On 09-01-19 14:29, Tim Richardson <=-
spoke to Dale Shipp about Re: Tulsi in Chief <=-

Robert Mueller testified under oath that his investigation was not obstructed, yet the Democrats want to impeach
Trump for obstructing a
investigation that ""the lead investigator said was not obstructed.""

*********************************************************************** ****

Attempts to Obstruct do not have to be successful to be a crime.

There was no *obstruction*! Therefore...there is no `crime'!

You are coming rather late to this discussion, and it seems that you
cannot read either.

You are totally misconstruing what the Mueller report and Muller said.

Mueller was (supposedly) the lead investigator. Mueller stated under
oath his investigation was NOT obstructed!

He testified that the attempts at obstruction were not successful. Does
not matter whether or not they were successful -- still a crime.

This is a matter of record, it's not hear say, he did under oath say
that his investigation was not obstructed....

Irrelevant to the elements of a crime of obstruction of justice.

Thats like saying someone was in a bank when it was robbed...happened
to know the bank robber but had no involvement in the robbery or even
any foreknowledge of it.....but being arrested for `bank robbery'
because his non involvement or even knowledge of the robbery ...is "Irrelevant to the elements of a crime of..." bank robbery!

You don't even see the point of that...do you.

And you don't even understand how off the mark your analogy is. Such a
person would not be arrested for bank robbery, unless they became an
accessory after the fact (e.g. he learned of the robbery, accepted some
of the procedes, and/or helped the bank robber evade police).

But.....this isn't the main point of this post.

So what is your point on bringing up that old stuff again if not to
reguritate the same misinformation?

Here's a reality check:

In the first half of this Labor Day weekend.....there have been 25
people shot in Chicago! Seven of them died!

And seven died in Odessa Texas on Saturday, 20+ wounded -- From *one*
shooter. There is a difference, but both cases have to do with guns.

I see a photo of the present mayor of Chicago..Lori Lightfoot?....She doesn't look smart enough to be in a cross walk with a green light by herself! Let alone a `mayor' of anything! She has the look of another
one of those (like Hussein Obama) who got `affirmative actioned'
through law school...dopey!

Why do you say that? Have you had dealings with her? Or are you just
making a judgement based on the color of her skin?

You lefties either don't see that putting more and more restrictions
on firearms does nothing....or you deliberately intend to restrict the

It can do something. The most egregious shootings are usually done with
guns that have no purpose in civilian hands -- except to kill people.

ownership and possession of firearms so tightly as to eliminate the meaning and spirit of the Constitution's Second Amendment.

The spirit and meaning of the 2nd Amendmen's first words and purpose is
"A well regulated Militia". So -- it could be interpreted as meaning
that arms are intended for those in the National Guard or similar. Have
you joined up there?

I know this won't ring any bells in the closed minds of any
lefties....but passing more and more restrictions on firearms....the purchase and possession of ammunition....etc...only restricts law
abiding citizens. It doesn't stop criminals from getting firearms. Or using them.

Probably not, but most of the people who execute mass shootings were not criminals before that act. Gun control restrictions would restrict
legitimate access to weapons of mass destruction, and might even deter illegitimate access to such.

All these restrictions and laws that come out after a horrendous
shooting only make that type of shooting far more likely, due to
potential shooters knowing in advance there will more than likely be nobody at the place they choose to shoot up, with a firearm to oppose them.

Rubbish. These shooters do not care. They usually do not expect to
live. And you cannot seriously be talking about equiping movie theater consession stand venders with guns and the training that should go with
them.

Dale Shipp
fido_261_1466 (at) verizon (dot) net
(1:261/1466)


... Shipwrecked on Hesperus in Columbia, Maryland. 01:50:14, 02 Sep 2019
___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30

--- Maximus/NT 3.01
* Origin: Owl's Anchor (1:261/1466)

You lefties either don't see that putting more and more restrictions on firearms does nothing....or you deliberately intend to restrict th

It can do something. The most egregious shootings are usually done with guns that have no purpose in civilian hands -- except to kill people.

Criminals do not obey gun laws, Chicago has strong gun laws and yet they are still killing each other. They need more prisons and get these people off the streets or more law enforcement, another great idea would ammo is purchased you have to show that your gun is registered. To blame it on the gun and not on the individual is ridiculous.

