Vindman Escorted From White House After Trump’s Senate Acquittal

Thats right the House did exactly that. Glad you finally admitted it.

 

So very telling from someone who doesn't have a clue what the Constitution says.

 

OMG!

Really?

How many times does it have to be spelled out.....you do not need an underlying crime to be charged with high crimes and misdemeanor. Impeachment is a political function of the House and presented to the Senate.

 

And how can you possibly know what my knowledge of the Constitution is?

 

Then why does the constitution say high crimes and misdemsnors? Apparently the Jury disagreed with you and your politically partisan impeachment.

 

And it does not define it either. It's up to the House and Senate to determine that, and as we now know, the Senate failed in its job.

 

Correct the house and senate pass legislation thar makes up the federal criminal code, chapter 18 of the US Code outlines what they are

 

The very fact you claim its outdated shows how little you understand it right away.

But I would expect no more of a knowledge base just by reading your posts.

 

2A is a classic example. The recent impeachment farce is another.

 

You know, believe whatever it is you want to believe. If you really have a desire to know the truth, re-enroll in a community college or something to get a civics refresher, because you're so far off the mark here that it's ridiculous.

 

The House and Senate don’t make laws???

 

You don't understand the Impeachment process. Go back to school!

 

No I’ve watched two of them, and read about many others. Everyone but Johnson and trumps involved high crimes and misdemeanors

 

Yes. We should be more like Stain Hitler and Mao who all banned their populations from owning firearms. You may be fine being one of the sheep but we aren't.

A classic example of what? You have no clue what you are talking about.

Do you understand the Constitution has an amendment process Mate? It cannot be outdated because it contains the means to update itself through nation consensus. This proves your inability to understand how the Constitution works when you claim its "outdated"

 

2A is obsolete and needs to be re-addressed to deal with the fire-power today's weapons have.

A classic example of how obsolete the Constitution is.

Look at the farce you just experienced. The Constitution allows for the accused to arrange the Rules for his own Trial. Absurd. A blight on the USA.

Yes I do, so why have you not sorted the mess out?

 

No you don't. If you did, well, you'd be displaying a far greater grasp of the topic and you wouldn't be making such poor judgements. It's an embarrassment.

 

Bucky, really? If you can't see that 2A and the recent impeachment process/farce is leaving the USA in a mess, then nothing I can say will change your mind. Do you not agree that the impeachment process IS a farce?

 

LOL I see you need a lesson in history as well. Ok.


Supica points to a variety of examples of firearms that predate 1791’s Second Amendment as evidence to counter claims that our founding fathers immortalized our right to keep and bear arms mutually exclusive to muskets:

• 
  
  
  • Circa 1590 – The 16-shot wheel-lock: An oval-bore .67-caliber rifle designed to fire 16 stacked charges of powder and ball in a rapid “Roman candle” fashion. The rifle operated through the use of two wheel locks and one matchlock mounted on the gun.

• 
  
  
  • Circa 1650 – The Kalthoff Repeating Flintlock: As Mike Blessing explains, the Kalthoff Repeating Flintlock came into production in the 1650s, seeing combat in the Siege of Copenhagen in 1659 and later during the Scanian War of 1675 to 1679 -- 132 and 116 years, respectively, before the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791. While manufacturing and repair costs kept the Kalthoff out of mass production, it represents the reality that “high capacity” firearms are not a contemporary concept, as some models of the Kalthoff boasted magazines of up to 30 rounds – the same number of rounds in a true standard-capacity AR-15 magazine of today.

• 
  
  
  • Circa 1750 – The Cookson Volitional Repeating Flintlock: A lever-action breech-loading repeater, is one of many similar designs to make an appearance on the world stage beginning in the 17th century. The revolutionary mechanism at the heart of the Cookson repeater dates from 1680 and was originally known in Europe as the Lorenzoni System, named for Italian gunsmith Michele Lorenzoni of Florence. Long arms utilizing this system were produced in other European nations and in the United States until about 1849. The Cookson rifle dates from 1750 and features a two-chamber horizontally mounted rotating drum. After firing the rifle, the cycling process could be repeated until the two magazines, with their seven-shot capacities, were empty. Although other breech loading rifles were introduced in later years, the Cookson-type long arms were unique in their ability to fire multiple shots without reloading.

• 
  
  
  • 1777 – The Belton Repeating Flintlock: Philadelphian Joseph Belton’s repeating flintlock design reportedly boasted a 16-to-20 shot capacity, using the superposed load mechanism. Sources indicate there was correspondence between the inventor and the Continental Congress in 1777, as the he had reportedly been commissioned by the Congress to build 100 of his repeaters for the U.S. military, with the order being dismissed solely for cost purposes. This discussion presents strong evidence that the founding fathers were perfectly able to conceive of “high capacity” repeating firearms.

