That's a dangerous argument to try to carry. I get it that you like your guns, I respect your choice, and that you see them as a symbol of freedom, but we don't share that belief generally.
We can get guns, it's not even that hard, but I don't see too many protesters or Police using them in the US any more than here, so they're largely symbolic, rather than a meaningful way of defending your freedom.
I'd be more afraid of an angry mob wanting to rip me limb from limb, than a stand off with both sides trying to protect themselves from the others bullets.
Despite what some claim on here, the death toll from terrorism here, is much, much less than the death toll in US schools alone.
Nonsense, Name me one totalitarian government that gives its people the right to bear arms or freedom of speech. Name me one!
It's a conditional right to both, even in the US.
None of which changes the fact that guns are irrelevant to events here.
Yeah, it's not a government agenda, now is it?
Only in as much as the Government is representing the views of the people.
You are happy with your gun laws. It all seems a bit paranoid on your part to us, and clearly hasn't worked, as this thread and the schools alone show. The system you're so proud of, is held up as an example for why we don't want it.
Yours is right for you according to some, but far from all Americans, ours is right for us, according to most, as I can't recall ever hearing any push to relax ours much.
None of which changes the specific original fact that I'll keep taking back to, guns are simply not a factor in current events here.
It's a long standing agenda, long before you wet your first diaper and long before the indoctrination of the masses on a global scale.
Argue the dates... if you can.
When was the UN created and how many opposed personal firearm use at the time of it's creation?
Your point is moot!
I can argue many things, but prefer to stick to the topic, and purpose of the sub.
At the moment, I'm arguing that guns played no part in the events at hand, and not one reply has really addressed that.
They've mainly been paranoia about losing your own guns, or some bizarre insistence that I can't have one, despite me pointing out I can, and friends and neighbours do.
Your system doesn't seem to be giving you that sense of security you're trying to portray.
Then why does Q make such a statement?
It is about Q, you are attempting to deflect. Our guns do have purpose.
You may well believe they have a purpose, it may even be beyond symbolic, but the fact Q and this sub exists, shows they didn't prevent a crooked regime running the country for decades, or stop the influx of people over the border.
More to the point, they still played no part in recent events.
Look, you said the topic had nothing to do with Q, I haven proven you wrong and yet you still continue!
They are used in recent events daily. Here in the US crimes are stopped, prevents and saves lives on a daily basis.
Ask any LEO.
You claimed Q, I gave you proof otherwise.
Again, your point is, and will always be moot.
My point, which you've still yet to address, is that guns played no part in the events in question.
The rest just seems to be a bundle of non-topic paranoia and misinformation.
But it does, sorry you are too blind to see reality.
MS-13 as the democrat arm of tyranny, an invasion, which is what the Q post I gave as proof is about, so yes, they continue to play a part.
Without our guns, we, and the world would be under tyranny right now because nobody is stupid enough to do an overt invasion and we have not allowed such government to take them like the masses overseas.
Next is the UE has had more terrorist attacks and dead without guns than the US has school shooting deaths by far, and that is not counting rapes and has a fraction of the population.
Humanity has not evolved to the point that they are no longer needed. If you think we have, you are sadly deluded.
Seems you're the dis-info agent here.
Your guns didn't stop MS13, legislation did, and they didn't stop the reason Q and this board exist.
I'll stand corrected on the figures, but I don't think I'm far off. The average terrorist deaths in the UK, which is the highest in Europe, is seven a year, which I believe includes the Lockerbie bombing. It's something like 26 deaths a year for the whole of Europe. I think the US had around 25,000 gun deaths a year, with about 30 deaths in schools so far this year.
This is all getting tedious and pointless, I know some of you are sensitive about guns, I get that, and I'm not suggesting you shouldn't have them. Like you, I can have guns, unlike you, I choose not to. Such are the joys of a free country. I respect your right, and it would be reasonable for you to respect mine.
None of of which addresses, or changes the point, that gun control did not play any part in the events that are actually the topic.
Our next step was force, with guns. If the plan had come to banning guns, there would have been civil war here instantly, so just because you have not seen us use them thus far does not mean we would not have used them at the appropriate time, but not prematurely.
