Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Biden: Obama Can Use "Executive Orders" To Act On Gun Control (video)
RealClearPolitics ^ | January 9, 2013 | RealClearPolitics

Posted on 01/09/2013 9:05:36 AM PST by i88schwartz

Vice President Joe Biden, while addressing representatives of gun safety and gun violence victims' groups, says President Obama could use "executive orders" to enact gun control measures.

VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: "The president is going to act. There are executives orders -- executive action that can be taken. We haven't decided what that is yet. But we're compiling it all with the help of the Attorney General and all the rest of the cabinet members as well as legislative action, we believe is required."

(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 0bamarigged; backoffbarry; banglist; barackobama; bho44; bhobanglist; bhoeo; bhofascism; biden; democrats; donttreadonme; ericholder; govtabuse; guncontrol; hangingonlightpoles; holder; holderisajoke; joebiden; khmerrouge; kingobama; libertyordeath; molonlabe; obama; polpot; rapeofliberty; secondamendment; socialistdemocrats; treason; tyranny; waronliberty; wewillnotcomply; yourhighness; youwillnotdisarmus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-228 next last
To: Las Vegas Ron

Indeed

Though a question needs to be asked. If this plays out (Obama, unable to get Congress to go along, writes an edict of his own that in turn is disobeyed by the vast majority of gun owners, which results in him actively going after the guns), you’d think he would have the wherewithal to pre-emptively form a secret Praetorian guard in the event when patriotic local, state and federal law enforcement, as well as the military doesn’t go along either. Wonder if anyone here can track that down?


101 posted on 01/09/2013 10:06:50 AM PST by mkboyce
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: i88schwartz
"The president is going to act

On this issue that is a given. And anyone that does not know what his actions will be is stupider than an obama voter. The question is, What are we going to do?

102 posted on 01/09/2013 10:06:50 AM PST by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steamburg

“You misunderstand. They like guns just fine if they are the ones pointing them at the rest of us.”

It’s ironic in a really scarey way, and think you make a valid point. The government does seem to be stocking up as it increasingly demands that the citizenry disarm itself.


103 posted on 01/09/2013 10:07:57 AM PST by AtlasStalled
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: petro45acp

“Prudence is not paranoia”

What you said.

Now is not the time to lose our collective cool, which is what THEY hope for.


104 posted on 01/09/2013 10:07:57 AM PST by LadyBuck (Strangeways, here we come....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Mechanicos

We The People say he can’t; the Constitution recognizes our rights but does not grant them—our rights are inherent and inalienable, so long as good men are willing to fight and die to preserve them. I’m starting to fear things are turning in that direction. Just look at arms and ammunition sales over the last few weeks. That kind of sustained volume is not about a big weekend at the range. I have this sick feeling in the pit of my stomach that the People are preparing to act, just waiting for the last straw. The leftists would be well advised to be damned careful about what they set into motion in this climate. If the People are sensing an incipient tyranny, and they are in fact arming themselves to destroy it if necessary, the 1860s could end up looking like a walk in the park. Unfortunately, Americans live in “interesting times” and there’s an awful momentum building between the two opposing forces.


105 posted on 01/09/2013 10:08:04 AM PST by Trod Upon (Civilian disarmament is the precursor to democide.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
Amen!

Our Constitutions are the instruments of the people, not of the lawyers.

"Every word employed in the Constitution is to be expounded in its plain, obvious, and common sense, unless the context furnishes some ground to control, qualify, or enlarge it. Constitutions are not designed for metaphysical or logical subtleties, for niceties of expression, for critical propriety, for elaborate shades of meaning, or for the exercise of philosophical acuteness or judicial research. They are instruments of a practical nature, rounded on the common business of human life, adapted to common wants, designed for common use, and fitted for common understandings. The people make them, the people adopt them, the people must be supposed to read them, with the help of common-sense, and cannot be presumed to admit in them any recondite meaning or any extraordinary gloss."

-- Joseph Story, Constitution (5th ed.) 345, SS 451.

