0
21

[–] veteran88 0 points 21 points (+21|-0) ago 

Gun grab = civil war

0
10

[–] ScionOfZion 0 points 10 points (+10|-0) ago 

They won't grab. They'll grandfather, ban new, and make you register old. People who do will have a $30k AR-15, so they get rewarded. They're also loyalists, or will sell them to loyalist, like the elite who now own pre-86 "machine" guns.

0
3

[–] veteran88 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

They will try.

5
5

[–] no-hurry-no-pause 5 points 5 points (+10|-5) ago  (edited ago)

Gun grab = civil war

Wrong.

Theyre already grabbing the guns all over the country and there is no civil war.

2
3

[–] 22733921? 2 points 3 points (+5|-2) ago  (edited ago)

The only gun grab in the last 30 years that I can name is the Australian one. You Australian?

“World War III is a guerrilla information war with no division between military and civilian participation.”

—Marshall McLuhan, “Culture Is Our Business”, 1970, p. 66

Whose side are you on?

0
0

[–] veteran88 ago 

I don't know anyone who has faced that.

Taking weps from rapists and murderers isn't a gun grab.

0
0

[–] InyourfaceNancyGrace ago 

Serious question - what imports would we need? Because the way things are going - the coastal/border states are going blue. The entire west coast, southern AZ, NM, TX, LA... I suppose AL and MS have some ports, but FL is on the fence (with Miami being a huge port and very blue), NYC, MD, MA... all of Canada (good luck getting imports through there when they support the cucks). Blues have a majority of the coast so if it comes to red vs. blue (and this seems to be a primary dividing issue between the two) I think the red ports are kinda fucked.

My thought is if we can keep TX oil flowing and fracking/shale facilities we should be able to generate our own power/fuel our vehicles, and I don't think gunpowder-producing-panhandle FL will go blue any time soon. Food shouldn't be a problem for heartland America as long as the fuel keeps coming in. Blue coast would run out of money quickly trying to import all the food they'd need to keep the cities from tearing themselves apart.

0
5

[–] veteran88 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago  (edited ago)

My guess is it will be City vs rural.

All we have to do is cut the power and stop the trucks and we win inside of a year.

I don't think any globalists should survive it. There will be no social marxists or parasites on the other side. On the other hand we must take that opportunity to remove zog permanently. The demographic problem would be solved. America for Americans.

0
2

[–] toobaditworks 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

If you're worried about fuel look into building a gasifier.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6e3CprVTi8

3
12

[–] Tallest_Skil 3 points 12 points (+15|-3) ago 

Doesn’t matter. They’re already taken and no one does anything.

2
12

[–] fightknightHERO 2 points 12 points (+14|-2) ago 

Yep, the coonstitution is already dead and those boomers know it

1
8

[–] moosethenoose 1 point 8 points (+9|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Stop using 'boomers' you quasi Reddit homo.....

2nd amendment arguments come from women.....regardless of age. They are too afraid to properly handle a battery powered drill let alone a handgun. They would just rather it all went away. And then "everything will be ok."

Suffrage was a mistake.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 10 points (+10|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

11
-10

0
5

[–] Fuzzycrumpkin 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

Militia at the time it was written means every able bodied white male. And rather than a privilege, like people like to assume now, it was a mandate or a responsibility from the federal government, that all able bodied white males were obligated to perform. The people are responsible for keeping the government in check and in so doing the people free from the tyranny of that government. Too many people are abdicating thier responsibility...

0
0

[–] tury ago 

I agree with everything you said.

But, I wouldn't be so quick to blame other Voaters. If anything, WE are the FIRST ones to take our responsibilities seriously, and I expect that would be the case, if the urban vs rural wars start. It's right to be extremely angry at the average person, but Voaters, despite the number of fags, would still be our first movers.

1
5

[–] DeltaBravoTango 1 point 5 points (+6|-1) ago 

”It’s just an amendment, it can be changed”

That’s true, they just need to go through the process to amend the constitution. Good luck getting 2/3 in both houses AND getting 3/4 of states to ratify it, though. Otherwise, get fucked.

0
7

[–] Splooge 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

They're importing shitskins for exactly that purpose.

0
1

[–] SubspaceDistortion 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

The right to defend oneself is god given though.

[–] [deleted] ago 

[Deleted]

1
-1

[–] DeltaBravoTango 1 point -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

There’s nothing in the constitution that says the bill of rights can’t be amended. I certainly wouldn’t support it, but it can legally be changed. It would go against the original spirit, but the founding fathers didn’t want to lock us into a fixed constitution. That’s literally the whole point of having amendments.

1
3

[–] BoomerHater1488er 1 point 3 points (+4|-1) ago 

Meh, the Constitution really is only a secondary concern at this point. White genocide should be everyone's focus, but Boomers seem like they'd be perfectly content to let their bloodlines be erased as long as it was done "legally."

0
2

[–] no-hurry-no-pause 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

means shall not, people

As long as you allow "people" to vote on it, it will mean whatever the people voting want it to mean.

Theyre already grabbing the guns. The constitution is worthless if nobody volunteers to enforce it through extralegal assatinations. A piece of paper cant and wont protect you against people.

0
1

[–] capicua 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

I agree the founders probably didn't envision assault weapons. However, the whole point of the law is that the common people can defend themselves against a tyrannical government. I don't mind banning assault weapons, but that should mean the government and military doesn't have assault weapons either. How would we defend ourselves against a tyrannical government if they have us outgunned?

0
1

[–] VoataoV 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Founders envisioned assault weapons. They had repeaters at the time which allowed 6-8 bullets to be fired within a minute. For all intents and purposes, they had machine guns and good old Benjamin Franklin even lent out his cannon.

0
0

[–] PaddyMcInfidel ago 

the founders probably didn't envision assault weapons. 

Assault is a verb, not an adjective. I assume that you mean a weapon that can fire several rounds quickly. Look up the pepper box revolvers that existed during the period the constitution was written.

 I don't mind banning assault weapons, but that should mean the government and military doesn't have assault weapons either. 

The government is not indifferent about retaining their power or limiting their arsenal. You should not be indifferent about your shrinking freedoms.

How would we defend ourselves against a tyrannical government if they have us outgunned?

Vietnam did it. And Afghanistan has survived 2 decades of US military advances. American citizens are outgunned by govt but we also own more private firearms than the rest of the world combined. Don't underestimate the abilities of a group that is willing to fight and defend themselves.

load more comments ▼ (4 remaining)