search
top

True Dat

Via Instapundit: “Don’t let people who surround themselves with barbed wire and armed soldiers tell you that you can’t own any kind of firearm you choose in order to protect yourself, your home, and your family.”

44 Responses to “True Dat”

  1. Zundfolge says:

    Its not like they’re going to listen (or that we really even have a voice anymore). Elections are a sham now so why would they even care if we “let” or “don’t let” them do whatever they want?

    Unless you’re calling for war, of course.

    • Alex says:

      Elections aren’t yet a sham, although the GOP did try their hardest to make the 2020 election a sham when they voted to overturn the results because they didn’t like the outcome.

      • Joe says:

        Look at you, Little China-Bot DNC Lackey?

        That “Russian Collusion” BULLSHIT Accusation subverted the 2016 Election Results, and Xi Jing Biden couldn’t win without some good old BALLOT STUFFING.

        • Alex says:

          Too bad in court under penalty of perjury team trump couldn’t produce any evidence to back up their claims. His own lawyers are now saying no reasonable person would take their election fraud claims as fact.

          • Joe says:

            The Courts were just cowards. Where there is smoke, there is fire. Dominion Voting Sysytem has the $Big Tech Billionaires funding a wreckless SLAPP Lawsuit.

            The False Accusation of Russian Collusion in 2016 destroyed Election Integrity beyond repair anyway, China-Bot.

            Where there is smoke, there is fire.

            https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/23/pennsylvania-court-ballot-signatures-431794

            • Alex says:

              Just remember it’s never too late to take off the tinfoil and begin the long walk back to reality.

              • Joe says:

                As soon as you stopping screaming “Russian Collusion”, maybe I’ll listen to your Democrat Politburo Propaganda.

                • Alex says:

                  The only person mentioning Russia is you.

                  • Joe says:

                    “Elections aren’t yet a sham, although the GOP did try their hardest to make the 2020 election a sham when they voted to overturn the results because they didn’t like the outcome”.

                    You’re projecting what the Democrats did in 2016 and all through Trump’s term.

                    • Alex says:

                      No projection is needed. The GOP’s treachery (not to mention the right wing terrorist attack on DC) were well documented on Jan 6.

                  • Joe says:

                    Looks like you’re on the $Dime of Communist China, just as your filthy subversive Democrat Party, all on full display since the 1990’s.

                    You enjoy some Burn Loot Murder (BLM) as well.

            • Andy B. says:

              “Where there is smoke, there is fire.”

              We’ll remember that when you’re arrested as an illegal owner of Class III weapons, because you participated on a pro-gun blog. What more proof would be necessary? Who needs actual evidence to put before a judge and jury?

              • Joe says:

                Counting Fraudulentl Ballots to do Ballot Stuffing for Democrats isn’t equivalents to a false accusation of NFA violations.

                • Andy B. says:

                  Perfectly analogous, actually.

                  With either example conviction should require material proof in a court of law. “Where there’s smoke there’s fire” appears nowhere in the constitution or codified law.

                  I was happy to see Fox News added to the list of Dominion defendants this morning. It may make for an interesting precedent. I think things will turn on, whether they were just providing a platform for independent talking heads to make accusations that later were proven false (e.g, saying Dominion was responsible for throwing an election in a state where their machines weren’t even used) or whether Fox employees contributed to amplifying proven-false claims. (“Proven” is a keyword in all of this.)

                  I just looked up the Merriam-Webster definition of “fraud”, which is “intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right.” In this example I’d suggest political power was the thing of value, and so the offense was not a mere tort, but was also criminal fraud that could be convicted as such.

                  As usual I’m diverting to philosophy, but, adequate criminalization of fraud could be a solution to our “freedom of speech” problem. Say anything you want, but be prepared to prove what you contend if called on to do so. If it turns out you can’t, and you were seeking personal or factional gain by saying it, jail time, baby.

                  • Joe says:

                    “As usual I’m diverting to philosophy, but, adequate criminalization of fraud could be a solution to our “freedom of speech” problem. Say anything you want, but be prepared to prove what you contend if called on to do so. If it turns out you can’t, and you were seeking personal or factional gain by saying it, jail time, baby”.

