What's the level beyond when we should lose faith?

false data
contradicting themselves

Stuff that is verifiable

how far should we let it go before we push back?

---

Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) Private citizens have the right under the Second Amendment to possess an ordinary type of weapon and use it for lawful, historically established situations such as self-defense in a home, even when there is no relationship to a local militia.

"The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner." Right to Keep and Bear Arms: Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Ninety-seventh Congress, Second Session. U.S. Government Printing Office. 1982. Digitized September 30, 2008.

From the NYSRPA v Bruen "Today, we decline to adopt that two-part approach. . . . Despite the popularity of this two-step approach, it is one step too many. Step one of the predominant framework is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment's text, as informed by history."

I lost track of how many times Trump lied. I think it was 37,000 or something like that.

Current president? Probably 2-3 orders of magnitude less.

Like "Inflation is low"
"I drove an 18 wheeler"
"I graduated top of my class, with 2 degrees, on a full scholarship"
"I remember being at ground zero the day after"
"The average tax for a billionaire is 3%"
"Gas was $5 per gallon when I took office"
"When I took office, there were no vaccines available"
"I've been in and out of Iraq and Afghanistan over 40 times"
"The 2nd amendment limits the types of guns people can own from the day it was written"
“We’re sending back the vast majority of the families that are coming.”
“The NAACP has endorsed me every time I've run.”

Oh, it goes on and on and on

---

"No Comment"

The standard has been dramatically lowered. Would you like to guess how?

---

Quote
Mr645
Like "Inflation is low"
"I drove an 18 wheeler"
"I graduated top of my class, with 2 degrees, on a full scholarship"
"I remember being at ground zero the day after"
"The average tax for a billionaire is 3%"
"Gas was $5 per gallon when I took office"
"When I took office, there were no vaccines available"
"I've been in and out of Iraq and Afghanistan over 40 times"
"The 2nd amendment limits the types of guns people can own from the day it was written"
“We’re sending back the vast majority of the families that are coming.”
“The NAACP has endorsed me every time I've run.”

Oh, it goes on and on and on

"Mattingly! I thought I told you to trim those sideburns!"

---

6' 3"
215 lbs

Smote,

The question is how much misleading statements, half-truths and proven lies should we accept from _any_ politician? At what point do we hold accountable _all_ politicians for it and in what way should they be held accountable for it? People wonder why many eligible voters feel like voting is a waste of their time. Misleading statements, half-truths and proven lies are three of the reasons.

Robert

Quote

it goes on and on and on

Strangers waitin'
Up and down the boulevard
Their shadows searchin' in the night

Streetlights, people
Livin' just to find emotion
Hidin' somewhere in the night

Quote
Lux Interior

Quote

it goes on and on and on

Strangers waitin'
Up and down the boulevard
Their shadows searchin' in the night

Streetlights, people
Livin' just to find emotion
Hidin' somewhere in the night

dun dun dun da-da
dun dun dun da-da
dun dun dun da-da
dun dun dun da-dun

Chocolate chip ice cream

[www.alz.org]

---

"No Comment"

Trump lied 30,573 times while he was president.
Four years is 35,040 hours

That is one lie even 69 minutes, folks.

Birth certificate

---

Quote
gadje
That is one lie even 69 minutes, folks.

Niiiice!

Quote
gadje
Trump lied 30,573 times while he was president.
Four years is 35,040 hours

That is one lie even 69 minutes, folks.

And that doesn’t even include the number of times he lied about his golf scores…



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/19/2023 11:46AM by btfc.

Quote
Smote
What's the level beyond when we should lose faith?

false data
contradicting themselves

Stuff that is verifiable

how far should we let it go before we push back?

Hard to quantify a specific number or point, but DO know that tRump exceeded it before he was even elected.

How much made up info from a poster should we be accepting?

What's the level beyond when we should lose faith?

false data
contradicting themselves

Stuff that is verifiable

Blatant lying.

Ceaseless gun trolling.

how far should we let it go before we push back?

