That scumdog Jamie Raskin

[Grumpy]

EXCLUSIVE: Barr Confirms Raskin Lied About Biden Bribery Probe

'It’s not true. It wasn’t closed down,' Barr said of an investigation into a CHS's allegation that Biden had agreed to a $5 million bribe.

thefederalist.com

 

[GURPS]

Raskin LIED .....

 

[Grumpy]

Raskin LIED .....

Nothing will happen, Schiff set the precedent that lying is fine in congress.

 

[WingsOfGold]

His own son offed himself because he realized ratskin was his bio father.

 

[Merlin99]

Nothing will happen, Schiff set the precedent that lying is fine in congress.

I’d go with Dirty Harry, he comes right out and admits he lied.

Harry Reid Admits He Lies On The Senate Floor | National Review

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) confirmed the suspicions raised among Republicans during the recent fight over the human trafficking bill: he lies on the Senate floor. Reid has no regr…

www.nationalreview.com

 

[Kyle]

His own son offed himself because he realized ratskin was his bio father.

I can believe it.

 

[SamSpade]

I’d go with Dirty Harry, he comes right out and admits he lied.

Harry Reid Admits He Lies On The Senate Floor | National Review

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) confirmed the suspicions raised among Republicans during the recent fight over the human trafficking bill: he lies on the Senate floor. Reid has no regr…

www.nationalreview.com

I still can’t get over his smirk when all during the 2012 election he insisted that Romney hadn’t paid his taxes in ten years.

“He didn’t win, did he?”.

 

[Clem72]

What a weasel....

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...pc=U531&cvid=a75a40b31e554e76965fde96aa1bae6d

I know it was probably intentional, but after seeing this thread title 50 times it finally clicked.

 

[GURPS]

Raskin defends pistol brace rule: ‘We want them to read the 2nd Amendment’​

Raskin argued that his Republican colleagues repeatedly invoke the second half of the Second Amendment, describing the right to keep and bear arms, but gloss over the first half, which refers to “a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state.”

“They say we want to repeal the Second Amendment. Mr. Speaker, we don’t want them to repeal the Second Amendment. We want them to read the Second Amendment,” Raskin said on the House floor Tuesday. “Because the Second Amendment would ask us why we are allowing people to go into elementary schools, Walmarts, supermarkets, churches and synagogues all over America with AR-15s enabled, sometimes with the stabilizing brace — as in Dayton, Ohio; Boulder, Colorado; Colorado Springs; Nashville, Tennessee — and assassinate our people.”

“If a foreign government were doing it, we would declare war on them. But since we’re just allowing the gun industry to spread these weapons of mass destruction around the country, they want to allow it. And they say that the Second Amendment must be respected in this strange and distorted way, because they believe the Second Amendment gives the people the right to overthrow the government,” he continued.

 

[Kyle]

Raskin argued that his Republican colleagues repeatedly invoke the second half of the Second Amendment, describing the right to keep and bear arms, but gloss over the first half, which refers to “a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state.”

So Raskins saying we should all have everything a Militia would need to face an Army?

Put me down for an M2 with plenty of belts, an M14 or BAR and Several hundred grenades for starters.

Thanks in advance.

 

[stgislander]

Marylanders loves them some scumdog based on the commenters. One lone voice in the wilderness trying to stand his ground though.

 

[SamSpade]

Raskin defends pistol brace rule: ‘We want them to read the 2nd Amendment’​

Raskin argued that his Republican colleagues repeatedly invoke the second half of the Second Amendment, describing the right to keep and bear arms, but gloss over the first half, which refers to “a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state.”

The Founding Fathers believed - mistakenly - that most of the security of the nation could be secured WITHOUT resorting to a permanent army or navy. They considered that too dangerous.

But any student of the Constitution knows the meaning of the words “well regulated” means - in good, well maintained order. As in a well regulated engine would be, in a car.

It never meant and still doesn’t mean, a militia constrained by layer after layer of regulation.

We don’t “ignore” the rest of it. We’re educated enough to actually KNOW what it means.

 

[stgislander]

The Founding Fathers believed - mistakenly - that most of the security of the nation could be secured WITHOUT resorting to a permanent army or navy. They considered that too dangerous.

But any student of the Constitution knows the meaning of the words “well regulated” means - in good, well maintained order. As in a well regulated engine would be, in a car.

It never meant and still doesn’t mean, a militia constrained by layer after layer of regulation.

We don’t “ignore” the rest of it. We’re educated enough to actually KNOW what it means.

Agree. Progbots believe "well regulated" means regulated (controlled) by the state.

 

[WingsOfGold]

I still can’t get over his smirk when all during the 2012 election he insisted that Romney hadn’t paid his taxes in ten years.

“He didn’t win, did he?”.

Yes and claimed Romney was a bad mormon, So lying jooo's like Ratskin and Schiff are good or bad jooos?

 

[black dog]

Its always amazes me how many have been well educated people can't understand a Document as simple as our Constitution and Bill of Rights. ****ing Unbelievable...

He graduated from Georgetown Day School in 1979 at age 16, and magna cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa from Harvard College in 1983 with a Bachelor of Arts in government with concentration in political theory. In 1987, he received a J.D. degree magna cum laude from Harvard Law School, where he was an editor of the Harvard Law Review.

