President Biden Accountability Thread

[iatrogenic]

This is what was initially posted.



You were hyperbolizing the political reality into a hypothetical situation that no leader has actually encouraged. This is the same language that is leading to the shutdown of Parler because less intelligent people who follow the same rhetoric are now calling for assassination of leaders. It's dangerous and tone deaf.



NOBODY is advocating for that that right now.



No, I'm saying the rhetoric is dangerous and it if continues, or heaven forbid increases in intensity, @Dionysis will have to make some hard choices. If you truly care about him or Hornfans I'd table the revolution talk.

When sitting inside a tinderbox it's best not to play with matches.

I like it when SH uses Dion to fight his battles. It makes him look rough and tough.

 

[Monahorns]

You were hyperbolizing the political reality into a hypothetical situation that no leader has actually encouraged. This is the same language that is leading to the shutdown of Parler because less intelligent people who follow the same rhetoric are now calling for assassination of leaders. It's dangerous and tone deaf.

"But if the government really does try to confiscate our guns" That is how I started my comment. "If". This signals to the reader that I am in the subjunctive mood not the indicative mood. So everything that follows is a theoretical discussion based on logic from the initial presumption I just quoted. If you can't understand that, you shouldn't waste others time on this forum.

Nothing in your paragraph represents reality in any way.

NOBODY is advocating for that that right now.

That is why I said "if". If you need to be reminded though. This is what the person you voted for has discussed in the past.

https://nypost.com/2020/03/03/joe-biden-promises-to-put-beto-orourke-in-charge-of-gun-control/

No, I'm saying the rhetoric is dangerous and it if continues, or heaven forbid increases in intensity, @Dionysis will have to make some hard choices. If you truly care about him or Hornfans I'd table the revolution talk.

OMG. But I get it. You don't believe in free speech and you will use force in order to get what you want. I believe in natural rights and you believe in whatever your preferred rulers say.

 

[Monahorns]

The "War On Terror" Comes Home | Ron Paul

 

[AustinHorn24]

Wow you guys are really worried about a mass gun confiscation aren't you?

I'll give you a bet. I'll bet $10,000 to anyone on here that by the end of Biden's presidency, whether it be in 4 years or 8 years, that there will be zero laws and zero executive orders passed that provide for the confiscation of all guns from Americans.

If you're so convinced of that threat, it should be an easy decision to take that bet.

 

[mb227]

Wow you guys are really worried about a mass gun confiscation aren't you?

I'll give you a bet. I'll bet $10,000 to anyone on here that by the end of Biden's presidency, whether it be in 4 years or 8 years, that there will be zero laws and zero executive orders passed that provide for the confiscation of all guns from Americans.

If you're so convinced of that threat, it should be an easy decision to take that bet.

1) I doubt you are willing to escrow the funds
2) The issue that has been raised is the pants-wetting by Beto and his soy-boy ilk over 'assault rifles'
3) Taxes have already been proposed on individual magazines (what the ill-informed often call 'clips')

 

[Monahorns]

AustinHorn24, also doesn't comprehend what "if" means. Duly noted.

 

[AustinHorn24]

1) I doubt you are willing to escrow the funds
2) The issue that has been raised is the pants-wetting by Beto and his soy-boy ilk over 'assault rifles'
3) Taxes have already been proposed on individual magazines (what the ill-informed often call 'clips')

When the Federal Assault Weapons Ban was passed in 1994, I recall a lot of tough talk from "good ole country boys" that they weren't going to let the government dictate what kind of weapons they could buy and they were going to take a stand against the government.

Guess what happened?

Nothing. They did absolutely nothing but take it like a *****.

Same thing will happen again if a similar law is passed. They'll ***** and moan about it but otherwise do nothing.

 

[iatrogenic]

When the Federal Assault Weapons Ban was passed in 1994, I recall a lot of tough talk from "good ole country boys" that they weren't going to let the government dictate what kind of weapons they could buy and they were going to take a stand against the government.

Guess what happened?

Nothing. They did absolutely nothing but take it like a *****.

Same thing will happen again if a similar law is passed. They'll ***** and moan about it but otherwise do nothing.

What were the names of these good ole country boys that were against a law that would expire in 10 years and had zero effect on gun crimes?

