how would biden take my guns.

[zaangalewa]

In 2020 died 19,276 persons in the USA because of guns. Hurted from guns were 39,379 persons. 5.103 from the killed and hurted persons were under 18 years.

The killing rate in the USA is more than 7 times (=700%) higher than in Germany and about 25 times (2500%) higher than in Japan.

This is the USA, not Germany. We live in a country of Freedom and Liberty.

"Freedom" - Germanic word
"Liberty" - Latin word
Both words mean the same.

Seems to me your ancestors overtook a lot from "strange" cultures.

Those rights are not free.

Gee, Germany has strict gun laws, go figure. As you know too, Japan has a totally different culture and they have a homogeneous society.

Our laws are never very strict. And Japan has an unbelievable rich culture with a big amount of very different traditions. And you hate both cultures, because we are extremely brutal monsters without any form of humanity in your view to the world.

 

[9thIDdoc]

i try my best not to pay attention to the gun bs....ussc has again and again affirmed gun owners rights...i do not see that changing in the near future....however my son sure the hell does...i stopped discussing the issue when i questioned why the hell he needs 22 magazines...this came up in a discuss of taxing mags...anyways that got me called...'not a typical gun owner' i have 2..and for some reason we must have more than 10 rounds...i question who cant stop someone or two someones with 10 rounds...and that does not endear me to his heart...and i loved when he told his father....that he had purchased the stupidest thing my son had ever seen...as much as i agree i would not say it aloud...

Your mistake is thinking that it's all about stopping someone. What if there are a whole bunch of someones that need to be stopped? What if in the heat and stress of the moment your marksmanship is waay less than perfect and/or good hits but low power leave you with an armed and now thoroughly pissed off wounded assailant(s)? What if you carry along a little pistol fishing is case of poisonous snakes only to find yourself fishing in a hole claimed by an irate grizzle bear? Most importantly what do you think gives you or anybody else the right to decide how much ammo someone else needs when you don't walk in their shoes? I was a soldier in Vietnam and went nowhere without an (actual) assault rifle and a bandoleer or two carrying 10 20rd each magazines. Waay better to have too much than too little.
If the factories that make weapons and ammunition close down. Where exactly are we going to get weapons for military and police? How can we defend our Nation or our cities? We simply cannot allow that. End of story.

 

[zaangalewa]

i try my best not to pay attention to the gun bs....ussc has again and again affirmed gun owners rights...i do not see that changing in the near future....however my son sure the hell does...i stopped discussing the issue when i questioned why the hell he needs 22 magazines...this came up in a discuss of taxing mags...anyways that got me called...'not a typical gun owner' i have 2..and for some reason we must have more than 10 rounds...i question who cant stop someone or two someones with 10 rounds...and that does not endear me to his heart...and i loved when he told his father....that he had purchased the stupidest thing my son had ever seen...as much as i agree i would not say it aloud...

Your mistake is thinking that it's all about stopping someone. What if there are a whole bunch of someones that need to be stopped? What if in the heat and stress of the moment your marksmanship is waay less than perfect and/or good hits but low power leave you with an armed and now thoroughly pissed off wounded assailant(s)? What if you carry along a little pistol fishing is case of poisonous snakes only to find yourself fishing in a hole claimed by an irate grizzle bear? Most importantly what do you think gives you or anybody else the right to decide how much ammo someone else needs when you don't walk in their shoes? I was a soldier in Vietnam and went nowhere without an (actual) assault rifle and a bandoleer or two carrying 10 20rd each magazines. Waay better to have too much than too little.
If the factories that make weapons and ammunition close down. Where exactly are we going to get weapons for military and police? How can we defend our Nation or our cities? We simply cannot allow that. End of story.

That's the logic of extended suiciders, who murder their wifes and their children, before they do suicide on their own, because they think without them their wifes and children are not able to survive.

 

[9thIDdoc]

i try my best not to pay attention to the gun bs....ussc has again and again affirmed gun owners rights...i do not see that changing in the near future....however my son sure the hell does...i stopped discussing the issue when i questioned why the hell he needs 22 magazines...this came up in a discuss of taxing mags...anyways that got me called...'not a typical gun owner' i have 2..and for some reason we must have more than 10 rounds...i question who cant stop someone or two someones with 10 rounds...and that does not endear me to his heart...and i loved when he told his father....that he had purchased the stupidest thing my son had ever seen...as much as i agree i would not say it aloud...