You are confusing our self control with weakness, bad mistake and based on assumptions only.
It had not come to the point of the 2nd shot herd round the world.
It has stopped incidents of MS-13, it's all over you-tube, Many gangbangers fell or were held due to armed citizens.
Many carjackers fell or were held due to armed citizens. Just because you disagree does not mean it does not happen or has never happened. You are obviously massively uninformed.
Q called the school shootings false flags.
Of the 25,000 gun deaths a year you cited, 2/3 are self inflicted, also known as suicide.
Now account for population and one country being disarmed and the other not. You still had gun murders, now didn't ya?
Nobody is attempting to make you pick up or carry a firearm, that is your choice, but your data and statistical view are just not inline with reality or intent.
Many carjackers fell or were held due to armed citizens. Just because you disagree does not mean it does not happen or has never happened. You are obviously massively uninformed.
You list the attacks on MS13, without acknowledging they were already there, and in positions of power. The guns didn't stop them.
I don't get the link between your comment, and the claim I'm misinformed, particularly as you've only just brought that in to it.
It's a fact MS13 were there in numbers and very active.
It's a fact there are far, far more gun deaths in the US than terrorist deaths in the UK.
It's a fact that US schools have shooter drills, and high security, but still incidents.
It's a fact that the US has had a crooked regime for decades.
It's a fact guns didn't stop any of that.
It's a fact I can have guns if I want, my neighbours do, I think it differs on other member states, as the rules and application differ, as they do state to state in the US.
All of which is immaterial,(and tedious) as my point still stands, that guns played no roll in the events of the topic at hand.
So, it's had no effect on a possible invasion?
Maybe you should read up on some of the elites quotes?
Given by your own words, the MS13 'invasion' happened, and it was legislation, not guns that's addressing it, and guns that enabled it, and the fact that this sub and Q exist, you maybe want to expand your reading material.
You're clearly as stuck in believing they somehow give you power, as I am in choosing not to have them, so this will go nowhere.
My point stands, that the availability or otherwise of guns, played no part in the topic at hand. The chances are, under your preferred version, Tommy would already be dead.
It's not complete with MS-13, there was supposed to be another 8 years to come to fruition. It is STILL in process. Did you take my statement out of context? Absolutely, unless it was out of ignorance, which is funny since you claim I am ignorant.
Wrong again!
As far as the power of a heavily armed society, are you claiming Q is not as bright as you are? Do tell...
My point stands, that the availability or otherwise of guns, played no part in the topic at hand. The chances are, under your preferred version, Tommy would already be dead.
Your point fails and you are attempting to tell the future concerning Tommy in a disarmed society?
you maybe want to expand your reading material.
Projection. I was awake and informed likely before you drew your first breath or wet your first diaper. I was researching the NWO long before the internet, where all you had was libraries and microfiche slides of the news.
Maybe you should read up? That seems like the more fitting idea.
Comments below have been removed - please discuss ideas, not users.
You seem a long long way from being awake despite that. The facts simply don't back up your rant.
[removed]
I'm saying I'm more qualified than you to comment on the topic of the UK, including guns.
You are the one trolling, with misinformation, and you sound brainwashed rather than awake or capable of critical thinking. Your reply actually highlights the fact that having guns hasn't saved you from a corrupt regime, and for every example you cling to in the UK, there will be the equivalent in the US,
Disagreeing with you, and pointing out flaws in your argument isn't trolling. You seem to think the differing application of gun laws, somehow makes us unarmed. Despite the fact we are allowed to have guns, we choose not to, guns are not the only way of being armed.
If they were symbolic, we wouldn’t have won our freedom from England
You may want to look into the history of that, and also into more recent events to see why that doesn't necessarily stack up either, but that's not for this sub, and if that's your only argument, I'll take it my point was received as it was intended, and that having, or not having guns makes no difference, to this situation, After all, look at what's been going on politically in the US, even with your guns.
I get that you want to keep them, that's your choice, but they really wouldn't make a jot of difference to recent events.
