Miscellaneous news items that don't warrant their own thread

[Ibanez]

I see you missed the point.

You had one?

Yes and you missed it. Strike 2.

[AZGrizFan]

You had one?

Yes and you missed it. Strike 2.

please elaborate.

[Ibanez]

Yes and you missed it. Strike 2.

please elaborate.

Just so we're clear - you want me to elaborate on my point how an armed rebellion against a tyrannical monarchy and parliament is different than a mob attacking their own congressional representatives to stop a process b/c they are unhappy with the outcome. I won't call the Jan 6 event a rebellion or insurrection b/c you and others have said that it was a "mostly peaceful" protest.

The two aren't comparable. Among the many grievances: we have representation (the colonists didn't); We don't have soldiers quartered in our homes (the colonists did); The government had not tried to take away firearms (the British did). There were 27 grievances outlined in the Declaration of Independence explaining why we were leaving (and fighting.)

The government is engaged in immigration / population control so you might have a point with that one.

[AZGrizFan]

please elaborate.

Just so we're clear - you want me to elaborate on my point how an armed rebellion against a tyrannical monarchy and parliament is different than a mob attacking their own congressional representatives to stop a process b/c they are unhappy with the outcome. I won't call the Jan 6 event a rebellion or insurrection b/c you and others have said that it was a "mostly peaceful" protest.

The two aren't comparable. Among the many grievances: we have representation (the colonists didn't); We don't have soldiers quartered in our homes (the colonists did); The government had not tried to take away firearms (the British did). There were 27 grievances outlined in the Declaration of Independence explaining why we were leaving (and fighting.)

The government is engaged in immigration / population control so you might have a point with that one.

One person's "tyrannical monarchy" is another person's "status quo"...

we have representation....do we really?
not taking away firearms....are they not, really?

And hey, YOU'RE the one who threw out "taxes" as the reason for the war....not me, bro.

[AZGrizFan]

"Florida Woman" giving "Florida Man" a run for his money....

https://www.foxnews.com/food-drink/nake ... nts-police

It’s commonly known that many restaurants practice "no shirt, no shoes, no service."

But, one woman in Florida did not heed this warning when she decided to undress and trash a local Outback Steakhouse in the Marion County, according to viral videos shared on Reddit, Facebook and Twitter.

The Ocala Police Department confirmed to Fox News that the incident took place on June 1 with a copy of the woman’s arrest affidavit.

[BDKJMU]

please elaborate.

Just so we're clear - you want me to elaborate on my point how an armed rebellion against a tyrannical monarchy and parliament is different than a mob attacking their own congressional representatives to stop a process b/c they are unhappy with the outcome. I won't call the Jan 6 event a rebellion or insurrection b/c you and others have said that it was a "mostly peaceful" protest.

The two aren't comparable. Among the many grievances: we have representation (the colonists didn't); We don't have soldiers quartered in our homes (the colonists did); The government had not tried to take away firearms (the British did). There were 27 grievances outlined in the Declaration of Independence explaining why we were leaving (and fighting.)

The government is engaged in immigration / population control so you might have a point with that one.

You won’t call it an insurrection because you can’t.

In insurrection there is an organized and armed uprising against authority or operations of government

https://definitions.uslegal.com/i/insur ... %20society.

FBI Official Tells Senate No One ‘Recovered’ Guns During Capitol Hill Riots
“To my knowledge, we have not recovered any on that day from any other arrests at the scene at this point.”

https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/03/f ... ill-riots/

[UNI88]

Just so we're clear - you want me to elaborate on my point how an armed rebellion against a tyrannical monarchy and parliament is different than a mob attacking their own congressional representatives to stop a process b/c they are unhappy with the outcome. I won't call the Jan 6 event a rebellion or insurrection b/c you and others have said that it was a "mostly peaceful" protest.

The two aren't comparable. Among the many grievances: we have representation (the colonists didn't); We don't have soldiers quartered in our homes (the colonists did); The government had not tried to take away firearms (the British did). There were 27 grievances outlined in the Declaration of Independence explaining why we were leaving (and fighting.)

The government is engaged in immigration / population control so you might have a point with that one.

