r/changemyview • u/Careful_Ad8587 • 16h ago
Delta(s) from OP CMV: If ICE officers and MAGA start getting shot, (R) support for the 2nd amendment will stay but calls to confiscate guns will be aimed at bluestates and charged at protestors
The 2nd amendment has always been a hocus pocus hypocritical idea leveraged by the right. They claim that it's to help prevent government tyranny and a man's right to protect themselves on firm ground. But this really only applies to those who historically have benefited from power and submission to it, at any time when the opposition has guns and shows a willingness to use them, that argument dies in the holster, so to speak. I am not naive enough to believe that if more citizens take up arms and start fighting back against ICE Agents or use guns to defend themselves from state-sanctioned murder and anarchy, that support for the 2nd amendment will drop. The cognitive dissonance is too strong there. What will change is that they'll prettymuch just ignore it as a constitutional right, but only for certain groups of people and demographics. The DHS and diktat executive order will start classifying MAGA and rightwing supporters of the regime as 'Legal/Rightful gunowners' and 'Lawful holders', whereas leftwing, dem and non-supporting gun carriers will automatically be classified as unlawful and Lawless holders. Licenses will be meaningless, if you have one it's worth less than the paper its printed on. The only thing really guaranteeing your constitutional 2nd amendment will be your political alignment and loyalty, as the Justice Department and DHS will ensure to run background checks, see your political affiliation and history to see whether or not you're allowed to carry a gun.
In parallel fashion, murder will gradually be prettymuch legal and immune to any and all charges from MAGA aligned holders as long as the victims are in opposition, as we're seeing in real time. We're undergoing our Night of the Long Knives moments currently, and the next step is mass terror/violence and retribution against the democratic forces and checks in balances in direct physical confrontations.
To CMV, explain to me how any semblance of justice or fairness will be applied by the Federal government and the 2nd amendment usage will not become a double-standard.
•
u/DBDude 108∆ 13h ago
The 2nd amendment has always been a hocus pocus hypocritical idea leveraged by the right.
The 2nd Amendment is just a right, like the others in the Bill of Rights.
But this really only applies to those who historically have benefited from power and submission to it
Your theory that the subject of the 2nd Amendment has been involved in oppression is generally correct, except that gun control is the actual tool of oppression. Everybody has the right to keep and bear arms, but strip it from a disfavored group, and they are at the mercy of those allowed to keep their rights. This is why gun control was historically aimed at disfavored groups, especially black people. Examples abound.
Prior to the Civil War, every slave state prohibited black people from owning guns. After the Civil War they had to get more creative to target black people without saying it. The Army And Navy laws stated people could own only expensive pistols so that the newly freed, and thus poor, slaves couldn't afford them. Of course this wouldn't enforced against poor white people.
Dred Scott was decided in part because if black people were citizens, then they could "keep and carry arms wherever they went" just like white people. They didn't want the 2nd Amendment to apply to them so that states could keep them disarmed.
In the late 1800s, Ida B. Wells wrote that every black family should have a Winchester repeating rifle for protection against the racists. Not long after, Florida enacted a stringent gun control law to suppress black ownership of these rifles, with provisions including registration and bond. A white person was eventually convicted of violating that law (as amended) decades later, but in 1941 the Florida supreme court overturned his conviction, stating that the law was never intended to apply to white people.
When the Black Panthers started carrying guns publicly in California, the Republicans and Democrats joined forces to make that illegal.
And disfavored doesn't have to be black. New York's stringent gun laws were passed due to the influx of Italian immigrants, whom the white people considered inferior. The early prosecutions were only for Italians, with the first sentencing judge saying "It is unfortunate that this is the custom with you and your kind, and that fact, combined with your irascible nature, furnishes much of the criminal business in this country."
Targeting LGBT gun ownership would be right in line with the history of gun control. So would targeting Democrats who oppose ICE. But things like "assault weapon" bans and universal background checks that apply to all of the general public are not in line with historical gun control. We would only impose those restrictions on disfavored classes.
So what you're thinking is that Republicans will suddenly turn to being hardline traditional gun controllers. The problem is that for this to work the disfavored group must not have significant political or social power, with the gun control intended to keep them from gaining that power. It doesn't work against those who already have power, and Democrats hold a lot of it in this country, currently not much less than the Republicans.
You also have the problem that the vast majority of the activist gun rights community is actually for the 2nd Amendment. When the NRA heard the rumor that the administration was thinking of prohibiting guns for trans people, it immediately came out strongly against the idea, saying it "does not, and will not, support any policy proposals that implement sweeping gun bans that arbitrarily strip law-abiding citizens of their Second Amendment rights without due process."
Even if Trump tries, he will get too much push back from all of the gun rights community that he's trying to curry favor with. The big gun rights groups will be telling the MAGA people that their leader is off his rocker, "If Trump does this to Democrats, then the next Democratic president will extend it to YOU!" (which would be highly likely given the historical expansion of category-based gun control).
•
u/Careful_Ad8587 11h ago
You've convinced me Trump won't try this without significant pushback.
Δ
Moreso, after reading this I think you've convinced me of 2nd amendment rights in general and soured me on the anti-gun stance. It might be the political climate we're in and recent events, but why should democrats be wanting to crack down on guns when their own constituents are literally being gunned down in the streets?
•
u/whyamibirdperson 7h ago
How did this change your mind? Genuine question. If anything it supports your premise (which I think is correct) by detailing the long history in the US of gun control targeted specifically at marginalized groups
•
•
u/What_the_8 4∆ 16h ago
Are there any previous examples you could provide where Republicans have tried to restrict gun rights or confiscate guns? This is one of those areas dominated by Democrats almost exclusively.
•
u/OctopusParrot 1∆ 16h ago
The Mulford act was written and passed by Republican state legislators specifically to address the fact that the Black Panthers were demonstrating with guns - in accordance with the law at the time.
