Yes, They Are Coming for Your Guns

[Valerie]

The rule of law has killed more people than criminals, about 100 million world wide. Every damn one of them had their right to self defense with firearms removed first.


.

the rule of which US law removed the right to self defense?

be specific.

 

[OKTexas]

The rule of law has killed more people than criminals, about 100 million world wide. Every damn one of them had their right to self defense with firearms removed first.


.

the rule of which US law removed the right to self defense?

be specific.

What did you not understand about "world wide" reading is fundamental.


.

 

[initforme]

Now who is it that is coming for my guns? I've heard this for the last 50 years....I still have my guns....waiting for the doorbell......lol

 

[playtime]

Do you know WHY they want to ban and confiscate guns? Because they hate the right and this is a way to attack something the right holds dear. If liberals thought banning toilet paper would piss off the right they would ban it. Yes they are that petty.

Some may do it out of spite, but the real objective is the communist revolution. Free people with guns will never bow to the communist state or except the naive communist ideal.

if the big bad gov'ment wanted to come after your guns, there ain't enough AKs in the nation to help defend y'all.

Really, fool? I think you have it the other way around. The gun owners of America are more numerous than all the armies of the world combined, and are supported by state and local police, not to mention active and ex-vets. The only way they will ever be disarmed is by one tiny small group at a time, which is why it is important to never give an inch.

lol.... let me know DM, if a tank rolls down your street, how you are gonna go against that. or an armed drone...

 

[2aguy]

Do you know WHY they want to ban and confiscate guns? Because they hate the right and this is a way to attack something the right holds dear. If liberals thought banning toilet paper would piss off the right they would ban it. Yes they are that petty.

Some may do it out of spite, but the real objective is the communist revolution. Free people with guns will never bow to the communist state or except the naive communist ideal.

if the big bad gov'ment wanted to come after your guns, there ain't enough AKs in the nation to help defend y'all.

Really, fool? I think you have it the other way around. The gun owners of America are more numerous than all the armies of the world combined, and are supported by state and local police, not to mention active and ex-vets. The only way they will ever be disarmed is by one tiny small group at a time, which is why it is important to never give an inch.

lol.... let me know DM, if a tank rolls down your street, how you are gonna go against that. or an armed drone...

You have no idea what you are talking about......

Kurt Schlichter - Why Democrats Would Lose the Second Civil War, Too

Let’s talk terrain and numbers. Remember the famous red v. blue voting map? There is a lot of red, and in the interior the few blue splotches are all cities like Las Vegas or Denver. That is a lot of territory for a counter-insurgent force to control, and this is critical. The red is where the food is grown, the oil pumped, and through which everything is transported. And that red space is filled with millions of American citizens with small arms, a fairly large percentage of whom have military training.

Remember what two untrained idiots did in Boston with a couple of pistols? They shut a city down. Now multiply that by several million, with better weapons and training.

Let’s look at the counter-insurgent forces in the Democrat oppression scenario should they attempt to misuse our law enforcement and military in an unconstitutional manner to take the rights of American citizens. There are a lot of civilian law enforcement officers, but the vast majority of the agencies are local – sheriffs, small town police departments. They will not be reliable allies in supporting unlawful oppression of their friends and neighbors. The major cities’ police departments are run by Democrat appointees, so the commands would be loyal. But the rank-and-file? A small percentage would be ideologically loyal. More would be loyal because that’s their paycheck – they could be swayed or intimidated to support the rebels. Others would be actively sympathetic to the insurgents. This is true of federal law enforcement agencies as well.


And the military? Well, wouldn’t the military just crush any resistance? Not so fast. The military would have the combat power to win any major engagement, but insurgents don’t get into major engagements with forces that have more combat power. They instead leverage their decentralized ability to strike at the counter-insurgents’ weak points to eliminate the government’s firepower advantage. In other words, hit and run, and no stand-up fights.

For example, how do a bunch of hunters in Wisconsin defeat a company of M1A2 Abrams tanks? They ambush the fuel and ammo trucks. Oh, and they wait until the gunner pops the hatch to take a leak and put a .30-06 round in his back from 300 meters. Then they disappear. What do the tanks do then? Go level the nearest town? Great. Now they just moved the needle in favor of the insurgents among the population. Pretty soon, they can’t be outside of their armored vehicles in public. Their forces are spending 90% of their efforts not on actual counter-insurgency operations but on force protection. Sure, they own their forward operating bases, and they own a few hundred meters around them wherever they happen to be standing at the moment, but the rest of the territory is bright red. As my recent novel illustrates, American guerillas with small arms are a deadly threat to the forces of a dictatorship.


