The only ones to be “disarmed” would be criminals and those with nefarious intent. When you fit into one of those two categories, you lose the right to own something that’s literal purpose is to kill. No one is trying to disarm responsible, safe and law abiding citizens with this
Other things that couldn’t happen because the “weren’t constitutional” -Ending Slavery -POC getting the right to vote -Women getting the right to vote -Ending segregation -Marriage equalityhttps://twitter.com/NRATV/status/1093894182266056704 …
0:40
-
-
-
So no, it’s not in violation of the Constitution for that reason, in my view, because while the right to bear arms is evident in the 2nd Amendment, we also have to protect our own people. I will never understand why that’s such a difficult thing to grasp.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
It’s called an amendment. At one point in history alcohol was prohibited. Then an amendment repealed that amendment.
-
Yep and it takes 2/3 of the senate, 2/3 of the house, and 3/4 of the states to ratify one. The Constitution is difficult to change.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
That is sad but I keep reading new instances of young children harming and being harmed by guns.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
Those weren’t unconstitutional, they Weren’t addressed at all.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
- End of conversation
New conversation -
-
Wow a lot of people are lacking in reading comprehension...probably with intention. Keep fighting the good fight
@davidhogg111Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.