You're fucking dumb. I'm not a hypocrite. Do you know the details of withholding aid in Ukraine?

Do you remember when obama was president how the republican congress and senate was stonewalling everything he wanted? Do you remember complaints about executive orders?

The Ukraine Support Act proposed in 2014 did not make it out of committee in the house of representatives https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_Support_Act

THEREFORE

Obama issued two executive orders as part of a national emergency

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2014/03/17/executive-order-blocking-property-additional-persons-contributing-situat

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-presidents-continuation-national-emergency-respect-ukraine/

There was a separate bill that guaranteed loans that was later passed but distribution of funds was done mostly through executive order in accordance with The International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

THEREFORE

Obama actually had prerogative and liberty with which to distribute funds and Biden was acting as his surrogate at the time.

In other words, the law was not broken because there wasn't a law to break that existed.

----------------------------------------------------------


THIS IS DISTINCT AND DIFFERENT FROM WHAT DONALD TRUMP DID IN SEVERAL WAYS, BUT DISTINCTLY THAT HE SIGNED A LAW SAYING THAT HE HAD TO DISTRIBUTE THE MONEY

In 2019, the appropriations committee passed this and made it a part of an appropriations bill which the president (Trump) signed as part of a budget regulation

That is the difference

And it's why Biden can use those funds in a discretionary way and have it be legal, and Trump can use them in a discretionary way and have it be illegal (not just because he's investigating a political rival, because he fucking signed the law that said that he had to do it).

---------------------------------------------------


The retort is "what about Obama" but the circumstances are different and as much as, and as simple as, it was not against the law for him to do that because the house and the senate didn't pass a law saying he had to do anything with money for Ukraine, that was part of an executive order which gives him that discretion. Donald Trump could have issued an executive order rather than sign off on that budget And it would suddenly be legal.

^^^^^^^^ Don't misunderstand me. ^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^ Don't misunderstand me. ^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^ Don't misunderstand me. ^^^^^^^^^^^^

I'm not saying he's doing something illegal and jumping up and down and squealing and shitting myself like a housewife discovering daytime television.

I'm making an observation about how he doesn't care about what laws are passed or not in a more general way.

>>>>>>>>>>>>He just doesn't care about following the law.

Still, that's a separate issue from rooting out corruption overall versus bringing the entire weight of the federal government, not to mention the government in Ukraine, on Joe Biden.

Last I checked no executive order no bill no resolution said "Target Joe Biden specifically" And on the phone call released from Donald Trump in the White House there's only one name that's mentioned.

ORDER NO. 3915-2017
APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL TO INVESTIGATE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE WITH THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AND RELATED MATTERS

By virtue of the authority vested in me as Acting Attorney General, including 28 U.S.C. §§ 509, 510, and 515, in order to discharge my responsibility to provide supervision and management of the Department of Justice, and to ensure a full and thorough investigation of the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, I hereby order as follows:

(a) Robert S. Mueller III is appointed to serve as Special Counsel for the United States Department of Justice.

(b) The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Corney in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:

+++++(i) any links and/or coordination bet ween the Russian government and
individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and

+++++(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and

+++++(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).

(c) If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.

(d) Sections 600.4 through 600. l 0 of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations are applicable to the Special Counsel.

Date 5/17/17 General Rod J. Rosenstein


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://www.justice.gov/sco

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Related:
S.582 - Office of Special Counsel Reauthorization Act of 2017
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/582




GET SOMETHING THROUGH YOUR THICK HEAD
GET SOMETHING THROUGH YOUR THICK HEAD
GET SOMETHING THROUGH YOUR THICK HEAD


++ROD J. ROSENSTEIN
WORKED UNDER JEFF SESSIONS AND WAS APPOINTED BY DONALD JOHN TRUMP


++THE MAJORITY REPUBLICAN SENATE IN 2017
APPROVED THE APPOINTMENT OF THE SPECIAL COUNCIL


++THE MAJORITY REPUBLICAN CONGRESS IN 2017
APPROVED THE APPOINTMENT OF THE SPECIAL COUNCIL


+++JEFF SESSIONS
LITERALLY THE FIRST SENATOR TO PUBLICLY SUPPORT TRUMP'S ELECTION PRIMARY BID

HE IS ALSO A LIFE LONG REPUBLICAN AND THE ONE WHO PUT ROSENSTEIN IN CHARGE


========================================================


ROBERT MULLER
+LIFE-LONG-REPUBLICAN
+++LIFE-LONG-REPUBLICAN
+++++LIFE-LONG-REPUBLICAN
+++++++LIFE-LONG-REPUBLICAN
+++++++++LIFE-LONG-REPUBLICAN
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2001/07/30/fbi-nominee-lauded-for-tenacity/e2012e09-379e-479f-8bd3-8c2aef36152a/