I'm just wondering if Trump raised the bar on what we will tolerate from a politician. It happens all the way down to town council level, from the whole political spectrum.

Robert's point of "People wonder why many eligible voters feel like voting is a waste of their time." is how I feel usually. I try and discern who is likely to screw things up the least. When each one says things will be different, and it's more of the same, you earn the right to be cynical.

---

Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) Private citizens have the right under the Second Amendment to possess an ordinary type of weapon and use it for lawful, historically established situations such as self-defense in a home, even when there is no relationship to a local militia.

"The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner." Right to Keep and Bear Arms: Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Ninety-seventh Congress, Second Session. U.S. Government Printing Office. 1982. Digitized September 30, 2008.

From the NYSRPA v Bruen "Today, we decline to adopt that two-part approach. . . . Despite the popularity of this two-step approach, it is one step too many. Step one of the predominant framework is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment's text, as informed by history."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/19/2023 12:38PM by Smote.

We, those who will not vote for him, aren't accepting it.

They are. The ones who will vote for him.

We have to make sure there are more we voters than they voters.

---

If you want to fix our country, work with us in the states. statesproject.org

"Success isn't about how much money you make. It is about the difference you make in people's lives."--Michelle Obama

Quote
graylocks
We, those who will not vote for him, aren't accepting it.

They are. The ones who will vote for him.

We have to make sure there are more we voters than they voters.

What if everyone running is lying? Why do we accept that?

---

Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) Private citizens have the right under the Second Amendment to possess an ordinary type of weapon and use it for lawful, historically established situations such as self-defense in a home, even when there is no relationship to a local militia.

"The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner." Right to Keep and Bear Arms: Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Ninety-seventh Congress, Second Session. U.S. Government Printing Office. 1982. Digitized September 30, 2008.

From the NYSRPA v Bruen "Today, we decline to adopt that two-part approach. . . . Despite the popularity of this two-step approach, it is one step too many. Step one of the predominant framework is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment's text, as informed by history."

Quote
Smote

Quote
graylocks
We, those who will not vote for him, aren't accepting it.

They are. The ones who will vote for him.

We have to make sure there are more we voters than they voters.

What if everyone running is lying? Why do we accept that?

“You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.”

Quote
Smote

Quote
graylocks
We, those who will not vote for him, aren't accepting it.

They are. The ones who will vote for him.

We have to make sure there are more we voters than they voters.

What if everyone running is lying? Why do we accept that?

What if everyone is equivocating? Why do we accept that?

---

I have far more respect and trust in someone who makes definitive statements, and upon occasion, makes a mistake and admits it, than I do in someone who gives non-answers and can't ever be proven wrong, because they never said anything of substance.

A strong person is one with convictions, speaks the truth, and admits when they are wrong, or has made a mistake.

interesting op-ed

[www.nbcnews.com]

---

Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) Private citizens have the right under the Second Amendment to possess an ordinary type of weapon and use it for lawful, historically established situations such as self-defense in a home, even when there is no relationship to a local militia.

"The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner." Right to Keep and Bear Arms: Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Ninety-seventh Congress, Second Session. U.S. Government Printing Office. 1982. Digitized September 30, 2008.

From the NYSRPA v Bruen "Today, we decline to adopt that two-part approach. . . . Despite the popularity of this two-step approach, it is one step too many. Step one of the predominant framework is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment's text, as informed by history."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/19/2023 06:09PM by Smote.

There's a big difference between jazzing up a personal memory, and telling people that a deadly disease will disappear all by itself by April.

Politicians have been telling "stretchers", as Huck Finn called them, since forever. And people have stayed home and not voted, sadly enough, since forever also. Biden has told stretchers since he was a young man, but the consensus seems to be that his objectives as a politician are sincere and worthy and that the tales he tells aren't indicative of evil or selfishness or efforts to harm anyone. His being prone to exaggeration is a flaw but not a fatal flaw.

I don't need to explain Trump's relationship to honesty. Everyone knows there isn't one.

