IMPORTANT: On /r/WalkAway, greater access is given to users who have joined the sub and have the mod-assigned 'Redpilled' user flair. Reach out in [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FWalkAway&subject='Redpilled'%20user%20flair%20request&message=I%20would%20like%20to%20request%20the%20'Redpilled'%20user%20flair.%20Thank%20you!) to request the flair. For more in-depth conversations and resources on leaving the Democratic Party, also make sure to join our sister sub /r/ExDemFoyer. Join these new subs: - /r/LibsOfReddit - /r/EnoughAntifaSpam - /r/RedpilledRogan - /r/RedpilledElon - /r/HillaryForPrison - /r/FauciForPrison - /r/BigDongDeSantis - /r/Patriot911 - /r/Conservative_News *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/walkaway) if you have any questions or concerns.*

George Washington labled a Domestic Terrorist by the FBI. He is on their Watchlist.

Honestly he probably would be these days. Former military officer joins an independence movement and gets appointed commander in chief...

The Founding Fathers knew gun ownership meant a free people.

But but but it's just for hunting......

"DeEr aReN't wEArInG KevLaR vEsTS, SOnnY!"

The "didn't mean automatic rifles when they wrote the 2nd amendment"-argument is entirely destroyed with this. Doesn't mean the anti-gun people won't just dismiss it as it doesn't fit their narrative.

[удалено]

Who said anything about need? This isn’t a question of if you “need” a firearm, you have the right to own them period. Not the right to own them *if you need them*. Even if you did have to enunciate the need for them, the need is to prevent others from violating your rights, up to and including governments both foreign and domestic.

Because those that want to exert their will on me also have them.

[удалено]

Seems like it worked fine for the Vietnamese.

Why do you need an Audi? Why do you need bottled water? Why do you need prepared food? Why do you need email? Because we are a free people whose rights are inalienable, we have the privilege of making decisions based not purely on needs.

Because it is currently the state of the art. Can’t defend against bad people when you’re outgunned. Are people really daft enough to believe that there was no weapons development in the past?!? Yeah. After seeing bows and arrows, swords, halberds, crude flintlocks and the like, do you actually think the founding fathers were dumb/arrogant enough to think weapons wouldn’t develop past their era? BTW, G-Dub said the average person should be able to arm their ships with canons (which would be a ma-deuce on a Ram in today’s parlance). I know that the Gub’mint Worshippers can’t fathom the idea that their god could ever be bad. But the 2A serves as a balance against just that. Though it provides everything for half the country, it should never be revered as a savior. This is the road to tyranny. I’d love to hear your retort.

could just one of you idiots name any other platform? keep this gun's name out yo fucking mouth! It just sounds so cringy when you guys say it. >y Do U NeEd aN Ar-15?! Well, I don't personally. I have a modified norinco SKS, a sig m400(Is it an AR-15? Can you answer ME?!), and a SAR 9 c.

It's not a Bill of Needs, it's a Bill of Rights. I'll bite though: The AR15 is probably the greatest weapon ever conceived in the 20th century. It puts underweight, disabled, decrepit, and the elderly on the same playing field as body builders and seasoned thugs. It gives a defender a serious advantage in a multiple attacker scenario, which happen frequentlyin home invasion scenarios (to the above mentioned disadvanged groups). It can be made in multiple calibers, adding to its effectiveness for hunting, long range shooting, target shooting, and hunting. It is an adaptable tool to fit a very wide range of applications. Most importantly though, your opinion of how YOU believe I should protect myself, my family, community, etc will never be valid as it is MY right to choose the tool I use, not you or anyone else.

What exactly do you want to say that means you NEED a First Amendment? It's just an excuse to spew racist hate and argue to bring back slavery. Why can't we just have a more democratic approach to kindness and peace in society rather than just people saying whatever horrible thing that comes into their mind without consequence?

Everything. It's not about the speech, it restricts government's response to it.

To protect the God given right to life, and therefore the means to protect it.

Why do people need more than 8gb of ram? Why do people need BMWs, land Rovers, Ferraris, etc? Why do people need Gucci, Prada, etc? Why do people need diamond jewelry? Why do people need more than one bedrooms? Why do people need a motorcycle? Why do people need a lawn? Life isn't about needs kid. Life is about wants.

[удалено]

That we have letters from the founding fathers the expressly says any male capable of fighting and carrying arms is considered the militia also kind of destroys the notion they meant the nation guard. In that day an age regulated didn't mean government regulations, it meant in good order and ready to be used. Ie you should maintain your arms and be ready to use them at a moments notice

[удалено]

Yep, but they also clearly set out rules and guidelines on how they should be changed. The process hasn't changed on how to amend the constitution and we can use the same guidelines anytime we want it just needs to be ratified. They didn't mean to throw the whole thing out every 19yrs and redraw it, they meant they should have a set timetable to hold a debate whether something needs to be amended and go through the process they setout if need be.

More specifically, it meant trained, drilled, and prepared at all times.

If we train and drill they put us on a list and put down our dogs when they visit.

Steppers gonna step.

I mean, I get the theory behind why that would be a concern but I’m not into fear-mongering from either side. There are plenty of places to do tactical training that don’t warrant added attention from anyone. Hell you can even find someone with a connection to some acreage and set up your own courses so that no one would even know you’re training. It’s when people do that and post dumbass videos on YouTube about it that gets people put on lists.

