3 ms·
Because these people have claimed territory and held themselves out as challenging the sovereignty of the United States. So the implication is pretty clear, tha
by marcoperaza 6y ago
Because these people have claimed territory and held themselves out as challenging the sovereignty of the United States. So the implication is pretty clear, that the guns are there as a show of that sovereignty. Are they serious about using them? Who knows.
- c22 6y agoChallenging the authority of the police department is not anywhere close to "challenging the sovereignty of the United States". No new state is being proposed, no old state is being dissolved. The people (in whom the power of sovereignty resides in the United States) are merely promoting policy change. Do you think if the U.S. Army marched on the CHAZ that these people would fight them? Do you think there's any chance that they could win? Where is the challenge?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- tekknik 6y agoSo to recap, these people know that if the US national guard (not the army) marched on them they’d lose, so then what is the purpose of the guns? Shoot civilians? Shoot protestors? Who is getting shot by these weapons? If nobody then why are they there? What law(s) give them the right to enforce the law on their own?