To: dpflanagan
Armed conflict? They wouldnt be well armed if I remember what their party platform is regarding weapons. They disarmed themselves and now they need to rely on their political enemies to rise up against their political enemies.
Something tells me the left would be the rock throwers of civil unrest.
3 posted on
10/07/2003 11:10:40 AM PDT by
smith288
(Opinions expressed on this post are smith288s and not neccessarily those of Freerepublic.com)
To: smith288
now they need to rely on their political enemies to rise up against their political enemies. How's that again? ;^)
17 posted on
10/07/2003 11:18:42 AM PDT by
SAJ
To: smith288
Armed conflict? The left armed? This may be a good time to quote a well known Leftist Lou Reed:
Vicious
hey, you hit me with a flower
You do it every hour
oh, baby you're so vicious
Oh, baby, you're so vicious
you're just so vicious
To: smith288
armed conflict?
No way. Leftists are anti-gun.
[Ho Chi Mihn, Mao, and Lenin all smiled.]
51 posted on
10/07/2003 11:50:46 AM PDT by
xzins
To: smith288
Armed conflict? They wouldnt be well armed if I remember what their party platform is regarding weapons. Leftists aren't anti gun ..... they just want to take YOUR guns. Notice the elites and carry permits in places like CA, NYC, DC
66 posted on
10/07/2003 12:05:35 PM PDT by
Centurion2000
(Virtue untested is innocence)
To: smith288
The only problem with "armed conflict" is that based on their own stupid rules and laws, it is only the RIGHT who is ARMED anymore! hehehehehe. Bring em on!
75 posted on
10/07/2003 12:15:36 PM PDT by
LS
To: smith288
Possibly a return to 1968.
That was a horrible year. Riots, bombings and assassinations.
121 posted on
10/07/2003 2:19:00 PM PDT by
Shooter 2.5
(Don't punch holes in the lifeboat.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson