|
Post by danvilleshark on Aug 6, 2019 15:55:34 GMT -8
The GOP needs to get much nastier (yes I said it) point out how the government must be the most racist power in the nation. The schools, the court system, the prison system. Yes it is the government that is so evil so less government equals less evil.
|
|
|
Post by danvilleshark on Aug 6, 2019 15:56:54 GMT -8
Many in the record-setting field of two-dozen Democratic White House hopefuls already supported the ban, but the weekend tragedies have emboldened those calls as candidates highlight and in some cases build upon their gun control platforms.
Primary front-runner Joe Biden went so far Monday as to say he's coming for those guns.
The former vice president, in a CNN interview, said that a Biden administration would push for a “national buyback program” to get such firearms “off the street.” Asked what he’d say to gun owners worried that Biden would be coming for their guns, he quickly answered: "Bingo! You're right, if you have an assault weapon."
|
|
|
Post by carolinasharksfan on Aug 6, 2019 15:59:47 GMT -8
- Federal law imposing age 21 restriction on purchasing/registering automatic/semi-automatic firearms in the USA. -
- Full DMV style registration of your firearms. Punishment if you're in possession of a firearm not registered to you. - - law enforcement comes across any unregistered gun, they can legally confiscate it.
- - If your registered firearm is involved in a crime, wounds or kills someone, with or without you - you're in deep legal shit. - - Full fucking enforcement - no liberal pansy enforcement of new gun laws.
How would any of that infringe on your 2nd amendment rights? Stop if you've heard this before but - your freedoms come with responsibilities. It's a big fucking deal to own a gun.
You're so stupid.
Do you understand the 2nd amendment was created to oppose the government seizing of you, to give the opportunity to resist. By giving the location of each and every firearm you make it easy for the government to confiscate stuff. Think, in general, of all the possible abuse the government can create with the full database of all firearms. Then, the absolute majority of gun violence is either by people who pass all these checks, or by people who pass none. If a person can vote, it can own a legal gun.
Besides, the 3rd point violates the 4th and the 4th point violates the 5th amendment.
All that is necessary is proper enforcement. Including inner cities.
Oh, what else is important: denigrating and humiliating the shooters actions. Currently the press makes some gods of thunder out of them.
Hmm...calling people stupid reminds of the Pimp/Sam days, not good. I realize this is your show but I always assumed you were better than that. I agree with everything else you said.
|
|
|
Post by danvilleshark on Aug 6, 2019 16:01:10 GMT -8
No big deal right? Just a member of Congress publicly doxing his constituents who support a political candidate he doesn't like. There is only one reason he is doing this. He wants the angry mob to intimidate these people. This country is getting closer to civil war than I ever thought I would live to see.
|
|
|
Post by cjelli on Aug 6, 2019 16:02:06 GMT -8
You're so stupid.
Do you understand the 2nd amendment was created to oppose the government seizing of you, to give the opportunity to resist. By giving the location of each and every firearm you make it easy for the government to confiscate stuff. Think, in general, of all the possible abuse the government can create with the full database of all firearms. Then, the absolute majority of gun violence is either by people who pass all these checks, or by people who pass none. If a person can vote, it can own a legal gun.
Besides, the 3rd point violates the 4th and the 4th point violates the 5th amendment.
All that is necessary is proper enforcement. Including inner cities.
Oh, what else is important: denigrating and humiliating the shooters actions. Currently the press makes some gods of thunder out of them.
Hmm...calling people stupid reminds of the Pimp/Sam days, not good. I realize this is your show but I always assumed you were better than that. I agree with everything else you said. Oh, you - or LN - can call me stupid back. LN knows it's a compliment for him.
|
|
|
Post by carolinasharksfan on Aug 6, 2019 16:02:24 GMT -8
You're so stupid.
Do you understand the 2nd amendment was created to oppose the government seizing of you, to give the opportunity to resist. By giving the location of each and every firearm you make it easy for the government to confiscate stuff. Think, in general, of all the possible abuse the government can create with the full database of all firearms. Then, the absolute majority of gun violence is either by people who pass all these checks, or by people who pass none. If a person can vote, it can own a legal gun.
Besides, the 3rd point violates the 4th and the 4th point violates the 5th amendment.