Your mistake is thinking that it's all about stopping someone. What if there are a whole bunch of someones that need to be stopped? What if in the heat and stress of the moment your marksmanship is waay less than perfect and/or good hits but low power leave you with an armed and now thoroughly pissed off wounded assailant(s)? What if you carry along a little pistol fishing is case of poisonous snakes only to find yourself fishing in a hole claimed by an irate grizzle bear? Most importantly what do you think gives you or anybody else the right to decide how much ammo someone else needs when you don't walk in their shoes? I was a soldier in Vietnam and went nowhere without an (actual) assault rifle and a bandoleer or two carrying 10 20rd each magazines. Waay better to have too much than too little.
If the factories that make weapons and ammunition close down. Where exactly are we going to get weapons for military and police? How can we defend our Nation or our cities? We simply cannot allow that. End of story.

That's the logic of extended suiciders, who murder their wifes and their children, before they do suicide on their own, because they think without them their wifes and children are not able to survive.

Why? Because you say so? I've lived a long life having guns ever since childhood and have never committed suicide or murder even once. How do explain this in my case and the case of many millions of others? The facts speak for themselves as does your lie.

 

[Markle]

In 2020 died 19,276 persons in the USA because of guns. Hurted from guns were 39,379 persons. 5.103 from the killed and hurted persons were under 18 years.

The killing rate in the USA is more than 7 times (=700%) higher than in Germany and about 25 times (2500%) higher than in Japan.

This is the USA, not Germany. We live in a country of Freedom and Liberty.

"Freedom" - Germanic word
"Liberty" - Latin word
Both words mean the same.

Seems to me your ancestors overtook a lot from "strange" cultures.

Those rights are not free.

Gee, Germany has strict gun laws, go figure. As you know too, Japan has a totally different culture and they have a homogeneous society.

Our laws are never very strict. And Japan has an unbelievable rich culture with a big amount of very different traditions. And you hate both cultures, because we are extremely brutal monsters without any form of humanity in your view to the world.

You're really bad with words. Freedom and liberty do not mean the same thing.

I don't hate anyone. I have a bad taste in my mouth about Germany since my Ol' Man left his left leg in a house near Bastogne in February 1945.

WE are a brutal nation? Germany and Japan killed tens of millions. And we're a brutal nation?

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

No one is coming for your guns, dumbass.

Beto O'Rourke admitted otherwise.
Remember him?

There are various ways the left has to eliminate guns incrementally. They can't outlaw them all at once, of course.
They even have floated plans to tax bullets out of existence.

I don't actually own a gun, anymore. But I recognize the patterns that the left moves in.
They are largely Marxists who don't recognize right or wrong. They only care about getting
their way once they've fixed their reptilian minds on a goal.

Sorry, but it is not the left who is attempting tp re-write what is on film for Jan 6th.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

And yet, we have an oligarchy and are slaves while mistakenly thinking we have democratic representation.

If you make yourselve to a slave then you are a slave. But an extremistic opinion makes you not to a slave. The most people wiLl just simple not share the nonsense, which you say.

Ask yourself what kind of system is like this:

1) Corporations and corporate PACs comprise most funding for most candidates of either party.
2) Elected officials neither write the legislation they present nor fully read what they pass, but corporate think tanks do the writing instead.
3) Both parties routinely bail out corporations, enter unnecessary wars, and spend far more than the government collects with no concern at all for inflation.
4) Most mainstream media is owned by the same corporations that own the politicians.

Would you describe that as a democracy?

Democratic action plays a role but for the better part, we are a plutocracy (power derived from wealth). Trumpism introduced fascism as a serious player in American Politics. Despite this term often being misused hereabouts (as a slur tied to commie), fascism is right handed, a hyper brand of nationalism with an authoritarian at it's head.

Trump wasn't authoritarian though. He took a states' rights approach to a lot of things, like COVID restrictions. An actual authoritarian would have exercised a lot of federal authority. Trump was more active regarding certain forms of economic protectionism, but that actually makes him very similar to old school Democrats (like FDR and Truman).

Nationalism itself isn't fascist. Fascism requires pretty heavy handed federal control over society. A much better example of it would be China's government.

Trump's attempt to overthrow an election was a serious authoritarian move as was his misuse of the Justice Department.