. ______
_[]_||__||
{ Gregory |
/-00-----00'-;

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Windows/64)
* Origin: Capital Station BBS * telnet://csbbs.dyndns.org * (1:267/150)

On 09-03-19 07:26, Gregory Deyss <=-
spoke to Dale Shipp about Re: Obstruction once more <=-

It can do something. The most egregious shootings are usually done with guns that have no purpose in civilian hands -- except to kill people.

Criminals do not obey gun laws, Chicago has strong gun laws and yet
they are still killing each other. They need more prisons and get these people off the streets or more law enforcement, another great idea
would ammo is purchased you
have to show that your gun is registered. To blame it on
the gun and not on the
individual is ridiculous.

I agree with your idea about restricting the buying of ammo to those
with a valid permit. It is a small step, but a step. Along with that a
ban on high capacity magazines would help.

My point above was not at all to ban all guns -- but only those guns
which have no purpose except to kill masses of people quicky, e.g. AK-47
type semi automatic rifles. Those types of weapons do not belong in the
hands of the general public, and yet they seem to be the weapon of
choice for the majority of the mass shootings. A law that restricted
their sale to be only military and law enforcement would go a long way
to reducing the carnage.

Dale Shipp
fido_261_1466 (at) verizon (dot) net
(1:261/1466)


... Shipwrecked on Hesperus in Columbia, Maryland. 01:04:17, 04 Sep 2019
___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30

--- Maximus/NT 3.01
* Origin: Owl's Anchor (1:261/1466)

On 04 Sep 2019, Dale Shipp said the following...

On 09-03-19 07:26, Gregory Deyss <=-
spoke to Dale Shipp about Re: Obstruction once more <=-

It can do something. The most egregious shootings are usually done w guns that have no purpose in civilian hands -- except to kill people.

Criminals do not obey gun laws, Chicago has strong gun laws and yet they are still killing each other. They need more prisons and get the people off the streets or more law enforcement, another great idea would ammo is purchased you
have to show that your gun is registered. To blame it on
the gun and not on the
individual is ridiculous.

I agree with your idea about restricting the buying of ammo to those
with a valid permit. It is a small step, but a step. Along with that a ban on high capacity magazines would help.

My point above was not at all to ban all guns -- but only those guns
which have no purpose except to kill masses of people quicky, e.g. AK-47 type semi automatic rifles. Those types of weapons do not belong in the hands of the general public, and yet they seem to be the weapon of
choice for the majority of the mass shootings. A law that restricted their sale to be only military and law enforcement would go a long way
to reducing the carnage.

One of the reasons why these types of guns are purchased is because they inflict maximum carnage, but that is not the main reason why they are purchased. Nearly all of the incidents that have occurred where not purchased legally. I have no problem with background checks or the time that it would take for one. I would not be apposed to having these types of guns being tracked via gps, and made in such a way where it could not be removed. Along with gps system technology could be built into the gun where it would not function in large population centers such as schools or high traffic areas like malls, without an override signal of activation in realtime. This would be tracked and recorded. This type of trust would have to sit with an agency
that is nonpartisan so that the control of this could not be used as a
pawn and such action would not be used as a weapon itself to where it
could be politicized. This would stop the blame game from ever happening.

. ______
_[]_||__||
{ Gregory |
/-00-----00'-;

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Windows/64)
* Origin: Capital Station BBS * telnet://csbbs.dyndns.org * (1:267/150)

Re: Re: Obstruction once mor
By: Gregory Deyss to Dale Shipp on Wed Sep 04 2019 07:30 am

One of the reasons why these types of guns are purchased is because they inflict maximum carnage, but that is not the main reason why they are purchased.

I am not sure... these things are like long range cruiser
missiles. They can be used to highly destructive effects
but in the end of the day other weapons are used much
more often.

There was a recent political assassination in my city.
The politician was ambushed and killed with a small
handgun provided by a corrupt law enforcement agent.

We have had organized political terrorism for decades.
Terrorists tend to use small weapons or makeshift
explossives rather than big firearms. I think big auto
firearms are just too unwieldly and expensive to deploy
when you can just steal a car and put a bomb made out of
swimming pool chemmicals in it. Or just wait for the
mark behind a dark corner and kill it with a .22.

I am not saying big auto firearms are not used for ill
effect but my perception is that they are very low in
the threat scale. I know of nazi groups that have access
to lot of full autos but I can name more crimes with
grenades or minning explossives than with something like
an MP-5.
--- SBBSecho 3.09-Linux
* Origin: Vertrauen - [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net (1:103/705)

On 2019 Sep 03 07:26:16, you wrote to Dale Shipp:

It can do something. The most egregious shootings are usually done
with guns that have no purpose in civilian hands -- except to kill
people.

