ATF investigating after congressional candidate cut apart AR-15 - Polidicks

[QUOTE=catbarf;53189258]If I don't know the intricacies of the 1934 NFA and buy an off-the-shelf 10.5" upper for my AR lower, I have unknowingly constructed an illegal short-barreled rifle and I [I]will[/I] go to jail. If I file multiple pages of application forms and submit to a 6-12 month background investigation to legally construct said SBR, but in the interim buy the parts I need to build it once I'm approved, I have accidentally committed constructive possession and if caught I [I]will[/I] go to jail. If I fly from one gun-friendly state to another with a checked handgun, but on a layover through New York my second flight is cancelled and I'm forced to take possession of my baggage, I [I]will[/I] be arrested for unlawful possession of a handgun on the spot. If I [URL="http://stephenhalbrook.com/tc.html"]assemble the contents of a rifle kit in the wrong order[/URL] and get caught, I have illegally constructed an SBR and, again, if caught, [i]will[/i] go to prison. If I buy a rifle online while living in California, and I take possession of the rifle before realizing they sent me a 30-round magazine, I am in unlawful possession of a high-capacity magazine and if caught I [i]will[/i] go to prison. None of these are hypotheticals, [i]they've all happened[/i] to well-meaning citizens who accidentally ran afoul of draconian laws that don't care about intent. But if an anti-gun politician runs afoul of the same intent-be-damned laws that she intends to expand and inflict on the rest of us- oh, it's okay, she didn't mean it? That's fucking [B]bullshit[/B]. Nobody gets to be above the law, and if the rest of us are going to be punished for innocent violations of zero-tolerance policies, I damned well expect a politician should be too.[/QUOTE] Instead of advocating her to go to get charged for it how about you advocate that thoses arrests should have never been made. This feels like a "actually she deserves to be punished since because these people dealt with this bullshit, so should she." Which makes no sense.

How bout it gets sent to court, charges dropped over circumstance ,which leads to changes in how the NFA is enforced. Everyone goes home....

[QUOTE=BrickInHead;53189434]Yes there is. It may not be intent in the colloquial sense, but you did intentionally take possession of the firearm, which satisfies the intentional aspect of the charge. Now if we're going to talk about why it's a little ridiculous to charge somebody on that for being put into a position that's out of their control, then sure, that's something. I'm not really sure what that person's recourse would have been. But, to say that there is no intent is legally incorrect. Maybe they could've asked the airline to hold on to their baggage? Not sure, because then technically that would be placing the airline in the position of holding illegal goods. But I don't know the law too well around that exact situation. Interesting question though, I don't really think it would fall under any of the traditional defenses.[/QUOTE] So in this case she'd be culpable because she intentionally turned the rifle into a short barrel?

