DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Republican Cra Cra Again

I guess it flew over your head that when something is illegal and it's made to no longer be illegal, that makes it legal. But I do understand why you may think that's a crazy idea.

Reality exists, you just underestimate the ability of individuals to impact it.

It is what it is. The sheep continue down the chute at the slaughterhouse, and they keep paying for the knives and selecting their own deplorable butchers at the end. Sheep only see a narrow slice of reality and that slice isn't always seen accurately. But to them, what they see is all of reality. (Meh, metaphor is pretty lazy, not going to spend time coming up with better that you won't understand anyways)

You are starting to spiral.

The BUMP act is poorly name (not surprisingly since it comes from a place of spin). Regardless of the bad naming, you still have not read the 2 pages of the proposed bill which, amongst other things, would ban nump stocks.

It is amazing how you can be such an expert in things you have no knowledge, and how fervently you fight to stay ignorant of those things.

And you still can't give a reasonable or viable explanation how a singular candidate other than the two major party nominees could garner the votes to win the 2024 election given the time constraints. All you can do is call reality a narrow slice and those that understand that fact as sheeple.

The only thing you've managed to come up with so far is, "well if people would stop voting for them!", which you know isn't going to happen over the next two months. You also know thwre isn't enough time left to get enough people on the same page to agree on a single candidate to beat the two parties this election.

Your made up superiority complex is shining through once again while yourself can't even explain something you have made up in your own mind.

So your response is that something that was illegal is now legal based on a court ruling, that ruling did not in effect make something that was illegal before, legal now?

That takes a lot of verbal gymnastics to come to that conclusion.

Back to Cra Cra Again.......The House of Representatives has made it government business to keep Steve Bannon out of jail----WOW, our tax dollars at work. The Grand Olde Party thinks keeping a pardoned sleezeball out of prison merits many elected Reps national time- more important than border control, or name it. Damn, how the GOP has fallen.

What's reasonable to you isn't reasonable to someone else.

Doing something you don't want to do because you feel it is the only choice is the act of a sheeple. If you really don't want to make that choice, why aren't you trying harder to make another option possible? It seems to be because you are a sheeple. You'd rather do the easy thing you're told is the only option than try to do something you see as hard or "unlikely."

There's still time. Just have to wake up the human sheep. Unfortunately, these sheep don't realize that they are sheep. Human sheep get offended when you point out that they're just following the directions of their shepherds. They don't realize that they are actually humans which can make their own choices. They seem to like not having to think for themselves.

It's hard to get people that have acted like herd animals for most of their lives to take initiative and personal responsibility. You're a sheep that thinks he's a sheep dog. If you do nothing for months, nothing will change. If you try to do something for the months while things can change, more options could present themselves.

Things don't change because sheep don't try to change them.

You are the meme of the sheep that gets rescued from a ditch only to immediately jump right back in.


Edit:

...Is that why he goes by "Pit"dawg?

Is that you, Pit?

No. That's you spinning again.

Denial seems to be your only partner now. Say it to yourself slowly....

Bump stocks were illegal until after the SCOPUS ruled and now they're legal again.

A fantasy is not reasonable to sane people. Soon we will be four months away from the election. There is no candidate that even has the money to get his or her message out. No campaign organization with which to run with. No platform to sell the people on. No time to reach a consensus by enough voters to elect a different candidate. What you are proposing is that someone has the chance to win THIS election from outside the two major parties. That's the exact opposite of possible. At this stage of the game it's an impossibility. 2028? Possible. 2024? No. Reaity is not your friend on this.

House Republicans back Steve Bannon's Supreme Court appeal

Steve Bannon is praising House Republicans for supporting the former Trump adviser's emergency appeal to the Supreme Court to stay out of prison.

Why it matters: The Trump-aligned America First Legal filed an amicus brief to the high court with Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.) on Wednesday in support of Bannon, who's due to report to prison to serve a four-month sentence by July for defying a congressional subpoena related to the Jan. 6 attack.

The Department of Justice countered in a legal filing to the Supreme Court on Wednesday that Bannon's case doesn't meet the "extraordinary" criteria that would allow him to remain free as he appeals his conviction.

Driving the news: House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said on Fox News' "Hannity" on Tuesday night that House Republicans were "working on filing an amicus brief with his appellate work there in his case because the January 6 committee was, we think, wrongfully constituted."

What he's saying: "Speaker Johnson and House leadership showed tremendous courage in repudiating the illegally constituted J6 Committee and its activities/investigations," Bannon said in a text message to Axios late Tuesday.

The big picture: Republicans have previously pushed back in a report that Democrats labeled as "dishonest" on the work of the select committee investigating the U.S. Capitol riot for its focus on former President Trump, which Johnson on Tuesday described as "tainted."

Johnson told Fox News' Sean Hannity that the GOP was investigating the panel that comprised seven Democrats and two Republicans and that they disagreed with how Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) "put all that together."