And this ******* cant understand,
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

[GURPS]

And this ******* cant understand,

PROGRESSIVES DO NOT WANT TO UNDERSTAND, They want Personal Weapons BANNED ... nothing more than a 12G Shotgun or .22 Rifle ... if even that, until all other weapons are banned and collected, then they will comes for shotguns and .22's or demand these firearms are stored with the state

Animal Rights Activists want NO Hunting so this dovetails in as well

 

[Merlin99]

The Founding Fathers believed - mistakenly - that most of the security of the nation could be secured WITHOUT resorting to a permanent army or navy. They considered that too dangerous.

But any student of the Constitution knows the meaning of the words “well regulated” means - in good, well maintained order. As in a well regulated engine would be, in a car.

It never meant and still doesn’t mean, a militia constrained by layer after layer of regulation.

We don’t “ignore” the rest of it. We’re educated enough to actually KNOW what it means.

You have to remember the times they went through. They'd just fought a war against a repressive government that had wanted to disarm them and was using an army to do it. They'd jumped on the idea of a citizen army to protect the home front with no intentions of going out to fight battles against other countries (we already had more property than we knew what to do with). Even the Navy was an afterthought that was more to protect the merchant fleet that to take on other countries. So the idea that they weren't supposed to have arms on par with the army is false because they were supposed to be the army. It's probably true that they didn't have a clue what was coming down the pike as far as weaponry was concerned, but that's the way it went and to change it will require a constitutional amendment.

 

[SamSpade]

You have to remember the times they went through. They'd just fought a war against a repressive government that had wanted to disarm them and was using an army to do it. They'd jumped on the idea of a citizen army to protect the home front with no intentions of going out to fight battles against other countries (we already had more property than we knew what to do with). Even the Navy was an afterthought that was more to protect the merchant fleet that to take on other countries.

And there's certainly a lot there - for another, they were mostly Brits, and they had a strong sentiment about not NEEDING a standing army, because having the most powerful navy in the world and living on a large island kind of made it unnecessary.

There's also the fact that "standing armies" is what caused events like the Boston Massacre - and other ill treatments of the colonists. They sure didn't want governors to continue to have ARMIES they could muster on a whim.

And of course - they didn't have law enforcement worth a damn. You protected your home with a gun. Some of the state constitutions and early writings spelled it out - a man has the right to bear arms to protect his family and his property. I've always been a big fan of the expression "when seconds count - the police are only minutes away".

Despite the stories of lawlessnees in the West, violent crime was NOT commonplace in the U.S., at least, not after our wars with the British. And until the late 50's it had been dropping, until it zoomed until the early 90s.

So the idea that they weren't supposed to have arms on par with the army is false because they were supposed to be the army. It's probably true that they didn't have a clue what was coming down the pike as far as weaponry was concerned, but that's the way it went and to change it will require a constitutional amendment.

Well exactly. We did get weapons from the French, and we stole a lot of weapons - but we had three sources of cannonry and big weapons - the French - the British (when we won battles - we also LOST them when we lost battles) - and private ironworks, sometimes paid by the Continental Congress, but sometimes from wealthy Americans. Our "navy" was originally, largely, converted merchant ships - until we started capturing vessels.

The idea that ordinary Americans weren't supposed to have weapons of war flies in the face of the way it happened - THAT is how we were able to fight.

 

[Kyle]

Well exactly. We did get weapons from the French, and we stole a lot of weapons - but we had three sources of cannonry and big weapons - the French - the British (when we won battles - we also LOST them when we lost battles) - and private ironworks, sometimes paid by the Continental Congress, but sometimes from wealthy Americans. Our "navy" was originally, largely, converted merchant ships - until we started capturing vessels.

The idea that ordinary Americans weren't supposed to have weapons of war flies in the face of the way it happened - THAT is how we were able to fight.

Democrats have always hated the inconvenience of truth.

 

[SamSpade]

Democrats have always hated the inconvenience of truth.

It's not JUST that. I know dozens of people who, once they get an idea in their head that THEY MADE UP THEMSELVES - it carries the weight of TRUTH to them, because they have believed it for so long. Years ago, I was on a forum where one guy got ganged up upon for his remarks - and not always without reason. Well the word spread around the board that he abused his wife and children - but it began as an insult that someone hurled at him.

Before long, it was thrown in his face routinely and morphed over time into him being some kind of pedophile. Others who came along later simply believed it. I used to participate in some of their live chat rooms - and - yeah - insisted it was true. I wrote to him at length privately - and nothing they said about him was even close to true, and corroborated by people I knew - later - who knew him in person to be a kind family man who worked hard and was loved by his friends and neighbors. He was just a loudmouth online (albeit never vulgar).

I've seen Democrat memes that don't approach the truth; distortions of stories so convoluted, they either KNEW them to be false, or refused to check them out. A lot of - confirmation bias, to be sure.

The idea that the Second Amendment existed so men could go hunting in the woods or that it only protected people to have weapons like muskets or - well you get the idea - it's clear enough even from the wording - that is was needed to protect the country. You don't do that with pistols.