>>5905269 (lb)

>“I like taking the guns early, like in this crazy man’s case that just took place in Florida…Take the guns first.” — Donald Trump, February 2018

>"Guns are safe. Stop falling for FAKE NEWS." — QAnon, March 2018

>“We need to push along the ERPOs so that we have these red flag [gun confiscation] laws…this is the single most important thing I think we can do in the gun control area.” —William Barr, Attorney General Nominee, 1/15/19

This isn't fake news; it's literally out of the mouths of our President and new Attorney General. Given the above, and given the federal "red flag" bill that is currently cruising through the "GOP controlled" Senate, is it really too much to ask for some kind of accountability that goes beyond a faith-based circle jerk around here? We're supposed to engage in critical thinking in all instances except when it comes to Q and/or POTUS?

>>5905544

Okay, I'll suspend my disbelief for a moment. How does any of this fit together? How does it make sense strategically, or tactically, as part of a plan? I'm genuinely asking.

The time to stop it would be in the Senate, if we have control. If it makes it through, POTUS will be faced with either signing it or vetoing it, and he hasn't laid any of the groundwork that would go along with the latter course.

In this instance, what actual purpose does subterfuge serve?

>>5905725

This is curious, for sure.

>>5905866

And when Trump signs it? What will our rationalizations be then?

>>5905766

>Why push and push for gun control legislation? To generate public outrage and shift the Overton window.

It's not going very well, then, since our rights seem to be going quietly into the night. And once laws like this are on the books, they are exceedingly difficult to remove (compared to beating them back in the first instance).

The other stuff I can understand, but "losing on purpose" on gun control would be a curious strategy for a band of patriots to take, to say the least. And at least as likely to demoralize as enrage.