I did ask that of someone that advocated for guns. They seriously said yes. There is a balancing act between the harm that a bad actor can cause, and the rights of others to own weapons. Nukes and tanks are one one side. What else is?
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I see good luck with that.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
So people who plan to commit harm should have unlimited access to guns and bump stocks? What about rocket launchers or tanks?
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Progressive/Commies can read freedom or Infringed.
-
Sometimes I think twitter mess with message. That's can't not can.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
It always sounded to me like it was “states could have a militia” and “individuals could have whatever guns they wanted”. In layman terms. Not that the “well regulated militia” was the individual gun owners.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
And Article V gives them a way to change it, but they keep trying to do it the unconstitutional way.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Thanks, never understood why they didn’t just say right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, the word “regulated” in there has seemed to cause a lot of problems. What you said makes sense though.
Thanks. 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.