3 3
kallend

More sacrifices to the 2nd Amendment

Recommended Posts

34 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

We are talking about a laptop that was supposedly left behind for more than a year and then given to Rudy Giuliani. It was given to him cause the repair shop owner supposedly saw very disturbing content when he was copying files and of all people he reached out to Rudy.

And the best part about it:

The person who said that it was Hunter Biden who dropped off the laptop . . .  is legally blind.

So there's some rock solid proof right there that it was Hunter!

Another fun fact - there are a bunch of incriminating folders on that drive including ones titled "Biden Burisma," "Salacious Pics Package" and "Hunter Burisma Documents."  They were created in 2020.  By the blind guy's own story, he got the laptop in 2019.

Next up - a deaf person overheard Hunter say that it was totally his.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
5 hours ago, billeisele said:

Bill - describing the laptop as a "distraction" is disturbing. If what is on the laptop is in line with what has been reported, it's a problem.

And true or not, many believe that if his last name wasn't Biden there would be an investigation. 

It's just too darn bad that the FBI now can't be trusted to investigate allegations made by unnamed sources about possible violations of stuff.

As long as you're back, are you willing to address the gun control issues you brought up and I responded to back on August 12 in post #1559 of the second amendment thread? 

 

 

 

Edited by JoeWeber

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, billeisele said:

Bill - describing the laptop as a "distraction" is disturbing. If what is on the laptop is in line with what has been reported, it's a problem.

And true or not, many believe that if his last name wasn't Biden there would be an investigation. 

If Trump's tax returns are in line with what's been reported, it's a problem.

If the documents stored at Mar a Lago are in line with what's been reported, it's a problem.

If the Trump organization's business practices as described by the former CFO are in line with what's been reported, it's a problem.

If Trump's personal affairs as described by his previous personal "fixer" and lawyer are in line with what's been reported, it's a problem.

If Trump's treatment of women are as self described in the Access Hollywood video, it's a problem.

If Trump's attempts to "find" votes in Georgia and elsewhere are as testified under oath, it's a problem.

Trump's well documented tens of thousands of lies are a problem.

But none of the above seem to bother you as much as what might be on this laptop.

In fact none of the above seem to bother you at all.

 

 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JoeWeber said:

As long as you're back, are you willing to address the gun control issues you brought up and I responded to back on August 12 in post #1559 of the second amendment thread? 

 

Joe - the xx's and other blanks were for lawmakers to fill in based on the facts, they were left that way on purpose 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, billeisele said:

Joe - the xx's and other blanks were for lawmakers to fill in based on the facts, they were left that way on purpose 

That's one item out of many but a great example of side stepping the issue. My point is that if you'll come at me with this: "Joe - I've clearly stated many actions that IMO should be taken. You've continually inferred that I support unfettered proliferation of assault weapons. That's not correct." And then back up that claim with fill in the blanks and shoulda oughta's you aren't being completely straight. I gave you the opportunity to clearly state and you are unwilling to do so. I don't blame you, actually, because like I pointed out what you claim to want when fleshed out would be serious gun regulations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

That's one item out of many but a great example of side stepping the issue. My point is that if you'll come at me with this: "Joe - I've clearly stated many actions that IMO should be taken. You've continually inferred that I support unfettered proliferation of assault weapons. That's not correct." And then back up that claim with fill in the blanks and shoulda oughta's you aren't being completely straight. I gave you the opportunity to clearly state and you are unwilling to do so. I don't blame you, actually, because like I pointed out what you claim to want when fleshed out would be serious gun regulations.

It was a straight answer. It's not my fault that you lack the capacity to see or accept that, or if it wasn't good enough for YOU.

Some of the suggestions require an age, or number to be determined. They were purposely stated that way to leave room for a good decision to be made by the lawmakers after proper research/study was done. On the age thing, some have suggested 21, that may be right or it may not be.

Clearly we differ on some restrictions. No problem, we have differing opinions.

Sometimes it seems that you just hate it when we agree on something. 

Copied from the original post:

The only point I've been trying to make is that there are many more firearms, other than the typical AR like rifle, that are a problem. To focus solely on assault weapons is short-sighted and will have, at best, a small impact on gun deaths.

I agree that it's reasonable to limit the typical semi auto hunting rifle to 5 rounds or less.