You won’t call it an insurrection because you can’t.

In insurrection there is an organized and armed uprising against authority or operations of government

https://definitions.uslegal.com/i/insur ... %20society.

FBI Official Tells Senate No One ‘Recovered’ Guns During Capitol Hill Riots
“To my knowledge, we have not recovered any on that day from any other arrests at the scene at this point.”

https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/03/f ... ill-riots/

Your first link also says:

The following is a case law defining Insurrection:
Insurrection means “a violent uprising by a group or movement acting for the specific purpose of overthrowing the constituted government and seizing its powers. An insurrection occurs where a movement acts to overthrow the constituted government and to take possession of its inherent powers.”

Was there violence? Yes.
Was the purpose to overthrow the constituted government? It could be argued that it was.

[Skjellyfetti]

Just so we're clear - you want me to elaborate on my point how an armed rebellion against a tyrannical monarchy and parliament is different than a mob attacking their own congressional representatives to stop a process b/c they are unhappy with the outcome. I won't call the Jan 6 event a rebellion or insurrection b/c you and others have said that it was a "mostly peaceful" protest.

The two aren't comparable. Among the many grievances: we have representation (the colonists didn't); We don't have soldiers quartered in our homes (the colonists did); The government had not tried to take away firearms (the British did). There were 27 grievances outlined in the Declaration of Independence explaining why we were leaving (and fighting.)

The government is engaged in immigration / population control so you might have a point with that one.

You won’t call it an insurrection because you can’t.

In insurrection there is an organized and armed uprising against authority or operations of government

https://definitions.uslegal.com/i/insur ... %20society.

FBI Official Tells Senate No One ‘Recovered’ Guns During Capitol Hill Riots
“To my knowledge, we have not recovered any on that day from any other arrests at the scene at this point.”

https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/03/f ... ill-riots/

You left out the rest of her quote for some reason. Let me help

“I don’t want to speak on behalf of Metro and Capitol police, but, to my knowledge, none,” she added.

For example, this deplorable was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm on Capitol grounds.

At approximately 1925 hours (7:25p.m.), I was assisting escorting individuals past an MPD line
when I noticed a man, later identified by his Maryland driver’s license as CHRISTOPHER
ALBERTS, to be slow in responding to orders to leave the premises. As I approached ALBERTS from his rear, I noticed a bulge on ALBERTS’ right hip. Based on my training and experience, I
recognized the bulge was consistent with that of a hand gun. While pushing ALBERTS towards
the line, I tapped the bulge with my baton and felt a hard object that I immediately recognized to
be a firearm. At the time, ALBERTS was also wearing a bullet-proof vest and carrying a backpack.
At that point, I told two MPD officers next to him that ALBERTS had a firearm on his person.
ALBERTS, apparently hearing that, immediately tried to flee, but I was able to detain him with the
help of two other officers. A black Taurus G2C 9mm (Serial#AAL085515) was recovered from
D-1’s right hip. Additionally, a separate magazine was located on D-1’s left hip. Both the gun and
the spare magazine were in held in two separate holsters. The handgun had one round in the
chamber with a twelve round capacity magazine filled with twelve rounds; the spare magazine
also had a twelve round capacity and was filled with twelve rounds. MPD Officers also seized a
gas-mask from the defendant’s person as well as the defendant’s backpack containing a pocketknife, one packaged military meal-ready to eat (MRE), and one first-aid medical kit

https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-relea ... 6/download

[BDKJMU]

You won’t call it an insurrection because you can’t.


https://definitions.uslegal.com/i/insur ... %20society.


https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/03/f ... ill-riots/

You left out the rest of her quote for some reason. Let me help

“I don’t want to speak on behalf of Metro and Capitol police, but, to my knowledge, none,” she added.

For example, this deplorable was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm on Capitol grounds.