But the military is so big it would overwhelm any rebels, right? Well, how big do you think the military is? And, more importantly, how many actual boots on the ground can it deploy? Let’s put it in terms of brigade combat teams, which total about 4,500 troops each. There are about 60 brigades in the Army, active and reserve, here and abroad, and let’s give the Marines another 10 brigades, for about 70 brigades. Sounds impressive. But that’s deceptive.

 

[playtime]

Do you know WHY they want to ban and confiscate guns? Because they hate the right and this is a way to attack something the right holds dear. If liberals thought banning toilet paper would piss off the right they would ban it. Yes they are that petty.

Some may do it out of spite, but the real objective is the communist revolution. Free people with guns will never bow to the communist state or except the naive communist ideal.

if the big bad gov'ment wanted to come after your guns, there ain't enough AKs in the nation to help defend y'all.

Really, fool? I think you have it the other way around. The gun owners of America are more numerous than all the armies of the world combined, and are supported by state and local police, not to mention active and ex-vets. The only way they will ever be disarmed is by one tiny small group at a time, which is why it is important to never give an inch.

lol.... let me know DM, if a tank rolls down your street, how you are gonna go against that. or an armed drone...

You have no idea what you are talking about......

Kurt Schlichter - Why Democrats Would Lose the Second Civil War, Too

Let’s talk terrain and numbers. Remember the famous red v. blue voting map? There is a lot of red, and in the interior the few blue splotches are all cities like Las Vegas or Denver. That is a lot of territory for a counter-insurgent force to control, and this is critical. The red is where the food is grown, the oil pumped, and through which everything is transported. And that red space is filled with millions of American citizens with small arms, a fairly large percentage of whom have military training.

Remember what two untrained idiots did in Boston with a couple of pistols? They shut a city down. Now multiply that by several million, with better weapons and training.

Let’s look at the counter-insurgent forces in the Democrat oppression scenario should they attempt to misuse our law enforcement and military in an unconstitutional manner to take the rights of American citizens. There are a lot of civilian law enforcement officers, but the vast majority of the agencies are local – sheriffs, small town police departments. They will not be reliable allies in supporting unlawful oppression of their friends and neighbors. The major cities’ police departments are run by Democrat appointees, so the commands would be loyal. But the rank-and-file? A small percentage would be ideologically loyal. More would be loyal because that’s their paycheck – they could be swayed or intimidated to support the rebels. Others would be actively sympathetic to the insurgents. This is true of federal law enforcement agencies as well.


And the military? Well, wouldn’t the military just crush any resistance? Not so fast. The military would have the combat power to win any major engagement, but insurgents don’t get into major engagements with forces that have more combat power. They instead leverage their decentralized ability to strike at the counter-insurgents’ weak points to eliminate the government’s firepower advantage. In other words, hit and run, and no stand-up fights.

For example, how do a bunch of hunters in Wisconsin defeat a company of M1A2 Abrams tanks? They ambush the fuel and ammo trucks. Oh, and they wait until the gunner pops the hatch to take a leak and put a .30-06 round in his back from 300 meters. Then they disappear. What do the tanks do then? Go level the nearest town? Great. Now they just moved the needle in favor of the insurgents among the population. Pretty soon, they can’t be outside of their armored vehicles in public. Their forces are spending 90% of their efforts not on actual counter-insurgency operations but on force protection. Sure, they own their forward operating bases, and they own a few hundred meters around them wherever they happen to be standing at the moment, but the rest of the territory is bright red. As my recent novel illustrates, American guerillas with small arms are a deadly threat to the forces of a dictatorship.


But the military is so big it would overwhelm any rebels, right? Well, how big do you think the military is? And, more importantly, how many actual boots on the ground can it deploy? Let’s put it in terms of brigade combat teams, which total about 4,500 troops each. There are about 60 brigades in the Army, active and reserve, here and abroad, and let’s give the Marines another 10 brigades, for about 70 brigades. Sounds impressive. But that’s deceptive.

 

[2aguy]

Some may do it out of spite, but the real objective is the communist revolution. Free people with guns will never bow to the communist state or except the naive communist ideal.

if the big bad gov'ment wanted to come after your guns, there ain't enough AKs in the nation to help defend y'all.