All that is necessary is proper enforcement. Including inner cities.
Oh, what else is important: denigrating and humiliating the shooters actions. Currently the press makes some gods of thunder out of them.
But you're mistakenly giving a pure 18th century interpretation to the 2nd amendment. the idea of a tyrannical federal government marching into your home to physically 'confiscate your stuff' is NOT a common sense worry here in the 21st century. theres 350 million of us now and about the same number of guns out there. Concern about continental soldiers appearing at your door with muskets and torches is stupid, non-rational thinking. You also don't have to host federal soldiers on demand in your home either. Phew! Ha!
Look, registering your guns is NOT unconstitutional. We already do this in a limited way. Creating a federal law for a 21 age limit to buy a firearm is not unconstitutional. background checks are not unconstitutional. When a mentally ill 19 year old can legally buy an assault weapon in a given state, something is terribly WRONG, you dumb shit. Wake up. Start living in the 21st century, current times, and let's apply constitutional gun regulations that will constantly and consistently be ENFORCED. We need change. Fuck the narrow visioned NRA. & Fuck their powerful DC lobby. 6 year olds are getting murdered, for fucks sake.
I’m good with common sense gun regulation/registration. I’m not good with the 21 year age limit. If our country can draft you and get you killed in a war at 18 years old, then you should be able to have a gun a drink a beer before that happens...
|
|
|
Post by cjelli on Aug 6, 2019 16:03:33 GMT -8
But you're mistakenly giving a pure 18th century interpretation to the 2nd amendment. the idea of a tyrannical federal government marching into your home to physically 'confiscate your stuff' is NOT a common sense worry here in the 21st century. theres 350 million of us now and about the same number of guns out there. Concern about continental soldiers appearing at your door with muskets and torches is stupid, non-rational thinking. You also don't have to host federal soldiers on demand in your home either. Phew! Ha!
Look, registering your guns is NOT unconstitutional. We already do this in a limited way. Creating a federal law for a 21 age limit to buy a firearm is not unconstitutional. background checks are not unconstitutional. When a mentally ill 19 year old can legally buy an assault weapon in a given state, something is terribly WRONG, you dumb shit. Wake up. Start living in the 21st century, current times, and let's apply constitutional gun regulations that will constantly and consistently be ENFORCED. We need change. Fuck the narrow visioned NRA. & Fuck their powerful DC lobby. 6 year olds are getting murdered, for fucks sake.
I’m good with common sense gun regulation/registration. I’m not good with the 21 year age limit. If our country can draft you and get you killed in a war at 18 years old, then you should be able to have a gun a drink a beer before that happens... No slope is more slippery than the so called common sense.
|
|
|
Post by carolinasharksfan on Aug 6, 2019 16:07:23 GMT -8
Sorry, we can’t talk about the fact that inner city gun homicides are probably 10 times the number of mass shooter deaths each year, thats “whataboutism” and if the media and politicians don’t want to address that, we shouldn’t either. I personally care about each victim...don’t care where they live or the color of their skin...it all needs to stop.
|
|
|
Post by danvilleshark on Aug 6, 2019 16:09:06 GMT -8
This is how the so called media wishes to discuss the so called community. There can be no discussion about why so many black men are killed by police. No mention about the much higher rate of violent criminal behavior that leads to this outcome. This is our so called discussion on race. This is why so many have a problem on climate change. The very same dishonest people that want a one sided discussion on race want to have the same level of discussion on climate change. F U DNC! F U BLM! F U so called media!
Washington (AFP) - Black men in the United States are 2.5 times more likely to be killed by the police than their white counterparts, according to a new study published Monday that quantified racial disparities in law enforcement violence.
High-profile killings including those of Michael Brown, Charleena Lyles, Tamir Rice, Stephon Clark and many others have brought the issue sustained national attention in recent years, but a lack of official data had prevented accurate estimates about the extent of the problem.
The new study relied on data from Fatal Encounters, a journalist-led effort, as well as the National Vital Statistics System, to analyze the period 2013-2018.
It found African American men and women, American Indian men and women, and Latino men all faced higher lifetime risks than their white peers.
"We think that there's ample evidence that police are a threat to public health in the United States," Frank Edwards at Rutgers University, the lead author of the paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, told AFP.
"They're a lot more violent in communities of color than they are in white communities, and we need to take that seriously when we talk about police reform."
Black men had the highest fatality risk, with the researchers estimating 1 fatality from police use of force for every 1,000 male births.
"Those numbers are high. The chances of you being killed by police in this country is higher than winning a lot of scratch off lottery games," said Edwards.
|
|
|
Post by carolinasharksfan on Aug 6, 2019 16:09:20 GMT -8
I will address each point in order. 1. Most mass shooters are over 21 so this accomplishes little to nothing. 2 out of 8 of the mass shootings in 2019 were under 21. If you are old enough to die for your country in the military you should be able to legally purchase a firearm.
2. If the government knows who has firearms then it knows where to go to take your firearms. Not a fan of trusting the Federal government with fundamental rights.
3. This basically already happens. If you are involved in a incident and have a weapon you can all but guarantee it is getting confiscated and you play hell getting it back.
4. Provided there is an exception to when guns are stolen and end up on the black market I have no issue with this.
5. That would be a state by state situation.
Yes, it is a big responsibility to own a gun but it is also one of the few rights specifically set forth in the Constitution with the wording "shall not be infringed". The founding fathers foresaw a Federal Government becoming too powerful and oppressive of it's citizens and wanted to allow for the citizens to be armed sufficiently to defend their rights from not just other citizens but from the government itself. This is where the "You don't need an AR-15 to go hunting." claim falls apart because the Second Amendment isn't there to allow people to just hunt.
We had a ban on assault weapons before and it didn't lower the death rate due to gun violence by any statistically significant amount which was why it was allowed to expire. Even with the mass shootings going on this year there have only been 62 people killed across the country this year. The national average for gun deaths are approximately 33,000 a year. Nearly 2/3rds of that are suicide. So you have 11,000 homicides by firearm of other people a year in a nation of 327 million people.
What I think would be a good step would be to implement a procedure where family members, schools and/or medical doctors can go to the Court to file a petition to have someone's firearms placed in temporary custody until it is determined a person is not a threat to himself or others. Sort of like a 5150 hold but on a person's firearms. The person would have a hearing they can attend and argue as to why such a hold is not necessary. This way due process is guaranteed. Similar to a temporary restraining order. The Dayton shooter was kicked out of school for having a list of people he wanted to kill. The Parkland shooter had given numerous red flags that should have prompted some action by law enforcement and they were ignored.100% this. That magic of number 21... To much blackjack? The law restricting purchase of alcohol to 21+ is stupid and achieves nothing. The law restricting purchase of tobacco to 21+ is stupid and achieves nothing. The law restricting purchase of firearms to 21+ is just as stupid and achieves just as nothing.
300 homicides in Chicago this year did nothing to LN, yet one 19-y.o. loonie next door who killed 3 people changed everything.
The key is in enforcement, but the enforcement isn't really there, because any enforcement may turn out to be ... racist.
In the great state of California...the public school will take your 14 year old daughter for an abortion and never tell you...but if she wants her ears pierced you need to sign permission.
|
|
|
Post by carolinasharksfan on Aug 6, 2019 16:10:53 GMT -8
Who here trusts the government and/or corporations?
|
|
|
Post by cjelli on Aug 6, 2019 16:19:32 GMT -8
Who here trusts the government and/or corporations? LordNelson, obviously.
|
|
|
Post by carolinasharksfan on Aug 6, 2019 16:21:14 GMT -8
I’m good with common sense gun regulation/registration. I’m not good with the 21 year age limit. If our country can draft you and get you killed in a war at 18 years old, then you should be able to have a gun a drink a beer before that happens... No slope is more slippery than the so called common sense. Totally agree...but most people agree on some form of gun control. For example, when I used to do a lot of public speaking I’d end up at the local NRA meeting a couple of times a year. I’d always start my speech with...”I’m all for gun control, how about you”? I’d get silence and dirty looks...then I’d say...”who here wants convicted felons to have guns”? They’d all say of course not...that was my opening to say that most of us are for some gun control, now lets find common sense areas we can agree on
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2019 16:28:44 GMT -8
Who here trusts the government and/or corporations? About as far as I can throw them, and even though I’ve been consistently working out my name is not Atlas. TRO
|
|
|
Post by danvilleshark on Aug 6, 2019 16:32:28 GMT -8
Sorry, we can’t talk about the fact that inner city gun homicides are probably 10 times the number of mass shooter deaths each year, thats “whataboutism” and if the media and politicians don’t want to address that, we shouldn’t either. I personally care about each victim...don’t care where they live or the color of their skin...it all needs to stop. My former liberal friend loved to use the term "whataboutism". When did it become wrong to show hypocrisy in debate?