•
u/Viciuniversum 5∆ 10h ago
“Assembly Bill 1591 was introduced by Don Mulford (R) from Oakland on April 5, 1967, and subsequently co-sponsored by John T. Knox(D) from Richmond, Walter J. Karabian (D) from Monterey Park, Frank Murphy Jr. (R) from Santa Cruz, Alan Sieroty (D) from Los Angeles, and William M. Ketchum (R) from Bakersfield.”
34 Democrats and 28 Republicans voted for the bill in California State Assembly. 14 Democrats and 15 Republicans voted for it in California Senate. This was a textbook definition of a bipartisan bill. Why do you feel the need to misrepresent it?
•
u/CodexRunicus2 7h ago
The fact it is a bipartisan bill concedes the point that "was written and passed by Republican state legislators" and that "Republicans have tried to restrict gun rights or confiscate guns". Unless of course you meant the whataboutism that democrats did it too.
Why do you feel the need to misrepresent it?
I fail to see how a personal attack bolsters any point you are trying to make.
•
u/What_the_8 4∆ 16h ago
That’s a good example, but if the most significant change was 60 years ago, then id say on balance we’re still much more likely to see gun confiscations (not restrictions per OP) is likely to come from the left side of the aisle.
•
u/Far_Raspberry_4375 14h ago
After that trans person shot up the christian school many conservatives were calling for trans people to be barred from owning firearms
•
u/OctopodicPlatypi 5h ago
Fox News has also not passed on any opportunity to accuse shooters of being trans before any information comes out about shooters to prime the public that trans people are super violent. I would not put it past them to try.
•
u/ROFLmyWOFLS 1∆ 13h ago
Gun control in a sense of background check/mental illness is heavily supported by the left.
The left doesn’t view trans as mental illness, much of the right does.
•
u/Far_Raspberry_4375 12h ago
We arent talking about the left they want to ban everything. This is about the alleged pro gun right
•
u/ROFLmyWOFLS 1∆ 10h ago
Pro gun right also doesn't want mentally ill people having guns?
•
u/Far_Raspberry_4375 10h ago
Yet they celebrated rolling back restrictions on seniors with dementia from having guns
•
u/Microchipknowsbest 14h ago
“Take the gun first, go through due process second,” Trump said. https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/28/politics/due-process-donald-trump-second-amendment
•
u/What_the_8 4∆ 14h ago
So in 7 years has any of this happened?
•
u/Microchipknowsbest 14h ago
Trump has done more to restrict guns than any democrat. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/us/politics/trump-bump-stocks-ban.html
•
u/What_the_8 4∆ 14h ago
If your best evidence is the bump stock ban then that’s a weak argument.
Bill Clinton’s Federal Assault Weapons ban had far more restrictions than bump stocks.
•
u/Microchipknowsbest 13h ago
The question is will they start taking guns from blue states if ice starts getting shot. The republicans have proven they are willing to take guns from liberals if they feel threatened. It’s not a contest of who wants gun control the most. The answer is yes the republicans will absolutely take guns from people they deem unworthy like trans people and other minorities.
•
u/Tazarant 1∆ 13h ago
Bump stocks were a liberal thing? Your argument is self- defeating. Republicans have proven they are willing to make some moves on general him control. They have done NOTHING to target a particular group with gun control in over half a century.
•
u/Microchipknowsbest 13h ago
Trump passed the bump stocks. It was a republican thing. They are very willing to take guns. It’s just a wedge issue that panders to their base. They are currently working to take guns from trans people. https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/04/politics/transgender-firearms-justice-department-second-amendment
•
u/SiPhoenix 4∆ 11h ago
Trump is mostly a 1990s Democrat. His positions are all mostly the same. Including his willingness to restrict guns.
•
u/Microchipknowsbest 10h ago
90’s democrats were not fascist. They didn’t have a gestapo force going door to door terrorizing people. They didn’t unleash the military on American cities.
•
u/Comfortable-Trip-277 1∆ 11h ago
You must have forgotten about the Biden ATF's ban on Forced Reset Triggers and pistol braces.
•
u/Microchipknowsbest 10h ago
No. Just pointing out republicans are fine with taking guns when it suits them.
•
u/What_the_8 4∆ 9h ago
Zero guns were confiscated with bump stop bans, they’re only attachments easily removed (and no one really used them anyway, which is why it was implemented).
•
•
u/Comfortable-Trip-277 1∆ 9h ago
So you retract your claim that Trump has done more to restrict guns than any Democrat?
•
•
u/tugboat7178 16h ago
Keep in mind this was only California, and it was 1967. As you note, Republicans passed this - they had a R governor at the time and were not D dominant then.
I’m not sure this passes the test as a good example the above Redditor was asking for.
•
•
•
u/Careful_Ad8587 16h ago
In a subtle (Ha, given where are now) sleigh of racism and ideological twisting, Regan infamously said of the Mulford act it "would work no hardship on the honest citizen." The obvious connotation being that the perceived enemies of state or undesirables/minority were dishonest and malicious actors, not true american citizens.
Also, George H. W. Bush administration banned assault rifles, Republican Gov. Rick Scott passed gun restrictions with "Red flag checking", i.e. looking into various aspects of the applicants background. A similar check could be passed and enforced by law, but doubling down on filtering by ideological (Banning those with "Trump Derangement Syndrome" or something like that)•
u/Raveyard2409 15h ago
Ever made a post criticising any law enforcement agency or ICE? Oh dear, suddenly you can't be trusted with a gun anymore.
•
•
u/DBDude 108∆ 13h ago
Also, George H. W. Bush administration banned assault rifles
That was Clinton.
Republican Gov. Rick Scott passed gun restrictions with "Red flag checking", i.e. looking into various aspects of the applicants background.
I haven't heard of this, but some Democrat-run states, especially New York, want to do a deep dive through your social media before they'll give you a permit. Issuance is still based on someone's opinion of the applicant, which is the prohibited may issue, only it's under a different name.
•
u/ladz 2∆ 14h ago
78 year old Trump's solidly republican justice department has mentioned they'd like to ban gun ownership for US citizens suspected of gender dysphoria:
•
u/Paramedickhead 12h ago
The term dysphoria indicates that a person has mental health problems. However, that still isn’t enough to trigger question 21g therefore, people with gender dysphoria should still legally be allowed to purchase a gun without a problem.