Really, fool? I think you have it the other way around. The gun owners of America are more numerous than all the armies of the world combined, and are supported by state and local police, not to mention active and ex-vets. The only way they will ever be disarmed is by one tiny small group at a time, which is why it is important to never give an inch.

lol.... let me know DM, if a tank rolls down your street, how you are gonna go against that. or an armed drone...

You have no idea what you are talking about......

Kurt Schlichter - Why Democrats Would Lose the Second Civil War, Too

Let’s talk terrain and numbers. Remember the famous red v. blue voting map? There is a lot of red, and in the interior the few blue splotches are all cities like Las Vegas or Denver. That is a lot of territory for a counter-insurgent force to control, and this is critical. The red is where the food is grown, the oil pumped, and through which everything is transported. And that red space is filled with millions of American citizens with small arms, a fairly large percentage of whom have military training.

Remember what two untrained idiots did in Boston with a couple of pistols? They shut a city down. Now multiply that by several million, with better weapons and training.

Let’s look at the counter-insurgent forces in the Democrat oppression scenario should they attempt to misuse our law enforcement and military in an unconstitutional manner to take the rights of American citizens. There are a lot of civilian law enforcement officers, but the vast majority of the agencies are local – sheriffs, small town police departments. They will not be reliable allies in supporting unlawful oppression of their friends and neighbors. The major cities’ police departments are run by Democrat appointees, so the commands would be loyal. But the rank-and-file? A small percentage would be ideologically loyal. More would be loyal because that’s their paycheck – they could be swayed or intimidated to support the rebels. Others would be actively sympathetic to the insurgents. This is true of federal law enforcement agencies as well.


And the military? Well, wouldn’t the military just crush any resistance? Not so fast. The military would have the combat power to win any major engagement, but insurgents don’t get into major engagements with forces that have more combat power. They instead leverage their decentralized ability to strike at the counter-insurgents’ weak points to eliminate the government’s firepower advantage. In other words, hit and run, and no stand-up fights.

For example, how do a bunch of hunters in Wisconsin defeat a company of M1A2 Abrams tanks? They ambush the fuel and ammo trucks. Oh, and they wait until the gunner pops the hatch to take a leak and put a .30-06 round in his back from 300 meters. Then they disappear. What do the tanks do then? Go level the nearest town? Great. Now they just moved the needle in favor of the insurgents among the population. Pretty soon, they can’t be outside of their armored vehicles in public. Their forces are spending 90% of their efforts not on actual counter-insurgency operations but on force protection. Sure, they own their forward operating bases, and they own a few hundred meters around them wherever they happen to be standing at the moment, but the rest of the territory is bright red. As my recent novel illustrates, American guerillas with small arms are a deadly threat to the forces of a dictatorship.


But the military is so big it would overwhelm any rebels, right? Well, how big do you think the military is? And, more importantly, how many actual boots on the ground can it deploy? Let’s put it in terms of brigade combat teams, which total about 4,500 troops each. There are about 60 brigades in the Army, active and reserve, here and abroad, and let’s give the Marines another 10 brigades, for about 70 brigades. Sounds impressive. But that’s deceptive.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt....and you proved yourself to be a moron......good for you.

 

[playtime]

if the big bad gov'ment wanted to come after your guns, there ain't enough AKs in the nation to help defend y'all.

Really, fool? I think you have it the other way around. The gun owners of America are more numerous than all the armies of the world combined, and are supported by state and local police, not to mention active and ex-vets. The only way they will ever be disarmed is by one tiny small group at a time, which is why it is important to never give an inch.

lol.... let me know DM, if a tank rolls down your street, how you are gonna go against that. or an armed drone...

You have no idea what you are talking about......

Kurt Schlichter - Why Democrats Would Lose the Second Civil War, Too

Let’s talk terrain and numbers. Remember the famous red v. blue voting map? There is a lot of red, and in the interior the few blue splotches are all cities like Las Vegas or Denver. That is a lot of territory for a counter-insurgent force to control, and this is critical. The red is where the food is grown, the oil pumped, and through which everything is transported. And that red space is filled with millions of American citizens with small arms, a fairly large percentage of whom have military training.

Remember what two untrained idiots did in Boston with a couple of pistols? They shut a city down. Now multiply that by several million, with better weapons and training.

