NwoSlave

ive given this a lot of thought as it has become clear that Biden was going to be president. First, there is good evidence we have more new gun owners than we did prior to covid. I have to believe they purchased them because they saw the need and hopefully still do enough to pressure their reps not to sign on to any new gun laws. Second, there are moderate democrat gun owners that have moderate democrat representatives to buck any new legislation. no legislation was passed after sandy hook and if there was an event you imagine could have got something done that was it but nothing. so who is going to advocate for their reps to go along with new restrictions in a vacuum? the only people that used guns on wednesday were the cops and one of them shot an unarmed woman. good luck getting something passed. third, assuming the worst, gun confiscation by executive order, state legislatures and governors could tell the feds to pound sand and would eventually sue them, off to the scotus we go. a scotus President Trump has altered for a generation to a more conservative side. lastly, i have to believe local law enforcement and sherrifs/deputies would disobey such obvious unconstitutional orders and the ones that dont, well i wont cry over breaking some eggs to make an omelet . there are just way more of us than there are of them and the fed combined it would be disastrous and it would all have to fail and then you could see civil war with arms instead of this cold war of information we seem to be in currently. TL;DR there are lots of "breakers" between the feds and them attempting a full scale gun confiscation/civil war. So lets just be vigilant we have been here before so dont freak out....yet let me know what you think. like, subscribe and hit the notification bell. i watch too much youtube.

For me pointing a gun at someone means im going to shoot them no if and's or buts about it. I believe just having it displayed would have been enough to keep the protestors at bay and may have led to the fallacious charges. this is of course arm chair quarterbacking on my part. the protestors did break into private property and threaten the mccloskey's. one of the rules of fire arm safety is dont point a gun at something you are not willing to destroy. pointing a gun at possible threat does mean you are willing to destroy them. i just wanted it known i understood the application of that rule did apply to this scenario.

im a relatively new gun owner but not gun ignorant of tennessee laws and responsibilities. with that said i would like to express an opinion and let me know if im wrong on this sentiment. regardless of the circumstance for picking up their guns i take exception to how they brandished them. aside from the wife having no obvious training and could have easily put a round in her husband's head, the way they were pointing their sidearms and rifle stuck me as breaking the rule "never point your gun at something your not willing to destroy"*. i was educated not to point a gun at someone unless you are willing and need to shoot. i personally would have kept the barrel pointed down only to avoid accidental shooting and they were not being attacked and having them on display may have dissuaded any harm to them but i understand the situation they felt they were in danger. however i feel had they kept them on display and not pointing them at the people it might have saved them legal issues later on. i do hope all charges are dismissed for the couple and they get proper training cause they looked so untrained it hurt my eyes. opinions? *i understand they would want to destroy the protestors had they attacked.

i hope it gives them pause if they have any desire to physically invade us. im sure the simulated war games they play in their military meetings has a consideration for civilian gun ownership.

im sorry this is totally unrelated to the discussion but what is the origin of this gif?