The Idiot Thread
Comments
-
Because YouTube videos are never doctored nor misrepresent reality.PJPOWER said:
No evidence of that whatsoever ever in the video. Looks like a fully functional ar-15 to me. She is just saying that after the fact in a weak effort to cover her ass. Anyways, it’s up to the ATF to decide now as literally thousands of people have already reported her.Halifax2TheMax said:
It seems you missed the part, “it was inoperable before I cut it.” Also, do you believe every gun owner knows all “basic” gun laws prior to or during gun ownership?jeffbr said:
Well, I would agree in general and on the surface. But what you're saying is that it is OK to commit a crime as long as your intentions are good. That isn't how the rule of law works. She could have gone about this differently. She could have truly rendered the firearm inoperable to start with, and there would have been no issue. She could have ignorantly committed the federal offense privately, and taken the pieces to law enforcement, and it would be a non-issue. But she decided to publicly commit the crime and document it on video. If she'd simply cut the firearm in half this would be a non-issue. But she cut the barrel off. Anyone with a vague notion about gun laws knows that is a no-no. If she owned a firearm and was ignorant of one of the most basic laws, that is on her and she probably never should have possessed it. She may have cut the barrel off, and then proceeded to cut it into smaller pieces, but she still shortened the barrel of a functional firearm. Cut it in half first, and then cut those halves into smaller pieces. It may seem like a minor point, but again, publicly violating a well-known federal firearms law puts you in Trump-stupid territory.dignin said:Common sense is gone if anyone thinks this woman should be penalized for destroying that gun. Idiot thread indeed.09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
I totally agree, 100%jeffbr said:
I did miss that part, and I'd be curious to know how it was rendered inoperable prior to her modification. Was it inoperable because she didn't have a round in the chamber?Halifax2TheMax said:
It seems you missed the part, “it was inoperable before I cut it.” Also, do you believe every gun owner knows all “basic” gun laws prior to or during gun ownership?jeffbr said:
Well, I would agree in general and on the surface. But what you're saying is that it is OK to commit a crime as long as your intentions are good. That isn't how the rule of law works. She could have gone about this differently. She could have truly rendered the firearm inoperable to start with, and there would have been no issue. She could have ignorantly committed the federal offense privately, and taken the pieces to law enforcement, and it would be a non-issue. But she decided to publicly commit the crime and document it on video. If she'd simply cut the firearm in half this would be a non-issue. But she cut the barrel off. Anyone with a vague notion about gun laws knows that is a no-no. If she owned a firearm and was ignorant of one of the most basic laws, that is on her and she probably never should have possessed it. She may have cut the barrel off, and then proceeded to cut it into smaller pieces, but she still shortened the barrel of a functional firearm. Cut it in half first, and then cut those halves into smaller pieces. It may seem like a minor point, but again, publicly violating a well-known federal firearms law puts you in Trump-stupid territory.dignin said:Common sense is gone if anyone thinks this woman should be penalized for destroying that gun. Idiot thread indeed.
And yes, I believe every gun owner should know basic gun laws. Ignorance is not a valid legal defense.0 -
I get what you're saying, but the meth analogy isn't working. Meth is never legal to begin with so even owning the supplies with the intent to manufacture meth is illegal before you even start. Intent does matter in that instance and it also matters when courts and LE agencies consider what action to take or how to charge a crime. If you wanted to argue that she should have made a disclaimer about how cutting off the barrel is illegal so the ignorant non gun owners understood they shouldn't just go around cutting down guns, then I can get behind that, but your intent (there's that word againPJPOWER said:
No, she is displaying even more incompetence. The gun was attached to the lower receiver in the video, so there is no proof of it being an inoperable firearm. She is just in “cover your ass” mode now. And once again, it doesn’t matter what she intended to do with it afterwards. The law has no “intent” clause. Legally, it is just like someone manufacturing meth and “intending” to destroy or give it to police afterwards. If she was responsible, she would have recorded a video of how to legally destroy it...She can kiss her political career bye bye.dignin said:PJPOWER said:
Well, maybe if she had destroyed it before turning it into an SBR. All she did in the video was turn it into an illegal firearm, not destroy it.dignin said:Common sense is gone if anyone thinks this woman should be penalized for destroying that gun. Idiot thread indeed.
"I knew exactly what I was doing. The gun was inoperable before I cut it. And we took it completely apart. And we didn't put all that on video because I wanted to get the message to the students that I was standing with them," said Mallard.http://wtkr.com/2018/03/08/i-knew-exactly-what-i-was-doing-congressional-candidate-saws-ar-15-apart/Virginia Beach Police confirmed Thursday afternoon the gun was in their possession and waiting to be picked up by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
Seriously, common sense. This is a dumb story.
