ATF changes rules all the time. Thats where this story ends up being almost comical. As someone who owns a lot of ATF governed toys, I laugh at their constant changes to definition on a whim.
I have solid core "green-tips". Remember they were almost banned by the ATF.
I have several AR pistols. Remember all the nonsense from the ATF over braces and "shouldering" them.
I have an AR pistol with a binary trigger. The epitome of exploiting an ATF definitions loophole.
They change definitions all the time. Guess they couldn't change one in time here for this case.
Surprised they didn't try.
What I really want them to do, is enforce existing laws on those who break them, rather than constantly making it harder for those who abide by the law to continue to do so.
I agree and understand what you are saying, but these examples are of regulatory classifications, not of how the firearm itself is defined as being a firearm or not being a firearm. That is a big difference. I totally agree about enforcing the existing laws, but that doesn't serve the purpose of pushing more gun control if they don't regularly have criminal gun use now does it? Also as far as I am concerned, as long as you aren't victimizing others, or contributing to the victimization of others, any "loophole" in gun control laws should be used to it its fullest, because the 2nd amendment is an inalienable right, not a permit bestowed upon us by the whim of the ATF. In this particular case, they can't just change the definition without infringing on the ability of people to manufacture firearms for their own personal use. Gun control advocates have been frothing at the mouth to take this right away, and this IMO will be the kind of situation they use to finally end that right. |
|
|
|
|
I have done some forensic analysis on the screen shot image, and it doesn't appear to be edited. Keep in mind it could have easily been generated in HTML and it wouldn't show up using this analysis method. This is something completely out of character for Blazr, and I am of the opinion that if this message was actually sent, that the Blazr account has been compromised. This is something that could easily be verified by Blazr's inability to sign an old address, but given that they have been inactive this probably isn't going to happen. I will be removing them from my trust list for now until this is resolved one way or the other.
|
|
|
|
Apologies if this has already been referenced elsewhere, or is already the case.
This might be prone to abuse. A malicious DT1 member right now can't unilaterally kick someone out from DT2, they need one or more other DT1 members to exclude a DT2 member. In your proposed scenario a DT1 member could keep adding sockpuppets (or just random users who happen to exclude the targeted DT2 member) until they reach their goal. That sounds familiar... |
|
|
|
that is pathetic and lazy
You're such a hypocrit. I've engaged with you on the subpoena thing including digging up all sorts of governmental documents to back up my arguments and then you turned around and said you wouldn't do the same just like a true keyboard warrior who is "pathetic and lazy". You're not interested in the facts, just spreading opinion to convince the sheep to your bias. You claimed congressional subpoenas were not legal documents
You seriously have a reading comprehension issue or only see what confirms your own bias. That's not what I've said at all. I clearly provided an example of past congressional subpoenas and compared them to the letters requesting information they are calling "subpoenas"
Once again, you failed to "prove" anything. I showed you that what you provided was for hearings and not for investigations etc. I also showed straight from the government site that the "form" is only a sample and is meant as a guide as to what should be in the subpoena. It could be written on toilet paper but as long as it had the correct information it would be valid. For someone who claims to know "the law" you're really dense when it comes to this. I then proved proof that committees have wide ranging powers to issue their own subpoenas, which they authorize all on their own through appropriate signatures. I've also provided a link to a senate handbook that presents an subpoena in the form of a letter. The letter from the whitehouse itself acknowledge what you claim isn't a subpoena, is actually a subpoena. I guess you're right though and all that stuff straight from the government is wrong. The fact that you can Google unrelated an non-applicable court cases means nothing. Those cases were regarding a corporation and an individual, not impeachment of a president. One is the state vs a corporation and the other is the legislative vs the executive branch. That is a HUGE difference. It is not my fault you are too ignorant to realize what you think is evidence is a steaming pile of unrelated dog shit. You don't even have the most rudimentary knowledge of law and are just Googling random shit and vomiting it up thinking it means something. Their subpoenas are different. i.e. they're not the same as a legal subpoenas. Really? Looks pretty clear to me you are saying congressional subpoenas are not legal subpoenas. Once again, you have zero actual understanding of what you are arguing. I showed you straight form your OWN LINK an example of an ACTUAL SUBPOENA used in an ACTUAL IMPEACHMENT and then I showed you THE ACTUAL letters the house is calling a "subpoena". A subpoena has requirements of information to be included in order to be a subpoena. Nancy Pelosi can shit in a box and call it a subpoena, that doesn't make it a subpoena. I never said they couldn't issue subpoenas, I said they DIDN'T issue any actual subpoenas. No The White House doesn't acknowledge they are subpoenas. "In letters to State Department employees, the Committees have ominously threatened – without any legal basis and before the Committees even issued a subpoena – that ‘[a]ny failure to appear’ in response to a mere letter request for a deposition ‘shall constitute evidence of obstruction." https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/excerpts-white-house-letter-to-house-democrats-regarding-their-unconstitutional-inquiry/ |
|
|
|
If you weren't too broke to, I would tell you to pay closer attention. I am talking about the phone call. No, it isn't debatable, here are the documents:
You're not talking about the phone call specifically. You're putting up a smoke screen for the sheep. '“The U.S. government had open-source intelligence and was aware as early as February of 2019 that the Ukrainian government was planning to reopen the Burisma investigation,” Solomon said.
