Which state will be the first to secede from the union when the Federal Gun Ban passes?

Which state will be the first to secede from the union when the Federal Gun Ban passes?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=tIeEotdOVew
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Arizona, probz

I wanna go with the obvious answer of Texas, but it's too obvious, it's probably gonna be Montana or some shit.

Kentucky

My guess would be Montana or Washington, some soft handed yankee trying to disarm me while simultaneously being surrounded by bears and cougars would be a line in the sand.

Reminder Oklahoma and W. Virginia are the only truly based states.

Also combine that picture with this pic related.

Notice anything?

Massachusetts

What the fuck? Why does the cotton industry support democrats so hard?

Here this might help

So, there are black people there? Doesn't explain why the cotton industry backs the democrats so hard. Why don't republicans rail on them so hard like the democrats rail on oil companies?

none will. jets will be scrambled and flights will be grounded. also, states are reliant on federal funds. we already entertained the idea here in Texas.

You guys are really comfy down there, brother.

Holy fucking shit user you have the density of a collapsing star.

Nobody will secede. Nobody will fight. Nothing can stop the march towards citizens being enslaved into VR headsets as their bodies atrophy.

black pilled whiners will be gassed

>when the Federal Gun Ban passes

You will be married to a latina in under 5 years.

Oh please oh please oh please let it be New Mexico *fingers crossed and eyes shut tight*

I'm in the midwest there are no latinas

...

Fucking Mississippi and Alabama fucking shit up for the rest of us.

FPBP

All of them, because we own this bitch.

New Mexico would be invaded by old Mexico unless it secedes as part of the greater Texas Republic.

Obvious answer not posted yet?

Not knowing what bait looks like in the current year.. sad!

Honestly I think SCOTUS is going to save us in the end, and it's going to come from the most underappreciated part of the Second Amendment, and was foreshadowed by the Caetano decision, quoting Heller:
>Finally, the court used "a contemporary lens" and found "nothing in the record to suggest that [stun guns] are readily adaptable to use in the military." 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N.E.3d, at 694. But Heller rejected the proposition "that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected." 554 U.S., at 624-625, 128 S.Ct. 2783.
The importance of this comes from the fact that, no matter whether you think the right to bear arms is a personal right to protection (which it is), you MUST believe that it absolutely protects the right to form a well-ordered militia.
The left has been screeching on this for decades. It's part of their rhetoric, that the Second Amendment only protects the right to a well-ordered militia.
Here's the problem: How can you have a well-ordered militia without "military weapons"? Without modern weapons? Without semi-automatic rifles? Without night sights? Without bayonet lugs?
In fact, how can you have a well-ordered militia (i.e., a defensive infantry force) without squad-level automatic weapons? Indirect fire munitions (i.e., mortars)? Anti-tank missiles? Surface-to-air missiles?
I'm actually at odds with a good conservative friend on this ground, insofar as I don't believe the 2A technically protects the right to own battle tanks, bombers, or nuclear bombs; I believe those weapons actually aren't particularly useful for pure homeland defense. But infantry weapons are essential, and that includes automatic weapons for laying down suppressive fire.

That's true - east of the Rio Grande should go with Texas.

great meme

youtube.com/watch?v=tIeEotdOVew