Florida State Seminoles

[eCat]

Interesting read, large law firm represents politician accused of rape, woman has background of mental issues.

CEO of firm sends out email to 2000 employees saying they shouldn't have taken him on as a client

Law Firm tells her , your services are no longer required, our clients are innocent until proven guilty

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... email.html

[sardis]

What the NIH and Government didn't want you to know what they knew about how the virus started.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/ ... rpt-474322

[eCat]

Crazy at work lately, spent the weekend catching up around the house.

Sardis, I read that article , people should be throwing a fit

[eCat]

there are worse people in the world - rapists, murderers,

but this woman is a horrible human being

https://www.pennlive.com/news/2021/03/p ... olice.html

[hedge]

That's because you look like Ron Howards brother

Come on man, that's me...

[hedge]

"Sardis, I read that article , people should be throwing a fit"

Wait, you really think Trump gave a shit about the health and well-being of the American people?

[eCat]

I seem to recall Trump saying it came from a lab in China, calling it the wuhan flu and people lost their minds, calling him a racist including our president
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
President Joe Biden has issued an executive order banning the use of terms such as “China virus” and “Wuhan virus” when referring to COVID-19.

The order applies to federal agencies and public health documents and resources.

Former President Donald Trump routinely called COVID the “China virus” or and other conservatives linked it to Wuhan, China where the virus is thought to have originated in a government lab. Trump blamed China for the global coronavirus pandemic.

[Jungle Rat]

Smart move. Just trying to keep the Trumpettes from beating up elderly Asians

[eCat]

see if you can pick out what is wrong with this story ....


Lehigh County gun show promoter is first in nation to ban ‘ghost gun’ kits from shows, Pennsylvania attorney general says
Pennsylvania’s largest gun show promoter — Eagle Arms of Upper Macungie Township — is the first in the country to halt the sale of self-assembled firearm kits called “ghost guns” because they are untraceable, officials said Monday.

Attorney General Josh Shapiro made the announcement at a news conference in West Philadelphia, a crime-troubled neighborhood where, he said, the weapons are often illegally resold and used in crimes.
“I encourage other gun show promoters to think about their responsibility in this epidemic as Eagle Arms has and reach out to our office to make the same commitment we are announcing here today,” Shapiro said at the news conference, where he was joined by Philadelphia area legislators state Rep. Amen Brown and state Sens. Vincent Hughes and Tony Williams.

Guns assembled from the kits don’t have serial numbers or other identifying information, so they can’t be traced. And background checks aren’t required to buy them.
“They are becoming the weapon of choice for criminals on the streets of Philadelphia,” Shapiro said, noting that authorities seized 99 such guns in Philadelphia in 2019 and 250 in 2020. Almost 100 were seized in the first two months of this year.

Eagle Arms could not be reached for comment. According to the Patriot-News of Harrisburg, Joel Koehler of Eagle Arms said Brown, a freshman Democrat, approached him about the damage the kits were doing to his district.


“I want to do the right thing. It’s the right thing,” Koehler told the newspaper. “If we can keep them out of the bad guys’ hands, fantastic.”

The company’s Facebook page, however, drew several angry comments.


“Nothing like bailing on the 2nd amendment and running a gun show, sorry, but your company is done!!!” one said.

“Will no longer be attending any of your shows... You’re either with us or against us,” another wrote.

Shapiro opened the news conference by holding up one of about 10 ghost guns and kits purchased at an Eagle Arms show in Berks County and seized as the buyers resold them in Philadelphia.

“They bought them with no background check because it’s not required under Pennsylvania law,” Shapiro said. “They assembled them quickly and then they sold them on the streets of Philadelphia to people who wanted to commit crimes and, in some cases, did.”


“These individuals,” Shapiro added, “some of whom could not legally carry a gun, have been arrested, and our investigation is ongoing.”

Shapiro said his office carries out surveillance of gun shows to track the flow of weapons.

“We have watched convicted felons walk out of these gun shows with massive duffel bags full of [gun kits],” he said.

Brown said the move was a first step in reducing the violence plaguing Philadelphia neighborhoods.

“Hopefully, other states around us see the action we’re taking,” he said. “I’m not saying this one step is going to end it all but I believe we’re headed in the right direction.”

[GBJs]

see if you can pick out what is wrong with this story ....

No background check?? I’m a believer in our 2A right, but a background check should be accomplished. Not too many new gun laws are needed, many of the ones on the books aren’t enforced. Close the loophole and enforce a background check for kits also.

[hedge]

"see if you can pick out what is wrong with this story ...."

Are you referring to this?: "“We have watched convicted felons walk out of these gun shows with massive duffel bags full of [gun kits],” he said."

[Jungle Rat]

What's wrong with banning them? No serial number? No background check? I see nothing wrong with it. If you're pissed about them staking out the place suck it up buttercup.

[GBJs]

Lucid...

[eCat]

"see if you can pick out what is wrong with this story ...."