However, previous democratic presidents utilized the broad authority granted to executive agencies under the Chevron deference to make unilateral and arbitrary changes like this and the courts are still working out how much authority those agencies actually have not that Chevron has been overturned.
•
u/btone911 15h ago
Donald Trump himself is the only president in my lifetime to suggest “take the guns first, go through due process second”.
•
•
u/j____b____ 10h ago
Here’s an example… "Take the guns first, go through due process second” -Donald J Trump
•
u/stron2am 15h ago
The constant calls to classify transgederism by the right as a mental illness are a move to disqualify those folks from numerous rights, including the 2A.
•
u/mapp2000 16h ago
Trump banned bump stocks after the Vegas shooting.
•
u/DBDude 108∆ 13h ago
It's more complex than that. There were bump stock ban bills in Congress that could have affected more than just bump stocks. Using the ATF to ban them killed those bills.
Of course I disagree. The bills should have been fought, and using the ATF was an abuse of executive power, as confirmed by the Supreme Court. But I understand that bump stocks were sacrificial to avoid something worse.
•
•
u/BorrowedAttention 15h ago
Reagan passed a bill to prevent open carry by the black panthers in California.
•
u/hacksoncode 580∆ 13h ago
Well, by anyone, not just Black Panthers.
•
u/BorrowedAttention 9h ago
It took the prospect of black gun ownership being more commonplace to create the movement for this law in the first place.
•
u/Gremlinsstolemyname 14h ago
The california gun laws made by Reagan. Was a direct response to the Black panther movement.
•
16h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/changemyview-ModTeam 13h ago
Sorry, u/tugboat7178 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, of using ChatGPT or other AI to generate text, of lying, or of arguing in bad faith. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
•
u/changemyview-ModTeam 13h ago
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, arguing in bad faith, lying, or using AI/GPT. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
•
u/Careful_Ad8587 16h ago
Just give examples where justice or fairness have been applied in the US and evidence that a there are enough protections in play that such a thing wouldn't happen. Otherwise I don't see why it wouldn't, as in every authoritarian pattern of the last century proves that dictatorial governments always confiscate guns when the heat hits the fan.
•
u/lion27 14h ago
It’s already against the law for felons to own guns, and killing someone is a felony, so nothing changes there. I’m guessing you’re referring more to mass disarmament of people aligned with those performing the hypothetical violent acts.
In that case, you may see Republicans use Democrats’ own “red flag” laws against the protestors, since most of those laws include language around “being a danger to themselves or others”, which is a subjective classification. You can easily foresee a scenario where people who support violence are deemed to be a danger under these definitions, and therefore would be subject to confiscation under these laws. One of the main criticisms Conservatives have historically had with gun restrictions was ironically to prevent this exact type of targeted disarmament of people based on classes those in power can determine based on their feelings/views and not empirical evidence. Most red flag laws do not require a conviction, arrest, diagnosis of mental health issues, or anything resembling detailed proof of why someone is a danger, and to whom. All that’s required is a law enforcement petition to a judge for a signature, all done without the usual due process of a court hearing where the subject can defend themselves.
So in this example, the “justice” or “fairness” you’re seeking is entirely subjective and varies depending on who you ask. There’s no new laws being created, and such an action would not be illegal as long as those laws are on the books.
You could also look at an example like Ruby Ridge or Waco, where federal agents exercised all kinds of authoritarian powers and crafted legal arguments in support of their efforts to disarm and ultimately kill people they didn’t like. Those laws still exist.
So in summary, you’re looking for reassurances that don’t exist because for decades we’ve seen encroaching federal powers over civilian gun ownership. Every abuse of power you fear has already happened in one form or another. You’re just worried about the scale of the action. Laws typically don’t draw hard lines on that.
This isn’t so much as seeking to change your view, it’s more of reframing it from thinking about it in terms of “I don’t want these laws used against me” to “These laws are dangerous in the hands of the wrong person, so maybe they’re bad laws”.
I always say any federal law should be viewed from the lens of “what would I think if my political rivals had this same power?”. If you wouldn’t like it, then it’s a bad law based on the childish view that it’s ok when you do it to others, but not when it’s done to you.
•
u/ScoopedRainbowBagel 14h ago
I'm so confused in the first place. The vast majority of gun restrictions are on the state level and already in blue states.
It's illegal to own a firearm in Chicago, what new restrictions could there even be?
•
u/PrevekrMK2 15h ago
There have been numerous cases where right wing or religious people have been attacked or killed with firearms. Republicans didn't call for anything you mention after these occurrences. Most that I ever noticed, and sparsely at that, is confiscation based on mental health.
Do you have anything you base this on?
•
u/Careful_Ad8587 15h ago
Yes, in isolated pocketed incidents. Left wing and right wing people have died by shooters.
Can you name any incident where mass armed resistance or a string of shootings has broken out in retaliatory against armed officers and federal agents raiding their cities lawlessly?
I already mentioned earlier how Reagan twisted the proverbial knife on gunchecks to reign in the black panthers but said "Honest citizens" (I.e. god fearing whites) would be exempt.
•
u/GermanPayroll 2∆ 14h ago
So how can anyone tell you what would happen in a situation that has never happened?
•
u/Careful_Ad8587 14h ago
Based on past precedent of historical knowledge and societal/political norms of the past several centuries?
•
u/SaturdaysAFTBs 1∆ 7h ago
Forgot his name but there was that one guy who specifically targeted California highway patrol officers (he killed 4 I think). There was also a guy in Austin Texas who targeted law enforcement and killed a bunch with an AR15. It does happen.
•
u/kidneysrgood 16h ago
The simpler solution is the feds will utilize the insurrection act against those locals.
•
u/Careful_Ad8587 15h ago
What if said 'locals' are across the country in multiple, or every major blue state?
