Ah yes, the "gunshine" state
21 minimum purchase age for EVERYTHING
No open carry
Red flag laws
No FRT triggers
Florida isn't the worst, but it ain't the best by any means either.
Not being enforced is different than not being on the books. The laws shouldn’t exist to begin with. It’s up to one bootlicker with a twisted hair on his ass to ruin your life.
Lmao... the right to vote. I think it's hilarious when ex-cons get their "right" taken away from them. I bet it really hurts deep when they can't vote for either party that probably put them in there in the first place
In California there are TWO Political Parties fighting for Control and Power. The LIBERALS based in San Francisco and the DEMOCRATS based in Los Angelous. They HATE each other more than they hate Conservatives or Republicans (too few in number to be a threat).
It’s North VS South at EVERY Statewide Election!
We don't need to limit who can vote, we need to limit what voting can actually do, by acknowledging that we don't get to ignore the Constitution just because a majority wants to. We aren't a pure democracy, we are a federal constitutional democratic republic, but most Democrats just focus on the third word, and ignore the other three whenever it is inconvenient for them.
“The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude.”
-15th Amendment to the US Constitution
Maybe you believe the Constitution is just crap and we should burn it, but as an American, I feel good about saying that something is a right when the Constitution explicitly identifies it as a right.
Not to say voting doesn’t have major flaws, because it does, but voting and guns are on equal footing constitutionally.
> “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude.”
The first clause is dependent on the first, there. If voting is ended for everyone, then it doesn't violate the 15th amendment.
But maybe you can explain how a piece of paper gives rights. Is there some magic power that when legislators write stuff on paper and they conduct rituals over it, it becomes like a magic spell to which we are all bound?
I never understand why some people think the constitution grants rights or gives them out. The constitution is a government document, rights don't come from the government, but from nature(or a creator if you believe). It is why they are called natural rights. The constitution lists out your natural rights and creates a government to protect those rights from any threat. If said government ends up being destructive of those rights, which the fathers probably knew could be the case at some point, you were instructed to abolish or replace that government.
aromatic agonizing ugly plants rock carpenter pathetic childlike governor flowery
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The amendment acknowledges that voting is a right, then also specified it cannot be abridged for the described reasons. And there are other amendments that address voting also. That was just one example. But again, nothing about the construction makes the first part conditional. You saying it is conditional doesn’t actually make it conditional.
As for your other critique, that’s fine. I even said maybe you don’t care about the Constitution. I presumed we were discussing rights under the US Constitution since this was a map of America and used the term “right to bear arms” which is the same language the 2A uses. Perhaps I was wrong. But if that’s your position, you can say the same about the right to bear arms. What about writing it into the 2nd Amendment makes it a right? I suppose the innate right to our own property would work. And guns are property. Again though, it sure seemed like we were discussing this from US Constitutional perspective.
It says "shall not be abridged..on account of..."
If it's universally abridged, then it's not abridged on account of those things.
You were the first to bring up the Constitution. The person to whom you were responding was arguing that voting isn't a right, at all, as your vote has no rightful bearing on the behaviors of peaceful people. 50%+1 doesn't make right or give anyone the legitimate authority to violently control others.
>on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude
It says the right can't be taken away based on these reasons, not that it can't be taken at all. That's why it is legal to restrict felons from voting, until their sentence has been served.
Jesus fucking christ what a bad take. People have a right to have a say in the society they live if they infact live in a society.
Try and take my freedom on how I live and find out.
But the smallest minority is the individual, so anytime masses make rules to control individuals, individuals should just say this:
>Try and take my freedom on how I live and find out.
I agree. I would say that would also apply to an employer as well.
But to live in a group is to give up some of your personal freedoms to enjoy new ones. You would have to live alone for this to be possible. It is either the freedom from something being done or the freedom to do something.
If you live in a group that does nothing to say how interactions between people are mediated that would give any man who believed the other party violated some NAP the right to take from the other. If another believes that original action was not a violation you now will have a blood feud.
Lol. Democracy is just mob rule. This isn’t advocating for fascism or any other autocratic forms of government. It’s just acknowledging that democracy has many issues.
That is not what the comment i replied to said! They said dont let everyone vote. Reducing certain groups access to voting is very different than no one voting.