) here seems more about sticking it to the anti-gun owners.
Personally, I don't give a shit, but just my observation. I'm more concerned about the gun owner who makes a youtube video showing how much of a killing machine their AR is. That is idiotic.
It's a hopeless situation...0 -
No, my intent is to hold politicians to the same legal standards as any other citizen. The people trying to make laws should know the fucking laws in the first place. I think the meth argument still holds pretty true. If you make meth and turn it into police, are they just going to say “thank you for your honesty kind sir”? I think not.tbergs said:
I get what you're saying, but the meth analogy isn't working. Meth is never legal to begin with so even owning the supplies with the intent to manufacture meth is illegal before you even start. Intent does matter in that instance and it also matters when courts and LE agencies consider what action to take or how to charge a crime. If you wanted to argue that she should have made a disclaimer about how cutting off the barrel is illegal so the ignorant non gun owners understood they shouldn't just go around cutting down guns, then I can get behind that, but your intent (there's that word againPJPOWER said:
No, she is displaying even more incompetence. The gun was attached to the lower receiver in the video, so there is no proof of it being an inoperable firearm. She is just in “cover your ass” mode now. And once again, it doesn’t matter what she intended to do with it afterwards. The law has no “intent” clause. Legally, it is just like someone manufacturing meth and “intending” to destroy or give it to police afterwards. If she was responsible, she would have recorded a video of how to legally destroy it...She can kiss her political career bye bye.dignin said:PJPOWER said:
Well, maybe if she had destroyed it before turning it into an SBR. All she did in the video was turn it into an illegal firearm, not destroy it.dignin said:Common sense is gone if anyone thinks this woman should be penalized for destroying that gun. Idiot thread indeed.
"I knew exactly what I was doing. The gun was inoperable before I cut it. And we took it completely apart. And we didn't put all that on video because I wanted to get the message to the students that I was standing with them," said Mallard.http://wtkr.com/2018/03/08/i-knew-exactly-what-i-was-doing-congressional-candidate-saws-ar-15-apart/Virginia Beach Police confirmed Thursday afternoon the gun was in their possession and waiting to be picked up by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
Seriously, common sense. This is a dumb story.) here seems more about sticking it to the anti-gun owners.
Personally, I don't give a shit, but just my observation. I'm more concerned about the gun owner who makes a youtube video showing how much of a killing machine their AR is. That is idiotic.
And if those gun owners you are talking about did something illegal in their video, I would call them out all the same.Post edited by PJPOWER on0 -
Comparing this woman to a drug manufacturer? That is insane. You only give a shit because because she is a democrat and the daily caller told you you should give a shit.PJPOWER said:
No, my intent is to hold politicians to the same legal standards as any other citizen. The people trying to make laws should know the fucking laws in the first place. I think the meth argument still holds pretty true. If you make meth and turn it into police, are they just going to say “thank you for your honesty kind sir”? I think not.tbergs said:
I get what you're saying, but the meth analogy isn't working. Meth is never legal to begin with so even owning the supplies with the intent to manufacture meth is illegal before you even start. Intent does matter in that instance and it also matters when courts and LE agencies consider what action to take or how to charge a crime. If you wanted to argue that she should have made a disclaimer about how cutting off the barrel is illegal so the ignorant non gun owners understood they shouldn't just go around cutting down guns, then I can get behind that, but your intent (there's that word againPJPOWER said:
No, she is displaying even more incompetence. The gun was attached to the lower receiver in the video, so there is no proof of it being an inoperable firearm. She is just in “cover your ass” mode now. And once again, it doesn’t matter what she intended to do with it afterwards. The law has no “intent” clause. Legally, it is just like someone manufacturing meth and “intending” to destroy or give it to police afterwards. If she was responsible, she would have recorded a video of how to legally destroy it...She can kiss her political career bye bye.dignin said:PJPOWER said:
Well, maybe if she had destroyed it before turning it into an SBR. All she did in the video was turn it into an illegal firearm, not destroy it.dignin said:Common sense is gone if anyone thinks this woman should be penalized for destroying that gun. Idiot thread indeed.
"I knew exactly what I was doing. The gun was inoperable before I cut it. And we took it completely apart. And we didn't put all that on video because I wanted to get the message to the students that I was standing with them," said Mallard.http://wtkr.com/2018/03/08/i-knew-exactly-what-i-was-doing-congressional-candidate-saws-ar-15-apart/Virginia Beach Police confirmed Thursday afternoon the gun was in their possession and waiting to be picked up by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
Seriously, common sense. This is a dumb story.) here seems more about sticking it to the anti-gun owners.
Personally, I don't give a shit, but just my observation. I'm more concerned about the gun owner who makes a youtube video showing how much of a killing machine their AR is. That is idiotic.
And if those gun owners you are talking about did something illegal in their video, I would call them out all the same.0 -
PJPOWER said:
No evidence of that whatsoever ever in the video. Looks like a fully functional ar-15 to me. She is just saying that after the fact in a weak effort to cover her ass. Anyways, it’s up to the ATF to decide now as literally thousands of people have already reported her.Halifax2TheMax said:
It seems you missed the part, “it was inoperable before I cut it.” Also, do you believe every gun owner knows all “basic” gun laws prior to or during gun ownership?jeffbr said:
Well, I would agree in general and on the surface. But what you're saying is that it is OK to commit a crime as long as your intentions are good. That isn't how the rule of law works. She could have gone about this differently. She could have truly rendered the firearm inoperable to start with, and there would have been no issue. She could have ignorantly committed the federal offense privately, and taken the pieces to law enforcement, and it would be a non-issue. But she decided to publicly commit the crime and document it on video. If she'd simply cut the firearm in half this would be a non-issue. But she cut the barrel off. Anyone with a vague notion about gun laws knows that is a no-no. If she owned a firearm and was ignorant of one of the most basic laws, that is on her and she probably never should have possessed it. She may have cut the barrel off, and then proceeded to cut it into smaller pieces, but she still shortened the barrel of a functional firearm. Cut it in half first, and then cut those halves into smaller pieces. It may seem like a minor point, but again, publicly violating a well-known federal firearms law puts you in Trump-stupid territory.dignin said:Common sense is gone if anyone thinks this woman should be penalized for destroying that gun. Idiot thread indeed.
She didn't record it so it must not have happened.
That's what you're going with?
...ok then...0 -
I haven’t even seen the daily caller story, but thanks for projecting. The video was widely in circulation before any news stories about it were released. But you are right, I don’t want this ignorant democrat in office. She is probably a nice person, but she did commit a felony. The same felony committed that was used to attack Ruby Ridge in fact...dignin said:
Comparing this woman to a drug manufacturer? That is insane. You only give a shit because because she is a democrat and the daily caller told you you should give a shit.PJPOWER said:
No, my intent is to hold politicians to the same legal standards as any other citizen. The people trying to make laws should know the fucking laws in the first place. I think the meth argument still holds pretty true. If you make meth and turn it into police, are they just going to say “thank you for your honesty kind sir”? I think not.tbergs said:
I get what you're saying, but the meth analogy isn't working. Meth is never legal to begin with so even owning the supplies with the intent to manufacture meth is illegal before you even start. Intent does matter in that instance and it also matters when courts and LE agencies consider what action to take or how to charge a crime. If you wanted to argue that she should have made a disclaimer about how cutting off the barrel is illegal so the ignorant non gun owners understood they shouldn't just go around cutting down guns, then I can get behind that, but your intent (there's that word againPJPOWER said:
No, she is displaying even more incompetence. The gun was attached to the lower receiver in the video, so there is no proof of it being an inoperable firearm. She is just in “cover your ass” mode now. And once again, it doesn’t matter what she intended to do with it afterwards. The law has no “intent” clause. Legally, it is just like someone manufacturing meth and “intending” to destroy or give it to police afterwards. If she was responsible, she would have recorded a video of how to legally destroy it...She can kiss her political career bye bye.dignin said:PJPOWER said:
Well, maybe if she had destroyed it before turning it into an SBR. All she did in the video was turn it into an illegal firearm, not destroy it.dignin said:Common sense is gone if anyone thinks this woman should be penalized for destroying that gun. Idiot thread indeed.
"I knew exactly what I was doing. The gun was inoperable before I cut it. And we took it completely apart. And we didn't put all that on video because I wanted to get the message to the students that I was standing with them," said Mallard.http://wtkr.com/2018/03/08/i-knew-exactly-what-i-was-doing-congressional-candidate-saws-ar-15-apart/Virginia Beach Police confirmed Thursday afternoon the gun was in their possession and waiting to be picked up by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
Seriously, common sense. This is a dumb story.) here seems more about sticking it to the anti-gun owners.
Personally, I don't give a shit, but just my observation. I'm more concerned about the gun owner who makes a youtube video showing how much of a killing machine their AR is. That is idiotic.