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;53189459]Again: do you have any sources whatsoever of this woman stating that she wants the specific policies you're criticizing to be ruthlessly enforced, or are you constructing a strawman against her because you know that she generally doesn't like guns, and would find it personally satisfying to see somebody you have political differences with have their life ruined? You do understand that being an advocate for gun control does not mean that you advocate [I]any and all[/I] forms of gun control, right?[/QUOTE] Have you read this woman's [URL="https://www.karenmallard.com/parkland"]stances on gun control?[/URL] We start off with some demonization of gun owners: [QUOTE] They want to prevent any measures that would keep Americans from having as many guns as they like with almost no restrictions. It doesn't matter if you're a domestic abuser, have mental illness, or are on the terrorist watch-list, Taylor and others put the 2nd Amendment over our children's right not to be shot dead in their classroom.[/QUOTE] Then we go to a misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the Dickey Amendment: [QUOTE]It's the height of hypocrisy when the Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, goes out and says that we need to wait for "facts and data" before making any public policy. Republicans have effectively been blocking federal research on gun violence for the past twenty years. That's why one of the first pieces of legislation I will sponsor upon being elected will be the repeal of the Dickey Amendment, which prevents the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from funding research on gun violence. [/QUOTE] Assault weapons ban: [QUOTE]The only answer to gun violence is fewer guns, not more, and I intend to make sure that assault-style weapons like the AR-15 are kept off the streets and out of the schools of America.[/QUOTE] And we round it on off with asking people to support organizations that inflate numbers and sometimes use bad statistics altogether to push a narrative, and are no better than the NRA: [QUOTE]I ask that you support honorable organizations fighting for reform, ones like Everytown For Gun Safety. [/QUOTE] So you, the champion of "it's not a conspiracy theory if you look at the context", should clearly see here that there is no way in HELL she is letting any restrictions loosen. Don't play the "she might not want that [I]specific[/I] form of gun control" card when you know full an well you call out people all the time for using that same line. We've hit the anti-gun bingo here. [QUOTE=LegndNikko;53189475]Instead of advocating her to go to get charged for it how about you advocate that thoses arrests should have never been made. This feels like a "actually she deserves to be punished since because these people dealt with this bullshit, so should she." Which makes no sense.[/QUOTE] We have been. People like this are always shoot it down. You haven't listening to anything pro-gun people have been saying for years if you didn't hear this already.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;53189459]Again: do you have any sources whatsoever of this woman stating that she wants the specifics policies you're criticizing to be ruthlessly enforced, or are you constructing a strawman against her because you know that she doesn't like guns and would find it personally satisfying to see somebody you have political differences with have their life ruined? You do understand that being an advocate for gun control does not mean that you advocate [I]any and all[/I] forms of gun control, right?[/QUOTE] She supports Everytown, accuses Congress for taking NRA money instead of further restricting guns, and appeals to anti-gun politicians- what, do I need a signed affidavit saying 'I support the 1934 National Firearms Act and its enforcement in all ways' to characterize her politics as part of the anti-gun coalition that defends our nonsensical firearm laws? Dude, I agree with literally [B]everything[/B] in her [URL="https://www.karenmallard.com/issues"]on-the-issues page[/URL] except for her stance on guns. I am not looking for some technicality to throw a political enemy in jail, but I am [I]sick and tired[/I] of seeing these laws land innocent people in jail with nobody seeming to care, and the response from anti-gunners is apparently as sympathetic as 'well, don't own guns and you won't have this problem'. Now we have a high-profile event clearly showing just how ludicrous these laws are, with someone who clearly doesn't deserve punishment for violating them, and the response is 'oh the laws are fine, they should just take intent into account', when that doesn't fly for anyone else? I don't want her to go to prison, I want Democrats to recognize that the laws have a problem instead of arguing for an exception simply because the victim of their draconian legislation is someone reasonably important and on their side- but if they're not going to do that, then I expect the law to be enforced equally. [QUOTE=LegndNikko;53189475]Instead of advocating her to go to get charged for it how about you advocate that thoses arrests should have never been made.[/QUOTE] We've been doing that for literally decades and nobody seems to care. Now it hurts an anti-gun politician, showing the side that has historically not listened to our concerns just how unfair the law is, and their response seems to be to just make an exception for her. Fix the laws, or apply them equally. One or the other. No 'the laws are fine, just don't prosecute when it happens to someone we like'.

[media]https://twitter.com/mallardforva/status/971730126613475328[/media] Look at all these retarded laws she wants all of us to follow. [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHDg-OK80V8[/media] She wants to ban "military-style assault weapons," "high capacity magazines," and "bump stocks." She would happily make me a criminal if I possessed a stock standard AR-15, which happens to be the most popular rifle in America. And I hope we don't have to go down the road of showing why a "military-style assault weapons" ban, or any of the other laws she is putting forward, is stupid, do we?

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53189489]Have you read this woman's [URL="https://www.karenmallard.com/parkland"]stances on gun control?[/URL] We start off with some demonization of gun owners: Then we go to a misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the Dickey Amendment: Assault weapons ban: And we round it on off with asking people to support organizations that inflate numbers and sometimes use bad statistics altogether to push a narrative, and are no better than the NRA: So you, the champion of "it's not a conspiracy theory if you look at the context", should clearly see here that there is no way in HELL she is letting any restrictions loosen. Don't play the "she might not want that [I]specific[/I] form of gun control" card when you know full an well you call out people all the time for using that same line. We've hit the anti-gun bingo here. We have been. People like this are always shoot it down. You haven't listening to anything pro-gun people have been saying for years if you didn't hear this already.[/QUOTE] So then the answer is no, you have no idea what her specific policy points are, and just want to see her life ruined because of her [I]general[/I] stance on gun control because you're vindictive and petty. You've never been lower than you are right now, Silence. This is sickening.

It's clearly not worth you time guys engaging BDA in debate. Save your breath and your keyboard.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;53189325]More outrage from our resident gun nuts over this than the treason in the White House. [/QUOTE] What does this have to do with anything? No, seriously, what does this have to do with anything?

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;53189503]So then the answer is no, you have no idea what her specific policy points are, and just want to see her life ruined because of her [I]general[/I] stance on gun control because you're vindictive and petty. You've never been lower than you are right now, Silence. This is sickening.[/QUOTE] I'm confused, he cited places that outline rather specific goals, such as magazine limits and the like. Wouldn't that qualify as being specific enough to take issue with?

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;53189503]You've never been lower than you are right now, Silence. This is sickening.[/QUOTE] Huh? He's responding to what you asked for, and is bringing out her stances on gun control and her ideal policies. How is that "sickening"? Good lord dude, quit it with these weird emotional jabs.

[QUOTE=catbarf;53189491]She supports Everytown, accuses Congress for taking NRA money instead of further restricting guns, and appeals to anti-gun politicians- what, do I need a signed affidavit saying 'I support the 1934 National Firearms Act and its enforcement in all ways' to characterize her politics as part of the anti-gun coalition that defends our nonsensical firearm laws? Dude, I agree with literally [B]everything[/B] in her [URL="https://www.karenmallard.com/issues"]on-the-issues page[/URL] except for her stance on guns. I am not looking for some technicality to throw a political enemy in jail, but I am [I]sick and tired[/I] of seeing these laws land innocent people in jail with nobody seeming to care, and the response from anti-gunners is apparently as sympathetic as 'well, don't own guns and you won't have this problem'. Now we have a high-profile event clearly showing just how ludicrous these laws are, with someone who clearly doesn't deserve punishment for violating them, and the response is 'oh the laws are fine, they should just take intent into account', when that doesn't fly for anyone else? I don't want her to go to prison, I want Democrats to recognize that the laws have a problem instead of arguing for an exception simply because the victim of their draconian legislation is someone reasonably important and on their side- but if they're not going to do that, then I expect the law to be enforced equally. We've been doing that for literally decades and nobody seems to care. Now it hurts an anti-gun politician, showing the side that has historically not listened to our concerns just how unfair the law is, and their response seems to be to just make an exception for her. Fix the laws, or apply them equally. One or the other. No 'the laws are fine, just don't prosecute when it happens to someone we like'.[/QUOTE] When you're advocating for destroying somebody's life because of the policy points you [I]think[/I] she holds, then is it really such a ludicrous request that you find statements, voting records, or policy points of hers that actually enforce the claims you're making? Great, we've established that she is a gun control advocate. Where have we established that she is a proponent of the ruthless enforcement policies of the restrictive laws you're criticizing? [U]I agree with you[/U] on the overly restrictive nature of the specifics and enforcement policies on some gun control legislation, yet I do still favor gun control in general. Even though we're in complete agreement on the injustice of enforcement that may present within certain legislative frameworks, would ya'll demand that I have my life effectively ended, and smack your lips about a "gun control advocate" being crucified under those poorly legislated and over-enforced policies because of my broader stance on control?

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;53189503]So then the answer is no, you have no idea what her specific policy points are, and just want to see her life ruined because of her [I]general[/I] stance on gun control because you're vindictive and petty. You've never been lower than you are right now, Silence. This is sickening.[/QUOTE] I just gave specific policy points quoted from her own webpage. What are you talking about? And I don't want to see her prosecuted because of her political opinions. I want to see her prosecuted because I would be if I had done the same. It is unjust to give someone special treatment because of politics or their perceived importance. If I have to follow the law, so does everyone else. I'm not the monster you want me to be.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;53189519]When you're advocating for destroying somebody's life because of the policy points you [I]think[/I] she holds[/QUOTE] Can you prove people wanting that? Because most people here want the law enforced equally.

Start enforcing the law equally and it won't be a law for very long.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53189520]I just gave specific policy points quoted from her own webpage. What are you talking about? And I don't want to see her prosecuted because of her political opinions. I want to see her prosecuted because I would be if I had done the same.[/quote] No, you didn't. You gave policy points demonstrating that she's a gun control advocate, not that she supports the policies or enforcement practices that you're criticizing. [quote] It is unjust to give someone special treatment because of politics or their perceived importance. If I have to follow the law, so does everyone else. I'm not the monster you want me to be.[/QUOTE] Nobody's buying this little show you're putting on.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;53189533]No, you didn't. You gave policy points demonstrating that she's a gun control advocate, not that she supports the policies or enforcement practices that you're criticizing.[/QUOTE] Ok what exactly do you want then. If someone's desires for policy do not reflect their policy then what is it that you want? [QUOTE=Big Dumb American;53189533] Nobody's buying this little show you're putting on.[/QUOTE] Dude what the fuck could you [I]please[/I] roll back on the weird demonization of people here? It doesn't make a whole lot of sense and doesn't help anything

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;53189523]Can you prove people wanting that? Because most people here want the law enforced equally.[/QUOTE] Yeah right. It's clear as day why Silence wants this person arrested. And advocating for such demonstrates a complete inability to use common sense, honestly it's stupid behaviour and petty too imo.

