Conservative
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.
view the rest of the comments
The prohibition of functional components of an arm is reasonably an infringement of the right to bear arms.
How? Do you think Scalia didn’t know what he was talking about ?
I think he's carrying water for his political buddies that have a vested interest in restricting our rights
He is dead. So you think his zombie corpse has a vested interest in restricting our rights?
I'm aware he's dead. But unfortunately his impact isn't.
I’m not opposed to every restriction. I’m just opposed to most restrictions. The bump stock isn’t even about the 2nd. It’s about can the atf change the meanings of words. While I don’t mind the ban. The logic is bad and that’s why the ban should be overturned. It does not create a machine gun. It does not meet the requirements of the law.
OK bootlicker. Neither the atf nor any restrictions on arms should exist whatsoever
Be civil. You sound like a lefty using bootlicker.