"Mueller, 56, is a registered Republican, yet a striking number of people describe him as apolitical." - July 30, 2001


========================================================


ROBERT MULLER IS PUT IN CHARGE OF THE INVESTIGATION

HE FINDS (AMONG MANY OTHER PIECES OF EVIDENCE)

JANUARY 2016
+++++++++++++
Trump Signs the Letter of Intent on behalf of the Trump Organization - “intended to facilitate further discussions” in order to “attempt to enter into a mutually acceptable agreement” related to the Trump-branded project in Moscow.


MARCH 2016
+++++++++++++
Papadopoulos told the group that he had learned through his contacts in London that Putin wanted to meet with candidate Trumpand that these connections could help arrange that meeting.

PAPADOPOLOUS CONTINUES CONVERSATIONS OVER THE NEXT SEVERAL WEEKS AND MAKES TRIPS TO RUSSIA WHICH BEGINS TO RAISE FLAGS WITHIN THE CAMPAIGN

Manafort forwarded the message to another Campaign official, without including Papadopoulos, and stated: “Let[’]s discuss. We need someone to communicate that [Trump] is not doing these trips. It should be someone low level in the Campaign so as not to send any signal.”

APRIL 2016
+++++++++++++
Papadopoulos admitted telling at least one individual outside of the Campaign—specifically,the then-Greek foreign minister—about Russia’s obtaining Clinton-related emails.

Trump Campaign had received indications from the Russian government that it could assist the Campaign through the anonymous release of information that would be damaging to Hillary Clinton.

========================================================



THERE ARE AT LEAST 50 OTHER CONTACTS COORDINATING ASSISTANCE FROM THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT AND THE CAMPAIGN TO ELECT DONALD TRUMP

THE ENTIRE REPORT IS PEPPERED WITH OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE CHARGES

HERE IS A LIST OF PEOPLE WHO WERE CHARGED BECAUSE OF THE INVESTIGATION

U.S. v. Roger Jason Stone, Jr. (1:19-cr-18, District of Columbia)
U.S. v. Michael Cohen (1:18-cr-850, Southern District of New York)
U.S. v. Paul J. Manafort, Jr. (1:17-cr-201, District of Columbia)
U.S. v. Viktor Borisovich Netyksho, et al (1:18-cr-215, District of Columbia)
U.S. v. Konstantin Kilimnik (1:17-cr-201, District of Columbia)
U.S. v. Richard W. Gates III (1:17-cr-201, District of Columbia)
U.S. v. Paul J. Manafort, Jr., and Richard W. Gates III (1:18-cr-83, Eastern District of Virginia)
U.S. v. Alex van der Zwaan (1:18-cr-31, District of Columbia)
U.S. v. Internet Research Agency, et al (1:18-cr-32, District of Columbia)
U.S. v. Richard Pinedo, et al (1:18-cr-24, District of Columbia)
U.S. v. Michael T. Flynn (1:17-cr-232, District of Columbia)
U.S. v. George Papadopoulos (1:17-cr-182, District of Columbia)



========================================================

DO I NEED TO REPEAT THAT?

