Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Shouldn't citizen soldiers be allowed the "luxury" of being able to legally arm themselves?
1 posted on 05/26/2004 10:51:37 PM PDT by kattracks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: kattracks

My guess is a 9/11 aniversary replay or an eve-of-the-election horror to manipulate a Spanish-style capitulation. Liberal hate groups, of which there are many, will provide "beards" and other "useful idiot services" for the serious "soldiers" who will do the actual dirty work.


3 posted on 05/26/2004 11:04:26 PM PDT by NaughtiusMaximus (This fatwah direct to you from the holy city of Skokie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kattracks

bump 4 later


4 posted on 05/26/2004 11:11:27 PM PDT by RIGHT IN LAS VEGAS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kattracks

I'll do what I can to stop these scum.

My guess is the next attack will be on either 6/11 or 12/11 as they have done 9/11 & 3/11.


5 posted on 05/26/2004 11:21:44 PM PDT by ChefKeith (NASCAR...everything else is just a game!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kattracks

One thing is for certain: If al Qeada does pull off a major strike within the US again, we "citizen soldiers" will definitely exact some revenge from their supporters. Of that, they can count on it.

In other words, if you are a moderate Muslim opposed to terrorism inside the US, I highly suggest that you do something to stop any actions by the radicals. Consider it as an investment.


6 posted on 05/26/2004 11:33:44 PM PDT by datura (Let's drop the pretense. It's time to declare this a CRUSADE and finish it once and for all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kattracks
"Shouldn't citizen soldiers be allowed the "luxury" of being able to legally arm themselves?"

Why, yes, they should. Indeed, some are.


10 posted on 05/27/2004 6:25:15 AM PDT by Joe Brower (The Constitution defines Conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kattracks
Mr. Ashcroft said he was asking for "unprecedented levels of cooperation" from law enforcement officials, but he might have said the same about citizens.

Not a problem. Right up to the point that the lib's and Dem's start calling for bans on guns - bans on ammo - bans on night vision - bans on kevlar - bans on just about everything. That is where I draw the line and will "present a protest" to such anti-American suggestions.

Suggestions of disarming American citizens is NOT a "level of coorperation." It is a level of surrender.

Shouldn't citizen soldiers be allowed the "luxury" of being able to legally arm themselves?

Tain't a luxury. Actually it is a responsability of the fed.gov to arm it's citizens as well as an army.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16,

Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

It is also the responsability of each member of the milita to arm themselves. This is, of course, at the heart of the Second Amendment.

Despite Colt's current pee-cee attitude, I still say there ain't nothing that shoots like a SP-1 AR-15 with plain old 55gr ammo. I use an original stock Colt 3x compensating scope and I can zot ya in your left eye, or your right. Your call.


T L I


12 posted on 05/28/2004 11:37:44 PM PDT by TLI (...........ITINERIS IMPENDEO VALHALLA..........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson