Biden / Harris Focused Discussion

[Muzjhath]

How well is "he's a criminal because he owned a gun" going to play with the Republican base? I thought they viewed the 2nd Amendment as sacrosanct? Won't this make Hunter more popular with them?

He's the wrong type of person who owned a gun!
A) Openly and admittedly addicted to drugs at the time.
B) Named Biden.

[Spectral]

How well is "he's a criminal because he owned a gun" going to play with the Republican base? I thought they viewed the 2nd Amendment as sacrosanct? Won't this make Hunter more popular with them?

We should consider the reciprocal to this - most progressives favor new gun control laws, but don't actually seem all that enthusiastic about vigorous enforcement of existing statute. When you fill out forms at an FFL to transfer a firearm to your possession, you're greeted with this statement:

WARNING: The information you provide will be used to determine whether you are prohibited by Federal or State Law from receiving a firearm, or whether Federal or State Law prohibits the sale or disposition of a firearm to you. Certain violations of the Gun Control Act, 18 U.S.C. § 921 et. seq., are punishable by up to 15 years imprisonment and/or up to a $250,000 fine.

Possession by amphetamine or crack cocaine addicts are pretty central examples of what this legislation is attempting to single out as an illegal act. As many gun control advocates are fond of noting, even most self-identified 2A advocates don't oppose background checks. From personal experience, I would say that most firearms owners would prefer that crack addicts not carry firearms. If we're going to have laws that are intended to criminalize addicts possessing firearms, they should be vigorously enforced, no?

[TACOshake]

LOL TIME IS A FLAT CIURCLE

Country CLub Republicans tries to scare white america with the menance of CRACK COCAINE!







Bunch of corny mutherfuckers.

[Spectral]

Country CLub Republicans tries to scare white america with the menance of CRACK COCAINE!

I know snark is more your brand than honest engagement, but can you offer some thoughts on what you think federal firearms background check policies should be? Do you think the whole thing is stupid and anyone should be allowed to receive an FFL transfer that would like one? That preventing addicts from purchasing firearms is theoretically good, but it shouldn't really be enforced? I'm not clear on your position from the post, other than that thinking enforcement of background check legislation is a corny mutherfucker position.

[Endus]

I know snark is more your brand than honest engagement, but can you offer some thoughts on what you think federal firearms background check policies should be? Do you think the whole thing is stupid and anyone should be allowed to receive an FFL transfer that would like one? That preventing addicts from purchasing firearms is theoretically good, but it shouldn't really be enforced? I'm not clear on your position from the post, other than that thinking enforcement of background check legislation is a corny mutherfucker position.

This isn't about background checks at all. There was nothing in Hunter Biden's history that would have tripped a background check in the first place. He was using drugs, but he didn't have any kind of official record of that which would have been found with the background check.

The charges are for lying on the ATF forms about whether he was using drugs or had an addiction. Which we only know because Hunter himself has admitted to, at the time. Which, fair. It's arguable that this would never have been prosecuted except as an attempt to hurt Joe Biden by attacking his son; had it been anyone else these charges would likely have never been pursued, given a host of reasons. But, for the sake of clarity and the avoidance of any possible political bias, I don't have a problem with the prosecution; the reason these charges likely wouldn't have been issued for anyone else is the likelihood that a jury would deem little to no harm was actually done and acquitting, so why waste the court's time? If they want to see that in an actual court, so be it. And even if i'm wrong and a strong conviction and sentence comes down, whatever. I don't really care. It shouldn't be a story, and anyone thinking this reflects on his father at all is an extremist nutbar pushing conspiracy whackadoodle nonsense who shouldn't be listened to except to properly mock them and their stupid-ass malicious views.

[Orange Joe]

I know snark is more your brand than honest engagement, but can you offer some thoughts on what you think federal firearms background check policies should be? Do you think the whole thing is stupid and anyone should be allowed to receive an FFL transfer that would like one? That preventing addicts from purchasing firearms is theoretically good, but it shouldn't really be enforced? I'm not clear on your position from the post, other than that thinking enforcement of background check legislation is a corny mutherfucker position.

How about you clarify what an addict is?


1, anyone that uses any drug any amount?
2, someone who uses once in a while?
3, someone who uses often?
4, someone who uses everyday?

[Spectral]

I think you read too much into people's opinions regarding 2A hypocritical scenarios.

According to the logic of vocal 2A rights activists we always hear from, Hunter Biden should be lionized for gun charges, not vilified. "Shall not be infringed."

There certainly is a position held by some that all federal paperwork for firearms purchases and possession are illegitimate infringements. As near as I can tell, polling data shows that to be an unpopular position, even among most people on the right. The number of people that think it's actually not a big deal to lie about narcotics usage on federal forms in order to illegally obtain a firearm is pretty low. Throw in that the actual conduct here resulted in the firearm being thrown in a garbage can and eventually found by some guy that roots around in the garbage and we have a scenario that most people would generally consider to be pretty serious criminal misconduct. I'm sure you can find someone that expresses actual hypocrisy on the matter, but it's a pretty lame gotcha to prop up a strawman of someone that isn't here to discuss the matter.

- - - Updated - - -

How about you clarify what an addict is?


1, anyone that uses any drug any amount?
2, someone who uses once in a while?
3, someone who uses often?
4, someone who uses everyday?

No thanks. You're welcome to lay out whatever objection you're pointing at and I'll respond accordingly though.

[Edge-]

LOL TIME IS A FLAT CIURCLE

Country CLub Republicans tries to scare white america with the menance of CRACK COCAINE!







