"Choot 'im, Elizabeth!"
Posted on 10/03/2013 6:44:47 AM PDT by marktwain
Ok, I guess it is not that surprising.
Look at that peter-puffin’ piece of sub-human filth.
Flip that around. Why is it that control freaks are such gun control advocates? Because guns promote "the security of a free state" rather than the type of state they want.
Isn’t it difficult speaking with your tongue that firmly in your cheek, Mark?
TC
Practice, practice!
"Choot 'im, Elizabeth!"
Democrat and former Educrat. I think that fits the profile. Any idea whose face that is on the T-shirt in the picture?
High School Guidance Counselor.
A real man’s career if ever there was one.
And a "guidance" counselor. Folks, this is what your kids face in school every day.
!
Larry Micenheimer......guzzler.
Ok, he’s wearing a shirt with “Sloth” from the Goonies. That movie was out when I was a kid, but this guy is at least 15-20 years older than me. I smell a potential child molester.
Not surprising at all.
Based on surveillance tapes, etc.?? Hope they have solid proof, but I suspect he'll get slapped on the wrist.
As someone posted earlier, when signs start to go missing, coat 'em with poison ivy/sumac/whatever itches. (Problem is, where do you find the extract?) Nobody normally touches those signs except the owner, so not much, if any, chance of nailing the wrong people.
They have a confession:
“When police questioned the former Democrat city council member, Micenheimer told them that he was merely enforcing city ordinances that the police should be enforcing. “He practically begged them to charge him I was told,” Huskey said.”
Because it is NOT about guns. It IS about control. The control freaks naturally gravitate towards 2A issues.
Yeah, I saw that, but was hoping they had more solid evidence. He can always recant - "under duress", ad nauseum.
At that site, one poster wrote:
"This article is incorrect in many areas. No one has been arrested or even charged. The signs were not on private property, so Huskey lied about getting permission and they all were in violation of the city ordinance."
I asked him for his source because, if true, the article is B/S. I couldn't find anything on the web about this incident.
another variant on “But for Video) as Scott Greenfield, Esq.
puts it.
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.