When virtue signaling goes wrong.

Enjoy.

LOL! Another Democrat idiot.

Quote:she created a sawed-off shotgun

No, she didn't.

(03-09-2018 02:54 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

Quote:she created a sawed-off shotgun

No, she didn't.

LOL yeah, that video is a cluster**** of misinformation. Par for the course with the media when it comes to guns.

She probably should have just destroyed the gun. But anyway, this isn't going to move any votes away from her. And she's probably protected for what is obviously political speech (an attempt to destroy a AR-15). She also might not be the nominee. It won't hurt the Democrats chances in this Clinton +2/Kaine +4 district. What hurts the Democrats in that particular district is the fact that the Republican incumbent is actually not a bad guy, is frequently critical of the GOP, is not supportive of the GOP on social issues. This race is going to be a really close anyway.

Quote:And she's probably protected for what is obviously political speech (an attempt to destroy a AR-15)

If this is even REMOTELY true then no business can tell me I can't conceal and carry in their establishment.

So she rendered the gun inoperable before sawing it in half... Wow, that's some prime time useless virtue signaling

(03-09-2018 05:41 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  So she rendered the gun inoperable before sawing it in half... Wow, that's some prime time useless virtue signaling

Its a good start. Wont hurt her in that district. If the GOP wants to run on 'an AR 15 in the hand of any random male over the age of 18' there, they're welcome to do so.

(03-09-2018 05:01 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

Quote:And she's probably protected for what is obviously political speech (an attempt to destroy a AR-15)

If this is even REMOTELY true then no business can tell me I can't conceal and carry in their establishment.

Uh, she was destroying a gun in the commission of making a political statement by a declared political candidate on private property (presumably with the approval of the property owners).

There's a HUGE leap from doing that, and you carrying a concealed firearm onto the property of someone who DOESN'T want you to do so.

And if its concealed, how are you making a political statement with that action?

(03-09-2018 05:46 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-09-2018 05:41 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  So she rendered the gun inoperable before sawing it in half... Wow, that's some prime time useless virtue signaling

Its a good start. Wont hurt her in that district.

Maybe, maybe not... But it's certainly empty attention seeking.

Quote:If the GOP wants to run on 'an AR 15 in the hand of any random male over the age of 18' there, they're welcome to do so.

Aye Aye Scare Crow commander and chief....

(03-09-2018 05:46 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-09-2018 05:41 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  So she rendered the gun inoperable before sawing it in half... Wow, that's some prime time useless virtue signaling

Its a good start. Wont hurt her in that district. If the GOP wants to run on 'an AR 15 in the hand of any random male over the age of 18' there, they're welcome to do so.

Despite the ridiculous way you frame it, it's a winning issue for us. Make 2018 about guns, I beg you.

There's a reason why the dems never did anything whenever they had the presidency and both houses. They don't actually want a solution, they just want to retain the opportunity to be outraged.

Same with DACA. President Trump exposed that whenever he gave them everything they wanted and more, and they still refused to even come to the table, much less make a deal.

(03-09-2018 05:49 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-09-2018 05:01 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

Quote:And she's probably protected for what is obviously political speech (an attempt to destroy a AR-15)

If this is even REMOTELY true then no business can tell me I can't conceal and carry in their establishment.

Uh, she was destroying a gun in the commission of making a political statement by a declared political candidate on private property (presumably with the approval of the property owners).

There's a HUGE leap from doing that, and you carrying a concealed firearm onto the property of someone who DOESN'T want you to do so.

And if its concealed, how are you making a political statement with that action?

Tom, "declared political candidates" don't get special constitutional rights. If this women can possess an illegal sawed-off AR15 shotgun as a "political statement" then I can carry wherever I want as a "political statement."

Wait...........

Lord Stanley for Water and Soil Conservation District 2018

I am now carrying a firearm in the commission of making a political statement by a declared political candidate.

(03-09-2018 05:58 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(03-09-2018 05:49 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-09-2018 05:01 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

Quote:And she's probably protected for what is obviously political speech (an attempt to destroy a AR-15)

If this is even REMOTELY true then no business can tell me I can't conceal and carry in their establishment.

