Supreme Court To Take Up Major Gun Rights Case November 3


    1. @The Tweatles You are lame! If you want guns, join the National Guard, which is exactly how the second amendment should be interpreted. At least in the proper historical context..

    2. So first off you obviously have no idea what the NYSRPA v Bruen case is about. Secondly, who are you to decide who is “wacko”, you think murding kids and locking up people who don’t want to breath their own carbon dioxide exhales is OK. You ask me you are the “wacko”

    3. @Michael Dodds I see your point, however, China has issues with guys with meat cleavers padlocking school doors and going on killing sprees. Londoners have turn in your knife campaigns to battle their escalating stabbing issues. There are many EU members that are having issues with knife and rock wielding thugs. I’m not convinced the issue is firearms more than it is a continuing worldwide trend in the devaluation of Human life. These are depressing times.

  1. Funny how nuanced we can be about the phrase “to keep and bear arms” but totally gloss over “a well organized militia.”

    1. @Teardown Dan than it’s a good thing Jefferson had nothing to do with writing the constitution. And it was actually every 19yrs. Jefferson would be more on today’s left than the other founders. His thinking was that government grants those rights but it doesn’t. The rest of the founders realized that people are already given those rights at birth, the constitution just protects our government from infringing on those rights.

    2. @never trumper why do all you leftists think someone needs missiles and bombs to defeat the US military? How do you think the Taliban just took over a country that we’ve been occupying for the last 20yrs? It’s been the longest war in US history and the other side didn’t have missiles, jets, tanks, hummers, or nukes. The US isn’t going to just come in with missiles and nukes to take out a rebellion because they would also be killing innocent people. Have you ever heard of guerrilla warfare? That’s what the Taliban’s been doing for the last 20yrs and they just made a fool out of us. It also doesn’t help that we have an very incompetent “leader” in the WH right now.

    3. @Mike Hunt67 well smoke, it was Trump who negotiated the withdraw, not Biden. And if you think that the Proud Boys are as capable fighters as the Taliban, you are sadly mistaken. They have been fighting for centuries there. The Proud Boys are no match. The Taliban has equipment much larger than your silly .223.

    4. @Mike Hunt67 🤣🤣 I’m guessing you haven’t received the information on how the taliban won… the Afghanistan army gave up!! Lol there were literally soldiers taking off there uniforms as fast as humanly possible as to not show that they were the enemy… 🤣🤣 there are literally drones the us military can use and lay waste to “fortified house “!! They have bunker missles that can go hundreds of feet into the ground!! Have you ever heard of puff the magic dragon?? Yea.. you wouldn’t even know what hit you if you wanted to rise up against the government!!!

    5. @Treson Saint its pretty clear to me. Only those who are in the militia are permitted to own firearms – for the reason of defending the country. Oh except anyone who wants to shoot large groups of concertgoers, night club patrons and best yet you g children at schools with fully automatic bump stock rifles. These people all need guns too!!!

    1. @80sDon I’ve heard this take before but I’m not as well versed on Wisconsin laws on firearms possession when it comes to this. If you have any sources to back it up I’d appreciate it. Hope you are right though. Aside from the laws, I think Rittenhouse should walk free on a clear basis of self defense. I think anyone 21+ in the same position as Rittenhouse would have a much easier trial in these same circumstances. That’s why I choose to focus on the self defense issue rather than the surrounding legal ones of firearm possession. It shouldn’t matter very much either way when it comes to that issue.

    2. @Z RhoadsLook up Wisconsin statue 948.60 (3) (C) Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18. That statue (948.60) only would apply to Kyle if he was in possession of a short barrel rifle or short barrel shotgun.

    3. @Z Rhoads Hopefully you see me reply because some my comments which are within YouTubes TOS are being removed. I had to repost my reply twice already.

    4. @Casey Sager he went there to help clean graffiti off stores, when a riot is going on, I’d want to be armed too

    1. @Miss Kimberly We’re not saying that it is. We’re saying that it should be taken away. It’s completely useless, it’s purpose long since made irrelevant.

    2. @Garrett Guerra It’s not a right anyone has any need of. It’s an archaic law that makes no sense in modern society.

      Having guns in no way can prevent a hostile government takeover, or foreign invasion. They’re only good for murdering fellow citizens.

  2. The 2nd Amendment says you have a right to own a gun in case you need to defend against an oppressive government (in which case a gun would be completely useless).
    It DOES NOT say that you have a right to take a weapon with you everywhere you go and enjoy a killing spree.

    1. @Jon Dela • ¤ dude you’re not even from America, so shut your trap. Bandit? What is this the wild west?

    2. @Miss Kimberly No patriots have ever roamed around in gangs nor have we attacked the white house and January 6 was proven that not one single Trump supporter fired weapons during the insurrection there was no deadly insurrection when are you people going to understand that msnbc and cnn is nothing but propaganda fake news it’s that simple

    3. @Marshall Vaughan That would be amazing if they could do it. Gun violence in the US would slam to a halt.

    4. @Marshall Vaughan You’re right NO PATRIOT would ever roam around in gangs like right wingers do or attack the Capitol in an armed insurrection like right wing traitors did.

    5. What do you think KEEP, BEAR, and SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED means? It means I can own whatever I want, and carry it wherever I want in public and on my property. The only people who may prohibit me from carrying arms are the owners of the property I am about to enter, not the Government, not some idiots who drool over everything the MSM says. If a shop owner says they don’t want me to carry a gun, they can ask me to leave, and I will, but the Government has no right to say I can’t carry or lock me up for carrying when walking down the street or into a business as long as I have no intent to use it to commit crimes. Intent to commit a crime is called conspiracy, that in of itself is a crime in most states.

    1. Couldn’t agree more! Looking on from half a world away it is staggering that the amendment isn’t read in full by your SC just as you say. In the context of US revolutionary history it makes sense only if read as a whole.

  3. Please to the Supreme Court , it is sad we ask for JUSTICE, ABOUT MORATORIUM, the tenant are having a lot advantages they need to find jobs and resolve their problems , we all are during this MORATORIUM and is very sad that a tenant wants to still living for free and not to pay rent , there is a lot jobs but this people does not want to go and apply to this jobs we need JUSTICE

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.