While I don't think it will happen (at least not anytime soon), what if her free-loading, wild-eyed ilk get to 50%+1 of the vote, or more importantly, 270 Electoral votes and control of both houses of Congress? What then?
What they are proposing is perhaps the most radical agenda brought up in recent years, and you'd better bet that MASSIVE gun control would need to be part and parcel of it to ensure that no one steps out of line and doesn't play along. In any socialist regime the snuffing of dissent has to be of the utmost importance.
I would submit to you that the remaining losing, out-voted portion of the population would be quite significant. Like 40+% maybe? That is much too large of a "minority" to ignore or steamroll. That group, when faced with such a massive upheaval of all that we know and the impact it will have on day-to-day life from these radical programs, will either dig in or (most likely) say "Let's go our separate ways". Yeah, I know it's been tried before but for waaayyy different reasons and didn't work out. It would be a demand that would have teeth (read:guns) behind it, not to mention the actually productive portion of the population. Of course that latter reason alone is why they'd try to forbid the separation; they need us to pay their bills. I can see it getting really ugly.
I have come to believe for quite some time that sheer numbers, i.e. a "majority", does NOT necessarily make it right or proper, ethically or morally. Perhaps legally right, but that is only a façade to give a hollow element of legitimacy. No, "might" (or sheer numbers) does not make it right so everyone needs to accept that. Translated: I don't give a damn what a majority of this f****d-up country wants.


Reply With Quote

Bookmarks