Biden to Gun Owners: You’ll Need an F-16 to Go Against the Government

Here’s one. There are plenty more, and Trump will continue to make the claim.

 

This may come as a shock to your preconceived notions but not all conservatives conceal carry and some leftist DO conceal carry

 

Can’t find an excuse to try and dismiss the fact that your beloved fuhrer’s claim is fake.

So, you made up something else!

 

Do better, the very start of the clip clearly has him stating "They have already done what he is being questioned on".. I mean forty eight seconds in man

 

Absolutely fake and not remotely what you claim. Lol @ posting " the view '

 

Hmmm what specifically did they do to overturn the government and failed?

 

Clearly he didn't watch it or insisted he hear it his way THE VIEW, hell, soon as I seen the red headed hog lady it was pretty clear how bias this was gonna be

 

This is why gun bans will not happen The left think the Rs are the only gun owners, when in fact the Ds and Independents make up a hug block of gun owners


DO THE MATH

 

It is EXACTLY what I claimed, in almost exactly those words.

Then your beloved fuhrer stands up and channels Nazi rhetoric about concentration camps and secret police, and the claims to be someone’s “retribution”!

We know what we’re looking at.

We had a four year preview, capped by an insurrection attempt that sought to toss out the votes of most Americans and substitute the claims of various GOP state legislators.

Oh, and he got the riot he wanted. Few doubt that he won’t try it again.

Still cheering? Trump nation cheers for all of this, and then hypocrically tries to pretend he didn’t actually say it.

This is a losing game for you Trump types. Your beloved fuhrer will double down on these claims and offer a host of other self serving victimhood and assertions of his claims to absolute power.

And, I’m sure you’ll cheer for them too, before you start trying to deny your fuhrer’s words.

 

I knew that right away.

I’m not a fan of “the View”. But I saw the original Univision interview too. And Trump did claim he would weaponize the DoJ.

 

Cool show us that interview instead of one that's cut up and he says he could based on what the left has already done.

 

If you are here for an honest discussion, our hands were tied behind our backs because the enemy was hiding among friendlies, just as they would be here. Of course, those soldiers were not faced with attacking their own people. They did not need F-16s to beat the US.

Second, you have been able to demonstrate how a single gun law makes our daughters and wives safer. To say that someone willing to risk the penalty for committing murder would NOT be willing to risk the penalty for breaking a gun law, is far from reasonable.

Saying "You've been defeated" is no substitute for a sound argument.

 

Biden's question answered.

“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”

Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn , The Gulag Archipelago

 

That article said Trump didn't make a formal request, it didn't say he never made a request. I guess Pelosi doesn't have a cell phone.

 

That's exactly what he indicated..... Not that he would use the government and military to attack the citizenry.

Nice try but you need to stretch a little harder and do some more spinning

 

because Trump was tear-gassing peaceful protestors for a bible photo op

 

The DOJ has always been "weaponized".

 

And how did they arrive at those numbers Most folk I know wouldn't tell anyone "Survey" phone or otherwise that they have a firearm in the home, especially in the last ten years..

 

He's pointing out that the logic of having gun ownership to oppose a tyrannical government is far more ridiculous these days than it was in the times of the revolution. He's mostly right. It doesn't mean much either way on whether and who owns guns, though. Just the "opposing government tyranny" justification is a farce. It's the will of repressed people that makes the difference in that situation. Without guns they'd improvise explosives and make guns. It really does make no difference. The part he's wrong about is that it wouldn't have to be conventional, symmetrical warfare, in which case a gun is nothing compared to real machines of war. But in asymmetrical warfare, the guns aren't going to be what makes the difference, it's the will.

 

Yup, exactly

 

This thread is exploring the hypothetical scenario that citizens have assessed, and acted on, the need to interfere with our government to the point where the government would react with military force. If the government is acting unconstitutionally, then it will be PATRIOTS who will be doing the interfering. That interference may be full blown insurrection, and it may be a strongly worded letter, but it is patriots who take action against a government who is acting unconstitutionally.

And since this thread is about hypotheticals, I'm 100% sure, if Trump were to win the election this year, that YOU would consider it YOUR patriotic duty to interfere with things he does that YOU consider unconstitutional. It would be your patriotic duty to do so.

 

What?

 

true, it would take more money than most of us have, but modern fighters are available to nongovernmental entities. perhaps not an f-16. perhaps not even something comparable, but the point is that the sort of firepower available to governments is also available to private entities. we simply don't need to band together and buy these things because we depend upon an honest government to use our taxes for us rather than against us. should we be so trusting? probably not and that trust is even more eroded when a high governmental official comes out and says "you folks don't have a chance against us". it is one thing for private citizens to say that they are ready and willing to defend themselves should government become overbearing. it is another thing entirely for our elected officials to baldly state that the government would crush them if they attempted such a defence.

 

A gentle reminder, of the last few president's only one advocated taking firearms away without due process.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/30E5P12DVEk

 

LOL, he is speaking to a specific person with a history of mental illness.. Nice try, the propagandist is strong in this one