Hillary Clinton believes Americans need to be as worried about gun violence as they are about terrorism. "[I]t's not only terrorists we need to be worried about," Clinton said in an interview published Thursday afternoon by AARP. The Democratic nominee's remarks came as she explained she has a plan to combat both terrorism as well as the broader issue of gun violence in the US ....
Seems to me, you get rid of the 'terrorists', you got no problems with "gun violence".
I don't think that's what she's saying: She doesn't care about terrorists so much as getting rid of private ownership of firearms. After all ... this is the Politician who says:
"We Cannot End Terrorism Without Gun Control!"
So ... if I understand correctly, everyone who owns a gun is a terrorist, in her personal lexicon.
That makes me feel so much more confident in her determination to abide by the terms of her Oath of Office, should she be elected POTUS:
I have reservations about her veracity if she should be diligent in protecting the Constitution; she has never made that a priority in her office as a Senator.
BTW: This is one of the reasons why I never accepted my many 'invitations' to join the American Association of Retired People: They're great on 'benefits', but they don't give a shit about the Constitution.
(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. (b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 795; Pub. L. 101–510, div. A, title V, 552(a), Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1566; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, 330016(1)(I), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)
Question: Does this apply only to documents delivered via the U.S. Mail?
Does EMAIL carry the same penalty?
Or does Hilary, in her office of Secretary of State, qualify under the definition " ... in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States...."?
One cannot help but wonder if this Federal Code would apply to a candidate for the office of (or sitting) POTUS.
On the pro-gun-control side of things, there’s far too much timidity. What’s needed to stop all gun violence is a vocal ban guns contingent. Getting bogged down in discussions of what’s feasible keeps what needs to happen—no more guns—from entering the realm of possibility. Public opinion needs to shift. The no-guns stance needs to be an identifiable place on the spectrum, embraced unapologetically, if it’s to be reckoned with.
Phoebe Maltz Bovy is a writer living in Toronto. She is writing a book with St. Martin’s Press about the idea of privilege (2017).
Phoebe (did you notice that she is living in Canada?) is only one of many folks who allow their timidity to overwhelm their good sense.
They (Phoebe and her kin) think that banning guns would stop gun violence, which is usually perpetrated by criminals who are often violating the law by the mere possession of a firearm and compounded by the criminal acts they perform.
They don't stop to consider that firearms are often used to stop crime, or to protect self, family, home. All they see is the downside of firearms, never the benefits.
I think that these radicals are afraid of firearms. Well ... I'm quit certain of that.
Why?
The reason is because they are unfamiliar with firearms ownership, and they project themselves into a place where they see that they might have a gun and they might then be unable to control their inner violence.
No, no, I see you shaking your head. I'm sincere; I believe that they are unable to conceive of themselves being a responsible firearms owner. Yes, I think they're dumb-asses. No, I don't think they have a legitimate authority to criticize people who are responsible gun owners.
Okay, let's see a show of hands: How many of you readers are gun owners who have discharged your firearm within the city limits, outside of a legal shooting range?
Okay, of those of you who are left, how many discharged your firearm within city limits OTHER than in defense of self, family, property?
Oh. MUCH smaller response quota.
How many of those left have been incarcerated for breaking the law because of this discharge?
(I suspect the response quota is now ZERO, because you're not allowed to respond to blogs from within your jail cell. Which is probably where you should be.)
RESPONSIBLE Firearms Ownership:
Anti-gunners (people opposed to the Second Amendment) tend to be emotionally involved in The Movement. They think that nobody should be trusted with a gun, because they don't think they can be trusted with a gun. They judge others by themselves, and the rest of us appear lacking in judgement because THEY don't trust themselves.
It's that old meme, supported by such 'trusted' sources as the New York Times in their December 4, 2015 opinion article "End The Gun Epidemic In America" where the editors opine that
"It is a moral outrage and national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency."
That Grand Old Lady, NYT, suggests:
Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership. It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.
Certain Kinds of Weapons/Certain Kinds of Ammunition
We wonder, as we should, what the word "Certain" defines. And we wonder more who defines it, and why, and what their imperatives must be.
The NYT article 'certainly' avoids being specific, so if you agree with their philosophy, should we likewise agree with the particulars ... particularly when they are so careful to avoid being specific?
This is the kind of opposition that legal, responsible gun owners face; a huge megalopolous newspaper has made a decision about a constitutional issue, and they certainly have the subscriptions to persuade a bunch of readers in a state where firearms are almost totally BANNED.
As Ned Pepper said in the movie: "That's Bold Talk from a One-Eyed Fat Man!" (*See Below)
But when it comes down to the nitty gritty, as Ned Pepper discovered to his disappointment, just challenging The Law isn't the same thing as obviating The Law. The thing about Laws is, the folks who enact them generally understand that a certain degree of specificity is required. Otherwise, the first wise guy who runs up against it hires a lawyer who (in turn) destroys a poorly written law, and his client goes free.
Which is the sort of thing which gun owners usually like, and the folks who fear gun owners don't like.
Let's get back to that part about:
... yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.
In the first place, those of my "fellow citizens" whom I count as 'friends' are not willing to trust their lives to "a policeman on every corner"; they carry their own protection, and are prepared to defend themselves against the plethora of neer-do-wells who would do them harm. As do I. In the state where I live, a CHL (Concealed Handgun License) is not difficult to acquire .. it's a "Shall Issue" state; and they have availed themselves of the legalities.
In the second place, anyone who is not prepared to defend himself is assuming the "Cop On Every Corner" defense, which is ridiculous. The police can't be everywhere, and to believe otherwise is to expose yourself as a victim to every nut-job in the neighborhood. That's just stupid.
And in the third place ... well. there is no 'third place'; if you don't care enough about your own life to defend it in this era of global terrorism (which can strike anywhere), then you probably don't carry a jack and a spare tire in the trunk of your automobile, either. Dumbshit!
Getting back to the quote above, I don't consider it an act of concern "for the good of (my) fellow citizens" to give up my weapon(s).
Those folks back East, who remark nonchalantly about the Second Amendment as if it were an inconsequential option, are far too trusting in their Police Departments for my taste. I've seen the cops in my little college town, and they are fat, dumb and happy. They don't expect things to 'go wrong' .. instantly, without warning, and fatally.
See Florida, and California, and El Salvador.
(By the way, these are 'places' where Gun Control is often The Law Of The Land)
And while I'm not a 'one-eyed fat man', I admit to being outspoken on the issue of self-defense.
BOTH my eyes are functional. *
During his first official visit to Bangladesh, Secretary of State John Kerry held a press conference and addressed the threat of terrorism.
Kerry offered a novel way to combat terrorism, suggesting that the media would “do us all a service” if they didn’t cover it “quite as much.
Kerry, who proposed himself and was awarded a Purple Heart for 'a hangnail', (actually a scratch, when he fired an M79 Grenade Launcher at a non-target which was too close, and suffered a slight wound from his own round) has chosen to exercise the duties of his office as Secretary of State by placing the blame for the world's Terrorism Woes on the media ... he sees the problem not as an indication of too much violence by terrorists, but too much coverage by the press.
In the meantime, Kerry has nothing to offer as a resolution to the world-wide problem of terrorism.
Well, that's not his job, is it?
“No country is immune from terrorism," Kerry said at a press availability in Dhaka, Bangladesh, on Monday. "It’s easy to terrorize. Government and law enforcement have to be correct 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. But if you decide one day you’re going to be a terrorist and you’re willing to kill yourself, you can go out and kill some people. You can make some noise. Perhaps the media would do us all a service if they didn’t cover it quite as much. People wouldn’t know what’s going on.”
Since Kerry seems to think that his job is too hard, perhaps President Obama might consider finding some one who is 'fit to command'. Certainly, some idiot who thinks the 'solution' is for the public to not "know what's going on" doesn't strike most readers as someone who has proposed a real solution for a problem which he doesn't even understand.
Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton reacted on America's Newsroom, slamming Kerry's comments:
“If you really think that less publicity would help reduce the terrorist threat, then really after you should apply for a job after you are secretary of state to be editor-in-chief of “The Onion”,” Bolton said, referring to the satirical newspaper.
There is an unsubstantiated rumor going around that Kerry applied for a job with "The Onion", but his application was rejected as being insufficiently credible.
David Correa draws our attention to an 'incident' in Oregon where a single-mom and her children came home to find a man hiding in her closet. (See the link for details.)
She shot him dead.