---

Quote
$tevie
There's a big difference between jazzing up a personal memory, and telling people that a deadly disease will disappear all by itself by April.

Politicians have been telling "stretchers", as Huck Finn called them, since forever. And people have stayed home and not voted, sadly enough, since forever also. Biden has told stretchers since he was a young man, but the consensus seems to be that his objectives as a politician are sincere and worthy and that the tales he tells aren't indicative of evil or selfishness or efforts to harm anyone. His being prone to exaggeration is a flaw but not a fatal flaw.

I don't need to explain Trump's relationship to honesty. Everyone knows there isn't one.

Fair

but when a politician is using facts to convince you to their way of thinking, shouldn't they be accurate?

---

Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) Private citizens have the right under the Second Amendment to possess an ordinary type of weapon and use it for lawful, historically established situations such as self-defense in a home, even when there is no relationship to a local militia.

"The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner." Right to Keep and Bear Arms: Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Ninety-seventh Congress, Second Session. U.S. Government Printing Office. 1982. Digitized September 30, 2008.

From the NYSRPA v Bruen "Today, we decline to adopt that two-part approach. . . . Despite the popularity of this two-step approach, it is one step too many. Step one of the predominant framework is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment's text, as informed by history."

They are, it's just that they're 'alternative facts', the sort that bounce around their universe all the time.

Somehow, Smote resembles Mr645 more and more every day.

What alternative facts has Biden used justify a policy? As in, a policy that he would not have been able to justify without the made-up fact. Trump used alternative facts about the virus to undercut CDC guidelines for reacting to the pandemic. Trump used alternative facts to foment sedition on January 6. Trump used alternative facts about the election to interfere with state elections. Biden's alternative memory about when he visited Ground Zero was used to justify....nothing.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/19/2023 09:57PM by Acer.

Quote
Acer
What alternative facts has Biden used justify a policy? As in, a policy that he would not have been able to justify without the made-up fact. Trump used alternative facts about the virus to undercut CDC guidelines for reacting to the pandemic. Trump used alternative facts to foment sedition on January 6. Trump used alternative facts about the election to interfere with state elections. Biden's alternative memory about when he visited Ground Zero was used to justify....nothing.

[www.youtube.com] This YouTube video is from a defense attorney well versed in libel and slander, he did his own verification as well.

[cdn0.thetruthaboutguns.com]

Write numbers down and look them up yourself.. For example AR platform velocities climb every time he talks about them. M193 (55 grain) and M855 (62 grain) rounds have been the same for decades, they are a NATO standard round. Those same M193s are what some of you used in SE Asia 5+ decades ago, and others in the Sandbox jiust yeares ago. They never suddenly became more than twice as fast as Biden claims. He's spreading fear to achieve a goal. So they went from 2,000 fps to 5,000 fps in 4 months? Neat feat of bending physics.

"Interestingly, Biden’s opinion of the ballistic capabilities of the 5.56x45mm round has shifted over time.

On July 11, 2022, at an event commemorating the passage of the Safer Communities Act, which was held at the White House on the South Lawn, Biden said the “most common rounds fired from an AR-15 move almost twice as fast as that from a handgun.”

A month later, on Aug. 26, 2022, during a reception for the Democratic National Committee, which was held at a private residence in Bethesda, Maryland, Biden said “the velocity of a bullet coming out of assault weapons is three-and-a-half times as fast as a bullet coming out of another weapon.”

