On 8/17/2022 at 9:03 AM, nauseus said:

If you buy too frequently I'm not surprised,

It doesn't matter how many time you purchase one.  The first time or the 100th time. If buy legally from a legitimate firearms dealer, you are subject to a background check. 

On 8/15/2022 at 7:53 AM, xylophone said:

Thought I would post something from the mouth of the orange clown himself, which I definitely agree with......

 

Really? Every time I purchase a firearm and do a background check, I am investigated by the FBI.

This too shall pass!

4 hours ago, placeholder said:

This is false. Documents have to undergo a specific procedure to certify that they are declassified. 

 

Second a document is not declassified just because the president—or the head of the Public Interest Declassification Board—says it is. It has to go through a formal process, in which the security stamps, tags, or labels are removed. It seems at least some of the documents at Mar-a-Lago did not go through this process; according to the Journal, the FBI removed 11 sets of classified documents, four sets labeled “Top Secret,” one marked “Various classified/TS/SCI documents.”

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/08/what-is-in-trump-mar-a-lago-documents.html

 

Even if the documents were declassified it would still be a crime to remove them if any of the criteria of this law were met:

Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

(b)

Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2071

 

Or you can do like Hillary did. "I had no idea what the C stood for on those documents".  

16 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

FBI agents found dozens of classified documents in Mar-a-Lago search

FBI agents found dozens of classified documents during their search of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago on Monday, sources confirmed to NewsNation.

Investigators discovered classified documents in two areas: Trump’s personal office above a ballroom and in a storage room near the pool.

 

Sources say there were “boxes everywhere,” with some containing Top Secret Sensitive Compartmented Information (TS/SCI). Those are considered some of the highest level of classified documents.

 

Since the documents are so secretive, it’s unknown whether investigators will ever publicly acknowledge what they’re in reference to, let alone release them.

 

https://thehill.com/homenews/3598071-fbi-agents-found-dozens-of-classified-documents-in-mar-a-lago-search-sources/

 

 

Why is the Hill the only news agency reporting this? CNN or Fox not reporting this as of 5 minutes ago.

7 hours ago, Berkshire said:

It's not that Trump lies more than any other President...or even politician.  It's that Trump lies more than any human being who's ever walked the Earth. 

With that comment, you fall right in with them then.

On 8/8/2022 at 7:10 PM, LarrySR said:

Trump has already called on his base to “protest like they never seen before” if he is indicted. 
A sudden increase is security presence at the court houses in NY, GA or DC will indicate the arrest is imminent. 
 

 

Why don't you tell the truth? He has called on people to protest if the Feds to anything illegal!

22 hours ago, placeholder said:

Actually, it's mostly economic problems.  But thanks for imagining that you are the spokesperson for the American people.  What role do you think the Feds can play in suppressing crime. And tell me what administration has been successful in stopping the cartels? As for Afghanistan, it was the Trump administration that negotiated with the Taliban the Aug 31, 2021 withdrawal. 

Wow! you really need to stop drinking the Kool-Aid.

56 minutes ago, gearbox said:

Why profiteering....this is how capitalism works. There is big demand for their products, and that's pushing up the prices, this is how the markets work.

 

A few years ago some of the big Australian gas companies were at the brink of default due to low petrol/gas prices. Some had to raise extra capital to stay afloat. The view from the public was "they took the risks, they should bear the consequences".  Now that the tables have turned, all the quasi capitalists became quasi communists and are demanding the companies share the profits.

The way to bring down prices, is to flood the market with oil.  But, with the U.S. out of the export business, there is no one to fill the void.

9 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Regardless it's an interesting story.

How did it happen that consensual sex like this between uncle and legal age nephew or presumably neice could be punished with 50 years in the hoosegow?

 

Also Martin is an international celebrity. This is definitely a legit news item.

 

I am not condoning what happened. But, I am curious as how they are calling this incest. They are not actually blood relatives. He is kind of like a step uncle.

4 hours ago, ubonjoe said:

If you did a police report for a lost or stolen passport I would think a copy of your passport and it would be accepted. 

Airlines will normally accept any type of ID.

an expired passport is good enough to board a plane for domestic travel. 

On 6/9/2022 at 2:15 AM, JCauto said:

At least you're consistent in your disingenuousness. Great comparison by the way if illustrating my point was your objective (even though it was not). 

