Do ( D )s sell more guns than ( R )s?

[Yonadav]

Yeah, you've gone full libtard Poe. You aren't dumb enough to believe what you are saying.

Your intra-party struggles are your own business.  Ultimately I may be wrong, our next mistake could always be our last, but I do like to believe that the US is capable of weathering any number of mistakes - we do have a long history in that regard.  

An america where guns are banned is still america, and the michigan militia aint gonna do shit about it.  There's just no apocalypse in this apocalyptic hand wringing around the issue of gun control or even gun bans.  I'll still have my own guns.  The feds would have to bring a shovel and a metal detector, and then comb my heavily wooded property, lol.  

Aint nobody got time for that - but that's not how any future gun ban in the us would play out anyway, so it's just pretend times for the lulz.

A gun ban and a president unilaterally disarming the population aren't really the same thing, are they? Our nation can't survive a president unilaterally disarming the people. If a president can unilaterally do that, then there is nothing that a president can't unilaterally do. Our faith in democracy would be completely destroyed. This is the primary reason that so many Republicans want Trump to back off on declaring an emergency for the wall. We can't have presidents declaring emergencies just to give themselves unilateral power.

And you can't compare a wall 'emergency' with a disarm the population 'emergency'. Everyone knows that the wall is just symbolic. But taking people's guns away is not symbolic. That's going to engender some real hostility. And like you said, people aren't going to give up their guns. You're not. I'm not. Very few people will. So it won't even work. Even if it didn't start a civil war, it would probably backfire because of racism. Gun control as a long and embarrassing history of being oriented toward a fear of black people with guns. Guess whose guns we would probably be pretty successful at taking?