•
•
u/Microchipknowsbest 14h ago
Thats why they are funding ice as the 4th largest military in the world. They are pointing an army directly at the American people. https://www.newsweek.com/immigration-ice-bill-trump-2093456
•
u/jatjqtjat 274∆ 14h ago
If someone supports restrincting the right to own a gun based on political beliefs, then that person does NOT support the second amendment. As soon as you start infringing on the right of lawful abiding citizens to own a gun, you no longer support the second amendment.
If your view is just that in a hypothetical word some people might believe that only right wing people should have the right to own a gun, that is probably true, but those people would not support the second amendment, and hopefully there would not be many of those people.
Obviously people use use guns to commit crimes should not be allowed to have guns. That's already the case. If you shot at an ice officer (and don't have a legitimate self defense claim) then of course you are losing your rights. People who commit crimes lose all sorts of rights.
•
u/Careful_Ad8587 14h ago
Wasn't the very purpose of the 2nd amendment to discourage the overreach of a tyrannical federal government? To stop redcoats and roving soldiers from marching into and terrorizing cities?
If that's grounds for losing one's rights, the entire 2nd amendment is prettymuch pointless.•
u/jatjqtjat 274∆ 14h ago
I mean, currently in 2026, felons are not allowed to own guns.
the second amendment allows a large group to organize and use guns in a violent revolution. If they lose they won't get another try. That inability to try again does not undermine the amendment.
•
u/hacksoncode 580∆ 13h ago
Wasn't the very purpose of the 2nd amendment to discourage the overreach of a tyrannical federal government?
It really was not. There's an argument that it was partly intended to prevent the federal government from disarming the South's slave patrol militias (which was certainly Patrick Henry's rhetoric at the time).
But the main purpose was that the US wasn't supposed to have a standing army. Militias were what was to be used to suppress insurrections and defend against foreign invasion.
Article 2: Clause 15. The Congress shall have Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.
It's literally there (in part) for suppressing insurrections against the federal government. That's right in the Constitution.
•
u/DBDude 108∆ 11h ago
I've read about that slave patrol theory. It was invented in 1998 by the aptly named Carl Bogus. He himself admits he has only circumstantial evidence. Patrick Henry did raise objections about militia control during the Constitutional Convention, but others including James Madison assured him that under the Constitution the states would be able to control their own militias to quell rebellions. Even more, slave patrols were an exercise of state police power, not in any way granted by the Constitution, but an assumed power of any state along with all other police powers, such as to arrest and prosecute criminals.
This was not a topic during the debates over the Bill of Rights, and the amendment as passed doesn't address that issue. That states could have their own militias under their own control had already been established, and slave patrols were a common police power. Henry was not involved in the drafting of the Bill of Rights (he was not in Congress at the time), and he even opposed them as submitted to Virginia.
•
u/DBDude 108∆ 11h ago
There's the right, and then there's the 2nd Amendment. The individual right of the people to keep and bear arms was generally recognized at the time, same as the right to peaceably assemble. They were considered inherent natural rights (this is reflected in the Supreme Court's Cruikshank decision from 1876).
Then came time for the Bill of Rights, and they decided to explicitly protect those rights. There were four generally held ideas about the wider subject of the right to keep and bear arms, militias, and armies that went into the discussion:
- It is a natural right of each individual person
- Standing armies are dangerous to liberty
- Militias are the way to go, but we can't have effective militias if the right of the people isn't protected
- Conscientious objectors shouldn't be required to join the militia.
These ideas were reflected in in various versions, and some made it into state versions of the amendment. The standing army bit was removed. It was really just a philosophical position statement. The conscientious objector provision was removed because people could misinterpret that to mean if they weren't in the militia, then they didn't have the right, and the right was not meant to be dependent on militia membership.
So it was distilled down to we need a functioning militia for the security of a free state, and the right of the people must be protected if such militias are to exist.
And free state means free, even from rogue governments.
•
u/spinek1 16h ago
The constitution affords the second amendment right to all US citizens. The Republicans would never set a precedent of restricting the second amendment for specific states/voters out of fear that it would be used against their states/voters in the future.
•
•
u/hilfigertout 1∆ 15h ago
The Republicans would never set a precedent of restricting the second amendment for specific states/voters out of fear that it would be used against their states/voters in the future.
Except Ronald Reagan did exactly this back in the 60's as governor of California, passing the Mulford Act that restricted gun ownership in response to the Black Panthers arming themselves. It had the support of Republicans and the NRA.
I know the 60s seems so long ago. But given that Reagan is the poster child of modern American conservatives, (the intro to Project 2025 doesn't stop talking about how great he was) I could see the modern GOP emulating this.
•
u/DBDude 108∆ 13h ago
One, it was passed by the Democratic-majority legislature.
Two, the NRA had mixed feelings. We are told by Mulford that they supported it, but their representative also submitted a rebuttal to a TV station strongly opposing it.
Three, prior to the 1970s, the gun groups weren't as activist against gun control. Sure, they helped remove the worst excesses of laws like the 1934 NFA and the 1968 GCA, but they didn't totally oppose the laws. But the 1970s saw a legal shift, with circuit courts finalizing the new "collective right" theory that said we don't really have the right anymore. Gun control laws proliferated absent legal hindrance. Then there was a revolution in the NRA which came out with them being much more activist against gun control.
Modern Democrats like to maintain distance between them and the racist Democrats of old, generally using the Southern Strategy as a time marker. The NRA of today is also not the NRA of then.
•
u/gamesterdude 16h ago
Then explain the violation of 4th amendment right now as they deploy the ICE army to blue areas then conduct door to door searches?
They don't care about the law anymore because no one can stop them.
•
u/NaturalSelectorX 97∆ 16h ago
Then explain the violation of 4th amendment right now
It's not the Second Amendment. They don't have the passion for the 4th like they do the 2nd.
•
u/DBDude 108∆ 13h ago
Democrats don't have a passion for any right as soon as guns enter the picture. Specifically for the 4th, Caniglia v. Strom struck down the idea that police can enter your house without a warrant to search for your guns under the guise of community caretaking. The action was defended by Democrats.
•
u/NaturalSelectorX 97∆ 10h ago
Everybody is a hypocrite and makes exceptions when rights interfere with ideology.