SOME PEOPLE LIKE TO THINK that the only time you are justified in armed defense is when you KNOW your invader is armed and you KNOW that he intends to do harm.
Those people are a dying subspecies: they do not take into account the natural instincts of a Mother.
DELAWARE, Ohio — Donald J. Trump is not popular in this prospering county north of Columbus. The Republican nominee’s dystopian language does not resonate here. Signs that read “Now Hiring” outnumber “Trump” campaign placards. But many residents of this reliably Republican county, which last voted for a Democratic president in 1916, simply cannot imagine voting for Mr. Trump’s Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton. And that goes a long way toward explaining why she has struggled to separate herself from Mr. Trump in this bellwether state.
I don't blame the good citizens of Red Ohio County for their dyslexic choices in the upcoming Presidential Election.
I guess it depends on which dystopian choices you find least impalpable ... and which candidate you choose to represent those choices.
Abolition of natural reproduction. Human embryos are raised artificially in "hatcheries and conditioning centres".
Educating children by the hypnopaedic process, which provides each with appropriate subconscious messages to mould the child's self-image appropriate to their caste.
Discouragement of critical thinking.
Discouragement of individual action and initiative
An abundance of material goods. However (presumably because of advanced technology) conditions of work are not onerous, in contrast to the contemporaryMetropolis in which the workers are forced to arduous exertions. To maintain the World State's command economy, citizens are conditioned to promote consumption (and hence production) with platitudes such as "ending is better than mending".
In "1984", the choices are subtly different ... but perhaps not SO different:
Nineteen Eighty-Four, often published as 1984, is a dystopian novel by English author George Orwell published in 1949.[1][2] The novel is set in Airstrip One (formerly known as Great Britain), a province of the superstate Oceania in a world of perpetual war, omnipresent government surveillance and public manipulation, dictated by a political system euphemistically named English Socialism (or Ingsoc in the government's invented language, Newspeak) under the control of a privileged elite of the Inner Party, that persecutes individualism and independent thinking as "thoughtcrime."[3]The tyranny is epitomised by Big Brother, the Party leader who enjoys an intense cult of personality but who may not even exist. The Party "seeks power entirely for its own sake. It is not interested in the good of others; it is interested solely in power."
The problem is .. which dystopian world should be assigned to which current candidate?
It's a vexing question, and your choice would be as private as your vote.
BOTH worlds discourage "Critical Thinking" (sound familiar?).
CLINTON's Democratic background seems to lean toward "abundance of material goods" in that the welfare society is one of the mainstays THE Mainstay of the Democratic party; pointing toward the "Brave New World" schematic.
For myself, if I HAD to make a choice, I would consider Hillary Clinton as the Avatar of that 'party'.
TRUMP's isolationism seems more of the "1984" variety, although the "... privileged elite of the Inner Party ..." resonates for both candidates. However, while the "Cult of Personality seems to be critical to both candidates, I'm inclined to nudge that caste toward Trump more than Clinton for the sole reason that Clinton at least has a history in Government, while Trump has nothing more than his financial success and his personality. (Such as it is ... and it isn't much!)
Still, you need to weigh "English Socialism" on his side, as Trump is on the record as resistant to non-english-speaking-peoples emigrating freely to America.
On the other hand, "1984" promotes a Socialistic Society, which is much more congruent to Clinton than Trump.
Or is it? I'm not sure, but I wouldn't trust either of them if they were given the reins of power.
Not to suggest that EITHER CANDIDATE HAS A PERSONALITY ... at least in the sense that you would want to take them home to meet your mother!
But BIG BROTHER is all about Trump; not saying he's a bully, but Clinton seems much more ... nuanced ... in her drive toward Total Thought Control.
And she is quite as much of a bully as Trump, except she seems more comfortable in that role. Let's put that down to 'experience'; after all, she bullied President Bill Clingon Clinton for eight years (although with little success in suppressing his excesses.)
=========
So there you have it.
Clinton is the "Brave New World" candidate, while Trump is the "1984" Candidate.
Or the other way around; it doesn't much matter, because if you just watch their lips you see that Trump is the liar with the fat lips, and Clinton is the liar with the thin lips.
I see both candidates as One Giant Step Forward toward a Dystopian Society, and I don't like it at all, at all, at all.
Any group of responsible individuals which can't find a reason to vote for either candidate has my sincere appreciation for their judgement, and my great sorrow for their lack of choices.