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;53189547]Yeah right. It's clear as day why Silence wants this person arrested. And advocating for such demonstrates a complete inability to use common sense, honestly it's stupid behaviour and petty too imo.[/QUOTE] Can you prove that he wants her arrested because of her political views?

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;53189538]Ok what exactly do you want then. If someone's desires for policy do not reflect their policy then what is it that you want?[/QUOTE] I am an advocate for gun control: I do not support the specific legislative or executive policy that you are currently criticizing. Her statements in support of gun control do not equate to support of [I]all[/I] gun control policy. You're calling out a double standard, calling her a hypocrite, and yet here's the only hypocrisy that has actually been established: people are licking their lips and demanding blood because she's a gun control advocate, when they would be calling it a huge injustice if she weren't.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;53189538] Dude what the fuck could you [I]please[/I] roll back on the weird demonization of people here? It doesn't make a whole lot of sense and doesn't help anything[/QUOTE] Silence has been disingenuous is just about every discussion I've see him post in recently, there a precedent for him manufacturing outrage and being intellectually dishonest, it looks like hes doing it again here and its reasonable to assume as much.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;53189552]Can you prove that he wants her arrested because of her political views?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53189084]She absolutely should be prosecuted for committing a felony. The trigger assembly, gas system, bolt and carrier, none of that matters. The part that is considered the "firearm" is the shell of the lower receiver that has the serial number on it. Operational or not, if that receiver is intact (as shown in the video), and you put a short barrel on it or cut the barrel short WITHOUT the tax stamp, you are committing a felony.[/QUOTE] lol

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;53189553]I am an advocate for gun control: I do not support the specific legislative or executive policy that you are currently criticizing. Her statements in support of gun control do not equate to support of [I]all[/I] gun control policy. You're calling out a double standard, calling her a hypocrite, and yet here's the only hypocrisy that has actually been established: people are licking their lips and demanding blood because she's a gun control advocate, when they would be calling it a huge injustice if she weren't.[/QUOTE] I'm calling it hypocritical that someone is able to flagrantly break the law on video, and get away with it, and then talk about how laws need to be enforced. [QUOTE=Big Dumb American;53189553] people are licking their lips and demanding blood because she's a gun control advocate, when they would be calling it a huge injustice if she weren't.[/QUOTE] Again, weird emotional ploy. Can you prove that we want her arrested because of her views? [editline]9th March 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=Big Dumb American;53189556]lol[/QUOTE] Oh my god. He is explaining that removing that aspect of the firearm, via cutting it short, without the tax stamp is a felony. She committed a crime in doing so. Where, exactly, where, does it say he wants her arrested for the political views.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;53189559]I'm calling it hypocritical that someone is able to flagrantly break the law on video, and get away with it, and then talk about how laws need to be enforced. Again, weird emotional ploy. Can you prove that we want her arrested because of her views?[/QUOTE] I don't know what the hell [I]you[/I] want, but Silence is as one dimensional as ever: [QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53189084]She absolutely should be prosecuted for committing a felony. The trigger assembly, gas system, bolt and carrier, none of that matters. The part that is considered the "firearm" is the shell of the lower receiver that has the serial number on it. Operational or not, if that receiver is intact (as shown in the video), and you put a short barrel on it or cut the barrel short WITHOUT the tax stamp, you are committing a felony.[/QUOTE]

Okay so here's how I read that. [quote]She absolutely should be prosecuted for committing a felony.[/quote] Obvious, doesn't need reading into. [quote]The trigger assembly, gas system, bolt and carrier, none of that matters. The part that is considered the "firearm" is the shell of the lower receiver that has the serial number on it.[/quote] Explaining the mechanics of the firearm, and legislation regarding it. [quote]Operational or not, if that receiver is intact (as shown in the video), and you put a short barrel on it or cut the barrel short WITHOUT the tax stamp, you are committing a felony.[/quote] Explaining the law. Where's the part about her political affiliation?

