US and NA Politics (General)

[semipotentwalrus]

While you're here carlo, can we get a comment on your opinion on the dismantling of the USPS?

[Deleted]

Aug 28, 2020 16:58:35 GMT -5 carlo87 said:

Uh oh. Department of Justice just announced that 74 BLM members are being charged with Federal crimes including arson, rioting, assault on officers during Portland Riots.

Actually the majority of them are being charged with 'failure to obey a lawful order', though assaulting a federal officer does come in a hot second. Of 74 people, four are charged with arson, and at least one of whom it will likely be dropped entirely (witness accounts say that he had no idea what it was he had been asked to throw, which turned out to be an incendiary that it sounds like even I'd be proud of), and another most likely going to be dropped to a lesser charge. 

Edward Thomas Schinzing is, however, a professional criminal who used the protests to set the Portland Justice Center on fire, having seven misdemeanors and two felony convictions on his jacket already.

[adurot]

www.washingtonpost.com/politics/secret-service-copes-with-coronavirus-cases-in-aftermath-of-trump-appearances/2020/08/28/fa0e7b6e-e22a-11ea-8dd2-d07812bf00f7_story.html

[adurot]

www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/tv-ratings-aug-27-2020-republican-convention

I love this, not because I personally care about tv ratings, but because I know it’s how Drumpf measures worth and success.

[Emblematic Wolfblade]

While not strictly political, a video has been found of the poor, innocent Kyle Rittenhouse, who was illegally carrying an AR-15 so he could murder innocent people in "self-defense" like another poster here was going to do was defending himself against the violent mob, of him punching a girl. (Further down in the comments is a good still frame of the video + a photo of Kyle for comparison) Truly the selfless 'Merican hero the trumptards makes him out to be.

And in more politically-related news, A Proud Boy member, Alan Swinney, who pointed a firearm at protesters on the 22nd iirc (and who police are still "looking for") was seen at another demonstration, and armed. Weird how everyone but the police apparently can find him.

[Emblematic Wolfblade]

Hey carlo, here's more examples of your personal heroes instigating violence.

[carlo87]

Aug 28, 2020 18:03:26 GMT -5 semipotentwalrus said:

While you're here carlo, can we get a comment on your opinion on the dismantling of the USPS?

I'll get back to you on this more later, but in all it's a mixed bag.   If you want to talk about the President appointing a guy to lead the USPS that has conflicting interest and some of his mishandlings of the situation, well yeah that's some stupid shit that you and I can totally agree on.  Then there are other arguments that are pants on head stupid, like the Jamie Lee Curtis/Taylor Swift "their stealing mail trucks" argument. There's also the "pictures of locked mailboxes", and the "they're moving mailboxes" arguments that are also invalid.

[carlo87]

In an effort to get the ACTUAL criminal code on if Rittenhouse was carrying a weapon illegally I found a link to the actual criminal code in Wisconsin. docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/948/60


This states: Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
However, it also states the following: This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593.

So, in order to be in violation of 948.60 Rittenhouse had to do one of the following two things: Violate 941.28, or violate BOTH 29.304 AND 29.593

What does 941.28 involve? That's about possessing a short barreled shotgun or rifle. He did not do this.

That means in order to be guilty he needs to violate BOTH 29.304 AND 29.593. 29.304 states only restrictions on people age 12 and under, 12 to 14, and 14-16. It stops there. That means that he is not in violation of 29.304, and thus not 948.60. 29.593 is about requirements for obtaining a hunting approval.

So, although 948.60-3-c was intended to be an addendum to allow for hunting, hunting isn't actually used in its terminology allowing for this loophole.

[Emblematic Wolfblade]

So... just gonna gloss over Rittenhouse's murders, and pretend the douchebag in charge of the Post Office didn't order mail sorting machines shut down or that he ordered mailboxes removed? Really?
www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2020/0821/Removed-mailboxes-and-sorting-machines-Senators-question-DeJoy

Mr. DeJoy told senators he has zero plans to restore blue mailboxes and sorting equipment that have been removed, saying they are "not needed."

I would LOVE to see your sources that say no mailboxes were moved/removed/locked and sorting machines weren't shut down. Seriously. It's well documented.

Aug 29, 2020 19:15:16 GMT -5 carlo87 said:

Incorrect and misleading info about gun ownership in Wisconsin

For the record, you are treated as an adult at the age of 17 for legal purposes in Wisconsin. That's why you couldn't find anything pertaining to 17-year-olds.


Also, you need to read section 3a again:

This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon when the dangerous weapon is being used in target practice under the supervision of an adult or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult. This section does not apply to an adult who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age for use only in target practice under the adult's supervision or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the adult's supervision.

Bold mine to point out a specific sentence if the situation applied. It doesn't, but he's absolutely in violation of it if the situation did apply. Your part comes from further on in 3c, however as this is not a matter of "target practice" it doesn't apply and thus the section is pointless.

Oh, and you conveniently skimmed over 1a too, at the very start:

In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded

Note the lack of mention of any specific features or lengths. It literally doesn't matter what type of gun he used, just that he used one at all.

tl;dr:
The part you're trying to use to excuse his illegal carry only makes section 3 exempt, not section 1 which clearly makes his use and carry illegal.