And if those gun owners you are talking about did something illegal in their video, I would call them out all the same.
If you are a Democrat, you should be putting people like this in check as well as this ignorance is what has the potential of undermining any gun-control measures.
Post edited by PJPOWER on0 -
Well I guess she is guilty of this heinous crime because you said so. I will be waiting in earnest for the results of this important investigation. I'm sure they have a whole task force dedicated to it.PJPOWER said:
I haven’t even seen the daily caller story, but thanks for projecting. The video was widely in circulation before any news stories about it were released. But you are right, I don’t want this ignorant democrat in office. She is probably a nice person, but she did commit a felony.dignin said:
Comparing this woman to a drug manufacturer? That is insane. You only give a shit because because she is a democrat and the daily caller told you you should give a shit.PJPOWER said:
No, my intent is to hold politicians to the same legal standards as any other citizen. The people trying to make laws should know the fucking laws in the first place. I think the meth argument still holds pretty true. If you make meth and turn it into police, are they just going to say “thank you for your honesty kind sir”? I think not.tbergs said:
I get what you're saying, but the meth analogy isn't working. Meth is never legal to begin with so even owning the supplies with the intent to manufacture meth is illegal before you even start. Intent does matter in that instance and it also matters when courts and LE agencies consider what action to take or how to charge a crime. If you wanted to argue that she should have made a disclaimer about how cutting off the barrel is illegal so the ignorant non gun owners understood they shouldn't just go around cutting down guns, then I can get behind that, but your intent (there's that word againPJPOWER said:
No, she is displaying even more incompetence. The gun was attached to the lower receiver in the video, so there is no proof of it being an inoperable firearm. She is just in “cover your ass” mode now. And once again, it doesn’t matter what she intended to do with it afterwards. The law has no “intent” clause. Legally, it is just like someone manufacturing meth and “intending” to destroy or give it to police afterwards. If she was responsible, she would have recorded a video of how to legally destroy it...She can kiss her political career bye bye.dignin said:PJPOWER said:
Well, maybe if she had destroyed it before turning it into an SBR. All she did in the video was turn it into an illegal firearm, not destroy it.dignin said:Common sense is gone if anyone thinks this woman should be penalized for destroying that gun. Idiot thread indeed.
"I knew exactly what I was doing. The gun was inoperable before I cut it. And we took it completely apart. And we didn't put all that on video because I wanted to get the message to the students that I was standing with them," said Mallard.http://wtkr.com/2018/03/08/i-knew-exactly-what-i-was-doing-congressional-candidate-saws-ar-15-apart/Virginia Beach Police confirmed Thursday afternoon the gun was in their possession and waiting to be picked up by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
Seriously, common sense. This is a dumb story.) here seems more about sticking it to the anti-gun owners.
Personally, I don't give a shit, but just my observation. I'm more concerned about the gun owner who makes a youtube video showing how much of a killing machine their AR is. That is idiotic.
And if those gun owners you are talking about did something illegal in their video, I would call them out all the same.
I love the idiot thread.0 -
you don't get to break laws because your intentions were pure.By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0
-
A whole task force for investigation of gun crimes? I bet they do too. Yes, the idiot thread is very interesting indeed...dignin said:
Well I guess she is guilty of this heinous crime because you said so. I will be waiting in earnest for the results of this important investigation. I'm sure they have a whole task force dedicated to it.PJPOWER said:
I haven’t even seen the daily caller story, but thanks for projecting. The video was widely in circulation before any news stories about it were released. But you are right, I don’t want this ignorant democrat in office. She is probably a nice person, but she did commit a felony.dignin said:
Comparing this woman to a drug manufacturer? That is insane. You only give a shit because because she is a democrat and the daily caller told you you should give a shit.PJPOWER said:
No, my intent is to hold politicians to the same legal standards as any other citizen. The people trying to make laws should know the fucking laws in the first place. I think the meth argument still holds pretty true. If you make meth and turn it into police, are they just going to say “thank you for your honesty kind sir”? I think not.tbergs said:
I get what you're saying, but the meth analogy isn't working. Meth is never legal to begin with so even owning the supplies with the intent to manufacture meth is illegal before you even start. Intent does matter in that instance and it also matters when courts and LE agencies consider what action to take or how to charge a crime. If you wanted to argue that she should have made a disclaimer about how cutting off the barrel is illegal so the ignorant non gun owners understood they shouldn't just go around cutting down guns, then I can get behind that, but your intent (there's that word againPJPOWER said:
No, she is displaying even more incompetence. The gun was attached to the lower receiver in the video, so there is no proof of it being an inoperable firearm. She is just in “cover your ass” mode now. And once again, it doesn’t matter what she intended to do with it afterwards. The law has no “intent” clause. Legally, it is just like someone manufacturing meth and “intending” to destroy or give it to police afterwards. If she was responsible, she would have recorded a video of how to legally destroy it...She can kiss her political career bye bye.dignin said:PJPOWER said:
Well, maybe if she had destroyed it before turning it into an SBR. All she did in the video was turn it into an illegal firearm, not destroy it.dignin said:Common sense is gone if anyone thinks this woman should be penalized for destroying that gun. Idiot thread indeed.
