Huh

End Middle East wars now

Save Hong Kong and Taiwan

biden says no

Yall prepared to fight for your rights???

Yes.

mmmh hhmmm if he actually take any away

Biden might not, but Kamala,will

ok, what will she take away?

I actually do not know

enlighten me

Biden or Harris will attempt to ban guns again

More specifically “Assault Rifles” even though those don’t exist

guns will ban them

They’re going to Brazil

the assualt rifle as diffined is something that has a large magasine capacity and shoots at a certian rate (don't know the exact rate, just a lib definition)

@ThiccSpicyGenderRevealParty do you argee with background checks?

That’s a bit complicated for me because at first, it seems like a good idea, since you know, it keeps people with a criminal record from getting them, but then there’s the fact that they could simply obtain it illegally, which kinda makes it hard for the background checks to really do their job effectively

So not really

yeah, but it shouldn't be easier to get one legally

I thought, at first glance that that was all one plane and I was like , wait what?

Why not?

for a person with a violet criminal record

Do we really want the government to have complete control over who can and can't have a firearm to protect themselves, or stand up against the very government that thinks it has the authority to tell people whether or not they can exercise there God given right?

I agree with on the fact that if they have a violent record they should serve there time, but afterwards they should be allowed to buy a firearm legally.

If they continue to have a violent record than the right to own a firearm is removed.

first off, owning a gun isn't a god given right, its a social contract given right. I think someone with a bad criminal record, or an record of abuse should not be able to own a gun

They right to protect yourself by any means necessary is a God given right, that includes the right to own a firearm, knife, or even your own fists.

And historically they government would take away firearms from those they deemed to be "threats to society" in an effort to disarm the populace.

self defence is a part of our social construct, and part of what it means to be free. and I get your point about disarming the populace, but the agruemnet I am making is that criminals are not of a threat to the goverment, but rather to the average citizen. Thus I have three proposals to this degree. The first; Though it is a freedom to defend yourself, it is also a freedom to not get shot. Thus I would propose taking guns away from those who have proven that they cannot follow the social construct our founding fathers design to protect the freedom of our citizenry while allowing those who are reposible to own fire arms. The second is since, tragically a majority of homicides are within a marriage or other such amiable relatioship we should deprive those who are known to be abusive their access to the savage tool of their crimes. The third Propsal is another attempt to lower the number of homicides. There are, as I am sure you know, three degrees of murder, th first being premeditated, and no gun long shall prevent this, other than the total removal of guns, which would be ridiculous. the scond degree on the other hand is the heat of the momemnt, the fire of hatred acted rashly upon before it dies down into the embers of reason. This we can stop by implimenting a waiting period upon the pruchase of a firearm, so that one may not be bought with an imidiate and terrible purpose.

Wasn't the Self Defense thing around before the Social Contract stuff?

Back when the British were still Colonizing the US, there were huge swathes of land that was just plain impossible to manage with their army

and therefore, just let the Colonists bring Firearms to defend themselves, not that it mattered whether or not the British approved or not due to the fact that the colonists would have gotten guns at some point anyway

the social contract is but what humanity, as a group, creates to protect the freedom of all, like ethics

So those who the government would deem a threat to society because they won't adhere to the governments social contract automatically forfeit there right to self defense?

not the goverments social contract, the people's social constract- like we can agree murdering people is bad-I hope

Would I not a have a choice as to whether our not I want to be apart of said social contract?

Murdering people is bad but it is a lot harder to murder people when everyone has guns to protect themselves with.

said social contact is not goverment ordained, but often goverment enforced, like murder and drugs are bad, also I would argue everyone having a gun would make it easier, also, did you read my propsals?

I read them and they all come to the same conclusion the taking of firearms from individuals who the government (or in your case some make believe societal contract) deems unfit to protect themselves by any means necessary.