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

They want your guns now... that they already killed your job and doctor
1 posted on 01/09/2013 7:29:11 AM PST by Nachum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-25 next last
To: Nachum

With the internet, it will make the gun laws flimmsy at best.


2 posted on 01/09/2013 7:30:50 AM PST by Biggirl ("Jesus talked to us as individuals"-Jim Vicevich/Thanks JimV!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Nachum

Cuomo is certainly his father’s son as he’s inherited his attributes:

He is a left-wing pig and he’s pig ugly!


3 posted on 01/09/2013 7:33:17 AM PST by IbJensen (Liberals are like Slinkies, good for nothing, but you smile as you push them down the stairs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Nachum

Here’s another one:

Rep. Rhonda Fields to introduce 2 gun-control bills during state legislative session (Colorado)

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/front-range/aurora/rep-rhonda-fields-to-introduce-2-gun-control-bills-during-state-legislative-session

Pull quote:
“For the moment, the bills will be solely introduced by Democrats.”

Imagine that!


4 posted on 01/09/2013 7:34:05 AM PST by RandallFlagg ("Liberalism is about as progressive as CANCER" -Alfonzo Rachel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Jet Jaguar; NorwegianViking; ExTexasRedhead; HollyB; FromLori; EricTheRed_VocalMinority; ...

The list, Ping

Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list

http://www.nachumlist.com/


5 posted on 01/09/2013 7:36:22 AM PST by Nachum (Back on the Google blacklist- www.nachumlist.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Nachum

The veto-proof majority in the House and Senate that will result from all this is going to come in handy unwinding Obamacare.


6 posted on 01/09/2013 7:38:50 AM PST by ElkGroveDan (My tagline is in the shop.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Nachum

places like MA, IL and those who live witjh in them need to get out, they;re lost socialist states, get your guns, your conservative views and get in a state which actually understands your rights.

Hell I;ve had it, let them have their socialist utopia up there, providing the loons down south are firced to move back north.

VA and the south, to most of the midwest and AK is the new country and they can have their cess pits.

Freedom of rleigion is being attacked, that right was why this country was founded.
Being told to accept homosexuals, turd poking marriage, men dressed as women, illegals, no immigration law, now the 2nd amendment is now under attack

First the 1st amendment by turd pokers under attack,
also media was supposed to do their job but they do not
now the 2nd amendment is under attack as well as the 10th

HEY REPUBLICANS GET A F-IN GRIP AND FIGHT FOR OUR RIGHTS AND STOP SUPPORTING NON RIGHTS AND SPECIAL LAWS FOR TURD POKERS, AND ILLEGALS


7 posted on 01/09/2013 7:40:10 AM PST by manc (Marriage =1 man + 1 woman,when they say marriage equality then they should support polygamy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Nachum
Making a law which results in an individual or group hiding or non-dislosure to the state of weapon ownership a felony crime, giving de-facto right to said state to disarm the individual or group as they have become by default a member of the "prohibited" class of those who may posess a gun.

Coming right soon........................

8 posted on 01/09/2013 7:43:54 AM PST by blackdog (There is no such thing as healing, only a balance between destructive and constructive forces.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Nachum
Gun Grabbing Legislation Sweeps Nation Liberal Communities
10 posted on 01/09/2013 7:56:56 AM PST by Baynative (Those that work for a living are now outnumbered by those that vote for a living.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Nachum

Guns and cars are the enemy of the left! Both empower the INDIVIDUAL, not the collectivity.


11 posted on 01/09/2013 7:57:25 AM PST by I want the USA back
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Nachum

I would say “Yessssss [fistpump]” as every time they’ve ever messed with this issue it meant the electoral wilderness for them, but today’s voters did elect The Won. Twice. So it may be a “be careful what you wish for” moment.


12 posted on 01/09/2013 8:17:38 AM PST by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Nachum

Uh, guys, they are never EVER going to stop unless patriots stand up and yell “NO!”

I fear we are fighting amongst ourselves too much “You’re a RINO, no YOU are!” to stop Obamugabe.

Please, let’s recognize that all of our division, all of our anger at each other (Boehner, Huckabee, Gingrich, Romney, et al) is what the media and the liberals WANT.

Start focusing on DEMOCRATS.

I speak to myself, too.


13 posted on 01/09/2013 8:28:41 AM PST by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Nachum
If you want to see the radical American left's end game, watch this video.

It will freak you out.

14 posted on 01/09/2013 8:29:31 AM PST by Obadiah (It is when a people forget God, that tyrants forge their chains.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Nachum

There are so many “rights” in this country anymore, that people think gun rights are just like abortion rights, privacy rights, employment rights, etc. I don’t think most people understand the significance of an enumerated right in the Constitution.