He did neither thing........his legal actions to fight unConstitutional actions in various states that changed election law illegally were not authoritarian in any way.

It was obama, not Trump, who misused the DOJ.....

No, that part was just a misguided waste of donations.

But you overlook his intent, the dumbass thing that was done on Jan 6th. The Senate is charged with counting the electoral votes (a formality) and signing off. What Trump wanted was to change the electoral vote, and thereby retain the WH.

Which was his legal right to do..........he followed the law, the democrat party judges who changed election law acted against the Constitution, not Trump.

Some of the judges who dismissed his suits were conservative, some were appointed by him, and further, the SC refused his conjecture.

That there is always some failure in vote counting is a reflection of our imperfection, but it's not exclusive to one side of the aisle and there is no evidence of widespread fraud. None.

It wan't widespread, it was highly targeted to certain swing state voting districts controlled by the democrat party.

Let me clarify. There was no widespread tampering sufficient to even sniff at overturning the election.

Trump lost and he whined about it like the spoiled brat that he his.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Sorry, but it is not the left who is attempting tp re-write what is on film for Jan 6th.

Try staying on topic. People won't think you are such a dunce if you do.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

Under our current distribution of population, that would essentially mean that candidates would only need to campaign in about a dozen cities, possibly fewer.

I'm afraid that's the nature of democracy. One person, one vote.

Perhaps the country is just too damned big. If there's one area where I lean right, it's the belief that most government should be local.

As the feds grow bigger themselves, the goal seems to be to reduce the power and significance of states. Removing the EC would accomplish that in many respects. The next logical step would be to remove the Senate. Both require Constitutional Amendments, but the NPVIC (National Popular Vote Interstate Compact) may eventually nullify the EC in a roundabout way anyway.

Things do get confusing.

For my money, the archaic Senate contributes to federal abuse. Take the 2ndA, the problem is made easier by leaving it up to the states. I really don't care if they want six-shooter duals in Texas - but keep the insanity of unabridged carry out of my yard.

Until we split into multiple countries, federal abuse is sure to come with or without an intact Senate.

Most of the abuse comes from the executive branch. Intelligence agencies spy on us, the ATF arbitrarily declares things illegal and often retroactively, the IRS harasses people for political reasons, and the military sends people to die overseas for unnecessary wars.

Yes, I've already agreed that we are too big with too much government too far from home.

I don't want to get into Q&A, but I can tell you that people harassed by the IRS are usually guilty. Tax cheats are everywhere, and enforcement is a joke.

Well, taxation IS theft, after all.

Certain kinds and levels of taxation are theft, but to generalize about it is to suggest that civilization is free. It isn't.

There is no question that it is often unfairly administered. Wealth writes the rules. Do you think they will cheat themselves?

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

Sorry, but it is not the left who is attempting tp re-write what is on film for Jan 6th.

Try staying on topic. People won't think you are such a dunce if you do.

LOL. If I was off topic it was because I answered something you said.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

LOL. If I was off topic it was because I answered something you said.

Your second and last tip from me: If you are responding to something I specifically said then quote that
specific quote and use your quote function (that's what it's there for) so people can see what you are
referencing instead of taking your word for things, which doesn't seem very wise to me given your
post which just assumes everyone knows the thing you are talking about.

No one here is a mind reader.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

just imagining how the actual process would begin.
so far its political bluster. but communism is chipping away at democracy. other things constitutional are melting in the fakenews winds of liberal hysteria.
obama changed the constitution.

fake news is the enemy of conservative America.
journalism will make a fabulous comeback.

do they have a ... "plan" for rounding up ar 15's

i still need mine, so im keeping it (them)..

It probably won't be unlike when they went door to door in New Orleans after Katrina. The streets were lawless and they searched each house to take any guns they found.

Yep, there was a huge lawsuit and settlement after the dust settled but, if you could not prove a gun was yours, New Orleans kept the weapon.

They'd get shot to pieces pretty quick.

Probably if it is national but no one put up any resistance in New Orleans.

True, but that was then and this is now, and a lot of people have learned a lot of shit since then.

Katrina is not ancient history.

benghazi is..

Nine months and a

And yet, we have an oligarchy and are slaves while mistakenly thinking we have democratic representation.

