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

©2025 Poal.co

949

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

I hate it when retards act like we only have the right to defend ourselves and our homeland because the 2A says we do. I have always viewed the violation of natural rights as the litmus test for when I no longer have any moral obligation to comply.

[–] • 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.

[–] • 1 pt

this used to be the case for most of the country's history. we just never wrote it down and so whoosh there it went

[–] • 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

Nothing is given; everything is taken. It’s common fucking sense that the rules only apply because we collectively agree they do. The government has no special property that grants it the ability to magically impose some universal law upon its citizens - in the final analysis, force is all that matters.