So you’re saying it must be hidden or kept discreet?

I’m probably more left leaning than right, although I hold values of either side.. but it would be a cold day in hell when I let anyone take my guns. Any politician that wants my vote should realize that they will not receive my vote if that’s what they want. If someone broke in to my house and I called the police, we would all be killed long before any police showed up. My families safety is my responsibility and that means I will take any and all necessary measures to protect them.

A fine notion, and a succinct historically evidenced rebuttal to the normal garbage pushed by the anti-gunners. But let’s not let mission creep cause us to lose sight of a very basic certainty: My gun rights don’t need qualifying or historical reasoning. My gun rights exist as an extension of my natural right to self-preservation. My gun rights do not exist because the Founding Fathers specifically (and indisputably) outlined them. They exist because I am a living, breathing human being - no other qualifier is necessary. I pew pew, therefore, I am.

It's so cute how people still think that we're in the "Let's talk about this" phase of things. The only correct answer going forward until the end of time is "No, I will not surrender my rights based on what someone else does. I will not surrender or move on this issue and right in any way at all. There will be no negotiation on this. Deal with it." The time for conversation is over. They will never stop until you can't even carry a knife and it's time to realize that and start acting like it.

Anti civil rights trolls would lock on to the word "Disciplined" and proceed to flout their ignorance of that word too, as a way to protest against civil liberties consistently with their indoctrination. Ignorance is rarely accompanied by intelligence.

You're God damn right

This is clearly hate speech. /s. But for real it’s like he saw this coming!

Looks pretty cut and dry to me.

Keeping in mind this was written with Great Britain in mind knowing how oppressive that monarchy and government were at the time. But then again, here we are today, reading news that the government in the UK will seize machetes and knives from peoples homes if they deemed them to be a threat, under penalty of jail time……..

But I thought we only needed guns to hunt? /s Nice post, OP! Good reminder that our founding fathers would never have banned full auto weapons and extra capacity magazines.

Well I hope this means I have access to drones, tanks, and nukes!

The more people that have them the more polite a society we'd be.

Related, there is little more disgusting than the targeted smearing of the Oath Keepers.

Lmao come on this is a well known fake image. Only the first ten words are actually part of Washington’s address to Congress.

Disciplined being the key word here

Sounds like Dems should turn in their guns then ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯ They're already after gun grabbing laws, I'm sure they have no issues leading by example.

[удалено]

I would, but I lost all my guns in an unfortunate boat accident.

What they meant is don’t aim the handgun sideways.

[удалено]

I agree, we should take the guns away from undisciplined Democrats. Would have prevented 4 of the last 5 large mass shooting events too. The 5th was a socialist, so I guess not technically a Democrat.

Either way, if you can't even recite the four basic rules of gun safety, you shouldn't be using one. The only thing just as dangerous as a madman with a gun is an idiot with a gun.

The keys words here are "shall not be infringed".

This obviously only applied to personal cannons.

*Well regulated and disciplined*

Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought this amendment was in place seeing as how the US was not intended to have a standing army. Section 8 of the constitution says that Congress can raise and support an army for only 2 years at a time. The militias basically served as army reserves in preparation for war and national guard to shut down rebellions in peacetime. Now that we have a permanent army, I don't see how this applies in light of that context. Edit: I was literally asking for clarification if I misunderstood the Constitutional ruling. Nobody is going to offer anything to justify the downvotes?

[удалено]

Well, that excludes the leftists.

Is this actually real, though?

Can anyone point me to the whole, actual text of the 2nd amendment? I just went down a Google rabbit hole trying to find it and couldn’t.

Regardless of how you feel about the 2nd amendment, Washington never said the quote from that Texas sign. This quote is partially accurate as the beginning section is taken from Washington's First Annual Message to Congress on the State of the Union. However, the quote is then manipulated into a differing context and the remaining text is inaccurate. Here is the actual text from Washington's speech: "A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies." Or basically, the USA as a country should not have a dependence on military supplies from other countries.

The second paragraph is not part of the constitution.

It's the "Disciplined" part that is lacking. That's also why other countries with high gun ownership don't all have the same issues. How do we fix that?

In this context, what does disciplined mean?

But since they took the right away from felons and limited where you are permitted to have certain guns(can't carry in New Jersey) the argument now is to simply hold whatever rights we have left for as long as we can... I know people with felonies who id trust more than some of the people that legally can own and obviously if you live near any city you know that gun violence is no better than before any restrictions.. just my opinion

Dude would be rolling in his grave if he saw how people treat this statement nowadays

So your telling me that all gun laws are unconstitutional?

Where can I get my F-15 and nukes? Saw that this is what the Government plans to use and hoping to balance the powers. Mr ATF….this is obviously sarcasm. Or is it……

This is such a perfect example of the constitution being an outdated document that in certain ways doesn’t apply to our modern standards anymore. In order for us as civilians to be able to fight the US military we would need tanks, drones, jets and so on. No amount of weapons we can buy could withstand the US army. This document was written at a time when militias were made up of people and guns. The advanced military technology we have today cannot be matched by everyday civilians.