Posted on 10/03/2016 3:45:31 PM PDT by Red in Blue PA
That is a good list. I will share....
The SCOTUS today (Or was it yesterday?) refused to hear a case from TX and a number of other states regarding 0b0la’s executive order allowing illegals to stay.
So the lower court decision stays, which is “NO EFFING WAY THOSE ILLEGALS CAN STAY”.
So That It It.
Trump effect. And this is with Scalia (may he rest in peace) gone.
“Trump effect”
I like that. Hillary & Obama are not omnipotent. Lots of panic among FReepers that these two fleshly oxygen users can destroy the Constitution with a mere wave of their manicured hands. Doesn’t work that way, this isn’t Australia nor North Korea.
“We cannot invade America, there will be a rifle behind every blade of grass”. Notice how frantically liberals rush to declare that Adm. Yamamoto never said that. But unlike the other Jap warlords, Yamamoto knew America and realized just how much freedom is valued here, unlike the samurai culture he was required to serve.
There are blazing eyes behind all those rifles, and now behind aimed pistols with CCWs guaranteeing the right to aim them. A sight picture is a powerful comfort to those determined to defend what is theirs to defend.
Post 37
Every Bond loses at least one pistol in every one of the 007 movies.
Bond should not be allowed to have a gun or any kind of vehicle.
Your answer is not snide, and is perfectly reasonable.
However the answer to your question is contained within the part of what I said you quoted:
“for some illegal, screwball, non-sense reason”.
For a leftist it does not have to be legal, the lack of logic often makes their motives twisted and making no sense.
There have been countless threads here on FR laying out reasons why obama should have been impeached. It’s a common understanding he’s power hungry, and I am not the first one to float the idea he may not want to leave office.
Obama is indeed power hungry and wants to take our guns. No doubt whatsoever.
But how? What mechanisms of government can he use to seize power without provoking a violent backlash?
“What mechanisms of government can he use to seize power without provoking a violent backlash?”
There are no legitimate mechanisms he can use to seize power that I know of, that’s why I implied it would be illegal.
“without provoking a violent backlash?”
Go back to my original post, to “enforce the election results” implies violent backlash:
“Which is quite likely why many are stocking up - to enforce the election results.”
What I originally wanted to say, but edited it to be softer, is any illegitimate seizure of power would lead to CWII. I think many of the folks that are stocking up fear this, among other things that might happen in the near future, such as a Hitlery win and attempted gun confiscation or the left successfully getting an all out race war going, or stirring the illegals up and arming them. The list of things the left might do is endless, especially since the elitists/globalists are tied to them.
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.