Uh, she was destroying a gun in the commission of making a political statement by a declared political candidate on private property (presumably with the approval of the property owners).

There's a HUGE leap from doing that, and you carrying a concealed firearm onto the property of someone who DOESN'T want you to do so.

And if its concealed, how are you making a political statement with that action?

Tom, "declared political candidates" don't get special constitutional rights. If this women can possess an illegal sawed-off AR15 shotgun as a "political statement" then I can carry wherever I want as a "political statement."

Wait...........

Lord Stanley for Water and Soil Conservation District 2018

I am now carrying a firearm in the commission of making a political statement by a declared political candidate.

Actually, candidates for Federal election do get special rights (its really kind of an odd sidebar - if you'd like to have them enumerated, just PM me with a request). I'm not conceding your point about political acts, but I'll just focus on another area that you opined about

You were upset about the inability for you to carry a firearm onto someone else's property if the property owner doesn't want you to do so. Somehow you feel that the candidate in this case is doing something related to that. I don't see how this can help or hurt your case at all in this regard.

Unless you're arguing that she trespassed on someone else's property to destroy that firearm.

---

Conceal carry (and open bully) bans in this case are rooted in private property rights.

WARNING - Be careful in your response. If you argue that business owners have no right to prevent you or some random stranger from packing heat on their property...in effect saying, you have no say in what others do on your property....then I bet you can guess where I'd like to take that attempt. And remember that business is not telling you 'we won't serve you'. They're simply saying 'we won't serve you if you're carrying a gun'. Its really no different than a business requiring someone to have a shirt on to enter. The only thing you could possibly argue is that there's some rational reason for the business owner to be denied his private property rights. That would be a real stretch, especially for a convenience store or a bank.

(03-09-2018 05:51 PM)Kronke Wrote:  There's a reason why the dems never did anything whenever they had the presidency and both houses. They don't actually want a solution, they just want to retain the opportunity to be outraged.

So it's the equivalent of the GOP Comrades and abortion. Insightful and very true.

As long as that was her property? I could care less what she did with the rifle.

This guy nails it.

Turns out that her defense of "I made it inoperable" (by just dissembling it) is not valid. AR-15's are modular, just because you took it all apart doesn't mean anything, you could just put it all back together, and even if she destroyed the lower (the actual firearm), which she obviously didn't as it is still connected, the illegally modified upper could still easily be put right back on an operable lower again.

The ATF views the fact that she had all the parts laying there as intent to construct an SBR. Everyone that knows guns is familiar with that concept. It's highly recommended that you not even buy a SBR upper if you haven't already done the paperwork, because even though it isn't illegal to possess (you could put it on an AR pistol, and that would be legal), if the cops show up and see it along with other rifle parts, you're in a dicey situation.

Anyway, she has since doubled down, is trying to play it like the NRA sees her as dangerous (yes, your ignorance is indeed very dangerous), and is attempting to fund raise off of it. Her twitter mentions are gold. The one playing off Crowder's "change my mind" skit is just.. lol.

This is an open and shut case, and she needs to go to jail.

What part of the Constitution allows the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms to exist?

(03-09-2018 05:46 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-09-2018 05:41 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  So she rendered the gun inoperable before sawing it in half... Wow, that's some prime time useless virtue signaling

Its a good start. Wont hurt her in that district. If the GOP wants to run on 'an AR 15 in the hand of any random male over the age of 18' there, they're welcome to do so.

You mean like in Switzerland? Where mass shootings are rampant.

(03-12-2018 07:21 AM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(03-09-2018 05:46 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-09-2018 05:41 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  So she rendered the gun inoperable before sawing it in half... Wow, that's some prime time useless virtue signaling

Its a good start. Wont hurt her in that district. If the GOP wants to run on 'an AR 15 in the hand of any random male over the age of 18' there, they're welcome to do so.

You mean like in Switzerland? Where mass shootings are rampant.

Sure, lets have the same requirements as Switzerland. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Switzerland