Man, gun nuts are some fragile people. It's embarrassing.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;53189573]Where's the part about her political affiliation?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53189257]I don't care that she broke a gun. AR15s are not rare. I care that she knowingly broke the law, one of the very laws she would be against removing. [B]She wants to talk about how people don't care about children being murdered because people won't create new laws[/B], yet doesn't follow existing law herself.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=SKEEA;53189137]If a regular ass citizen did this, the ATF would swoop in, shoot their dog, and arrest them. They would go to prison for ten years and be fined 250 grand. This woman is not a protected class by trying to run for VA congress. Sorry, but [B]if you are going to spout off about the laws[/B] while knowing nothing about them, and break one of the biggest ones in the nation that has been around the longest, [B]you really deserve what is coming to you[/B].[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=catbarf;53189258]None of these are hypotheticals, [i]they've all happened[/i] to well-meaning citizens who accidentally ran afoul of draconian laws that don't care about intent.[B] But if an anti-gun politician runs afoul of the same intent-be-damned laws that she intends to expand and inflict on the rest of us[/B]- oh, it's okay, she didn't mean it? That's fucking [B]bullshit[/B]. Nobody gets to be above the law, and if the rest of us are going to be punished for innocent violations of zero-tolerance policies, I damned well expect a politician should be too.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=S31-Syntax;53189329]Maybe, maybe not. But they'll be charged, fined, weapon related items confiscated with no refund or return, and it will be flagged on their records [I]forever.[/I] [b]if she's unfamiliar with the mechanics of rifles why the hell is she allowed to legislate for or against them.[/b] [/I]moreso, if she's unfamiliar with firearms law enough that she wouldn't know she is at the very least [I]riding the line of a felony[/I], [B]why is she allowed to legislate against them and why didn't anybody in that house know them either.[/B][/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Kigen;53189334]Also, for those arguing about her not being arrested and charged she would undoubtedly want the government to come and arrest you if you failed to follow the laws she makes. Regardless of your intent. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=SKEEA;53189335]What I notice is that[B] if it's a gun person that did this (sawed off a barrel) on social media, they would instantly be decried and most likely imprisoned. Now that it is an anti gun person willfully breaking the law, all of a sudden the anti gun side changes its narrative[/B] to, "But why should anyone get in trouble for this?"[...] Now, what I find funny is that pro gun people have been saying to abolish and/or update the NFA for years and years, and always been rebuked. However, now that anti gun people see how asinine it is with its crazy and outdated definitions, maybe they'll start seeing our point.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=catbarf;53189370[B]]If an anti-gun politician getting slapped with the same idiocy they inflict on everyone else is what it takes for non-gun-owners to realize how stupidly gun control laws are written, then great[/B], but you're inventing distinctions where none exist.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Kigen;53189398][B]She is calling for more gun laws when she clearly doesn't even know the laws already on the books[/B][...] The average citizen would be in jail facing felony charges. It happens all the time in this country.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Kigen;53189418][B]We're trying to point out the hypocrisies here. She clearly wants others to face prison time because she doesn't like guns[/B]. So what a lot of anti-gun legislation does these days is create paper criminals out of otherwise law abiding gun owners. You cannot sit here and believe that she wouldn't support prosecuting someone who accidentally creates a SBR by lets say accidentally buying a upper to an AR-15 that is just a half inch too short.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=catbarf;53189446][B]If gun control advocates seemed to care about the overly strict nature of gun laws like the NFA then yes, I'd call it petty and agree that discretion is needed. But if they're going to support these laws as they stand and as they're enforced, then it's only fair that they experience the excessive and unfair nature of those laws for themselves[/B]. Maybe if they actually book her, then it would be the wakeup call that gun laws in this country need comprehensive reform- but we all know that isn't going to happen, because laws are for little people.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53189489]Have you read this woman's [URL="https://www.karenmallard.com/parkland"]stances on gun control?[/URL] We start off with some demonization of gun owners: Then we go to a misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the Dickey Amendment: Assault weapons ban: And we round it on off with asking people to support organizations that inflate numbers and sometimes use bad statistics altogether to push a narrative, and are no better than the NRA: So you, the champion of "it's not a conspiracy theory if you look at the context", should clearly see here that [B]there is no way in HELL she is letting any restrictions loosen. Don't play the "she might not want that [I]specific[/I] form of gun control" card when you know full an well you call out people all the time for using that same line. We've hit the anti-gun bingo here.