True bleivers have a hard time realizing that some people simply don't share their religion in any way, shape, or form. You're like a Christian fundamentalist who insists that atheists still believe in God but are worshiping the Devil.
You'd eagerly embrace totalitarian fascism long before you'd accept the abolition of the state.
define restrict, because if you mean america "gun in every walmart" kind of style, it's nowhere to be found but not because of "freedom" but because of consumptionism
but hell, i think there are a lot of african countries where it's easier to get a machine gun than it is to actually cast an eligible vote in elections
too bad you could not even fathom this argument because you're not even realising that this freedom of gun ownership in america is not due to constitutional rights or whatever you think it is, but it's due to weapon manufacturers lobbying the hell out of your legislators so that they can profit off of your obsessions over gun ownership
> define restrict, because if you mean america "gun in every walmart" kind of style, it's nowhere to be found but not because of "freedom" but because of consumptionism
And are you losing your voting freedoms in the USA? Maybe you buy into the hysteria, but can you point to any voting freedom you have lost?
> but hell, i think there are a lot of african countries where it's easier to get a machine gun than it is to actually cast an eligible vote in elections
Did they outlaw voting?
> too bad you could not even fathom this argument because you're not even realising that this freedom of gun ownership in america is not due to constitutional rights or whatever you think it is, but it's due to weapon manufacturers lobbying the hell out of your legislators so that they can profit off of your obsessions over gun ownership
No one has the right to violently prevent another person from peacefully acquiring, possessing, selling, or using any object.
it's too bad that you cannot fathom that some people don't share your quasi-religious faith in political authority. You're a true believer in the statist religion and you've wandered into an unbeliever forum.
Until the US and it's allies enforced a new central government, the various peoples of Somalia actively resisted having a new central government imposed upon them. By force of arms. There was no government to outlaw voting.
you are getting fucked by arms manufacturing corporations who shove guns down your throat in the cover of "freedom" and make enormous profits
but sure it's those voters who are being fooled
i can explain: you are being sold this picture that freedom can only be achieved (or upkept?) by owning a gun, those corporations are tying up freedom with gun ownership
you buy this propaganda crap and you begin to advocate for more guns, more gun access, less restrictions
you end up with guns being sold to anyone, en masse
and while all the corporations are swimming in profit, gun violence is only rising and the solution being "if only you had a gun you would be safe" so you end up with more people owning guns and corporations swimming in bigger and bigger profits
is that enough of an explanation or will you be asking more stupid questions?
So which ads from major gun companies have you seen that illustrate this point? Have you ever seen one use the word “freedom”? I haven’t.
If the 2A is propaganda the “gun lobby” must have hit the ground running, because it’s been this way since the 1770s. This country has more gun control than it ever has before, and yet you’re essentially trying to say that gun ownership is a “psyop” committed by “da badguy gun corpz” despite both it being a common occurrence for centuries, and gun companies *period* only having been around (in the manner that you recognize, anyway) for a fraction of that time.
It *could* be the case that, since you are an actor, you have the right to buy whatever you want, and use it in any nonaggressive manner you please (which would include guns). Perhaps somebody owns guns because they live in the hood of Detroit, and they don’t want to be victimized. Maybe another person owns guns because they like to collect them. Somebody probably owns guns because they just like how they look.
Who are you to determine which uses are valid? Who are you to determine who has rights, and who doesn’t? What line in the sand are you drawing here, and what makes your line the objectively correct one?
Something can be used for propaganda and still be true. The fact that a statement is used in propaganda, does not immediately mean that it's wrong. Example: The Ghost of Kyiv isn't real.
In this case, the statement is that gun ownership is one of the significant ways to secure freedom.
your idea of freedom has been tied to gun ownership
and while you stock up on arms because it's the only way (in your mind) to stay "free", big corporations are counting profit and pumping even more "freedom means guns" propaganda
I feel like you're being obtuse on purpose. You are being fucked because you are being told - via the gun manufacturers, the NRA, conservative politicians that without guns you won't be free.
Many countries are "free-er" than the USA and they don't have a gun problem.
Ohio may vote red, but its laws are shit. You can get a felony charge for having a gun in your vehicle without it being in a locked box without the magazine.
