The term "neo-con" has nothing to do with the gun owners at all.
Neo-con most accurately refers to former liberals who, when presented with the post 9/11 reality of the world, suddenly went very hawkish in foreign policy.
That's like saying "What are you Cadillac owners going to do when they come to take your guns?"
Neo-con gun owner, paleo-con gun owner, libertarian gun owner, liberal gun owner, a-political gun owner, it doesn't matter. People who own guns belong to all those groups of people and more. So why he specifically points at neo-cons makes no sense unless he's being stupidly provocative against one of the smallest subset of people who, being already shown to be "flexible" in their politics and would probably be the first to hand over their weapons. It's much more likely to be paleo-cons and libertarians to defend themselves.
And my actual response to this no talent ass clown:
Is he so ungodly stupid to think that the rank and file of the military would 1: be legally allowed to perform domestic law enforcement in US territory and 2: actually go along with something so unconstitutional? Because the relatively small amount of police in relation to gun owners in most of the country would quickly be wiped out assuming they had 100% participation also.






Reply With Quote
