesn’t really weigh more than the bodies of children on the scale of justice

4

Anonymous #7 3w

inalienable rights and constitutional rights bear a very different standard and beyond that the second amendment speaks of bearing arms in the context of well regulated militias not in the context of terrorgram teens

0

Anonymous bluecanoe 3w

Your constitutional rights are supposed to be inalienable. The original purpose of guns was to protect against a tyrannical government. That’s a baseline unregulated system. You may need to check up on your history books .

1

Anonymous #7 3w

i live in massachusetts. we have strict gun laws but you cannot still own a gun if you have a safety certification. hence we have very low rates of gun violence while people are still able to safely own gun for whatever personal use. the constitution also does not say everyone can personally own a gun but rather that states can form militias to defend themselves which is what the national guard (basically) is

1

Anonymous #1 3w

everyone i’ve ever heard say this doesn’t want to pass red flag laws to prevent people with unresolved violent tendencies or mental health issues to own guns and doesn’t want to further fund mental health care and provide health care for everyone. so what’s your actual solution?

4

Anonymous #8 3w

Try applying “well regulated” into a world where its people are revolting against the government, also the ladder part of it says “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". I live in florida so I’m not opposed in any sense to gun laws, I see what happens first hand. But at the end of the day the right must be kept alive. A lot of what drives the higher homicide rate is our stand your ground law, some are opposed to it because of that, some feel safer.

1

Anonymous #7 3w

HISTORY BOOKS?? WERE TALKING ABOUT LAW YOU NEED TO CHECK UP ON LAW BRO DAMN

0

Anonymous bluecanoe 3w

Uhm yeah… a history book, im asking them to find the original purpose of WHY the amendment exists, which was made 300+ years ago. You would wanna reference a history book.

1

Anonymous bluecanoe 3w

If you recall we’re a nation built on fighting a war with the world superpower of the time and winning, ofc they had that as their main priority when discussing gun laws.

1

Anonymous #7 3w

you’re frustratingly wrong here bro, constitutional rights are not necessarily inalienable. the constitution protects life liberty and the pursuit of happiness as inalienable rights. the bill of rights is fundamental not inalienable its two different things. further if constitutional rights are inalienable why can’t i go buy a gun right now without a license in my state? surely any restriction would be an alienation of my right. why can’t i yell fire in a crowded theater?

0

Anonymous #7 3w

ermmm 🤓🤓 if you recall ☝️ were talking about rights being fundamental vs. inalienable. it’s true that the second amendment is not inalienable

0

Anonymous bluecanoe 3w

Your rights can’t infringe on others rights without it being a crime. Also, While the Constitution does not use the term "inalienable," it enumerates specific rights, such as the rights to free speech, freedom of religion, and the right to due process, to protect them from government interference.

1

Anonymous #9 3w

Infringed doesn’t mean that laws can’t be stricter

1

Anonymous #5 3w

That’s exactly what that means. Infringing isn’t taking away completely, it’s attempting to change or make stricter

-1

Anonymous #9 3w

strict scrutiny go brrrrrrr

1

Anonymous #7 3w

the government can (and does) interfere with every right. the constitution DOES use the term inalienable; talking about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. All other rights are NOT inalienable. no command is inexorable and no right is ultimate. let’s do some examples… 1/?

0

Anonymous #7 3w

freedom of speech is abridged deeply by the government in ways that are consistent with the constitution. yelling fire in a crowded theater is the go to example for this but it’s also illegal to defame people, to use fighting words, to harass people etc… freedom of religion is abridged by the government in areas where animal sacrifice is illegal through facially neutral statutes, or for teachers trying to spread their religion to students. 2/?

0

Anonymous #7 3w

due process is abridged in states where abortion is illegal etc…

0