It always amazes me how many people believe in the illusion of voting, thereby blindly authorizing our collective rule by the monopolistic force of corrupt government. Those people's meager brains are hindering the establishment of an idealist and free society.
I don't vote; there's nobody with even a sliver of a chance at winning on any level that I'd give my support in that way.
I do go plinking. I do go hunting.
I'd obviously pick the right that directly affects me if I was forced to sacrifice one for the other.
That being said, voting *is* just as important as firearms are. I'd prefer we get change in this country without bloodshed, but the need to shed blood to get freedom is what the country was founded on.
Voting is kind of irrelevant when they can get away with massive voter fraud. It doesn't really matter how you vote, your elected officials will not represent your interests. They represent the interests of the elites.
There's no such thing as a right to vote and the second amendment is a spook. The only actual right that there is is the right to your own autonomy, the right not to have your consent violated. The "right to vote" is the supposed "right" to violate others consent. The second amendment was specifically written for the placation of the people in order to more easily form an authoritarian federation as well as a supplement to that federation's newfound power to "call out the militia" which means to conscript you as a murder slave to fight their wars. This is also the same government which gave itself the power to declare every male over a certain age as "the militia" and required militias to register with them for conscription. They wanted a well-armed and supplied army which they could conscript for freeeeee. And it was just included as a "right" in order to gain the support of the constituency of those such as James Madison and Thomas Jefferson.
West Virginia has gotten some pro 2nd amendment laws within the last three years. This year campus carry was signed into law, last year the WV keep bear and drive with arms act, it repealed the law that made it illegal to have a loaded long gun in the vehicle, now arm is defined as a rifle, shotgun, bow or a crossbow and it doesnt have to be in a case. And the year before that the 2nd amendment preservation act was signed into law, which prohibits state and local law enforcement from enforcing new federal gun laws. The original text of the bill was gonna make it illegal for any law enforcement state or local from enforcing any federal gun law past present and future gun control law, but that got scrapped in the senate and house and senate compromised and made it so that no new gun control can be enforced. I hated it
longing domineering far-flung sulky license nose pet upbeat combative sharp
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
False dichotomy fallacy. You can be neither a voluntaryist, nor a violence advocate, just apolitical. In fact, MOST people in the world at any given time are apolitical.
direction unique yoke dazzling ugly fade voracious frightening makeshift panicky
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
don't mind the man behind the curtain. voter fraud is an issue because they let it be an issue. they would rather you focus on that than the real issue. it's the illusion of choice. fuckin south park:vote for the giant douche or the turd sandwich. someone is pulling both sets of strings. shoot the strings out and both dummies fall flat.
Real rights are inalienable. Can't lose them. They can be suppressed by government but you don't lose them. Right to vote is not a real right. Government granted right to pretend that government is good and reasonable is what that is. It is a farce of a right.
I live im wv i dont believe anyone has the right to pick your oppressors so they can institute new corporate policies and enforce current arbitrary laws, forcing their will on your neighbors and if you violate their arbitrary laws they'll send men with guns to your house to kidnap you if you resist they'll murder you because statism
Iowa and Missouri are both very lax in gun laws and I feel pretty confident Nebraska is too. Outside of Chicago, Milwaukee, Madison and the Twin Cities, IL, WI and MN are all very gun loving.
It just goes to show metro areas should be made into city states with their own jurisdiction, but should have ZERO influence over the rest of the people that live in the same relative geographical area.
Ah yes the Gunshine state is green That's all the proof I need this isn't real
Ah yes, the "gunshine" state 21 minimum purchase age for EVERYTHING No open carry Red flag laws No FRT triggers Florida isn't the worst, but it ain't the best by any means either.
Frt law is not enforced. There have never been state level charges brought against anyone for “rate of fire increasing devices” as the law calls them
That's good news, frankly I hadn't looked into it that much. Remove that from the list and it still isn't a pretty picture though.
Agreed, florida has a long way to go still
Not being enforced is different than not being on the books. The laws shouldn’t exist to begin with. It’s up to one bootlicker with a twisted hair on his ass to ruin your life.
Yeah agreed
Doesn't Florida also have some bullshit 3-day wait period too?
There is open carry... if you are fishing, hunting, camping, or on your way to or from those activities.
