Hunter Biden indicted today on 3 federal gun charges

[F1fan]

I do believe that any gun related crime ought to be taken much much more seriously than it is in the U.S. I understand what you are saying and I understand these crimes are not taken very seriously. But I think they should be.

Gun laws in the USA are a catastrophe, and how the 2nd amendment is interpreted by courts is wrong, IMO. It is only one sentence, yet the part that refers to "well regulated militias" as to why there is a right to own and bear arms is completely ignored. I think it should be very difficult to buy and own guns, at least anything that isn't a hunting gun.

 

[exchemist]

Witch hunt or legitimate charges? Now remember, 'the law is the law'(for those that use that arguement)

"Two counts are tied to Biden allegedly completing a form indicating he was not using illegal drugs when he purchased a Colt Cobra revolver in October 2018. The third count alleges that he possessed a firearm while using a narcotic"

Hunter Biden indicted on federal gun charges

The president's son was indicted after a plea agreement on tax and gun charges fell apart in July and as House Republicans investigate his finances.

www-nbcnews-com.cdn.ampproject.org

Why does any of this matter? This guy doesn't hold any public office. It's tragic for the president to have a son in trouble with the law, after everything else he's been through in his personal life, but I can't see why it should be politically significant.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You don't see the harm in drug addicts buying guns.

I see the harm in it. That does not necessarily mean that one can make it illegal. The same amendment that keeps us from passing gun control laws would also apply in this circumstance.

 

[Audie]

I see the harm in it. That does not necessarily mean that one can make it illegal. The same amendment that keeps us from passing gun control laws would also apply in this circumstance.

The constitution that allows hundreds of gun
laws now?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The constitution that allows hundreds of gun
laws now?

Yes, care has to be taken when writing them. None of them ban a sane person from buying a gun if they have not been convicted of a major crime. This law goes further than those other laws. I would not mind if we had some meaningful gun control, but that is almost impossible largely due to the Second Amendment. Ironically the same people that tend to yell "Mah 2nd Amendmunt" the loudest are also those that are willing to abuse that amendment for this case.

 

[Audie]

Yes, care has to be taken when writing them. None of them ban a sane person from buying a gun if they have not been convicted of a major crime. This law goes further than those other laws. I would not mind if we had some meaningful gun control, but that is almost impossible largely due to the Second Amendment. Ironically the same people that tend to yell "Mah 2nd Amendmunt" the loudest are also those that are willing to abuse that amendment for this case.

You find that gun laws are not " meaningful"?
Definition of "meaningful" is sought.
Note svp that your 1st amendment is also
tamper resistant. No doubt some find the
difficulty doing anything "meaningful" to muzzle
the press quite vexing. See recent police raids in Kansas.

On your last we see you've succumbed to the grim
and tawdry Vice of concocting some ironic hypocrisy
on the part " others" as if it improves your presentstion.

It doesn't.

Especially as for example the NRA position is,
" enforce existing laws"

If ya want ironic hippos see who pushed to pass
the laws Biden violated and now dont like the consequences.

I'd not mention it if you'd not insisted on gratuitously
and irrelevantly going upside down and backwards.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You find that gun laws are not " meaningful"?
Definition of "meaningful" is sought.
Note svp that your 1st amendment is also
tamper resistant. No doubt some find the
difficulty doing anything "meaningful" to muzzle
the press quite vexing. See recent police raids in Kansas.

On your last we see you've succumbed to the grim
and tawdry Vice of concocting some ironic hypocrisy
on the part " others" as if it improves your presentstion.

It doesn't.

Especially as for example the NRA position is,
" enforce existing laws"

If ya want ironic hippos see who pushed to pass
the laws Biden violated and now dont like the consequences.

I'd not mention it if you'd not insisted on gratuitously
and irrelevantly going upside down and backwards.

Some are and some are not. Please don't black or white me.

And yes, there are people that violate the First Amendment too. There will be lawsuits in that state and the sheriff will lose.

 

[Audie]

Some are and some are not. Please don't black or white me.

And yes, there are people that violate the First Amendment too. There will be lawsuits in that state and the sheriff will lose.

Some is and some isn't.

That like two definitions in one !

 

[Subduction Zone]

Some is and some isn't.

That like two definitions in one !

It is reality. Not all laws are perfect.

 

[We Never Know]

Why does any of this matter? This guy doesn't hold any public office. It's tragic for the president to have a son in trouble with the law, after everything else he's been through in his personal life, but I can't see why it should be politically significant.

It matters to me because I want to see if he gets off with just a hand slap since he is the son of a sitting president or if he will be treated like he isnt't above the law. This is the first time a sitting presidents son has been federally indicted as far as I am aware.

 

[Audie]

It is reality. Not all laws are perfect.

You is losing your grip

 

[Subduction Zone]

You is losing your grip

No I am being consistent

 

[SomeRandom]

This may make matters worse. The "crime" that he has been accused of my not be constitutional. It punishes people for a crime that is only a misdemeanor, and not even a gross misdemeanor. Yet gun ownership is supposed to be a constitutional right.

