Skip to comments.
Hillary plans to “legally” rule the American gun industry
The Coach's Team ^
| 11/3/16
| David T. Hardy
Posted on 11/03/2016 8:25:41 AM PDT by Oldpuppymax
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-29 last
To: Oldpuppymax
When has she "legally" done anything?
GO TRUMP-PENCE
Avalaaaaaaaaanche!!!!
21
posted on
11/03/2016 9:10:05 AM PDT
by
trebb
(Where in the the hell has my country gone?)
To: Army Air Corps
“Shackles” instead of “Cankles.”
Nailed it!
;^)
22
posted on
11/03/2016 9:15:18 AM PDT
by
elcid1970
("The Second Amendment is more important than Islam. Buy ammo.")
To: Oldpuppymax
“No government has ever wanted their citizens disarmed for any good reason.”
-Quote from some wise and observant FReeper, whose handle escapes me at this moment.
23
posted on
11/03/2016 9:18:40 AM PDT
by
factoryrat
(We reserve the producers, the creators. Grow it, mine it, build it.)
To: Army Air Corps
Also, we can start calling her “Shackles” instead of “Cankles.”Combine the two, and you get "Shankles."
24
posted on
11/03/2016 9:23:56 AM PDT
by
Disambiguator
(Keepin' it analog.)
To: elcid1970
It has a nice ring to it, no?
25
posted on
11/03/2016 9:25:00 AM PDT
by
Army Air Corps
(Four Fried Chickens and a Coke)
To: Oldpuppymax
The only small change we need regarding guns is full federal enforcement of “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”. Any federal, local or state law regarding firearms (or ANY and ALL weapons) should be judged by one simple question: Is it an infringement?
26
posted on
11/03/2016 9:41:06 AM PDT
by
JimRed
(Is it 1776 yet? TERM LIMITS, now and forever! Build the Wall, NOW!)
To: Army Air Corps
Hmm...I vote for “Shankles”. Has a `clanky’ ring to it.
Like the clank of leg irons echoing inside prison walls.
27
posted on
11/03/2016 9:45:19 AM PDT
by
elcid1970
("The Second Amendment is more important than Islam. Buy ammo.")
To: factoryrat
“No government has ever wanted their citizens disarmed for any good reason.” -Quote from some wise and observant FReeper, whose handle escapes me at this moment.
Similar to mine, from a published letter to the editor last December: Why would a government want its citizens (subjects?) disarmed? One reason only: to be able to do things to them that they would resist if they had the means to fight back.
28
posted on
11/03/2016 9:45:42 AM PDT
by
JimRed
(Is it 1776 yet? TERM LIMITS, now and forever! Build the Wall, NOW!)
To: Oldpuppymax
The PLCAA act should have been reinforced with language pointing to protect our defense industry from terrorists sueing it for Hillary and Obama’s drone actions.
It is obvious the rulers want the private sector to pay for the misdeeds of criminals and rulers.
29
posted on
11/03/2016 11:05:49 AM PDT
by
lavaroise
(s)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-29 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson