32 comments

[–] DestinyAcension 4 points

Come and take it!

Expect heavy resistance.

[–] explorer1357 1 points

But what if we're wired in parallel??

Wouldn't that mean that the more resistance we have the less total resistance they'll be dealing with??

[–] DestinyAcension 1 points

This node is on a closed circuit. 😎

[–] JohnAinamoR 1 points

It's just a matter of time till guns will be banned to use.

[–] garbotalk 3 points

Not if we vote out those who would do so.

[–] velezaraptor 1 points

Banned guns are better and less expected.

[–] ACuriousHumanBeing 2 points

And harder for regular ole Joes who will need them. How is that helpful.

[–] velezaraptor 1 points

The guvment can’t knock on your door and seize them if they’re unknown. They’d have to search everywhere, and this will tip us all off to take further action to fight for our right to bear arms. The seizing of all guns would create a black market, then Joe would just buy a tax-free weapon of choice. Once they stop gun and ammo sales at sporting good stores, and gun shops are closing, that’l be the start of it all.

[–] ACuriousHumanBeing 1 points

Your implying that there won't be checks "just to make sure", or hell, special warrants just for the purposes of finding them all.

Without legals rights, its forfeit, and you'll find that it criminals over the average Joe making their money and staying safe.

[–] velezaraptor 1 points

If a bill passes amending or reversing the right to bear arms, then we will carry on with our own ‘business’, I’m sure Russians or someone will sell us with whatever we want. In the meantime, just be ready to vote.

[–] exicleus 2 points

If that right got 'revolked' you're going to see crime skyrocket like the probation periods. Much higher than people could regulate. This time they're returning fire with bullets back to the search parties instead of bottles. Laws do not hinder the underworld, they promote opportunity and maneuverability. When something is illegal it is new business. They would become revolutionist saviors in those trying times for selling to people who want to protect themselves.

This could create a civil war with states that are completely for this fundamental right. It would also schism all military forces. Some forces are not going to kick those doors down. They're going to turn around and say "go ahead and try to take my gun away from me," standing along side with armed Americans.

[–] exicleus 2 points

Reason why I'm skeptical about making an emitter to the beacon, communication device or some of the new tech is that I know the government enough that they may kick my door in and seize it for "national security." They'll give it to DoE/3rd party to control it. And they do not even have to report it up to anyone.

[–] velezaraptor 1 points

I wouldn’t trust to do anything like a ‘pirate radio’ at home, you’ll have them at the front door real quick, and they’ll find your equipment, ultimately shutting you down. But if it’s a one time deal, and the beacon is reached and the signal works, wouldn’t it be moot?

Could the equipment be mobilized?

If you do end up in the local jailhouse, you’ll have one hell of a story of why you’re in there.

[–] Firstladytree 2 points

How can you ban something that can be made with a 3D printer?

[–] explorer1357 2 points

RD said back in his world only law enforcement had the guns.

Of course the citizenry as a whole presents a much more formidable force against and enemy than just cops

[–] garbotalk 3 points

No, all of them do.

[–] explorer1357 3 points

My bad I meant only cops had them right before Kayeen attacked them

[–] garbotalk 2 points

Right. The Kayeen had infiltrated them and done these same things...disarming the population, spreading atheism, nihilism, consumerism and debt, buying their leaders to betray their citizens as traitors. This is what the Kayeen do to destabilize civilizations before attacking.

After the Naigaje repelled the Kayeen with a zombie contagion, they killed all the traitors and atheists, reinstated rights to bear arms and returned to worshipping the One. We would be wise to listen and take steps to follow their example. We cannot use a zombie contagion because it would affect us as well. This is why we must answer the beacon and seek help from the Assembly.

[–] stevenbarcynski 1 points

It would make sense that all potential organizers for answering the beacon are heavily monitored by the Kayeen. At what point does this all go underground to remain effective and immune from infiltration?

[–] garbotalk 1 points

Now.

Our efforts here are to motivate and inspire those who have the talents to take action.

It would do no good to create an organized effort publicly, because the Kayeen would sabotage it.

I've no interest in naming people who have the skills to do this, or they would become targeted. But if you are aware of them, a quiet word is better than a public one.

[–] stevenbarcynski 1 points

Link me into the underground group if it's not too much trouble, please. I'm a productive worker bee.

[–] emperorbma 2 points

Do SSRIs make these people more susceptible to Kayeen manipulation? The correlation between SSRIs and this is nearly 1:1.

[–] ClearAbove 1 points

That was actually about to be my question.

Between SSRIs, fluoride in almost all pharmaceuticals and fluoride in the drinking water.. This is a problem.

[–] garbotalk 1 points

It makes sense.

[–] stevenbarcynski 1 points

Are we being asked to kill or to stage a chess move?

Is witholding the right to bear arms the call to action with the hopes that such action prevents bloodshed?

I hope so because I find great strife in contemplating taking another life. Free will is the reason. Ending their choices is impatiently ending another soul's journey. Christ died for love. Love is patience. Is patience carrying a big stick? Yes. We needn't end the lives of others to resist. We must stage our battleboard so that the options of either side are left in love and love alone (edit: with respect to wisdom and compassion lest we forget history). We would wish the same on ourselves.

[–] garbotalk 3 points

I have never owned a gun until recently. I will never shoot first, but only in defense to protect loved ones. I'm not looking to force my will on others or else. Instead, I want to protect the innocent, even if it means I would have to stain my soul by killing another, though evil, person.

Being a mother has given me strength I never thought I had. The desire to protect and defend is overwhelming.

The right to bear arms is for defense only.

[–] stevenbarcynski 1 points

Concise and well said. I agree.

[–] explorer1357 1 points

The right to bear arms is for defense only.

That sums it up.

Those pesky, self righteous know it all's that think they have a right to tell you what to use to defend your life can go take a hike.

[–] garbotalk 1 points

Town votes to ban assault rifles, fine violators $1,000 a day
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/town-votes-to-ban-assault-rifles-fine-violators-dollar1000-a-day/ar-AAvtO8J

[–] PsychoBungie 1 points

Could it not just be our government? https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wired.com/2007/12/the-voice-of-go/amp

[–] garbotalk 1 points

They are complicit, yes.

[–] explorer1357 1 points

. 223 and 9mm FTW