WAYnorthTX
Active Member
True. I STILL don't get it. ???Lol, and he still doesn’t get it.
True. I STILL don't get it. ???Lol, and he still doesn’t get it.
True. I STILL don't get it. ???
Maybe you can clear something up for me- I am not just trying to be stubborn. OK, someone bought a bumpstock in 2010. It was perfectly legal. Then, they made possession of a bumpstock a crime. You cannot keep your previously legal bumpstock. You must turn it in. If you are caught with it, you will be charged with a felony. How is this not ex post facto ? Or is there something else that I am not getting ?Classifying an accessory (bump stock) as a “banned” NFA item is probably extralegal, and no one is arguing that!
Making “current” possession of something illegal is not an ex post facto law.
Making the “prior” purchase illegal and punishable would be an ex post facto law and thus unconstitutional.
OK. By George, I think I've got it. Thanks.Ex post facto = retroactive.
Let’s say you used to drive 45 mph on the road in front of your house. They change the speed limit to 35 mph. You cannot be charged for what you did (ex post facto) prior to the change, but you can if you do 45 today.
Possession was legal. You cannot be charged for possession prior to the change. Possession now (post facto) is illegal (again, I believe that it is an extralegal perversion of the law).
TRUMP 2020!!At least hearing what Trump had to say today makes it seem he's listening to the right people. When asked about UBC's he said that we already have strong background checks and that he is hearing the fears of gun owners about losing their 2nd Amendment rights and that he's not going to let that happen. I didn't hear him say anything about red flag laws. Anyway, it's sounds like he's backing down from all the gun control hype.
Good work Big Dipper!!OK. By George, I think I've got it. Thanks.
Key word "today". Who knows what happens tomorrow. He waffles a lot on issues that he doesn't really care about, and it's clear he's not really interested in 2A matters.At least hearing what Trump had to say today makes it seem he's listening to the right people. When asked about UBC's he said that we already have strong background checks and that he is hearing the fears of gun owners about losing their 2nd Amendment rights and that he's not going to let that happen. I didn't hear him say anything about red flag laws. Anyway, it's sounds like he's backing down from all the gun control hype.
Yep, even if he does end up supporting UBC or red flag BS. The judicial appointees he's making are more likely to overturn those laws than anyone else.TRUMP 2020!!
Trump? Surely not...Key word "today". He waffles a lot on issues that he doesn't really care about,
We should buy* CUBA ! and make it the 51st state. You can bet that the Cubans would not vote with the democrat/socialists.Have we bought Greenland yet?
Trump? Surely not...
Have we bought Greenland yet?
Tax cuts? Oops. That was this morning. Never mind.
We should buy* CUBA ! and make it the 51st state. You can bet that the Cubans would not vote with the democrat/socialists.
*or some other way
Don’t buy the media hype, his interest in Greenland is not in any way outlandish.
Off the top of my head, there was the Louisiana purchase. The purchase of Alaska. In 1917 we purchased the Virgin Islands from Denmark.
Greenland is subsidized to the tune of about 6 billion dollars. It’s rich in natural resources and is used by the US as a strategic military asset. Offering to remove the costly burden from Denmark and secure our military presence in the region as well as the ability to line the abundant resources in the area makes plenty of sense.
All the boohooing about the ~50,000 residents is way overblown. Firstly because that’s a relatively smaller number in modern times, and secondly because there would surely be talks and negations resulting in some form of compromise as to their status. Possibly ending up somewhat like Guam. But who knows.
Don’t believe everything you hear from the MSM.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Not a matter of believing what I am hearing from MSM. It is a matter of his own words.
We already have enough liberals under our umbrella, we don't need any Danes as well.
And even if his idea was well thought out (doubtful, but not impossible), announcing it to the world without first privately discussing with Denmark was not the smartest thing.
I like much of what the Trump administration has done. But I am not going to say everything he says is brilliant.
And while it may be a negotiating tactic at times (not always), he does waffle a good amount.
If you haven't noticed, 'Red Flag' laws are just another erosion of the Constitution. In this case the 2nd, 4th & 14th amendments. The democrats already have detained so called 'insurrectionists' without due process. And set up a committee to limit speech under the guise of 'misinformation'.This discussion has been around awhile so let me add this June 2022 commentary from the Four Boxes Diner. The speaker explains his creds up front constitutional attorney, author, proud gun owner. What I like best he makes a whole lot of common sense in explaining why 'red flag' laws should be called gun confiscation laws. Something to write to our elected state/federal reps. On another forum topic I explain what I wrote Senator Cornyn with a copy to Senator Cruz.