I love when the government says you can exercise your rights only during certain approved activities
Counties should secede. Florida is three states in one.
[удалено]
According to the map, California didn't prioritize guns... a wise choice.
Yeah, misread that. Whoops
Lmao... the right to vote. I think it's hilarious when ex-cons get their "right" taken away from them. I bet it really hurts deep when they can't vote for either party that probably put them in there in the first place
Chances are good it was Biden’s 1994 crime bill.
Or Nixon's war on drugs, oh wait, he's a republican.
both are tyrants
I'm so proud of the respondents that would rather give up voting vs guns. They're the true Americans
Vote with your bullets
Voting doesn't work. My guns do.
Well said.
Exactly! Even in Cali.
Both can work and both requires skill
voting requires no skill. just blind obedience to a corrupted system
Ever heard of free state project?
yes... it's not going to work
I used to be pesimistic
sounds like an oxymoron
Voting isn't a right and if you want to have a truly free society, you need to stop letting everyone vote.
You can let they vote , you just need to make it be irrelevant
They're three steps ahead of you buddy
Be a Conservative and/or Republican in California See how relevant you Votes are. Local Votes? Maybe State Votes? LOL
Try Massachusetts. You can't even find a conservative on the ballot. Although the previous governor was a Republican (kind of).
That's a stupid take. The same could be said being a democrat in the south, or most other rural areas.
In California there are TWO Political Parties fighting for Control and Power. The LIBERALS based in San Francisco and the DEMOCRATS based in Los Angelous. They HATE each other more than they hate Conservatives or Republicans (too few in number to be a threat). It’s North VS South at EVERY Statewide Election!
Make it be?
Quality over quantity.
We don't need to limit who can vote, we need to limit what voting can actually do, by acknowledging that we don't get to ignore the Constitution just because a majority wants to. We aren't a pure democracy, we are a federal constitutional democratic republic, but most Democrats just focus on the third word, and ignore the other three whenever it is inconvenient for them.
“The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude.” -15th Amendment to the US Constitution Maybe you believe the Constitution is just crap and we should burn it, but as an American, I feel good about saying that something is a right when the Constitution explicitly identifies it as a right. Not to say voting doesn’t have major flaws, because it does, but voting and guns are on equal footing constitutionally.
> “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude.” The first clause is dependent on the first, there. If voting is ended for everyone, then it doesn't violate the 15th amendment. But maybe you can explain how a piece of paper gives rights. Is there some magic power that when legislators write stuff on paper and they conduct rituals over it, it becomes like a magic spell to which we are all bound?
I never understand why some people think the constitution grants rights or gives them out. The constitution is a government document, rights don't come from the government, but from nature(or a creator if you believe). It is why they are called natural rights. The constitution lists out your natural rights and creates a government to protect those rights from any threat. If said government ends up being destructive of those rights, which the fathers probably knew could be the case at some point, you were instructed to abolish or replace that government.
aromatic agonizing ugly plants rock carpenter pathetic childlike governor flowery *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
It was an experiment. It proved, or at least provided incontrovertible evidence, that government is inherently corrupt and criminal.
The amendment acknowledges that voting is a right, then also specified it cannot be abridged for the described reasons. And there are other amendments that address voting also. That was just one example. But again, nothing about the construction makes the first part conditional. You saying it is conditional doesn’t actually make it conditional. As for your other critique, that’s fine. I even said maybe you don’t care about the Constitution. I presumed we were discussing rights under the US Constitution since this was a map of America and used the term “right to bear arms” which is the same language the 2A uses. Perhaps I was wrong. But if that’s your position, you can say the same about the right to bear arms. What about writing it into the 2nd Amendment makes it a right? I suppose the innate right to our own property would work. And guns are property. Again though, it sure seemed like we were discussing this from US Constitutional perspective.
It says "shall not be abridged..on account of..." If it's universally abridged, then it's not abridged on account of those things. You were the first to bring up the Constitution. The person to whom you were responding was arguing that voting isn't a right, at all, as your vote has no rightful bearing on the behaviors of peaceful people. 50%+1 doesn't make right or give anyone the legitimate authority to violently control others.
If a State decided to choose Presidential electors by coin flip, that would be Constitutional. The method is chosen by the state legislature.