"... to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is “boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem,” and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves. If the legislature fails to pass laws for a census, for paying the judges and other officers of government, for establishing a militia, for naturalization as prescribed by the Constitution, or if they fail to meet in congress, the judges cannot issue their mandamus to them ; if the President fails to supply the place of a judge, to appoint other civil or military officers, to issue requisite commissions, the judges cannot force him. They can issue their mandamus or distringas to no executive or legislative officer to enforce the fulfilment of their official duties, any more than the President or legislature may issue orders to the judges or their officers. Betrayed by English example, and unaware, as it should seem, of the control of our Constitution in this particular, they have at times overstepped their limit by undertaking to command executive officers in the discharge of their executive duties ; but the Constitution, in keeping three departments distinct and independent, restrains the authority of the judges to judiciary organs, as it does the executive and legislative to executive and legislative organs. The judges certainly have more frequent occasion to act on constitutional questions, because the laws of meum and tuum and of criminal action, forming the great mass of the system of law, constitute their particular department. When the legislative or executive functionaries act unconstitutionally, they are responsible to the people in their elective capacity. The exemption of the judges from that is quite dangerous enough. I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves ; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power."

-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Charles Jarvis

"In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."

-- Thomas Jefferson, fair copy of the drafts of the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798

"If it be asked, What is the most sacred duty and the greatest source of our security in a Republic? The answer would be, An inviolable respect for the Constitution and Laws -- the first growing out of the last. ... A sacred respect for the constitutional law is the vital principle, the sustaining energy of a free government."

-- Alexander Hamilton, Essay in the American Daily Advertiser, 1794

"We have received it [the Constitution] as the work of the assembled wisdom of the nation. We have trusted to it as to the sheet anchor of our safety in the stormy times of conflict with a foreign or domestic foe. We have looked to it with sacred awe as the palladium of our liberties, and with all the solemnities of religion have pledged to each other our lives and fortunes here and our hopes of happiness hereafter in its defense and support. Were we mistaken, my countrymen, in attaching this importance to the Constitution...? No. We were not mistaken. The letter of this great instrument is free from this radical fault...No, we did not err!...The sages...have given us a practical and, as they hoped, a permanent Constitutional compact...The Constitution is still the object of our reverence, the bond of our Union, our defense in danger, the source of our prosperity in peace: it shall descend, as we have received it, uncorrupted by sophistical construction, to our posterity..."

-- President Andrew Jackson, Proclamation of December 10, 1832

"We, the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution."

-- Abraham Lincoln


106 posted on 01/09/2013 10:08:54 AM PST by EternalVigilance ('We the People are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts..." - Abe Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Truth29

We became a Banna Republin on November 4, 2008. It was confirmed November 6, 2012.


107 posted on 01/09/2013 10:09:35 AM PST by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ex91B10

Unfortunately I agree with you.
Once Obama sign this Executive Order the courts will back him 100%. It will be up to citizens to ban together and stop it, the way they stopped the British.

Our country is no longer run by Patriotic Americans, they have been replaced with Socialists, marxists, cowards and poloiticians feathering their own nests.

It’s becoming time we took America. The easy way if possible, the hard way if not.


108 posted on 01/09/2013 10:10:38 AM PST by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

“Veterans and police, do your duty.”

How many of them will, when it comes down the the brass tacks?

Ultimately, it may be this which determines whether resistance will be successful or futile...


109 posted on 01/09/2013 10:11:45 AM PST by Road Glide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Sopater

“To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war.” Winston Churchill

They talk, we talk; they act, we act. FR is the 21st century letters of correspondence. The mistake the Church made in the 16th century was not first going after the printing press.

I have to go scrub a concrete basement floor with etching prep before painting. One of those jobs Americans won’t do, donchaknow.
Yeah, the American people are soft, we won’t do anything. We’ve always heard that from our enemies, for over 200 years, just before we make them horizontal.


110 posted on 01/09/2013 10:13:38 AM PST by tumblindice (America's founding fathers: All armed conservatives.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

“That is blatantly incorrect — for if the Constitution is what the [majority of] the Supreme Court says, then any dissent listed is contrary to the Constitution, and any decision based on a prior dissent is therefore also contrary the Constitution. — Furthermore, the if the Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is, then any restrictions placed upon the Supreme Court by the Constitution are meaningless, precisely because the court says what the Constitution means.”

It sounds like you are saying that it is NOT the Supreme Court’s job to decide which laws are constitutional and which are not. Its hard to take that argument seriously since for the last 100 years that is exactly what they have been doing. Like it or not they do it based on precident and on how they interpret it’s meaning. If that is not their role, what is? Some of their recent decisions seem to ignore the obvious meaning such as McCain Feingold, or the Healthcare law. So despite how you think the court should act, we have to deal with he reality.

