From my cold, dead hands.
I can't imagine what made 35 people who were targeted by their government give up their best protection from the government.
this post was submitted on 30 Mar 2024
0 points (NaN% liked)
Conservative
357 readers
84 users here now
A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff
-
Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.
-
We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.
-
Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.
A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.
founded 11 months ago
MODERATORS
From my cold, dead hands.
That's exactly what the law is intended to prevent:
if a person is found to be at risk of harm to themselves or others with a gun, the state's new so-called 'red flag' law can temporarily take away their firearms.
I'm not property of the government, why should the government suspend my rights to "protect" me from myself?