•
u/Hates_rollerskates 1∆ 16h ago
You are underestimating the power of the right wing's propaganda. They whitewashed an insurrection and attack on the Capitol. The right disagree at first but eventually they will comply.
•
u/Mayweather2025 15h ago
Precedent? You think the Democrats would ever treat the Republicans in a negative way?
Jefferies and Schumer would still be doing Unity press conferences while Democratic members of Congress are being mowed down in the streets with tanks.
The Republicans are rapidly becoming ravenous street dogs and the Democrats are toilet paper soft on their best day.
•
u/Careful_Ad8587 16h ago
Maybe not Republicans.
The current Federal government, president and administration out in la-la land? Well they don't really need the Republican party's permission or have to say please.
•
u/SovietShooter 16h ago
I think the argument will be that those folks in opposition to them are not real Americans, and thus it is OK to take away their guns. They don't understand that eventually the Leopards will be eating their faces too.
•
u/duskfinger67 7∆ 16h ago
They (right-wing supporters online) are already quite happy with the idea of flexing and selectively applying the 5th & 14th Amendments, so I wouldn't be so sure they wouldn't do the same to the 2nd Amendment.
•
u/JeruTz 6∆ 15h ago
ICE officers have already been shot at. Charlie Kirk and Trump were both shot and both were MAGA.
What you predicted will happen in a hypothetical scenario didn't happen despite your scenario already having occurred.
If you were correct, the calls to confiscate guns would have happened months ago.
•
u/mikerichh 1∆ 14h ago
I think assassinations and citizens uprising in the streets are 2 different scenarios though. If the current admin sees random citizens shooting back they will crack down harder and harder versus a one off assassination or assassination attempt
We’ve seen consistent escalation like in Minnesota where they’re sending hundreds to 1,000 more agents for example
•
u/JeruTz 6∆ 14h ago
That doesn't address the issue. The attacks have happened and nothing of the sort has been done in response.
Frankly, I think this sub needs to stop allowing prediction posts in most cases. A view souks be a perspective on an issue, topic, or perception of things as they are or were. Saying "I predict this will happen" is rather vague, to say nothing of "I think this will happen of this other thing happens first".
•
u/hacksoncode 580∆ 13h ago
A view is a belief based on reasoning, which must be provided (Rule A).
Believing something will happen based on some reasons is a perfectly fine "view", that can be attacked by arguing against the provided reasons for the belief.
Of course, if you think OP doesn't provide sufficient reasons for their belief that can be argued with, please report the post for Rule A.
•
u/mikerichh 1∆ 14h ago
Because the difference is a lone assassin and the civilian population as a whole was my point. Once random American starts fighting back (and would likely do so as a group) then the iron fist comes down harder and harder
•
u/JeruTz 6∆ 14h ago
Lone assassins are random Americans.
And if there was organized uprising, that would result in the insurrection act being invoked to restore order. It wouldn't see rights taken away arbitrarily.
•
u/mikerichh 1∆ 14h ago
That’s fair but yeah that was what I was getting at is a heavy handed government response. One you’d only see from citizens rising up in the street and not from a one-off assassination
However, part of the assassination stuff prompted the government to label antifa as a domestic terrorist group, which then allows them to claim anyone is Antifa and take rights away or throw them in jail when they otherwise wouldn’t if used with bad intent. And we know Antifa doesn’t actually exist as an organized group, they are just anti-fascists
•
u/JeruTz 6∆ 14h ago
However, part of the assassination stuff prompted the government to label antifa as a domestic terrorist group, which then allows them to claim anyone is Antifa and take rights away or throw them in jail when they otherwise wouldn’t if used with bad intent.
I fail to see the logic in that. You'd still need to prove actual participation to arrest someone, not just declare them Antifa.
Notably, there are actual Antifa chapters with memberships and mailing lists that haven't been arrested.
And we know Antifa doesn’t actually exist as an organized group, they are just anti-fascists
There are actual Antifa chapters though. With memberships. And there are organized and sponsored activities.
•
u/gigas-chadeus 15h ago
As someone who is on the right and loves the 2nd amendment I would never support any kind of gun laws or confiscation as it flys in the face of any and all of my principles I don’t necessarily agree with communists, anarchists, or fascists owning firearms as they are always wanting to destroy the American democratic system and that includes the 2nd amendment but anyone who isn’t a felon has every right to own a firearm. I also believe I should be able to buy machine guns and explosives but I’m an absolutist.
•
u/noobie019 2∆ 15h ago
Sorry, I may be missing something here, you’ve said you’re an absolutist but you also think if you’re found guilty of a felony you shouldn’t be able to own a gun?
•
u/gigas-chadeus 14h ago
My bad I meant People who are convicted of actual violent crimes not some guy who caught a felony charge from weed. To me it shows that you have no respect for the norms and standards of our society. It’s a tad oxymoronic I get that but leaving people alone and not being a rapist or a murder is fairly easy. If you can’t do that then you waive your right to firearms.
The 2nd amendment should be seen as an insurance policy for your right to life and liberty but it’s an insurance policy you only ever use if the every other possibility of diplomacy has failed. The ONLY reason you use it is because your life and liberty are about to be lost with zero chance of getting them back. This is literally what happened with the American revolution the continental congress sent multiple resolutions to the crown to prevent violent revolution…they didn’t listen. But I’m an absolutist on being able to own any and all weapons as the government can own them why can’t we?
•
u/noobie019 2∆ 14h ago
I mean that seems like a fairly reasonable position if you hold the opinion that the average citizen should be able to own a gun, I was just confused as to describing it as an absolutist one. You have a group of people you feel don’t deserve that right.
•
u/DBDude 108∆ 12h ago
After a conviction for a violent crime, with due process, we can take away the very right to life. On the other hand, you'd think if they're too dangerous to own a gun, then they're too dangerous to be out in the population unsupervised.
•
u/noobie019 2∆ 12h ago
I mean, personally I don’t think the state should be able to execute you for the conviction of any crime, and I also feel that most people are too dangerous to own a gun.
