@Zardoz,
Quote:You don’t have to defend yourself from an investigation.
Is that the advice you got from a lawyer?
Quote:If you haven’t done anything there is not enough evidence to bring you to trial.
Considering the old adage "A prosecutor could get an indictment against a ham sandwich.", I would say you were wrong.
Quote: Trump been a life-long criminal that has that has danced between the rain drops because of his connections to organized criminals.
Nice personal opinion. Do you think anyone doing business with the Unions in NY could avoid Mob connections?
Quote:I am reading the Fusion GPS book that used extensive court records of Trump’s scams.
It figures those scammers would write a book about Trump. Seeing as how their fake dossier failed, they have to keep trying. You should do yourself a favor and read an unbias book about the election. That company was knees deep in launching a fake investigation into a presidential campaign for the Obama admin to help Hillary.
Quote:Do you not understand that facts are facts they don’t change you can’t spin facts? You can deny facts but you can’t spin them. Opinion however are different. Opinions however are all spin.
You should consider this when posting about guns, you are always fact free and opinion heavy. When you can't prove your opinion, you double down and make more ridiculous claims and examples.
Quote:The actual facts show that the Dayton shooter went on line to hero worship the El Paso mass murderer. It looks as if he had a last-minute conversion before he decided to become a mass murderer. The El Paso mass murder showed him the true way.
Those are not actual facts, that is opinion. The facts are that he was a Bernie supporter and he chose to shoot up a bunch of people, including his own sister.
Quote:There is no way around the fact that no innocent person has anything to fear from an investigation. In fact, an investigation will prove they are innocent.
Except lots and lots of innocent people are thrown in jail and convicted all the time.
Fact's time! Did you know there were 7 mistakes on the FISA applications to spy on Carter Page and the Trump Campaign... with 1 mistake, an application would be denied, how was one approved with 7 mistakes? How were 5 warrants approved with a total of 17 mistakes in all?
Fact! One of the judges on the FISA court has come out and written an article on the mistakes by the FBI, and demands that they follow the rules as written.
Quote:There were laws written specifically to protect whistleblowers otherwise they would never come forward because they would be retaliated against.
That is the only law, they actually have no protections from being named and exposed, it only protects their job.
Did you know that Obama was the worst offender against Whistle Blowers and had several sent to jail?
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/11/21/where_was_the_love_for_whistleblowers_during_the_obama_administration_141782.html
Quote:Not all politicians are pathological liars I have worked with hundreds.
That's your proof that they are not all liars? They must have been the politicians that supported the union, you would ignore their lies as long as it got you more money from the taxpayer.
Quote:Whitehouse insiders have noted that Trump is a functional illiterate who only reads at an eighth or ninth grade level.
Keep telling yourself that. Are these some of the same "insiders" who have been exposed as liars in their own books?
Quote:The key part of the Heller decision is the ruling that you do not have a right to any “weapon whatsoever for any reason whatsoever.”
That was not the key part of the ruling, the key part of the ruling was that people are allowed to own guns. What you think was the key ruling was an example of where the already existing laws would be in effect, like govt buildings and people who are restricted are those with felonies on their records. That is all that decision said, it's why you never posted the entire decision, you thought you could lie by omission.
Quote:I drew you a picture for you in a previous post. All you have to do is read it. In the Heller decision the guy got his gun permit but lost his “right to own any weapon whatsoever.”
No misleading pictures required, I actually posted the decision and it doesn't come close to what you said it said. Just to prove yo lied and mislead, I'll post the decision again, since you don't have the guts to.
Because you are a liar:
(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
Quote:He won the battle but lost the war. It was an extremely high price for a gun permit.
You are a liar who is not honest about the decision! You will also have to take into account the Mcdonald vs Chicago decision, which also points to you being a liar about the rulings on gun laws:
Majority
The majority agreed that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller, but was split on the rationale. Writing for four members of the court, Justice Alito found that the Due Process Clause incorporates that right against the States.[22] While joining most of the rest of Alito’s opinion, Justice Thomas, in his concurrence, concluded that the right to bear arms is incorporated only on alternative grounds, namely through the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.[23] Alito also reaffirmed, in part of the opinion for four justices, that certain firearms restrictions mentioned in District of Columbia v. Heller are assumed permissible and not directly dealt with in this case.[24] Such restrictions include those to "prohibit ... the possession of firearms by felons or mentally ill" and "laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."[24]
Quote:Shall not be infringed is not a right it only applies to the right to keep and bear arms hall not be infringed.
You don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about.
Quote:That means that you can’t take the right to keep and bear arms away from the criminals and the mentally ill.
Keep talking out of both sides of your face.
Quote:It has been more than 200 years and there has never been a reason to overthrow the government but their will always be a fringe right that would constantly want to overthrow the government.
I think you forget the aims of the far left, which you fall into.
Quote:Reading the second amendment as written is one thing but you read it as you wished it was.
Wrong, I read it as written. You read it as you want it to be.
Quote:When it says right to keep and bear arms it does not mean an arsenal of weapons of war and it is not infringed if you have an arm to bear.
You would be wrong, that is exactly the reason the 2nd Amendment was written.
