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

©2025 Poal.co

900

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).
[–] • 2 pts

This is the point I was trying (and failing) to make in another thread yesterday. The 2A doesn't grant us the right to defend ourselves. All it does is formally put the government on notice and make them agree in writing that we can and will.

[–] • 2 pts

Put that way I agree with you. The document itself is not the threat of self-defense. It is the written notice.

[–] • 1 pt

Exactly. I look at it as a brief conversation:

The People: We will defend ourselves from you and we want you to understand that.

The Government: Understood. We hear what you're saying and acknowledge it.