Republicans love gun laws, but only if it’s Hunter Biden who gets prosecuted

[aubiefifty 18,259]

 

Republicans ******* love gun laws, but only if it’s Hunter Biden who gets prosecuted

the ‘shall not be infringed’ crowd finds their exception

Jeff Tiedrich

Sep 15

there’s this dipshit down in Texas who ******* loves his guns. he doesn’t just love having guns, he loves shooting them. he’ll shoot them anywhere, anyplace, and at anything — into the air, into houses, and at random bystanders.

but what he loves shooting at most are his former girlfriends.

now it just so happens that shooting at your former girlfriends crosses a line even down in gun-happy Texas, and so the local authorities confiscated his guns.

what the ****, cried the dipshit, this is so unfair — my Second Amendment rights are being infringed!

Republicans everywhere nodded in agreement. give this dipshit his guns back, they demanded. what part of ‘shall not be infringed’ do you not understand?

the Texas dipshit sued to get his guns back, and the six conservative members of our Supreme Court have agreed to hear the case during its next session.

Upgrade to paid

over in Florida, they just passed this awesome new law — anyone can carry a concealed weapon, no permit required.

that’s right, any random nitwit can walk into a Florida gun store, plunk down their money, shove the gun down their pants, and walk out. no paperwork. no proof of need, no proof of sanity, no nothing.

Republicans everywhere cheered, and similar laws are now working their way through various state legislatures.

because what part of ‘shall not be infringed’ do you not understand?

“shall not be infringed.”

Republicans love screaming this phrase. they scream it any time anyone suggests reasonble gun control legislation.

every time there’s a mass shooting, “shall not be infringed” trends all over social media.

because being a Republican in good standing means you have to believe that every single person deserves free and unfettered access to guns — no matter who the person, no matter what the situation.

because what part of ‘shall not be infringed’ do you not understand?

except …

Hunter Biden indicted on three federal gun charges

Prosecutors in Delaware brought three gun-related charges against Hunter Biden on Thursday, with a grand jury indicting the president’s son after special counsel David Weiss said he would pursue charges following the evaporation of a plea deal.

Hunter Biden was indicted on three minor gun-related charges — and every Republican pissed themselves with glee while doing cartwheels.

that’s right, the party of Second Amendment absolutists finally found a gun law they can embrace — as long as it’s used against the president’s son.

the utter ******* hypocrisy of these people.

if this were anyone not named Hunter Biden, the entire wingnut outrage-industrial complex would be ******* apoplectic right now, because this is exactly the kind of case that would normally have the gun fetishists screaming about prosecutorial overreach — a minor paperwork charge that is rarely brought against anyone.

not only that, but one court has already ruled that the law Hunter Biden has been accused of violating is unconstitutional.

A federal appeals court in August struck down a decades-old law barring users of illegal drugs from possessing firearms.

seriously, if you believe that all Americans should have the untrammeled right to weapons of mass death without filing paperwork, then you have to believe that right extends to Hunter Biden, yes? or are you a tribal score-settling hypocrite?

because what part of ‘shall not be infringed’ do you not understand?

look, I’m not here to defend Hunter Biden. if he broke the law, let him face consequences.

but mark this: every hypocritical Republican who just found gun control religion is going to totally ******* lose their s*** the next time a person not named Hunter Biden gets nailed for a minor gun-related infraction.

everyone is entitled to my own opinion is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

 

© 2023 Jeff Tiedrich
548 Market Street PMB 72296, San Francisco, CA 94104
Unsubscribe

,

or

Jeff Tiedrich From Everyone Is Entitled To My Own Opinion

jefftiedrich@substack.com

+ Add to contacts

Edited September 15, 2023 by aubiefifty

[aubiefifty 18,259]

this is complete bullsh*t

 

over in Florida, they just passed this awesome new law — anyone can carry a concealed weapon, no permit required.

that’s right, any random nitwit can walk into a Florida gun store, plunk down their money, shove the gun down their pants, and walk out. no paperwork. no proof of need, no proof of sanity, no nothing.

Republicans everywhere cheered, and similar laws are now working their way through various state legislatures.

[Mikey 16,781]

On 9/15/2023 at 12:21 PM, aubiefifty said:

this is complete bullsh*t

 

over in Florida, they just passed this awesome new law — anyone can carry a concealed weapon, no permit required.

that’s right, any random nitwit can walk into a Florida gun store, plunk down their money, shove the gun down their pants, and walk out. no paperwork. no proof of need, no proof of sanity, no nothing.

