Search results

Of course he is. But that's because the Media is lefty, no conspiracy needed. Let's say there's an alternate universe for a second, where the FBI is by and large completely based and wants everyone to have a gun as an institution, but everything else is the same, including David's dad's beliefs...

Nah. The FBI is typical, but the equation is simple. Initial anti gun attitude + gun trauma (even though he wasn't there, he knew people that died) + national spotlight = David Hogg. The people to blame here are the media and the shooter.

To be able to do that, you need to be confirmed. And he won't be confirmed by the senate if he wants to enact actual change. So I'm going to say probably not. You need to be president or at least VP to be able to do that. Because there's a 100% chance you bring a gun to something as sketchy as...

Vivek was the chance to actually destroy the ATF. Trump simply won't, and will ban a new category of guns. Remember, "Take the guns first, due process second". Or the shiny new building he wants to build the FBI. Or I could go on. Trump is opposed by the worst of the swamp, but he's shown...

Qualified immunity has the greatest chance of actually dying. Sotomayor and Jackson will vote for it, maybe Kagan. Thomas has said he wants to revisit it, and he can likely pull in Gorsuch. Alito's a no, but maybe Kavanaugh?

This is again why cops are not your friend and qualified immunity needs to die. More, we need a general law about cops killing citizens for any non-violent crime. It simply shouldn't happen. Cops shouldn't be able to do an arrest warrant on someone with a no-knock or similar if the person isn't...

So I recently found this lawtuber, who's going over various self defense contracts:

Basically this. Some work like this, some don't. Massad Ayoob said that the Armed Citizen Legal Defense Network doesn't do this, but I'd actually investigate that. I'd hire a contract lawyer for a few hours to see which of the contracts actually do what's needed in your situation. Expensive, but...

No lawsuit. It's just a shitty contract. They needed lawyers beforehand, not afterwards. Or people to just raise awareness. Basically, there is bad insurance out there that won't compensate you for injuries (no duh). But this also applies to the USCCA, which have some clauses that will get them...

On a side note: Check the part where he talks about "reading the fine print", around 3:15. On a completely unrelated note: Guess who might not pay out their insurance?

Okay, official mod warning time, I already gave you a non-mod warning before. Don't post whole articles, this is copyright theft, opens up the website to problems, and breaks the rules. More, it hurts the Federalist, a good website you'd think you'd want to support. If you are concerned about...

Correct, but wrong in what you try to imply from it. The constitution doesn't grant a right to a particular weapon. But instead, you have a right to an effective self defense. And far and away the most effective self defense is guns. That's why the right is "to bear arms" not a right to guns...

No, it isn't nonsense. It comes out of the basic right to self defense. You have a right to self defense, and the tools to do so. Currently, that's guns. That's why it's a right: it's the policy implementation of a moral right to self defense. It's far more important morally than the right to...

Eh, I'd say Razorfist is wrong about this. His argument is that incorporation doctrine (i.e. the limits of the constitution apply to the states as well) is wrong. I very much disagree with this, both practically (did you like McDonald v Chicago which said states couldn't ban carrying weapons? I...

No, this is an exception from his normal gun grabbing, which is why it's weird. Now is it coordinated? maybe. But more importantly, this shows how much we've won. If this had been done a decade ago, there would be none of this.

Well, there's one example right there. I'd also say self defense against the government would also qualify. The difference between nukes and stingers is that yes, both can be abused, but a nuke can't be used without being an abuse. You will end up harming third parties with it, no matter what...

I'd be fine with a stinger, not a nuke. Simply because nukes are not possible to use in self defense.

This seems an entirely theoretical exercise. Shockingly, I try not to be online all the time. So yes, there's certainly a problem with people shooting across the border. No, it doesn't justify a war. Just allow the US troops to shoot back. There still isn't what I originally talked about: more...

No, but you'll have a bunch of citations from conservative media I hope? Seriously, give me actual evidence of a bunch of NG being shot, and I'll start to care. But I've been given none. And thinking war will stop this is still the dumbest thing I've ever heard. War will cause gallons more...

Mexico does. The US does not. The idea that a war will solve anything, and not make everything worse, is just dumb. And none of them have been hit? Seriously, stop pretending South Texas is anything like stepping over the border. Because if it actually gets there, the US will invade.