Are you referring to this?: "“We have watched convicted felons walk out of these gun shows with massive duffel bags full of [gun kits],” he said."

bringo

[eCat]

see if you can pick out what is wrong with this story ....

No background check?? I’m a believer in our 2A right, but a background check should be accomplished. Not too many new gun laws are needed, many of the ones on the books aren’t enforced. Close the loophole and enforce a background check for kits also.

doesn't sound like you are.

why do I need a background check to be approved to own something that the constitution says shall not be infringed?

how about focusing on felons buying gun kits instead of making blanket laws that make it harder on law abiding citizens to own or sell them?

[hedge]

Do you think that just b/c cars weren't invented when the Constitution was written that you don't have a Constitutional right to drive a car?

[Jungle Rat]

So e thinks we shouldn't have background checks. Wow.

[eCat]

Do you think that just b/c cars weren't invented when the Constitution was written that you don't have a Constitutional right to drive a car?

that's the basic argument isn't it? we register for drivers license, car license before we can drive a car, so why not guns?

but yea, its not a constitutional guarantee - and the basic difference is the forefathers weren't concerned about whether you were guaranteed to ride a horse and buggy, car or whatever - they didn't see the regulation or obstacles created by that as a threat to independence, self defense or tyranny.

You guys see background checks as a very basic no duh, we should do this kind of thing, but its the definition of infringement. The government, the whole reason the 2A was basically created to prevent abuse from, is deciding who can and cannot have a gun. And they have made it very clear they aren't willing to stop with felons. They have already pushed and continue to push for red flag laws that allows a persons rights to be taken away prior to due process if they consider them a threat.

I bet some of you would be in favor of taking guns away from anyone associated with a group you don't agree with - Proud boys or Antifa, or even people that go to Parlor and talk about secession of their state.

That's the threat here. The whole reason the forefathers wanted an armed citizenry was the ability to band them together to form an adhoc militia - they didn't even want a standing army, so the argument about - how can a guy with a hunting rifle stop our military is really moot. The forefathers felt the guy with the hunting rifle *was* our military and the fact he was armed to the teeth was going to prevent tyranny from rising against the citizenry.

Take the Clive Bundy example. This was a family who generationally had been grazing their cattle on these lands for decades, the government Bureau of Land Management steps and says this land is protected for whatever reason and you have to stop. As I recall they wiped out multiple ranchers over the years and the Bundy's were one of the last to continue. Now whether you agree with Bundy or not, his fight brought to light that the federal government owned something like 80% of all public lands in that area and was arbitrarily changing its use laws based on the political landscape in Washington. And when a family objected , eventually they sent multiple armed representatives to them in order to force them to stop , meaning they were willing to shoot this man over cattle grazing. What they didn't expect to see was multiple armed resistors willing to shoot them back. Ultimately he lost and went to jail, and when you get into the details of it, he probably deserved going to jail for some of the decisions he made, but he didn't deserve to be shot for grazing cattle, and when an armed citizenry stood up and showed the government they were willing to shoot back, suddenly the idea of shooting a man over grazing cattle wasn't so important to our government. They faced an ad-hoc militia that prevented them from harming a citizen when they were overstepping their boundaries.

I don't like the idea of a felon intending to use a ghost gun to harm citizens as much as the next person, but every solution that comes out of the mouths of politicians isn't about stopping the crime its about stopping the law abiding citizen to having access. Focus on the people that are causing harm and quit focusing on removing rights of people that are doing nothing wrong. Its a basic concept that is just lost on people because its the easiest solution, not the right one.

[Jungle Rat]

Ok then....

[eCat]

while I'd still be concerned about it, I could live with the idea that a person passes a single background check on whether they can own a gun or not, and that is added to their drivers license or whatever. I think everyone agrees there are certain people that shouldn't own a gun.

But this idea that every gun is tracked, every gun sale must pass government approval and a person can't build a gun by assembling parts without a government stamp of approval is too much.

I'd be willing to accept a card that says I can buy, own and a sell a gun as long as the criteria is based on past history of gun abuse or incapacity to differentiate right from wrong - determined at the state level. I'd be willing to go to jail or face heavy fines if I sold a gun to someone who didn't have that card. But this idea that I have to go to a government approved facility to apply for a background check in order to defend myself everytime I buy or sell a gun is absurd to me and is way beyond what the constitution guarantees me.

and even going back to the car analogy, which I still think is wrong, we don't have any laws in place about anyone purchasing a consumer vehicle. We have laws in place about the use of it, but not possession of it, so even an alcoholic, mentally ill , felon or illegal alien can purchase a car here without infringement. All they have to do is prove they are who they say they are and they own it - and that is to prevent theft and protect the seller, not any intended universal level of restriction to ownership. The basic belief is everyone has a right to physically own a car, or a TV or access the internet. Its what they do with the car that is restricted, and that isn't a federal level issue, that is a states issue who is responsible for determining age, ability and responsibility for car usage.