If you make yourselve to a slave then you are a slave. But an extremistic opinion makes you not to a slave. The most people wiLl just simple not share the nonsense, which you say.

Ask yourself what kind of system is like this:

1) Corporations and corporate PACs comprise most funding for most candidates of either party.
2) Elected officials neither write the legislation they present nor fully read what they pass, but corporate think tanks do the writing instead.
3) Both parties routinely bail out corporations, enter unnecessary wars, and spend far more than the government collects with no concern at all for inflation.
4) Most mainstream media is owned by the same corporations that own the politicians.

Would you describe that as a democracy?

Democratic action plays a role but for the better part, we are a plutocracy (power derived from wealth). Trumpism introduced fascism as a serious player in American Politics. Despite this term often being misused hereabouts (as a slur tied to commie), fascism is right handed, a hyper brand of nationalism with an authoritarian at it's head.

Trump wasn't authoritarian though. He took a states' rights approach to a lot of things, like COVID restrictions. An actual authoritarian would have exercised a lot of federal authority. Trump was more active regarding certain forms of economic protectionism, but that actually makes him very similar to old school Democrats (like FDR and Truman).

Nationalism itself isn't fascist. Fascism requires pretty heavy handed federal control over society. A much better example of it would be China's government.

Trump's attempt to overthrow an election was a serious authoritarian move as was his misuse of the Justice Department.

He did neither thing........his legal actions to fight unConstitutional actions in various states that changed election law illegally were not authoritarian in any way.

It was obama, not Trump, who misused the DOJ.....

No, that part was just a misguided waste of donations.

But you overlook his intent, the dumbass thing that was done on Jan 6th. The Senate is charged with counting the electoral votes (a formality) and signing off. What Trump wanted was to change the electoral vote, and thereby retain the WH.

Trump wanted to respect/recognize the elector count.

That's not what Mike Pence said.

refresh me por favor

Trump insisted that he and Pence were on the same page as to the VP's ability to decertify electoral results. However, that is not what Mike Pence wrote in his Jan 6th letter. He denied such power, and in a tweet Trump whined about Pence letting them down.

When did he respect and recognize the count? I missed that.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

LOL. If I was off topic it was because I answered something you said.

Your second and last tip from me: If you are responding to something I specifically said then quote that
specific quote and use your quote function (that's what it's there for) so people can see what you are
referencing instead of taking your word for things, which doesn't seem very wise to me given your
post which just assumes everyone knows the thing you are talking about.

No one here is a mind reader.

I responded to what you wrote at #354 (in particular your final paragraph) by providing a contradictory counterpoint.

BTW, I don't recall giving you any tips. Perhaps the format here is confusing you?

 

[2aguy]

And yet, we have an oligarchy and are slaves while mistakenly thinking we have democratic representation.

If you make yourselve to a slave then you are a slave. But an extremistic opinion makes you not to a slave. The most people wiLl just simple not share the nonsense, which you say.

Ask yourself what kind of system is like this:

1) Corporations and corporate PACs comprise most funding for most candidates of either party.
2) Elected officials neither write the legislation they present nor fully read what they pass, but corporate think tanks do the writing instead.
3) Both parties routinely bail out corporations, enter unnecessary wars, and spend far more than the government collects with no concern at all for inflation.
4) Most mainstream media is owned by the same corporations that own the politicians.

Would you describe that as a democracy?

Democratic action plays a role but for the better part, we are a plutocracy (power derived from wealth). Trumpism introduced fascism as a serious player in American Politics. Despite this term often being misused hereabouts (as a slur tied to commie), fascism is right handed, a hyper brand of nationalism with an authoritarian at it's head.

Trump wasn't authoritarian though. He took a states' rights approach to a lot of things, like COVID restrictions. An actual authoritarian would have exercised a lot of federal authority. Trump was more active regarding certain forms of economic protectionism, but that actually makes him very similar to old school Democrats (like FDR and Truman).

Nationalism itself isn't fascist. Fascism requires pretty heavy handed federal control over society. A much better example of it would be China's government.

Trump's attempt to overthrow an election was a serious authoritarian move as was his misuse of the Justice Department.

He did neither thing........his legal actions to fight unConstitutional actions in various states that changed election law illegally were not authoritarian in any way.

It was obama, not Trump, who misused the DOJ.....

No, that part was just a misguided waste of donations.