But on Nov. 6, 2022, at a rally for New York Governor Kathy Hochul, which was held at Sarah Lawrence College in Bronxville, New York, Biden said this: “And as I point out all the time, what comes out of a muzzle of an assault weapon is five times quicker, faster than comes out of a muzzle of another gun. It can pierce a Kevlar vest. There are not a whole lot of deer out there wearing Kevlar vests.”



take careful note about what he says about the '94 AWB, and if it made a difference, and then read the actual DoJ report from 2004 about its effects. [www.ojp.gov] DoJ words, straight from the DoJ

"The reduction was also larger than would be
expected from the AW-LCM ban, suggesting that other factors were at work in
accelerating the decline. Using a number of national and local data sources, we also
examined trends in measures of victims per gun murder incident and wounds per gunshot
victim, based on the hypothesis that these measures might be more sensitive to variations
in the use of AWs and LCMs. These analyses revealed no ban effects, thus failing to
show confirming evidence of the mechanism through which the ban was hypothesized to
affect the gun murder rate. " straight from the DoJ. They also talk about how few actual crimes were committed by "assault weapons" in the first place.

His constantly saying you can't sue firearms manufacturers is a patent lie. [en.wikipedia.org] All it did was shield firearms manufacturers from the illegal acts of 3rd parties.

"The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) is a U.S law, passed in 2005, that protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products. Both arms manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible. However, they may be held liable for negligent entrustment if it is found that they had reason to believe a firearm was intended for use in a crime.

The PLCAA is codified at 15 U.S.C. §§ 7901–7903. "

so saying they can't be sued is very false. very, very false.

And the whole "you can't buy a cannon" thing? "

“And I might add: The Second Amendment, from the day it was passed, limited the type of people who could own a gun and what type of weapon you could own. You couldn’t buy a cannon,” he said. " [www.ima-usa.com] Want a tank? [www.milweb.net] private warship you say? [www.history.com] " An armada of more than 2,000 so-called privateers commissioned by both the Continental Congress and individual states preyed on enemy shipping on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean, severely disrupting the British economy and turning British public opinion against the war." And the War of 1812 [www.usni.org] privately owned, privately outfitted. Can't outfit them if you can't buy cannon, can you? "Privately owned merchant ships that, in wartime, were armed by their owners and licensed by the government to attack the maritime trade of the enemy, privateers profited by the sale of ships and cargoes they captured. As soon as word of the war arrived, ship owners in the port cities up and down the Atlantic coast raced to get their sleek sloops and schooners to sea in their new predatory role. They found cannon where they could, signed up oversized civilian crews, and sent messengers to Washington to get licenses called letters-of-marque from the federal government. On 26 June 1812, a week after Congress voted for war, it passed a bill allowing privateers, which President James Madison signed the next day."


[www.thetruthaboutguns.com] FOIA requests can be spit out in minutes from computerized records, when they want to.

There is now some info on-line that contradicts all the "rogue gun dealers" they are shutting down. Why? paperwork issues. Look at the details [www.atf.gov]

"As of FY22, there were 136,563 active federal firearms licensees " And they revoked 90. That's .066% The number locked up? Can't be more than 90, because locking them up gets your license yanked! Seems like a fairly law abiding community.

I can go on and on, but you don't seem to care, because he's not Trump, and you accept "not as bad" rather than demand the best possible candidate. [www.cnn.com] [www.washingtonpost.com] [www.politifact.com] [www.nytimes.com]
When you are starving, old bread is a feast.

Politicians all the way down follow the presidens' lead, and mirror their behavior. Those I have talked to in person universally only know talking points, and generally don't have actual knowledge. They tell you what they sense you want to hear. If gun control has been his personal project for over 3 decades, I would think he would be more knowledgeable. We had one of our senators tour work about 30 years ago, and universally we realized he was an ignorant clown whose only goal was to get re-elected.

---

Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) Private citizens have the right under the Second Amendment to possess an ordinary type of weapon and use it for lawful, historically established situations such as self-defense in a home, even when there is no relationship to a local militia.

"The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner." Right to Keep and Bear Arms: Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Ninety-seventh Congress, Second Session. U.S. Government Printing Office. 1982. Digitized September 30, 2008.

From the NYSRPA v Bruen "Today, we decline to adopt that two-part approach. . . . Despite the popularity of this two-step approach, it is one step too many. Step one of the predominant framework is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment's text, as informed by history."



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 09/20/2023 03:39AM by Smote.

