People will die because of this. And to be very clear, they’re not doing this to protect the 2nd Amendment. They’re doing it to protect the primacy of property rights. That’s why so many millions of $ were spent getting them onto the Court to begin with. bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-cana…
502
71
88
311
Replying to @Timcast
Disingenuous interpretation:)

Jun 23, 2022 · 4:31 PM UTC

51
1
2
22
Yours or Tim’s ?
10
Your right you have a disingenuous interpretation of what the striking down of this law will do.
11
yes yours is the Disingenuous interpretation:)
29
Yes, what you said ....was exactly that.
6
Really will actually make people more safe you walk in a shady neighborhood at night with a gun then without which one feels safer
4
Not even close to disingenuous. Clarence Thomas' opinion spells out in crayon that the right to arms is intended for defense in a confrontation. he just invalidated all of the "You can't shoot back" laws as well. This absolutely makes me happy.
1
9
Yes, yours was in fact a disingenuous interpretation.
5
No, Tim is right on here. I'm honestly curious how you take this position.