15 posted on 01/09/2013 8:40:52 AM PST by gotribe (obama = the Great Divider)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Nachum; All

NH RSA:
627:4 Physical Force in Defense of a Person. –

I. A person is justified in using non-deadly force upon another person in order to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful, non-deadly force by such other person, and he may use a degree of such force which he reasonably believes to be necessary for such purpose. However, such force is not justifiable if:

(a) With a purpose to cause physical harm to another person, he provoked the use of unlawful, non-deadly force by such other person; or

(b) He was the initial aggressor, unless after such aggression he withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to such other person his intent to do so, but the latter notwithstanding continues the use or threat of unlawful, non-deadly force; or

(c) The force involved was the product of a combat by agreement not authorized by law.

II. A person is justified in using deadly force upon another person when he reasonably believes that such other person:

(a) Is about to use unlawful, deadly force against the actor or a third person;

(b) Is likely to use any unlawful force against a person present while committing or attempting to commit a burglary;

(c) Is committing or about to commit kidnapping or a forcible sex offense; or

(d) Is likely to use any unlawful force in the commission of a felony against the actor within such actor’s dwelling or its curtilage.

II-a. A person who responds to a threat which would be considered by a reasonable person as likely to cause serious bodily injury or death to the person or to another by displaying a firearm or other means of self-defense with the intent to warn away the person making the threat shall not have committed a criminal act.

III. A person is not justified in using deadly force on another to defend himself or herself or a third person from deadly force by the other if he or she knows that he or she and the third person can, with complete safety:

(a) Retreat from the encounter, except that he or she is not required to retreat if he or she is within his or her dwelling, its curtilage, or anywhere he or she has a right to be, and was not the initial aggressor; or

(b) Surrender property to a person asserting a claim of right thereto; or

(c) Comply with a demand that he or she abstain from performing an act which he or she is not obliged to perform; nor is the use of deadly force justifiable when, with the purpose of causing death or serious bodily harm, the person has provoked the use of force against himself or herself in the same encounter; or

(d) If he or she is a law enforcement officer or a private person assisting the officer at the officer’s direction and was acting pursuant to RSA 627:5, the person need not retreat.



17 posted on 01/09/2013 8:43:19 AM PST by tiger-one
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: All

100% preventable and 100% predictable..

Never let a good crisis go to waste.

Just think, if all those people standing in line for a chicken sandwich and more recently guns and ammo voted for a presidential candidate that wouldn’t do this versus sitting at home, this might not be as big a concern.

Staying at home and not voting or just casting a protest vote really showed them.


18 posted on 01/09/2013 8:48:03 AM PST by newnhdad (Our new motto: USA, it was fun while it lasted.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Nachum

Iowa lawmaker calls for retroactive gun ban, confiscation of semi-automatic weapons

http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/09/iowa-lawmaker-calls-for-retroactive-gun-bans-confiscations-of-semi-automatic-weapons/


24 posted on 01/09/2013 9:33:12 AM PST by Jack Hydrazine (It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Nachum

Ed Schultz just said on satradio that things like a gun’s stock define whether it’s an automatic, and that an “archaic piece of paper”, written when muskets were used to hunt squirrels, shouldn’t be our rule of law.


28 posted on 01/09/2013 9:41:28 AM PST by polymuser ("We have a right to debate and disagree with any administration!" (HRC))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Nachum

I am still thinking they are pushing and pushing and hoping for us on the right to react. They want someone on our side to fire the next shot. Then they can say “See the right wing gun owners are the violent ones”. Then they can have their Krystalnacht. The purges would follow. How many gun owners would be picked up on the street,road driving home? Or would they just come to your home and make an example of us? Who knows. But they are poking a sleeping eagle. Molan Labe!


32 posted on 01/09/2013 10:12:23 AM PST by crazydad (Obamamohamed is a traitor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Nachum
"Gun Grabbing Legislation Sweeps Nation"

Correction: Gun Grabbing Legislation sweeps the Nanny States.....and in other news, nanny states continue to be nanny states.
35 posted on 01/09/2013 11:22:59 AM PST by indthkr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Nachum

The progressives appear to have a major miss understanding about the issue. When a gun lover says you will have to pry his gun out of his cold dead hands, the progressives think they understand that statement and reply, no problem. What they fail to realize is that the gun owner is actually saying he will die fighting for his right to have a gun. IE - He is not the only one who will have cold dead hands.


36 posted on 01/09/2013 11:24:08 AM PST by justa-hairyape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-25 next last

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