"I knew exactly what I was doing. The gun was inoperable before I cut it. And we took it completely apart. And we didn't put all that on video because I wanted to get the message to the students that I was standing with them," said Mallard.http://wtkr.com/2018/03/08/i-knew-exactly-what-i-was-doing-congressional-candidate-saws-ar-15-apart/Virginia Beach Police confirmed Thursday afternoon the gun was in their possession and waiting to be picked up by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
Seriously, common sense. This is a dumb story.) here seems more about sticking it to the anti-gun owners.
Personally, I don't give a shit, but just my observation. I'm more concerned about the gun owner who makes a youtube video showing how much of a killing machine their AR is. That is idiotic.
And if those gun owners you are talking about did something illegal in their video, I would call them out all the same.
I love the idiot thread.
Sounds like you care nothing about gun laws. Don’t worry, I’m sure nothing will happen to this ignorant grandstander, but she will be used as an example by people apposing legislation for years to come. The left should really put idiots like her in check...0 -
if Kellyanne Conway was caught with a bag of cocaine on her, and she tried to claim she found it and was on her way to turning into police, would you take her word for it? Whether she was telling the truth is irrelevant. would you believe her?CM189191 said:PJPOWER said:
No evidence of that whatsoever ever in the video. Looks like a fully functional ar-15 to me. She is just saying that after the fact in a weak effort to cover her ass. Anyways, it’s up to the ATF to decide now as literally thousands of people have already reported her.Halifax2TheMax said:
It seems you missed the part, “it was inoperable before I cut it.” Also, do you believe every gun owner knows all “basic” gun laws prior to or during gun ownership?jeffbr said:
Well, I would agree in general and on the surface. But what you're saying is that it is OK to commit a crime as long as your intentions are good. That isn't how the rule of law works. She could have gone about this differently. She could have truly rendered the firearm inoperable to start with, and there would have been no issue. She could have ignorantly committed the federal offense privately, and taken the pieces to law enforcement, and it would be a non-issue. But she decided to publicly commit the crime and document it on video. If she'd simply cut the firearm in half this would be a non-issue. But she cut the barrel off. Anyone with a vague notion about gun laws knows that is a no-no. If she owned a firearm and was ignorant of one of the most basic laws, that is on her and she probably never should have possessed it. She may have cut the barrel off, and then proceeded to cut it into smaller pieces, but she still shortened the barrel of a functional firearm. Cut it in half first, and then cut those halves into smaller pieces. It may seem like a minor point, but again, publicly violating a well-known federal firearms law puts you in Trump-stupid territory.dignin said:Common sense is gone if anyone thinks this woman should be penalized for destroying that gun. Idiot thread indeed.
She didn't record it so it must not have happened.
That's what you're going with?
...ok then...
I find it very interesting how quickly people are defending this woman. Isn't the law the law? Shouldn't our politicians be held to a standard of at LEAST not breaking the law, especially when it relates to proper handling and storage of a firearms?By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
Has she been indicted as a result of evidence gathered during a law enforcement investigation and presented to a grand jury with an indictment specifying which laws were violated?HughFreakingDillon said:you don't get to break laws because your intentions were pure.09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
has trump?Halifax2TheMax said:
Has she been indicted as a result of evidence gathered during a law enforcement investigation and presented to a grand jury with an indictment specifying which laws were violated?HughFreakingDillon said:you don't get to break laws because your intentions were pure.By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
She said it happened, so it must have...even though there is video evidence point to the contrary...Is that where you are going with this? Keep defending the felon.CM189191 said:PJPOWER said:
No evidence of that whatsoever ever in the video. Looks like a fully functional ar-15 to me. She is just saying that after the fact in a weak effort to cover her ass. Anyways, it’s up to the ATF to decide now as literally thousands of people have already reported her.Halifax2TheMax said:
It seems you missed the part, “it was inoperable before I cut it.” Also, do you believe every gun owner knows all “basic” gun laws prior to or during gun ownership?jeffbr said:
Well, I would agree in general and on the surface. But what you're saying is that it is OK to commit a crime as long as your intentions are good. That isn't how the rule of law works. She could have gone about this differently. She could have truly rendered the firearm inoperable to start with, and there would have been no issue. She could have ignorantly committed the federal offense privately, and taken the pieces to law enforcement, and it would be a non-issue. But she decided to publicly commit the crime and document it on video. If she'd simply cut the firearm in half this would be a non-issue. But she cut the barrel off. Anyone with a vague notion about gun laws knows that is a no-no. If she owned a firearm and was ignorant of one of the most basic laws, that is on her and she probably never should have possessed it. She may have cut the barrel off, and then proceeded to cut it into smaller pieces, but she still shortened the barrel of a functional firearm. Cut it in half first, and then cut those halves into smaller pieces. It may seem like a minor point, but again, publicly violating a well-known federal firearms law puts you in Trump-stupid territory.dignin said:Common sense is gone if anyone thinks this woman should be penalized for destroying that gun. Idiot thread indeed.
