Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

884

The same with executive actions to "protect" any right.

When any infringing law on the 2A or any other right, is sufficient cause to go to war, and always has been. Likewise the use of these laws during interference, or arrest of people exercising their rights.

They pass a law or action to "protect" a right. And we go along with it. And whats that say? It says "well laws can giveth, so laws can taketh away". And come next 'election', they pass laws to remove those rights.

Same with saying "see the supreme court agrees with us! So their word is the final word and the law of the land!"

Until the supreme court rules against you.

We should assert we have rights regardless of what the law says, whether it "protects" those rights or not and not fall for this horseshit.

Disclaimer: not an incitement or suggestion toward violence/lawlessness.

The same with executive actions to "protect" any right. When any infringing law on the 2A or any other right, is sufficient cause to go to war, and always has been. Likewise the use of these laws during interference, or arrest of people exercising their rights. They pass a law or action to "protect" a right. And we go along with it. And whats that say? It says "well laws can giveth, so laws can taketh away". And come next 'election', they pass laws to remove those rights. Same with saying "see the supreme court agrees with us! So their word is the final word and the law of the land!" Until the supreme court rules against you. We should assert we have rights *regardless* of what the law says, whether it "protects" those rights or not and not fall for this horseshit. Disclaimer: not an incitement or suggestion toward violence/lawlessness.

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (4).
[–] • 1 pt

It would have different weight of the States' were instead re-stating the 2A within their own constitutions and clarifying that "shall not be infringed" means exactly what it says. There is a difference between repeating that something is inalienable and finding a way to coexist with infringement.

[–] • 1 pt

There is a difference between repeating that something is inalienable and finding a way to coexist with infringement.

Couldn't have said it better!