Let’s look at the counter-insurgent forces in the Democrat oppression scenario should they attempt to misuse our law enforcement and military in an unconstitutional manner to take the rights of American citizens. There are a lot of civilian law enforcement officers, but the vast majority of the agencies are local – sheriffs, small town police departments. They will not be reliable allies in supporting unlawful oppression of their friends and neighbors. The major cities’ police departments are run by Democrat appointees, so the commands would be loyal. But the rank-and-file? A small percentage would be ideologically loyal. More would be loyal because that’s their paycheck – they could be swayed or intimidated to support the rebels. Others would be actively sympathetic to the insurgents. This is true of federal law enforcement agencies as well.


And the military? Well, wouldn’t the military just crush any resistance? Not so fast. The military would have the combat power to win any major engagement, but insurgents don’t get into major engagements with forces that have more combat power. They instead leverage their decentralized ability to strike at the counter-insurgents’ weak points to eliminate the government’s firepower advantage. In other words, hit and run, and no stand-up fights.

For example, how do a bunch of hunters in Wisconsin defeat a company of M1A2 Abrams tanks? They ambush the fuel and ammo trucks. Oh, and they wait until the gunner pops the hatch to take a leak and put a .30-06 round in his back from 300 meters. Then they disappear. What do the tanks do then? Go level the nearest town? Great. Now they just moved the needle in favor of the insurgents among the population. Pretty soon, they can’t be outside of their armored vehicles in public. Their forces are spending 90% of their efforts not on actual counter-insurgency operations but on force protection. Sure, they own their forward operating bases, and they own a few hundred meters around them wherever they happen to be standing at the moment, but the rest of the territory is bright red. As my recent novel illustrates, American guerillas with small arms are a deadly threat to the forces of a dictatorship.


But the military is so big it would overwhelm any rebels, right? Well, how big do you think the military is? And, more importantly, how many actual boots on the ground can it deploy? Let’s put it in terms of brigade combat teams, which total about 4,500 troops each. There are about 60 brigades in the Army, active and reserve, here and abroad, and let’s give the Marines another 10 brigades, for about 70 brigades. Sounds impressive. But that’s deceptive.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt....and you proved yourself to be a moron......good for you.

oh please- i've read enough of your posts to know you are a right wing mook.

 

[toobfreak]

Do you know WHY they want to ban and confiscate guns? Because they hate the right and this is a way to attack something the right holds dear. If liberals thought banning toilet paper would piss off the right they would ban it. Yes they are that petty.

Some may do it out of spite, but the real objective is the communist revolution. Free people with guns will never bow to the communist state or except the naive communist ideal.

if the big bad gov'ment wanted to come after your guns, there ain't enough AKs in the nation to help defend y'all.

Really, fool? I think you have it the other way around. The gun owners of America are more numerous than all the armies of the world combined, and are supported by state and local police, not to mention active and ex-vets. The only way they will ever be disarmed is by one tiny small group at a time, which is why it is important to never give an inch.

lol.... let me know DM, if a tank rolls down your street, how you are gonna go against that. or an armed drone...QUOTE]

Look Playtool, it's really hard to have an intelligent conversation when the other party talks like his IQ is 85, but, just where is a tank going to come from in my suburbs? And who is going to drive it? A vet who sympathizes with me? And just what is he going to do with it--- blow holes in houses arbitrarily from 60 feet away? You might not realize that in close quarters, there are ways to give a tank a hard time: jam their treads, jam the main gun barrel. Same with a drone. They must be operated remotely and their camera can only see in one direction at a time, and armed, they are no better off than you. Besides, what exactly is your point anyway? That the military is hopelessly better than you so why bother, just give up? War is a NUMBERS game, son, one you are obviously not cut out to play, that's why we couldn't beat the Vietnamese or the North Koreans, or for that matter, the Taliban---- we were far superior in technology in those conflicts as well, but they had NUMBERS. But good to see inside of the head of a gun-grabber, when you come for my guns you won't stand a chance.

 

[toobfreak]

TRANSLATION: I ain't got nothin'.

 

[playtime]

Do you know WHY they want to ban and confiscate guns? Because they hate the right and this is a way to attack something the right holds dear. If liberals thought banning toilet paper would piss off the right they would ban it. Yes they are that petty.

Some may do it out of spite, but the real objective is the communist revolution. Free people with guns will never bow to the communist state or except the naive communist ideal.

if the big bad gov'ment wanted to come after your guns, there ain't enough AKs in the nation to help defend y'all.