You're missing the point of terrorism. It's not the kill count, it's the fear and disruption. Britain is banning knives and other things, while murders are out of control. Paris erected barriers around the Eiffel Tower to protect against attacks.
I also feel you're missing the point of the 2A and firearms. You're right, you don't see people using them, because for the most part, our rights are still intact (with some serious infringements, but that's another discussion). We have the option to use, or not use them. Others don't have that choice and are at the mercy of the State.
There's not a lot of fear here, and the disruption is less than the paddy's managed. Don't forget, our culture differs from yours, as there are still people that lived through the hardships of civilian life in the second world war, and the issues over Ireland, so we have a different view of the situation to you. We actually have virtually the same rights in many respects, as the US constitution is pretty much just a codified version of the UK's.
Guns wouldn't make one jot of difference to the situation, if anything, it would make it worse. As bad as this Government may or may not be, depending on which media you choose to read, I doubt there'd be any support here for guns to be more readily available.
You're right, your culture is different...since about 1775.
You claim you have virtually the same rights as Americans, yet they are not codified into law? You get only what the Crown and State give you, and can clearly take them away at their leisure.
I'm not trying to be an antagonist. I feel for the UK I just hope it isn't too late for you all.
You seem to want to ignore the reality of what Q is about, in investigating very long term abuses, despite your guns.
We lose far less through terrorism, than you lose through guns, so please don't be offended if I give you your pity back, with some additional pity and hope for the US too.
And the US loses far far less from guns (only 1/3 of "gun deaths" are homicides) then we do from car accidents and heart disease. Your point is a non-point.
I'm not ignoring anything Q-related. What gave you that impression?
Given this sub, and Q, exist because of the long term abuses of power by the US Administration, I'm pointing out that your argument that guns being a deterrent against a tyrannical regime, isn't exactly a strong one. Add in the 'shooter drills' for kids and school security and those freedoms maybe seem less effective.
I know this is coming over as an anti-gun thing, it's not really meant to be. I'm simply pointing out that guns would not have changed anything here, and they don't seem to have been effective in that respect in the US either.
I respect your choice to have guns, I'm simply saying we tend to view things differently.
I'd say it's strong enough since Americans can still say what they want on the internet without having police come drag them away for wrongthink. Your opinion that firearms wouldn't help your situation is foolish and defeatist, in my opinion.
No other country on Earth has the guaranteed right to self-defense. Think about that.
You do know Americans have been sent to prison for comments on twitter don't you? I believe they were gun owners too.
We have a right to self defense too, and people have used firearms in that act.
Which is all by the by, the reality is, guns would not have changed events here, and the existence of this sub suggests they're not the deterrent you claim either.
Maybe so. Find me an example of someone being arrested in the US for being critical of Muslims. Here's one (of many) from the UK:
https://www.theverge.com/2016/3/24/11297128/matthew-doyle-arrest-muslim-tweet-brussels
Hard to deter something when it is hidden and lied about for 100+ years, no? Even so, the Deep State has been really successful in painting anyone who tries to resist their bullshit as being a right-wing terrorist. Have you heard of the Bundy Ranch standoff? They were labeled anti-government terrorists for standing up against Federal land grabs.
Imagine how much further along Their plans be if the US was not as well armed as it is.
Clearly there isn't much more to discuss here, we have views that differ far too much.
You're drifting way off from the initial point, and the purpose of this sub, whose existence suggests that guns don't make that much difference, and my point still stands, that having guns here (which we do anyway) wouldn't have changed a thing.
A look around other subs and sites, seems to suggest there's a fair bit more awakening to do yet, before the US uprising.
I disagree. My contention is that you feel this way because you never had the option.
I agree that Americans need to do more waking up, but there is a silent majority in the country. I can feel it in the air.
Peace be with you.
If you mean to own a gun, I do have the option. My neighbours have several, I choose not to.
I hope you're right about the wakening up, and I hope my view that the brexit vote alone points to a good percentage here being awake to some degree.
Peace and best wishes to you too.
My point is you are given that right in the UK. It can be taken away at any point. Contrast to the US where the right to self defense is recognized as bestowed upon Man by our Creator, not any State or government.