|
|
|
Post by cjelli on Aug 6, 2019 16:48:13 GMT -8
Sorry, we can’t talk about the fact that inner city gun homicides are probably 10 times the number of mass shooter deaths each year, thats “whataboutism” and if the media and politicians don’t want to address that, we shouldn’t either. I personally care about each victim...don’t care where they live or the color of their skin...it all needs to stop. My former liberal friend loved to use the term "whataboutism". When did it become wrong to show hypocrisy in debate? Does former refer to "liberal" or "friend"?
|
|
|
Post by cjelli on Aug 6, 2019 16:51:34 GMT -8
Who here trusts the government and/or corporations? About as far as I can throw them, and even though I’ve been consistently working out my name is not Atlas. TRO Open circuit smart home is dangerous. Open circuit smart home that works with a public cloud provider is both stupid and evil.
If I ever decide to go for one, I'll look for a design that is physically disconnected from the Internet, buying a separate router just for that.
|
|
|
Post by danvilleshark on Aug 6, 2019 16:56:21 GMT -8
My former liberal friend loved to use the term "whataboutism". When did it become wrong to show hypocrisy in debate? Does former refer to "liberal" or "friend"? He went off the deep end with TDS. His last txt before I blocked him went somewhere along the lines if you support position x you are a racist. I love the fact that he had known me for 35 years had dinner at my home recently but because I would not take the DNC position on Russian investigation results I was evil. This same guy and I agreed that whatever the findings were we would accept them. Then when he did not get the findings he wanted I was the one in the wrong even though I showed him a screenshot of his txt agreeing with the findings no matter what they are. He works for an environmental group dedicated to saving beaches. He wanted to teach me all about trade with China even though I explained to him my passport says I am a much more informed person than he is on this matter. So I blocked him. I am fine with it.
|
|
|
Post by danvilleshark on Aug 6, 2019 17:08:25 GMT -8
Did we figure out who the liar was here?
Former Attorney General Loretta Lynch denied to congressional investigators last year that she ever instructed former FBI Director James Comey to minimize the Hillary Clinton email investigation by urging him to call it a "matter" instead of an "investigation."
"I did not. I have never instructed a witness as to what to say specifically. Never have, never will," Lynch told a joint task force of the House Oversight and Judiciary committees.
The transcript of the Dec. 19 interview, released Monday evening by House Judiciary ranking member Doug Collins, R-Ga., clashes with what Comey testified under oath. He told the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2017 that Lynch "directed" him to call the investigation a "matter" during a September 2015 meeting. Comey brought it up in the context of describing his decision to do a press conference in the summer of 2016 in which he recommended no criminal charges against Clinton but called her handling of classified information "extremely careless."
"Probably the only other consideration that I guess I can talk about in open setting is that at one point the attorney general had directed me not to call it an investigation, but instead to call it a matter, which confused me and concerned me, but that was one of the bricks in the load that led me to conclude I have to step away from the department if we're to close this case credibly," he testified.
Lynch's Phoenix tarmac meeting with former President Bill Clinton on a hot summer's day in 2016 was the driving reason for his decision to do a press conference due to concerns about optics, Comey added, as Hillary Clinton was a Democratic candidate for president at the time.
|
|
|
Post by carolinasharksfan on Aug 6, 2019 17:37:52 GMT -8
About as far as I can throw them, and even though I’ve been consistently working out my name is not Atlas. TRO Open circuit smart home is dangerous. Open circuit smart home that works with a public cloud provider is both stupid and evil.
If I ever decide to go for one, I'll look for a design that is physically disconnected from the Internet, buying a separate router just for that.