Raise the age on purchases of non-hunting firearms, tighten up the application process, hammer anyone caught making a straw purchase (maybe some law that says after buying X? firearms a year one has to prove they still have them in their possession, have paperwork documenting the transfer, or if lost or stolen a police report is required), mandatory severe jail time if caught with a stolen firearm, laws requiring owners to be more responsible with managing/storing the weapon, confiscation if mental health becomes an issue, red flag laws, significantly higher training requirements to obtain a concealed weapons permit and ongoing training to keep it, liability laws/exposure for dealers that make errors, strengthen the requirements to obtain and retain an FFL license by requiring a minimum number of transactions per year, special application process for any long gun that can hold more than xx rounds in a magazine, shotguns that hold more than 6 rounds should be considered assault weapons, limit mag capacity with pistols to 10-12 rounds, mandatory prison sentence of 10 years for any crime committed with a gun, etc. etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
2 minutes ago, billeisele said:

The only point I've been trying to make is that there are many more firearms, other than the typical AR like rifle, that are a problem. To focus solely on assault weapons is short-sighted and will have, at best, a small impact on gun deaths.

While this is true, it's a start. Nobody is saying that is all that needs to be done. Why not start with the low hanging fruit?

Edited by okalb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, billeisele said:

It was a straight answer. It's not my fault that you lack the capacity to see or accept that, or if it wasn't good enough for YOU.

Some of the suggestions require an age, or number to be determined. They were purposely stated that way to leave room for a good decision to be made by the lawmakers after proper research/study was done. On the age thing, some have suggested 21, that may be right or it may not be.

Clearly we differ on some restrictions. No problem, we have differing opinions.

Sometimes it seems that you just hate it when we agree on something. 

Copied from the original post:

The only point I've been trying to make is that there are many more firearms, other than the typical AR like rifle, that are a problem. To focus solely on assault weapons is short-sighted and will have, at best, a small impact on gun deaths.

I agree that it's reasonable to limit the typical semi auto hunting rifle to 5 rounds or less.

Raise the age on purchases of non-hunting firearms, tighten up the application process, hammer anyone caught making a straw purchase (maybe some law that says after buying X? firearms a year one has to prove they still have them in their possession, have paperwork documenting the transfer, or if lost or stolen a police report is required), mandatory severe jail time if caught with a stolen firearm, laws requiring owners to be more responsible with managing/storing the weapon, confiscation if mental health becomes an issue, red flag laws, significantly higher training requirements to obtain a concealed weapons permit and ongoing training to keep it, liability laws/exposure for dealers that make errors, strengthen the requirements to obtain and retain an FFL license by requiring a minimum number of transactions per year, special application process for any long gun that can hold more than xx rounds in a magazine, shotguns that hold more than 6 rounds should be considered assault weapons, limit mag capacity with pistols to 10-12 rounds, mandatory prison sentence of 10 years for any crime committed with a gun, etc. etc.

No it wasn't a straight answer. Asked what value you would place on XX you offer that the value is for lawmakers to figure out. Well, lawmakers didn't make the statement, you did, hence my inquiry into what you thought. So, you'll just need to forgive me if I take your entire list of items as too vague to qualify as anything other than a pretense.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
  1. Ad hominem — Thou shall not attack the person’s character, but the argument.
  2. Straw man fallacy — Thou shall not misrepresent or exaggerate a person’s argument in order to make them easier to attack.
  3. Hasty generalization — Thou shall not use small numbers to represent the whole.
  4. Begging the question — Thou shall not argue thy position by assuming one of its premises is true.
  5. Post Hoc/False cause — Thou shall not claim that because something occurred before, it must be the cause.
  6. False dichotomy — Thou shall not reduce the argument down to two possibilities.
  7. Ad ignorantum — Thou shall not argue that because of our ignorance, claim must be true or false.
  8. Burden of proof reversal — Thou shall not lay the burden of proof onto him that is questioning the claim.
  9. Non sequitur — Thou shall not assume “this” follows “that” when it has no logical connection.
  10. Bandwagon fallacy — Thou shall not claim that because a premise is popular, therefore it must be true.
 

I'll just keep on posting this for your enjoyment. Some of you are improving... Others... Not so much.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Edited by Slim King

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

You still haven't said anything about that well-regulated militia part of the Second. While "ignoring the uncomfortable" isn't on your list, maybe it should be.

Wendy P.

Obviously you don't know what the words "Well Regulated" meant over 200 years ago. That's why I provide a dictionary from the time period to every school I give Constitutions to ... perhaps you need to actually crack a book and see what it actually means.... it's really pretty basic. Since the government has bad @ss weapons then you also should have bad @ss weapons to protect yourselves from a tyrannical government. The guys who wrote it had just done that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

You still haven't said anything about that well-regulated militia part of the Second. While "ignoring the uncomfortable" isn't on your list, maybe it should be.

Wendy P.

Just imagine the discombobulation of the mind for the AR-15 a-totin republican. Who would have to join a militia to own a gun. That the state itself would then "well regulate" their conduct. The horror..the horror.

