Posted on 03/12/2013 11:02:03 AM PDT by rfreedom4u
http://www.krdo.com/news/Sheriff-Maketa-releases-statement-regarding-gun-control-stance/-/417220/19280038/-/iykxd7/-/index.html
If a felon has served his (or her) sentence, do you trust them with a knife? Baseball bat? Tire iron? Can of gasoline? Car? Rope?
Any of those can be used to kill.
Some in large numbers at one time.
OK, Judge stormer. LOL
Neither would I but he made that hysterical claim about us so ... what's good for the goose ...
There is another lie. Show us all that post.
What was this post supposed to convey?
To: TigersEyeHow many M1A2's do you have in your garage? How many fighter jets do you have available to resist the Feds with? How many bunker busting bombs might you have access to? How many nukes? 300,000 troops with the technology they have to unleash against We The People, who have NO such weapons gives them an edge. And, that is only counting the Army and Marines, leaving out USAF and Navy numbers.If what I'm reading about the GOP "elites" moving towards making deals on gun control with Obozo has any merit, then We The People are in deep kimshee.
46 posted on Monday, March 11, 2013 11:44:24 PM by SoldierDad (Proud dad of an Army Soldier who has survived 24 months of Combat deployment.)
I guess you were denigrating me for post #45
It was claimed that the government will not start a war against the American people BECAUSE “WE” were to heavily armed. My statement was pointing out that the government, technologically speaking at the very least, outguns the American people, and thus are NOT worried about starting a shooting war against “WE”. YOU insinuated that I was foolish for thinking this as a possibility. I never claimed that “WE” would cower against the government, but that the government will not fear starting a shooting war. If you believe “WE” are immune to the possibility of our own government engaging “WE” militarily, then you have deluded yourself. There are members of the “GOP” who are not friends to the American people. Is that inaccurate? Very few in the DemocRAT party are friends to Americans. Is that inaccurate? The military firepower that this government has at it’s disposal is/can be devastating to the American people, with little reciprocity on our side. Is that inaccurate? A drawdown in military forces does NOT mean that this government is less likely to use force against “WE”. The American people being up against a tyrannical government Hell bent on subjugation of “WE” places the American people at risk. Is this inaccurate? The fact that my views have been sumarily dismissed as impossible was the denigration. The fact that this government cannot be trusted is real, and should not be derrided. You’re free to have any view you care to have, about the realities of the world we live in today, or about me. I’m finished with this.
Not by me.
I already proved that that was a lie. I insinuated nothing.
I never said anything of the kind.
Not if you continue to drag this to other threads, lie about me and fail to ping me.
Legimate, lawful, sane gunowners aren’t exactly shrinking violets, now are they. It’s not as if our voices aren’t heard now, is it?
We’ll see, won’t we? FWIW, Blaze is reporting same CA story this way, check the link if you care to:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/12/calif-gun-owner-who-says-she-admitted-herself-to-mental-hospital-for-medication-adjustment-has-guns-confiscated/
Over, out.
They are in jail I suppose, else if they have served their time then the constitution applies to them just like any other citizen.
My standard for reinstitution of the right to possess weapons must be a little higher than yours. Fool me once...
“No, the new legislation is for the purpose of disarming law abiding citizens under the guise of “protecting” We The People from ourselves.”
The new laws they want to put in place are there to protect the government from We the People.
And they are dumb Marxist baboons. They must secure the border first. It will keep We the People from bringing in REAL guns into the US, especially through Texas and Arizona.
Well I must assume you reserve your Constitutional right to own a weapon, but you would happily deny those you personally judge to be unfit. Got it.
hope you wife doesn’t decide to say you slapped her around a little, or maybe you took a sleeping pill at some time or another.
[She was involuntarily committed. I say that means adjudicated mentally incompetent.]
What did it mean when the Soviets were involuntarily committing folks?
Nutcases can and will say anything they want. There is a very definite meaning to “adjudicated mentally incompetent.” It requires a judge to make that ruling, you get a lawyer to contest it and the bar is very high.
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.