Page 17 of 30 FirstFirst ... 7151617181927 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 170 of 292

Thread: Why Not to Vote Democrat

  1. #161
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,678
    My brother is a very pro-second amendment, right wing thinking person. He is concerned that if Hunter Biden is prosecuted for this -in his words, relatively minor- federal gun charge, many more people will be, also. So he's in the unenviable position of not really wanting this particular prosecution to go forward, even though he really really does not like the Bidens... It's kind of funny, watching people tie themselves in knots to keep "their" folks in the clear while prosecuting the "others" for the same things. While both sides do this to a degree, the current crop of right-wingers have made it into an art form, lol. We on the left should be taking notes!

  2. #162
    Senior Member JaneV2.0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    15,489
    I'm a strong advocate for free speech, even if I diagree with it. YouTube has a new policy that if whatever medical or nutritional content is featured disagrees with the edicts of the FDA, WHO, and other alphabet agencies, it can be removed. The WHO has a clear vegan agenda--their nutrition page pretends animal products don't even exist. I think veganism, while certaily a choice one can make, is--for most---a nutritionally inadequate subsistance diet. Time will tell how far YT is willing to push this.

  3. #163
    Senior Member bae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Offshore
    Posts
    11,465
    Quote Originally Posted by iris lilies View Post
    So, one of Hunter Biden’s legal charges is a federal gun charge. I have not been paying much attention to the Hunter Biden story, but this makes me wonder what the gun control crowd thinks.
    What was the precise crime he was charged with?

    Politico and several other sources indicate:

    Hunter responded “no” to a question on the transaction record that asks, “Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?”
    That is, he wrote "no" on a single line of the Form 4473, presumably question 11e. This is in fact a crime. I believe violations of this are rarely prosecuted when that is the only crime on the table, but used as bargaining chips for arranging a plea deal. (Indeed, many of our firearms laws are rarely prosecuted, which I find irksome. I'd love to see them spend some more time going after 11(a) on the list, for example...)

    Note that if you are a user of cannabis products, even in a state where such is lawful, you will trip over this line.




  4. #164
    Senior Member JaneV2.0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    15,489
    I woder why oenophiles can't trip over this one, too. Intoxication is intoxication, after all.

  5. #165
    Senior Member bae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Offshore
    Posts
    11,465
    Quote Originally Posted by JaneV2.0 View Post
    I woder why oenophiles can't trip over this one, too. Intoxication is intoxication, after all.
    They do, in theory. In practice though....

  6. #166
    Senior Member bae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Offshore
    Posts
    11,465
    It is very easy to stumble across one of the thousands of existing gun laws and become a felon in other ways.

    I have a Thompson Contender pistol, which is a single-shot, break-open-action handgun, that I used to use for competitive target shooting. You can exchange barrels on it in mere moments, to change to a different length barrel, or to an entirely different cartridge caliber.



    So far so good.

    Thompson also makes a rifle version of the very same firearm, which has a stock, and longer barrels. It uses the exact same receiver as the pistol, and makes a great single-shot hunting rifle, and is similarly versatile in that you can swap barrels to different calibers for different sorts of game or target shooting events:



    Now, here's the rub:

    1) If you put one of your pistol barrels onto your rifle for even a second, you have "manufactured" a short-barreled rifle. This is a federal felony, and likely a state one depending on where you live. So, don't do that.

    2) Also, don't unsnap the rifle stock from the metal receiver, and snap it onto your pistol, or vice versa, or, yet again, you are a felon.

    3) Worse yet, if you *sell* your Thompson pistol and its barrels, but forget that you have an old .22LR barrel for it tucked away in your junk drawer, but continue to own the Thompson rifle, you are now likely a felon, *even if you don't attach the barrel to the rifle*, it's called "constructive possession", and the argument is you have a part in your possession that could be used to construct a "short barreled rifle". People have gone to jail for this, and a brief perusing of the legal databases will show quite a few lawsuits on this topic.

    Go 'Merica!
    Last edited by bae; 8-22-23 at 2:43pm.

  7. #167
    Senior Member iris lilies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Always logged in
    Posts
    25,244
    Quote Originally Posted by JaneV2.0 View Post
    I'm a strong advocate for free speech, even if I diagree with it. YouTube has a new policy that if whatever medical or nutritional content is featured disagrees with the edicts of the FDA, WHO, and other alphabet agencies, it can be removed. The WHO has a clear vegan agenda--their nutrition page pretends animal products don't even exist. I think veganism, while certaily a choice one can make, is--for most---a nutritionally inadequate subsistance diet. Time will tell how far YT is willing to push this.
    Oh yeah, the de-platforming of people who do not espouse the preferred narrative is unsettling.

    This is when I have to remind myself Youtube is not the public square, it is a privately held corporation.
    I am not a serious person.

  8. #168
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    8,276
    Quote Originally Posted by iris lilies View Post
    Oh yeah, the de-platforming of people who do not espouse the preferred narrative is unsettling.

    This is when I have to remind myself Youtube is not the public square, it is a privately held corporation.
    I don’t have a problem with a private platform moderating or not moderating content. I do have a problem with platforms colluding with government to “protect” us. I think there’s more to fear from censorship than misinformation.

  9. #169
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,678
    I think there’s more to fear from censorship than misinformation.
    Maybe. Not a fan of censorship. But to state the obvious - it wasn't censorship that led to Jan 6. So please, don't downplay the misinformation issue. There is MUCH to fear there, also. Historically, I believe (without extensively research, admittedly) lies and misinformation have led to much more evil than censorship has. We need to guard against both, IMHO.

  10. #170
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    8,276
    Quote Originally Posted by early morning View Post
    Maybe. Not a fan of censorship. But to state the obvious - it wasn't censorship that led to Jan 6. So please, don't downplay the misinformation issue. There is MUCH to fear there, also. Historically, I believe (without extensively research, admittedly) lies and misinformation have led to much more evil than censorship has. We need to guard against both, IMHO.
    I think that’s true on an individual basis, but I don’t trust government approved narratives as any kind of solution. I don’t see a constructive role for a Ministry of Truth.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •