July 27, 2012

So I've read on DU recently.

Therefore, brandishing a convincing gun replica would be sufficient in many situations.

Self defense, then, is not entirely dependent on the ability to kill or wound.

Good info, thanks.

It seems reasonable, then, that the ability to kill or wound a lot of people in a short amount of time (say, 70 people in <3 minutes, just to pick a random scenario) would be necessary for self defense only in a very, very small number of situations, if ever.

I would argue that Second Amendment advocates and detractors alike have common ground in drastically reducing the opportunities for people to kill large numbers of other people in a short amount of time.

July 24, 2012

But what about that knife attack

at the movie theater in Worcester? You know, the one where the nutcase killed 12 people in 2 minutes and wounded 58 more? I heard when his knife broke he switched to his hammer (purchased legally at Sears) and started going all Thor on everybody.

July 15, 2012

Thanks ever so for that constructive critcism....

Turns out I was wrong, though -- the Globe didn't get the scoop -- which has also been noted on DU. David Corn's July 2nd piece in Mother Jones beat the Globe by 10 days. And TPM covered this on July 10th as well.

Now, if you want to argue Obama campaign feed vs. investigative journalists researching public documents (the source, after all, is publicly available Securities and Exchange Commission filings -- here's one referenced in Corn's MJ piece, and TPM cited a couple, here and here), sure, it's possible that Corn and Josh Marshall (and Christopher Rowland and his colleagues at the BG) are not smart and diligent enough to dig up these public filings on their own -- that this whole thing started with a hot tip from the Obama campaign. Sure, that is possible. I am aware that political campaigns leak information to journalists -- it's been a few days since I fell off the turnip truck.

But the question this thread poses is this: Is this the right time for this information to come out? My contention, expressed in the post you responded to, is yes, it is an excellent time for this information to come out. And the Obama campaign is smart to hammer Romney on his Bain departure date because (and I'm not the first to come up with this analysis either ), not only is lying in filings to the SEC a crime, remaining at Bain past 1999 places him at the helm when the firm profited from the fetus-disposal company Stericycle, and may also reveal ethical and/or legal conflicts with his management of the Olympics.