                    And would you look at the Double Standard, considering the current squad of China-Lobby Pigs should be on prison for falsifying an accusation that Trump in 2016 worked with the Russian Government to hack and steal 2016 from Clinton and The Democrats. Instead, the 2nd biggest Pig At The Trough of all who helped fabricate that false accusation is now POTUS. Subversion 101 and……2 Tier Justice Systems.

                    Back to Dominion Voting Systems:

                    Dominion Voting Systems representatives have also been stating since December that their Software is programmed to discount ballots that are “improper” and don’t meet qualifications to be counted, and yet, they are already digging in on their wreckless SLAPP Suit to prepare motions to dismiss discovery of how their software programming works, given that DNC Propaganda Networks like CNN are already saying that if the Defendants motion for discovery, it’s just more “Vast Rightwing Conspiracy”.

                    Given the article I posted about the Subversive Democrat Party Activist PA Supreme Court ruling that Fraudulent Ballots, those lacking Verifiable Signatures, No Postmarks, and even no signatures at all, violation Article 1 Sec. 4 and Article 2 Sec. 3 of the Federal Constitution and Election Laws of the PA State Constitution, Election Fraud was both safeguarded and covered-up.

                    If you need a little ember source to the smoke, here’s a nice example from NC in 2016.

                    https://myfox8.com/news/24-more-charged-in-voter-fraud-probe-nc-federal-attorneys-say/

                  • Andy B. says:

                    This is a more recent article updating the story:

                    Secret until now, records reveal clash over the Trump DOJ’s demand for NC voter data

                    Federal prosecutors have announced an end to a sweeping, four-year-long investigation into voter fraud in North Carolina, peeling back a veil of secrecy from a probe that pitted state and federal officials against each other over a massive demand for data on every one of the state’s registered voters.

                    The effort initiated by the Office of the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District resulted in a range of charges related to immigration, registration and election rules against about 70 people — more than 40 of whom were accused of casting ballots illegally. Dates of those charges, which involved activity during the 2016 election and prior, range from July 2018 to mid-February 2021.

                    Many of the latest indictments were announced for the first time Friday, but the totals fall far short of early suggestions by the federal government of “pervasive” or “systemic” fraud, suspicions the U.S. Attorney’s Office put before a federal judge in an effort to keep details of its inquiry secret for years.

                    So the Trump Administration’s claims that initially targeted more than 700 people, with an investigation that has been ongoing since 2017, resulted in 40 indictments, with the most recent open to suspicions that their timing was to support Georgia’s recent voting-law law clusterfuck. And not one single mention of a Dominion voting machine.

                    Oh! Speaking of double standards, when it comes to Trump & Company’s ongoing collusion with the Russians, who on this page earlier argued “Where there’s smoke there’s fire?”

                    • Joe says:

                      “The Department of Justice suggested, in a letter to the State Board this week, that it could have gone further in its prosecutions but refrained because it determined some noncitizens registered to vote without knowing they shouldn’t”.

                      Ignorance of the law is no excuse though, right? I like how the Democrat Officials did a nice-job in slow-walking on the subpoenas while their Fellow Travelers in the DOJ subverted the Investigation Cover-up 101, considering Chairman Xi Jing Biden is in the WH now and the article is from March 24, 2021…..

                      “Oh! Speaking of double standards, when it comes to Trump & Company’s ongoing collusion with the Russians, who on this page earlier argued “Where there’s smoke there’s fire?”

                      Oh, dear me. The accusations of Trump and Russian hacking and stealing votes from Clinton and Democrats back in 2016 turned out to be as they say…..BULLSHUT!……But Chairman Biden even campaigned on it in 2020 saying it was fact, and was saying it as fact going back to 2018. Can’t be a fire if there’s no smoke.

                      I guess “but, adequate criminalization of fraud could be a solution to our “freedom of speech” problem. Say anything you want, but be prepared to prove what you contend if called on to do so. If it turns out you can’t, and you were seeking personal or factional gain by saying it, jail time, baby”……

                      It’s a standard that doesn’t apply to Democrats and you’re a cheerleader of the double standard.

                    • Andy B. says:

                      “Oh, dear me. The accusations of Trump and Russian hacking and stealing votes from Clinton and Democrats back in 2016 turned out to be as they say…..BULLSHUT!”