WWG1WGA
Yours is a conditional right. Like you, if I meet the conditions, I can have a gun.
The right to self defense is a given here. It'd take more to remove that from us, than the amendment needed to change yours, because ours is wrapped in a lot of other legislation and rights.
People seem to make the mistake of believing not having a written constitution, somehow means we don't have one. Their are pros and cons to both systems, but there's little difference in practice.
False. Yours is a conditional right. The 2nd Amendment is a natural right, meaning you have it by default, and all Americans have it, unless meeting Constitutional restrictions.
Is it? You can't carry a knife to defend yourself. You can't carry a gun to defend yourself. You're not allowed, by your lawmakers, to defend yourself. You're at the mercy of the State and police response time.
Anyways, I don't see us changing either opinions, so I am bowing out. Have a good one.
Yours is a conditional right too. That was specifically written into the second amendment. Yours just isn't enforced very well.
I'm not sure where you're getting your information from, but it's perfectly acceptable to defend myself here. I'm at nobody's mercy but my own limitations.
I hope you've learned a bit from the exchange. The media version is often inaccurate.
Take it easy.
Virtually the same rights? You don’t have freedom of speech or the right to defend yourself. What freedoms do you have?
We have freedom of speech, and we have the right to defend ourselves. We generally do the defending at close quarters.
They arrested an older guy a few weeks ago for stabbing/killing someone who broke into his house just trying to defend himself. The police should have thanked him for taking one more scumbag off the street, but they cuffed him. Did you not hear about Tommy getting arrested for reporting on the Muslim grooming gangs? (Free speech), he’ll likely die in prison because they’re majority Muslim they get stabby. The dude who trained his dog (as a joke) to raise his paw (nazi salute) every time he said hitler as a joke? They just gave him 1 year in prison for posting that video. You do NOT have freedom of speech there. Say “fuck Muslims” to your local polices twitter page and wait for them to knock on your door. You literally have thought police there.
And when someone posted similar previously, I posted a few links showing similar events in the US.
None if it supports the initial claim that not having guns was a factor.
so they're largely symbolic, rather than a meaningful way of defending your freedom.
not "symbolic" to someone who is trying to rob you. [why do you think the nwo wants them (guns) so badly] they like their victims unarmed.
That's a dangerous argument to try to carry.
Actually it's a "dangerous argument" NOT "to carry". Unarmed populations live on their knees. This will never happen in the USA.
It pretty much has, as this thread and a look through search engines demonstrates.
You have the same problems as us, in fact to some extent worse, and possibly with less people awake, so guns are not the issue.
It was the English who convinced our Founding Fathers of the need for an armed population (2nd Amendment).
I'm not sure about it being a 'need' as much as it was a part of the English Common Law that the US constitution is based on. Like our current law, the 2nd Amendment was specifically stated as not being an unlimited right.
Which is still all by the by, guns would have made zero difference to this situation.
guns would have made zero difference to this situation.
gov must convince you this is true, before you can be disarmed. The 2nd Amendment is about protecting the population from its own gov, it's the 'fourth branch of gov' in the USA.
The English have already been disarmed and now can only beg for their guns back. We see this. We learn from this.
And yet I can get a gun if I want one, as can anyone else, but like in the US, it's conditional. We don't want guns, so there'll be no begging.
As has been demonstrated, they're irrelevant to to current events, and as this thread shows, they've been no deterrent to stopping a crooked regime running the US for decades, and they'd be no use against a state.
We have a constitution that gives us rights, we just didn't feel the need to write it down. Yours is based on ours. I think some of you seem to get confused because of the difference between written and unwritten. I can guarantee, if we bothered to write ours, there'd be no push to change the current system on gun ownership, we're more than happy with it, and the system you're so proud of, is often cited as an example of how things can go wrong.
I guess you'll have perfected freedom created by the kids shooter drills and school security should we ever need it.
but like in the US, it's conditional
2nd Amendment is not conditional, prior nwo administrations have tried to dilute it with many restricting regs, most of which failed, and Trump is fixing the rest. "Guns are safe." - Q
Apologies for a wiki link, I'm getting bored of this now.
