Friday, February 17, 2023

Rep. Chip Roy Speaks



  1. I keep coming back to this and people don't seem to get it. Mr. Roy highlights the problem with many of the arguments offered against gun control, and that is the context in which the 2nd Amendment was written.
    Gun control advocates work tirelessly to erode our rights one little bit at a time, think death by 1000 cuts. They try for magazine capacity, or attachments, or barrel length, or bump stock, or.. pick something, anything, they will try to regulate it so as to exert control. They deliberately dismiss the tyranny argument suggesting it is unpossible (while happening, I know, the irony), and try to hustle you into the hunting argument.
    This has a purpose: They do this so they can make it seem unreasonable to want anything more than a single shot or bolt action rifle. You see how Nadler did it by his very question "But why would you need a semi-automatic weapon?" Anyone who has ever hunted hogs knows, Nadler obviously hasn't, and it should be grounds to recuse himself from legislating any regulations, but I digress ...
    Cuz potatoe head twice threatened me with nukes and F-15s? The very tyranny the 2nd Amendment was written for, plain as day, right out in the open for ya!


    Do not debate minutia. Do not cede one iota. Your GOD given right to self preservation shall not be limited by the laws of men. THAT is what the Constitution says. THAT shoukd be the basis of every argument about gun control - its all unconstitutional. Thats what was written down, thats what we need to enforce. Anything else is mental gymnastics in an attempt to get you to concede a point thay will be used against you at every turn. Shall NOT be infringed, say it with me now so you remember.
    Shall not be infringed
    Shall not be infringed
    Shall not be infringed