Skip to comments.
They Are Coming for Your Guns!
Gather ^
| April 20, 2013
| Lora Covrett
Posted on 04/20/2013 11:53:09 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-48 last
To: chulaivn66
I think there are two practical reasons they don’t want to try a CC to obtain their goals. 1) They know full well the American people support the 2nd A. and a CC would fail miserably. 2) Changing the law through a CC would reaffirm the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land and that would negatively affect their overall goals.
41
posted on
04/20/2013 3:25:03 PM PDT
by
TigersEye
(If babies had guns they wouldn't be aborted)
To: Safrguns
Being passive, and not taking their bait is two different things.Absolutely. I am saying the same thing even if it is put in a somewhat different way.
42
posted on
04/20/2013 3:28:55 PM PDT
by
TigersEye
(If babies had guns they wouldn't be aborted)
To: 2ndDivisionVet
They do that in MA. all the time.
43
posted on
04/20/2013 3:32:11 PM PDT
by
freedomtrail
(EEOC- Eventual Elimination Of Caucasians)
To: Safrguns
I equate the law to the clenching of the fist. It is a warning of impending enforcement. Cocking the arm and swinging is the assault, or enforcement, if you wish.
I would not presume your position as being one of passivity. You and I are on the same plane, merely struggling over semantics in the expression of our thoughts. We are both conversing at Free Republic and I will submit my remarks to you on that basis. You’re welcome in my two-man fighting hole when it comes to that.
44
posted on
04/20/2013 3:33:55 PM PDT
by
chulaivn66
(Semper Fidelis in Extremis)
To: Paisan
thing is if federal law goes, if your state constitution or laws has it, you’ve still got it legally recognized, so that’s why many states included the same language of the federal constitution in their state constitutions.
45
posted on
04/20/2013 4:48:10 PM PDT
by
Secret Agent Man
(I can neither confirm or deny that; even if I could, I couldn't - it's classified.)
To: Lurkina.n.Learnin
Yes, very lose term, anyone whom the state sees as an enemy could be placed on the list. Too bad the majority will see this law as just plain ole common sense.
46
posted on
04/20/2013 7:19:05 PM PDT
by
2001convSVT
(Going Galt as fast as I can.)
To: Paisan
I side with the original finding by the cops - even a convicted felon should be able to defend himself. I may get flamed, but having the ability to defend yourself is God given right that should not be infringed.Agreed. Anyone who cannot be trusted with a weapon should not be running around loose.
47
posted on
04/21/2013 10:54:07 AM PDT
by
JimRed
(Excise the cancer before it kills us; feed &water the Tree of Liberty! TERM LIMITS, NOW & FOREVER!)
To: Robert357
But or Attorney General is trying to change that so "legal aliens" can buy firearms more quickly.That's so legal Muslims can defend themselves when we finally wake up.
48
posted on
04/21/2013 12:14:39 PM PDT
by
JimRed
(Excise the cancer before it kills us; feed &water the Tree of Liberty! TERM LIMITS, NOW & FOREVER!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-48 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