                      Actually it was substantially verified by our own intelligence services, and collusion was substantially verified by Mueller; though being a Republican he held back enough to queer the investigation and deflect the conclusion, to better serve his bosses and buddies. The amusing part was, the whole time the Dems were canonizing him. :-)

                    • Andy B. says:

                      These folks have done a better job of summarizing the Mueller Report than I could do, so see their report for 14 detailed and documented points of collusion between the Trump Campaign/Administration and the Russians.

            • Andy B. says:

              “Dominion Voting Sysytem has the $Big Tech Billionaires funding a wreckless SLAPP Lawsuit.”

              I was not aware anyone was funding Dominion’s lawsuit except for Dominion themselves. Who is doing that funding? Why would it be necessary? Dominion is pretty significant in its own right. But let me know, ’cause facts are facts.

              Sorry for being pedantic when hysteria is called for, and far be it from me to defend corporations, but Dominion’s suit does not look like a SLAPP to me. It looks like an entirely reasonable tort. The defendants’ speech was likely to do financial harm to the corporation by at very least making their products “controversial” and to be avoided in an inherently political market, i.e., conducting elections. The claims by the defendants are easily tested by inspection of the equipment by a panel of neutral experts. It can then be judged whether the claims were based on any reasonable evidence, or were made in malice. That hardly sounds reckless to me. If evidence of Dominion malfeasance is discovered, then wow, we have really learned a valuable lesson!

              For somewhat of a contrast, I’m recalling how, to the best of my knowledge, General Motors declined to file suit against Ralph Nader, who would have been an obvious target for a SLAPP (though the term didn’t exist in those days, the tactic did). The reason is obvious. Nader hadn’t said anything that wasn’t based on well-documented data, and more that was unseemly was likely to come to light in a lawsuit. Instead, GM resorted to a publicity campaign to discredit Nader, hired private detectives to tail him and harass him, and tried to manufacture dirt on him.

              If Dominion or those $Big Tech Billionaires were funding that kind of operation, I would be a lot more suspicious than I am of a straight-up “prove what you said is true” lawsuit.

  2. Andy B. says:

    “…barbed wire and armed soldiers…”

    Problems begin when the armed soldiers (real or ersatz) redefine what is self-defense. Nathan Bedford Forrest called the organization he founded “defensive”, and in September 1939 Germany said that Poland had attacked them.

  3. Jerry225 says:

    I think until they revise the hippa laws where a crazy is protected and can buy an ar15 they are pissing up a rope.

    • Andy B. says:

      Anything that results in a loss of a constitutional right should require adjudication, and not just a subjective opinion by a “health professional.” HIPAA to date does not address that problem adequately — IMO.

      My late uncle lost his right to acquire or even possess firearms, very late in life, because of the PTSD he suffered ever since being liberated from a Jap prison camp in 1945. The VA doctor who filed for disability compensation for him, more than 40 years later, thought he was doing my uncle a favor.

      Ironically, the military had seen no problem with my uncle carrying guns for them, for roughly 20 years after he came home from Japan.

      Again IMO, we are still in the Dark Ages when it comes to defining mental illness. It is still very subjective. It’s a real problem.

    • HappyWarrior6 says:

      Not just HIPPA, but it goes deeper. Once again we were told the FBI was tracking this guy. I think if anything the “no fly, no buy” argument would hold more weight than liberalizing HIPAA laws for the sake of barring access to weapons by known Islamofascist crazies.

  4. Andy B. says:

    “Once again we were told the FBI was tracking this guy.”

    Seriously, this is not intended as a “challenging” question, but a sincere “FYI” one. I may have missed the latest. Who is saying that?

    According to CNN:

    “A law enforcement official told CNN Alissa was not previously the subject of any FBI investigation and said it appears nothing in the federal system would have prohibited Alissa from buying a firearm.”

    I don’t necessarily believe that because I think there is a fair chance the FBI has a file on every young Syrian immigrant, but the activity of the file would be the question.

    • Andy B. says:

      Found this:

      According to Fox News:

      “The suspected gunman who killed 10 people in a mass shooting at a Boulder, Colorado, grocery store this week was previously known to the FBI, according to a report.

      “Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa, a 21-year-old from the Denver suburb of Arvada, was linked to another individual under investigation by the bureau, The New York Times reported Tuesday, citing law enforcement officials. No further details were reported.”

      Seems a little sketchy to me. “linked?” In what way? Details apparently are not considered relevant.

      I smell click-bait masquerading as “news”.

    • Andy B. says:

      And this, from the New York Times:

      “The suspect’s identity was previously known to the F.B.I. because he was linked to another individual under investigation by the bureau, according to law enforcement officials.”

      NYT click-bait, IMHO.

      This interests me, as supposed “journalists” are straining to “profile” the shooter, so everyone can say, oh, well, what can you expect?

      Wouldn’t it have been a good idea for those “law enforcement officials” not to release any FBI-related information, until the FBI was willing to release all the information themselves?

      What if the “link” was, that Alissa bought or sold a car from/to the guy/gal the FBI was tracking?

      Thanks, HappyWarrior6, I love getting into these little searches! :-)

  5. Richard says:

    Speaking of violations of firearms laws, how about that Hunter.
    At a minimum, he lied on the 4473 about his drug use. He told the cops that Hallie was worried that he would kill himself because of the drugs. So it wasn’t just old stuff about getting kicked out of the Navy, it was current when he did the 4473 and he confessed. There might be a DV issue in here somewhere. And the unique disposal method also brings up potential legal issues although that could be on her.

    I not holding my breath on his felony indictment though. Laws are for the little people.

    • Andy B. says:

      “At a minimum, he lied on the 4473 about his drug use.”

      Serious question: What percentage of people committing that violation are indicted for it?

      I had to check on the questions asked on Form 4473, but it seems to me very likely that anyone of my generation or younger has committed perjury, if they ever bought a gun from a dealer. Increase that probability if they served in Vietnam.

      The 4473 asks, “Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance? Warning: The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside.”

      Returning to an earlier discussion of the subjective definitions of many terms used in Rules and Regulations, what defines a “user”? Once? Yesterday/last week/last month/last year/in college/service? Inhaled yes/no?

      Just asking in the spirit of “be careful what you wish for.” :-)

      • Richard says:

        In this case, Hunter Biden, because he told the cops that he was currently using. So we have the FBI, SS and ATF in the game and no one seems fit to file charges. The gunstore owner was suspicious enough that the SS was doing a coverup that he refused to give them the paperwork and called in the ATF. And why exactly is the FBI, rather than the IRS, working on the tax case.

        The silver lining in all this is the potential for screwing up the Democrat gun control efforts.

        • Andy B. says:

          “In this case, Hunter Biden, because he told the cops that he was currently using. So we have the FBI, SS and ATF in the game and no one seems fit to file charges.”

          Not defending Hunter Biden at all, but to repeat my question, how many similar examples have been met with an indictment?

          I at least try not to applaud anti-gun laws, just because they’re applied to people I don’t like, and that becomes really hard when any degree of hypocrisy is involved. But when we tacitly support the implementation of anti-gun laws against anybody, we’re shooting ourselves in our collective foot.

          The ACLU gets that, which is why they get a bad rap for supporting “criminals who get off on technicalities”. Usually those “technicalities” are gross violations of constitutional principles. I of course wish they would apply that more consistently to gun rights, but the PA-ACLU did help us get gun buybacks shut down in Lehigh County after the locals violated our 4A rights when we sought to resist them.

          • Andy B. says:

            “…the locals violated our 4A rights…”

            Oops! Typo/geriatric brain-fart. Make that “1A”.

      • Andy B. says:

        Has it ever occurred to anyone in our pro-gun camp before that Form 4473s ask people, in the process of accessing a constitutional right, to possibly make a choice between self-incrimination (violating a Fifth Amendment protection) or committing a crime, i.e., perjury?

        I really don’t remember the issue being raised, but of course Second Amendment advocates were dragged into the counter-productive “conservative” “law-and-order” camp, decades ago.
        ———–
        Sometimes it’s amusing to have a long memory.

        As I’ve mentioned before I remember when the NRA would gig a candidate who said they opposed “Instant Background Checks.” The reasoning was that “Instant Background Checks” were so much more to be desired than “waiting periods” that the NRA was demanding them.

        Now we appear close to having “Instant Background Checks” combined with “waiting periods”.

        I’d laugh if it was at all funny.

  6. Andy B. says:

    “…to repeat my question, how many similar examples have been met with an indictment?”

    It appeared I would need to answer my own question. The best I could find was this from the GAO. The usual disclaimers about “the most recent available data” I assume apply:

    LAW ENFORCEMENT

    Few Individuals Denied Firearms Purchases Are Prosecuted and ATF Should Assess Use of Warning Notices in Lieu of Prosecutions

    What GAO Found

    Investigations and prosecutions. Federal and selected state law enforcement agencies that process firearm-related background checks through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) collectively investigate and prosecute a small percentage of individuals who falsify information on a firearms form (e.g., do not disclose a felony conviction) and are denied a purchase. Federal NICS checks resulted in about 112,000 denied transactions in fiscal year 2017, of which the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) referred about 12,700 to its field divisions for further investigation. U.S. Attorney’s Offices (USAO) had prosecuted 12 of these cases as of June 2018.

    At the state level, officials from 10 of 13 selected states said they did not investigate or prosecute firearm denials, some citing competing resource demands and the lack of statutes with which states prosecute as reasons. The remaining 3 states investigated a high proportion of firearms denials. One of the 3 states reported about 1,900 referrals for prosecution in 2017 and about 470 convictions.

    So to oversimplify (probably) 12/12,710 ~ 1/1,059 cases are prosecuted federally. That’s the good news for gun owners. We don’t know from this where Delaware (where Hunter Biden committed his alleged “crime”) stands on prosecutions.

    It is possible the Secret Service agents who allegedly tried to intercede were partisan freelancers. I have an Old Story about freelancing federal agents, but I’ll let that go for now. ;-)

    • Andy B. says:

      Another sincere question: Given that this Hunter Biden gun story is close to three years old, why is everyone from National Review to Hannity reviving it now? An object that’s still shiny, to watch, even it’s a tad past its sell-by date? What are we supposed to be distracted from?

      • Richard says:

        It was actually revived by Politico for unknown reasons but probably having something to do with internal Democrat politics. The Blaze picked the story up last fall but got little notice until Politico did its thing. I think the hook for the conservative commentators is Biden trying to impose new gun laws on decent citizens while he can’t get his son to follow existing gun laws.

        • Andy B. says:

          “It was actually revived by Politico”

          I had been thinking (in my own way) that the story actually had an anti-gun angle to it, in that gun owners would mostly be cheering for enforcement against Hunter, and thereby be cheering for gun control — at the very time the Ds would be bringing gun control to the forefront.

          That would explain why a liberal outlet like Politico would revive it. I’m thinking the Hannitys and National Reviews may be playing into their hands.

          • Richard says:

            Politico is generally critical of Biden for not being leftist enough. I suspect the piece was to assist his more leftist rivals.

    • Richard says:

      There has been speculation that the SS agents were fakes. After all the FBI has jurisdiction over coverups. Gun store owner was suspicious enough to call the ATF.

      • Andy B. says:

        “There has been speculation that the SS agents were fakes.”

        I’m guessing they were pro-Biden (or at least, anti-Trump) partisans who were freelancing. I.e, they may have had true SS ID, but were making an unauthorized mission.

        My Old Story on the subject is second-hand and dates all the way back to WWII. An older friend of mine is an American born German, but his immigrant parents took the family back to Germany. Then, they got out again on the last day that German men were allowed to leave Germany, and returned to the U.S.

        During WWII they were technically “enemy aliens.” One day an unusual incident occurred on their farm that caught people’s attention. A few nights later they were rousted out of bed in the middle of the night by two young FBI agents.

        My friend’s street-smart-from-Germany father told them “The only question I’ll answer is whether either of you two are worthy to f**k a pig. Now get off my farm before I kick your asses. You two are young [ethnic] draft dodgers, and around this neighborhood I’m a lot more popular than [ethnic] draft dodgers.”

        He had figured out quickly that they were young freelancers, hoping to make a name for themselves by discovering something about a German enemy alien immigrant family. Apparently he was right, because they cleared out fast and the family never heard any repercussions from the “raid” again.
        ——-
        If I were writing a novel, I’d say the SS guys in the Biden case had hoped they would be able to curry favor in the future by delivering the 4473 and any other paper to the Biden family, all “off the books.”

top