She didn't record it so it must not have happened.
That's what you're going with?
...ok then...0 -
Way more smoke there and a history of violating the law with indictments and guilty pleas among those close to him. I’m not sure you can claim the same in this instance. Apples and oranges. Team Trump Treason will be indicted.HughFreakingDillon said:
has trump?Halifax2TheMax said:
Has she been indicted as a result of evidence gathered during a law enforcement investigation and presented to a grand jury with an indictment specifying which laws were violated?HughFreakingDillon said:you don't get to break laws because your intentions were pure.09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
Again with the terrible drug analogies.HughFreakingDillon said:
if Kellyanne Conway was caught with a bag of cocaine on her, and she tried to claim she found it and was on her way to turning into police, would you take her word for it? Whether she was telling the truth is irrelevant. would you believe her?CM189191 said:PJPOWER said:
No evidence of that whatsoever ever in the video. Looks like a fully functional ar-15 to me. She is just saying that after the fact in a weak effort to cover her ass. Anyways, it’s up to the ATF to decide now as literally thousands of people have already reported her.Halifax2TheMax said:
It seems you missed the part, “it was inoperable before I cut it.” Also, do you believe every gun owner knows all “basic” gun laws prior to or during gun ownership?jeffbr said:
Well, I would agree in general and on the surface. But what you're saying is that it is OK to commit a crime as long as your intentions are good. That isn't how the rule of law works. She could have gone about this differently. She could have truly rendered the firearm inoperable to start with, and there would have been no issue. She could have ignorantly committed the federal offense privately, and taken the pieces to law enforcement, and it would be a non-issue. But she decided to publicly commit the crime and document it on video. If she'd simply cut the firearm in half this would be a non-issue. But she cut the barrel off. Anyone with a vague notion about gun laws knows that is a no-no. If she owned a firearm and was ignorant of one of the most basic laws, that is on her and she probably never should have possessed it. She may have cut the barrel off, and then proceeded to cut it into smaller pieces, but she still shortened the barrel of a functional firearm. Cut it in half first, and then cut those halves into smaller pieces. It may seem like a minor point, but again, publicly violating a well-known federal firearms law puts you in Trump-stupid territory.dignin said:Common sense is gone if anyone thinks this woman should be penalized for destroying that gun. Idiot thread indeed.
She didn't record it so it must not have happened.
That's what you're going with?
...ok then...
I find it very interesting how quickly people are defending this woman. Isn't the law the law? Shouldn't our politicians be held to a standard of at LEAST not breaking the law, especially when it relates to proper handling and storage of a firearms?0 -
change "bag of cocaine" with "modified AR-15" then.dignin said:
Again with the terrible drug analogies.HughFreakingDillon said:
if Kellyanne Conway was caught with a bag of cocaine on her, and she tried to claim she found it and was on her way to turning into police, would you take her word for it? Whether she was telling the truth is irrelevant. would you believe her?CM189191 said:PJPOWER said:
No evidence of that whatsoever ever in the video. Looks like a fully functional ar-15 to me. She is just saying that after the fact in a weak effort to cover her ass. Anyways, it’s up to the ATF to decide now as literally thousands of people have already reported her.Halifax2TheMax said:
It seems you missed the part, “it was inoperable before I cut it.” Also, do you believe every gun owner knows all “basic” gun laws prior to or during gun ownership?jeffbr said:
Well, I would agree in general and on the surface. But what you're saying is that it is OK to commit a crime as long as your intentions are good. That isn't how the rule of law works. She could have gone about this differently. She could have truly rendered the firearm inoperable to start with, and there would have been no issue. She could have ignorantly committed the federal offense privately, and taken the pieces to law enforcement, and it would be a non-issue. But she decided to publicly commit the crime and document it on video. If she'd simply cut the firearm in half this would be a non-issue. But she cut the barrel off. Anyone with a vague notion about gun laws knows that is a no-no. If she owned a firearm and was ignorant of one of the most basic laws, that is on her and she probably never should have possessed it. She may have cut the barrel off, and then proceeded to cut it into smaller pieces, but she still shortened the barrel of a functional firearm. Cut it in half first, and then cut those halves into smaller pieces. It may seem like a minor point, but again, publicly violating a well-known federal firearms law puts you in Trump-stupid territory.dignin said:Common sense is gone if anyone thinks this woman should be penalized for destroying that gun. Idiot thread indeed.