He said they believe it "violated House rules" and "so we'll be expressing that to the court, and I think it will help Steve Bannon in his appeal."
That's reflected in the amicus brief that was filed on Wednesday, as House Administration Subcommittee on Oversight chair Laudermilk noted in a statement announcing the legal action.

"The Select Committee failed to comply with the rules governing its own procedure," Laudermilk wrote. "Therefore, the prosecution of Mr. Bannon for failing to appear for a deposition is invalid, as is any criminal prosecution."

Flashback: Bannon was sentenced in 2022 for contempt of Congress after defying a subpoena from the Jan. 6 panel.

He failed to turn over documents or appear for a deposition to the committee, citing executive privilege.

The Jan. 6 panel said in its contempt resolution that Bannon had been a private citizen for more than three years by Jan. 6, 2021.
A federal appeals court upheld his conviction last month.

https://www.axios.com/2024/06/26/speaker-mike-johnson-steve-bannon-supreme-court-appeal

And the trump crime syndicate rolls on.

You assume your sanity. The fantasy you live in is not reasonable to many people. Unfortunately, the media and politicians are really good at selling fantasies as reality.

You once again demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of what reality is. You also don't seem to understand the word impossible.

Reality doesn't have friends. I guess you might have that in common. Sadly, that seems to be the closest you and reality get.

Sadly nobody has the ability to click their ruby red slippers together to come up with a candidate that will have the funds or the ability to garner enough votes outside the two major parties by the time the 2024 election is here. I'm sorry you can't figure out that's what sanity looks like.

No, I'm pretty sure doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results ("in 4 years") is the definition of insanity. You'd likely do the same thing the following election. You can't deal with the reality you're living in, so you make excuses and dream of a make believe future where you still don't have to do anything. Choosing inaction is an action.

Saying there's nothing you can do doesn't mean there is nothing you can do. Pretty sure the Framers are rolling in their graves after risking their lives to give you freedom that you choose to let others decide for you.

You seem to indicate time has no bearing. In fact it does. Blindly ignoring that at this juncture is a you issue. On this very board I expressed interest in, if and who the No Labels Party may nominate to run for president. My hope was thy could come up with a reasonable, moderate candidate. I would have supported that candidate if so. There would have been what I believe, even though slim, a time table that they could at least have a chance to run a legitimate campaign. That time has passed and that window on the 2024 election has closed. You keep screaming the same thing as if it's relevant with no explanation of how it's even possible given the time constraints involved. But you do you.

All of your rah, rah jargon won't change anything.

Bump stocks were legal before the ATF unilaterally tried to make them illegal and SCOTUS corrected them.

So, no you were just making things up to sound the way you want them to sound.

Hope that helps.

Thank you.


It most certainly does. They were illegal to purchase until this SCOTUS ruling. They didn't "try to make them illegal". They made them illegal. It wasn't until the SCOTUS overruled the ATF decision that bump stocks were once again legal.

Just a simple question. Before the SCOTUS ruling was there a law on the books that made buying and selling bump stocks illegal? I'm not arguing that the law was right or wrong. I'm not arguing that it wasn't overturned. I'm telling you that the SCOTUS ruling made something that had been illegal by that saute of law, legal again. I'm not sure how the hell anyone can argue that point.

No, there was no statue making bumpmstocks illegal. The ATF tried to use their rule making ability to lump them into the definition of machinegun by rewriting the definition of machine gun. They did this beyond the scope of their authority. If anyone had been arrested and convicted of illegal machine gun possession due to the erroneous rule it would have to be vacated as the rule itself was illegal for the ATF to make.

So you're telling me that you could legally buy and sell bump stocks before the SCOTUS ruling under law?


If I could be facing up to ten years in prison for doing something I would call that a crime. So did they.

No I am not telling you that either. The ATF made a rule not a statue. The rule has force of law but is not, in fact, a law.

It's even in the quote you pasted.

The quote I pasted?

The federal rule made possession of a bump stock a crime punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

That quote?

You missed bolding the right part.

You ignore everything other than the part that wasn't bolded. It made it a CRIME. You know, that part.

And there goes those goal post.

Federal regulatory agencies make rules. Those rules carry the force of law but the are not laws (statutes) No matter how you try and twist it this is fact.

In TN if a shop owner posts a no gun sign your version would be they created a law. In fact they made rule, a rule that carries the force of law.

Do you see the difference now? Definitions matter. Process matters. Legal authority matters.

I understand why it matters. I understand the reasoning used in the SCOTUS decision. A gun shop owner posting no guns does not create a criminal penalty simply by posting a sign. That's moving the goal posts.

Your claim is I used every word of the headline I posted except for one word in it to make the point. You ignore the fact that you tried to use a single word to make a point and then claim I'm the one moving the goal post.

The criminal penalty for owning a bump stock before the SCOTUS overruled it was up to ten years in prison. No goal post moving there. Rules alone do not set the criminal penalties. Ask that gun shop owner.

j/c:

It's a good thing he isn't running for president.

That is disgusting!

