POTUS 45.13 - CNN is still Fake News

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: POTUS 45.13 - CNN is still Fake News

Simple. You have the right to bear arms. Whether you choose to pay the cost to do so or not is up to you.

Choice. Freedoms. Just like GOP healthcare.

You gotta admire the ones that choose chronic illnesses.

[Kepler]

Re: POTUS 45.13 - CNN is still Fake News

"We were waist deep in the Big Muddy..."

Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday questioned the decision by the Trump administration Justice Department to settle a money-laundering forfeiture case with a Russian real estate investment firm that has ties to the Russian lawyer who met last year with President Donald Trump's son.

Natalia Veselnitskaya represented the owner of Russian firm Prevezon Holdings Ltd. The letter sent by House Judiciary ranking member John Conyers and other Democrats asked Attorney General Jeff Sessions whether Veselnitskaya had been involved in settlement negotiations between the Russian firm and the Justice Department.

Prevezon agreed in May to pay $6 million to the government to avoid a civil trial on charges that the firm had laundered proceeds from an alleged $230 million Russian tax fraud scheme.

Veselnitskaya represented Dennis Katsyv, Prevezon's owner. Katsyv backed a lobbying campaign in Congress and with federal officials last year that was aimed at scuttling the Magnitsky Act, a 2012 law that used sanctions to target officials and associates of Russian President Vladimir Putin and his government.

The House Democrats also asked why the Justice Department settled with Prevezon two days before trial and asked whether Trump, his family or other aides contacted the Justice Department about its case against Prevezon. The Democrats asked for copies of any messages showing such contacts.

[unofan]

Sorry for not deleting everything not related to my post, on my phone.

I live in MA as well and you're right that getting a permit isn't a big deal. I'll be honest that I really have no idea how it is constitutional that they can charge to exercise one's constitutional right, but that's beside the point. The tricky thing with mass gun laws is that there are a lot of nuances where one can get jammed up, especially if you're from out of state. There are a lot of gray areas as far as what is legal and not legal and various parties have different interpretations of them. For example, I have a high capactity license but clips manufactured after Brady sunset are still illegal. If me or anyone else is ever caught they could get a year plus in jail, just because of when they were manufactured.

The same way they can charge for permits for protests, limit your right to free speech (time, place, and manner), and so forth.

The bill of rights are not unlimited. Just as you don't get to yell at the top of your lungs are 3 am in a residential area, you also can have your right to bear arms subject to regulation.

The founding fathers were cool with this, by the way. Everyone forgets that guns were banned in many towns in the wild west.

[Kepler]

Re: POTUS 45.13 - CNN is still Fake News

Well. That escalated quickly.

The heads of the Senate judiciary committee are writing a letter to Donald Trump Jr. Thursday requesting that he testify before the committee, Chairman Chuck Grassley told CNN.

Grassley, R-Iowa, previewed his intentions Wednesday when he told reporters that he wanted former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort to testify before the committee as early as next week, following revelations related to Trump Jr.'s email exchange about meeting with a Russian lawyer regarding potentially damaging information against Hillary Clinton.

Chuck is thinking, "I hafta put this to bed before this sh-t-fer-brains gets the entire administration indicted."

[Drew S.]

The same way they can charge for permits for protests, limit your right to free speech (time, place, and manner), and so forth.

The bill of rights are not unlimited. Just as you don't get to yell at the top of your lungs are 3 am in a residential area, you also can have your right to bear arms subject to regulation.

The founding fathers were cool with this, by the way. Everyone forgets that guns were banned in many towns in the wild west.

I think you missed the point of the post. The first complaint was that you have to pay, what for some people is a decent amount of money, to exercise the right at even the most basic level. Maybe a fairer way would be you pay based on the amount of guns you own? The second complaint was that the gun laws are overly confusing. I'm not questioning the right or even the severity of the state's gun laws.

[French Rage]

Re: POTUS 45.13 - CNN is still Fake News

Well. That escalated quickly.



Chuck is thinking, "I hafta put this to bed before this sh-t-fer-brains gets the entire administration indicted."

Does this make any sense:

"I think it's just raised a lot of questions. but the real way that I feel comfortable inviting him is ever since President Trump was elected," Grassley said Thursday. "It seems like every conversation that has come from somebody in the family where there's been some sort of issue, they've seemed always to be very, very open."

[Kepler]

Re: POTUS 45.13 - CNN is still Fake News

Does this make any sense:

In politics, it's a normal partisan statement. In any other field of human endeavor it's known as a whopper.

[leswp1]

Re: POTUS 45.13 - CNN is still Fake News

Sorry for not deleting everything not related to my post, on my phone.

I live in MA as well and you're right that getting a permit isn't a big deal. I'll be honest that I really have no idea how it is constitutional that they can charge to exercise one's constitutional right, but that's beside the point. The tricky thing with mass gun laws is that there are a lot of nuances where one can get jammed up, especially if you're from out of state. There are a lot of gray areas as far as what is legal and not legal and various parties have different interpretations of them. For example, I have a high capactity license but clips manufactured after Brady sunset are still illegal. If me or anyone else is ever caught they could get a year plus in jail, just because of when they were manufactured.

With rights come responsibilities. It is not that onerous, if you chose to own things that deadly, to make sure you are on the right side of the law. It wasn't that long ago that most people would not have considered this something to have. Lots of marketing. Sort of like people needing 52 flavors of coffee.

I would be happy if we had the law they have in UK- you can have a gun but not at your house- stored at the gun club. Having dealt with some vets with PTSD I think this would be a pretty awesome option to have. When they aren't feeling safe they freq give their weapons to a friend to store until they are in a better frame of mind.

I know people keep harping on the Founding Fathers and the 'Right to bear Arms' but from what I understand the intent of the Amendment has nothing to do with having high capacity clips and other toys. If you look at the intent then I am pretty sure some of the FF would be having fits at being used as an excuse to own some of this stuff. The only equivalent I can think of would be someone owning cannon and keeping it at home for recreation. Wonder how many people did that or if they would have agreed. For the most part it seems they were pragmatists who thought common sense was somewhat understood when it came to interpretation. I can't see how they would go along with the way things have been perverted from the original intent.

[unofan]

I think you missed the point of the post. The first complaint was that you have to pay, what for some people is a decent amount of money, to exercise the right at even the most basic level. Maybe a fairer way would be you pay based on the amount of guns you own? The second complaint was that the gun laws are overly confusing. I'm not questioning the right or even the severity of the state's gun laws.

By questioning having to pay, you are inherently questioning the severity of the state's gun laws. I don't understand how you have that disconnect.

[jerphisch]

Re: POTUS 45.13 - CNN is still Fake News

To those that are still sitting on the question of is information "valuable" to determine wether or not Jr. broke the law, this should help clear that up.

The Federal Election Commission has said that providing free polling information to a candidate is a thing of value. It has said that when Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform gave a list of conservative activists in 37 states to the Bush–Cheney campaign in 2004, this was a thing of value which had to be reported by the campaign, even if the list was publicly posted on the group’s website. It said that Canadian campaign literature which an American candidate wanted to borrow from in his own campaign is a thing of value, even if its value is “nominal or difficult to ascertain.” It said that opposition research provided by a political group to Republican candidates can count as an in-kind contribution. And a federal court, in the prosecution of New Jersey Sen. Robert Menendez, said that a thing of value need only have subjective value to the recipient.

Jr. broke the law.

[rufus]

Re: POTUS 45.13 - CNN is still Fake News

I think you missed the point of the post. The first complaint was that you have to pay, what for some people is a decent amount of money, to exercise the right at even the most basic level. Maybe a fairer way would be you pay based on the amount of guns you own? The second complaint was that the gun laws are overly confusing. I'm not questioning the right or even the severity of the state's gun laws.

I would assume it would fall under the "well regulated" part.

Just as we have the right to freedom of assembly, except not within a quarter mile of where a party convention is being held, or whatever.

But we know, you like to pick and choose the Constitutional rights that are inviolate, and are perfectly ok with the limits placed on others.

[leswp1]

Re: POTUS 45.13 - CNN is still Fake News

I think you missed the point of the post. The first complaint was that you have to pay, what for some people is a decent amount of money, to exercise the right at even the most basic level. Maybe a fairer way would be you pay based on the amount of guns you own? The second complaint was that the gun laws are overly confusing. I'm not questioning the right or even the severity of the state's gun laws.

You have to pay for a lot of things. Car licenses, Nursing licenses, DEA number to write prescriptions, permits to build, registering your car, the list is endless.

Or if we want to have fun- many States have enacted rules that require you pay to vote. You need to get a State approved ID to be able to vote. In many places people have to travel a goodly distance and provide very specific documents that they may also have to pay for and travel to get to be able to pay to get an ID. Of course if we could agree that State IDs could be free then I might be a bit more willing to have flexible thought on the other stuff.

[unofan]

You have to pay for a lot of things. Car licenses, Nursing licenses, DEA number to write prescriptions, permits to build, registering your car, the list is endless.

Or if we want to have fun- many States have enacted rules that require you pay to vote. You need to get a State approved ID to be able to vote. In many places people have to travel a goodly distance and provide very specific documents that they may also have to pay for and travel to get to be able to pay to get an ID. Of course if we could agree that State IDs could be free then I might be a bit more willing to have flexible thought on the other stuff.

States have to offer a free ID if they require one to vote, that goes back to poll taxes being illegal. They don't have to make it convenient to get one, however. They just can't make it unduly burdensome.

[Drew S.]

You have to pay for a lot of things. Car licenses, Nursing licenses, DEA number to write prescriptions, permits to build, registering your car, the list is endless.

Or if we want to have fun- many States have enacted rules that require you pay to vote. You need to get a State approved ID to be able to vote. In many places people have to travel a goodly distance and provide very specific documents that they may also have to pay for and travel to get to be able to pay to get an ID. Of course if we could agree that State IDs could be free then I might be a bit more willing to have flexible thought on the other stuff.

None of the items in your first paragraph are part of the bill of rights. Paying for the gun permit wasn't really my complaint, and to be honest it's not that big of deal for me financially, but I am aware enough to realize there are people who are in tighter situations financially. My big complaint is there is a lot of complexity around the laws, especially if you are from out of state, and it would be easy to make a mistake and wind up in trouble.

Edit- thank you unofan, was the point I was trying to make.

[unofan]

None of the items in your first paragraph are part of the bill of rights. Paying for the gun permit wasn't really my complaint, and to be honest it's not that big of deal for me financially, but I am aware enough to realize there are people who are in tighter situations financially. My big complaint is there is a lot of complexity around the laws, especially if you are from out of state, and it would be easy to make a mistake and wind up in trouble.

Edit- thank you unofan, was the point I was trying to make.

I hate that argument from your first sentence. It harkens back to why the bill of rights wasn't included initially. "If we include these rights, people will assume nothing else is covered."

That's been proven correct time and time again.