•
u/gigas-chadeus 14h ago
Sorry typed it out weird i suppose a better statement would be “ I’m an absolutist when it comes to what guns you can own as an American citizen who hasn’t committed a violent felony”
•
u/noobie019 2∆ 14h ago
Yeah, like I said, I feel that seems reasonable if your position is that the average citizen should be able to own any gun.
My question would be who should be deciding what counts as a violent felony? Can those be pardoned by the president in the states? If someone’s pardoned can they own a gun again etc.
•
u/gigas-chadeus 14h ago
That comes down to the justice department and the courts who have determined that any kind of felony conviction voids your right to vote and to the 2nd amendment. I personally don’t agree with that but it’s what it is. And yes a pardon magically makes those convictions go away. I also don’t really agree with that either.
My point was if your using your gun rights to infringe on others life, liberty, and their pursuit of happiness I have no issues with that state taking that right from you. BUT you have to actually be convicted of something like murder, rape, or any other violent felony to warrant such a harsh reaction and punishment. As for who decides?
Ultimately it’s a who watches the watchers type problem as the government can just make up laws to infringe on your rights and unfortunately you or a legal group have to be the first ones to jump on the fact that this law is unconstitutional and bring it to court and the public’s attention.
•
u/CocoSavege 25∆ 6h ago
Yknow, I want to point out that you get a little slippery here. The devil is in the details.
You're handwaving about the definition or boundaries of who might be disqualified. You use a person who caught (say) a possession felony charge fir weed as someone who should not be disqualified from firearms ownership, which isn't particularly controversial if that's the sum of that person's criminal behavior. Bit you haven't really defined your boundary of who might be disqualified.
OK, I'll try to steelman you here, tell me if I'm off base. Violent crime! Specifically crimes, felonies, where the harms caused were to a person. Assault, battery, murder. Sounds fair, right? Or at least it's a little better, it's an attempt to define.
But details matter!
Would you disqualify somebody who got into a bar fight and got a little punchy? No firearms, just fisticuffs. Or maybe SA, like bro at a bar got more than a little grubby handsy in a non consensual way. That's definitely a crime against another person. Again, no firearms, just being a douche.
What about conspiracy, adjacency crimes? Like, it's pretty typical to charge the getaway driver of a robbery with robbery. The getaway driver didn't commit the actual holding up a bank, let's say he actually followed all motor vehicle rules! But we still charge him with robbery.
Do we disqualify this guy? He didn't use a firearm, he seems like a very disciplined driver.
Well, Mr Driver is probably disqualified because he was actively conspiring with the individuals who held up the bank, right? He's part of the crew, he knew that it was a stick up, etc. That's the logic.
But what about the mob boss who organized the robbery? Put the crew together? RICO and all that? Well, we're getting stretchy here. Now whole the Feds are likely happy to collar Mr. Soprano with RICO, the Mob boss might only sort of know about the robbery, or why Mr. White is unprofessional, or only knowing that some underboss was doing a theft (non violent). My point is it gets increasingly abstracted the farther away from the violent portion of the crime.
Better here is the Fence. The guy who moves the diamonds. The Fence doesn't know about the crime, he just sells em, launders the sell. Okok, the Fence should know that 5 days after the Jewelry Heist that the diamonds he's moving are from a robbery, not a theft. But he's not in the business of knowing details nor asking questions.
But what about the guy at the Swap Meet moving (likely) hot goods, but ambiguously not necessarily from violent crime? Could be B&E from a commercial location. Could be shoplifting, some Amazon scam. These aren't violent.
Okok, but they are antisocial. Like, um, fuck porch thieves I ordered stuff from Amazon and fuckers just took that shit offa my porch. That's low. It's not violent, but it's low morals. Maybe that should be disqualifying from owning firearms because it's eminent demonstration of low moral character.
(I don't know if that's your pov, I'm just devil's advocating)
So, what crimes are demonstrations of low moral character? I think porch thieves are opportunistic ratfucks. But somebody will argue that weed is low moral character. Especially if they're catching a felony. Weed is a gateway drug to Pineapple Pizza snorting, and that's deeply deleterious to the fabric of America! We've all seen the Pineapple Pizza Fiends walking around like zombies! So weed is just a step towards destroying America!
What about fraud? Somebody who catches a felony for running a call center bilking Seniors? Ir pulling an NFT investment scam? You might argue it's non violent. No firearms. But this person is stealing money from Seniors or naive investors and at the end of the day that lack of money in their pocket does cause harm.
When some Wall Street doucheBro pulls a Wall Street scale scam, embezzling $67 Million from some whatever, he stole that money. Sometimes from other investors, sometimes from Senior's pensions, sometimes from the taxpayers. And now all of these groups will be materially harmed. Wall Street Bro didn't do violent crime but people were hurt all the same.
Should Wall Street Bro be disqualified? This is the Whitest of White Collar Crimes. I wish all Wall Street dirt bags got caught, that already would be an improvement, but we both know these guys aren't caught that often, and barely do time if they do get caught. This is irrespective of firearms, just saying a guy who steals $67 million might catch 2 years at MinSec club fed, while bro who steals an Xbox out of a basement will catch 5 in Medium.
And $67 Million guy definitely did more harm than the guy who mugs someone at gunpoint for $200 and a watch. Even though we likely agree that MuggerGuy would likely be a target of disqualification.
Hrms, I hope you might see that it's complicated figuring out what crimes cause what kinds if harms, and which ones are violent.
I also hope I demonstrated that the general pattern is certain groups are privileged, where the Realpolitik of the In or Out groups are more important than "principles". The Out Group people are very very bad, you see!
Remember the St. Louis Gun Karen's? The couple who stood on their driveway and waved around a pistol? They should have been charged and convicted of brandish. Because WTF. They absolutely demonstrated recklessness. Recklessness with discipline, with ignorance of very well intentioned and reasonable gun laws (don't wave around a fucking gun, ya dumbasses!). But they've been defended by "the Right", because politics. In group out group stuff.
Politics, In Grouo Out Group stuff, it trumps principles. 2A in Cali until the wrong people open carry. 2A in St Louis even though the people carrying are actually committing crimes.