I assume I’m safe since I don’t know what an “open circuit smart home is” My home is affordable and has good beer, bourbon and cigars...that seems smart.
|
|
|
Post by Badger on Aug 6, 2019 17:55:07 GMT -8
Open circuit smart home is dangerous. Open circuit smart home that works with a public cloud provider is both stupid and evil.
If I ever decide to go for one, I'll look for a design that is physically disconnected from the Internet, buying a separate router just for that.
I assume I’m safe since I don’t know what an “open circuit smart home is” My home is affordable and has good beer, bourbon and cigars...that seems smart. You seem to have your priorities in order. Well played, sir!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2019 18:08:59 GMT -8
Open circuit smart home is dangerous. Open circuit smart home that works with a public cloud provider is both stupid and evil.
If I ever decide to go for one, I'll look for a design that is physically disconnected from the Internet, buying a separate router just for that.
I assume I’m safe since I don’t know what an “open circuit smart home is” My home is affordable and has good beer, bourbon and cigars...that seems smart. Home solutions like Ring (Amazon) or Nest (google) and anything which integrates with those. I’m with cjelli where if I install anything similar to those they will be on a local network only. It kinda sucks because I do really want to replace my deadbolt with one that accepts a yubikey but don’t want anything tied to any cloud service. TRO
|
|
|
Post by danvilleshark on Aug 7, 2019 8:28:47 GMT -8
The game plan is pretty simple. Investigate everything and anything no matter the cost. And where is that FBI investigation that the DNC says we needed so badly?
The House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday requested the National Archives produce millions of documents from Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s time in President George W. Bush’s administration.
Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) and Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), chairman of a subcommittee with oversight of federal courts, made the request. Activist groups have long been demanding an investigation into Kavanaugh’s background, claiming the Senate Judiciary Committee failed to carry one out before approving his nomination last year.
|
|
|
Post by sharkhaywood on Aug 7, 2019 9:10:45 GMT -8
Sorry, we can’t talk about the fact that inner city gun homicides are probably 10 times the number of mass shooter deaths each year, thats “whataboutism” and if the media and politicians don’t want to address that, we shouldn’t either. I personally care about each victim...don’t care where they live or the color of their skin...it all needs to stop. My former liberal friend loved to use the term "whataboutism". When did it become wrong to show hypocrisy in debate? Claiming "whataboutism" is the equivalent of playing the race card. It is generally a sign that you cannot refute the facts the other person has brought up. They talk about white males being the biggest threat for mass shootings but under their definition of mass shootings where there are multiple people present african americans are significantly more responsible for mass shootings with drive buy shootings and other gang related shootings.
|
|
|
Post by sharkhaywood on Aug 7, 2019 9:14:17 GMT -8
The game plan is pretty simple. Investigate everything and anything no matter the cost. And where is that FBI investigation that the DNC says we needed so badly? The House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday requested the National Archives produce millions of documents from Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s time in President George W. Bush’s administration. Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) and Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), chairman of a subcommittee with oversight of federal courts, made the request. Activist groups have long been demanding an investigation into Kavanaugh’s background, claiming the Senate Judiciary Committee failed to carry one out before approving his nomination last year. Nice to see Hank Johnson is no longer worried about Guam capsizing and has moved onto more important matters. This is a clear abuse of legislative power by the House. The House plays ZERO role in the confirmation of members of the Supreme Court. Nadler already shit the bed with the Mueller hearings and now he is playing to the base on this investigation.
|
|
|
Post by sharkhaywood on Aug 7, 2019 9:15:16 GMT -8
About as far as I can throw them, and even though I’ve been consistently working out my name is not Atlas. TRO Open circuit smart home is dangerous. Open circuit smart home that works with a public cloud provider is both stupid and evil.
If I ever decide to go for one, I'll look for a design that is physically disconnected from the Internet, buying a separate router just for that.
The only thing in my home that I can connect to using my phone is my thermostat.
|
|
|
Post by Fugazi on Aug 7, 2019 10:21:02 GMT -8
Who here trusts the government and/or corporations?
|
|
|
Post by sharkhaywood on Aug 7, 2019 10:29:14 GMT -8
This is the kind of move I am completely in favor of.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Despite frequent mass shootings, Congress has proved to be unable to pass substantial gun violence legislation, largely because of resistance from Republicans.