At approximately 1925 hours (7:25p.m.), I was assisting escorting individuals past an MPD line
when I noticed a man, later identified by his Maryland driver’s license as CHRISTOPHER
ALBERTS, to be slow in responding to orders to leave the premises. As I approached ALBERTS from his rear, I noticed a bulge on ALBERTS’ right hip. Based on my training and experience, I
recognized the bulge was consistent with that of a hand gun. While pushing ALBERTS towards
the line, I tapped the bulge with my baton and felt a hard object that I immediately recognized to
be a firearm. At the time, ALBERTS was also wearing a bullet-proof vest and carrying a backpack.
At that point, I told two MPD officers next to him that ALBERTS had a firearm on his person.
ALBERTS, apparently hearing that, immediately tried to flee, but I was able to detain him with the
help of two other officers. A black Taurus G2C 9mm (Serial#AAL085515) was recovered from
D-1’s right hip. Additionally, a separate magazine was located on D-1’s left hip. Both the gun and
the spare magazine were in held in two separate holsters. The handgun had one round in the
chamber with a twelve round capacity magazine filled with twelve rounds; the spare magazine
also had a twelve round capacity and was filled with twelve rounds. MPD Officers also seized a
gas-mask from the defendant’s person as well as the defendant’s backpack containing a pocketknife, one packaged military meal-ready to eat (MRE), and one first-aid medical kit

https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-relea ... 6/download

So 1 guy on the Capital grounds, which is a huge area. Was he one of the estimated ballpark 800 that entered the Capitol building?

Going to take more than 1 handgun to do an insurrection.

[Skjellyfetti]

Two more for you.

The pdf doesn't highlight for copy and paste. But, look at charges on page 1. I can take a screenshot if you have trouble managing on your own.

https://ewscripps.brightspotcdn.com/70/ ... harges.pdf


It started with "no one was armed" now - it must be more than three to qualify!!

[BDKJMU]

Two more for you.

The pdf doesn't highlight for copy and paste. But, look at charges on page 1. I can take a screenshot if you have trouble managing on your own.

https://ewscripps.brightspotcdn.com/70/ ... harges.pdf


It started with "no one was armed" now - it must be more than three to qualify!!

Did you even read the charges? It was a SINGle taser, not a gun, and not 2 armed people..Unless 2 people can each be armed with a single taser. Maybe they each had 1/2 a taser Please tell me you have more than 2 people entered the Capital Building with 1 taser, and 1 guy outside with a handgun, to constitute an imsurrection..

[Ibanez]

Just so we're clear - you want me to elaborate on my point how an armed rebellion against a tyrannical monarchy and parliament is different than a mob attacking their own congressional representatives to stop a process b/c they are unhappy with the outcome. I won't call the Jan 6 event a rebellion or insurrection b/c you and others have said that it was a "mostly peaceful" protest.

The two aren't comparable. Among the many grievances: we have representation (the colonists didn't); We don't have soldiers quartered in our homes (the colonists did); The government had not tried to take away firearms (the British did). There were 27 grievances outlined in the Declaration of Independence explaining why we were leaving (and fighting.)

The government is engaged in immigration / population control so you might have a point with that one.

One person's "tyrannical monarchy" is another person's "status quo"...

we have representation....do we really?
not taking away firearms....are they not, really?

And hey, YOU'RE the one who threw out "taxes" as the reason for the war....not me, bro.

We have representation - it's called Congress. Regardless of your opinion on them, we do have elected representatives.
I don't recall Trump trying to take away anyone's guns before Jan 6. Please provide a link to an article...I'll wait.

I used taxes because things like the Stamp and Tea Acts and eventually the Intolerable Acts. Again - regardless of your opinion, the facts are that taxation was a key driver in our eventual fight for independence. Individual liberty being the 2nd key driver.

You disappoint me, bub. You really don't seem to have a full understanding of our history.

[Ibanez]

Just so we're clear - you want me to elaborate on my point how an armed rebellion against a tyrannical monarchy and parliament is different than a mob attacking their own congressional representatives to stop a process b/c they are unhappy with the outcome. I won't call the Jan 6 event a rebellion or insurrection b/c you and others have said that it was a "mostly peaceful" protest.

The two aren't comparable. Among the many grievances: we have representation (the colonists didn't); We don't have soldiers quartered in our homes (the colonists did); The government had not tried to take away firearms (the British did). There were 27 grievances outlined in the Declaration of Independence explaining why we were leaving (and fighting.)