Bunch of corny mutherfuckers.

Honestly the story around that is pretty gross and awful and another reason why Republicans should never be trusted: https://whyy.org/articles/30-years-a...red-he-get-it/

[Lenonis]

Medical cannabis patients can’t even own a gun legally in the state—he knew what he was doing was illegal. It’s all very clear.

What a weird response to a question not asked.

The right has been screeching for years now that the right to own guns is sacrosanct and shouldn't be infringed at all.

Hunter Biden's right to own a gun was infringed by the very laws they oppose. If the right had any sense of morality they would oppose this prosecution because the right to own a firearm is enshrined in the constitution and these laws infringe on this right.

But they won't - because they are all hypocrites who don't actually have a real opinion beyond "whatever can be done to hurt the left is the best thing". Even if it hurts themselves or goes against what they claim to believe.

[Lenonis]

What’s peculiar is how some users are downplaying the legal matters and concentrating on Republicans

I don't see a single person downplaying the legal matters other than speculating that given the nature of the charges and the short frame of time involved Hunter may get probation. Which isn't downplaying...just speculating on the outcome. The Republicans are the ones who made Hunter Biden's legal issues political so concentrating on them is fair game.

They're merely upholding the law, so why the sudden cause for concern?

1) They aren't upholding the law the DOJ is. 2) Them upholding a law that goes against their so-called beliefs is hypocritical. Which is the point you seem to be working extra hard to avoid addressing. Hit too close to home or something?

Are we even allowed to be discussing Hunter here?

Given that the Republicans are linking it to Biden's fitness for office it seems relevant.

[Orange Joe]

No thanks. You're welcome to lay out whatever objection you're pointing at and I'll respond accordingly though.

How you gonna prevent "addicts" from getting guns if you can't even define what an addict is?

[Spectral]

How you gonna prevent "addicts" from getting guns if you can't even define what an addict is?

The statute is agnostic to whether the user in question is an addict or not. In the specific case of Hunter, he's a self-admitted addict, so we don't have to act all that puzzled about whether he's actually an addict. If your position is that crack addicts should be able to purchase firearms the same as anyone else, you can say as much. Personally, I wouldn't be inclined to lie on an FFL form, regardless of my position on the constitutionality of such forms in the first place.

[Orange Joe]

The statute is agnostic to whether the user in question is an addict or not. In the specific case of Hunter, he's a self-admitted addict, so we don't have to act all that puzzled about whether he's actually an addict. If your position is that crack addicts should be able to purchase firearms the same as anyone else, you can say as much. Personally, I wouldn't be inclined to lie on an FFL form, regardless of my position on the constitutionality of such forms in the first place.

If you were talking specifically about Hunter why did you use the term "addicts" instead of "addict", or his name?

[Spectral]

If you were talking specifically about Hunter why did you use the term "addicts" instead of "addict", or his name?

I think each sentence I've written parses clearly and I find no contradiction in them. None of them are puzzling and I don't believe you're an honest interlocutor on the matter.

[Orange Joe]

I think each sentence I've written parses clearly and I find no contradiction in them. None of them are puzzling and I don't believe you're an honest interlocutor on the matter.

This is not about hunter specifically, this is about you using the word "addict" as a catch all and I'm just curious what that words means to you.

[Edge-]

Given his father's position as President, it is a matter that does take on grave significance, and it's especially disconcerting that he, of all people, would choose to falsify information on a federal firearms form.

Why?

He's a private citizen and his fathers position is largely irrelevant to his alleged crimes. Prosecute him on those charges and call it a day. What does Joe have to do with this beyond being the father to a troubled son? Republicans have investigated Hunter fairly deeply and have yet to find any evidence linking him and his businesses to his father even.

Why is it "grave significance"?

Don't worry though, Hunter Biden will never get my vote for president.

[Lenonis]

Given his father's position as President, it is a matter that does take on grave significance

But it shouldn't. People don't hold any accountability for the actions of their family members unless they were directly involved, which he was not in this case. Trying to link this to the president is pure partisan politics and incredibly dishonest.

It's only natural to expect that Hunter will face more stringent scrutiny due to his family background

That is an abuse of the justice system. Everyone should be equal in the eyes of the law.

that’s simply a matter of common sense

No, it's a matter of vindictive political hacks who want to weaponize the justice system to go after their political enemies. Common sense is to treat everyone equally under the law.

which you'd like people to look past.

And disingenuous liars like you are trying to gaslight us all into thinking being harder on people because they are related to the president is somehow normal and right.

[Orange Joe]

A more thorough investigation into a crime isn't unjust—it’s when we begin to question the fairness of the punishment, that concerns will begin to arise…

Well people very rarely get charged with this so I'm sure you will be ok if he doesn't get charged right?

[Endus]

Given his father's position as President, it is a matter that does take on grave significance, and it's especially disconcerting that he, of all people, would choose to falsify information on a federal firearms form.

Why would any of that be a factor?

It's only natural to expect that Hunter will face more stringent scrutiny due to his family background—that’s simply a matter of common sense, which you'd like people to look past.

Scrutiny, sure, but the only legitimate scrutiny there would be ensuring there aren't any factors that would put his father at risk of being compromised in some way, through blackmail or the like.

Everything else is completely irrelevant and any further scrutiny has no justifiable good cause.

[Lenonis]

A more thorough investigation into a crime isn't unjust

Sure it is if it's for political reasons. How do you not see this?