Given his past and the "quality" of what he writes in terms of misleading, obfuscating the like, I don't put much credence in what Solomon may say all on it's own. He's just the typical "fake news" person who's intent is to convince sheep to a certain bias. Like you apparently. Besides that, it's all just a smoke screen to try and distract from what was said in the phone call. Trump clearly said if you want more stuff, you need to do this for me/us. So none of what you're saying or posting is applicable. Even his own spokesperson said it was a quid pro quo and he also said they held back aid by the way. Until it can at least be agreed on that Trump's call was a quid pro quo, the discussion cannot move onto the other issue of whether or not it was specifically for political gain or for other interests. Again, are you trying to say Trump some how got high level officials from several agencies to lie for him and cover up some other transcript you claims exists?
I said if they produce a 100% "accurate" one, then one has to wonder if it's been "faked" or not given all the lies and crap that's been going on in the WH. But until it happens, if ever, it's a moot point. Are you so derange in your worship of dear leader that you have reading comprehension issues? You just got done arguing a subpoena is not the same as a legal document
I'm not done but I don't have the time right now to respond to your long drivel that contained nothing factual. Despite all the documentation I've given you that explains congressional subpoenas, you've shown yourself to either be too dense to get it, or you simply want to spread bullshit for the sheep. Also I love the fat that you mirror my language calling you a parrot as you literally accuse me of being a parrot in the same breath.
I figure that one needs to use you're own form of discussion for it to ever sink into your head. So you get to tell me what I am saying now? Well since we are speaking for each other... I really like donkey dicks! What EXACTLY has Solomon published before that you consider "fake news"? Don't just make a character attack then not back any of it up, that is pathetic and lazy. You just declaring very relevant facts such as the investigation being reopened before the call, and that Ukraine had no idea the funds were withheld are not applicable doesn't wave a magic wand over them and make it true. You aren't making any arguments, you are just repeating your position and telling me I am wrong and you are right like a true mental midget. You aren't wondering, you are declaring it a fake based on zero evidence. I ask again, do you really believe he some how got all of these agencies to lie for him and cover up some other transcript? There were lots of people listening to that call... You claimed congressional subpoenas were not legal documents, and now you are just claiming I provided no evidence when I clearly provided an example of past congressional subpoenas and compared them to the letters requesting information they are calling "subpoenas" and proved they are in fact not actual subpoenas. If you had even the most rudimentary knowledge of law you would know this, but all you have are character attacks, parrot vomit, and denials. |
|
|
|
Here's the reason they stopped the prosection of him: Federal authorities preferred to let Roh go free rather than have the ruling become final and potentially create case law that could have a crippling effect on the enforcement of gun laws.
Under US District Court Judge James V. Selna's interpretation of the law, convicted felons and other people prohibited from possessing firearms would be allowed to legally acquire all the parts necessary to assemble an AR-15-style rifle and other weapons
So yeah. Let one guy go free who isn't going to cause much more harm because he now knows that he is under constant surveillance -- instead of letting tons of people acquire parts who are convicts. Or... ATF could change a definition, and correct both issues. Do you really want the precedent set that the ATF can just redefine what is legal and not legal? I realize to a certain degree they already do, like for example with bump stocks, but that I think was a dictate via executive order if I remember correctly. I read the article, and it says the person in question had the buyer press the button themselves which would engage the machine to mill the lower receiver. Under the law, that means they manufactured it, not the guy who owns the machine. They could have maybe charged him with some lesser crime of facilitating felons to manufacture firearms or something like that, but technically what he did was actually legal. They dropped the charges for 2 reasons. First of all they don't want people to realize that what he did was legal by pursuing the case and losing, and also as was already stated it would set a precedent legally, making it harder to bring these kinds of cases into court in the future and just hoping for a plea agreement. There is a lot of misdirection going on to distract from the fact that this is a loophole in federal law that could be abused. A lower receiver has always been a "firearm" according to the law and ATF. This exact scenario was predicted a long time ago when Defense Distributed released their "Ghost Gunner" lower receiver milling machine. Anyways, I know you are a LEO, so I assume you probably want the 2nd amendment rights of US citizens protected, but also probably by default want to support law enforcement organizations, especially considering that you are probably one of the first people in line to get shot at in an enforcement action. I in general support law enforcement, I am not one of those people who think its trendy to hate police, but I also think they collectively have been getting out of control on a systemic level, and been lacking accountability to a large degree. The ATF itself has lots of dirty laundry. I wouldn't want a federal bureaucracy redefining firearms laws. I am interested to hear your analysis of this. |
|
|
|
