|
Jul 28 2022 07:04PM
|
| |
When Will They Learn?
When will Americans learn not to go to Russia, Iran, and North Korea?
Going to a wedding, like Paul Whelan says he was doing? Fuck that! Send a nice gift and stay home.
Play sports for money, like Griner? Not enough money in the world to make it worth chancing a trip to Siberian hard labor for 10 years or more, IF you even survive the sentence in the shitty conditions there.
I am so tired of seeing these people used as leverage to get us to release dangerous criminals or pay some other kind of ransom.
Their relatives get on TV and cry and whine about how the President needs to save these idiots.
Even a President can't fix stupid.
I want to see Biden get on TV and tell all Americans "Get the fuck out, and don't ever go back. And if you go there now, the US won't do fuck-all to get you back. - Enough of this shit!"
18 comments
|
|
Jun 23 2022 11:58AM
|
| |
SCOTUS and Concealed Carry
The Supreme Court has decided 6-3 that New York State�s regulations on who can get a permit for concealed carry are unconstitutional.
Of course, some liberal hysterics are now saying that SCOTUS has decided �anyone can carry a firearm anywhere without restriction� and some folks on the opposite end of the spectrum are saying that SCOTUS just passed �constitutional carry�. Both statements are untrue.
The following is really long, but it is good info without all the partisan hype. I hope it is useful.
The US Supreme Court did not have a problem with applicant requirements like being mentally competent, being of legal age, and being free from certain types of criminal convictions that can be determined by the state.
They did have a problem with some government authority deciding who has a �special need� for concealed carry and who doesn�t, which is part of the New York framework the Court just struck down. (Five other states also have similar �special need� clauses, including California.) Laws that are arbitrary from one person to the next, or from one public official to the next, tend to be on shaky grounds with the Constitution. The 14th Amendment guarantees �equal protection� under the law and the 5th Amendment requires �due process�. Leaving a concealed-carry permit approval up to subjective judgment violates both principles.
SCOTUS now says states can have a permitting process, but the rules for denying a permit must be spelled out, based on non-subjective criteria and applied consistently. Those rules must rely on verifiable facts, not on some government official�s opinion. For instance, a state might deny CC permits on the basis of criminal convictions. If a misdemeanor conviction for negligent discharge of a firearm makes a person ineligible for a concealed-carry permit, then nobody with that conviction can have one, regardless of where they live or how some local sheriff feels about it. On the other hand, if the applicant meets the legal requirements, the permit can�t be denied on some subjective basis, like �poor character� or �insufficient need�.
As for which convictions would be legitimate grounds for denying a CC permit, I am sure there will be arguments about that. A state like California might decide that 3 speeding tickets shows a person is irresponsible and reckless, and therefore should not be allowed a CC permit. Another state might say that only felony convictions for violence or certain misdemeanor convictions that are firearm-related should bar issuance of a CC permit. That could be a whole different SCOTUS case, and probably will be someday, in my humble opinion.
Also, what about training requirements? How much training would be too much, placing an �undue burden� on people getting the permit?
Additionally, California has a bill that would require gun owners to have special liability insurance not required by other people. Considering most gun owners never have anything �bad� happen with their guns, is that a reasonable requirement for the exercise of a constitutional right? Probably not. Another SCOTUS case, maybe.
In summary, SCOTUS decided that states must use verifiable, objective criteria for not issuing concealed-carry permits. This has the practical effect of making all the states use a criteria of �shall issue unless legally barred by verifiable information laid out in statute�, while banning the criteria of �may issue on the basis of special need, if we decide to�. The majority opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas states the Court is unhappy with the way the federal appeals courts have been letting states treat the 2nd Amendment right as a �lesser right� than the others such as free speech, right to an attorney and so forth. The majority opinion states there is no justification for this.
Personally, I generally identify as a liberal, but I agree with SCOTUS on this one.
We are supposed to be a nation of laws, with certain constitutional rights guaranteed to us all, equally. That whole �special need� for a concealed carry permit opened the door to special treatment for some and it gave too much power to state and county bureaucracies to deny peoples� rights.