[/B] We have been. People like this are always shoot it down. You haven't listening to anything pro-gun people have been saying for years if you didn't hear this already.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=catbarf;53189491] Now we have a high-profile event clearly showing just how ludicrous these laws are, with someone who clearly doesn't deserve punishment for violating them, and the response is 'oh the laws are fine, they should just take intent into account', when that doesn't fly for anyone else? I don't want her to go to prison, I want Democrats to recognize that the laws have a problem instead of arguing for an exception simply because the victim of their draconian legislation is someone reasonably important and on their side- but if they're not going to do that, then I expect the law to be enforced equally.[/QUOTE] I could go on, but at this point it's abundantly clear: they want to make an example out of her because she advocates for gun control. I don't know what [I]you[/I] want, but here it's as simple as can be. They are licking their lips to see a "gun control advocate" get crucified, when they'd be calling this an injustice for anybody else. They want to see her crucified [I]because[/I] it's an injustice, and are reveling in the opportunity to see somebody they disagree with suffer it too in order to prove a point about how it's an injustice. You don't fight injustice with more injustice. That's sick. Anybody who supports ruining this woman's life because of her general stance on gun control, [I]especially[/I] without knowing her specific policy ideas, is fuckin' sick.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;53189594]I could go on, but at this point it's abundantly clear: they want to make an example out of her because she advocates for gun control. I don't know what [I]you[/I] want, but here it's as simple as can be. They are licking their lips to see a "gun control advocate" get crucified, when they'd be calling this an injustice for anybody else. They want to see her crucified [I]because[/I] it's an injustice, and are reveling in the opportunity to see somebody they disagree with suffer it too. You don't fight injustice with more injustice. That's sick. Anybody who supports ruining this woman's life because of it is sick.[/QUOTE] No, what's abundantly clear is that you're reading what you think is there, and not actually there. They are discussing that breaking the law is something that nobody should just "get away with", and are stating that her position is what has caused the ATF to be slow to respond. They provide examples on how regular citizens, not involved with legislation or government, were hounded by the ATF and sent to prison. They are saying that it is hypocritical that a politician is able to borderline break the law, and then discuss about how they want to enforce new laws on that subject. You are the one reading where nothing is there. You are instead jumping to call people "sick" and "licking their lips", which is a dirty emotional ploy at best, and shitposting at worst. It adds nothing to the conversation. You are running in circles talking about how people want someone to be arrested for political reasons/affiliations when in fact they are stating that its wrong for someone to get away with a crime/attempted crime because of their position in government. The law is the law. You yourself regularly talk about how the law must be enforced and those guilty should be punished.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;53189573]Okay so here's how I read that. Obvious, doesn't need reading into. Explaining the mechanics of the firearm, and legislation regarding it. Explaining the law. Where's the part about her political affiliation?[/QUOTE] Inferred from: 1) his political stance specifically what there is to gain from having a gun control democrat challenger to a republican arrested 2) the nonsensical position he's adopted, complete disregard for spirit of law and common sense Sure he/you have not outright stated it; but it's not in your interest to do so since, if you're only doing it from petty partisan spite, it would invalidate your stance somewhat

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;53189594]They are licking their lips to see a "gun control advocate" get crucified, when they'd be calling this an injustice for anybody else. They want to see her crucified [I]because[/I] it's an injustice, and are reveling in the opportunity to see somebody they disagree with suffer it too in order to prove a point about how it's an injustice.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Big Dumb American;53189553]and yet here's the only hypocrisy that has actually been established: people are licking their lips and demanding blood because she's a gun control advocate, when they would be calling it a huge injustice if she weren't.[/QUOTE] There's nothing hypocritical whatsoever about 'these laws shouldn't exist the way they do, but as long as they do exist, they should be applied equally to everyone'. Yes, it would be an injustice if it happened to a gun owner. It's an injustice when it happens to a gun control advocate. It's an even [i]greater[/i] injustice if that unjust law is selectively enforced as a political tool, used to imprison law-abiding citizens but granting exceptions to politicians who aren't the intended target. If we're going to be subject to these laws, you damn well bet we expect everyone else to be too, until those laws are rightfully changed or repealed. After going on about how it's wrong for us to infer a politician's position based on their clear policy statements, you sure are doing a complete asspull about what we actually believe.