She didn't record it so it must not have happened.
That's what you're going with?
...ok then...
I find it very interesting how quickly people are defending this woman. Isn't the law the law? Shouldn't our politicians be held to a standard of at LEAST not breaking the law, especially when it relates to proper handling and storage of a firearms?By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
So you don’t believe someone committing a class 1 felony and posting it online should be prosecuted for said felony...got it, moving on...dignin said:
Again with the terrible drug analogies.HughFreakingDillon said:
if Kellyanne Conway was caught with a bag of cocaine on her, and she tried to claim she found it and was on her way to turning into police, would you take her word for it? Whether she was telling the truth is irrelevant. would you believe her?CM189191 said:PJPOWER said:
No evidence of that whatsoever ever in the video. Looks like a fully functional ar-15 to me. She is just saying that after the fact in a weak effort to cover her ass. Anyways, it’s up to the ATF to decide now as literally thousands of people have already reported her.Halifax2TheMax said:
It seems you missed the part, “it was inoperable before I cut it.” Also, do you believe every gun owner knows all “basic” gun laws prior to or during gun ownership?jeffbr said:
Well, I would agree in general and on the surface. But what you're saying is that it is OK to commit a crime as long as your intentions are good. That isn't how the rule of law works. She could have gone about this differently. She could have truly rendered the firearm inoperable to start with, and there would have been no issue. She could have ignorantly committed the federal offense privately, and taken the pieces to law enforcement, and it would be a non-issue. But she decided to publicly commit the crime and document it on video. If she'd simply cut the firearm in half this would be a non-issue. But she cut the barrel off. Anyone with a vague notion about gun laws knows that is a no-no. If she owned a firearm and was ignorant of one of the most basic laws, that is on her and she probably never should have possessed it. She may have cut the barrel off, and then proceeded to cut it into smaller pieces, but she still shortened the barrel of a functional firearm. Cut it in half first, and then cut those halves into smaller pieces. It may seem like a minor point, but again, publicly violating a well-known federal firearms law puts you in Trump-stupid territory.dignin said:Common sense is gone if anyone thinks this woman should be penalized for destroying that gun. Idiot thread indeed.
She didn't record it so it must not have happened.
That's what you're going with?
...ok then...
I find it very interesting how quickly people are defending this woman. Isn't the law the law? Shouldn't our politicians be held to a standard of at LEAST not breaking the law, especially when it relates to proper handling and storage of a firearms?0 -
She’d smile and cock her head after claiming it’s fake news or alternative facts.HughFreakingDillon said:
change "bag of cocaine" with "modified AR-15" then.dignin said:
Again with the terrible drug analogies.HughFreakingDillon said:
if Kellyanne Conway was caught with a bag of cocaine on her, and she tried to claim she found it and was on her way to turning into police, would you take her word for it? Whether she was telling the truth is irrelevant. would you believe her?CM189191 said:PJPOWER said:
No evidence of that whatsoever ever in the video. Looks like a fully functional ar-15 to me. She is just saying that after the fact in a weak effort to cover her ass. Anyways, it’s up to the ATF to decide now as literally thousands of people have already reported her.Halifax2TheMax said:
It seems you missed the part, “it was inoperable before I cut it.” Also, do you believe every gun owner knows all “basic” gun laws prior to or during gun ownership?jeffbr said:
Well, I would agree in general and on the surface. But what you're saying is that it is OK to commit a crime as long as your intentions are good. That isn't how the rule of law works. She could have gone about this differently. She could have truly rendered the firearm inoperable to start with, and there would have been no issue. She could have ignorantly committed the federal offense privately, and taken the pieces to law enforcement, and it would be a non-issue. But she decided to publicly commit the crime and document it on video. If she'd simply cut the firearm in half this would be a non-issue. But she cut the barrel off. Anyone with a vague notion about gun laws knows that is a no-no. If she owned a firearm and was ignorant of one of the most basic laws, that is on her and she probably never should have possessed it. She may have cut the barrel off, and then proceeded to cut it into smaller pieces, but she still shortened the barrel of a functional firearm. Cut it in half first, and then cut those halves into smaller pieces. It may seem like a minor point, but again, publicly violating a well-known federal firearms law puts you in Trump-stupid territory.dignin said:Common sense is gone if anyone thinks this woman should be penalized for destroying that gun. Idiot thread indeed.