Here is a link to the actual decision itself.
30 comments
|
|
Jul 18 2021 03:59PM
|
| |
Joe Blow a Scientist Now?
I have seen several Joe Blows on TV saying they are not getting vaccinated because they "haven't seen the science".
This makes me ask several questions.
Mr. Blow, just what scientific data would you like to see that you are actually qualified to evaluate?
Mr. Blow, are you aware that out of 157,000,000 Americans fully vaccinated, there have only been about 5,200 that have gotten sick enough from COVID to be hospitalized? That is about 0.003%.
Mr. Blow, out of the 18,000 COVID deaths in May, about 150 were in vaccinated people. That is about 0.8%, meaning 99.2% of the deaths were in UN-vaccinated people.
Mr. Blow, you say you want the science. Well, the science is playing out right in front of us. The 'experimental' group is the one with the vaccine in their blood. The 'control' group is the unvaccinated population. The laboratory is daily life all around us.
The lab result is pretty clear, happening out there in the real world. - Not theories, not egghead scientific papers, not some two-faced politician blathering this or that. Real life and death results right there for us to see.
But hey, if you still want to listen to other Joe Blows or online chat rooms and take your chances, that is fine with me.
In fact, Mr. Blow, since you like ignoring real world math and statistics, how about you and me, we play some poker for real cash? And don't listen to all those elitist math people who say you should play the odds. Just bet lots of money whenever you 'feel' lucky.
We'll have a great game, I am sure, so bring lots of money! 
13 comments
|
|
Jun 14 2021 11:19AM
|
| |
Serious About Gun Deaths?
According to the US Dept. of Justice, about 60% of all grown-ass-people firearm deaths are suicides.
So if all these people hollering for gun control were really serious about saving lives in the GREATEST NUMBER, the focus would be on making some fucking serious efforts about suicide prevention.
How many people commit suicide with an AR-15 or an AK-47? Pretty much nobody!
And while mass shootings are covered heavily in the media, they actually represent a very small percentage of gun deaths.
The cause behind THE MAJORITY of gun deaths gets no play at all!
Ridiculous.
18 comments
|
|
Sep 27 2019 06:22AM
|
| |
Impeachment 2
***
Now let's suppose this scenario had been Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, working under President Barack Obama. Hillary is talking to the Israeli ambassador. The Ambassador asks when we are giving them their next huge military aid package.
And Hillary says, "We want a favor, though. Your prosecutors should be more vigorous in investigating some of these corruption allegations against Prime Minister Netanyahu." And she works that same statement into the conversation 7 more times.
Anyone really believe that would not have blown the roof off the Republican-controlled Congress at the time? That would not even be interfering in an American election, but I am sure Speaker Ryan would have been calling for the heads of both Clinton and Obama.
************
Now, as to some questions on what actually DID happen ...
Why did Trump want to involve his personal lawyer, Guliani, in the proposed investigation? Giulianai has no actual position in the US government. He is a Trump political operative.
And if this was such a routine conversation, why was it stored on a super-secret, separate, personal server?
In the transcript, the Ukraine guy says he wants to get more US Javelin missiles. Trump responds, 'Yeah, we have been really good to you. I want a favor, though.' - And then Trump proceeds to tell him 8 times that the Ukraine government should investigate his political opponent's son. (Hunter Biden, son of Trump's election opponent Joe Biden.)
Then, when the Ukraine guy is asked on camera, with Trump sitting next to him, the Ukraine guy says 'I don't want to get involved' and looks like he was afraid his Daddy Trump was gonna bitch-slap him.
This is very clear pressure linked to the aid package. If Obama did this, the GOP would have impeached him in a heartbeat.
15 comments
|
|
Jul 1 2018 02:04PM
|
| |
Feet
Good lord, ladies ...
If you MUST walk all over in your bare feet, out in the yard, out to the mail box, getting them all dirty, then PLEASE WASH those clodhoppers before you have company over. (And before you take photos.)
Geez!
15 comments
|
|