Oh, and why oh WHY, in this nation of nearly a billion peoples, can we not find Presidential Candidates which are not only electable, but admirable? My Dear God, have we sunk this low?
The fact is many high government officials do not believe that the average American citizen DESERVES protection from international or homegrown terrorism, or common criminals.
That's true; for various values of truth ... and I think it deserves a place in the Gun Blogger's Hall of Fame.
I'm declaring this "Murphy's Law" (with apologies to the movie by the same name, which was .. not so much of a much).
Someone may come up with a more terse version, but I don't think it can be much improved upon.
If I were to put it into a general case, rather than the specific, I might suggest:
Government officials do not believe that American citizens DESERVE protection from terrorists or criminals.
And thanks to my VERY good friend ANONYMOUS for continuing his fine tradition of helping me to make the point when I labor clumsily against the language.
The NRA is making a (relatively) Big Splash on recent state efforts to require that every bullet, and every cartridge case, carry an unique serial number which (supposedly) can lead crime investigators to identify the person who purchased the ammunition used in a crime.
I say "supposedly', because the proposal has exactly zero chance of (a) aiding crime investigators and (b) being enacted for any purpose other than infringing on America's Second Amendment.
America's 1st Freedom | The Truth About Illinois’ Ammo Serial Numbering Scheme: Do you like to hunt or shoot? If so, hang onto your wallet, because ammunition could soon become prohibitively expensive if some Democrat lawmakers get their way. An Illinois state representative wants to impose a scheme that’s not only been proven to be a multi-million-dollar failure at solving crimes, but could also make ammunition unaffordable for honest citizens*, while leaving criminals—who make millions dealing drugs, guns and (if this legislation is passed) ammunition—untouched. And don’t just shrug if you don’t live in Illinois: As Fox News reports, similar bills are pending in at least 20 states.
The curious thing is, this isn't the first time this proposal has been aired. And back in 2008, when it first was caught in the spotlight, I spent some serious blogging time exploring the whys and the wherefores.
Here is a link to my accumulated list of blog articles. It's long, because the subject is complex, but it might mention a few issues which haven't been mentioned in a brief NRA warning message. (Feel free to skim through it; not all of the issues are mentioned in only a single article.)
Here's a brief summary:
It would be financially impossible for ammunition manufacturers to reliable encode each bullet with the case bearing the same unique identifying number ... let's call it "ID" for simplicity.*
Packaging at the plant would be a vital, yet labor-intensive step because if one bullet/case combination got into a package with a different ID, the manufacturer would (probably) be liable to civil suit in case one round was used during the commission of a crime, and the wrong person was arrested based on this scheme.*
Even that is a "mega-event', because the technology to match a bullet with the case bearing the same ID is not currently available.*
...WHICH IS EVEN MORE complex, because the original scheme proposed that the bullet would have the ID engraved on the BASE of the bullet ... which suggests that the "Quality Control Survey" would necessarily take place before the bullet was loaded into the case. So much for Mass Production Technology.*
The cost of such intensive quality control and inspection* (remember these are tiny little numbers, even it can be made to happen with the machinery) would require minutes per round, rather than the less-than-a-second progress which modern manufacturing technology provides.
The cost of the complete cartridge would therefore be magnified* by a factor of .. oh, a thousand? A two-cent cartridge would cost you two dollars, because bullshit-factor.
Ultimately, manufacturers of complete ammunition would refuse to upset their entire industry, and therefore their ammunition would NOT be sold to states with this kind of absurd legal requirements.
WHICH IS THE POINT OF THE EXERCISE!
These states aren't trying to "Solve Crimes"*; they're trying to do an end-run on the Second Amendment of the Constitution.
(PS: What happens when you reload your own ammunition? In 'these states', there's a bit of a problem because you can't GET bullets with the same serial number as the cartridge case you're reloading!)
I'm pretty sure this is what the NRA is saying in their article, but they can't go into such fine detail as I can because (a) they're professionals, and (b) they assume everyone else can figure it out for themselves, and (c) they hope their warning-article will be read.
On this, the 15th Anniversary of America's most deadly attack on home soil, it has become increasingly obvious that our elected officials on any but the local level have not the resources, the determination, nor the will to protect Americans in our homeland. It falls upon us each and every one to "provide for our common defense" because the people who begged us to elect them to high office have thrown us to the wolves ... apparently on the basis of the "We Will Eat You Last" philosophy.