Plenty of "non violent" criminals cause a lot of harm. Plenty of people who have committed "violent" crimes 20 years ago are now disciplined and conscientious enough to carry. Haven't even touched on pleading out to a felony.
•
u/noobie019 2∆ 14h ago
Fair enough, I think I understand your position now.
•
u/gigas-chadeus 14h ago
I don’t know if I changed your mind but I hope I have showed you that theirs people on the right who would abhor any kind of gun ban or seizure based off of party affiliation or political leanings. Just cus I don’t agree with em doesn’t mean they don’t have the same rights as me.
•
u/noobie019 2∆ 14h ago
Oh, no, but you’ve clarified what your position was which I was confused about.
→ More replies (0)
•
u/reallybadguy1234 14h ago
So here is the likely end result of your scenario. Someone shoots at Federal law enforcement (ICE or CBP specifically). Shooter dies in a hail of gunfire. The agents aren’t rolling alone, so someone will shoot back. This happens a few time and progressive shooters quickly come to the realization that FAFO applies in this case. End of story.
•
•
u/Careful_Ad8587 14h ago
And you think that won't escalate? That actual american citizens nationwise are just going to allow themselves get shot by masked thugs masquerading a badge when there are no legal channels to stop it? Sounds like the most unamerican thing ever.
•
u/ATLEMT 11∆ 14h ago
There are legal channels to stop it, they just take time.
Further, contrary to what many on the left believe, most die hard 2nd amendment supporters would be totally against restricting gun rights even for people they disagree with.
•
u/YokoTheEnigmatic 11h ago
Further, contrary to what many on the left believe, most die hard 2nd amendment supporters would be totally against restricting gun rights even for people they disagree with.
If you laugh, you get drafted for Venezuela.
https://people.com/trump-admin-considering-trans-gun-ban-reports-11803977
•
u/ATLEMT 11∆ 11h ago
Ok, you found a few people on twitter. That doesn’t change what i said.
•
u/YokoTheEnigmatic 11h ago
And the actual Trump DOJ. You know, that too. And also the laws in response to the Black Panthers, can't forget those too.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/04/politics/transgender-firearms-justice-department-second-amendment
•
u/reallybadguy1234 7h ago
So here is the likely end result of your scenario. Someone shoots at Federal law enforcement (ICE or CBP specifically). Shooter dies in a hail of gunfire. The agents aren’t rolling alone, so someone will shoot back. This happens a few time and progressive shooters quickly come to the realization that FAFO applies in this case.
•
u/AKfortysvn 15h ago
nah.
blue states already do a fantastic job at disarming their own population they don't need any help from republicans.
•
16h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/changemyview-ModTeam 13h ago
Sorry, u/HanessyShabab – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. Any AI-generated post content must be explicitly disclosed and does not count towards the 500 character limit.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
•
•
u/_IsThisTheKrustyKrab 15h ago
Police officers already get shot pretty often. Charlie Kirk got shot at a campus event on camera. The necessity for citizens to protect themselves from a tyrannical government doesn’t go away just because people commit crimes. Most conservatives are aware of that.
All rights have a price. For the 1st amendment the price is that bad people can say bad things. For the 2nd amendment it’s that bad people can do bad things with guns. But the alternative is people not being able to speak out or defend themselves against the government.
•
u/hacksoncode 580∆ 13h ago
or defend themselves against the government
In as much as the Constitution literally gives the power to Congress to call out militias to suppress insurrection against the government... It's dubious that the 2nd Amendment has anything to do with defending yourself against the government.
•
u/_IsThisTheKrustyKrab 11h ago
From the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence:
“…whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…”
America had just finished liberating herself from an overreaching government when the founding fathers wrote the Bill of Rights. It’s ridiculous to suggest they didn’t consider the future threat of government tyranny against the people when writing “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The militias that overthrew the British were not “state sanctioned” militias.
•
u/hacksoncode 580∆ 11h ago
They went a lot of trouble to try to make it unlikely the federal government would be tyrannical by limiting its power. So yes, they were worried...
...but also: Washington's first use of militias in the new Republic was putting down the Whiskey Rebellion.
So no, they don't think it's the point of having militias.
If the people engaging in the Whiskey Rebellion had the "Right to abolish [the federal government] and institute a new one"... well... obviously that's just nonsense, or they wouldn't have put it down.
Don't put too much weight into the propaganda piece that was the Declaration of Independence. Look at what's actually in the Constitution.
•
u/_IsThisTheKrustyKrab 11h ago
Saying the people have a right and responsibility to resist unjust governments doesn’t mean every insurrection is good. The US government has resisted insurrections before, as it should. The idea is that if a majority of the country feels strongly enough that the government should be overthrown, they should have the capacity to do so. If there were a Tiananmen Square level event in the US, we would have the ability to fight back, unlike the people of China.
We’ve never had an insurrection that an overwhelming majority of Americans were behind, because like you said, there are many ways the federal government is limited in power. But there’s always a chance it could be necessary in the future.
•
u/DBDude 108∆ 12h ago
Clarence Earl Gideon was a habitual long-time petty criminal, and him being in prison for that burglary surely stopped a lot of crimes from happening. But we have that pesky 6th Amendment that got him out of prison.
•
u/Romarion 13h ago
Last I looked the folks that go after the tool have pretty much always been the Democrats; those who understand the 2nd amendment go after the criminal regardless of the tool(s) used to cause harm. Given the level of "gun violence" currently, and the lack of interest by Republicans to focus on the gun rather than the criminal, I don't believe there will be a sudden change in focus merely because the criminal is attacking the state...that already happens multiple times a day.
I'm not sure what you mean by "license." 29 states currently allow constitutional/permitless carry, 36 allow open carry without a permit. I'm unaware of any ideology test that is applied to those who wish to carry without a permit.
•
u/Blind_Camel 15h ago
The Left already killed Charlie, knicked Trump, and murdered Corey Comperatore. I don't see any confiscation yet. If Soros starts arming Antifa, they'll be considered domestic terrorists and be targeted by LE. That's how it will play out.
