"We'll walk right into your home," she said...

Ifallalot

Duke status
Dec 17, 2008
90,065
19,647
113
Nobody is coming for your guns.

True story: My longtime AE had a felony gun charge going back over a year ago. He was moving and flipped his 4Runner on a highway exit ramp while transporting his firearms and foolishly had a round in the chamber of one of the guns. He was concussed and failed a roadside sobriety test that highway patrol gave him after emts told them he was concussed so they searched the vehicle and found the chambered weapon. Long story short he got a year of parole after endless legal nonsense and nobody informed him that he was supposed to surrender his firearms. Not the courts, or his lawyer. He found out almost a year later and this past week he tried to do the right thing and turn them in. Only they wouldn’t take them. Since he couldn’t legally transport them he got his sister to do it with him and they drove down to the police station with them and three days in a row he was told they had to come back the next day. Then they were told that they couldn’t turn them in and offficers would be sent out the following day to pick them up. Only they didn’t come for another three days. Dude was practically begging them to take his firearms so he could comply with the courts and he literally had to jump through hoops to get it done.

And people like Caca think that Coconut is gonna come door to door siezing guns? Didn’t we hear that tired trope from the NRA and their legion of scared gullible card carrying member for 8yrs of Obama?

Nobody is coming for your guns, even if they want to. With more guns than people in this country there’s not a chance that the govt will ever remove guns from the public. Anyone that thinks that on either side of the argument is living in fantasy land.
He should have never had a felony in the first place

the whole situation is due to police and judicial incompetence

complacency is how it happens
 

Ifallalot

Duke status
Dec 17, 2008
90,065
19,647
113
you do realize that this statement was made in connection with the safe storage bill passed in CA in 2007 yes? That legislation, of course, made no reference to police conducting warrantless searches. Rather, it outlined rules related to safe gun storage, reported Violations of which could lead to criminal liability.

what’s weird about your hysterics here is that even if you take her literally rather than in the context of discussing actual legislation on the table, she didn’t even say there would be ramifications for unsafe storage. So the hypothetical result you’re so up in arms about is law enforcement busting in to help you properly secure your firearms and then leaving lol.
:roflmao:

We all watched the video

is pure gaslighting a sign of a good lawyer?
 
  • Like
Reactions: casa_mugrienta
S

StuAzole

Guest
I am enjoying this “take everything literally“ discussion. Who said this?

"Do you throw the Presidential Election Results of 2020 OUT and declare the RIGHTFUL WINNER, or do you have a NEW ELECTION? A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution.”

Or

“As part of my plan to secure the border, on Day One of my new term in office, I will sign an executive order making clear to federal agencies that under the correct interpretation of the law, going forward, the future children of illegal aliens will not receive automatic U.S. citizenship.”
 
  • Like
Reactions: plasticbertrand

plasticbertrand

Duke status
Jan 12, 2009
22,439
15,481
113
Proper retribution is prevention despite what your side will say.
How did retribution help families who lost their kids in this shooting?

You think the shooter was thinking about jail time when he was murdering people?

You think the father was thinking about life sentence when he enabled the little psycho with the AR15?

That's delusional thinking.
 

Mike_Jones

Tom Curren status
Mar 5, 2009
11,754
2,536
113
It was the spring of 2018 and President Donald J. Thruster, faced with an accelerating inquiry into his campaign’s ties to Russia, was furious that the Justice Department was reluctant to strike back at those he saw as his enemies.

In an Oval Office meeting, Mr. Thruster told startled aides that if Attorney General Jeff Sessions would not order the department to go after Hillary Clinton and James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director, Mr. Thruster would prosecute them himself.

:roflmao:



Fact: The Steele dossier which we are familiar with was commissioned and paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign.


---------------------------
The Steele dossier, also known as the Trump–Russia dossier,[1] is a controversial political opposition research report compiled by Christopher Steele that was published without permission in 2017 as an unfinished 35-page compilation of "unverified, and potentially unverifiable"[a] raw intelligence reports—"not established facts, but a starting point for further investigation".[3][4][5] The veracity status of many of the allegations is still unknown because efforts to corroborate the allegations were short-lived, limited, and weak, with the FBI stopping all efforts to corroborate the dossier in May 2017 when the Mueller investigation took over the Russia investigation.[6]
.....
The second operation of opposition research was indirectly funded by the DNC and the Clinton campaign, working through their attorney of record, Marc Elias of Perkins Coie.[18] In an October 2017 letter, Perkins Coie general counsel Matthew Gehringer described how, in March 2016, Fusion GPS approached Perkins Coie and, knowing the Clinton campaign and the DNC were its clients, inquired whether its clients wished to pay Fusion GPS "to continue research regarding then-presidential candidate Donald Trump, research that Fusion GPS had conducted for one or more other clients during the Republican primary contest."[50] In April 2016, Elias hired Fusion GPS to perform opposition research on Trump.[18][50]
---------------------------

It was a political hit piece from start to finish.
.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: $kully

Duffy LaCoronilla

Duke status
Apr 27, 2016
42,698
34,862
113
well then I’m far more concerned with Thruster just being a dictator for a little bit than I am with Valley Girl coming in to make sure my gun is properly stored!

Btw, you must be going nuts internally trying to figure out which Amendment covers searches and seizures hey?
you do realize that this statement was made in connection with the safe storage bill passed in CA in 2007 yes? That legislation, of course, made no reference to police conducting warrantless searches. Rather, it outlined rules related to safe gun storage, reported Violations of which could lead to criminal liability.

what’s weird about your hysterics here is that even if you take her literally rather than in the context of discussing actual legislation on the table, she didn’t even say there would be ramifications for unsafe storage. So the hypothetical result you’re so up in arms about is law enforcement busting in to help you properly secure your firearms and then leaving lol.
Maybe you’ll make the connection. Maybe it’ll have to be explained to you.
 

casa_mugrienta

Duke status
Apr 13, 2008
46,254
21,011
113
Petak Island
we’ll let me know the next time an HR department breaks the law in reviewing an application you submit and I’ll get you a good employment litigation attorney.
HR departments break the law all the time.

It's just a matter of getting caught.

Usually they don't get caught because violations can be hard to prove.

Potential employees just want to move on and current employees don't want to be marked.

It's pretty unusual to get someone who actually wants to engage in a drawn out legal battle - you have to **** off the wrong person. Eventually it happens but if you're a big organization I think you just figure it into the budget or settle.

At my job they will 100% come after you if you **** off the wrong people. If they want you gone "we'll start building a case" as my ex-manager used to say. It's real easy to find bad charting and violations of policy because everyone's guilty on a regular basis - too many policies for employees to keep track of. I've been asked to participate in that crap a few times and refused.

I've also seen employees that end up magically rehired a few times.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ifallalot
S

StuAzole

Guest
Maybe you’ll make the connection. Maybe it’ll have to be explained to you.
You have almost 20 years post-comment to judge - did Harris or anyone associated with the legislation she was discussing cause a single illegal search to check on proper gun storage to occur?
 

Mike_Jones

Tom Curren status
Mar 5, 2009
11,754
2,536
113
you do realize that this statement was made in connection with the safe storage bill passed in CA in 2007 yes? That legislation, of course, made no reference to police conducting warrantless searches. Rather, it outlined rules related to safe gun storage, reported Violations of which could lead to criminal liability.

what’s weird about your hysterics here is that even if you take her literally rather than in the context of discussing actual legislation on the table, she didn’t even say there would be ramifications for unsafe storage. So the hypothetical result you’re so up in arms about is law enforcement busting in to help you properly secure your firearms and then leaving lol.

.