“Your statement advocates not a rule of law, but a rule of men.”
I didn’t advocate any such d@mn thing, I’m just saying that given the opportunity Obama will pack the court with justices who like him, who don’t give a d@mn what the constitution says.


111 posted on 01/09/2013 10:13:43 AM PST by Brooklyn Attitude (Obama being re-elected is the political equivalent of OJ being found not guilty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: mkboyce

One thing for sure, if he issues an EO banning weapons and orders any kind of buy back or confiscation scheme, this Country will be divided like no time in recent history.

But the reality is, I believe that is obama’s ultimate goal and he may just use this issue to achieve it.


112 posted on 01/09/2013 10:13:53 AM PST by Las Vegas Ron (Medicine is the keystone in the arch of socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Mechanicos

No, the Constitution + 5 Supreme Court Justices are required to say he can’t.

What are the chances that John Roberts will discover that gun confiscation is a tax?


113 posted on 01/09/2013 10:14:26 AM PST by AZLiberty (No tag today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: i88schwartz
Lexington & Concord II is right around the corner.
114 posted on 01/09/2013 10:14:34 AM PST by DTogo (High time to bring back The Sons of Liberty !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wings-n-Wind

we have left wing judges who rule against the constitution because THEY don’t like it regardless of the rule of law.

We have robert’s court more concerne with HIS legacy rather than rule of law.

The only way to win this is to cultivate a new core of law based law schools and SHUT DOWN the excessive number of diploma mill law schools.


115 posted on 01/09/2013 10:15:34 AM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Mechanicos

“Technically we are the final deciders of what the Constitution says, the final authority is preserved in the jury power to nullify laws even if the USSC says they are ok. Dread Scott and the Fugitive Slave Act are examples.”

How does that work?


116 posted on 01/09/2013 10:18:58 AM PST by Brooklyn Attitude (Obama being re-elected is the political equivalent of OJ being found not guilty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Amagi

But didn’t he flub the oath and have to redo it?


117 posted on 01/09/2013 10:19:41 AM PST by WildHighlander57 ((WildHighlander57 returning after lurking since 2000))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: ex91B10

Robert’s new name should be Ozymandius.

He is more concerned with legacy than his job.


118 posted on 01/09/2013 10:19:41 AM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
Image and video hosting by TinyPic
119 posted on 01/09/2013 10:22:01 AM PST by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Biggirl

Civil war is coming.


That is what the kenyan wants. He will keep pushing until somebody snaps and we get an OKC bombing type event.


120 posted on 01/09/2013 10:23:15 AM PST by lodi90
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: kabar
“the backdoor amnesty that will legalize the status of 1.8 million illegal aliens.”

That was a big one and not one word from congress. See, I think each one in congress didn't want to deal with illegal aliens and risk losing votes in their district, so they said nothing about that order.

Think it will be the same reaction if Hussein restricts guns/ammo/magazines - they stay insulated from acting.

The bills the New Jersey legislature is considering would keep anyone from buying a gun or magazines or ammo. Just one of those laws says any one who wants to buy a gun has to have psychological testing. If Christie is in favor of these bills, he is totally nuts and a liberal just like his buddy, Hussein.

121 posted on 01/09/2013 10:24:27 AM PST by Marcella (Prepping can save your life today. Going Galt is freedom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: CityCenter
Let him try. It is clearly unconstitutional for him to act as a law maker.

He's been acting as a “law maker” for 4 years now. There have been more “laws” enacted via EO and all of the extra-Constitutional federal agencies for decades now. Congress has relegated itself to rubber-stamping spending and borrowing at this point.

122 posted on 01/09/2013 10:26:13 AM PST by zzeeman ("We can evade reality, but we cannot evade the consequences of evading reality.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: EdReform

bookmark


123 posted on 01/09/2013 10:26:40 AM PST by EdReform (Oath Keepers - Guardians of the Republic - Honor your oath - Join us: www.oathkeepers.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Psalm 73

“Civil war is coming.”

Get ready. It may be starting sooner than you think.

Cuomo is about to announce the enslavement of NY gun owners.

10 minutes and counting......


124 posted on 01/09/2013 10:27:51 AM PST by panaxanax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Bailee

Is treason even noticed or punishable these days?