WASHINGTON — U.S. Sen. Chris Murphy on Thursday took a deep dive into the interwoven worlds of the gun-rights movement and gunmakers, saying anti-government “neo-anarchist’’ Republicans are aligned with a firearms industry desperate to sell more guns to a shrinking customer base.
Funny, there are so many NEW purchasers of firearms that the number of gun owners has become significantly skewed even MORE to the right. And although HE cannot protect us, he begrudges us the right to do the job that he can't won't do:
... Murphy said hostility to government has become a right-wing standard, especially since the election of the nation’s first black president, Barack Obama, in 2008. ... “In an era where anti-government positioning is a hallmark of the modern right, it shouldn’t surprise anyone that increasingly Republicans are absolutist in their views on the right of citizens to own guns,” Murphy said. “They want to preserve the right of revolution as a means of showing how much they truly hate the current government, administered by President Barack Obama.”
Actually, while Constitutionalists despise all attempts to undermine the Second Amendment, and they disdain the pathetic efforts of our current President to impose a socialist system of federal and economic systems ... the only gripe is that Obama has proved himself incompetent (or unwilling) to fulfill the duties of his office.
We just want a President who executes "The Rule Of Law" rather than "The Rule Of Fiat".
The gun industry, which already markets guns based on the need for self-defense at home, was only too happy to oblige, Murphy said. “Only one-third of Americans today are buying guns, as opposed to half of Americans 30 years ago, meaning that the industry is reliant on a smaller number of gun owners buying large caches of expensive weapons like the AR-15,” he said. “The number of buyers has shrunk, so the simple solution, the industry realized, is to just sell more weapons to this smaller-sized market.”
Um .. firearms sales are going up, in spite of the rapid increase of firearms ownership since the Democrats took office. President Obama has already been hailed as "The Best Salesman In History" for the Firearms industry. Every time the President speaks against the Second Amendment, more people rush out to buy guns for fear that He Who Will Be Obeyed might impose some arbitrary draconian edict which limits our Constitutional Rights.
Murphy thinks we're arming against Obama? He's no threat, except that he is quite earnest in undermining our Constitution. We're actually more concerned about the growing trend toward Domestic Terrorism, against which there IS no defense except that the common man be able to defend himself, his home, his family ...
The market is almost saturated now; most people who think they might want or need one have already "got theirs", and until those new owners learn that firearms are worth having for reasons other than home defense (hunting, competition), there should be a slump in sales. But it hasn't happened yet.
Another aspect of the anti-government marketing strategy, Murphy said, is convincing gun owners law enforcement cannot protect them against terrorist attacks.
If Americans ever had any faith that the Obama Administration might be effective in protecting Citizens against terrorist acts, that faith has been drowned in the blood of innocents since Obama took office.
Murphy's tirade against honest Americans is not due to the increased show of independence against Terrorists; it's due to the increased demonstration that we are not ALL willing to be obedient to the false claims of Government that they can protect us, when it is so painfully that they cannot do so, and they will not even try.
And if anything, it's worse than You may read here: The Los Angeles
Murphy is America's own "Baghdad Bob"
You remember him? He's the Iraqi leader ("Foreign Minister") who promised that Americans are not, and never will be, in Iraq:
Murphy is in the same state of denial. He is the joke, but nobody's laughing.
The politicians don't want us to own guns, even for the express purpose of defending ourselves, family, friends, community, even against the increasing terrorist attacks against which no government forces can or will stand between us and our self-declared enemies.
Ignore the Murphys who are not for us, but are against us.
It's your family, your community, your country at risk. Do whatever you think you have to do.
COLUMBIA, S.C. -- A South Carolina sheriff says a father told deputies he was trying to make sure a gun was safe when he accidentally fired the weapon, killing his 2-year-old daughter and wounding her 4-year-old sister.
I don't know what to make of this horrible story.
Not only that there are few details available, apart from the above quote (and a few incidental comments in the original story), but I cannot comprehend WHY he was fumbling with his firearm.
We don't know why he was touching the gun, or where; was he in a car, where the gun was kept, and he had grown nervous about having his daughters in the car where a loaded gun was kept? I don't know.