She didn't record it so it must not have happened.
That's what you're going with?
...ok then...
I find it very interesting how quickly people are defending this woman. Isn't the law the law? Shouldn't our politicians be held to a standard of at LEAST not breaking the law, especially when it relates to proper handling and storage of a firearms?09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
My only point here is the same point the lawyer who was quoted in the story you linked was making:dignin said:
Well I guess she is guilty of this heinous crime because you said so. I will be waiting in earnest for the results of this important investigation. I'm sure they have a whole task force dedicated to it.PJPOWER said:
I haven’t even seen the daily caller story, but thanks for projecting. The video was widely in circulation before any news stories about it were released. But you are right, I don’t want this ignorant democrat in office. She is probably a nice person, but she did commit a felony.dignin said:
Comparing this woman to a drug manufacturer? That is insane. You only give a shit because because she is a democrat and the daily caller told you you should give a shit.PJPOWER said:
No, my intent is to hold politicians to the same legal standards as any other citizen. The people trying to make laws should know the fucking laws in the first place. I think the meth argument still holds pretty true. If you make meth and turn it into police, are they just going to say “thank you for your honesty kind sir”? I think not.tbergs said:
I get what you're saying, but the meth analogy isn't working. Meth is never legal to begin with so even owning the supplies with the intent to manufacture meth is illegal before you even start. Intent does matter in that instance and it also matters when courts and LE agencies consider what action to take or how to charge a crime. If you wanted to argue that she should have made a disclaimer about how cutting off the barrel is illegal so the ignorant non gun owners understood they shouldn't just go around cutting down guns, then I can get behind that, but your intent (there's that word againPJPOWER said:
No, she is displaying even more incompetence. The gun was attached to the lower receiver in the video, so there is no proof of it being an inoperable firearm. She is just in “cover your ass” mode now. And once again, it doesn’t matter what she intended to do with it afterwards. The law has no “intent” clause. Legally, it is just like someone manufacturing meth and “intending” to destroy or give it to police afterwards. If she was responsible, she would have recorded a video of how to legally destroy it...She can kiss her political career bye bye.dignin said:PJPOWER said:
Well, maybe if she had destroyed it before turning it into an SBR. All she did in the video was turn it into an illegal firearm, not destroy it.dignin said:Common sense is gone if anyone thinks this woman should be penalized for destroying that gun. Idiot thread indeed.
"I knew exactly what I was doing. The gun was inoperable before I cut it. And we took it completely apart. And we didn't put all that on video because I wanted to get the message to the students that I was standing with them," said Mallard.http://wtkr.com/2018/03/08/i-knew-exactly-what-i-was-doing-congressional-candidate-saws-ar-15-apart/Virginia Beach Police confirmed Thursday afternoon the gun was in their possession and waiting to be picked up by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
Seriously, common sense. This is a dumb story.) here seems more about sticking it to the anti-gun owners.
Personally, I don't give a shit, but just my observation. I'm more concerned about the gun owner who makes a youtube video showing how much of a killing machine their AR is. That is idiotic.
And if those gun owners you are talking about did something illegal in their video, I would call them out all the same.
I love the idiot thread.
News 3 reached out to local attorney Eric Leckie and showed him the video. He said, "Sawing off the end of a rifle barrel would probably not destroy it. But if it shortened the barrel to under 16 inches, sawing off the end would make it immediately illegal and it`s a very bad idea," said Leckie.
Somehow, pointing this out, turns one into a gun nut and an idiot, which I don't understand. I haven't seen any right-wing or left-wing articles about this story. I've only seen a couple MSM articles. So my observations are strictly from what was shown in the video. I saw the video before I even read a news story about it, and came to Leckie's conclusion on my own without biased sources for reference. I'm just a little astonished that pointing out a well-known firearms law has been classified as a right-wing, gun-nut talking point."I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/080
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.9K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 275 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help