125 posted on 01/09/2013 10:29:50 AM PST by 353FMG ( I refuse to specify whether I am serious or sarcastic -- I respect FReepers too much.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Biggirl

Maybe you meant another revolutionary war?


126 posted on 01/09/2013 10:30:17 AM PST by Durus (You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality. Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: EdReform

bookmark


127 posted on 01/09/2013 10:31:23 AM PST by EdReform (Oath Keepers - Guardians of the Republic - Honor your oath - Join us: www.oathkeepers.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: GlockThe Vote
My only complaint in all of this is that there will be many law enforcement who are against disraming the public who will be forced to participate in the confiscation and be injured or killed as a result.

Even this regime is not so stupid to try door to door confiscation of firearms.

They will spend millions populating a database of who has what and then enact laws that require people to turn them in. It will happen in steps. Hypothetically speaking.

128 posted on 01/09/2013 10:38:26 AM PST by Bloody Sam Roberts (Humans have eliminated natural selection. Morons are now a protected species. They breed and vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Bloody Sam Roberts

I agree.


129 posted on 01/09/2013 10:44:35 AM PST by Girlene
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

Is he really wrong? Who’s gonna stop him? Not congress, that’s for sure.


130 posted on 01/09/2013 10:48:19 AM PST by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: AtlasStalled
. . just point to the crime statistics and the drug cartels which overwhelming show the inadequacy of law enforcement notwithstanding their often brave and best efforts?

Obama is actually working for the drug cartels. As is most of the Oligarchy. If they want our guns, they have to take the bullets first.

131 posted on 01/09/2013 10:51:58 AM PST by justa-hairyape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: i88schwartz

Did he say it? Probably not.
Does he believe it? Apparently!

132 posted on 01/09/2013 10:55:07 AM PST by Perseverando (Gun control? It's really not about gun control is it? It's really about PEOPLE CONTROL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brooklyn Attitude
It sounds like you are saying that it is NOT the Supreme Court’s job to decide which laws are constitutional and which are not.

That's not what I'm saying -- what I'm saying is that the Constitution is not what the Court says it is.
There's a huge difference there, one that ultimately comes down to authority, and as Jesus said the one who is sent is under the authority of the one sending. In the one scenario the Constitution 'sends' the court, in the other the court declares what the Constitution is.

Further, just because the Supreme Court says something is constitutional doesn't mean that they are right. Dread Scott, Raich, Wicard are all examples:

  1. Dread Scott: The court made up its ruling held that black Americans were not citizens and could not be made such by any state.
    Depriving States of sovereignty, as well as denying slaves the protections afforded in the Bill of Rights.
  2. Wicard: This decision was made so as to keep entire sets of federal laws/mandates from being repealed, and incidentally retroactively validate Federal assumption of powers. -- The Filburn [mis]-construction of the Commerce Clause is so prevalent that I must explain, the clause is as follows:
    To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
    Note how "the several States" is betwixt "foreign Nations" and "Indian Tribes" (which might be thought of as 'Native Nations'), to assume the level of power [regulation] the Wicard case does upon foreign nations (or Indian Tribes) would be nothing less than an act of war -- and to enforce it would be the waging of war. This is the very definition of treason given in the Constitution.
    So it is entirely possible for the court to render literally treasonous rulings.
  3. Raich: This case is so logically absurd that it should have resulted in the court being forced out of office. In it they claim that the federal government is able to regulate personal growth of marijuana, even if there is no sales, because growing it impacts the interstate market that doesn't exist (but would if it wasn't prohibited).

Its hard to take that argument seriously since for the last 100 years that is exactly what they have been doing.

Just because they've been doing it doesn't make it right; the TSA is a perfect example (as they blatantly disregard the 4th Amendment).

Like it or not they do it based on precident and on how they interpret it’s meaning.

Precedent! *spit!* Precedent is nothing more than the judiciary playing the Children's game of Telephone with your [legal] Rights.
If Precedent meant anything, then this case would castrate the ban on full auto weapons.

If that is not their role, what is? Some of their recent decisions seem to ignore the obvious meaning such as McCain Feingold, or the Healthcare law. So despite how you think the court should act, we have to deal with he reality.

And isn't that the exact reason why we should expect them to be for a ban on weapons? To their thinking: It cements their place of power, and they won't have to worry about a popular uprising demanding they end their term.