One thing I DO know is ... a responsible gun owner doesn't touch a gun without a good reason. It should always be in a 'safe' condition, where-ever it is, and the gun owner should always know that it's "safe" (for various values of "safe").
Assuming the firearm was a handgun ... not that it matters ... he violated ALL the rules of gun safety.
(1) He KNEW the gun was loaded ... how was he trying to 'make it safe'?
(2) He had the gun pointed at the most precious people in his world
(3) He had his finger on the trigger ... else it would not have "... just ... it went off! ..."
(4) He had no target, nor intention to shoot, but he had his gun pointed at his daughters?
That first part is the most curious; what was he doing to "make sure (the) gun was safe"?
Set the safety? Unload it? Store it in a locked case? Any or all of these actions should have already been done before he touched it.
My guess is, either one of two things:
. He had only recently acquired the gun, and wasn't familiar with the rules of gun safety; or
. He had the gun in a car, and only began to worry about it AFTER his daughters had entered the car.
Probably wrong about both of these guesses, but one thing is for sure:
SOME PEOPLE SHOULD NEVER HAVE A GUN!
I don't know what kind of punishment The State should impose on this ... person; but I suspect there is no punishment which would be worse than the HELL which he will put himself through for the rest of his life.
He will never be forgiven ... by his family, or by himself.
Spurred by the recent killings of three teenagers in Mukilteo, state Attorney General Bob Ferguson will propose legislation next year to ban the sale of assault-style weapons and high-capacity magazines in Washington.
Ferguson announced his proposal Wednesday, flanked by the parents of a fourth Mukilteo victim, who was seriously injured, as well as dozens of Democratic legislators and officials.
The legislation, which has not yet been written, would ban semi-automatic assault-style weapons — like the AR-15 rifle that police say was used by the 19-year-old accused gunman in Mukilteo in July — as well as any magazine that holds more than 10 rounds of ammunition.
“Military-style weapons are designed for killing people,” Ferguson said. “These weapons have no place in civilian use.”
If it need be said, none of the restrictions he proposes would have prevented this tragedy. Ferguson is merely following the Style Book of the Democratic Party, which has leeched itself to Gun Control as the "New Democrat" talking point as typified by Hillary Clinton's willingness to vilify honest firearms owners in defiance of the Second Amendment of the Constitution.
The measures he proposes are cut-and-paste from the Bloomberg/Democratic Game Plan, and have generally been dismissed as being nothing more than smoke and mirrors ... except in the few states (eg: California, New York) where the resident Pols feel they need nothing more than a thin veneer of justification for proposing laws which usurp the Second Amendment Rights of Free Americans.
POLITICS:
Ferguson is a 'marginal' Democratic politician ... but representative of this year's Donkey Kong politicians.
He needs an "issue" for his next campaign, and apparently he has focused on this one. he campaigned hard to get where he is:
There is no excuse for the kind of adolescent rage which resulted in the death of three teens and wounding of another. It's difficult impossible to understand.
But after all the tragedy and the pain of loss, it's all too obvious that a politician considers any newsworthy reportage as fair game to further his own personal political career.
The IRS is refusing to recant the targeting criteria it used to single out tea party groups for intrusive scrutiny, according to court filings made public Wednesday that show the tax agency still struggling with the fallout from the scandal.
... and the Federal Government is just fine with a Rogue Agency which arbitrarily imposes significant burdens on groups based on their political affiliation.
Surprise! "They" have been quite up-front and open about their refusal to perform their sworn duty, which is to uphold the law. (Arrogantly so, because they know they have the reins of power and the Public (you and me, etc.) is too ignorant, ill-informed, and/or complaisant to do anything about it.)
That doesn't mean that the Obama Administration is the most FAIR administration.
The mission of the Executive Branch of government is to execute (uphold) the law of the land.
When that branch refuses to perform its sworn duty, what is a poor naive populace to do?
Amy Schumer has said she will leave the country if Donald Trump is elected US President. The actress and comedian is currently in the UK as part of a tour. "My act will change because I'll need to learn to speak Spanish because I will move to Spain, or somewhere. It's beyond my comprehension if Trump won. It's too crazy," she said.
As of this moment Trump has MY vote. If it saves just one child ....
