Nuclear Unicorn
Nuclear Unicorn's JournalDebunking the myth of gun confiscation.
Nobody wants to take your guns -- they want you shot on sight.
Maybe if a few of these jackasses get taken down maybe some of the others stop being such assholes.
Gun owners in general are cowards, one or two times should be enough to have them cowering under their bed.
I say shoot them on sight , just to be safe. No sane person would carry a rifle around a grocery store. Only the insane and the criminally motivated. So, again, I say shoot them on sight, let their bodies rot in the streets as a message to other hell-bent gunners.
Nothing but good could come of this.
That gun can be readied and fired in only seconds. Best to just shoot them.
So stop being so paranoid!
Jack Johnson files for bankruptcy thanks to parents’ loans against contract
I'm not a hockey fan, I have no idea who Mr. Johnson is but this article made me audibly exhale with shock at what I read.
...
Aaron Portzline of the Columbus Dispatch reported on Thursday that Johnson filed for bankruptcy on Oct. 7, claiming assets of less than $50,000 and debts of more than $10 million. Sources tell Portzline that his debts could be closer to $15 million.
According to Cap Geek, Johnson’s made $20.9 million in his career on three NHL contracts; that money’s all but gone. His current one runs through 2018, and has him making $5 million a season; much of those future earnings have been ear-marked for repayment of loans. He’s had wages garnished from his paycheck from the Blue Jackets for last two seasons in order to settle one of three lawsuits he’s participated in.
The catalysts for this financial calamity are his parents, Jack Sr. and Tina Johnson. According to the paper, Johnson signed away his power of attorney to his mother after signing a 7-year deal with the Los Angeles Kings in 2011, three years after parting ways with super agent Pat Brisson.
She went on to borrow about $15 million in Johnson’s name via ridiculously high-interest loans.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/jack-johnson-files-for-bankruptcy-thanks-to-parents--loans-against-contract-154348457.html
And it gets worse, if you can believe it.
I'll tell you in 1 word why I won't vote for Hillary
Chelsea
Chelsea exemplifies everything that is wrong with our system incestuous political patronage. Whatever she may have achieved on her own merits there are plenty more who have accomplished just as much if not more but don't get to become multimillionaires within a few years working for hedge fund management firms (most are still working as no/low pay interns). The media gushes over her for her non-accomplishments and give her air time and favorable articles to do nothing memorable.
So why are all these corporations and media outlets heaping undeserved laurels -- and multi-million dollar commissions -- on Chelsea?
Hillary!
They took care of Chelsea so Hillary would take care of them. There is no other rationale. This is bribe-by-proxy.
I've no doubt I'll be flamed for this thread and those who do so will rely on the "but the GOP!" argument. But the GOP what? GOP control of the media? GOP corporate corruption? GOP cronyism? GOP class advantage over the poor and middle class?
A vte for Hillary is a vote to perpetuate this sad, sick, diseased, cancerous system.
What does this portend for future discussions of gun registries?
I saw this thread in GD (hat tip: Newsjock). Emphasis mine --
Source: Terre Haute Tribune-Star
Failed attempts to shut down illegal methamphetamine labs are sparking renewed efforts to require prescriptions for popular cold remedies and decongestants such as Sudafed.
Electronic tracking of over-the-counter cold medicines containing pseudoephedrine – the crucial ingredient in methamphetamine – hasn’t stopped the spread of meth labs as predicted. Last year, despite an electronic tracking system, Indiana led the nation in meth lab seizures, according to federal and state data.
...
Read more: http://www.tribstar.com/news/local_news/momentum-builds-to-stop-over-the-counter-sales/article_b824f3b4-2ea7-53b0-8160-035b995d496b.html
Where, then, is the efficacy of registries and microstamping?
Instead of voting on KXL to save Landrieu (sp?) why not a vote on immigration reform?
A KXL vote will split the party base and lead to a veto, whereas an immigration reform vote would show party solidarity and provide Obama the legislative foundation for his policies.
Buffalo PD checks death records and pistol permit records
"We recently started a program where we're cross referencing all the pistol permit holders with the death records, and we're sending people out to collect the guns whenever possible so that they don't end up in the wrong hands," said Police Commissioner Daniel Derrenda." Because at times they lay out there and the family is not aware of them and they end up just out on the street."
Some police agencies give families of the deceased permit holder 15 days to sell or transfer a weapon or weapons held with the permit to another permit holder or a dealer.
http://www.wgrz.com/story/news/local/downtown/2014/11/08/bpd-checks-death-records-and-pistol-permit-records/18741131/
15 days? Most probates aren't resolved in that time and assuredly once it can be established Person X is legally entitled to dispose of property for Decedent Y the police will more than likely exhaust the balance of the 15 days as an excuse to steal property from innocent people.
But don't call it gun grabbing.
House to vote on Cassidy Keystone bill
The Louisiana Senate runoff is reaching the U.S. Capitol.
The House will vote on a bill this week to approve the Keystone XL pipeline, in an attempt to force the Senate to take up the legislation. In a boldly political move, the bill will be sponsored by Rep. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), who will face Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) in a Dec. 6 runoff.
The decision comes one day after Senate Democrats signaled they might vote on Democratic language approving the pipeline to help boost Landrieu.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/bill-cassidy-keystone-vote-112825.html#ixzz3ItUaHLbY
U.S. states' pot legalization not in line with international law: U.N. agency
(Reuters) - Moves by some U.S. states to legalize marijuana are not in line with international drugs conventions, the U.N. anti-narcotics chief said on Wednesday, adding he would discuss the issue in Washington next week.
Residents of Oregon, Alaska, and the U.S. capital voted this month to allow the use of marijuana, boosting the legalization movement as cannabis usage is increasingly recognized by the American mainstream.
"I don't see how (the new laws) can be compatible with existing conventions," Yury Fedotov, executive director of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), told reporters.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/12/us-usa-drugs-un-idUSKCN0IW1GV20141112
Are we obligated to conform? If not, how does that impact other UN accords? If so, is Obama obligated to crack down?
It could have gone better -- it could have been a lot worse
Lover Boy, his father and sister and I were having one last cook-out this weekend. It's always a good time.
When the food was done we took everything inside and had a good meal, talked football and had a few laughs. When the dishes were being cleared my FIL made mention of a pair of books on our coffee table. One was written by Tolstoy the other is "Anarchy and Apocalypse: Essays on Faith, Violence, and Theodicy."
Lover Boy said that he feels he can no longer, in good conscience in general and as a matter of faith in particular, support the state -- any state. This came as quite the shock to my FIL. When Lover Boy and I were first dating we were polar opposites. He was the conservative veteran, I was the hippie chick Progressive. We have since met in the middle, IYKWIMAITYD. But for his father, an establishment Republican, this was quite a shock.
For every objection my FIL brought up Lover Boy politely rebutted. It was obvious my FIL was getting frustrated and that's when it happened.
My FIL said, "Dammit {son}, I would have expected this from her {meaning me}, not you."
Lover Boy flipped. He exploded, demanding to know what that meant.
My FIL insisted that he didn't mean anything by it. Personally, I kind of know what he meant but LB was livid. It's uncharacteristic for him. In the years we have been together he's never so much as raised his voice to me. In fact, the bigger the controversy between us the more measured his voice becomes. But this was different.
"That's my wife." I tried to calm him but his button couldn't be un-pushed. My FIL tried to apologize but it wasn't much use. He finally said it was time to go.
My SIL was in tears (she's just a kid and we spend most weekdays together and many weekends as well). I assured her everything was going to be fine, they just needed time to cool off.
As I saw them to their car my FIL came to me to apologize. I just put my hands around his neck and kissed him on the cheek. He apologized again and told me I was the best blessing to the family he could ever ask for.
When I went back inside LB was slumped on the couch. I straddled his lap and wrapped myself around him and we held each other until I felt the tension drain from him and then I held him some more.
LB called his father this morning. Everything is going to be fine. They apologized to each other and everything seems back to normal.
Still, it was pretty intense last night.
WRT: The oft repeated line, "Gun bans = less gun crime"
But do they lead to less violent crime? I keep seeing the claim bandied about and can't help but think it falls within the "lies, damned lies and statistics" category. The claim is always "fewer guns means less gun violence" never "fewer guns means less violence -- period."
It hardly seems an acceptable substitute to be murdered by stabbing, asphyxiation or bludgeoning than by shooting. Over 90% of violent sexual assaults are by an unarmed attacker (of the remaining 10% less than half of those -- around 3% overall -- are by an attacker with a gun). Most robbers, regardless of what they are armed with, want money, not corpses. Mass killers want notoriety and infamy (why not ban media coverage?) and cannot be deterred as far as the means for killing.
So, what good is it to ban 500,000 to 3 million defensive gun uses annually if actual criminal violence -- regardless of weapon employed -- does not decrease? Does it?
Profile Information
Member since: Wed Sep 16, 2009, 07:33 PMNumber of posts: 19,497