========================================================
THERE ARE AT LEAST 50 OTHER CONTACTS COORDINATING ASSISTANCE FROM THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT AND THE CAMPAIGN TO ELECT DONALD TRUMP

HERE IS A LIST OF PEOPLE WHO WERE CHARGED BECAUSE OF THE INVESTIGATION
U.S. v. Roger Jason Stone, Jr. (1:19-cr-18, District of Columbia)
U.S. v. Michael Cohen (1:18-cr-850, Southern District of New York)
U.S. v. Paul J. Manafort, Jr. (1:17-cr-201, District of Columbia)
U.S. v. Viktor Borisovich Netyksho, et al (1:18-cr-215, District of Columbia)
U.S. v. Konstantin Kilimnik (1:17-cr-201, District of Columbia)
U.S. v. Richard W. Gates III (1:17-cr-201, District of Columbia)
U.S. v. Paul J. Manafort, Jr., and Richard W. Gates III (1:18-cr-83, Eastern District of Virginia)
U.S. v. Alex van der Zwaan (1:18-cr-31, District of Columbia)
U.S. v. Internet Research Agency, et al (1:18-cr-32, District of Columbia)
U.S. v. Richard Pinedo, et al (1:18-cr-24, District of Columbia)
U.S. v. Michael T. Flynn (1:17-cr-232, District of Columbia)
U.S. v. George Papadopoulos (1:17-cr-182, District of Columbia)


========================================================



STOP FUCKING REPEATING YOUR BULLSHIT LIES
STOP FUCKING REPEATING YOUR BULLSHIT LIES
STOP FUCKING REPEATING YOUR BULLSHIT LIES
STOP FUCKING REPEATING YOUR BULLSHIT LIES
STOP FUCKING REPEATING YOUR BULLSHIT LIES


THE DEMOCRATS DIDN'T START THE INVESTIGATION INTO DONALD TRUMP


THE INVESTIGATION THAT WAS STARTED BY THE REPUBLICANS IN POWER IN 2017 TURNED UP A MOUNTAIN OF EVIDENCE AND LANDED DOZENS OF PEOPLE IN JAIL ALL WHILE ACTING AS HUMAN SHIELDS FOR DONALD TRUMP


SEE FOR YOURSELF
https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

FOR EVIDENCE OF SPECIFICALLY WHICH LAWS WERE BROKEN AND SPECIFICALLY HOW THEY WERE BROKEN AND BY WHOM, LOOK AT THE

APPLICATION SECTION

PAGE 181 (note page 189-190 are all redacted bc ongoing matter)

OF THE MULLER REPORT, COMPLETE WITH EXTENSIVE CITATIONS.

Just pointing out that your stated plan, abandoning all dairy for stuff like almond milk, leads to a water shortage disaster without halting cattle death one whit. It would actually cause exponentially more animal deaths, most by thirst, a far more brutal and painful death than veal get....but you didn't think it through, did you?

There's no question that I enjoy eating meats of many kinds, I've never once hidden or denied that...I would eat long pig if people didn't spoil that meat. That said, I don't eat veal.

....and you say I make everything an argument?! You're style is why people hate vegans. You personally insult them, then whine and get pissy if they contradict your falsehoods and poorly thought out "solutions".

Besides...I thought you quit me. What gives? Enthralled by my swinging cod? Sorry, it's spoken for, and it's too beefy for your taste. ;-)

Edit : btw, the meat industry "hiding" it's methods isn't about the horrific violence at all, it's about hiding the violations of regulations that delineate how they are to be raised, killed, and which can't be used at all. Many smaller producers don't agree with that, they want to be seen doing it right, it's industrial meat production you're complaining about, not all production as you want to claim.

But.....Bcglorf said: Capitalism (or many unrelated civic freedoms) made science and progress possible. The implication is that without capitalism, science and progress are impossible.
Edit: my mistake, vil said that, not bcglorf.

Also, the video is about contradicting that exact contention.

No they aren't, because America isn't just "an economy based on capitalism", which you yourself pointed out. They all come from innovations in systems and inventions created through American socialism.

Again, pre '68, before America went the socialist route to advance computer sciences, not after. Yes, after we used a combination of socialism and capitalism, we were more successful. That's my point.

China is working on 6g, and nearly ready with 5g. America isn't. That cannot be simply because China stole our advancements since they're ahead of us. They also, as you've admitted, developed better (cheaper/faster) manufacturing methods both because of technological advancements and few or no regulations (which have caused them horrendous issues). Funny enough, removing the regulations for more profit at the expense of the workers/environment is capitalistic, not socialist.