The government is engaged in immigration / population control so you might have a point with that one.

You won’t call it an insurrection because you can’t.

In insurrection there is an organized and armed uprising against authority or operations of government

https://definitions.uslegal.com/i/insur ... %20society.

FBI Official Tells Senate No One ‘Recovered’ Guns During Capitol Hill Riots
“To my knowledge, we have not recovered any on that day from any other arrests at the scene at this point.”

https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/03/f ... ill-riots/

The reason I didn't call it an insurrection is b/c according to you and the other MAGAts, it wasn't. If it wasn't an insurrection, then it can't be compared to something like Lexington and Concord. If it can't be compared to an armed uprising against the government then it's not comparable to what happened in the 1770s. Thus you proved my point that AZ is wrong. Thanks.

I'm not sure you're aware but being "armed" isn't the same as having a gun. You can be armed and have a gun, a knife, tazers, a sword, a baseball bat, a pitchfork.

[Ibanez]

You won’t call it an insurrection because you can’t.


https://definitions.uslegal.com/i/insur ... %20society.


https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/03/f ... ill-riots/

Your first link also says:

The following is a case law defining Insurrection:
Insurrection means “a violent uprising by a group or movement acting for the specific purpose of overthrowing the constituted government and seizing its powers. An insurrection occurs where a movement acts to overthrow the constituted government and to take possession of its inherent powers.”

Was there violence? Yes.
Was the purpose to overthrow the constituted government? It could be argued that it was.

Just ignore that part....

[Skjellyfetti]

Two more for you.

The pdf doesn't highlight for copy and paste. But, look at charges on page 1. I can take a screenshot if you have trouble managing on your own.

https://ewscripps.brightspotcdn.com/70/ ... harges.pdf


It started with "no one was armed" now - it must be more than three to qualify!!

Did you even read the charges? It was a SINGle taser, not a gun, and not 2 armed people..Unless 2 people can each be armed with a single taser. Maybe they each had 1/2 a taser Please tell me you have more than 2 people entered the Capital Building with 1 taser, and 1 guy outside with a handgun, to constitute an imsurrection..

i'm sure you had the same opinion of tasers in threads where a black guy reached for a cop's taser and was shot.

do 11 molotov cocktails, an m4 carbine, and a handgun count as armed? or no?
https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-relea ... 1/download

[AZGrizFan]

You won’t call it an insurrection because you can’t.


https://definitions.uslegal.com/i/insur ... %20society.


https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/03/f ... ill-riots/

The reason I didn't call it an insurrection is b/c according to you and the other MAGAts, it wasn't. If it wasn't an insurrection, then it can't be compared to something like Lexington and Concord. If it can't be compared to an armed uprising against the government then it's not comparable to what happened in the 1770s. Thus you proved my point that AZ is wrong. Thanks.

I'm not sure you're aware but being "armed" isn't the same as having a gun. You can be armed and have a gun, a knife, tazers, a sword, a baseball bat, a pitchfork.

never bring a knife to a gun fight.

[AZGrizFan]

One person's "tyrannical monarchy" is another person's "status quo"...

we have representation....do we really?
not taking away firearms....are they not, really?

And hey, YOU'RE the one who threw out "taxes" as the reason for the war....not me, bro.

We have representation - it's called Congress. Regardless of your opinion on them, we do have elected representatives.
I don't recall Trump trying to take away anyone's guns before Jan 6. Please provide a link to an article...I'll wait.

I used taxes because things like the Stamp and Tea Acts and eventually the Intolerable Acts. Again - regardless of your opinion, the facts are that taxation was a key driver in our eventual fight for independence. Individual liberty being the 2nd key driver.

You disappoint me, bub. You really don't seem to have a full understanding of our history.

Trump was a four year respite from the constant attack on the 1st and 2nd amendments.

And admit it: your "taxes" argument was weak, lame and lazy. Especially for a "historian".

[Ibanez]

The reason I didn't call it an insurrection is b/c according to you and the other MAGAts, it wasn't. If it wasn't an insurrection, then it can't be compared to something like Lexington and Concord. If it can't be compared to an armed uprising against the government then it's not comparable to what happened in the 1770s. Thus you proved my point that AZ is wrong. Thanks.