Republicans everywhere cheered, and similar laws are now working their way through various state legislatures.

That's not true. The federal law that requires a background check before purchasing a firearm is not Florida's to waive. I doubt if Florida's new law allows convicted felons to carry, but I haven't looked into it.

Alabama has permitless carry, but a buyer still has to pass the background check before purchasing a weapon. I think you are confusing carry laws with purchase laws. They are two different things.

[aubiefifty 18,259]

6 minutes ago, Mikey said:

That's not true. The federal law that requires a background check before purchasing a firearm is not Florida's to waive. I doubt if Florida's new law allows convicted felons to carry, but I haven't looked into it.

Alabama has permitless carry, but a buyer still has to pass the background check before purchasing a weapon. I think you are confusing carry laws with purchase laws. They are two different things.

i have a carry permit so yes i understand. i was taking jeffs word about what he says.

[Mikey 16,781]

4 minutes ago, aubiefifty said:

i was taking jeffs word about what he says.

It's the internet man. Anybody can claim anything regardless of the truth. Do you really think Florida can waive the Federal gun purchasing laws? I don't. Either Jeff doesn't know what he's talking about or he's outright lying.

https://www.fdle.state.fl.us/FPP/FAQs2.aspx

[aubiefifty 18,259]

1 minute ago, Mikey said:

It's the internet man. Anybody can claim anything regardless of the truth. Do you really think Florida can waive the Federal gun purchasing laws? I don't. Either Jeff doesn't know what he's talking about or he's outright lying.

https://www.fdle.state.fl.us/FPP/FAQs2.aspx

jeff says he fact checks all his stuff. i have yet to catch him in a lie. he used to write for rolling stone i think. shrugs. i believe him and i do not believe a lot of folks. in fact i am wary of most news sites left and right.

[Mikey 16,781]

2 minutes ago, aubiefifty said:

jeff says he fact checks all his stuff. i have yet to catch him in a lie. he used to write for rolling stone i think. shrugs. i believe him and i do not believe a lot of folks. in fact i am wary of most news sites left and right.

Did you not read the requirements I linked to? Here's another, different link: https://www.fdle.state.fl.us/FPP/FAQs1.aspx

I do not care what Jeff says. He either failed to fact check his claim or he is lying. You say he used to write for Rolling Stone. That should be reason to question his truthfulness right there, at least when the subject is somewhat political.

Jeff wrote this: "that’s right, any random nitwit can walk into a Florida gun store, plunk down their money, shove the gun down their pants, and walk out. no paperwork. no proof of need, no proof of sanity, no nothing. " It's absolutely false.

[aubaseball 2,829]

On 9/15/2023 at 1:15 PM, aubiefifty said:

that’s right, any random nitwit can walk into a Florida gun store, plunk down their money, shove the gun down their pants, and walk out. no paperwork. no proof of need, no proof of sanity, no nothing.

Could you be anymore wrong!!! You lose all credibility with statements like this.   

[aubiefifty 18,259]

3 hours ago, aubaseball said:

Could you be anymore wrong!!! You lose all credibility with statements like this.   

did you look it up to see or are you accusing me of a lie you did not check out?. you voted for trump so pardon me if i think you are a moron. i have been trying to be nicer to folks on here. or hey........maybe jeff  was being sarcastic?  i posted an article and i stand by it.again,i love saying this.............i did not vote for trump and you got really nasty trying to put lipstick on trump taking up for all his lies until you could not anymore and all dummies know what trash trump was. if you are so smart why did it take you so long to figure out? and you were warned. you were one of the nasty ones for a fact. i remember you well.

[Mikey 16,781]

11 hours ago, aubiefifty said:

did you look it up to see or are you accusing me of a lie you did not check out?. you voted for trump so pardon me if i think you are a moron. i have been trying to be nicer to folks on here. or hey........maybe jeff  was being sarcastic?  i posted an article and i stand by it.again,i love saying this.............i did not vote for trump and you got really nasty trying to put lipstick on trump taking up for all his lies until you could not anymore and all dummies know what trash trump was. if you are so smart why did it take you so long to figure out? and you were warned. you were one of the nasty ones for a fact. i remember you well.

I did look it up to see. The article is wrong. See my links, above.

Please: This has nothing to do with TRUMP!!!!! The article you posted is an outright lie. I've provided two links to official sites that prove the article is a lie. How can you say you stand by the article when it's a proven falsehood? You're being irrational.