 

[Mr. Deez]

Nothing. They did absolutely nothing but take it like a *****.

I wouldn't say they did nothing. I knew plenty of rednecks who acquired illegal assault rifles, and it became a major political issue at the congressional level.

What were the names of these good ole country boys that were against a law that would expire in 10 years and had zero effect on gun crimes?

To be fair, it was a pretty big issue in the '90s and played a major role in the political realignment of rural areas. It cost the Speaker of the House and the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee their congressional seats. It's also the issue that turned the NRA into a major political force and aligned gun owners with the GOP. (That's the real reason Democrats hate the NRA.)

You're right that the legislation was pretty meaningless. It was more of a virtue signaling tool than a serious policy initiative, but it showed people who cared about the Second Amendment that the Democratic Party was willing to "go there." The party got its *** totally kicked on the issue, which is why they never brought it up again, even after Democrats had unified control of government under Obama. They've been scared shitless ever since.

 

[humahuma]

I don’t think they will go after the guns right away, they will probably make it harder to get ammo. Or tax ammunition to make cost twice as much.

 

[iatrogenic]

I wouldn't say they did nothing. I knew plenty of rednecks who acquired illegal assault rifles, and it became a major political issue at the congressional level.



To be fair, it was a pretty big issue in the '90s and played a major role in the political realignment of rural areas. It cost the Speaker of the House and the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee their congressional seats. It's also the issue that turned the NRA into a major political force and aligned gun owners with the GOP. (That's the real reason Democrats hate the NRA.)

You're right that the legislation was pretty meaningless. It was more of a virtue signaling tool than a serious policy initiative, but it showed people who cared about the Second Amendment that the Democratic Party was willing to "go there." The party got its *** totally kicked on the issue, which is why they never brought it up again, even after Democrats had unified control of government under Obama. They've been scared shitless ever since.

So the “ good ole boys” did something after all. As I recall, Trump won against Hillary, at least in part, because Obama raised taxes and Trump promised to lower them, which he did. Maybe these good ole boys Austin Horn mentions aren’t sheep after all. I guess he’ll have to come up with a new tough guy personae when criticizing them in the future.

 

[mb227]

I don’t think they will go after the guns right away, they will probably make it harder to get ammo. Or tax ammunition to make cost twice as much.

They already HAVE made it more of a challenge to get ammo...been to an Academy lately? Looked online for ammo lately? There are a few very uncommon calibers available, but anything common is next to impossible to source. And this is before the first piece of legislation has dropped...

 

[2003TexasGrad]

My hope is that we can compile tweets and video or articles of Biden, Kamala and Nancy and Schumer et al, and when they show their two faced nature its easy to find. Biden/Kamala have already debunked themselves being for unity and healing by making the Capitol riot about race. The MSM has pushed that agenda as well. I fully expect once Biden takes office that we will get plenty more examples of hypocrisy.

 

[Joe Fan]

They have begun the job of picking who gets to fly and who does not

 

[Horn6721]

Why does Biden want to eliminate the NRA?

 

[iatrogenic]

My hope is that we can compile tweets and video or articles of Biden, Kamala and Nancy and Schumer et al, and when they show their two faced nature its easy to find. Biden/Kamala have already debunked themselves being for unity and healing by making the Capitol riot about race. The MSM has pushed that agenda as well. I fully expect once Biden takes office that we will get plenty more examples of hypocrisy.

Our own OuBubba immediately jumped on that rickety bandwagon.

 

[theiioftx]

Wow you guys are really worried about a mass gun confiscation aren't you?

I'll give you a bet. I'll bet $10,000 to anyone on here that by the end of Biden's presidency, whether it be in 4 years or 8 years, that there will be zero laws and zero executive orders passed that provide for the confiscation of all guns from Americans.

If you're so convinced of that threat, it should be an easy decision to take that bet.

They will need to pack the courts first, but you are a fool if you don’t think they want to restrict your second amendment rights. Before packing the courts, expect high taxes on ammo and registration of all weapons in your possession meaning your grandfathers 12 gauge shotgun.

 

[EasternHorn]

They will need to pack the courts first, but you are a fool if you don’t think they want to restrict your second amendment rights. Before packing the courts, expect high taxes on ammo and registration of all weapons in your possession meaning your grandfathers 12 gauge shotgun.