First of all, are there REALLY places where you can get a driver's license without a driving test? Please let me know where, so I can get my wife to go and get one as she's failed at hers twice already. But I think you know that there isn't. Here's how to get one in Texas - https://www.dps.texas.gov/section/driver-license/how-apply-texas-driver-license

 

1. US Citizenship or evidence of lawful presence;

2. Texas residency;

3. ID;

4. SSN;

5. Texas vehicle registration for each vehicle you own;

6. Proof of insurance for each vehicle you own;

7. Evidence of completion of Impact Texas Driver if you will be taking a driving test;

8. Six hour adult Driver Education course if you are 18-24 years of age;

9. Application;

10. Appointment;

11. Documentation;

12. Signature;

13. Thumbprints;

14. Photo;

15. Fee;

16. Vision exam;

17. Take and pass the knowledge and driving tests.

 

WOW! Lucky this kid didn't want to drive to the supermarket, he only wanted to buy enough weaponry and ammunition to go and kill over 20 people. Tell you what, let's just accept what Texas accepts as a normal, ordinary, often-used procedure for driving licenses and apply it to guns. That works for me.
 

As a Texas resident myself, your comparison is mute. Do you not know the difference between a class C license and a class A or B?

5 hours ago, JCauto said:

Typical deflection and misdirection - disingenuousness is your calling card. This entire discussion is about allowing civilians to purchase these weapons without restriction and the context is the 18yo who went out on his birthday, bought one and shot up an Elementary School. Remember? Oh yeah!

And even still your response is "I don't believe in licensing", and then go off on a nonsensical argument about different constitutional amendments. Do you think it is the same thing to license people to use a weapon that can kill dozens in a few minutes versus having a license to speak? Of course you don't, you're just throwing stuff at the wall in the hope you don't have to make a logical argument, something you are basically incapable of. I will be charitable and assume there was a typo in your sentence "FYI, I have never purchased a firearm and I have purchased many" which makes no sense. I have never watched an episode of "the View" - I don't watch television at all.

So now that we've wasted time on your nonsensical non-sequitur, let's get back to the question I asked you. You state that you served time in a combat zone, meaning you were a highly trained soldier who had to regularly undertake refresher training in the use of guns and requalify, store the weapons in authorized and secure locations, learn about proper use, fire discipline, etc. With this knowledge, how do you justify providing similar weapons to kids with no training and no requirement to safely store the weapons? Do you think it was a waste of time to train you, and all that was needed was to slap on some camo gear and send you into war? Why do you need training when this kid does not?

You're trying to compare a civilian purchasing a firearm to a person in the military. Not at all the same thing. One is controlled by an arm of the government and the other is thankfully not. 

 Not much difference than someone needing a commercial drivers license (CDL) to drive an oversized vehicle or bus on the highway and a civilian buying a Class A motorhome and not needing anything but a regular drivers license to drive on the nations highways.  Commercial drivers go through a school to learn to drive a truck or bus. They will be given a driving test by the Dept. of Transportation, authorized examiner. A government entity.

But a civilian is free to go about their business without any formal training or driving test . Which driver do you think has a better chance of getting into an accident and killing someone?

 I know you are going to say, Oh! but it's not the same. Well, yes it is.

One is government controlled and one is not. But, both need to take responsibility for their actions. 

On 6/3/2022 at 1:41 AM, HappyExpat57 said:

I take serious issue with a 50/50 gun law revision statement. EVERY poll of EVERY group shows a demonstrated majority approving some form of gun law reform. A recent poll of strictly ONLY gun owners showed the majority are in favor of reform. It's strictly a minority of powerful idiots known as Republican Senators, owned by the NRA via lobbyists, who are against any form of gun regulation.

 

Again, the first line of the 2nd amendment states "A well regulated militia." OK, let's get regulating dammit! Lives are literally at stake.

 I also states, "Shall not be infringed".  Why is that the only amendment that say's that?

On 6/4/2022 at 1:30 AM, JCauto said:

And you have learned nothing from the experience then. If you served, you've seen the horrible damage these weapons can inflict on those shot, you've understood that you only could even serve with those weapons if you were passed initial, regular and update training every single year you served. If you demonstrated poor fire discipline, equipment maintenance or insubordination, you were punished for it. You were continually monitored by your superior officers. You could not take the weapons off base or off duty.

Yet you're totally cool with giving 18yo a right to go buy a semi-auto with similar killing power along with a high capacity magazine without any background check, any training, any obligation to ensure that they're a safe gun user, any licensing, any wait period, any oversight, any storage. No restrictions, let's just give them to everyone who wants one and wonder why all the carnage takes place? How do you justify that position from a logical point of view?

All I stated is that a purchased a new rifle. Look at what you have thus interpreted. You must be a fan of the "View".  I mentioned nothing about an 18 yo. purchasing a gun. Also, mentioned nothing about high capacity magazines. Thou, I must admit. I don't believe in licensing. Would you be in favor of licensing so that you can exercise your 1st amendment rights? Or would the 4th amendment not apply to you because you failed to purchase a 4th amendment license? For your information, I have never purchased a firearm and I have purchased many. Without having to go through a background check. That even includes buying just a lower receiver for an M4 carbine.  Again, I think you listen to the ladies of the View too much.