Really, fool? I think you have it the other way around. The gun owners of America are more numerous than all the armies of the world combined, and are supported by state and local police, not to mention active and ex-vets. The only way they will ever be disarmed is by one tiny small group at a time, which is why it is important to never give an inch.

lol.... let me know DM, if a tank rolls down your street, how you are gonna go against that. or an armed drone...QUOTE]

Look Playtool, it's really hard to have an intelligent conversation when the other party talks like his IQ is 85, but, just where is a tank going to come from in my suburbs? And who is going to drive it? A vet who sympathizes with me? And just what is he going to do with it--- blow holes in houses arbitrarily from 60 feet away? You might not realize that in close quarters, there are ways to give a tank a hard time: jam their treads, jam the main gun barrel. Same with a drone. They must be operated remotely and their camera can only see in one direction at a time, and armed, they are no better off than you. Besides, what exactly is your point anyway? That the military is hopelessly better than you so why bother, just give up? War is a NUMBERS game, son, one you are obviously not cut out to play, that's why we couldn't beat the Vietnamese or the North Koreans, or for that matter, the Taliban---- we were far superior in technology in those conflicts as well, but they had NUMBERS. But good to see inside of the head of a gun-grabber, when you come for my guns you won't stand a chance.

lol... are you finished? good. i am not a 'he, son, belong to the other party, nor is my IQ 85 '.

however... if the case ever boiled down to the powers that be decided to suspend the writ of habeas corpus - then all bets are off.

& as far as the deployment of tanks? tell your president it can't be done for his parade.

a well armed humvee can do the job & get into those redneck rural areas too....

 

[miketx]

come get them.

if due process legally clarifies what qualifies as your right to bear certain firearms, you would take up arms against your government?

No one is taking my guns without killing me.

You would pee your pants

YOU will never know.

 

[Pop23]

Some may do it out of spite, but the real objective is the communist revolution. Free people with guns will never bow to the communist state or except the naive communist ideal.

if the big bad gov'ment wanted to come after your guns, there ain't enough AKs in the nation to help defend y'all.

Really, fool? I think you have it the other way around. The gun owners of America are more numerous than all the armies of the world combined, and are supported by state and local police, not to mention active and ex-vets. The only way they will ever be disarmed is by one tiny small group at a time, which is why it is important to never give an inch.

lol.... let me know DM, if a tank rolls down your street, how you are gonna go against that. or an armed drone...QUOTE]

Look Playtool, it's really hard to have an intelligent conversation when the other party talks like his IQ is 85, but, just where is a tank going to come from in my suburbs? And who is going to drive it? A vet who sympathizes with me? And just what is he going to do with it--- blow holes in houses arbitrarily from 60 feet away? You might not realize that in close quarters, there are ways to give a tank a hard time: jam their treads, jam the main gun barrel. Same with a drone. They must be operated remotely and their camera can only see in one direction at a time, and armed, they are no better off than you. Besides, what exactly is your point anyway? That the military is hopelessly better than you so why bother, just give up? War is a NUMBERS game, son, one you are obviously not cut out to play, that's why we couldn't beat the Vietnamese or the North Koreans, or for that matter, the Taliban---- we were far superior in technology in those conflicts as well, but they had NUMBERS. But good to see inside of the head of a gun-grabber, when you come for my guns you won't stand a chance.

lol... are you finished? good. i am not a 'he, son, belong to the other party, nor is my IQ 85 '.

however... if the case ever boiled down to the powers that be decided to suspend the writ of habeas corpus - then all bets are off.

& as far as the deployment of tanks? tell your president it can't be done for his parade.

a well armed humvee can do the job & get into those redneck rural areas too....

Just like Afghanistan?

 

[Slade3200]

there is no LAWFUL PURPOSE for US citizens to challenge US law enforcement with "bigger, more powerful" weaponry...

It is not law enforcement I worry about.

then what are you so worried about...??


the US government IS law enforcement.

the FBI is our CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY.

in the USA we live by RULE OF LAW in a constitutional democratic republic.

so again, i ask you...

what do you imagine is YOUR lawful purpose for "unrestricted purchases or construction of any firearms" ??


Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.

if the big bad gov'ment wanted to come after your guns, there ain't enough AKs in the nation to help defend y'all.

So, you're saying we need even better, more powerful weapons?

Very well. I agree.

And we've seen what the FBI has become as a result of the Obama Administration.

What exactly did the Obama admin do to the FBI?

 

[Slade3200]

The only REAL solution to mass shootings is to shoot back. No other action, restriction, or confiscation will be even 1/4 as effective as shooting back.