• 
  
  
  • 1782-1804 – The Nock Volley Gun: The close quarters of Naval warfare demanded a powerful, yet compact firearm that could provide abundant firepower. The Nock Volley gun fired seven shots all at once from seven clustered bores. This powerful rifle was issued nine years before the dawn on the Second Amendment.

In extending the timeline just beyond the ratification of the Second Amendment and into the early 19th century, Supica highlights examples of firearms that continued the developmental trend of having the ability to fire multiple shots with minimal effort, minimal disruption of the firing position and without the need for reloading – all characteristics of today’s semi-automatic sporting arms so demonized by anti-gunners:

• 
  
  
  • 1818 – Collier Revolving Flintlocks: Inventor Elisha Collier of Boston invented his flintlock revolver in 1814, with the patent awarded in 1818. Collier’s revolver is among the first true revolvers, a marked improvement over the finicky pepperboxes and potentially dangerous multi-barrel predecessors. Collier’s revolver was single-action and self-priming, firing five shots in a manually rotated cylinder before reloading was required.

• 
  
  
  • 1819 – Hall Model 1819 U.S. Breechloading Rifle: The Hall Model 1819 was the first breechloading U.S. military firearm. More than 50,000 Hall action rifles were produced through the 1850s, including a later carbine version. The Hall rifle allowed a significant increase in the rate of fire over muzzleloading firearms, as there was no need to manipulate a long ramrod each time the firearm was loaded. Estimates indicate the Hall rifle could fire eight to nine rounds per minute.

The late 18th and early 19th century saw numerous efforts to develop a breechloading firearm, with the primary purpose of allowing a higher rate of fire from single-shot firearms using the flintlock and percussion ignition systems. A breechloader can be loaded significantly faster than a muzzleloader.

The Ferguson breechloading flintlock was introduced around 1775 and saw limited use by the British in the Revolutionary War. By the time of the American Civil War, several effective breechloading systems had been developed for percussion firearms, the Sharps likely the best known with around 140,000 percussion specimens produced.

• 
  
  
  • 1821 – Jennings Multi-Shot Flintlock Rifle: Isaiah Jennings’ little-produced multi-shot flintlock used superposed powder loads to fire twelve shots before reloading.

• 
  
  
  • Circa 1830 – Pepperbox Pistols: The pepperbox debuted in the 1830s intended for use by civilians, but was quickly adopted by Army officers through private purchase. These guns were similar to later revolvers, in that they usually fired five or six shots before reloading. However, capacities of pepperboxes ranged from as few as three shots to more than 18. For comparison’s sake, the modern Glock 19, one of America’s favorite pistols, features a standard magazine capacity of 15 rounds.

These repeaters used a rotating cluster of barrels. Since most were double-action, they could be fired as fast as the trigger could be pulled. This became the predominant handgun design of the late 1830s through early 1850s.

• 
  
  
  • 1836 – Colt Paterson: Samuel Colt’s Paterson revolver was the first commercial repeating firearm that used a revolving cylinder, aligning multiple chambers to one stationary barrel, unlike predecessor firearms that featured a cluster of barrels, with one for each chamber. Colt’s revolver fired five or six shots without reloading, with the cylinder advancing to the next shot by cocking the hammer.

It stands to reason that like with any creation, innovators apply ingenuity, intelligence and discovery toward designing more effective and efficient tools to provide solutions to problems or improve existing technology. The aforementioned evolution of firearms development is a surefire indicator that gun manufacturers – and the early leaders of a fledgling United States – understood the demands and opportunities that existed to create more efficient, faster-to-use firearms.

Just as undeniable is the fact that firearms have always been an integral cog in the American machine and, in the employ of the hearty will and determination of the forefathers who envisioned our freedom, the ultimate equalizer in the quest to win, foster and defend our independence.

https://www.nrablog.com/articles/2016/10/deconstructing-the-anti-gun-second-amendment-musket-myth/

So to pretend there weren't high capacity firearms back in the day is to simply not understand history.

Mate.

You mean the abuse of power by the Democrats? Absolutely that is an issue because no one ever saw the law subverted this much for an impeachment and the Constitution allows for amendments and laws to pass to fix problems making it the furthest thing from obsolete.

Pretty clear you don't.

What country on this planet doesn't have laws that need updating Mate? Name that fantasy country of yours. I've love to see it.

And that includes yours.

https://www.stayatbase.com/australia/weird-australian-laws/

And of course when your governemnt was stupid to go after law abiding gun owners crime went up not down making your laws obsolete for people who don't like crime.

Mate.