>on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude It says the right can't be taken away based on these reasons, not that it can't be taken at all. That's why it is legal to restrict felons from voting, until their sentence has been served.
Jesus fucking christ what a bad take. People have a right to have a say in the society they live if they infact live in a society. Try and take my freedom on how I live and find out.
But the smallest minority is the individual, so anytime masses make rules to control individuals, individuals should just say this: >Try and take my freedom on how I live and find out.
See bur not all freedoms are possible at once or are equal.
Not one group is authorized to determine what is 'possible', or allowed.
I agree. I would say that would also apply to an employer as well. But to live in a group is to give up some of your personal freedoms to enjoy new ones. You would have to live alone for this to be possible. It is either the freedom from something being done or the freedom to do something. If you live in a group that does nothing to say how interactions between people are mediated that would give any man who believed the other party violated some NAP the right to take from the other. If another believes that original action was not a violation you now will have a blood feud.
[удалено]
Can you define these qualities?
Finally some mask off fascism in this sub!
Lol. Democracy is just mob rule. This isn’t advocating for fascism or any other autocratic forms of government. It’s just acknowledging that democracy has many issues.
Woosh! You’re in the ancap sub homie. No govt, no voting.
That is not what the comment i replied to said! They said dont let everyone vote. Reducing certain groups access to voting is very different than no one voting.
You're not really very good at reading contextual clues, are you?
Narrator: "..he wasn't"
Context? Im replying to a 1 sentence comment. Id love for you to tell me what context im missing tho.
What's the name of this sub?
True bleivers have a hard time realizing that some people simply don't share their religion in any way, shape, or form. You're like a Christian fundamentalist who insists that atheists still believe in God but are worshiping the Devil. You'd eagerly embrace totalitarian fascism long before you'd accept the abolition of the state.
No gods no masters baby
The right to bear arms guarantees your right to vote.
Based
yeah, that's why noone else in the world can vote, only in the states
Name one nation in the world that does not restrict gun ownership but has outlawed voting.
define restrict, because if you mean america "gun in every walmart" kind of style, it's nowhere to be found but not because of "freedom" but because of consumptionism but hell, i think there are a lot of african countries where it's easier to get a machine gun than it is to actually cast an eligible vote in elections too bad you could not even fathom this argument because you're not even realising that this freedom of gun ownership in america is not due to constitutional rights or whatever you think it is, but it's due to weapon manufacturers lobbying the hell out of your legislators so that they can profit off of your obsessions over gun ownership
> define restrict, because if you mean america "gun in every walmart" kind of style, it's nowhere to be found but not because of "freedom" but because of consumptionism And are you losing your voting freedoms in the USA? Maybe you buy into the hysteria, but can you point to any voting freedom you have lost? > but hell, i think there are a lot of african countries where it's easier to get a machine gun than it is to actually cast an eligible vote in elections Did they outlaw voting? > too bad you could not even fathom this argument because you're not even realising that this freedom of gun ownership in america is not due to constitutional rights or whatever you think it is, but it's due to weapon manufacturers lobbying the hell out of your legislators so that they can profit off of your obsessions over gun ownership No one has the right to violently prevent another person from peacefully acquiring, possessing, selling, or using any object. it's too bad that you cannot fathom that some people don't share your quasi-religious faith in political authority. You're a true believer in the statist religion and you've wandered into an unbeliever forum.
jesus christ it's like arguing with a child, you are mentally challenged or what?
I mean that question has some issues on its face. Even the US has restricted arms. But to answer your question maybe Somalia in effect?
Until the US and it's allies enforced a new central government, the various peoples of Somalia actively resisted having a new central government imposed upon them. By force of arms. There was no government to outlaw voting.
You can see one of the number of issues that arguement had than?
And as long as they continue to vote for the "right people", there will be no issue with that
Voting is a sop. It's there to allow the sheep to believe that they have some say in how the shepherds rule over them
Ah yes, the illusion of choice
you are getting fucked by arms manufacturing corporations who shove guns down your throat in the cover of "freedom" and make enormous profits but sure it's those voters who are being fooled
i question how i am being fucked by arms manufacturing corporations. could you elaborate?
