HeloDude

The way the ATF interprets the laws (and their own interpretations), the mere act of having such a device is enough to prosecute.

Are you really that surprised?

You don’t remember this recent gem? ‘Air Force fires colonel who berated subordinates for following safety protocols‘ “The Donovan story picked up a large following on social media forums like the unofficial Air Force subreddit and the Facebook page Air Force amn/nco/snco, where airmen could relate to the sense that the unit’s leaders were unconcerned for the safety of their subordinates.” https://taskandpurpose.com/news/air-force-col-donovan-tinker-relieved/?amp

Who gets to define what is RIGHT? Last I checked, the military isn’t a democracy. And standing up for what this guy believed is right didn’t work out too well for him… https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2022/03/07/the-unmaking-of-lt-col-stuart-scheller/

If the GOP has a large field of candidates after the first 3-4 states, Trump most likely wins the nomination…of course assuming nothing drastically changes between now and then. By SC, there really can only be Trump and one other major nominee for Trump to not get it. As of right now I don’t think that’s Nikki Haley…though she could do well in SC because that’s her state. She has a lot of pros going for her, but in today’s environment, the majority of GOP voters want a fighter, and Haley doesn’t come across that way. She was a traditional Republican governor—didn’t do a bad job, but didn’t set herself apart from the rest. Now DeSantis, he’s doing just that. He’s a fighter, but with what more/less appears to be a relatively clean personal record. And anyone that can go from barely winning against a drug addict in 2018, to 4 years later destroying his opponent in a state like Florida, only goes to show that he has appeal in the middle/past the hard liners. As far as Trump then running as an independent, my money is on that he wouldn’t, but I wouldn’t be shocked if he did. If he runs as an independent, not only does he lose, but he also pisses off many of his previous supporters who don’t want him splitting the vote. As for the Dems, assuming it’s not Biden, I always thought that Buttigeg would get the nod since he checks the boxes for the left, but lately I’ve been hearing a lot of rumbling abut Michelle Obama…who has never held office of any kind, never been in charge of a business, etc. But the left really likes her and she also checks a lot of their boxes.

I’m sure President Biden and his fantastic press secretary will have something insightful to say this week regarding the General’s remarks.

Dude, I love you, but I’m more likely to believe an attorney with GOA than you on this one. Also, this is from the firearmblog: The Department has determined that, as a matter of its own enforcement discretion, it will not, as the NPRM suggested as an option, require individuals and FFLs without an SOT that timely register their affected weapons with a “stabilizing brace,” which are in their possession as of the date this rule is published, to pay the $200 making tax usually due upon submission of such an application to register. The whole point is that you’re going to be telling the ATF you are already in possession of the “SBR” (ie pistol w/brace) to get the free stamp/registration. I think the problem is you’re going off of your prior knowledge before this new ruling/regulation…don’t you think one or more items in this process might be changing given the massive new change in the rule? https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2023/01/13/firearms-stabilizing-braces/

The video I posted, that you quickly dismissed, was discussing how if someone (you or anyone else) attempts to register their current pistol w/ brace under the ATF’s current plan, that person is telling the ATF they have an assembled pistol w/ brace, ie an unregistered SBR according to the ATF. If you’re wanting to take advantage of registering a future SBR build, then go for it. But that’s not what the video was discussing.

According to the ATF, if you have a pistol with a brace you currently have an unregistered SBR. This was all in the video I shared.

I thought the left said that we don’t have voting rights and hence why need to pass the Voting Rights bill from the last Congress 🤷‍♂️

For those who are thinking the ATF is giving you a good deal by allowing you to register your (what was legal/not considered an SBR last week) pistol with a brace without paying the $200 stamp…I strongly suggest you watch this new video.

The Dems screwed themselves on this one. If they find Trump at fault and not Biden, then it only further supports the argument from the right about the DOJ not being fair, etc. If they find both at fault, then this will hurt the Dems and their argument that Biden was the adult in the room/returning non-corruption back to the WH. And if none of them are found at fault, then the left will be upset that Trump once again is found not be the bad man the left/media has made him out to be. But, is anyone really that surprised?

But Jan 6th is different…or something.

At least I have one thing in common with Hunter Biden lol

Can you just imagine what will happen if the different special counsels find fault with one and not the other?

With private sales still being legal at the federal level, the Feds might know who originally bought the firearm from the manufacturer/dealer, but have no way of knowing if you sold you it to someone else (and so on and so forth), as no records are required to be made/maintained. This is what is preventing a national registry of firearms not on the NFA list…and it’s why progressives want “100% background checks” (to essentially make a registry). ETA: Basically what M2 had already said lol

So it was legal for all these years (it’s already gone and forth in the past) and it’s suddenly not legal, according to a 3-letter bureaucracy, even though there hasn’t been a new law passed to make it not legal. This will also be overturned, eventually. In the meantime, just don’t be stupid (ie tell people online that you have it, share pics/videos, etc).

So should anything negative happen to Biden?

Yeah…CNN is reporting it and is definitely not trying to spin this as Biden is good and Trump is bad.

You’re missing my point bud—if the massive increases in spending doesn’t matter, then there’s no need to prioritize. Whatever wants to get funded, gets funded. So why not do much more across the globe? As for the debt getting “resolved”…not sure what that means, exactly? I guess we could just default on some of our payments, tax ourselves considerably more, and/or just print off more money, but this is not the kind of the “resolve” I think will be healthy for the country. And as I’ve said before, it’s not just Ukraine (though Ukraine is a massive new symptom of the spending problem)—it’s all of it.

So why aren’t we spending hundreds of billions (or even trillions) more to help countries in need? If the national debt is irrelevant when it comes to spending to help out countries, shouldn’t we be doing quite a bit more?

Should there ever be any limitations/concerns on federal spending, wrt to the national debt, to help a country in need?

I totally agree man…so what exactly happens to Biden?

If they’re only arguing about Ukraine spending, then you’re right, they’re full of shit. If they’re arguing that spending is a problem across the board then they’re not full of shit, and Ukraine spending is only adding to the problem. As for politicians not caring about future problems due to what they’re doing today—call me shocked. Funny, people worry more about “climate change” than an increasing massive debt…I’m sure one will cause us more problems in the next 10-20 years than the other.