Their 5G is better because it's 1)almost ready to deploy and 2) cheaper. Ours isn't ready for prime time yet, and has used billions in public funds to get where it is. The FCC also proposed a $20 billion fund to expand broadband (5g)....that's not capitalism.

Ahhh, switching topics, eh? I thought the topic is capitalism vs socialism as it relates to invention, not fascism. I'm not going to bite.

Ok, personal enrichment is one of many incentives that drive invention, but invention happens without that incentive daily.

Once again, necessity is the mother of invention, not capitalism or profit.

You miss the point if you claim he contradicts that conclusion, because the systems invented that the examples require were ALL publicly funded. Without the socialist inventions, there would be no capitalistic innovations. No internet=no world wide web. No WiFi means no WiFi. No displays=no mobile computers/phones. No access to phone lines=no data transfers, so no internet, www, etc.

If his numbers are correct, 72% of research spending is public funding, not private. Nuff said.

your contention that ONLY personal profit drives invention or innovation.

I'm afraid I've never argued that, I can lead by agreeing whole heartedly that such a contention is false.

I merely pointed out that in a video about how 'capitalism didn't create the iphone', the authors own examples of innovations that lead to the iphone are all 100% from within an economy based on capitalism. My very first post stated clearly that it's not a purely capitalist system, but that it is noteworthy that not a one of the examples chosen by the author making his point came from a socialist country.

Can you offer a comparative American/Russian timeline of computer innovations
Well, I could actually. If you want to deny the fact that Russia basically halted their computer R&D multiple times in the 70s, 80s and 90s in place of just stealing American advances because they were so far behind I can cite examples for you...

And for some unknown to you reason China is beating the ever loving pants off America lately.
1. Factually, no they are not. The fastest network gear, CPU and GPU tech are all base on American research and innovation. America is still hands down leading the field in all categories but manufacturing cost, but that isn't for reasons of technological advancement but instead a 'different approach' to environmental and labour regulations.
2. Within the 5G space you alluded to earlier, there is an additional answer. Their 5G isn't 'better' but rather 'cheaper' for reasons stated in 1. The existence of their 'own' 5G tech though isnt' because Huawei's own R&D was caught up so fast through their own innovation. Instead if you look into the history of network companies, Canadian giant Nortel was giving Cisco a solid run for it's money for a time, until they utterly collapsed because of massive corporate espionage stealing almost all of their tech and under cutting them on price. China's just using the same playbook as Russia to catch up.

Russia beat America into space

Well, if you want to go down that road the conclusion is that fascism is the key to technological advancement, as America and Russia were largely just pitting the scientists they each captured from the Nazis against one another.

Once again though, my point has never been that only capitalism can result in innovation. Instead, I made the vastly more modest proposal that personal profit from inventions is beneficial to innovation. I further observed that the video author's own examples support that observation, and in that contradict his own conclusion.

Your video, Woman suffers accident after discussing scooter regulations, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Carefully

None of the endothermic reactions in this video have been suggested as methods to regulate global temperature, because even if they could be scaled up enough to make a global difference they don't address the systems which regulate the earth's temperature.

Some things which have affected global temperatures either up or down are:

• Volcanic eruptions can cause global cooling, for example the 1991 Mt. Pinatubo eruption released around 20 million tons of sulphur dioxide causing global cooling of approx 0.5°C over the following three years (ref: https://earthdata.nasa.gov/learn/sensing-our-planet/volcanoes-and-climate-change and https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1997/fs113-97/ )
  
• Increased rates of erosion of the right type of rocks can increase CO₂ absorption and reduce global temperatures that way, https://earth.stanford.edu/news/how-weathering-rocks-cooled-earth#gs.cmy3h0
  
• Cyanobacteria, https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/evolutionary-accident-probably-caused-worst-snowball-earth-episode-study-shows-1026
  

I'm pointing out that the people in charge of making sure the regulations are enforced didn't do their job. How or when the regulations were enacted is irrelevant which is why I was confused by the quote and unrelated information.

The document is in duplicate. Literally in the link. Yes, fingerprint card also. The cost is low. The cost of the firearm is a separate issue.

Yes, the background check. The "process" I'm referring to has context, i.e. the background check process. Obvious really.

"No one asked you that."