I'm not sure you're aware but being "armed" isn't the same as having a gun. You can be armed and have a gun, a knife, tazers, a sword, a baseball bat, a pitchfork.

never bring a knife to a gun fight.

That's the Chicago way...

[Ibanez]

We have representation - it's called Congress. Regardless of your opinion on them, we do have elected representatives.
I don't recall Trump trying to take away anyone's guns before Jan 6. Please provide a link to an article...I'll wait.

I used taxes because things like the Stamp and Tea Acts and eventually the Intolerable Acts. Again - regardless of your opinion, the facts are that taxation was a key driver in our eventual fight for independence. Individual liberty being the 2nd key driver.

You disappoint me, bub. You really don't seem to have a full understanding of our history.

Trump was a four year respite from the constant attack on the 1st and 2nd amendments.

And admit it: your "taxes" argument was weak, lame and lazy. Especially for a "historian".

I'm not a historian. But if you don't think taxes were a reason we went to war in 1775, then there's no helping you. It's sad that you don't understand the basics of our founding. I shouldn't have to explain this to you.

But I will, for the Bible says instruct the ignorant - British attempts to force the colonies the pay the debt following the French and Indian War created an effect where taxes were passed. These taxes were imposed with no colonists or colonial representative having a say. The colonists felt this was unjust and refused to pay (or let the shipments land). This caused the British to attempt to have greater control over the colonies via royal governors, tax collectors, disbanding local assemblies.. The colonists didn't like their civil liberties and BAU life being usurped. This lead to revolts, tension. These lead to events like the Boston Massacre. British soldiers were quartered in the colonists homes to exert control. This lead to more animosity which resulted in, among other things, the confiscation (or the attempt) of weapons. This lead to Colonists fighting for survival and eventually to hostilities at Lexington and Concord.

The American Revolution was principally caused by colonial opposition to British attempts to impose greater control over the colonies and to make them repay the crown for its defense of them during the French and Indian War (1754–63). Britain did this primarily by imposing a series of deeply unpopular laws and taxes, including the Sugar Act (1764), the Stamp Act (1765), and the so-called Intolerable Acts (1774).

https://www.britannica.com/event/American-Revolution

By 1774, the year leading up to the Revolutionary War, trouble was brewing in America. Parliament (England's Congress) had been passing laws placing taxes on the colonists in America. There had been the Sugar Act in 1764, the Stamp Act the following year, and a variety of other laws that were meant to get money from the colonists for Great Britain. The colonists did not like these laws.

https://www.ncpedia.org/history/usrevolution/reasons

[AZGrizFan]

Trump was a four year respite from the constant attack on the 1st and 2nd amendments.

And admit it: your "taxes" argument was weak, lame and lazy. Especially for a "historian".

I'm not a historian. But if you don't think taxes were a reason we went to war in 1775, then there's no helping you. It's sad that you don't understand the basics of our founding. I shouldn't have to explain this to you.

But I will, for the Bible says instruct the ignorant - British attempts to force the colonies the pay the debt following the French and Indian War created an effect where taxes were passed. These taxes were imposed with no colonists or colonial representative having a say. The colonists felt this was unjust and refused to pay (or let the shipments land). This caused the British to attempt to have greater control over the colonies via royal governors, tax collectors, disbanding local assemblies.. The colonists didn't like their civil liberties and BAU life being usurped. This lead to revolts, tension. These lead to events like the Boston Massacre. British soldiers were quartered in the colonists homes to exert control. This lead to more animosity which resulted in, among other things, the confiscation (or the attempt) of weapons. This lead to Colonists fighting for survival and eventually to hostilities at Lexington and Concord.

