I understood it perfectly. Here's the statement I responded to:
This of course will not end well. Either way they will get what they want.
Given that you were talking about the gun grabbing sell-outs and traitors in Washington, I can't imagine what else you could have possibly meant, but that they're going to win in the end. I heartily disagree with that.
I agree that it won't end well, but it's not going to end well for them - not us. Now, if you think they really want a shooting war, think again. They can't win an outright conflict with the armed American public under any calculus you can formulate. Not even with the help of the military of every developed nation. And they know this.
if you would have read further down the thread you’d have gotten what i said.
libtards always try to have more than one way to get what they want. they are masters of incrementalism and the dialectic, and also the deplhi technique. they play us for suckers all the time.
the point was, even if she didn’t get the bill out there, and even if the amendment will go down on its own, they already have another way being trial-ballooned and that is to tax every component of firearm usage - gun, ammo, mags, etc, into a punitive and prohibitive range with severe penalties not paying the taxes, less and less people will own guns.
they like to appear like they’ve lost, or they are really compromising, when their fallback position was what they wanted to get done all along. it catches us offguard and the rinos always buy it.
i was not saying it’s hopeless. you may want to spend more time reading my comments, you really don’t know me that well.