You don't see nations holding out hope that they can defend a themselves against attack by disarming their foes, rather than arming themselves.

We can walk and chew gum can we not?

 

[Thinker101]

there is no LAWFUL PURPOSE for US citizens to challenge US law enforcement with "bigger, more powerful" weaponry...

It is not law enforcement I worry about.

then what are you so worried about...??


the US government IS law enforcement.

the FBI is our CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY.

in the USA we live by RULE OF LAW in a constitutional democratic republic.

so again, i ask you...

what do you imagine is YOUR lawful purpose for "unrestricted purchases or construction of any firearms" ??


Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.

if the big bad gov'ment wanted to come after your guns, there ain't enough AKs in the nation to help defend y'all.

So, you're saying we need even better, more powerful weapons?

Very well. I agree.

And we've seen what the FBI has become as a result of the Obama Administration.

What exactly did the Obama admin do to the FBI?

Really!? That would be a great question for Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Page, probably include AG Lynch.

 

[Slade3200]

there is no LAWFUL PURPOSE for US citizens to challenge US law enforcement with "bigger, more powerful" weaponry...

It is not law enforcement I worry about.

then what are you so worried about...??


the US government IS law enforcement.

the FBI is our CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY.

in the USA we live by RULE OF LAW in a constitutional democratic republic.

so again, i ask you...

what do you imagine is YOUR lawful purpose for "unrestricted purchases or construction of any firearms" ??


Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.

if the big bad gov'ment wanted to come after your guns, there ain't enough AKs in the nation to help defend y'all.

So, you're saying we need even better, more powerful weapons?

Very well. I agree.

And we've seen what the FBI has become as a result of the Obama Administration.

What exactly did the Obama admin do to the FBI?

Really!? That would be a great question for Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Page, probably include AG Lynch.

So what exactly is your claim regarding the Obama administration and those people? Just want to be clear about what exactly Obama did

 

[Thinker101]

there is no LAWFUL PURPOSE for US citizens to challenge US law enforcement with "bigger, more powerful" weaponry...

It is not law enforcement I worry about.

then what are you so worried about...??


the US government IS law enforcement.

the FBI is our CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY.

in the USA we live by RULE OF LAW in a constitutional democratic republic.

so again, i ask you...

what do you imagine is YOUR lawful purpose for "unrestricted purchases or construction of any firearms" ??


Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.

if the big bad gov'ment wanted to come after your guns, there ain't enough AKs in the nation to help defend y'all.

So, you're saying we need even better, more powerful weapons?

Very well. I agree.

And we've seen what the FBI has become as a result of the Obama Administration.

What exactly did the Obama admin do to the FBI?

Really!? That would be a great question for Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Page, probably include AG Lynch.

So what exactly is your claim regarding the Obama administration and those people? Just want to be clear about what exactly Obama did

How about we begin with before most knew of most of those people.
Just How Corrupt Is the Obama Administration?

 

[Thinker101]

then what are you so worried about...??


the US government IS law enforcement.

the FBI is our CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY.

in the USA we live by RULE OF LAW in a constitutional democratic republic.

so again, i ask you...

what do you imagine is YOUR lawful purpose for "unrestricted purchases or construction of any firearms" ??


Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.

And we've seen what the FBI has become as a result of the Obama Administration.

What exactly did the Obama admin do to the FBI?

Really!? That would be a great question for Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Page, probably include AG Lynch.

So what exactly is your claim regarding the Obama administration and those people? Just want to be clear about what exactly Obama did

How about we begin with before most knew of most of those people.
Just How Corrupt Is the Obama Administration?

Then we can move on to just a smidgen of Hillary.
Obama administration blocked FBI probe of Clinton Foundation corruption: Report

 

[Thinker101]

And we've seen what the FBI has become as a result of the Obama Administration.

What exactly did the Obama admin do to the FBI?

Really!? That would be a great question for Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Page, probably include AG Lynch.

So what exactly is your claim regarding the Obama administration and those people? Just want to be clear about what exactly Obama did

How about we begin with before most knew of most of those people.
Just How Corrupt Is the Obama Administration?

Then we can move on to just a smidgen of Hillary.
Obama administration blocked FBI probe of Clinton Foundation corruption: Report

Certainly can't forget this one.
FBI Probe Into Russian Uranium Bribes Concealed By Obama DOJ; Mueller, McCabe, Rosenstein Involved