You asked me.

"So [do] you think machine guns aren't firearms...or do you think they aren't really illegal? Edit: What about bazookas, grenades, mortars, etc.?"

"Which you begrudgingly".

What language made it begrudging? I stated it was the case without any issue. Stop making stuff up.

I didn't say they can't be regulated. I said that they can't be "effectively regulated". I also stated that there are many regulations that are probably illegal (waiting for supreme court challenges). And I said that there are some regulations that do exist because the supreme court debated it and came to the conclusion that it was within the scope of the 2A.

"especially when you can verify by just scrolling up"

Yeah, exactly, so what are you on about. My comments are literally above you. Why distort them? Do you have comprehension issues? No shame if you do.

"This is a paranoid delusion."
You're entitled to your opinion. History supports their argument though.

"Your argument was there are better issues to throw money at, bucketloads you said, now you admit it takes no money and declare yourself correct"

Yes, there are better issues to throw money at, but the issue is they don't want to throw money at anything when there is a low cost red herring issue they can use to gain public standing instead.

"Then don't be dumb and fuck little kids.
Don't be dumb and rape random women.
Don't be dumb by getting caught in the Jr high locker room filming.
Don't be a snarky tool who hides from what he said by doing mental gymnastics to pretend their warnings aren't implications.
See how giving these warnings imply you needed warning? That's how warnings work."

Yes, they are all warnings. And valid ones at that. The issue is context. You don't put a "warning strong current" warning in the middle of a desert because there is nothing to warn about.

Likewise making those warnings here makes no sense. Ergo, no, these warnings don't imply anyone needs warning. They are just random warnings.

Otherwise we could continue on and I could say:

Don't be dumb and fuck your mother's dead body.
Don't be dumb and fuck animals.
Etc., etc., warnings that are truly good advice but make no sense in the given situation.

On the other hand:
"Danger, high voltage wires" on a cabinet that holds a large transformer makes sense.
"Do not dig, high pressure gas lines buried here" above buried high pressure pipes makes sense.

Do you see the difference?

"Everyone is welcome, welcome to post as much or little as they choose"

Well, everyone is welcome until they're not. And they're not welcome pretty quick here.

"but if I see lies, misstatements, abuse, or insults when none are called for, I'm going to say something, just like I do in person"

Funny about that, that's what I'm doing.

Not in my experience. I've known many people who tried in Texas and Nevada, all failed. They said it was about 3 pages in triplicate (4 with cover page, totalling 12), fingerprints, photos, a pristine criminal record, chests of cash (the guns cost thousands or tens of thousands), a Class 3 FFL dealer willing to sell to you, 9 months to a year waiting for approval, and no local ordinance against it (local police will be notified).

I said the background check is similarly difficult to pass, not the entire process.

No one asked you that. We balked at your claim-
"The 2A specifically says "arms". There is plenty of debate and case law regarding what arms they meant. Suffice to say there isn't a shadow of a doubt that it means firearms (long and short) of all varieties commonly available."
...and I then gave you the federal definition of "firearms" which you begrudgingly admitted trumps yours, but still cling to the concept that firearms can't be regulated (even though they clearly are). I'm surprised you recall it so differently, especially when you can verify by just scrolling up.

This is a paranoid delusion. Because that's a possibility in a future where the 2a is repealed, they think that's enough reason to ignore any positive uses, like knowing if the person just diagnosed with schizophrenia has an arsenal, or the person who's stalking your 15 year old daughter, or the man who beats his wife. Also, taken to conclusion, that argument is basically "It might make it harder for me to break the law. That's unacceptable." Hardly a reasonable argument imo.

? Your argument was there are better issues to throw money at, bucketloads you said, now you admit it takes no money and declare yourself correct?!

Then don't be dumb and fuck little kids.
Don't be dumb and rape random women.
Don't be dumb by getting caught in the Jr high locker room filming.
Don't be a snarky tool who hides from what he said by doing mental gymnastics to pretend their warnings aren't implications.
See how giving these warnings imply you needed warning? That's how warnings work.