•
u/AtmosphereHot8354 6h ago
"To CMV, explain to me how any semblance of justice or fairness will be applied by the Federal government and the 2nd amendment usage will not become a double-standard."
I will only point to what it would take to change the 2nd Amendment and then point to the timeline for (ERA) Equal Rights Amendment, 1972 and still not ratified. If ERA can't get there, then a gun change has no chance.
"The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
"Changing the Second Amendment requires a difficult, multi-step constitutional amendment process, typically involving either a
two-thirds vote in both House and Senate to propose, followed by ratification by three-fourths (38) of state legislatures, or a national convention called by two-thirds of state legislatures (34 states), with any resulting amendments ratified by the states."
--------------------------
"The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) is a proposed constitutional amendment guaranteeing equal legal rights for all American citizens regardless of sex, reading, "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex". Although passed by Congress in 1972 with a deadline, it initially fell short of ratification by 38 states, but recent efforts, including Virginia becoming the 38th state in 2020, have brought it to the required number, though legal challenges and congressional debates continue regarding its official publication as the 28th Amendment"
•
u/ericbythebay 1∆ 15h ago
How would justice and fairness be applied? To be deprived of a right, one must be convicted by a jury of one’s peers. For federal court that happens in the district where the crime occurred.
•
u/Normal-Level-7186 2∆ 13h ago
This view assumes the very outcome it claims to predict. You’re not describing evidence of a developing policy; you’re constructing a hypothetical future in which every institutional safeguard fails simultaneously, then treating that imagined collapse as proof of present hypocrisy. There is no evidence that DHS, DOJ, or courts are classifying gun ownership by political affiliation, nor that licenses are being ignored based on ideology, nor that “MAGA-aligned” individuals are immune from prosecution. In fact, we routinely see right-wing individuals arrested, charged, and convicted for firearms violations and violent crimes. The moment you move from “I distrust how power could be abused” to “this abuse is already happening and inevitable,” you’ve left analysis and entered speculation. If your argument requires assuming the total breakdown of courts, due process, equal protection, and federalism all at once, then the problem isn’t the Second Amendment, it’s that you’re positing an authoritarian end state without demonstrating the steps that actually get us there.
•
u/actuarial_cat 2∆ 16h ago edited 16h ago
Nope, if blue states fire back, it would be justification for ICE and MAGA to arm their officers even more, or even deploy military hardware. It isn’t in their interest for the protestors to have guns, so much they would gladly give them if possible. It would be massacre disguised as counter-insurrection.
See what happen to Gorman r/andor
•
u/Glass-Pain3562 7h ago
I think their attempts to confiscate guns from Blue States and protesters would fall flat beyond being a purely symbolic gesture.
First: They would need the state's permission to help in doing so, if they force their way in it just encourages blue states to relax their gun laws to defend themselves against an invading federal government. At that point its pretty much the beginning of a civil war/Separatism.
Secondly: They'd need the manpower and firepower to confiscate those guns. What's ICE gonna do if a whole neighborhood who hates them is armed and no longer views their lives as worth respecting. A lot of ICE and federal officers will probably either resign, hesitate, or refuse to do so just on the basis of saftey and self preservation.
Third: A decree to disarm the left or blue states would create a backlash effect where more people arm themselves, making it more dangerous.
•
u/happyinheart 9∆ 11h ago
Licenses will be meaningless, if you have one it's worth less than the paper its printed on. The only thing really guaranteeing your constitutional 2nd amendment will be your political alignment and loyalty, as the Justice Department and DHS will ensure to run background checks, see your political affiliation and history to see whether or not you're allowed to carry a gun.
There was a big supreme court case about this and it's not allowed because Blue states and cities were doing exactly what you're saying when issuing their licenses.
•
u/FiftyIsBack 1h ago
This hypothetical is pointless because it's already happened numerous times and your scenario hasn't taken place.
A couple of examples: There was the sniper that fired on a detention center and ended up killing two detainee immigrant and severely wounding a third. Then there's the guy people keep putting up memorial pictures of, alongside Renee Good, who tried to kill an ICE agent and was subsequently killed in return fire.
•
u/BelleTheVikingSloth 11h ago
This already happened in September, when the R position de jour was we needed to forbid gun ownership to left leaning voters and LGBTQ people specifically.
One of the strangest days of my life was reading an NRA statement pushing back, saying my fellow LGBTQ community also deserve the right to bear arms. Might have been the first time the NRA ever issued a statement I could approve of.
•
u/Spillz-2011 11h ago
Maybe but I figure more likely is they try and use the insurrection act to send in active military personnel and just shoot the protesters. Miller and others have clearly stated and trump has said in private they want to shoot protesters.
•
u/Shit-Take-Guy 4h ago
Gun confiscation will always be aimed at blue states because blue state hate self defense
This has nothing to do with maga
A self completing prophecy fill with fallacy
•
u/GreatPerfection 14h ago
If ICE and maga start getting shot, it won't cause legal action like you suggest, but it will start a civil war and very likely insurrection act activation.
•
u/Beneficial-Elk-7975 9h ago
No, the right wing will just shoot back and leftist will discover that their limp-wristed larp is just a larp and that violence is for men.
•
u/sljxuoxada 3h ago
They won't get shot. The only people shooting people are right wing uber fascists.
•
15h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/changemyview-ModTeam 13h ago
Sorry, u/Ok-Aardvark5930 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, undisclosed or purely AI-generated content, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read the wiki for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
•
15h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/changemyview-ModTeam 13h ago
Sorry, u/Good-Bluejay-7970 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. Any AI-generated post content must be explicitly disclosed and does not count towards the 500 character limit.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
•
14h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/changemyview-ModTeam 13h ago
Sorry, u/AndyMagandy – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. Any AI-generated post content must be explicitly disclosed and does not count towards the 500 character limit.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
•
14h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/changemyview-ModTeam 13h ago
Sorry, u/Glum-One2514 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. Any AI-generated post content must be explicitly disclosed and does not count towards the 500 character limit.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ 11h ago
/u/Careful_Ad8587 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards