Advertisement
by Traditional Conservative Hellas » Sat Aug 05, 2017 8:01 am
by Vassenor » Sat Aug 05, 2017 8:02 am
Proctopeo wrote:Valrifell wrote:
I think it depends on how you take the NRA's statements in some ads. If you take them as subtle threats for violence against you, then that can be considered intimidation for political means, i.e. definitionally terrorism.
The question is whether making the threats or acting on the threats is more terroristy.
by Washington Resistance Army » Sat Aug 05, 2017 8:04 am
by Proctopeo » Sat Aug 05, 2017 8:04 am
by Washington Resistance Army » Sat Aug 05, 2017 8:05 am
Traditional Conservative Hellas wrote:Everyone says Trump is bad, I haven't seen any bad thing he has done during his presidency, but that doesn't mean I support me
by Valrifell » Sat Aug 05, 2017 8:06 am
by Michael Johnathan » Sat Aug 05, 2017 8:07 am
Steffan wrote:Michael Johnathan wrote:
There are a couple of examples where both clearly showed a bias against Trump and it affected the accuracy of some of their stories.
I know. It's a joke.
Basically every news source has bashed Trump at some point for something. All that's different is to what degree.
by Valrifell » Sat Aug 05, 2017 8:07 am
Proctopeo wrote:Vassenor wrote:
Terroistic Threats is a felony, IIRC.
And I assume acting on it also includes whatever crimes you commit while acting on it, plus the threat felony.
So, using that to answer my own question, probably the latter, because it's more crimes. If we do assume that the NRA's statement could be seen as such, I think Antifa still comes out on top.
by Washington Resistance Army » Sat Aug 05, 2017 8:08 am
Valrifell wrote:Washington Resistance Army wrote:
Indeed it is, but I think most everybody in the legal system would agree the NRA's statements are not threats.
Oh, sure, because there's room to wiggle out of it because what they're saying often isn't clear. The fact that they can take a threatening tone is still indicative of a super-tribal mentality that isn't going to help them in any way.
by The Huskar Social Union » Sat Aug 05, 2017 8:10 am
by West Phoenicia » Sat Aug 05, 2017 8:15 am
Ifreann wrote:The Republicans have set a clear precedent that when there's a vacancy on the Supreme Court, you have to wait until a new president is elected before filling it, so that the people can have their say. So no new justices until 2021.
by Washington Resistance Army » Sat Aug 05, 2017 8:17 am
West Phoenicia wrote:Ifreann wrote:The Republicans have set a clear precedent that when there's a vacancy on the Supreme Court, you have to wait until a new president is elected before filling it, so that the people can have their say. So no new justices until 2021.
Isnt that only during a period of election or when one president is leaving and the other coming to take over. Not during the first year of a new presidents term. Thats silly otherwise.
by Michael Johnathan » Sat Aug 05, 2017 8:18 am
West Phoenicia wrote:Ifreann wrote:The Republicans have set a clear precedent that when there's a vacancy on the Supreme Court, you have to wait until a new president is elected before filling it, so that the people can have their say. So no new justices until 2021.
Isnt that only during a period of election or when one president is leaving and the other coming to take over. Not during the first year of a new presidents term. Thats silly otherwise.
by Michael Johnathan » Sat Aug 05, 2017 8:19 am
Washington Resistance Army wrote:West Phoenicia wrote:
Isnt that only during a period of election or when one president is leaving and the other coming to take over. Not during the first year of a new presidents term. Thats silly otherwise.
It's not a thing at all. It was just a risky gamble that the GOP took and it paid off. They aren't going to pass up an opportunity to appoint more Justices next year when Kennedy is gone and they especially won't pass up a chance to replace RBG if or when she dies.
by Washington Resistance Army » Sat Aug 05, 2017 8:20 am
Michael Johnathan wrote:Washington Resistance Army wrote:
It's not a thing at all. It was just a risky gamble that the GOP took and it paid off. They aren't going to pass up an opportunity to appoint more Justices next year when Kennedy is gone and they especially won't pass up a chance to replace RBG if or when she dies.
Joe Biden strikes again!
by Conserative Morality » Sat Aug 05, 2017 8:23 am
Washington Resistance Army wrote:This is true, the NRA of today is far more politically active and does a lot more to defend gun rights.
Shame they couldn't kill the NFA in it's entirety back then.
by Conserative Morality » Sat Aug 05, 2017 8:25 am
Michael Johnathan wrote:Washington Resistance Army wrote:
It's not a thing at all. It was just a risky gamble that the GOP took and it paid off. They aren't going to pass up an opportunity to appoint more Justices next year when Kennedy is gone and they especially won't pass up a chance to replace RBG if or when she dies.
Joe Biden strikes again!
by Conserative Morality » Sat Aug 05, 2017 8:26 am
Washington Resistance Army wrote:Nope.
by Washington Resistance Army » Sat Aug 05, 2017 8:26 am
by Ism » Sat Aug 05, 2017 8:26 am
Washington Resistance Army wrote:Ifreann wrote:But this isn't doing anything to protect or advance people's gun rights. This is just kissing the President's ass.
Indeed it isn't, which is why I don't support or bother watching any of that nonsense. But I'm going to remain an NRA member as long as the Dems keep trying to ban all my guns.
by Washington Resistance Army » Sat Aug 05, 2017 8:28 am
Ism wrote:Washington Resistance Army wrote:
Indeed it isn't, which is why I don't support or bother watching any of that nonsense. But I'm going to remain an NRA member as long as the Dems keep trying to ban all my guns.
Ah yes, the evil Dems are coming "fer muh gunz". They're not, but it's a nice rallying cry I suppose.
by Ifreann » Sat Aug 05, 2017 8:28 am
West Phoenicia wrote:Ifreann wrote:The Republicans have set a clear precedent that when there's a vacancy on the Supreme Court, you have to wait until a new president is elected before filling it, so that the people can have their say. So no new justices until 2021.
Isnt that only during a period of election or when one president is leaving and the other coming to take over. Not during the first year of a new presidents term. Thats silly otherwise.
by Conserative Morality » Sat Aug 05, 2017 8:30 am
by Washington Resistance Army » Sat Aug 05, 2017 8:31 am
Conserative Morality wrote:Washington Resistance Army wrote:
By all means, elaborate.
The NRA was a solid supporter of most gun control legislation and was largely an organization for (gasp!) people who owned and used rifles in their day-to-day lives until the late 70s when all the survivalists and other anti-government paranoiacs with their dicks in their AR-15s that they don't understand the utility of took over.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Atrito, Austria-Bohemia-Hungary, Bovad, Cessarea, Deblar, Europa Undivided, Godular, Majestic-12 [Bot], New-Minneapolis, Ors Might, Perchan, Philjia, Southland, Tesseris, The Lone Alliance, The Terren Dominion, Theodorable, Uiiop, Zetaopalatopia
Advertisement