Im glad to see this thread stay on topic.

---

Saint Cloud, Minnesota, where the weather is wonderful even when it isn't.

Quote
Speedy
Im glad to see this thread stay on topic.

don't miss the last 4 links, they cover all topics of untruths.

---

Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) Private citizens have the right under the Second Amendment to possess an ordinary type of weapon and use it for lawful, historically established situations such as self-defense in a home, even when there is no relationship to a local militia.

"The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner." Right to Keep and Bear Arms: Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Ninety-seventh Congress, Second Session. U.S. Government Printing Office. 1982. Digitized September 30, 2008.

From the NYSRPA v Bruen "Today, we decline to adopt that two-part approach. . . . Despite the popularity of this two-step approach, it is one step too many. Step one of the predominant framework is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment's text, as informed by history."

Quote
Speedy
Im glad to see this thread stay on topic.

certain members change topics when the facts don't align with their preconceived beliefs.

Especially when the competency of Biden, gun violence in inner cities, war or inflation in concerned

---

"No Comment"

Quote
Smote

Quote
Speedy
Im glad to see this thread stay on topic.

don't miss the last 4 links, they cover all topics of untruths.

The last link is pure nra propaganda. The article you linked to was written by a thousand monkeys banging on a typewriter.

---

Quote
Smote

Write numbers down and look them up yourself.. For example AR platform velocities climb every time he talks about them. M193 (55 grain) and M855 (62 grain) rounds have been the same for decades, they are a NATO standard round. Those same M193s are what some of you used in SE Asia 5+ decades ago, and others in the Sandbox jiust yeares ago. They never suddenly became more than twice as fast as Biden claims. He's spreading fear to achieve a goal. So they went from 2,000 fps to 5,000 fps in 4 months? Neat feat of bending physics.

"Interestingly, Biden’s opinion of the ballistic capabilities of the 5.56x45mm round has shifted over time.

On July 11, 2022, at an event commemorating the passage of the Safer Communities Act, which was held at the White House on the South Lawn, Biden said the “most common rounds fired from an AR-15 move almost twice as fast as that from a handgun.”

A month later, on Aug. 26, 2022, during a reception for the Democratic National Committee, which was held at a private residence in Bethesda, Maryland, Biden said “the velocity of a bullet coming out of assault weapons is three-and-a-half times as fast as a bullet coming out of another weapon.”

.........

etc., etc., etc.


Gish gallop - a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm their opponent by providing an excessive number of arguments.

Quote
DeusxMac
Gish gallop - a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm their opponent by providing an excessive number of arguments.

I've never heard this term before. Interesting origin. Thanks for using it, I learned something new today.

---

Aaannd it's a gun thread.

We've talked about all the things in that post already a lot, and without citing anything that Biden said about them. Defining assault weapons; can a private person own military hardware, the chilling effect of limited lawsuits has on all lawsuits even those that may still have merit, etc.

Part of the Gish Gallop is to keep bringing up points that have been rebutted as though they have never been rebutted.

Quote

I can go on and on, but you don't seem to care, because he's not Trump, and you accept "not as bad" rather than demand the best possible candidate. [www.cnn.com] [www.washingtonpost.com] [www.politifact.com] [www.nytimes.com]
When you are starving, old bread is a feast.

Politicians all the way down follow the presidens' lead, and mirror their behavior. Those I have talked to in person universally only know talking points, and generally don't have actual knowledge. They tell you what they sense you want to hear. If gun control has been his personal project for over 3 decades, I would think he would be more knowledgeable. We had one of our senators tour work about 30 years ago, and universally we realized he was an ignorant clown whose only goal was to get re-elected.

Darn right that because he's not Trump, I am willing to accept more gaffes--because Trump is that bad that I don't want Trump anywhere near the presidency.

