Posted on 01/19/2013 5:32:14 PM PST by Bratch
I wonder what's up?
Since the Left does and feels the exact same things when they are in power, it is safe to assume that party politics is a form of bread and circuses to keep the stupid entertained - and critical observers had best ignore the performers and keep their eyes on what the ringmasters are doing.
She’s the real (as opposed to msm) front-runner for the nomination in 2016. Of course they need to attack her and laud Chris Christie and Jeb Bush.
They just don’t have anyone else to direct their
jabbering insanity at.
They fear her and are tyong to get out in front of any candidacy since Prince Andrew Cuomo decided to end his presidential campaign last Tuesday
Spot on.
A Republican removed STATE OWNED weapons from a minimally trained militia and the left has a coronary!?
Had one of these under-trained individuals caused a problem or get injured and the Dems would be screaming for everyone’s PRIVATE PROPERTY to be removed!
Eff ‘em!
Anybody who can fact-check this?
Texas also broke up a state militia group during the mid 1980s, it was felt that they were suffering from self induced “mission creep” caused by an ex-Army Special Forces commander, who was concentrating on guns, camouflage and combat training, instead of state militia duties.
Without even looking, I can just about guarantee you that the STATE stopped arming these folks with STATE OWNED weapons.
They were perfectly free to buy firearms on their own.
The author trying to claim that not arming “state militia” members is the same as going house to house to disarm every private citizen. Apparently the author wants us to believe that these were privately owned weapons, but if they were privately owned weapons I don’t see how Palin could take them away privately owned weapons from people just because they belong to the state militia, without taking everyone’s privately owned weapons away- which of course she didn’t- so it sounds like the author is really stretching on this one. Perhaps these were state supplied arms?
I’m sure the libs have or would at other times use this same “state militia” to justify taking 2nd amendment rights away from everyone “because, after all,” the libs would say, “we have an official militia and so there’s no reason for just any private citizen to be armed.”
These people are desperate/insane....as always.
Did she take away individuals private guns? Or just state supplied guns? That would be a major difference. Of course, that difference would be lost on the left
The DNC goes to sleep at night fantasizing about Palin being the nominee. They'd have a drunken-week long celebration party if she got the nomination.
Have you seen any polls indicating she is the front runner? If yes, expect many more attacks on gov Palin.
My bet is on she will not run in 2016.
Don’t worry about “fact checking” - a logic checking will do just fine.
First, she did not do a single thing to remove private fire arms from private owners.
Second, the article attributes some of Obama’s justice Department language to Bush.
Third, the author, like all liberals, is obesessed with people, and not principles. If Palin had taken guns away from private owners, conservatives would have indeed criticized her. We wouldn’t have supported that simply because it was Palin doing it...
This is what liberals don’t understad, because they are so eaten up with cult of personality, and ideas just bounce off their tiny little heads.
Plain didn’t take any one’s private weapons, she simply decided that her State Defense Forces would not bear arms while on State Active Duty. It might come as a surprise to the moron who wrote this bravo sierra, but the vast majority of members of the United States Armed Forces are not issued personal weapons. Until I read something different, written by someone with a clue, I’ll assume that Palin was acting properly to assure that her State Defence Forces were a valuable tool of her Adjutant General’s Department, and not just a bunch of lunk heads running around the woods in XXL ACUs.
Plain didn’t take any one’s private weapons, she simply decided that her State Defense Forces would not bear arms while on State Active Duty. It might come as a surprise to the moron who wrote this bravo sierra, but the vast majority of members of the United States Armed Forces are not issued personal weapons. Until I read something different, written by someone with a clue, I’ll assume that Palin was acting properly to assure that her State Defence Forces were a valuable tool of her Adjutant General’s Department, and not just a bunch of lunk heads running around the woods in XXL ACUs.
They fantasized about Reagan getting the nomination also.
(Here is one of the original articles from 2008.)
Defense commander resigns after complaints
Published: October 28, 2008
http://www.adn.com/2008/10/28/570834/defense-commander-resigns-after.html
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.