David Hogg: You Have No Right To Own A Gun

This kid was dropped on his head one too many times.


Poor Nimrod, he’s a product of a liberal and failed public school system.


I am a militia of one. Kind of like the Army used to advertise an “Army of one.”


Actually, you may want to research his Father’s workplace. Slim Davie is channeling a very powerful voice.

If I have no rights to a gun, he has no right to speak.


Amazing how all these supposedly intelligent people conveniently forget how to read when it comes to the 2A.

It is the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms. Not the right of the militia or the right of only the people in the militia. Though the founding fathers may not have realized the confusion that prefatory clause might create since they considered all able bodied US male citizens to be part of the militia. Which is ONE of the MANY reasons why it was considered so important that ALL THE PEOPLE have the right to defend themselves that the 2A is the only amendment that clearly states it shall not be infringed.

But if you must insist on the false belief that the 2A only applies to people considered capable of serving in the militia you must also take that argument to its illogical conclusion and say that the 2A doesn’t apply to women, disabled people and minority groups that were not considered to be fully protected by the Constitution as it was originally published and would not be expected to fulfill the duties of a militia member in times of need. Therefor you must believe that only males capable of mobilizing to the defense of their communities or the Country should have the right to keep and bear arms. But fortunately the outdated deficiency of not considering women and many members of minority groups to be considered fully protected US citizens was corrected in later amendments to the Bill of Rights and the ADA ensures that disabled people have access to the same rights as well.

So fortunately, no matter how you look at it, the racist, sexist and physically elitist opinions of the anti self defense crowd cannot legally prevent any U.S. citizen from possessing the appropriate tools to defend themselves, their families or their communities.


David Hogg doesn’t know what he is talking about. And that is because when our Founders wrote the SECOND AMENDMENT they know that EVERY ABLE BODIIED MALE WAS PART OF THE MILITIA. AND EVEN BOYS AS YOUNG AS 8 YEARS OLD WERE ALSO INCLUCED. And even today every able bodied AMERICAN IS OR CAN BE CONSIDERED TO BE IN THE MILITA. And what these ANTI-GUNNERS seem to forget is that WHEN AND IF AMERICA IS EVER INVADED THAT MOST IF NOT EVER GUN OWNING CITIZEN WILL TAKE UP ARMS TO DEFEND THE COUNTRY FROM BEING INVADED. Just like what we’ve been seeing being done in Ukraine. The able bodied citizens are fighting to protect their country from Russia.


@Joseph161 Be all you can be.


Well the second amendment doesn’t actually say anything about owning. I think this is the first step in picking apart/seeing through his argument. What he is saying vs what he is implying.

1 Like

Owning would fall under keep and bear not being infringed

In fact, in common parlance, I think that (keep, at least) is what people mean when they say “own”

Using modern words I’d say keep = own and have (possess) at your private residence and bear = carry in public


I agree with @Nathan57 that keep clearly covers own. Otherwise the government would be obligated to provide us all with the tools we need to exercise our 2A rights.

Hey department of defense. My wife and I are still waiting for our matching set of XM5s, XM250s and M17s😉


Wait a minute, we are being invaded, what, we have to wait till they come shooting? If we haven’t stopped the invasion so far, what makes ANYONE think we are actually going to take up arms? The Chinese and the cartels have already invaded. I haven’t seen any able bodied people take up arms. The only way I see us “taking up arms” is when a Ukrainian type invasion occurs, in the meantime time we’re being killed individually and by our own government. Hey, wait a second, that’s what the 2A is for DUH!

Yet here we are, discussing it, debating it but surely no fighting it!
Maybe we could scare them off with a meme.


I’m not sure about you, but this is not the time to take up arms, by this time they will be melted off along, with Hoggs tongue!

I haven’t fact checked it yet but I’m sure some people’s tongues have killed more people than the AR-15!


Tongues might not always be directly involved😉 but I am willing to bet good money that diseases passed through kisses kill far more people a year than the incredibly few incidents involving AR15s.


FYI maybe I should clarify my invasion statement…

Traditional warfare…

Modern warfare…


Are we not being invaded?


I don’t take Constitution lessons from a beta male soy boy crisis actor.


The sad thing is this little boy is capitalizing on the deaths of his classmates.


I am beginning to think that is the way to start reducing criminal gun violence faster. I was just trying to point out how senseless his argument was.


Wait, don’t ruin this for me. The Constitution says I can “keep” arms. It doesn’t say I have to buy them, first.


Don’t get me started. If your wife buys you a gun and she is an indian giver and takes it back you do not own the gun you do not have the right to keep it or bear it.


In my opinion, the 2nd Amendment is intended to preserve the ability of the governed to resist a tyrannical government, particularly as such a government would rely on its armed forces to exact tyranny. The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting or fighting crime as an armed law enforcement auxiliary (crime fighting police forces as we now understand them were not a thing in the 1770s and started out as slave patrols charged with capturing escaped slaves).

The opening phrase of the 2nd Amendment is “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, …” The founders did not use the language “a well-provisioned Militia” or “a well-supplied Militia” or “In order to ensure that men have arms to serve in Militias.” They used “well regulated Militia.” They had just come through a period where the British army had run rough shod over the American colonists in a variety of ways and chose to preface the right to “keep and bear arms” as a means of ensuring a “well regulated Militia.”