No different. I interpreted her question to mean semi-auto rifles covered under what’s considered an assault weapon. cc: @DLoesch
-
-
- 10 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
No, what you're talking about is confiscation. If people refused, as most would, you're talking about militarizing the police to invade peoples homes to take their guns. You think you'll have all of the military? All of the police? Entire areas of the country even?
-
I'm not saying I would take up arms in such a civil war, but if I saw it coming I would move back home to Texas, where I know the government and people there would stand up for my rights.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
@DLoesch Eric,
Thank you so much. You are pointing out the EXACT reason every man woman and child old enough to pull a trigger NEEDS a gun and the EXACT reason the 2nd is there. Not your tyranny but a FREE state.
Thank you again.
New conversation -
-
-
No, the point you made was that the government has so much weaponry that is superior to that allowed by private citizens that it can (and will) easily put down the whole lot of us refusing to give up our constitutional rights.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
If the Vietnamese and Afghanis can fight off the US Government, what makes you think Americans wouldn’t fair the same if not better?
-
As I understood him, the US Govt will nuke its own citizens, while nuking other countries was a tougher decision.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
You're absolutely right, it's not. It wouldn't be two uniformed armies meeting in a battlefield. You'd have to go house to house. Gun owners look like non gun owners. You would have zero chance, zero. You gonna get military and LEOs to disarm hundreds of millions of people? Lol
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.