Because I post here doesn't make me the big dog...I'm not even top 20. Everyone is welcome, welcome to post as much or little as they choose, but if I see lies, misstatements, abuse, or insults when none are called for, I'm going to say something, just like I do in person. That's called being an upright citizen. I guess you prefer those who shrink away from that obligation....so hit ignore. That's what I'm doing.

At best that leaves only the rare pre 1986 automatics already in private hands, only in some states (totally illegal under any circumstances in many other states), only if you can first pass an expensive background check more stringent than the one federal agents must pass. Sounds like some serious regulation to me.

What you, me, or others consider firearms means nothing. I gave you the law as written, it includes those, they are illegal, so there are effective regulations on firearms already....that doesn't mean they're sufficient. Those words are different words, that's why they're spelled and pronounced differently. Speed limits are effective laws, but not sufficient to regulate vehicle use.

Why do so many firearms lovers fear being on a registry? I've always found that insane, like every other purchase you make isn't tracked or something. There's no purchase privacy anymore, for anything.

It doesn't take any money to ban certain firearms, certainly not a boatload, and not the ocean of cash health care costs. That's a red herring. All it takes is for representatives to vote the way their constituents want them to by 98%.
Perhaps in that sense it would take money, because in order to get them to vote as the people want, campaign finance reform is necessary, and that will cost money, but it's the best thing our country could possibly spend money on.

I support a slightly modified second amendment and universal health care. My interpretation allows for regulations, registration, universal background checks even for family transfers, bans of certain types, seizure from violent convicts and mental patients (impossible without a registry, btw), etc. Yes, I understand that's not how the constitution is written today, but the constitution is a living document. In California, we have most of that as state law already, including an outright ban on fully or selectively automatic weapons.

Btw, you suggest....Try to make people feel welcome.
I was responding in kind to your off hand assumption that, without your derisive "warning", he would be "dumb" enough to make an assumption about you. Then you go on to say making assumptions is dumb. Care to rethink? Had you been more thoughtful and less derisive in making that point I likely would have ignored the hypocrisy.

Following on from above.

I didn't say you quoted me or anything about me. It was a "warning". My argument might have lead people to believe that I was against gun control. I gave the warning that it would be dumb to make any assumptions. I can't quite see how you missed this.

If you think it is not dumb to make assumptions, please let me know.

The 2A specifically says "arms". There is plenty of debate and case law regarding what arms they meant. Suffice to say there isn't a shadow of a doubt that it means firearms (long and short) of all varieties commonly available.

"doesn't mention anything about not restricting the types of armaments people can use"

It does restrict the government from making laws in this regard. The 2A is a law restricting government, not the people. "shall not be infringed" literally means you shall make no law that affects this right in any way.

You don't know whether advocates care if other arms are regulated. If I were to hazard a guess I'd say you are very wrong.

Gun control means whatever the group in control wants it to mean. Anything else is false. If they want it to mean taking away all of your guns, then that is what it is.

Constitutional amendments can indeed be changed. It is very, very difficult to do:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution

I was talking about federal, state, and municipal.

So if you think the federal government has "effective regulation" of firearms there isn't much to talk about. Maybe your idea of what "effective regulation" is different than my idea of "effective regulation". The key word here is "effective". We all know they have been able to pass some regulations (constitutional or not).

"BTW if you want people to be polite and welcoming you might want to be polite yourself and avoid insulting people who haven't mentioned you, your opinions or your stance on gun control."

Please quote where I haven't done this. I'd be very surprised if you could find anything. Please note: "newtboy" literally asked.

Edit: oh wait. You think my warning about making assumptions is an insult! I see. No, it isn't. If you weren't taught that making assumptions is dumb then the reminder may well seem like an insult. Rest assured, it is good advice.

I'm not interpreting "this" incorrectly.
I'm also not talking about state or municipal regulation.

I'm talking about federal regulation of arms that was enacted without having to change the constitution.

BTW if you want people to be polite and welcoming you might want to be polite yourself and avoid insulting people who haven't mentioned you, your opinions or your stance on gun control.

You are interpreting this incorrectly.

If you think they have "effective regulation" then there is nothing to talk about really - people who want effective regulation already have it.

A few states have quite frankly unconstitutional firearms regulations. Sooner or later they'll get challenged in the Supreme court and knocked down but it takes many years and a lot of money.