The American Revolution was principally caused by colonial opposition to British attempts to impose greater control over the colonies and to make them repay the crown for its defense of them during the French and Indian War (1754–63). Britain did this primarily by imposing a series of deeply unpopular laws and taxes, including the Sugar Act (1764), the Stamp Act (1765), and the so-called Intolerable Acts (1774).

https://www.britannica.com/event/American-Revolution

By 1774, the year leading up to the Revolutionary War, trouble was brewing in America. Parliament (England's Congress) had been passing laws placing taxes on the colonists in America. There had been the Sugar Act in 1764, the Stamp Act the following year, and a variety of other laws that were meant to get money from the colonists for Great Britain. The colonists did not like these laws.

https://www.ncpedia.org/history/usrevolution/reasons

I didn't say they weren't a reason. You were the one who intimated they were THE reason.

Own this, bro. Own it.

[Ibanez]

I'm not a historian. But if you don't think taxes were a reason we went to war in 1775, then there's no helping you. It's sad that you don't understand the basics of our founding. I shouldn't have to explain this to you.

But I will, for the Bible says instruct the ignorant - British attempts to force the colonies the pay the debt following the French and Indian War created an effect where taxes were passed. These taxes were imposed with no colonists or colonial representative having a say. The colonists felt this was unjust and refused to pay (or let the shipments land). This caused the British to attempt to have greater control over the colonies via royal governors, tax collectors, disbanding local assemblies.. The colonists didn't like their civil liberties and BAU life being usurped. This lead to revolts, tension. These lead to events like the Boston Massacre. British soldiers were quartered in the colonists homes to exert control. This lead to more animosity which resulted in, among other things, the confiscation (or the attempt) of weapons. This lead to Colonists fighting for survival and eventually to hostilities at Lexington and Concord.


https://www.britannica.com/event/American-Revolution



https://www.ncpedia.org/history/usrevolution/reasons

I didn't say they weren't a reason. You were the one who intimated they were THE reason.

Own this, bro. Own it.

You read into that, Tom. I can't help that you read things that aren't there.

[BDKJMU]

You won’t call it an insurrection because you can’t.


https://definitions.uslegal.com/i/insur ... %20society.


https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/03/f ... ill-riots/

The reason I didn't call it an insurrection is b/c according to you and the other MAGAts, it wasn't. If it wasn't an insurrection, then it can't be compared to something like Lexington and Concord. If it can't be compared to an armed uprising against the government then it's not comparable to what happened in the 1770s. Thus you proved my point that AZ is wrong. Thanks.

I'm not sure you're aware but being "armed" isn't the same as having a gun. You can be armed and have a gun, a knife, tazers, a sword, a baseball bat, a pitchfork.

No shit sherlock. But if you are going to broaden the definition of 'armed" to include ANYTHING that can be used as a weapon you could throw in keys, shoelaces, stuff carried in bags that could be swung, etc, meaning most people would be armed most of the time. To the lay person, 'armed insurrection' would mean firearmS.

[AZGrizFan]

I didn't say they weren't a reason. You were the one who intimated they were THE reason.

Own this, bro. Own it.

You read into that, Tom. I can't help that you read things that aren't there.

You're right. Nothing else was there. You intimated it was all about the taxes. Be better.

[Ibanez]

You read into that, Tom. I can't help that you read things that aren't there.

You're right. Nothing else was there. You intimated it was all about the taxes. Be better.

No, you made that assumption. Own it, bro. Again - If you don't understand our history and the main causes for the American Revolution by now, then I can't help you. Taxes were such a major part of it.

[Ibanez]

The reason I didn't call it an insurrection is b/c according to you and the other MAGAts, it wasn't. If it wasn't an insurrection, then it can't be compared to something like Lexington and Concord. If it can't be compared to an armed uprising against the government then it's not comparable to what happened in the 1770s. Thus you proved my point that AZ is wrong. Thanks.

I'm not sure you're aware but being "armed" isn't the same as having a gun. You can be armed and have a gun, a knife, tazers, a sword, a baseball bat, a pitchfork.

No shit sherlock. But if you are going to broaden the definition of 'armed" to include ANYTHING that can be used as a weapon you could throw in keys, shoelaces, stuff carried in bags that could be swung, etc, meaning most people would be armed most of the time. To the lay person, 'armed insurrection' would mean firearmS.

I didn't broaden the definition. To be armed is to carrying a weapon. Guns are but 1 type of weapon. Molotov coctails are another. As are tazers.