When GW Bush was running for president, HUGE Hollywood Stars (Baldwin, Streissand) made the same promise. Bush was elected, and Baldwin DIDN'T LEAVE THE COUNTRY! That was such a huge disappointment to me.
I wonder what in the make-believe world of Hollywood Celebrities makes them so arrogant that they believe 'real people' really care what they say, think, or do.
Academy Award-winning actress Susan Sarandon says "anywhere but here" if Republican John McCain wins November's election. She says she will "be checking out a move to Italy. Maybe Canada, I don't know. We're at an abyss."
However, celebrities in the past do not have a stellar track record of making good on threats to flee if their candidate loses. Numerous stars vowed to pack up if George W. Bush won the 2000 election, including Barbara Streisand, Martin Sheen, Alec Baldwin and even Sarandon's long-time boyfriend Tim Robbins.
Consider This "News Photo" published on "The Mirror":
"The woman, believed to be be a member of the Yazidi-Kurdish minority, shot dead senior Islamic State commander Abu Anas, according to Iraqi satellite TV network Alsumaria News"
Never mind the text of the news article:
... it's unrelated to the photo, except that the photo suggests to demonstrate a female firing a "machine gun" which may or may not have had anything to do with the headline. Look at the belt!
There are three rounds in the extended belt .... in alternating loops feeding the gun. WTF?
You can't feed a belt-fed machine gun when there's a break in the belt!
Then there are a series of empty loops (or links). Then there is a six foot length of belt dragging through the dirt until it's draped over a short wall of sandbags.
This is obviously not a .50 caliber (12.7mm) M2 Machine Gun ... looks like an M60 (7.62mm) variant, but there's still a LONG length of 'links' trailing out of the gun, and the M60 (also M2) don't leave a chain of links on the 'ejection' side of the gun. They spew out "one at a time" to the right side of the gun, scattering indiscriminately.
Nobody runs a crew-served weapon without the Assistant Gunner, whose jobs include:
hump extra ammunition,
ensure that the feed of ammunition to the gun is not interrupted by failure to link the next belt to the in-gun belt;
identify and direct fire to priority targets;
let the gunner know when the barrel is overheating;
with the gunner, help replace the barrel when it gets too hot; and
MAKE SURE THE AMMUNITION ISN'T FOULING THE GUN by introducing plant fibers, dust/dirt or other environmental elements at the gun site.
That last part includes not dragging the feeder-belt through the muck and the blood and the dirt .. which will jam a hot crew-served weapon faster than you can say "Oh, Drat!"
Sure, the photo wouldn't be possible if you had an AG crouched on the left side of the gun; you wouldn't be able to see the gun. And it's a much more dramatic photo with a single brave female gunner, with a chain of ammunition dragging through the dust and a chain of links (ammunition expended) on the right side of the gun.
It's just ... wrong!
It offends my sense of right, for the cause of presenting a very dramatic photograph supporting the theme of the story.
I see and hear a lot of talk about how a national gun registration and/or confiscation would be the trigger that would spark a second American Revolution, as patriots rise up to resist the jackbooted thugs who are going door-to-door taking away people’s arms.
I have bad news for everyone who’s waiting for national registration or a mass confiscation so they can get their armed rebellion on: a national database of gun owners already exists, and a national confiscation effort will never happen. Ever. Instead, you’ll hand over your firearms peacefully. All of them, even the ones you paid cash for to some random guy on Armslist in the dead of night.
Wow!
You should go read this article and then ... read the comments!
My surprise wasn't so much that I found people who considered their Constitutional Rights to be the center and the soul of America; my surprise was that so many people declared themselves prepared to actually shoot at federal officers (or other minions) who might knock on their door and announce: "Hello, I'm from The Government and I'm here to survey your firearms inventory".
I don't know about you, Pal, but if they come to take my Iver Johnson .22 pistol, I'm gonna have it all boxed up and labelled "To Whom It May Concern".
I've got a wife, and three kids, and I work in a Button-Pushing Factory. When my boss says "Hey, You, Push This Button With Your Left Hand", that's what I do. I need my job, I love my family, and I don't want any trouble.
“I could have lost my family, I could have lost my career,” said Marlon Jones, an assistant fire chief with the Unified Fire Authority of Salt Lake County, Utah. Jones says he was falsely charged with felonies related to doctor shopping as a result of a warrantless search by local police in Cottonwood Heights.