But you overlook his intent, the dumbass thing that was done on Jan 6th. The Senate is charged with counting the electoral votes (a formality) and signing off. What Trump wanted was to change the electoral vote, and thereby retain the WH.

Which was his legal right to do..........he followed the law, the democrat party judges who changed election law acted against the Constitution, not Trump.

Some of the judges who dismissed his suits were conservative, some were appointed by him, and further, the SC refused his conjecture.

That there is always some failure in vote counting is a reflection of our imperfection, but it's not exclusive to one side of the aisle and there is no evidence of widespread fraud. None.

It wan't widespread, it was highly targeted to certain swing state voting districts controlled by the democrat party.

Let me clarify. There was no widespread tampering sufficient to even sniff at overturning the election.

Trump lost and he whined about it like the spoiled brat that he his.

And you are wrong.....targeted cheating changed results....

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

I responded to what you wrote at #354 (in particular your final paragraph) by providing a contradictory counterpoint.

BTW, I don't recall giving you any tips. Perhaps the format here is confusing you?

I'm not confused, newbie. I know that when someone comments on someone else's remarks
that comment should be cited as part of the reply unless that comment was immediately preceding
the reply (which mine was not).

Stop embarrassing yourself. Just take your lesson and shut the fuck up.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

And yet, we have an oligarchy and are slaves while mistakenly thinking we have democratic representation.

If you make yourselve to a slave then you are a slave. But an extremistic opinion makes you not to a slave. The most people wiLl just simple not share the nonsense, which you say.

Ask yourself what kind of system is like this:

1) Corporations and corporate PACs comprise most funding for most candidates of either party.
2) Elected officials neither write the legislation they present nor fully read what they pass, but corporate think tanks do the writing instead.
3) Both parties routinely bail out corporations, enter unnecessary wars, and spend far more than the government collects with no concern at all for inflation.
4) Most mainstream media is owned by the same corporations that own the politicians.

Would you describe that as a democracy?

Democratic action plays a role but for the better part, we are a plutocracy (power derived from wealth). Trumpism introduced fascism as a serious player in American Politics. Despite this term often being misused hereabouts (as a slur tied to commie), fascism is right handed, a hyper brand of nationalism with an authoritarian at it's head.

Trump wasn't authoritarian though. He took a states' rights approach to a lot of things, like COVID restrictions. An actual authoritarian would have exercised a lot of federal authority. Trump was more active regarding certain forms of economic protectionism, but that actually makes him very similar to old school Democrats (like FDR and Truman).

Nationalism itself isn't fascist. Fascism requires pretty heavy handed federal control over society. A much better example of it would be China's government.

Trump's attempt to overthrow an election was a serious authoritarian move as was his misuse of the Justice Department.

He did neither thing........his legal actions to fight unConstitutional actions in various states that changed election law illegally were not authoritarian in any way.

It was obama, not Trump, who misused the DOJ.....

No, that part was just a misguided waste of donations.

But you overlook his intent, the dumbass thing that was done on Jan 6th. The Senate is charged with counting the electoral votes (a formality) and signing off. What Trump wanted was to change the electoral vote, and thereby retain the WH.

Which was his legal right to do..........he followed the law, the democrat party judges who changed election law acted against the Constitution, not Trump.

Some of the judges who dismissed his suits were conservative, some were appointed by him, and further, the SC refused his conjecture.

That there is always some failure in vote counting is a reflection of our imperfection, but it's not exclusive to one side of the aisle and there is no evidence of widespread fraud. None.

It wan't widespread, it was highly targeted to certain swing state voting districts controlled by the democrat party.

Let me clarify. There was no widespread tampering sufficient to even sniff at overturning the election.

Trump lost and he whined about it like the spoiled brat that he his.

And you are wrong.....targeted cheating changed results....

No court decisions won, no changed results, no reversal in the Senate. Just a lot of noise from a sore loser.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

I responded to what you wrote at #354 (in particular your final paragraph) by providing a contradictory counterpoint.

BTW, I don't recall giving you any tips. Perhaps the format here is confusing you?

I'm not confused, newbie. I know that when someone comments on someone else's remarks
that comment should be cited as part of the reply unless that comment was immediately preceding
the reply (which mine was not).

Stop embarrassing yourself. Just take your lesson and shut the fuck up.

