Hunter Biden found GUILTY of all 3 Gun Charges
(www.thegatewaypundit.com)
🤡 Awaiting Clown World Moves 🌎
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (136)
sorted by:
It's basically perjury. He lied blatantly on a government form that tells you the penalties right on the form.
This won't lead to that. They will go after guns and their owners regardless, and every way they can.
As for over the top - it is no different than committing perjury in court testimony or on an affidavit. Same crime.
Oh yeah - this doesn't set a precedent. Biden's ATF has been going after FFLs for a while now, reviewing their paperwork for errors, charging them, and taking their FFLs and guns. Fortunately by the end of the month SCOTUS will issue their ruling on the Chevron Deference. I think that will kill the ATF stuff at least, but not plain old perjury.
If the government can take away your guns for lying, then they will be able to take guns from anyone. This is a blatant violation of the second amendment.
Is it blatant?
If you're on crack you're a liability (his history is proof of this.) Gun shops don't want that liability on them. If I owned a gun shop I would want that question and I would want it enforced under perjury. I wouldn't want to sell to drug addicts.
The only thing that was blatant was his crack use. Don't smoke crack if you want to purchase a gun from an FFL.
People want Rights but the don't want the responsibilities that come with them.
Being a "liability" doesn't mean the government can take things away. The constitution is clear "shall not infringe". If someone commits a crime, then they can be punished, but you can't simply take away someone's rights because they might commit a crime, that's the exact thing we're fighting against. Smoking crack if fine as long as you do it responsibly.
You're right, if someone commits a crime then they can be punished.
Smoking crack and admitting to it in a book is an admission to a crime.
Perjury is also a crime.
"Smoking crack if fine as long as you do it responsibly."
Show me a "responsible" crack head! People do crack to escape responsibility!
You have a right to not incriminate yourself, by not answering.
You have a right to own a firearm, unless you are a committing a crime.
There is no rights violated because he made the choice to be a criminal drug addict over being a lawful and responsible gun owner.
As a Canadian, I don't understand why the first part of the 2nd amendment is, seemingly to me, so often ignored: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...." Regulated means that the people can set up and enforce rules. The infringement that seems to me to be forbidden is against the citizenry to be able to have armed militias, but there is an expectation that they would be regulated, and well regulated at that. I guess militias would have their own leaders who would be in charge of regulating them. If the militia leaders thought you were a drunken idiot, they would probably take away your musket or whatever and tell you to get it together. That's how I picture the 2A in the Founding Fathers' minds. But I'm just a Canadian so what do I know?
No. The context at the time to use "Well regulated" is in terms of maintenance and condition. Not regulated with "laws" and "instructions" or other red tape to restrict. Regulated as in properly managed, maintained, conditioned, fit, in-shape, trained... etc. They knowingly used open words because they understood technology would change. Bear "arms". Arms is a handgun, shot gun AR15, F15 or a god damned M1 Abrams if I want it. Not just a musket.
But, I mean, try buying an F15 or an M1A. You could go to Ukraine and get one. We've already paid for them 100 over with all those billions. Most of which is probably funding summer of love 2024 or Biden's re-election or some other psyop BS, or just laundered into someone's foundation.
Ive gone off the rails here on my comment, but I had a great history teacher that would remind us of the times, and how people spoke. How words were used. Yeah, he made us read the books, but he also gave us context. What a great 6th grade teach he was. I paid attention.
Wouldn't it be a hoot if Hunter appeals all the way and SCOTUS vacates the conviction and rules it unconstitutional? Lol
I don’t think someone addicted to crack should own a gun. I don’t think someone convicted of a violent felony should have the right to own a gun.
All constitutional rights have limits - we have a right to free speech, but (even at the time of adopting the 1st amendment), there were many examples of legal limits on speech, even making some speech (i.e. fraudulent speech) a crime.
How is being addicted to crack a violent felony, or even a felony at all? I feel like most people I know have tried a few drugs every now and then. Even people who are high still have a right to defend themselves against tyranny.
I didn’t mean drug possession charges are violent felonies, I meant that as two separate statements.
I agree that drug addiction is a complicated and serious problem and is less so a moral failing for the people afflicted by it. However, crack addiction drives people into crime - many, many thefts and crimes and spurred by addicts trying to steal to support their habits. They shouldn’t be allowed to own firearms for the good of everyone else.
All rights have limits. They lost theirs when they became addicted to a substance that erodes their sense of judgment, as tragic as it may be.
It is very different to committing perjury as it’s an ATF form and the ATF should be lied too by citizens.