133 posted on 01/09/2013 10:57:05 AM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Brooklyn Attitude

Fully Informed Jury Association. Lots of research material here.

http://fija.org/


134 posted on 01/09/2013 10:57:57 AM PST by Mechanicos (When did we amend the Constitution for a 2nd Federal Prohibition?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: i88schwartz

Well, I can think of one group, besides the Marxist/ Socialists/ Communists, who are licking their chops at this illegal confiscating of our arms...organized crime.

Remember what happened during prohibition?


135 posted on 01/09/2013 10:58:19 AM PST by RetSignman ("A Republic if you can keep it"....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 353FMG
Ted Cruz, perhaps as our next Patrick Henry.
136 posted on 01/09/2013 10:58:22 AM PST by Jacquerie ("How few were left who had seen the republic!" - Tacitus, The Annals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: ilovesarah2012
Who’s gonna stop him?

America's Founders on the RKBA

137 posted on 01/09/2013 10:58:27 AM PST by EternalVigilance (It always comes down to the patriot at the bridge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: i88schwartz

These thugs in the federal government will make a criminal out of me yet.


138 posted on 01/09/2013 10:59:10 AM PST by opus86 (Enjoy it, America - it's what you wanted.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: i88schwartz

These thugs in the federal government will make a criminal out of me yet.


139 posted on 01/09/2013 10:59:36 AM PST by opus86 (Enjoy it, America - it's what you wanted.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ex91B10

“Impeach the kenyan or secession”.

No. No secession. Folks say it’s time for CW-2-—no, it isn’t. It’s time for the Second American Revolution. We keep what we’ve lived and worked for, and we restore the Republic.


140 posted on 01/09/2013 11:04:05 AM PST by steerpike100
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Mechanicos

Well, Obama says “HE CAN”. What are you goin’ to do about it?


141 posted on 01/09/2013 11:04:37 AM PST by dforest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: steerpike100

Perhaps we should refer to the (possible) upcomming event as the “First American Restoration War”. That is, after all, what we all desire.


142 posted on 01/09/2013 11:12:58 AM PST by 1_Of_We
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: AtlasStalled
The left simply doesn’t like guns, and I haven’t yet figured out why?

Because firearms prevent free citizens from becoming cowed subjects.
143 posted on 01/09/2013 11:13:42 AM PST by Army Air Corps (Four Fried Chickens and a Coke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Mechanicos

Since when has the Constitution stopped Herr Obama or the corrupt Supreme Court from doing whatever they want?

Hello Obamacare, guns next!


144 posted on 01/09/2013 11:17:14 AM PST by usconservative (When The Ballot Box No Longer Counts, The Ammunition Box Does. (What's In Your Ammo Box?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

[IMG]http://i50.tinypic.com/tz81k.jpg[/IMG]


145 posted on 01/09/2013 11:18:05 AM PST by RetSignman ("A Republic if you can keep it"....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: i88schwartz
Article IV Section 4 says "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government..."

An executive order on the people of the United States violates the Republican Form of Government because the order is not the result of representative legislation.

-PJ

146 posted on 01/09/2013 11:19:44 AM PST by Political Junkie Too (If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: i88schwartz

Congratulations to all those on FR who hated Romney and sat it out or went third party. Nice protest vote, nitwits. Romney was my last choice, but we had no choice. Oh yeah, Romney was just the same as Obama.

You who kept posting the same graphics and crap over and over and over and over on every thread know who you are.


147 posted on 01/09/2013 11:27:13 AM PST by doug from upland (Obama and the leftists - destroying our country one day at a time)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bloody Sam Roberts
"They will spend millions populating a database of who has what...."

Don't see how - all 300 million of us may or may not own a firearm.
Maybe John Smith sold his guns to a guy he met at Starbucks - how do they know he didn't?

How can they ever know which of the 300 million are the estimated 80 million gun owners - and which ones have which of the 170 million firearms?

148 posted on 01/09/2013 11:37:56 AM PST by Psalm 73 ("Gentlemen, you can't fight in here - this is the War Room".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: 1_Of_We

Let’s just call it “The Restoration”, and leave it at that.


149 posted on 01/09/2013 11:46:14 AM PST by steerpike100
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

If we let Obama and his minions cross this Rubicon then we lose the Republic.


150 posted on 01/09/2013 11:48:38 AM PST by steerpike100
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-228 next 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson