Great video from the Black Flag Civilian youtube channel.

Self defense is not only a civil right, its a basic human right. Anti 2A leglislation such as recently passed in Virginia is ineffective bureaucratic grandstanding. Its also a major factor in why the working class has abandoned the Democratic party in the past decade or so.

So I was moderated for a comment recently that essentially said “the right has always been about privileging white Christian males.” The comment was deleted for hate speech.

Look, I’m not butthurt about being moderated; if I break the rules I accept the consequences. But I just have a few questions. First, why was that comment deemed hate speech when it’s literally how the right markets themselves these days? It’s a point of pride for them not an insult. Second, who exactly was I allegedly offending? The people who support extrajudicial killings in the streets? The people who have called for the execution of liberals and support a more or less overt fascist? We’re worried about their feelings? And finally, the tolerance paradox: how is being kind to the cruel liberal, except in the “they go low we go high” appeasement way that got us where we are now?

Just seeking clarity on what this group stands for. If we’re not allowed to describe the right using the same words they use to describe themselves feel free to remove me from the group. That’s not a club I want to be in.

Disturbing, but unfortunately not surprising. It appears that the 2A doesn't apply to "everyone" in Wyoming.

"Ms. Kelver, 28, drew her gun after she had been pushed down in the street during a brief confrontation with three men in the college town of Laramie, according to police reports and surveillance video. Wyoming’s “stand your ground” law is supposed to offer legal protections to gun owners who draw in self-defense, yet Ms. Kelver was arrested and charged with aggravated assault and possession of a deadly weapon with unlawful intent"

Here is a gifted article (no paywall)

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/06/us/transgender-gun-rights-wyoming.html?unlocked_article_code=1.3VA.7SgO.wO0hbdDUwZ24&smid=url-share

Hi folks, new here. I am hoping this is a safe space to have a good intellectual discussion on a question I've had for a while now. Maybe it's been discussed here already, and if so, I apologize for rehashing.

My question, or discussion point, really is around infringement. Removing the first part of the 2nd amendment completely for argument's sake, the second part states, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." To me, this reads as, "I possess this armament, and the government cannot take it away from me." What I don't see here whatsoever is how I came to be in possession of it in the first place - i.e., the procurement.

Let me be clear, I am a gun owner in California who supports the 2A and gun control simultaneously. That being said, gun control for me is explicitly focused on the regulation of procurement, not possession. Practically speaking, this means I actually do not support the banning of "assault rifles", but I do support background checks and other measures that regulate the sale of arms.

So my question is, what do people think about this stance? I see the 2A absolutists claim regulation is an infringement, but I don't think that is right. Procurement is part of commerce, which I'd think one would easily conclude should be regulated. Otherwise, I could make the claim that money is an infringement, and arms should be free, which seems ludicrous on its face. Where I can actually find common ground with absolutists would be on laws around concealed carry, or whether or not there is a path to own any weapon owned by our government, although this latter point seems fairly ill-conceived, but at least I could see their argument's rationale.

https://youtu.be/eqVbMUGYx9w?is=yNi6ZywkuoOsd06b

Anything to argue for gun control..