SectionC3

Hoax on both counts. You may want to do such things as read these phrases that pay from Heller: "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152-153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489-490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students' Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession 2817*2817 of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.[26] We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time." 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of "dangerous and unusual weapons." See 4 Blackstone 148-149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J. Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 271-272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N.C. 381, 383-384 (1824); O'Neill v. State,16 Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35 Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N.C. 288, 289 (1874). "It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right."

Hoax.

There's a fair amount of misstatement and overreaching by the poster who shared the videos. For example, define "defund." (And question whether it's markedly different from Trump's push to defund the FBI.). Put "mandatory buybacks" in context. "Decriminalization," too, is somewhat misleading. The idea that Harris wishes to abolish ICE simply isn't true. There's a lot to unpack, so I'll stop here for the night.

Self-made and tons of hustle here. "Working folks" was intentional. This guy is bad for blue collar and bad for white collar. Protectionism is a terrible, terrible idea and it's only going to get worse.

January 6 ring a bell? And, I’d like to see the “record” of the things that you’re talking about.

I have no idea what he meant in that comment.

I think it's what he's gotta do to try to get more suburban women, who hate him. His gamble is that the evangelicals will vote for him anyways, and he might be right. But it does look like he sold them down the river. That is, if you trust anything that comes out of his mouth, which I don't. (This point is more believable though because I suspect he doesn't really care about the pro-life movement in the least.) I don't disagree with this. I don't think it's likely that he pulls moderates, or anyone else who wasn't with him before, for that matter. But you and I agree on the strategy.

Evil? Really? I don't even know if I would say that about Trump, and I can't stand the selfish, narcissistic, ill-prepared, lying buffoon. Say what you will about the politics of someone like AOC--much of her politics are not mine--I'd never characterize her as evil. Well-intentioned, but misguided, to quote a Republican lobbyist I know. But not evil.

I don’t share your politics, but I agree with a lot of this. There really are three major groups in American politics right now: democrats (fractious as they may be), bush/romney republicans, and MAGA, the latter of which has basically accomplished a hostile takeover of the Republican Party. The republicans cut a deal with MAGA and, to save the brand, they need to get rid of trump and try to keep the nationalists. easier said than done. I think they should pull that band aid sooner than later, but the longer they’re in bed with trump the closer they get to losing their traditionalists.

So then Trump is pathetic. Got it. This is what happens when doing business with this guy. Stay in too long and you get burned. Most of MAGA hasn’t figured it out yet. It happened to the old school conservatives (Obamacare), it’s happening to the evangelicals, and it’s going to happen to the working folks next.

Done for the photo op. As usual with him. Later he called them suckers and losers. Hoax. Your issue initially was with Biden. He was there, as he should have been. Then you pivoted to blaming Harris for not doing something that was rightfully the president’s responsibility. Now it’s an issue of an alleged absence of a phone call. Of course there would be no phone call, because the respects are paid personally in advance of the dignified transfer. in some respects,, you’re just as bad as Trump on this issue. You’re both politicizing and exploiting the active duty deaths of American service members. It’s shameful.

Nope, I’m questioning your approach. Biden was on the tarmac, and he did meet with those families in advance of the dignified transfer. As he should have in his capacity as President. You latched onto the narrative that he did neither such thing, which is obviously false. Then you attempted to pivot to blame Harris for not doing the same. But she wasn’t President then. All of that, of course, was done in an effort to justify the selfish nonsense that Trump pulled yesterday in the sacred space that is Arlington.

Hoax. This isn’t how you started. At first it was “Biden/Harris.” Now it’s Harris. My guess—without looking it up—is that Biden met the families on the tarmac at Dover. Hence your subtle deflection.

That probably how you talk to cops, too. So you’re a pro-cop beater, too? MAGA is against police unions. Loon at the Janus decision. Eviscerates public unions. Such as police unions.

Can’t take the heat so BillsFanNC shuts it off.

It really makes me want to vomit. Unless you’ve been there, you can’t understand. It’s probably the most sacred place in this country. For this fool — or anyone — to sully it as he did makes me ill.

They should move in next to the pro-cop-beaters. Such as you.

It's yet another shameful episode involving this man's involvement in political life. Having been to Arlington several times . . . it's just disgusting and repulsive and sad.

JD apparently rubs stuff the wrong way, too, given his little situation with aquatic mammals.

This is where I'm at. My big thing with PR in Buffalo is catching the ball, particularly given the number of bad weather/windy games we play. That's it. I can't believe there's nobody else hanging around capable of fielding a ball, even if it's a revolving door for a few weeks with a PS player being used as a PR. It surprises me that we released a seemingly useful defense player at that position when there's going to be turnover there in the near future (Benford may demand a big deal, Douglas is aging and soon to be out of contract). This administration, however, has earned the benefit of the doubt, and I wonder if it's as simple as Hardy did something behind the scenes that prompted this result. (Perhaps as simple as defying an instruction not to field a punt at, say, his four yard line.)

Hoax. The plan was to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power. That's why it's an insurrection, and that's why it's more wrong than the violence that occurred in an entirely different and less meaningful context in summer 2020. If you're pro-J6, then you're anti-cop. That's just how it is. Nobody is saying that such violence is acceptable. (I disagree about Antifa being a source of, well, anything, but that point is neither here nor there.). What happened on J6 wasn't simply organized crime, or what in NYS were probably a lot of C and D level felonies. It was an attempt to overthrow the government and disrupt the peaceful transfer of power. It wasn't just a violation of law. It was an attack upon the Constitution. It's just different. If you choose not to understand that or to ignore it, then that's on you. Looks like fake Christian, and prosperity Gospel proponentl, B-Man has made his opinion known as well. B-Man says he follows Jesus, but then ignores the fact that Jesus was a socialist. B-Man tries to have it both ways, when he isn't supporting the golden calf or posting about cartoons and some other gibberish.

I'm with you on the upside with Johnson. But I think he might be a Brady guy. IIRC he became more involved last year after Dorsey left. And, he has the speed to run the toss fairly well, which we saw now and again at the end of last year.

He's got wiggle. I think he needs a year in an NFL strength and conditioning program. He's definitely PS material, and maybe rosterable in the near future.

Nothing about J6 and the Capitol was a protest. It was an insurrection. That’s the key. You don’t and won’t say the insurrection was wrong. And, until you do, you’re pro-smashing cops with fire extinguishers.

Probably the agent leaking it to drum up interest ahead of its publication by the Bills.