Criminals do not obey gun laws,

exactly...

Chicago has strong gun laws and yet they are still killing each other.

mmm...

They need more prisons and get these people off the streets or more
law enforcement,

ummhummm... more prisons to make $$$ ?? more law enforcement? there's not enough watchers to watch the watchers... this is a never ending circle... especially when LE are (part of) the problem...

another great idea would ammo is purchased you have to show that your
gun is registered.

that's easy peasy...

To blame it on the gun and not on the individual is ridiculous.

they blame other things on non-individuals and get $$$ via courts... how is this any different?

)\/(ark

Once men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
... Opinions expressed by this child are not necessarily those of her Dad.
---
* Origin: (1:3634/12.73)

On 2019 Sep 04 00:56:00, you wrote to Gregory Deyss:

I agree with your idea about restricting the buying of ammo to those
with a valid permit. It is a small step, but a step. Along with that a ban on high capacity magazines would help.

[devil's advocate]
so this won't stop me from gathering brass casings and reloading them as i see fit for my weapon(s) of choice...
[/devil's advocate]

My point above was not at all to ban all guns -- but only those guns
which have no purpose except to kill masses of people quicky, e.g. AK-47 type semi automatic rifles. Those types of weapons do not belong in the hands of the general public, and yet they seem to be the weapon of
choice for the majority of the mass shootings. A law that restricted their sale to be only military and law enforcement would go a long way
to reducing the carnage.

i keep seeing the AR15 and the AK47 mentioned but no one has mentioned the uzi...

i'm old enough to remember that almost every pickup truck had a gun rack in the back window and when someone got angry with another, they didn't ever think to grab their guns but went head to toe with their fists...

cowards bring guns to fist and/or knife fights...

)\/(ark

Once men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
... How Much Tag Could A Tagline Tag, If A Tagline Could Tag Tag?
---
* Origin: (1:3634/12.73)

On 09-02-19, DALE SHIPP said to TIM RICHARDSON:

On 09-01-19 14:29, Tim Richardson <=-
spoke to Dale Shipp about Re: Tulsi in Chief <=-

Robert Mueller testified under oath that his investigation was not obstructed, yet the Democrats want to impeach
Trump for obstructing a
investigation that ""the lead investigator said was not

obstructed."" TR> DS>***********************************************************************

****

Attempts to Obstruct do not have to be successful to be a crime.

There was no *obstruction*! Therefore...there is no `crime'!

You are coming rather late to this discussion, and it seems that you DS>cannot read either.

I `read' fine.


I have copies of BOTH parts of Meuller's `report' (to be charitable, we'll compassionately refer to it as `Meuller's report'; although listening to Meuller testifying about it (if you could call what he did `testifying') its VERY obvious he really knows little or nothing about it), and nowhere in
either part of it is there ANY accusation or evidence presented that `Trump'
or his campaign group `colluded' with Russians to alter/influence/change or otherwise do ANYTHING to alter the outcome of the 2016 presidential election.


If there was a smidgeon of evidence to back such wild-ass charges we would not now be discussing this....the `impeachment' would have already happened and
the Senate would be holding a trial presided over by the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court!


There was none....it didn't....and we aren't!


Hillary Clinton lost the election! You lefties are gonna have to wrap your
mind around that and move on!

---
*Durango b301 #PE*
* Origin: Fido Since 1991 | QWK by Web | BBS.FIDOSYSOP.ORG (1:123/140)

On 09-04-19, DALE SHIPP said to GREGORY DEYSS:

On 09-03-19 07:26, Gregory Deyss <=-
spoke to Dale Shipp about Re: Obstruction once more <=-

It can do something. The most egregious shootings are usually done with guns that have no purpose in civilian hands -- except to kill people.

The Founding Fathers deliberately included The Second Amendment in the Constitution for a reason; its not to allow the citizens to `hunt' or sport shooting...its there for the citizenry to have the means of resisting a tyrannical, repressive government.


Which is how this country preserved it's ability to resist the British and fight and win the war that created this country. And an armed populace is all that stands between democrats who must listen to `We The People' through the ballot box....and democrats who TELL the people what they're getting or doing, regardless of any nonsense about `ballot boxes'!


The leftie democrats know an armed populace is extremely hard to control.


And make no mistake....control is what they're after.

I agree with your idea about restricting the buying of ammo to those
with a valid permit. It is a small step, but a step. Along with that a DS>ban on high capacity magazines would help.