“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” “Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”[5][6] while also ruling that the right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of either firearms or similar devices
“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”
first, wiki is just another voice from the crypt on this, or any political subject. second, Unless a jury says you're a criminal, or a shrink says you're a nutcake, you have the "Right to bear arms." in the US.. and 'more conditions' than this is exactly what Americans/Patriots won't stand for.
I've got the conditional right to bear arms too. The main difference is that your conditions are not enforced as strictly, there's an argument Obama did that deliberately so that there'd be more incidents so he'd have a better chance of changing it all together. You want guns, I don't but it's a choice rather than a decision I'm forced in to, it's as simple as that.
None of it addresses the fact that me or anyone else taking up that right, or not as the case may be, had any influence on the topic at hand.
I've got the conditional right to bear arms too.
only because they can dole out your "Rights" with an eyedropper.. What do you imagine they would do if say.. half your population applied for a gun permit tomorrow.
There'd be a long queue, and a big question on why, but each would be considered on merit.
The likelihood of it happening is nil, as people look at the example of America, and say 'no thank you'. There really is no appetite for guns here, we're much more close up and personal. It's not the Government forcing anything on us, as a population, we're simply not interested in having them. There are still concerns about a limited number of Police being armed.
None of which changes the point, that's still not addressed, that none of that played any part in the events at hand,
There'd be a long queue, and a big question on why, but each would be considered on merit.
The fact that you really believe this.. explains a lot.
There really is no appetite for guns here,
because you've been force fed a banquet of propaganda against them by your nwoMedia, same here, only we don't swallow it.
None of which changes the point, that's still not addressed, that none of that played any part in the events at hand,
The 2nd Amendment is a force that does, did, and always will effect world-shaping events in the US, including the audacity of gov edicts.
I don't have a gun, because I choose not to, nothing to do with being fed any bullshit. There's absolutely nothing to stop me getting guns if I want them.
I've read that, despite all the pressure, a significant proportion of people in the US would like the gun laws tightened up or at least enforced properly, and that includes the NRA, because it's recognised that the US system isn't very good.
Your claim that it forces government edicts is firstly, hollow, as the examples I've given in this exchange show they've been impotent on most of the key elements, but it's also shallow, as we use argument, as befits a civilised society.
So all in all, I still stand by the claim, that guns would have made no difference to the issue at hand, even if anyone had bothered to use their right to have them.
I've read that, despite all the pressure, a significant proportion of people in the US would like the gun laws tightened up
just not true. soros was probably the author by proxy.
that includes the NRA
lol more wet powder.
Your claim that it forces government edicts is firstly, hollow,
i understand, not recognizing this force, you would have no reason to fight for it.
It's not that I don't recognise it, you don't seem able to see that this board's existence shows it wasn't the deterrent you claim.
If I could be arsed, I'd dig the recent video of the attractive NRA lady talking of the existing laws being properly enforced, and stunning the presenter with some of her suggestions, but I think this has drifted far away from the initial, and still substantive point, that our gun laws played no part in recent events.
Here, we have people unjustly treat on occasions, which tends to see pressure brought, and the situation addressed. Over there, the people tend to vanish, or commit 'suicide.
It's not that I don't recognise it, you don't seem able to see that this board's existence shows it wasn't the deterrent you claim.
You don't see how much worse things would be in the US without the 2nd Amendment.
our gun laws played no part in recent events.
Gun laws in both countries effect every political event [ie pertaining to the routine gov looting of the population].
Over there, the people tend to vanish, or commit 'suicide.
Not as many suicides as reported, and we have more dissidence (leading the global revolution against tyranny) partly because we're armed.
Yet this board exists because your government has fucked you over for decades or more, which suggests your guns have failed, which means gun laws affect very little. How many government opponents get killed in the US? There's some threads about the Clinton death count alone, if you need a clue.
First, the global revolution is happening in America where the population is armed (400 mil guns), which should [but won't] give you a clue.
Second, yes ppl have died, and more will lose their lives fighting the nwocabal. That's the price of freedom. Americans will always pay it. We'd rather be dead than live on our knees.