I'll take the lesser evil, and with politicians from Presidents to HOA board members, it will always be the case in our imperfect world. Praise the Founding Fathers, the President is not a dictator. His uninformed views are not translated directly into law. Persons with 30 years experience are free to add their voice to the discussion. You'll notice that you are indeed still free to purchase an impressive amount of firepower for your personal use even if Biden gets the muzzle speed wrong.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/20/2023 10:54AM by Acer.

Quote
Smote

Write numbers down and look them up yourself.. For example AR platform velocities climb every time he talks about them. M193 (55 grain) and M855 (62 grain) rounds have been the same for decades, they are a NATO standard round. Those same M193s are what some of you used in SE Asia 5+ decades ago, and others in the Sandbox jiust yeares ago. They never suddenly became more than twice as fast as Biden claims. He's spreading fear to achieve a goal. So they went from 2,000 fps to 5,000 fps in 4 months? Neat feat of bending physics.

"Interestingly, Biden’s opinion of the ballistic capabilities of the 5.56x45mm round has shifted over time.

On July 11, 2022, at an event commemorating the passage of the Safer Communities Act, which was held at the White House on the South Lawn, Biden said the “most common rounds fired from an AR-15 move almost twice as fast as that from a handgun.”

A month later, on Aug. 26, 2022, during a reception for the Democratic National Committee, which was held at a private residence in Bethesda, Maryland, Biden said “the velocity of a bullet coming out of assault weapons is three-and-a-half times as fast as a bullet coming out of another weapon.”

But on Nov. 6, 2022, at a rally for New York Governor Kathy Hochul, which was held at Sarah Lawrence College in Bronxville, New York, Biden said this: “And as I point out all the time, what comes out of a muzzle of an assault weapon is five times quicker, faster than comes out of a muzzle of another gun. It can pierce a Kevlar vest. There are not a whole lot of deer out there wearing Kevlar vests.”

Smote, this is the kind of BS that makes people like you look bad (especially when they come from a site called “Biden lies”.)

A simple google search:

Quote

Typical handgun muzzle velocities generally run from about 750 FPS (feet per second) to 1,300 FPS. This is true for all calibers, from .22 through .45. On the other hand, rifle velocities generally run from 1,900 FPS to 4,000 FPS.

Depending on what 5.56 round you’re firing, from what AR-15, and what gun you’re comparing it to, it could be characterized as “almost twice as fast” (1900 vs 1300) as “five times faster” (4000 vs 750) - generally closer to the latter, if you’re comparing an typical AR-15 firing 5.56 (3300-3600) vs a typical handgun (<1000). And they do indeed penetrate Kevlar. And there are not a lot of deer (or wild hogs) wearing Kevlar vests.

Biden misspeaks sometimes. What you posted him saying is pretty close to the truth.

I would characterize misspeaking as a one time occurrence. When he misspeaks the same thing repeatedly it looks intentional. Doesn't he have staff to fact check, and correct him after a mistake? And shouldn't he take that correction and not repeat the mistake?

How about the DoJ paper? Where they infiltrated by NRA moles?
Or the ATF website? Hacked by the Russians? .066%
The PLCAA? does no one on his staff tell him to stop spreading false info?

If these are just one topic, it stands to reason the list is ginormous. Yes, he's not Trump. For that everyone is grateful. Speaking the truth is NOT too much to ask. I expect better than good enough.

---

Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) Private citizens have the right under the Second Amendment to possess an ordinary type of weapon and use it for lawful, historically established situations such as self-defense in a home, even when there is no relationship to a local militia.

"The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner." Right to Keep and Bear Arms: Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Ninety-seventh Congress, Second Session. U.S. Government Printing Office. 1982. Digitized September 30, 2008.

From the NYSRPA v Bruen "Today, we decline to adopt that two-part approach. . . . Despite the popularity of this two-step approach, it is one step too many. Step one of the predominant framework is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment's text, as informed by history."

He didn’t “misspeak repeatedly”. Each of those “Biden lies” you quoted are defensible statements of the truth.

Assault rifles (oh, sorry, assault weapons that are rifles) have a high muzzle velocity; two, three, four times (or more) than handguns. Because of this and other factors, they produce devastating tissue injuries in their victims.