They will do it a little bit at a time....calling each move against the Second Amendment a `reasonable action nobody with sense or compassion could object to'.


They are working hard to take back the White House and both houses of
Congress, working to gain the power to start ignoring the Constitution in tiny ways at first....then huge swaths of it as their power grows.


We've seen their attack on the Second Amendment over the years place a tighter and tighter restriction on `who' qualifies to assert their Second Amendment rights.


In many states they've already greatly curtailed the ability ot `We The
People' to resist tyrannical control by: restricting ammunition to a
background check; restricting the size of magazines in magazine-fed firearm; restricting the number of firearms a single individual can legally purchase in a 30 day period; outlawing certain types of firearms *they* classify as `assault weapons';.....

My point above was not at all to ban all guns -- but only those guns DS>which have no purpose except to kill masses of people quicky, e.g. AK-47 DS>type semi automatic rifles.

`Only' certain types of firearms...the lefties say...(IOW...any firearm that scares the living hell out of a leftie!).

Those types of weapons do not belong in the
hands of the general public, and yet they seem to be the weapon of
choice for the majority of the mass shootings. A law that restricted DS>their sale to be only military and law enforcement would go a long way
to reducing the carnage.

No such thing. This is an old tired argument of lefties since they first began their determined attempt to disarm Americans. What Shipp says above is the left's true aim; only military and law enforcement will have decent weaponry; the citizenry will be effectively `disarmed'!


That is the leftie's real intent. a `disarmed' citizenry. A citizenry that has no means to effectively resist tyranny, aren't a citizenry at all...they are subjects!

---
*Durango b301 #PE*
* Origin: Fido Since 1991 | QWK by Web | BBS.FIDOSYSOP.ORG (1:123/140)

On 09-03-19, GREGORY DEYSS said to DALE SHIPP:

You lefties either don't see that putting more and more restrictions on firearms does nothing....or you deliberately intend to restrict

th DS>

It can do something. The most egregious shootings are usually done with guns that have no purpose in civilian hands -- except to kill people.

Criminals do not obey gun laws, Chicago has strong gun laws and yet they GD>are still killing each other. They need more prisons and get these people GD>off the streets or more law enforcement, another great idea would ammo is GD>purchased you have to show that your gun is registered. To blame it on the GD>gun and not on the individual is ridiculous.

Heres a few things about guns and gun laws;


In 2018 there were 387 deaths from mass shootings. That is; four or more shot (although not actually killed) in one single shooting incident.


BTW...there are twice that or more killed by shooting every year in the city
of Chicago alone! ......but I digress.....


Most of the 387 I cited above are ordinary criminals like gang related or bar fights that erupt into gunfire, and many at parties. Around 100 were from random killers in mass shootings like the ones that lefties freak out over and go all `gun-control' berserk.


News coverage makes those types of shootings high-powered like they become; lingering on and on in the printed and broadcast media for days and days, prompting triggered politicians and administrations on the state and city
level to spout crapola on the need to `control guns'.


In fact, there are more privately owned guns in the US than ever and murder rates have been declining, and is at a record low: more guns...less crime.


But the lefties and their media cheerleaders will never allow that information to be widely broadcast.


In 2017 Chicago had 660 murders. In 2018 there were 561.


As I type this there have been 330 killed in Chicago so far this year...and there are still 4 months left of 2019.....


What you *never* see printed or spoken of on broadcast media by the leftie so-called `press'...is there are over one million defensive uses of firearms
in the United States every year!


How many more would be killed or wounded if all guns were removed from the hands of the citizenry? BTW....if any leftie out there thinks all these
firearm deaths would be solved by taking firearms away from private citizens, and then `nobody' would have firearms anymore....think again.


They tried that with alchohol back in the early part of last century. How'd that work out?


But...to go on....


Last year there were around 70,000 deaths from opioids. Over 4.5 times the number of murders and over 700 times the number of deaths caused by mass shooters.


However...democrats continue to refuse to do anything to take control of our international borders where a huge majority of deadly drugs pour into the country. They've so far prevented every effort this president has made to do so.


This country has almost 400 million people. Why should ordinary owners of firearms have their rights severely restricted or even taken away?


There are no laws in existence or that could be enacted that will deter a criminal determined to commit a violent act. All new restrictive gun laws do
is make it easier for criminals bent on mayhem to do as they please.










---
*Durango b301 #PE*
* Origin: Fido Since 1991 | QWK by Web | BBS.FIDOSYSOP.ORG (1:123/140)