Nostr Web Client

lol, let the people in charge have the weapons and the unarmed citizens can be protected by them? That’s worked out terribly throughout history.

Account deleted 10mo ago

And yet plenty of countries get on just fine without arming their citizens…

I personally have nothing against firearms, the problem is, when rules or protocols are mentioned, whose sole purpose is to keep everyone safe, they start crying about their right being infringed on.

Well, if they were actually paying attention they would realize that it is already infringed on. You have to be a certain age to own one and you can’t have a felony on your record, neither of those are part of the original amendment.

So, what they are really saying is, IDGAF about you or your rules, I’m going to do what I want because that’s my right. So, if you can’t get on board with making owning a firearm safer for everyone, then you don’t deserve the right to own one at all.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

db 10mo ago

I’m sure countries get along just fine, governments get along just fine when disarming the populace, but what about the people?

I think our ideas of gun safety differ here. My ideas on gun safety are training and being proficient. So yes, I “cry” when my rights are infringed.

Yes, limitations suck, all of my kids learned gun safety and how to handle and respect a firearm from the day they could safely handle it. I didn’t wait for them to turn 18 or 21 or whatever the government deems appropriate.

Yes, IDGAF. I live by my own set of rules, sometimes those values align with laws and sometimes they don’t. I will protect me and mine however I deem appropriate. Govern me harder is not something I live by. You do you, I’ll reach for freedom and sovereignty.