[carlo87]

Aug 29, 2020 21:09:49 GMT -5 Emblematic Wolfblade said:

So... just gonna gloss over Rittenhouse's murders, and pretend the douchebag in charge of the Post Office didn't order mail sorting machines shut down or that he ordered mailboxes removed? Really?
www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2020/0821/Removed-mailboxes-and-sorting-machines-Senators-question-DeJoy

Mr. DeJoy told senators he has zero plans to restore blue mailboxes and sorting equipment that have been removed, saying they are "not needed."

I would LOVE to see your sources that say no mailboxes were moved/removed/locked and sorting machines weren't shut down. Seriously. It's well documented.

Aug 29, 2020 19:15:16 GMT -5 carlo87 said:

Incorrect and misleading info about gun ownership in Wisconsin

For the record, you are treated as an adult at the age of 17 for legal purposes in Wisconsin. That's why you couldn't find anything pertaining to 17-year-olds.


Also, you need to read section 3a again:

This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon when the dangerous weapon is being used in target practice under the supervision of an adult or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult. This section does not apply to an adult who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age for use only in target practice under the adult's supervision or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the adult's supervision.

Bold mine to point out a specific sentence if the situation applied. It doesn't, but he's absolutely in violation of it if the situation did apply. Your part comes from further on in 3c, however as this is not a matter of "target practice" it doesn't apply and thus the section is pointless.

Oh, and you conveniently skimmed over 1a too, at the very start:

In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded

Note the lack of mention of any specific features or lengths.

tl;dr:
The part you're trying to use to excuse his illegal carry only makes section 3 exempt, not section 1 which clearly makes his use and carry illegal.

Your total inability to read in rising to new levels. 

Section 3a, 3b, and 3c are separate exemption, all of which apply to 948.60 

I'm trying to say "the ball is blue".  Your rebutal is "no, the ball is round, therefore it can't be blue".  You're logic is so bad I'm almost to the point that I think you're just trolling me. 

The law is set up so that 948.60 is law unless any one of the following is true:  3a, 3b, 3c.    You don't need to qualify for 3a for 3c to be true. 

[Emblematic Wolfblade]

Carlo, 3c is not applicable because they've violated 1A. 3c cannot apply unless 3a applies. Your half-assed, poor understanding of the legal system doesn't make you correct because you want it to be. Here, read this and understand what a section is: courses.lumenlearning.com/masterybusinesslaw/chapter/how-to-read-a-statute/

Furthermore, he violated 3c by 29.593 not applying because he wasn't hunting.

[carlo87]

www.snopes.com/fact-check/usps-locking-mailboxes/

www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/08/17/fact-check-wisconsin-mailbox-photo-not-proof-voter-suppression/3382701001/

[carlo87]

Aug 29, 2020 21:35:48 GMT -5 Emblematic Wolfblade said:

Carlo, 3c is not applicable because they've violated 1A. 3c cannot apply unless 3a applies. Your half-assed, poor understanding of the legal system doesn't make you correct because you want it to be. Here, read this and understand what a section is: courses.lumenlearning.com/masterybusinesslaw/chapter/how-to-read-a-statute/

Furthermore, he violated 3c by 29.593 not applying because he wasn't hunting.

LOL, and you say Whembly argues in bad faith. FFS man, you seriously can't fucking read, and you prove it time and time again. 

Section 3 lists the exemption of the statute as a whole. 3c is independent of 3a. If 3c was dependent on 3a it would have either been a subsection of 3a or been directly stated in 3c. 


As you are obviously WAY to fucking thick to ever have a reasonable argument with, welcome to the ignore list. 

[Emblematic Wolfblade]

So.... you're gonna ignore everything else, and focus on ONE picture? You're gonna ignore the mailboxes that HAVE been removed, and the sorting machines that have been shutdown there's no voter suppression?

You're so fucking stupid.

www.snopes.com/fact-check/usps-mailboxes-removed-oregon/
www.politifact.com/article/2020/aug/19/whats-happening-mailboxes-and-mail-sorting-machine/

Go on, explain this. No one is focused on the ONE picture of a locked mailbox, that's just an attempt by right-wing sources to pretend there is no voter suppression going on.

[Emblematic Wolfblade]

Aug 29, 2020 21:46:35 GMT -5 carlo87 said:

Aug 29, 2020 21:35:48 GMT -5 Emblematic Wolfblade said:

Carlo, 3c is not applicable because they've violated 1A. 3c cannot apply unless 3a applies. Your half-assed, poor understanding of the legal system doesn't make you correct because you want it to be. Here, read this and understand what a section is: courses.lumenlearning.com/masterybusinesslaw/chapter/how-to-read-a-statute/

Furthermore, he violated 3c by 29.593 not applying because he wasn't hunting.

LOL, and you say Whembly argues in bad faith. FFS man, you seriously can't fucking read, and you prove it time and time again. 

Section 3 lists the exemption of the statute as a whole. 3c is independent of 3a. If 3c was dependent on 3a it would have either been a subsection of 3a or been directly stated in 3c. 


As you are obviously WAY to fucking thick to ever have a reasonable argument with, welcome to the ignore list. 

Again, no. Just because you're a fucking redneck who has never bothered to try and understand the difference between a "statue" and a "section" doesn't mean the rest of us are. I'd say you have brain damage, but that's insulting to people with actual brain damage.

Seriously, read this:
docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/help/statutes
See those numbers in parentheses? That's referring to sections.

God I hope there's an actual civil war sometimes just so people like you get put up against the wall carlo. You actively make the US worse everyday. You're the reason we're becoming a 3rd world country.