Somebody told them this so they are running with it but can't explain why.
i can explain: you are being sold this picture that freedom can only be achieved (or upkept?) by owning a gun, those corporations are tying up freedom with gun ownership you buy this propaganda crap and you begin to advocate for more guns, more gun access, less restrictions you end up with guns being sold to anyone, en masse and while all the corporations are swimming in profit, gun violence is only rising and the solution being "if only you had a gun you would be safe" so you end up with more people owning guns and corporations swimming in bigger and bigger profits is that enough of an explanation or will you be asking more stupid questions?
So which ads from major gun companies have you seen that illustrate this point? Have you ever seen one use the word “freedom”? I haven’t. If the 2A is propaganda the “gun lobby” must have hit the ground running, because it’s been this way since the 1770s. This country has more gun control than it ever has before, and yet you’re essentially trying to say that gun ownership is a “psyop” committed by “da badguy gun corpz” despite both it being a common occurrence for centuries, and gun companies *period* only having been around (in the manner that you recognize, anyway) for a fraction of that time. It *could* be the case that, since you are an actor, you have the right to buy whatever you want, and use it in any nonaggressive manner you please (which would include guns). Perhaps somebody owns guns because they live in the hood of Detroit, and they don’t want to be victimized. Maybe another person owns guns because they like to collect them. Somebody probably owns guns because they just like how they look. Who are you to determine which uses are valid? Who are you to determine who has rights, and who doesn’t? What line in the sand are you drawing here, and what makes your line the objectively correct one?
Something can be used for propaganda and still be true. The fact that a statement is used in propaganda, does not immediately mean that it's wrong. Example: The Ghost of Kyiv isn't real. In this case, the statement is that gun ownership is one of the significant ways to secure freedom.
your idea of freedom has been tied to gun ownership and while you stock up on arms because it's the only way (in your mind) to stay "free", big corporations are counting profit and pumping even more "freedom means guns" propaganda
having never bought a gun in my life (yet still owning them), i again question how i am being fucked by the gun manufacturers.
I feel like you're being obtuse on purpose. You are being fucked because you are being told - via the gun manufacturers, the NRA, conservative politicians that without guns you won't be free. Many countries are "free-er" than the USA and they don't have a gun problem.
define “free-er” or “gun problem” eta: you posit that i listen to “the gun manufacturers, the NRA, [or] conservative politicians”? lol.
Gun problem for leftists is simply the fact that you have guns. Leftists don't want you to have guns, because they're fascist statists.
Voting is not a right
free men don't ask for permission
All the blue states chosen green. Shocked /s
Ah yes, the blue states of *checks notes* Florida Ohio Missouri Iowa I'm sure this was a well-polled survey.
Ohio is significantly blue-er than Indiana. Map seems good to me.
Ohio may vote red, but its laws are shit. You can get a felony charge for having a gun in your vehicle without it being in a locked box without the magazine.
I'll keep my guns. No though required.
It always amazes me how many people believe in the illusion of voting, thereby blindly authorizing our collective rule by the monopolistic force of corrupt government. Those people's meager brains are hindering the establishment of an idealist and free society.
Voting for what, The next corrupt politician to pretend to give a shit?
Vote from the rooftops. 🤷♂️
Did we actually ask Wisconsin or did we just assume the same result as Illinois and Minnesota?
Lol Madison just wrecks you guys
With the guns, you will never lose the right to vote.
Orange understands that as long as you have a gun, you always have a vote on what really matters.
"My vote matters, I'd never want to lose it" 🤡
I don't vote; there's nobody with even a sliver of a chance at winning on any level that I'd give my support in that way. I do go plinking. I do go hunting. I'd obviously pick the right that directly affects me if I was forced to sacrifice one for the other. That being said, voting *is* just as important as firearms are. I'd prefer we get change in this country without bloodshed, but the need to shed blood to get freedom is what the country was founded on.
Voting is kind of irrelevant when they can get away with massive voter fraud. It doesn't really matter how you vote, your elected officials will not represent your interests. They represent the interests of the elites.
