It means your guns won’t do shit when the law decides your mom is declared property.
The guns won’t change anything because the people making those laws not only have guns but also have the police, the legislative, the judiciary, the military and the executive branch.
Good luck fighting an apc full of military-decked police officers with your ar 15.
Just curious: do you think the scenario is two armies lining up on a battlefield?
The US military is so big that it can’t function well enough to take down Vietnamese farmers or Afghani goatherds.
Whatcha gonna do about it? And what does “at least you’ll have your guns” mean? Explain.
It means your guns won’t do shit when the law decides your mom is declared property.
The guns won’t change anything because the people making those laws not only have guns but also have the police, the legislative, the judiciary, the military and the executive branch.
Good luck fighting an apc full of military-decked police officers with your ar 15.
Classic lib response, and still ignorant as fuck. On top of that it’s a classic case of pre-emptive compliance. See you in the boxcar.
Its wild to me how many people think they can stand against a military industrial complex funded to the tune of trillions of dollars.
But hey, you can larp and pretend your 9mm is gonna save you.
You’re right. You really dont get it. Good thing you’re not a general.
Just curious: do you think the scenario is two armies lining up on a battlefield? The US military is so big that it can’t function well enough to take down Vietnamese farmers or Afghani goatherds.
Something similiar functions well enough as an apparatus to quell the blm protests.
BLM protests have absolutely nothing to do with the discussion.
Yet it shows the effectiveness of an apparatus meant to put down opposition.
No it didnt. BLM was not a resistance movement. You suck at this.
Libs would always rather peacefully embrace fascism then try and stop it. We’ve known this.