Fuck the French

The only group impacted by universal background checks is the law-abiding population. This violates the Second Amendment’s clear directive that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. The government lacks the authority to burden law-abiding citizens for the sake of rules criminals will ignore

It’s not about “playing”t’s about rights. You don’t gatekeep those. Period.

History proves this. Who decides what counts as a “reasonable” restriction, and who enforces it? The same government that spied on civil rights leaders? The one that disproportionately disarms Black and brown communities? Yeah, no thanks.

And then there’s your final leap: “Without background checks, you support terrorists.” Cute. Giving the government more control over who “deserves” rights has never gone well for marginalized groups.

2. Prosecuting sellers? Fine in theory, but in practice, background checks overwhelmingly punish law-abiding people who make mistakes, not criminals. The 95% false positive rate from NICS denials shows this system is broken and targets the wrong people.

1. Without a background check, you’re claiming sellers can’t know if a buyer is prohibited. Okay, but how does this system actually stop bad actors? Prohibited individuals don’t care about your paper trail…they get guns illegally.

My solution, respect people’s rights

What are you going to do about 3D printing?

And as for that article you’re peddling… it’s behind a paywall. LMAO. If your argument was so airtight, you wouldn’t need to hide it behind a subscription fee. Try again.

So really, all you’re advocating for is creating more hoops for law-abiding citizens to jump through while criminals carry on as usual. Brilliant strategy.

Also, let me get this straight… you’re defending universal background checks (which are an infringement by design) under the guise of “patriotism.” Meanwhile, criminals are building ghost guns at home or buying them off the black market without batting an eye.

Our rights are sacred precisely because they aren’t contingent on someone else’s judgment of whether we “deserve” them.

That’s the entire point of the Constitution—maybe crack a history book instead of parroting feel-good nonsense.

Oh, so now you’re the gatekeeper of who “deserves” rights? Fascinating. Tell me, who gets to decide this? You? The government? Because history shows us how well that has worked out for marginalized groups. (Spoiler: it hasn’t.)

As for your claim that responding to me is like “killing an ant with a hammer”… interesting analogy, considering it’s you swinging wildly at facts you can’t refute. Maybe you should try engaging with the actual argument. Or is critical thinking too heavy a hammer for you to lift?

But sure, keep pretending systemic racism in gun laws is a figment of my imagination.

You want to talk about division? Let’s talk about how gun control has always been used to divide and oppress, especially along racial lines. Martin Luther King Jr. (a Nobel Peace Prize-winning civil rights leader) was denied a permit to carry a firearm for self-defense simply because he was Black.

If this is your idea of intellectual superiority, I can see why you’re so pressed…

Oh, please, more ad hominem attacks and whitesplaining—I’m sure that will really bolster your argument. It’s funny how you accuse me of being loud and uninformed, yet here you are dodging historical facts with personal insults and empty rhetoric.

So the only ones in your world that are armed are criminals correct? 🤣

So no, ID verification isn’t inherently unconstitutional—but when it becomes a tool for gatekeeping rights, it absolutely violates the spirit of the Constitution. Maybe try engaging with the actual argument instead of playing gotcha games.

Let’s not pretend this is about protecting voting integrity. ID laws often go hand-in-hand with tactics like purging voter rolls and closing polling places in minority neighborhoods. It’s not about fairness… it’s about control.

Poll taxes and literacy tests were considered “reasonable” too—see where that got us?

Oh, repeating myself makes me wrong twice? Cute, but let me spell it out for you (again): the issue isn’t ID verification itself; it’s how easily it can be abused. History proves “reasonable” checks have been used to disenfranchise voters, target minorities, and justify overreach.

And just so you know banning open or concealed carry is arbitrary at best, which is why some states unconstitutionally ban one or the other…

From a tactical point of view, in self defense situations concealed carry is the way to go… but their are times for open carry (like during a armed protest)

Yet here you are, complaining about the law-abiding person because their existence forces you to “change your behavior.” Maybe instead of trying to control other people’s rights, you should work on controlling your emotions.

The world doesn’t revolve around your comfort. The person open-carrying is being upfront and visible—you know they have a weapon and can act accordingly. The person concealing their firearm might have bad intentions, but you’d never know until it’s too late.

Should drivers be banned from owning cars because they’re statistically more dangerous than guns? Or how about banning knives, baseball bats, or literally anything else someone could perceive as “threatening”?

You’re acting like seeing a firearm is some kind of personal attack on your sensibilities, but let’s be real: the problem isn’t the gun… it’s your irrational fear of it. Should we start banning things just because you find them unsettling?

It’s not antisocial; it’s lawful self-defense, a constitutional right, and a reflection of reality (one you seem determined to ignore).

Why should you be forced to change your behavior? Because that’s how living in a society works. Other people have rights, too, even if they make you uncomfortable. The mere act of someone carrying a gun is not inherently “threatening”—that’s just your own projection.