Comments by "MrEkzotic" (@MrEkzotic) on "'That's Wrong': DeSantis Slams New Mexico Governor's Ban On Carrying Guns In Albuquerque" video.

 @goldbud2287 Good observation.
24
@ChrobregoPoznanThat's false.
20
 @truth4004 And that's why the people have the right to bear arms. You can't form a regulated militia without an armed people.
17
 @truth4004 Wrong.
15
@StretchMedia Keep and BEAR arms. BEAR meaning to carry on one's person. You should go back to school. And you spelled bear wrong.
8
 @ldfreitas9437 It is absolutely unconstitutional.
6
@StretchMedia Of course, the Ukraine flag. 🤡
6
@truth4004 No it doesn't. The innocent people will be disarmed while the criminals get to keep their firearms. Not to mention, it's a gross violation of the Constitution. If you all don't like the 2A, then you should convince the people to ratify its repeal through the Constitutional process.
6
@robertirvine6307 So our military and police should only be able to use muskets? In any case, that's not even true, because they had automatic weapons back then, the pickle gun is one example.
5
@dk3941 Why not?
5
It's unreasonable because it's unconstitutional. We are a nation of laws, not a nation of men. Disarming the law abiding public while the criminals won't follow the order, is pretty boneheaded.
5
 @truth4004 Yeah, before guns were invented, but that's not relevant.
3
@joe9028 What's wrong with that? It was appropriate for the era.
2
@karentitshaw2854 I agree with that.
2
@StretchMedia I think people carry assault rifles (which is rare) simply to exercise their rights to the fullest extent. It's more about principle than it is about reason.
1
@StretchMedia But yes, I agree, I think a handgun is more effective in those situations.
1
@StretchMedia Maybe. But what if everyone carried an AR-15? In any case, provocative isn't illegal. Freedom is scary, but it's preferred over safe tyranny.
1
@StretchMedia The rights guaranteed by the 2A are not primarily about home defense, but a deterrent to tyranny. A government will, not if, become tyrannical if the people do not have the ability to resist it by force. Force is the foundation of all power, and only the threat of an opposing force can keep governments in check.
1
@StretchMedia Read the Federalist Papers and what Hamilton said about standing armies.
1
@StretchMedia How do private citizens resist the force of a rogue government with just handguns? The 2A was explicitly written to protect "weapons of war." The restriction on fully automatic files is an egregious violation of the 2A, regardless of what the SCOTUS says.
1
@StretchMedia The primary purpose of the 2A is to serve as a resistance to tyranny. It serves as a check on the power of state and federal governments. It really is no more complex than that. We have the right to remove and replace an abusive government, and by force if necessary, just like the founders did.
1
@StretchMedia But you're perfectly fine with giving Ukrainian citizens automatic weapons and anti-tank missiles. Lol.
1
@StretchMedia So Ukrainian citizens can have automatic weapons to fight tyranny, but we citizens shouldn't have them? The US isn't the world police. Ukraine isn't our problem. Let's focus on the problem in our own country.
1
@StretchMedia I told you three times what it's for. A deterrent to tyranny.
1
@StretchMedia I know it's complex, but in this case, we should stay out. This is a losing battle and will only serve to move us closer to a kinetic war with Russia. This is not in our interests. The US does not have the right to export its form "of democracy" around the world. The US could negotiate a peace deal in a few days, and that is what we should do, not continue providing weapons of war to kill people. Neocons are addicted to war for profit.
1
@StretchMedia And I didn't say isolationism...I never said that we shouldn't protect our global interests.
1