I like the sentiment, but it would create a very dangerous precedent that could easily allow any administration to ban firearms for larger swaps of the population that arbitrary deemed as mentally insufficient based on self identification alone. Slippery slope is real
2 months ago
| 75
To be fair it would be ironic to watch democratics sue for their gun rights for once
2 months ago
| 23
A third of people think the oppressed group should not be able to defend themselves
2 months ago | 5
At the time of writing this, about 35% of Americans polled here don’t understand rights well enough to have them.
2 months ago | 6
Yes because they always have riots and if they could buy weapons they could make the riots even dangerous
2 months ago | 1
Shall not be infringed, it seems pretty clear to me. Irregardless of if I don’t like people’s personal choices or not, everyone has the right to defend themselves.
2 months ago
| 62
All free people (not incarcerated or medically warded) should have franchise.
2 months ago | 1
Even though I like the idea, this would set a dangerous precedent for the rest of us.
2 months ago | 0
I'd say say no sets a precedent for the government to stop anyone they disagree with in future.The government is very over reaching enough.
2 months ago
| 5
Voted a HARD NO. Every law abiding and mentally sound person born in this country is granted the right to own firearms at birth. If laws are broken or someone is declared mentally defective, then andonly then should the powers that be step in. That goes for everyone, not any one group of people. End of story, FULL STOP!!!!!
2 months ago | 2
You either believe in the second amendment or you don't. No half measures...
2 months ago
| 30
GoldenWebb
Interested in y’all’s opinion. Should the DOJ ban transgenders from owning firearms? Express your reasoning in the comment section. I haven’t made up my mind yet on the matter.
2 months ago | [YT] | 68