I responded directly to you, and you replied (to me) that such made me off topic. But I'll take another look. If I see something new, I'll send you flowers. Don't over torque you ass muscles.

 

[Rigby5]

i try my best not to pay attention to the gun bs....ussc has again and again affirmed gun owners rights...i do not see that changing in the near future....however my son sure the hell does...i stopped discussing the issue when i questioned why the hell he needs 22 magazines...this came up in a discuss of taxing mags...anyways that got me called...'not a typical gun owner' i have 2..and for some reason we must have more than 10 rounds...i question who cant stop someone or two someones with 10 rounds...and that does not endear me to his heart...and i loved when he told his father....that he had purchased the stupidest thing my son had ever seen...as much as i agree i would not say it aloud...

Your mistake is thinking that it's all about stopping someone. What if there are a whole bunch of someones that need to be stopped? What if in the heat and stress of the moment your marksmanship is waay less than perfect and/or good hits but low power leave you with an armed and now thoroughly pissed off wounded assailant(s)? What if you carry along a little pistol fishing is case of poisonous snakes only to find yourself fishing in a hole claimed by an irate grizzle bear? Most importantly what do you think gives you or anybody else the right to decide how much ammo someone else needs when you don't walk in their shoes? I was a soldier in Vietnam and went nowhere without an (actual) assault rifle and a bandoleer or two carrying 10 20rd each magazines. Waay better to have too much than too little.
If the factories that make weapons and ammunition close down. Where exactly are we going to get weapons for military and police? How can we defend our Nation or our cities? We simply cannot allow that. End of story.

That's the logic of extended suiciders, who murder their wifes and their children, before they do suicide on their own, because they think without them their wifes and children are not able to survive.

That's crazy.
Guns are what ended the monopoly the monarchs had on controlling the means of force with paid mercenaries.
Anyone can afford and use a firearm, so we ended feudalism and monarchs with firearms.
Gun control means going back to the monopoly on force with corrupt governments.
We must never allow that to happen again. Instead we must all do our part to hold keep the population in control of power instead of a government monopoly.

 

[Rigby5]

In 2020 died 19,276 persons in the USA because of guns. Hurted from guns were 39,379 persons. 5.103 from the killed and hurted persons were under 18 years.

The killing rate in the USA is more than 7 times (=700%) higher than in Germany and about 25 times (2500%) higher than in Japan.

This is the USA, not Germany. We live in a country of Freedom and Liberty.

"Freedom" - Germanic word
"Liberty" - Latin word
Both words mean the same.

Seems to me your ancestors overtook a lot from "strange" cultures.

Those rights are not free.

Gee, Germany has strict gun laws, go figure. As you know too, Japan has a totally different culture and they have a homogeneous society.

Our laws are never very strict. And Japan has an unbelievable rich culture with a big amount of very different traditions. And you hate both cultures, because we are extremely brutal monsters without any form of humanity in your view to the world.

You're really bad with words. Freedom and liberty do not mean the same thing.

I don't hate anyone. I have a bad taste in my mouth about Germany since my Ol' Man left his left leg in a house near Bastogne in February 1945.

WE are a brutal nation? Germany and Japan killed tens of millions. And we're a brutal nation?

I would suggest that both Germany and Japan were forced into their aggressive behavior, due to things done wrong to them previously.
Such as the Allies attacking, blockading, starving and illegally stealing from Germany with the WWI and the Treaty of Versailles, and things like Admiral Perry extorting the Japanese back in 1853.

But regardless, obviously gun control is inherently abusive, and we should always want and trust an armed population over a government monopoly on the use of force.

 

[Rigby5]

No one is coming for your guns, dumbass.

Beto O'Rourke admitted otherwise.
Remember him?

There are various ways the left has to eliminate guns incrementally. They can't outlaw them all at once, of course.
They even have floated plans to tax bullets out of existence.

I don't actually own a gun, anymore. But I recognize the patterns that the left moves in.
They are largely Marxists who don't recognize right or wrong. They only care about getting
their way once they've fixed their reptilian minds on a goal.

Sorry, but it is not the left who is attempting tp re-write what is on film for Jan 6th.

Actually yes it is.
I am more leftist than anyone here, but I am embarrassed to hear the left call that occupation of congress, an "insurrection".
It clearly was not an insurrection because it was not armed, and it was actually surprisingly peaceful for the most part.