4 ms·

What part of 'shall not be infringed' was unclear?

• seanw444 4y ago
  People seem to think that just because something is legal, that means it's plausible. Nukes require an insane amount of logistics and resources to produce. Most people still would not have them. At least until something far more dangerous is created, and everybody has moved on. The first half of the only correct interpretation of the 2A makes it clear that it's for the defense of the people against the tyranny of a rogue government, another person trying to do you harm directly, or a foreign enemy. And Joe Biden's right, how are we going to do that effectively without F-15s and nukes? "Here, we'll have the state-of-the-art in weaponry, and you peasants will only have peashooters. Tyranny-resistance satisfied, right guys? Right?"
  • aliqot 4y ago
    Hey buddy, it was sarcasm. I don't think anybody in all of Texas has conceal carry nukes. Come on now.