Now I would like some more comprehensive gun control laws, but I will be the first to admit that one has to be aware of the limitations of the Second Amendment on those proposed laws. Ironically those that want to punish Hunter for this "crime" also tend to be staunch supporters of a very liberal interpretation of the Second Amendment. When I have asked the OP multiple times about whether he would follow a law that banned the ownership of his guns all that I got was crickets in response. But yet that is what he wants to do to Hunter.

When one cannot reason consistently without changing one's basic values then one's claims appear to be very very wrong. This is a a witch hunt. It is not about justice.

Oh, and Hunter had a plea agreement earlier. Plea agreements are often used to solve cases quickly and justly. They always tend to be much less severe than the worst case outcome of a trial. Hunter's plea agreement appeared to be very standard for someone with his sort of record. Also a plea agreement cannot be appealed. One could change one's mind and go through with a trial, in which case they would go back to the original charges with a likely much more severe outcome. At any rate, because the person cannot appeal the cases sometimes questionable but useful laws are used so that there is a record of the "crimes" that a person did. In this case he was going to plead guilty to the charges of this questionable law, but he would have had probation only. That is not unusual. This law has been used before, but it appears to be always in plea bargains where someone is pleading guilty to a less severe crime. I have seen it with traffic offenses multiple times where the person pleads guilty to doing something wrong that was very similar but not quite what he did because it would have no points on his license (a record that the insurance companies look at when deciding the rates that they will charge a person) and usually a lower fine too. The law used was acknowledged to be a "legal fiction" but since it was used in plea agreements that benefited both the guilty party and the state no one ever appeals it.

Okay, enough for now.

I think you made my head spin far more effectively than any whisky/bourbon out there.

I think I’ll just leave you guys to sort this all out, if that’s okay? Lol

 

[We Never Know]

I think you made my head spin far more effectively than any whisky/bourbon out there.

I think I’ll just leave you guys to sort this all out, if that’s okay? Lol

Its quite simple. A drug user breaking a federal law by lying on a federal form to obtain a gun illegally is equavilant to a traffic ticket

 

[exchemist]

It matters to me because I want to see if he gets off with just a hand slap since he is the son of a sitting president or if he will be treated like he isnt't above the law. This is the first time a sitting presidents son has been federally indicted as far as I am aware.

Hmm, I suspect that’s a no win situation for the legal system, given the appalling political climate in the US these days. Whatever verdict and sentence may be applied, there will be a chorus of voices claiming it was soft on the guy.

The motive, of course, will be to facilitate a claim subsequently that any verdict or sentence handed out to Trump is politically biased.

The US Right now has a strong interest in undermining faith in legal justice - having, due to Trump, done their best to damage its credibility already, through the appointment of unsuitable judges. To an outside observer it looks as if half the country is hellbent on pulling down the pillars of democracy.

 

[SomeRandom]

Its quite simple. A drug user breaking a federal law by lying on a federal form to obtain a gun illegally is equavilant to a traffic ticket

Yeah sorry. My head is spinning like a top lol

 

[Subduction Zone]

Its quite simple. A drug user breaking a federal law by lying on a federal form to obtain a gun illegally is equavilant to a traffic ticket

Oh my! Now that is not exactly honest. No, it is not equivalent to a traffic ticket. But then it is not equivalent to a violent crime against someone either. That is what it usually takes to lose one's second amendment rights. And you confirmed that I was correct by running away, as you so often do, to questions that refute your position.

 

[Audie]

No I am being consistent

I'd call it progressive.

You really- really cant see no issues with
such as the irrelevant quip / sarcasm attempt?

 

[Audie]

Oh my! Now that is not exactly honest. No, it is not equivalent to a traffic ticket. But then it is not equivalent to a violent crime against someone either. That is what it usually takes to lose one's second amendment rights. And you confirmed that I was correct by running away, as you so often do, to questions that refute your position.

That is not what it usually takes.
You just made that up.

 

[Audie]

Hmm, I suspect that’s a no win situation for the legal system, given the appalling political climate in the US these days. Whatever verdict and sentence may be applied, there will be a chorus of voices claiming it was soft on the guy.

The motive, of course, will be to facilitate a claim subsequently that any verdict or sentence handed out to Trump is politically biased.

The US Right now has a strong interest in undermining faith in legal justice - having, due to Trump, done their best to damage its credibility already, through the appointment of unsuitable judges. To an outside observer it looks as if half the country is hellbent on pulling down the pillars of democracy.

The win is in enforcing the law, justice for all

No prejudice, no special deals.

Some won't like it. All the more reason to
uphold the spirit and letter of the law.

And, BTW, Americans might well look into having the
honesty, and, frankly, patriotism, to get past
this stupid and destructive left v right extremism.

Such as your bit about how the right wants to
undermine justice.


Which, amusingly, is here concocted from the
right not wanting the leftists to let the left'S
guy get away with flouting laws- that
were promoted by, yes, the left.