But a bipartisan proposal by Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., is gaining momentum following weekend mass shootings in Texas and Ohio that left 31 people dead. The emerging plan would create a federal grant program to encourage states to adopt “red flag” laws to take guns away from people believed to be dangers to themselves or others. A similar bill never came up for a vote in the GOP-controlled Senate last year, but both parties express hope that this year will be different. President Donald Trump has signaled support for the plan.
“We must make sure that those judged to pose a grave risk to public safety do not have access to firearms and that if they do those firearms can be taken through rapid due process,” Trump said in a White House speech on Monday.
Many mass shootings “involved individuals who showed signs of violent behavior that are either ignored or not followed up on,” said Graham, chairman of the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee. “State red flag laws will provide the tools for law enforcement to do something about many of these situations before it’s too late.”
In an interview Tuesday, Blumenthal said there’s “a growing wave of support on both sides of the aisle” for the red-flag plan — more momentum in fact “than any other gun violence plan” being debated in Congress, including a proposal Blumenthal supports to require universal background checks for gun purchases.
A closer look at red flag laws, which have been adopted by at least 17 states and the District of Columbia, including a law set to take effect Aug. 24 in New York. Most of the laws have been approved since the February 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida.
___
HOW DOES A RED FLAG LAW WORK?
In general, red flag or “extreme risk protection order” laws allow courts to issue temporary orders barring someone from possessing guns based on some showing of imminent danger or a risk of misuse.
State laws vary, but most stipulate that only specific people — usually family or household members — may petition a court for an extreme risk protection order. In some cases, a preliminary order may be granted without prior notice to the person who is the subject of the order.
Such an order typically is brief, ranging from a few days to about three weeks. Once the person who is alleged to pose a risk of gun violence has been given an opportunity to respond, a more permanent order may be granted, typically for up to a year.
Importantly to Graham and other supporters, before an order can be entered, some factual showing must be made that the subject of the order poses a risk of using a firearm to harm themselves or others.
___
WHAT IS THE FEDERAL PROPOSAL?
Graham and Blumenthal are still developing the plan, but a similar bill proposed last year by Florida Sens. Marco Rubio and Bill Nelson essentially would pay states to implement red flag law programs. A bid last year by Graham and Blumenthal to let federal courts keep guns away from people who show warning signs of violence failed to generate political support.
Blumenthal called the failed effort to create a federal program a learning experience and said the new proposal would set a national standard that states must meet in order to be eligible for federal grants. He compared it to federal highway laws where grants are dependent on states setting speed limits or drunk-driving standards.
“If you have speed limits, you get the money,” he said, adding that the red flag law would operate on the same principle.
___
HOW MUCH WOULD IT COST?
Costs are still being worked out, but whatever the amount, “it’s a small fraction of the losses — both monetary and in the loss of life — as a result of gun violence,” Blumenthal said.
___
WHO SUPPORTS THE PLAN?
Nearly all Senate Democrats support red flag laws, along with a growing number of Republicans, including Pennsylvania’s Pat Toomey, Indiana’s Mike Braun and Iowa’s Chuck Grassley, a former Judiciary chairman. South Dakota Sen. John Thune, the second-ranking Senate Republican, told the Argus Leader in Sioux Falls that he’s “confident Congress will be able to find common ground on the so-called ‘red flag’ issue.”
Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, told reporters Tuesday he is open to the proposal, noting that the alleged shooter in Dayton, Ohio, kept a “hit list” of people he wanted to target in high school. “Clearly people knew something was wrong with this guy, and yet nobody went to the proper authorities or the proper authorities didn’t respond,” Portman said.
A red flag law may “bridge this issue of the guns and the mental health issue, where you identify somebody who has a mental health history that might not be formally diagnosed, but that people know about,” he said.
___
WHERE IS SENATE MAJORITY LEADER MITCH MCCONNELL?
The Kentucky Republican, who has adopted the nickname the “Grim Reaper” to celebrate his success at blocking Democratic bills, is widely considered the single biggest roadblock to changes in gun laws or any significant legislation in Congress. McConnell has not publicly indicated a position on red flag laws but said in a statement Monday that “Senate Republicans are prepared to do our part” to address gun violence. He said he has spoken with Graham and other committee chairs and asked them to consider “potential solutions to help protect our communities without infringing on Americans’ constitutional rights.”