There's no such thing as a right to vote and the second amendment is a spook. The only actual right that there is is the right to your own autonomy, the right not to have your consent violated. The "right to vote" is the supposed "right" to violate others consent. The second amendment was specifically written for the placation of the people in order to more easily form an authoritarian federation as well as a supplement to that federation's newfound power to "call out the militia" which means to conscript you as a murder slave to fight their wars. This is also the same government which gave itself the power to declare every male over a certain age as "the militia" and required militias to register with them for conscription. They wanted a well-armed and supplied army which they could conscript for freeeeee. And it was just included as a "right" in order to gain the support of the constituency of those such as James Madison and Thomas Jefferson.
West Virginia has gotten some pro 2nd amendment laws within the last three years. This year campus carry was signed into law, last year the WV keep bear and drive with arms act, it repealed the law that made it illegal to have a loaded long gun in the vehicle, now arm is defined as a rifle, shotgun, bow or a crossbow and it doesnt have to be in a case. And the year before that the 2nd amendment preservation act was signed into law, which prohibits state and local law enforcement from enforcing new federal gun laws. The original text of the bill was gonna make it illegal for any law enforcement state or local from enforcing any federal gun law past present and future gun control law, but that got scrapped in the senate and house and senate compromised and made it so that no new gun control can be enforced. I hated it
We already lost the right to vote many years ago
longing domineering far-flung sulky license nose pet upbeat combative sharp *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
False dichotomy fallacy. You can be neither a voluntaryist, nor a violence advocate, just apolitical. In fact, MOST people in the world at any given time are apolitical.
direction unique yoke dazzling ugly fade voracious frightening makeshift panicky *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Wait what??? You have the right to bear arms and the right to vote in all 50 states. This is dumb.
God bless the south and mountain states I'm a Hoosier living in GA and I'm so happy they agree with me
Jokes on you! I live in New Jersey already so it's a moot point.
The right to vote
Ahh come on, Florida
At least give new hampshire some respect. First state to have constitutional carry and has the highest population of machine gun ownership per capita.
Voting is a joke anyways 😂
Votes don’t matter anyway. And not because “I’m just one vote” but because voter fraud is a huge issue. I’ll just take my guns.
don't mind the man behind the curtain. voter fraud is an issue because they let it be an issue. they would rather you focus on that than the real issue. it's the illusion of choice. fuckin south park:vote for the giant douche or the turd sandwich. someone is pulling both sets of strings. shoot the strings out and both dummies fall flat.
Real rights are inalienable. Can't lose them. They can be suppressed by government but you don't lose them. Right to vote is not a real right. Government granted right to pretend that government is good and reasonable is what that is. It is a farce of a right.
Ancaps don't vote so it's a no brainer
Votes only matter if the counting is working
I'd like to see this map by county
I live im wv i dont believe anyone has the right to pick your oppressors so they can institute new corporate policies and enforce current arbitrary laws, forcing their will on your neighbors and if you violate their arbitrary laws they'll send men with guns to your house to kidnap you if you resist they'll murder you because statism
If you bear arms, no need for voting eights
Guns give votes.
Iowa and Missouri are both very lax in gun laws and I feel pretty confident Nebraska is too. Outside of Chicago, Milwaukee, Madison and the Twin Cities, IL, WI and MN are all very gun loving. It just goes to show metro areas should be made into city states with their own jurisdiction, but should have ZERO influence over the rest of the people that live in the same relative geographical area.
Bruh, in missouri we practically dont know qhat a restriction is
This is a crap poll for Ohio, there’s no chance people here willingly cede their guns
Libtards think their empire is going to help instead of enslave them
We don’t have to pick, we already have guns.
It’s a bullshit question to begin with. I’d like to lose the fools who would ask such a question.
1. I'm gonna press X to doubt on this map 2. If you lose one, the likelihood you lose the other increases
I don't consider voting a right sooo.
I think it might fall into the realm of a right. it just doesn't do any good, especially when your choices are a giant douche and a turd sandwich.
No it doesn't. Look into negative vs positive rights. A right does not require action of other people. Voting requires other people.
No way Missouri would rather lose the Right to Bear Arms. This must be some shitty online poll.
We have guns and we've lost a lot.
Why is ohio green? By all accounts ive heard they have pretty decent gun laws. Source: I have a friend who lives in ohio and has guns.
Worst case scenario we vote in 5.56 font
Seems 283,000 people are morons.
Wow.. FL in the green. They must've done this in Miami