Comments by "c. j. macq" (@cjmacq-vg8um) on "Right Wing Federal Appeals Judges make HORRIFIC and DANGEROUS Ruling" video.

  1. what these crazy judges are intentionally missing is that the 2nd amendement doesn't give anyone the right to murder or even threaten others. it's implications are that law-abiding, non-violent people have a right to own firearms for SELF-protection. for defense not aggression. so, under reagan the u.s. moved drastically backwards in its violation of human rights. only to be outdone by bush and trump in later years. what the courts have decided is that laws don't have to meet modern standards or needs and no one has the right to feel safe in their own society.
    3
  2. what these crazy judges are intentionally missing is that the 2nd amendement doesn't give anyone the right to murder or even threaten others. it's implications are that law-abiding, non-violent people have a right to own firearms for SELF-protection. for defense not aggression. so, under reagan the u.s. moved drastically backwards in its violation of human rights. only to be outdone by bush and trump in later years. what the courts have decided is that laws don't have to meet modern standards or needs and no one has the right to feel safe in their own society.
    1
  3. what these crazy judges are intentionally missing is that the 2nd amendement doesn't give anyone the right to murder or even threaten others. it's implications are that law-abiding, non-violent people have a right to own firearms for SELF-protection. for defense not aggression. so, under reagan the u.s. moved drastically backwards in its violation of human rights. only to be outdone by bush and trump in later years. what the courts have decided is that laws don't have to meet modern standards or needs and no one has the right to feel safe in their own society.
    1
  4. what these crazy judges are intentionally missing is that the 2nd amendement doesn't give anyone the right to murder or even threaten others. it's implications are that law-abiding, non-violent people have a right to own firearms for SELF-protection. for defense not aggression. so, under reagan the u.s. moved drastically backwards in its violation of human rights. only to be outdone by bush and trump in later years. what the courts have decided is that laws don't have to meet modern standards or needs and no one has the right to feel safe in their own society.
    1
  5. what these crazy judges are intentionally missing is that the 2nd amendement doesn't give anyone the right to murder or even threaten others. it's implications are that law-abiding, non-violent people have a right to own firearms for SELF-protection. for defense not aggression. so, under reagan the u.s. moved drastically backwards in its violation of human rights. only to be outdone by bush and trump in later years. what the courts have decided is that laws don't have to meet modern standards or needs and no one has the right to feel safe in their own society.
    1