Investigators were looking into the theft of prescription drugs from area ambulances. With no suspects, no probable cause and no warrant, a police officer working the case logged into Utah’s controlled substance database and searched the prescription drug records for all 480 fire department employees. “I had no idea that a police officer, just on a whim, could go into my medical records and then determine what’s appropriate, in his opinion,” recounted Ryan Pyle, a fellow firefighter paramedic whose prescription records got swept up in the same warrantless search.
There are situations where other health-care providers need to know your medical history, and what prescription drugs you have been taking; this is a separate issue from law-enforcement people using your medical history in an attempt to find someone ... anyone! ... to prosecute.
There's no solution to this problem, except that if you discover that law enforcement officers have access to your medical history, and they intend to use that history to prosecute you, then you should raise holy hell.
If the police use your prescription history against you in court, your lawyer should move that any information attained by this illegal access should not be admissible in court.
We've talked about privacy issues again. This is just another way in which well-meaning officials can use medical information against you.
Felons are exempt from the laws which require people to declare ownership of firearms, which felons are legally forbidden to possess. This is a similar violation of the Fifth Amendment .. if not actually, then at least potentially. See HAYNES V UNITED STATES which protects felons from prosecution from self-incrimination if they fail to register a gun which they are not legally allowed to own!
FBI Director James Comey .... wants to assure us that there's nothing to see here, we should just move on.
In the meantime, he wants to invade our private conversations because he can.
Not because he should, not because we agree to his invasion of our privacy, but because he can;
if he can break the code; since when must we count on Iphone security codes rather than the Constitution to protect our right to privacy?
He wants to have an "adult conversation"? Then he should put on his Big Boy Pants and understand that just because that's what he WANTS, that doesn't necessarily mean he can HAVE IT!
Because Constitution. Because WARRANT. Because SEARCH AND SEIZURE.
Say I live on Rural Route 12, and my mailbox is a big tin thing with a red flag on the side. If that flag is up, the mailman knows to stop and collect from my outbasket. That's okay, that's his job and he's not reading my mail.
When you take my letters out of my mailbox, pal, you better have gone before a judge and presented a valid reason to do so. And that judge needs to give you a warrant. One for me, one for my neighbor, one for the stranger who just moved in down the road. Specific cases ... not some broadly imprecise, the-whole-world "I need to read everybody's mail, 'cause one of them might be part of a conspiracy".
It's my mail, and you can't have it. Consider that my final offer, except for the shotgun I use to keep the fox out of the henhouse. And you're looking might red just now, pal.
Watch while the animals find, then surround, then take down their prey.
(The video is from a commentator on Codrea's article.)
Watch them as they abuse his unconscious body, then taking his trousers and shoes, passing them around to be tossed into the air as if they were trophies. They first take down their prey, then they violate his sanctity, then they violate his humanity. Then they abuse his body with kicks ad punches, pick him up and toss his corpse in the air, in apparent glee.
And at some point during the killing frenzy their prey ... dies.
There may have been some time between the fatal knockout blow and his death for someone to call for an ambulance. Nobody in this video wanted that. They wanted to kill him, and were delighted at their success.
What are the odds, eight to one? Hard to tell from this fuzzy video.
I've never seen anything more horrifying than this short scene.
Acclaimed singer Barbra Streisand is joining the list of disgruntled celebrities threatening to leave America if Donald Trump is elected president. She made the comments during an interview with Sydney-based journalist Michael Usher during an Australian news program broadcast on Sunday.
Anyone who considers the 5.56mm/.223 caliber M15 (SEMI-automatic) rifle a "Powerful Weapon" is either an ignoramus, or a Politician.
But I repeat myself.
Democrats, of course, have largely avoided the issue for many years, fearing the electoral consequences of being outgunned by the N.R.A. But in the wake of high-profile mass shootings involving powerful weapons — including a few committed by murderers with apparent terrorist leanings — and notorious killings by and of police officers in a number of cities, the party apparently thinks voters are ready to say that enough is enough. Clinton is said to be committed to making new gun restrictions a central theme of her campaign, and her choice for vice president of Sen. Tim Kaine, a former governor of Virginia who has long advocated stricter gun laws, lends credence to that scenario.
"Credence" my ...
Hillary, that bold political move is going to come back and bite you on the ..... oh, but I repeat myself.
