Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

1.5K

1) They can't confiscate firearms passively.

Most of the left imposes their tyranny at arm's length, remotely from Silicon Valley, state capitols, and DC. Someone has to come and get the firearms from the populace.

2) It's much easier to resist passively.

Rather than having to donate, show up and protest, vote, evade taxes, etc. all that must be done to rebel is not to comply. And nobody likes being stolen from.

#1) They can't confiscate firearms passively. Most of the left imposes their tyranny at arm's length, remotely from Silicon Valley, state capitols, and DC. Someone has to come and get the firearms from the populace. #2) It's much easier to resist passively. Rather than having to donate, show up and protest, vote, evade taxes, etc. all that must be done to rebel is not to comply. And nobody likes being stolen from.

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (23).
[–] • 1 pt

It's pretty clearly written down in the Declaration of Independence.

[–] • 1 pt

ah, but the forefathers didn't put it down into our gov't documents because they thought it was completely obvious that government can only defend rights and not enumerate them as specifically granted (i.e. why the bill of rights was controversial)

[–] • 1 pt

Oh, I know. Although the DoI was the philosophical lynchpin for the formation of the republic, the moral relativists love to snark that it was never adopted by the government and therefore it has no bearing.

It's the key to the whole "by the consent of the governed" concept. The kikes have done a great job hiding that by simply not teaching civics or jurisprudence or logic any more.

[–] • 1 pt

Well after 250 years we know some new shit about what works and what doesn't. Next time I guess? seeming pretty ripe right now