You have no idea if that is true or not. Please, go to google and read the 2nd amendment.

 

[Monahorns]

Governors are violating association rights now. That is 1stA in the federal constitution, but the same thing shows up in all the state constitutions too. They have completely ignored private property, movement, and assembly rights. Why should anyone expect them to respect gun rights? They have said they don't.

If you are talking about "regulate" in the 2ndA then you are purposefully trying to misunderstand the 18th century definition of the word.

 

[EasternHorn]

Governors are violating association rights now. That is 1stA in the federal constitution, but the same thing shows up in all the state constitutions too. They have completely ignored private property, movement, and assembly rights. Why should anyone expect them to respect gun rights? They have said they don't.

If you are talking about "regulate" in the 2ndA then you are purposefully trying to misunderstand the 18th century definition of the word.

I have no problem with the 2nd amendment. I have problem with how some people interpret it. Go and read it.

 

[Monahorns]

I've read it. I understand it well. I understand the history of where it came from in the thought of colonies and England. I also understand what "no law" means.

 

[EasternHorn]

I've read it. I understand it well. I understand the history of where it came from in the thought of colonies and England. I also understand what "no law" means.

So, how do you think the founding fathers would think of todays gun laws? What would they think of school shootings? What would they think of other mass shootings? Like I said, I have no problem with the 2nd amendment. I have a problem with how it has been interpreted.

 

[Monahorns]

So, how do you think the founding fathers would think of todays gun laws? What would they think of school shootings? What would they think of other mass shootings? Like I said, I have no problem with the 2nd amendment. I have a problem with how it has been interpreted.

They would be aghast at gun control. They would be aghast at murder of any kind. But these were all men who used guns to kill people too. So they wouldn't be afraid of guns. They warred against a government with guns to protect the right to own and use them according to conscience.

I think you have a problem with the founders' intended meaning of the 2nd amendment.

 

[Mr. Deez]

So, how do you think the founding fathers would think of todays gun laws?

It would depend on which gun laws. At the federal level, they'd be horrified of any gun laws other than in the context of international trade. At the state level, they would probably think they're foolish but accept states' right to restrict guns.

What would they think of school shootings? What would they think of other mass shootings?

They'd probably view them the way they viewed people (including children) who did messed up things back in their day. Evil isn't new, and I don't think modern mass shooters would shock the founding fathers. Mass murderers existed in the US in the 18th and early 19th centuries. They existed in Great Britain. They knew of horrific things done to slaves and both to and by Native Americans. They had fought in the Revolutionary War, and before that fought in numerous smaller wars between the colonial powers and against native tribes. These weren't ******* who would have sqealed at the sight of blood or seeing something horrible done.

I's highly unlikely that they'd favor disarming or restricting innocent people to try to stop a handful of bad guys, because they didn't do that in response to their own bad guys. From a public policy perspective, they'd focus on punishing the bad guys. From a cultural and community perspective, they'd probably wonder what went wrong in the killer's life so people can learn from it, though it's usually pretty obvious.

Like I said, I have no problem with the 2nd amendment. I have a problem with how it has been interpreted.

How should it be interpreted?

 

[Joe Fan]

Biden is not exactly checking them for the covid (or any disease)

 

[Joe Fan]

Why does Biden want to eliminate the NRA?

They love to pick targets and then demonize them, as found in the playbooks of Alinsky, Stalin and Goebbels. Back to Rome and Greece even. Keeps the spotlight off themselves - always on the offense.

 

[Joe Fan]

They love to pick targets and then demonize them, as found in the playbooks of Alinsky, Stalin and Goebbels. Back to Rome and Greece even. Keeps the spotlight off themselves - always on the offense.

Now they are targeting "podcasts" by conservatives for elimination by deplatforming

 

[Joe Fan]

 

[Joe Fan]

And now preserving history is racist
This is Moscow 1917, or Havana 1959 but with technology

 

[theiioftx]

You have no idea if that is true or not. Please, go to google and read the 2nd amendment.

You are correct. Maybe they lied to us when they said packing the court “was not off the table” or when Biden said he would appoint fake Mexican O’Rourke who said, “Hell yes we are taking your guns.” But before I go google anything for you, you can hit the sponsor button. I’m really sick of you liberal know it alls who think you can sponge for free here too.