Congress passed a modest measure last year to shore up the federal background checks system and approved a grant program to prevent school violence — signs that action on gun violence is possible, McConnell said.
___
WHAT ABOUT THE NRA?
A National Rifle Association spokeswoman declined to comment. In a statement, the group said it welcomes Trump’s call “to address the root causes of the horrific acts of violence that have occurred in our country. It has been the NRA’s long-standing position that those who have been adjudicated as a danger to themselves or others should not have access to firearms and should be admitted for treatment.”
|
|
|
Post by sharkhaywood on Aug 7, 2019 10:31:38 GMT -8
Did we figure out who the liar was here? Former Attorney General Loretta Lynch denied to congressional investigators last year that she ever instructed former FBI Director James Comey to minimize the Hillary Clinton email investigation by urging him to call it a "matter" instead of an "investigation." "I did not. I have never instructed a witness as to what to say specifically. Never have, never will," Lynch told a joint task force of the House Oversight and Judiciary committees. The transcript of the Dec. 19 interview, released Monday evening by House Judiciary ranking member Doug Collins, R-Ga., clashes with what Comey testified under oath. He told the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2017 that Lynch "directed" him to call the investigation a "matter" during a September 2015 meeting. Comey brought it up in the context of describing his decision to do a press conference in the summer of 2016 in which he recommended no criminal charges against Clinton but called her handling of classified information "extremely careless." "Probably the only other consideration that I guess I can talk about in open setting is that at one point the attorney general had directed me not to call it an investigation, but instead to call it a matter, which confused me and concerned me, but that was one of the bricks in the load that led me to conclude I have to step away from the department if we're to close this case credibly," he testified. Lynch's Phoenix tarmac meeting with former President Bill Clinton on a hot summer's day in 2016 was the driving reason for his decision to do a press conference due to concerns about optics, Comey added, as Hillary Clinton was a Democratic candidate for president at the time. Legalese. "I have never instructed a witness...." Why the qualification on witness? Comey said he was instructed to do this long before he became a witness so she can arguably state she never instructed a "witness" to say something. She told the Director of the FBI, who wasn't a witness at the time, how to classify the Clinton email probe.
|
|
|
Post by danvilleshark on Aug 7, 2019 10:41:47 GMT -8
Did we figure out who the liar was here? Former Attorney General Loretta Lynch denied to congressional investigators last year that she ever instructed former FBI Director James Comey to minimize the Hillary Clinton email investigation by urging him to call it a "matter" instead of an "investigation." "I did not. I have never instructed a witness as to what to say specifically. Never have, never will," Lynch told a joint task force of the House Oversight and Judiciary committees. The transcript of the Dec. 19 interview, released Monday evening by House Judiciary ranking member Doug Collins, R-Ga., clashes with what Comey testified under oath. He told the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2017 that Lynch "directed" him to call the investigation a "matter" during a September 2015 meeting. Comey brought it up in the context of describing his decision to do a press conference in the summer of 2016 in which he recommended no criminal charges against Clinton but called her handling of classified information "extremely careless." "Probably the only other consideration that I guess I can talk about in open setting is that at one point the attorney general had directed me not to call it an investigation, but instead to call it a matter, which confused me and concerned me, but that was one of the bricks in the load that led me to conclude I have to step away from the department if we're to close this case credibly," he testified. Lynch's Phoenix tarmac meeting with former President Bill Clinton on a hot summer's day in 2016 was the driving reason for his decision to do a press conference due to concerns about optics, Comey added, as Hillary Clinton was a Democratic candidate for president at the time. Legalese. "I have never instructed a witness...." Why the qualification on witness? Comey said he was instructed to do this long before he became a witness so she can arguably state she never instructed a "witness" to say something. She told the Director of the FBI, who wasn't a witness at the time, how to classify the Clinton email probe. I blame Bill Clinton for the way our so called leaders parse words. Trump has said some awful things that I dont agree with but Bill opened up Pandoras box to this method of lying that is now acceptable.
|
|