Posted on 05/04/2006 8:53:59 AM PDT by StevenB
Bush is a globalist internationalist. He's in the CFR.
He is no conservative, nor is he a patriot. One cannot be a member of the CFR and be a true American.
No
It is enough for me - that does not make me less of a patriot that you - that just means we have a policy disagreement. Especially since I am all for the U.S. government arresting and executing anyone guilty of "treason" - we probably have different definitions of that word too. As for "true Americans", I'd bet I could find at least one CFR member who even you were thinking was a "true American" - as for "when is availing yourself of your own God-given rights incitement to riot?" I would note that you cannot falsely yell fire in a crowded theatre for exactly that reason. Any more questions?
They weren't acting as "vigilantes" either. They were carrying firearms as is there Right. You'll go to any length to stretch out the absurdity of your statements won't you? Anything but admit you are wrong on this one.
I didn't say they were vigilantes - luckily the police got there in time - why did they get reports of people carrying weapons though?
yep. they need to lawyer up and file suits for violation of their civil rights immediately.
Lawfully carring a firearm is not yelling fire in a crowded theater. Thanks for creating a straw-man argument.
I don't care how many CFR members you name. They hold allegience to a One World Government, not the United States of America. I think the CFR and TLC should be declared subversive organizations and outlawed, along with the UN. Yes, I do believe in America first, last, and always. I could care less about the rest of the world, except for their money and that they stay out of our way.
You seem to think the cops were right here.
This is why I think your "thinking", (if you can call it that), is faulty.....no correct that, is completely wrong-headed.
Read the article. Annonymous tip.
Why "luckily"? They were just standing there holding their signs. If your beloved illegals were as peaceful as you say they are, then there wouldn't have been any problems.
Outright LIE.
Your anti-gun bleating not withstanding, just stop making crap up as you go along. "Brandishing" would actually require blatantly displaying the gun, most definitions actually require it being removed from the holster or purposefully shown in an attempt to intimidate.
Not the case here.
Not being a LEO in Washington, I can't even begin to guess why the caller was not ID'd. Since you seem to be good at pulling facts out of your hat, why don't you make something up and post it as fact to explain this....
And no. I don't think they should have their permits yanked. If there was a citable offense that had taken place, they would have been cited before being released from the police station. If anything, I think it is a travesty that permits are even required. I am a full 2A advocate and feel that Alaska style carry laws are the ONLY ones that a even remotely Constitutional.
We will have to agree to disagree then. Unless you were there, neither of us KNOW whether it was purposefully shown in an attempt to intimidate. Barring any further information to the contrary, however, I will side with the police on this one. Also, I think YOU are the one assuming it was an "anonymous" caller - from the story, it seems that the police know exactly who it is - at least enough to know he / she was "not part of the march".
Actually, spotting it under an open jacket is what the caller claimed. Not that is was brandished or done in a purposefully threatening manner according to the article posted. If you have other information to the contrary, post a link. Same goes for the identity of the caller.
Otherwise, just stop making it up as you go. I mean really, you are embarassing yourself...
I think I've quoted all the information (not "making it up") I have so far - and obviously I don't think I've embarrased myself - have a nice day though and Happy Cinco de Mayo!
Hehhe... Happy 556 day from an AR-15 fan. ;-)
A nuke would be considered artillery, not arms. There is no limit on arms per the 2nd Amendment.
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.