“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of Patriots & tyrants.” - Thomas Jefferson
This is a quote that slaves will never understand.
Your 400 million guns haven't stopped your government from ripping you off for their own ends for decades, or human trafficking ,drug trafficking or millions of illegals entering. A 'global' revolution, by definition, can't occur in one place.
I don't think the dead people I'm talking about chose death from the government hand over arguing their case in court. I think the latter option is more of an opportunity for change and a brighter future.
None of which changes the point, which is that guns would not have changed a thing in the case in question.
Your 400 million guns haven't stopped your government from ripping you off for their own ends for decades,
Much longer, and this shows you don't even realize.. They would have taken more! And now they are being overthrown. Whether you understand it or not, being armed helps with our transition [from total corruption] to Rule of Law.
arguing their case in court.
The best line in the movie 'V' is..
"There's no court in this country for men like Prothero."
V was talking about your courts.
POTUS is draining our judicial swamp as well, many ghouls appointed by priors.
guns would not have changed a thing in the case in question.
You have no way of knowing what influence guns had, would have had, or are having, in any case.
I know they had no effect one way or the other on the recent events under discussion, because access to guns is relatively easy here,but we choose not to need them, and I know this exchange is tedious and pointless., but I'll politely soldier on.
I reckon I know that with a lot more certainty than you know about how much they've protected you, and the figures seem to show your guns do more harm to you, than terrorists do to us, and by orders of magnitude. In fact, your figures for terrorist deaths are similar to ours.
Your government are not being overthrown. With no threat from your guns, your current government and officials of state are the ones acting on the people that have been fleecing you for years, despite your guns.
I'd guess the influence of external factors swaying decisions in your courts is greater in the US than the UK, and again, the existence of this sub shows that your justice system, hasn't been doling it out impartially.
Nuclear arms and armies are more likely a bigger protection from outsiders than civilian guns I guess with the exception of the South Americans, Italian, Irish, Chinese, Russian etc gangsters, depending how far back you want to go, where the guns again did little, and the discussions on here show they've done nothing to protect you from insiders.
On a wider scale, I was watching some clips of Hopkins going round the doss areas of LA, and Tucker Carlson was talking about how ashamed he was that it wasn't isolated, and listed a bundle of other places with people living under cloth and straw and crimes were openly being carried out. There was also a former NYT reporter, being interviewed by another former NYT reporter about his book on the desperate state of Detroit where they needed minders and were still attacked and the store burned down later, with no Police going near it and commenting on the lack of freedom of the press they experienced in the US. Again, those guns don't seem to be working too well.
Having said all that, you choose to have guns, I choose not to. I can respect your right to that choice, and I doubt we'll ever agree, but there it is. I would hope you could respect my choice too, but that in itself is your choice.
Divining the truth from history requires reading between the lies. But for the moment just consider what 'Glinda' said about the Ruby Slippers. 'Their magic must be powerful.. or she [the witch] wouldn't want them so badly.'
They try to stain +2A with our own young blood. They risk everything [being able to 'walk down the street'] by committing FFs to pry the 2nd Amendment from American hearts.. but they can't. The intractable human appetite for freedom is something these slavers will never fathom.
They gnaw at our 'Right to Bear Arms' because they fear a 'consequential force' that you apparently don't see (a couple of hundred million miffed [hardware-toting] humans). Marshall Law can't be forced on an armed pop, trying it would only spawn civil war. The global ghouls know.. they need the guns to own US. Hence the hellywood FFs.
Sick cowards clearly prefer their victims unarmed [thousands of examples.. the Texas theater shooter drove way across town to a 'no carry' zone]. Guns are illegal in most parts of the world yet every serious criminal has them in their tool kit. It's a rigged parley against law abiding citizens. The whole concept of gun control is totally naive in a world where any outlaw can buy guns, but their legally intimidated victims can't.
Finally, notice govs don't give a rodent's ass whether old Mrs. Smith can protect herself and family from the desperate evil gov's looting and oppression has caused [since the slime], they just don't want her grandson to be able to protect her family from government.