Seriously, this endless sophistry doesn’t reflect well on you.

why doesn't he simply make the corrections and stop misspeaking? And why is it happening so often?

And for the record, I'd love to see Trump spend the rest of his life in courtrooms, shuffling back and forth in an orange jumpsuit. Cell to court, to cell, in perpetuity.

---

Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) Private citizens have the right under the Second Amendment to possess an ordinary type of weapon and use it for lawful, historically established situations such as self-defense in a home, even when there is no relationship to a local militia.

"The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner." Right to Keep and Bear Arms: Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Ninety-seventh Congress, Second Session. U.S. Government Printing Office. 1982. Digitized September 30, 2008.

From the NYSRPA v Bruen "Today, we decline to adopt that two-part approach. . . . Despite the popularity of this two-step approach, it is one step too many. Step one of the predominant framework is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment's text, as informed by history."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/20/2023 06:12PM by Smote.

Has modern access to every word a politician says distorted our impression of how often they speak inaccuracies? In the old days, we rarely heard anything from a president that was not in the context of prepared remarks. In modern media, we demand far more extemporaneous speech from politicians. How often was FDR, for example, casually interviewed Meet the Press style? And those words are immediately posted for all to hear on demand while a thousand pundits and influencers feverishly spin them for us.

Like the dawning of DVDs when we could pause the film at any instant to see the glaring cheapness of the set decorations.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/20/2023 08:07PM by Acer.

Quote
Acer
Has modern access to every word a politician says distorted our impression of how often they speak inaccuracies? In the old days, we rarely heard anything from a president that was not in the context of prepared remarks. In modern media, we demand far more extemporaneous speech from politicians. How often was FDR, for example, casually interviewed Meet the Press style? And those words are immediately posted for all to hear on demand while a thousand pundits and influencers feverishly spin them for us.

Like the dawning of DVDs when we could pause the film at any instant to see the glaring cheapness of the set decorations.

seems like we have the tools to easily verify and call them out for "misspeaking". They also have the same tools to verify facts in seconds in everyones' hands 24/7 so there should be nothing to call them out for.

---

Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) Private citizens have the right under the Second Amendment to possess an ordinary type of weapon and use it for lawful, historically established situations such as self-defense in a home, even when there is no relationship to a local militia.

"The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner." Right to Keep and Bear Arms: Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Ninety-seventh Congress, Second Session. U.S. Government Printing Office. 1982. Digitized September 30, 2008.

From the NYSRPA v Bruen "Today, we decline to adopt that two-part approach. . . . Despite the popularity of this two-step approach, it is one step too many. Step one of the predominant framework is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment's text, as informed by history."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/20/2023 08:45PM by Smote.

Precision isn’t exactly the forte of politicos. I’m sure if Biden was an enthusiastic gunner he would make this particular error that has little affect on anything or anyone except the gun strokers.

---

Saint Cloud, Minnesota, where the weather is wonderful even when it isn't.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/20/2023 09:11PM by Speedy.

Quote
Speedy
Precision isn’t exactly the forte of politicos. I’m sure if Biden was an enthusiastic gunner he would make this particular error that has little affect on anything or anyone except the gun strokers.

Is it your assertion that everything ELSE he speaks on he gets 100% accurate, and this one 3+ decade long crusade is the only subject he is hazy on?

Pick a popular subject and we can research his accuracy together.

---

Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) Private citizens have the right under the Second Amendment to possess an ordinary type of weapon and use it for lawful, historically established situations such as self-defense in a home, even when there is no relationship to a local militia.

"The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner." Right to Keep and Bear Arms: Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Ninety-seventh Congress, Second Session. U.S. Government Printing Office. 1982. Digitized September 30, 2008.

From the NYSRPA v Bruen "Today, we decline to adopt that two-part approach. . . . Despite the popularity of this two-step approach, it is one step too many. Step one of the predominant framework is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment's text, as informed by history."