You should be embarrassed to keep floating this type of sensationalist garbage. The fact that you think it bears any type of credibility leads me to believe you're perhaps not as smart or wise as you think you are. https://www.scribd.com/user/259237201/JohnSolomon/uploads'“The U.S. government had open-source intelligence and was aware as early as February of 2019 that the Ukrainian government was planning to reopen the Burisma investigation,” Solomon said. This is long before the president ever imagined having a call with President [Volodymyr] Zelensky,” he added, calling the development a “significant shift in the factual timeline.”' So fucking what? The Burisma investigation never had anything to do with Hunter Biden. What do you think they are going to find? Hunter was unqualified for the job? That's not a crime. TL;DR "I'm right, you're wrong, because I say so. In fact I am so right I don't even need to make an argument and can rely solely on character attacks." |
|
|
|
As someone who lives in NY and personally watched the towers burn for days, i find it hard to believe the conspiracy theories. The suffering and death was clearly an act of complete hatred meant to kill and maim as many as possible. I knew 5 people who died that day. One just died a year ago due to exposure to the toxic dust. Sorry, but this is not an argument at all and is no more than an appeal to authority fallacy. I am sorry your friends suffered but none of this substantiates your claims about the cause. Additionally don't you think your very personal involvement creates quite an emotional bias over the situation? The laws of physics didn't simply cease to exist that day. We can argue endlessly about who was behind it, but it is factually observable using physics that it didn't happen as reported. |
|
|
|
Lots of character attacks and drooling. I know you have a rock hard tiny boner for me Nutilduhh, never missing an opportunity to fling turds like a chimp contributing nothing to the actual discussion, but this really is sad. Speaking of things you don't understand, Tim Pool is a well known liberal, not that attacking his lean is an argument, but don't let that get in the way of your frothing bias. Also, people who throw the term "incel" around frivolously as an insult are extremely pathetic. If you were around in the 1920s US you would be the type of guy screaming about how "marijuana makes negros go crazy and rape white women." |
|
|
|
Talking about the phone call being a quid pro quo. Pay attention. I know it's hard for you but I was talking about the phone call which is what triggered all this. As for Ukraine not knowing, that's certainly debatable unless you've been in a cave and not paying attention to what's been coming out about what was going on prior to the phone call.
The transcript says right on it that it's not completely accurate so once again you show your ignorance of the facts. I'm coming to the conclusion you don't know what's going on at all but just parrot talking points like a good little sheep. If you weren't too broke to, I would tell you to pay closer attention. I am talking about the phone call. No, it isn't debatable, here are the documents: https://www.scribd.com/user/259237201/JohnSolomon/uploads'“The U.S. government had open-source intelligence and was aware as early as February of 2019 that the Ukrainian government was planning to reopen the Burisma investigation,” Solomon said. This is long before the president ever imagined having a call with President [Volodymyr] Zelensky,” he added, calling the development a “significant shift in the factual timeline.”' https://www.westernjournal.com/document-shows-ukraine-reopened-probe-hunter-bidens-company-trump-phone-call-report/Again, are you trying to say Trump some how got high level officials from several agencies to lie for him and cover up some other transcript you claims exists? You just got done arguing a subpoena is not the same as a legal document, but I am ignorant eh? HAHA! Also I love the fact that you mirror my language calling you a parrot as you literally accuse me of being a parrot in the same breath. Very convincing cupcake. |
|
|
|
Attacking a source is not a valid form of debate when you refuse to address any of the content. Independent news media is far more reliable than CNN, ABC, etc. I hear ABC just released new footage of the Kurds being slaughtered in Syria though. Someone says they'd like to buy something from you and you immediately tell them you want them to do a favor for you though. If you have a problem comprehending how that isn't a quid pro quo, then I feel sorry for you cause you must be damn easy to manipulate and take advantage of.
If Trump had just said he'd like a favor and didn't say "though", then maybe (although it's still a stretch to not see what's there unless you support dear leader in all things regardless) one could try and make the argument it wasn't.
Here's something I noted that I haven't seen anyone clue into yet. When it comes to manipulating the media, he's brilliant. One day he said the transcript was an exact word for word record of the call or something like that. Of course all the media jumped on that and pointed out it's not. And they've kept doing that since then. It wouldn't surprise me if, assuming the "real" one gets released, it turns out to be a bit different and it's different enough that it muddies the water. Course with Trump I wouldn't past him to forge some transcript but I guess we'll see what happens. Only one problem with your fairy tale. Ukraine first of all reopened the investigation in like April. Second Ukraine was not even informed the funds were being held up, thus it is literally impossible for there to have been a quid pro quo, implied or otherwise. Also the transcript is fake now? What part of your cavernous anus did you pull that from? Do you really think Trump was able to get dozens of people across several agencies to lie for him to cover up "the real transcript? I hear Tony The Tiger is opening a whistle blower filing too. |
|
|
|
"A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7" "The principal conclusion of our study is that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering firms that studied the collapse. The secondary conclusion of our study is that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building." http://ine.uaf.edu/wtc7 |
|
|
|
Yeah. I feel like this goes without saying. What would happen if Zelensky was like "yeah, Trump totally pressured me into investigating Biden." Trump would have a tantrum and Ukraine would suffer. Of course, this goes without saying, but when Biden explicitly says he did it on camera, well lets not jump to conclusions...  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
