romell · 51-55, M
Totally with you..guns must go
View 1 more replies »
@HumanEarth no thanks. You can keep that high homicide rate on your side of the ocean.
@NerdyPotato I agree... though a gun would make it easier to off myself on days when my pain is just too much to bear.
If you or a friend of yours is having suicidal thoughts, please visit Suicide Crisis Help Lines if you need someone to talk to.
HumanEarth · F
It has been shown it past centuries in civilization were citizens were well armed - they had the most freedoms.
GeistInTheMachine · 31-35, M
If the Dems win again.
Waveney · M
@GeistInTheMachine Let's hope so. Although an amnesty would be preferable. MAny people will refuse to give up their guns, but millions more will
GeistInTheMachine · 31-35, M
@Waveney Not a chance.
HumanEarth · F
Not with Democrats or the Republicans in power. The ruling elite as destroyed this country. With a non party members in control of t three branches of U.S. government (legislative, executive and judicial) Get tthe ruling elite out of power and the county might have a chance
Prison1203 · 61-69, M
Unless they remove the second amendment it will never happen and you will have a lot of dead government workers
FloorGenAdm · 51-55, M
🤔Maybe after they get us all hooked up to the flock cameras, data centers and such.
Prison1203 · 61-69, M
@FloorGenAdm what makes you think they don’t already? I was asked by doctor yesterday if I had guns in my home and I said that’s none of the governments business
@Prison1203 why does your doctor work for the government? 🤨
HumanEarth · F
@NerdyPotato Yeah, doctors ask that now here. I always say no - no matter what. It's none of their business. The Doctors ware working for the USA Nazi's and they don't even know it
Pretzel · 70-79, M
Well the US has used so many armaments with the not-a-war in iran....maybe they will need the guns and bullets.
HumanEarth · F
@Jas88 Please leave comment and tell me how you really think. Everyone has a right to freedom a speech till they take it away from us.
Like on Social Media platforms freedom of speech don't apply to them - why you ask? First Amendment’s protections do not extend to the actions of private entities and social media is a private entity
I don't care that you left a Thumbs Down, Just want to know why you did
Like on Social Media platforms freedom of speech don't apply to them - why you ask? First Amendment’s protections do not extend to the actions of private entities and social media is a private entity
I don't care that you left a Thumbs Down, Just want to know why you did
Jas88 · 36-40, F
@HumanEarth You want to k ow what I think?
I think that people who stir the shit, should be made to lick the spoon.
I think that people who stir the shit, should be made to lick the spoon.
HumanEarth · F
@Jas88 Thank You for your answer
Jas88 · 36-40, F
@HumanEarth Welcome.
Waveney · M
Soon with a bit of luck, although an amnesty would be preferable
Roundandroundwego · 61-69
Whatever! Questions show whether we can care. We can't.v
luckranger71 · 56-60, M
They won’t. No one is asking them to do this, there is no legal basis either.
luckranger71 · 56-60, M
HumanEarth · F
Really think about how this has played out over time: gun ownership rights have been restricted step by step, and each new rule keeps tightening who can legally own a firearm.
In the 1700s and 1800s, people could own guns with far fewer limits - there wasn’t the modern maze of rules deciding who deserves access and who doesn’t. Over time, governments began shrinking those rights by excluding entire groups first, (like the blacks and Indians where the first ones to see the first anti gun laws pass) then expanding restrictions through permits and background checks. Eventually, even people convicted of offenses that don’t involve violence - like certain nonviolent or white collar crimes lost gun rights as well.
And now the pressure is moving into everyday life, some officials and doctors are pushing to ask whether a gun is in the home, even though that’s not a medical necessity or something that should be intrusive in the first place.
This pattern is clear, restrictions don’t stop - they accumulate. By the time the process is finished, ordinary people keep losing basic rights while the barriers to ownership grow heavier and soon they will come for everyone.
In the 1700s and 1800s, people could own guns with far fewer limits - there wasn’t the modern maze of rules deciding who deserves access and who doesn’t. Over time, governments began shrinking those rights by excluding entire groups first, (like the blacks and Indians where the first ones to see the first anti gun laws pass) then expanding restrictions through permits and background checks. Eventually, even people convicted of offenses that don’t involve violence - like certain nonviolent or white collar crimes lost gun rights as well.
And now the pressure is moving into everyday life, some officials and doctors are pushing to ask whether a gun is in the home, even though that’s not a medical necessity or something that should be intrusive in the first place.
This pattern is clear, restrictions don’t stop - they accumulate. By the time the process is finished, ordinary people keep losing basic rights while the barriers to ownership grow heavier and soon they will come for everyone.



















