Sign into an existing account

https://matrix.gvid.tv/c/Libertarian/EYtGrBCWDm.jpg
They wanted YOU to have more advanced gun technology than the government. Read the text of the second Amendment. It isn't just about your right to have guns. It's also about the government obtaining access to guns exclusively through the citizens.

They were not unfamiliar with military's obtaining their own armaments. That's how the British army worked. The 2nd Amendment indirectly specifies that if the government wants access to guns they should obtain them through your permission, not the other way around, via the citizens' nearly exclusive possession.

When liberals say the Founding Fathers never intended you to have AR15s its even more interpretable that they didn't intend for the government to have them.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/a68nsEYW41Uc/

One gun controls all these people

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGlBC-W70bQ

...a few hours ago. If you've done any business with them in the past, make sure your six is covered.

Hoping their dogs are still okay.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/F_NT7KcGdYo?feature=share

They should have just opened a bakery selling cakes for pedotrannyfaggots. That would have been totally protected and okay.

With this new arrival of drone warfare, suicide drones, grenade/bomb droppers, etc, suddenly the "old school" ideas of recoilless, caseless, or rocket guns/ammo seem a lot more practical for the purpose of mounting on small lightweight cheap drones for low recoil, accurate fire for anti-drone drones or anti-personnel drones.
That way they wouldnt be limited to 1 grenade/bomb drop or 1 suicide bomb.

https://www.voat.xyz/viewpost?postid=65a9feb05b1da&commentid=65aa7f3c2f9e8

Firebombing casinos, eh?