4 minutes ago, Slim King said:

Obviously you don't know what the words "Well Regulated" meant over 200 years ago. That's why I provide a dictionary from the time period to every school I give Constitutions to ... perhaps you need to actually crack a book and see what it actually means.... it's really pretty basic. Since the government has bad @ss weapons then you also should have bad @ss weapons to protect yourselves from a tyrannical government. The guys who wrote it had just done that.

Makes perfect sense. A .50 cal minigun in a armored vehicle. Better yet a manpad in case you feel that FOX has made the case to shoot down Air-force One.

Its so obvious Wendy. You just don't know your constitution. Please now hang your head in shame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I only said you hadn't commented on it. If you'll recall from your undoubtedly extensive research, part of the justification for the Constitution was the Shays Rebellion, where the federal government couldn't, in fact, control the armed populace. And if militia was how the military was handled in 1789, why should that change, if "well regulated" didn't?

It's just not as simple as either liberals or conservatives would like it to be. And, again from your undoubtedly extensive research, Madison's notes of the Constitutional Convention weren't published in part because the Founders wanted the statutes to be interpreted according to need, rather than according to the specific discussion in the convention

Wendy P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

I only said you hadn't commented on it. If you'll recall from your undoubtedly extensive research, part of the justification for the Constitution was the Shays Rebellion, where the federal government couldn't, in fact, control the armed populace. And if militia was how the military was handled in 1789, why should that change, if "well regulated" didn't?

It's just not as simple as either liberals or conservatives would like it to be. And, again from your undoubtedly extensive research, Madison's notes of the Constitutional Convention weren't published in part because the Founders wanted the statutes to be interpreted according to need, rather than according to the specific discussion in the convention

Wendy P.

So sorry but you need to look up what WELL REGULATED meant at the time .. It doesn't mean "Regulations" as we know it now... It means "Equipped" Did you go to government schools?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, mostly private schools. Only Jr. High was in public school. I did look up what well regulated meant; in good operating order, not necessarily "equipped." That "equipped" could be a part of good operating order is a matter of interpretation.

Wendy P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, wmw999 said:

No, mostly private schools. Only Jr. High was in public school. I did look up what well regulated meant; in good operating order, not necessarily "equipped." That "equipped" could be a part of good operating order is a matter of interpretation.

Wendy P.

Great ... So now you know you were misguided when you thought it actually meant REGULATED.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

And you were misguided when you said it meant equipped.

Wendy P.

Of course it means well equipped. It has NEVER meant "Under regulations" like so many kids of today think. I'll be delivering 900 Constitutions to my sons High School class on Monday for the big celebration of Constitution Day Sept 17th. (Sometime that week) I'm glad you have learned something about the Bill of Rights and what it really means.

Public Law 108-447, Section 111

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

And he'll never admit it.

You're right. Its central to the conservative tribal identity. That conservative alt right has self taught, self corrupted the constitution for several decades now.

They solely interpret it to fit their personal views In a self fulfilling prophecy they mix white identities, religion-christian religion of course, guns and conservationism in equal amounts. They teach it to themselves in their universities, in their forums, their discourse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I find so funny is that on International TV Joe Biden said that no US citizens owned cannons. He did it at least twice that I know of (never heard a retraction). It's a major lie. USA citizens have owned cannons for hundreds of years. Thousands of Americans have owned cannons and still do. I think there is a permit fee of about $250 these days and even that fee is probably Unconstitutional as it Infringes on ownership in the same way a $250 fee would infringe on your right to vote. When the President of the US lies openly on a subject perhaps you should take a look at his agenda. ( I include Trump, Carter, Clinton and both Bush's too) I'll include links by Liberal and Conservative sources for my proof. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/06/28/bidens-false-claim-that-2nd-amendment-bans-cannon-ownership/

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-false-claim-second-amendment-fact-checks ( I don't watch FOX but maybe you do)

Logically you don't own cannons to hunt wild game. In fact anyone who says the 2nd Amendment is about Hunting needs to wake up. The words Hunting, Sportsman, target practice etc are never mentioned. I like the word "equipped" for Jr. High students but you can use  different words (Good operating order) if you choose as long as you no longer pervert the truth. 

Here is a very educational video approved for YouTube ..Less than 5 minutes.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

Eric Holder (Head of the  Department of Justice under Obama) says he used Hollywood, Media Figures and the School System to BRAINWASH (His word) kids about guns!!!!! Over 27 years of brainwashing .. Did he get you? BTW. ... He let a 50 caliber rifle walk to the number one drug dealer in Mexico and then was caught in Contempt of Congress for his lies about it. 300 people died. What a hypocrite.

Edited by Slim King

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

3 3