You asked if there was a law . There was not. You posted a headline that said "rule" to show there was a law. There was no law created by the ATF. There was an administrative rule that tried to change statue. My analogy was fitting, when a shop owner posts a sign in TN he creates a rule for his shop that carries the weight of law behind it granted by the legislature, he does not however create a law. You commit a crime by ignoring the rule and carrying in the shop. This is how the ATF works as well, if you break a rule that carries the weight of law it is a crime, but it is still a rule, not a law.


You specifically asked:


There was not a law, there was an administrative rule. It was a crime, but there was no law that banned buying and selling bump stocks because the ATF cannot make or change the law. They are an enforcement and regulatory agency in that regard.

You know, I tried to give you a hint to help you out. I asked you how someone could be sent to prison based only on a ban and not a law? I was hoping that might make a light bulb come on for you. But alas it did not. To be given a prison sentence you must be tried of a crime in a court of law. To be tried in a court of law you must be accused of "committing a crime". You must be facing trial for the commission of a crime. What you fail to realize is that several states actually made bump stocks a crime. They had laws on the books. Yes, bump stocks were illegal. Now let me guess, you'll try to weasel out of that by saying it wasn't a federal law? That won't work.

Here are the states that bump stocks were actually illegal....


The SCOTUS ruling made bump stocks legal where they were illegal before. That is a factual statement.

There you go again being obtuse. You asked if there was a law, I pasted your direct quote. Do you read what you ask, is there a voice in your head that tells you different things?

There was never a law against buying, selling or possessing bump stocks. There was a rule. This is easy. Move your goal posts all day it does not change that buying, possessing or selling bumps stocks was a crime because the rule had force of law but was not, in fact, part of the statue.

The SCOTUS ruling restored the idea that bump stocks are not machine guns and hence it was not a crime to buy, sell or posses. You seem to want to ignore that bump stocksnwere merely considered a legal accessory before the ATF tried on britches that were too big for them.

Showing you there were actual laws on the books making bum stocks illegal didn't do it for you huh?

I didn't think it would.

The ATF didn't write those laws. States and cities did based on the ATF's rule.


As I have shown you, that is a lie. States and cities did in fact have laws against owning, buying and selling bump stocks.


You keep referring to the ATF in your excuse to deny the fact there were certainly laws on the books in several states and cities against owning, purchasing or selling bump stocks. You claimed there were no such laws. There most certainly were. I never said it was the ATF that wrote any laws. The only one trying to worm out of anything by moving the goal posts.

Either bump stocks were illegal in several states and cities or they weren't. They were. And the SCOTUS ruling made bump stocks legal in places they were illegal before. Exactly what I've been saying all along which you denied.

But I will say if anyone knows anything about moving goal posts, it would be you. Please do carry on though.

Do you think moving goal posts changes anything?

Federal rule becomes state law. This was not the discussion nor did Cargill ask that question and SCOTUS did not answer it. I did mention in the Cargill thread I can own a machine gun in MD bur not a bump stock due to state law. The state laws make bump stocks illegal though they do not try to redefine them as machine guns, which they clearly are not.

You continue to play stupid games.

The discussion was simple until you tried twisting it into something else. I stated the SCOTUS made a ruling that made something that was illegal, legal. That is factual. Now you're trying to slice and dice your way around it. Nowhere did I ever mention "federal law".


If that is true why weren't bump stocks illegal in all 50 states? You just keep swinging into the air here.

You just made my point for me. You said it was not illegal and there were no statutes on the books making bump stocks illegal. That is a lie. There most certainly were in several states and cities. I have no idea how much more obvious that can be.

Twist yourself. SCOTUS removed an invalid rule that illegally redefined bump stocks to create a criminal situation. Bump stocks were not considered machine guns prior to that.

You go on to mention states where they are illegal. This is a different situation all together SCOTUS ruled on an administrative move by the ATF. What SCOTUS did not do was rule on bump stocks from a 2A point of view. If they had done that and held that bump stocks are protected arms it would be the first step in invalidating those state laws.

If a state has claimed bump stocks are illegal because they are federally machine guns as the basis on their statute the Cargill case would be persuasive in removing that state statue.

BTW you took my quote out of context, not surprisingly. My quote reference the discussion had been about federal issue and you suddenly moved the goalposts to argue about state issues. More of your stupid games.

and by doing so revered them from being illegal to legal again.


Make up your mind. Earlier you made this claim......


Either now the ban is no longer in effect which you stated were the very grounds these state laws came into effect or it remains in effect. Now you say that the rule has nothing to do with these state laws. Dear God man.


You never said a single word about "federal law" until this very moment. You said there was no law or statutes on the books making this a crime. There most certainly were. But in an earlier post today I predicted you would try to use that as excuse to worm your way out of what you've been claiming all along.......


And just like magic, there it is.

After Louisiana forced posting the Ten Commandments in all of their school classrooms, what idiots didn't see this thing coming next?

Could you imagine if this was the Koran rather than the Bible?

Not really. I've never seen a Muslim try to force their religious scriptures or the Koran in our nation's public schools. Nor would I expect them to. Something like this from the far right on the other hand is something I would expect.