Missouri, the show me state had something called the Second Amendment Protection Act. The idea was it’d prevent the state and local police from helping the feds from enforcing anti 2A “laws”.
The “most pro 2A president in history” and his “most pro 2A AG in history”, fought the Second Amendment Protection Act in court. And because the “conservative” majority Supreme Court failed to take up the case, Missouri’s law is now kaput due to previous lower court rulings.
My first question is, are we still a Constitutional republic?
My second question is, why would a state need a law like SAPA?
And then, for Missouri, why not just tell the feds to go pound sand, we’re not striking SAPA from our books? Force the “most pro 2A president in history” and his “most pro 2A AG in history” to a showdown on states rights. How would the MAGAmerized among us, and the 2A groups and media spin that? They’d find a way, after all, they found a way to not blame Trump for the Scamdemic and the clot shot. But screw ’em. If we don’t fight now, when it’s a Republican will we fight in three years when it’s a Democrat?
Then, as Guns And Gadgets mentioned, does this ruling mean the feds just nationalized every state and local police agency? What could go wrong there? All the more reason to fight the Trump admin.
GOA seems to think we can simply call Trump. While it’s good to let a politician know what you want, Trump’s proven he’s against 2A. He’s a tyrant. Someone’s bound to say calling Trump a tyrant is “too harsh”, but is it? What else do you call a man who’s determined to disarm the Militia? Why would a president want that anyway? Why would a president want an avenue to nationalize state and local police? Tyranny.
And, I’ll beat you to it, one of the MAGAmerized on X already asked,
Every president since the “conservative icon” Reagan’s blown it on the Second Amendment. What do they all have in common? Dual loyalties.
Equip, train, pray and never disarm.
Update,
Link, here.
Leave a Reply