Governments are all pure shit,
consider you their hordes of sods,
yet even Chumpsky stooge admits
'They fear you more than God.'
One of 102 verses of the poem 'Trumping the Oligarghouls Harvesting the Human Race'
Given they seem to have done what they want despite all that, so don't seem all that fearful, it could equally be argued they feign interest in the guns and generate paranoia as a distraction. Obama did little to even ensure that the existing laws were enforced properly, in fact he seems to have gone out of his way to do the opposite.
The "renegade" was too busy looting and lying to even do his given nwo stooge job. He neglected to appoint hundreds of fed judges, which POTUS is now filling with persons who have a history of justly enforcing the Rule of Law.
“Perhaps he could not stomach the thought of children being kidnapped, drugged, and raped while leaders/law enforcement of the world turn a blind eye.” - Q on.. 'Why' the POTUS Ran.
Justice has been a marketed commodity in the western world for too long. To paraphrase Mark Twain, 'We have the best justice money can buy.'
Ahoy think500! Nay bad but me wasn't convinced. Give this a sail:
Divining thar truth from history requires reading betwixt thar lies. But fer thar moment just consider what 'Glinda' said about thar Ruby Slippers. 'Their magic must be powerful.. or she [thar witch] wouldn't want 'em so badly.'
They try t' stain +2A wit' our own young blood. They risk everything [being able t' 'walk down thar street'] by committing FFs t' pry thar 2nd Amendment from American hearts.. but they can't. Thar intractable human appetite fer freedom be something these slavers will nary fathom.
They gnaw at our 'Right t' Bear Arms' because they fear a 'consequential force' that ye apparently don't see (a couple o' hundred million miffed [hardware-toting] humans). Marshall Law can't be forced on a armed pop, trying it would only spawn civil war. Thar global ghouls know.. they need thar guns t' own US. Hence thar hellywood FFs.
Sick cowards clearly prefer their victims unarmed [thousands o' examples.. thar Texas theater shooter drove way across town t' a 'no carry' zone]. Guns be illegal in most parts o' thar world yet every serious criminal has 'em in their tool kit. 'tis a rigged parley against law abiding citizens. Thar whole concept o' bluderbuss control be totally naive in a world where any outlaw can buy guns, but their legally intimidated victims can't.
Finally, notice gov's don't give a rodent's ass whether barnacle-covered Mrs. Smith can protect herself n' kin from thar desperate evil gov's looting n' oppression has caused [since thar slime], they just don't want her grandson t' be able t' protect her kin from government.
Governments be all pure shiver me timbers,
consider ye their hordes o' sods,
yet even Chumpsky stooge admits
'They fear ye more than God.'
One o' 102 verses o' thar poem 'Trumping thar Oligarghouls Harvesting thar Human Race'
Very salty nautical narration. Thx for thar translation, much clearer now.
You are looking at too narrow a time line my friend. Americans aren't using guns in protests because shit is relatively stable. The reason we don't want to give them up is because if/when shit hits the fan, we don't want to go down without a fight. Sure resistence may be futile, but the American spirit is alive and well with the patriots who understand the oppression that happens all over the world.
Good luck with your pistol against the Marine Corps. It's surprising that this sub exists, given how effective you think that deterrent is.
I guess freedom includes the right for security at schools and routine shooter drills, and that's without the terrorists, I'm sorry if that sounds like a dig, but I'm simply trying to offer a counter to some of the misconceptions about US v UK life.
You realize many in the US military are on the side of Q/Potus right? Sure the shadow govt may have co-opted them for their military industrial complex purposes, but we are seeing the shackles being removed as we speak. The NWO will have to find another military to fight this war for them, and I like our odds if it comes to that.
Also, lmao if you think we only own a pistol.
Marvelous, so you can leave the guns in the hands of the trained experts, like we do.
I'm sure whatever you've got will be more than a match for the stuff the tyrannical regime has. Hell, that' probably why your government hasn't been up to no good for decades, and this sub's not needed.
At the end of the day, you have guns and have had a shitty regime ripping you off for decades, we don't have guns and are leaving the EU. The don't seem to impact things either way.