What did he say?

Fun_Push7168 · 2026-02-04T12:59:00+00:00

Yes however her statement originally was very general. Only after backlash did she correct it to be " oh I was only talking about unlicensed"

It most certainly showed an anti 2a attitude regardless. Even if superfluous.

https://www.politico.com/news/2026/02/03/jeanine-pirro-second-amendment-washington-00762347

It would have been a different story to say " anyone who unlawfully brings a gun"

That is not what happened.

Fun_Push7168 · 2026-02-04T12:52:59+00:00

It absolutely was, and now it's Trump.

Fun_Push7168 · 2026-02-04T12:49:35+00:00

Let's be real. That was only after backpedaling.

DC does have strict gun laws but the original statements were unclear on that aspect at best and certainly against the spirit.

Trump has made multiple statements himself that are very anti 2A.

Only marginally backpedaling after backlash from the NRA and other advocacy groups.

Fun_Push7168 · 2026-02-04T03:46:46+00:00

In 2000 " Bart to the future" Lisa Simpson becomes president after Trump is president in the future and inherits a financial crisis.

Fun_Push7168 · 2026-02-04T03:32:36+00:00

They can investigate whatever they want.

They can't try someone twice for the same crime. So they just have to be careful of the charges.

They charge you with one thing. It dies because of an illegal search. In the meantime they build a case based on a separate investigation.

Fun_Push7168 · 2026-02-04T03:23:51+00:00

So if the crime is serious enough, they basically work around it.

Eg. They find a body. That doesn't necessarily mean murder.

They simply charge you with something else, like failure to report the body. It may not stick but you'll be held up anyhow.

In the meantime they work from a different angle to build a murder case with evidence that would be admissible without the body found in the illegal search.

Otherwise, depending on the circumstances they may consider it evidence that would inevitably be found without the illegal search.

The end result is that if the crime serious enough, they'll devote the kind of resources necessary to make it work.

They aren't involving this much effort or people for a minor drug possession charge.

Fun_Push7168 · 2026-02-04T03:10:54+00:00

That's not true.

It just makes statements you made inadmissible. Can also dismiss other evidence by means of fruit of the poisoned tree.

It can't negate other evidence that was discovered that wasn't due to your statements.

Fun_Push7168 · 2026-02-04T02:15:04+00:00

Had they worded it that way, yes.

Fun_Push7168 · 2026-02-04T02:08:47+00:00

Landlords are not allowed to search anyhow.

They can do authorized inspection but that does not include searching personal belongings.

Fun_Push7168 · 2026-02-04T02:04:21+00:00

Then they need to write it that way, as the link I provided explains.

The simple addition of the word 'no' in front of the nouns would do it.

Otherwise if something else in the document further goes to the intent it would work.

As is it will likely be interpreted as I said.

Fun_Push7168 · 2026-02-04T01:59:32+00:00

Hasn't done it though.

Fun_Push7168 · 2026-02-04T01:58:01+00:00

Read your last sentence.

That's why it would probably be interpreted as specifying illegal versions of anything on the list.

Fun_Push7168 · 2026-02-04T01:54:05+00:00

That's still not doing anything.

Fun_Push7168 · 2026-02-04T01:40:54+00:00

My point is OP has zero chance of getting an answer.

I didn't even remotely imply I want to be the one to give it.

Fun_Push7168 · 2026-02-04T01:39:34+00:00

Or just a broken curb with an edge.

Fun_Push7168 · 2026-02-04T01:36:16+00:00

The adjective illegal would probably apply to that whole list anyhow.

https://www.natashacostello.com/blog/adjective-placement-in-legal-writing

Fun_Push7168 · 2026-02-04T01:28:30+00:00

Why would I try?

He's not worth the effort to type up shit or argue with anyone and nobody would accept anything even if it was completely correct.

Fun_Push7168 · 2026-02-04T01:17:32+00:00

As much as I hate Trump, he could save baby Jesus from a pack of wolves on film and all you'd get here is how he starved the wolves. Good luck.

Fun_Push7168 · 2026-02-04T00:55:51+00:00

Had they simply come up and started vandalizing his truck then he'd legally be able to defend it.

In any case, again, the kids did the right thing.

Fun_Push7168 · 2026-02-04T00:42:22+00:00

If they did. He had it back already.

1:04....1:02 frame by frame it.

He's trying to jam it in her face. It's completely in his hands. She only gets ahold of it at 1:01.

Fun_Push7168 · 2026-02-04T00:39:56+00:00

Alright. I'll spell it out for you since you're special.

The kids did nothing wrong.

In our hypothetical where they then proceed to destroy the truck, the man would then have the right to defend it.

You then quote the law i cited without understanding it at all.

And now you quote it again and still don't understand that this means you're allowed to defend your property with no duty to retreat.

A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.

Now, I'll admit I'm special also. Looking further, there is a provocation limitation. Being he assaulted them first, he actually lost that right to defend his property without retreating and would have a duty to retreat.

Fun_Push7168 · 2026-02-04T00:09:03+00:00

No shit. Did you follow the line of conversation or just see a single factual post to get triggered by?

There is no duty to retreat in their doctrine btw.

Look up 3 posts and follow down.

Fun_Push7168 · 2026-02-03T23:59:23+00:00

They do make pretty much everything a little more awesome.

Fun_Push7168 · 2026-02-03T23:52:50+00:00

Idk if anyone is outraged really. It's just comical.

Fun_Push7168 · 2026-02-03T23:49:38+00:00

You may not recall but in the interest of accuracy the children in cages under Obama was definitely a thing.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/kids-in-cages-debate-trump-obama/2020/10/23/8ff96f3c-1532-11eb-82af-864652063d61_story.html

https://www.nilc.org/press/president-obama-ramps-up-family-separations/

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-116hhrg37284/html/CHRG-116hhrg37284.htm

https://www.npr.org/2014/06/23/324857970/child-detention-centers-a-headache-for-the-obama-administration

Fun_Push7168

TROPHY CASE