In fact, according to the Australian government’s own statistics, a number of serious crimes peaked in the years after the ban. Manslaughter, sexual assault, kidnapping, armed robbery, and unarmed robbery all saw peaks in the years following the ban, and most remain near or above pre-ban rates. The effects of the 1996 ban on violent crime are, frankly, unimpressive at best.

It’s even less impressive when again compared to America’s decrease in violent crime over the same period. According to data from the U.S. Justice Department, violent crime fell nearly 72 percent between 1993 and 2011. Again, this happened as guns were being manufactured and purchased at an ever-increasing rate.

So although you have fewer firearm-related deaths when you disarm law-abiding civilians, violent crime increases, because there is now NO deterrence to criminals. Even a criminal with a knife can rob, rape and murder someone who is unarmed.

What about suicide rates?

Look:

The Australian gun ban’s effect on suicide in the country isn’t any better. While Vox repeats the Harvard study’s claim that firearm-related suicides are down 57 percent in the aftermath of the ban, Lifeline Australia reports that overall suicides are at a ten-year high. The Australian suicide prevention organization claims suicide is the leading cause of death for Australians 15 to 44 years old. So, while Australians kill themselves with firearms less often, it seems they don’t actually take their own lives any less often than before the ban.

So, overall suicides are not down, people simply found other ways to kill themselves. So the gun ban had no effect on the overall suicide rate. But it did raise the violent crime rate. Should we be surprised by this? Actually, this is consistent with peer-reviewed research.

Gun crime also skyrocketed after the 1996 gun ban. The Washington Free Beacon reports.

Excerpt:

Australia has seen a rise in gun crime over the past decade despite imposing an outright ban on many firearms in the late 1990s.

Charges for crimes involving firearms have increased dramatically across the island nation’s localities in the past decade according to an analysis of government statistics conducted by The New Daily. It found that gun crimes have spiked dramatically in the Australian states of Victoria, New South Wales, South Australia, and Tasmania. In Victoria, pistol-related offenses doubled over the last decade. In New South Wales, they tripled. The other states saw smaller but still significant increases.

Experts said that the country’s 1996 ban on most semi-automatic firearms has actually driven criminals to those guns. “The ban on semi-automatics created demand by criminals for other types of guns,” professor Philip Alpers of the University of Sydney told The New Daily. “The criminal’s gun of choice today is the semi-automatic pistol.”

[…]Regardless of the reasons for the jump in gun crime, the numbers reveal the true size of Australia’s illegal gun market. “Taken together, the data suggests that despite our tough anti-gun laws, thousands of weapons are either being stolen or entering the country illegally,” The New Daily said. “The fourfold rise in handgun-related charges in NSW in the past decade points to the existence of a big illegal market for concealable firearms that seems to have been underestimated in the past.”

If you take guns away from law-abiding people (which is what Australia did), then only criminals will have guns. And that means that the criminals will become bolder in the face of their disarmed victims.

The peer-reviewed research

Whenever I get into discussions about gun control, I always mention two academic books by John R. Lott and Joyce Lee Malcolm.

• The Lott book was published by the University of Chicago Press (now in its 3rd edition)
• The Malcolm book was published by Harvard University Press

I think that peer-reviewed studies should be useful for assessing gun control vs gun rights policy. The book by economist John Lott, linked above,compares the crime rates of all U.S. states that have enacted concealed carry laws, and concludes that violent crime rates dropped after law-abiding citizens were allowed to carry legally-owned firearms. That’s the mirror image of Dr. Malcolm’s Harvard study, which shows that the 1997 UK gun ban caused violent crime rates to MORE THAN DOUBLE in the four years following the ban. But both studies affirm the same conclusion – more legal firearm ownership means less crime.

One of the common mistakes I see anti-gun advocates making is to use the metric of all “gun-related deaths”. First of all, this completely ignores the effects of hand gun ownership on violent crime, as we’ve seen. Take away the guns from law-abiding people and violent crime skyrockets. But using the “gun-related deaths” number is especially wrong, because it includes suicides committed with guns. This is the majority (about two thirds) of gun related deaths, even in a country like America that has a massive inner-city gun violence problem caused by the epidemic of single motherhood by choice. If you take out the gun-related SUICIDES, then the actual number of gun homicides has decreased as gun ownership has grown.


https://winteryknight.com/2017/10/0...iolent-crime-rates-and-lower-suicide-rates-2/

 

Total garbage.

 

Schiff for Brains and Noodler failed to make their case. This is America you are free to believe what ever fantasy land fairy tail you want.

 

wow. what a post!

 

So grateful for your permission.

 

Sorry but that is idiotic and reflects your ignorance of the Constitution.

 

Read the Constitution.