Friday Open Thread

“A wise man can learn more from a foolish question than a fool can learn from a wise answer.”

–Bruce Lee

37 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. Voyageur says:

    We are watching helplessly as the early stages of what Lenin described as the "withering away of the state" unfold.  It is not pretty.

  2. Voyageur says:

    Social Security checks will still go out in a government shutdown, as will veteran's benefits.  However, it may be difficult for new retirees to get certified.  Thus spreaketh Social Security Administration.

  3. JohnInDenver says:

    Impacts — no budget for:

    Departments of State, Agriculture, Interior, Treasury, Justice, Commerce, Homeland Security, Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development and the Environmental Protection Agency,

    The unfunded agencies include the Peace Corps, the Small Business Administration, the General Services Administration, the National Archives and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

    Current guesses are about half of the employees are considered "essential," so they will need to work and will eventually get paid — but who knows when. The other half can hope Congress and the White House will follow the precedent of paying employees who were not essential — but who knows.  Nearly all contractors who work for the Departments and agencies will not get paid. [Labor costs for future contracts will price in the uncertainty.]

    I have not seen anyone explaining how the Secret Service will be able to pay for hotel rooms and golf cart rentals to cover the Trump vacation to Mar A Lago.  Presumably, the Government's credit is considered good, so those working can run up a tab on their credit cards and the Trump Organization can bill, but recognize it won't get paid immediately.

    • Early Worm says:

      If the "Trump Shutdown" becomes the "Trump Golf Vacation," the Republicans are going to have a hard time holding the line. Initially, all of Washington will get blamed for the shutdown and the dysfunction that caused it. But if Trump starts playing golf (adn lets face it, how long can he hold out?), it will be really bad for the Republicans. 

      • RepealAndReplace says:

        I kept thinking of that photo of Chris Christie sunbathing at the closed beach as New Jersey had a state government shutdown. We will eventually see Two Scoops playing golf at Mar-A-Lago.

        On a semi-related matter, the GoFundMe campaign to raise money for the wall is now at $12 million. Another $4,988,000,000 to go and they will have his $5,000,000,000. 

  4. Negev says:

    Vermont Red Flag law now used on innocent 3rd parties. It's just common sense. 

    • mamajama55 says:

      What could be less biased than a website named "Truth and Guns"?

      I don't really see a problem with the confiscation of guns from the relative. The young men had a clear plan to shoot a specific individual at their school; the guns they planned to use were in the relative's possession. It says that they were "locked up", but gun safes have combinations which are sometimes shared, and sometimes relatives like to show off their collections, bond with their young kin over guns and shooting,  and are reluctant to believe that deadly weapons can be used to actually cause death. I have some experience with this.

      If police had been able to confiscate the guns from Adam Lanza's mother, her life and those of 26 children and teachers would have been spared. She was supposed to have them "locked up", too.

      The statute could be tightened up to require proof that the guns are locked up; better yet, require "Smart guns" that can only be fired by the registered user. And license them like cars. Require insurance and big penalties for misuse.

      No doubt, the young men were expelled from school and had some legal consequences, too. Boo hoo. I'd much rather read about that then about another school shooting with multiple casualties.

      • Genghis says:

        When denuded of all the falderal and flummery, the hardcore ammosexual position essentially boils down to, "Regular and repeated mass murders are a small price to pay for me to do as I goddamn jolly well please vis-a-vis firearms." That sort of bone-deep sociopathy is 100% reason-impervious.

        • RepealAndReplace says:

          Bone-deep sociopathy?  It is something more basic. These folk are generally men who are insecure about the size of their endowment. Big powerful firearms make up for the small, dysfunctional gun nature has cursed them with.

      • RepealAndReplace says:

        Truth and Guns….

        You know who else knows the truth about guns? Tom Sullivan. And Tom Mauser. And Emma Gonzalez. And David Hogg.

        They know more of the truth about guns than these wackos who have a fetish for firearms.

        • Negev says:

          Looks like Emma and Hogg have been outvoted….Stoneman Douglas arming teachers. Apparently they DO know the truth about guns….

          • Curmudgeon says:

            Now, now, Negev…don't be jealous of kids who've actually been through the kind of action you only pretend at.  

          • JohnInDenver says:

            1.  The commissioners will allow teachers to volunteer to carry guns — they aren't arming teachers.

            2.  I wonder who picks up the insurance tab for teachers with guns on campus. No mention if the burden will fall on the district, the school, or the teachers.

            3.  Next time there is a vote of the population in the area, I'm betting there are some of those commissioners who lose their job.

    • Davie says:

      Oh my goodness.  Well hopefully, dozens of domestic violence gun deaths in states that don't have red flag laws will compensate for the inconvenience in this one case which appears the judge exercised his judgement in preventing a gun death in Vermont.

      Let's hear it for Negev and callous gun profiteering!

      For more info please check out: https://everytownresearch.org/issue/domestic-violence

       

      • Conserv. Head Banger says:

        I didn't see an "innocent third party" in that article. I saw a relative with the guns the kid wanted, and the kid said he knew how to get them.

        • Davie says:

          Exactly.  Why Negev thinks this or an earlier similar news clip from Gunz Ferever.com persuade anyone (not just on this site) is beyond me.

        • Negev says:

          So if the neighbors kid saw your hide-a-key stash and told his buddy at school he was going to steal your car and mow down the school band, you are ok with the police confiscating your car? 

          • mamajama55 says:

            The situations are not comparable. They would be comparable if I invited the neighbor kid in, bragged about my hide a key stash, and invited him to test drive my car. If I gave him the key or let him drive the car without having a license to do so, and he committed a crime with it, yes, the police would be justified in confiscating my car, at least temporarily. They would have to do so for evidence, anyway.

            I think the charge for me would be aiding and abetting a crime, or contributing to the delinquency of a minor, or abuse from a person in a position of trust (since I’m a teacher) or something along those lines.

            • Negev says:

              If the relative gave the kids guns and they committed a crime with them of course mama that's accessory to murder but that's not what happened:

              In this case, police seized the firearms of an individual who wasn’t part of the plot to commit the shooting. The un-named relative likely had no knowledge of the the teens’ plans.

              Aiding and abetting, contributing to the delinquency, or abuse from a person of trust would be crimes committed by this relative and they would be detained.

               

               

              • JohnInDenver says:

                Gosh … gun seizure.

                Also identified, even in the Guns Appreciation article, as the police acting to "temporarily remove firearms from the home from which one of the youths was going to access guns." 

                How temporary? Long enough for the owner to devise some additional security? Long enough for the teens to be adequately controlled?  Any problem with the gun owner showing up to court and getting the guns back?

          • Davie says:

            Geez, Negev, is it even possible you could come up with a more absurd argument? 

            Hopefully, your Russian monitors are doing an occasional quality control check to find out if you are really worth the few rubles they are squandering on your silly posts.

            What Genghis said above…

            Das vadanya

            • Negev says:

              Please, elaborate on what you find absurd. Are you failing to see value in the 4th Amendment as well as the 2nd now? Ignore your rights and they will go away. You, not so much. Can't wait to see you bitchin online how the 1st is outdated since you got dial up. 

               

              • Davie says:

                Focus, Negev, focus.  The 2nd Amendment was written in the context of a sparsely populated frontier nation still needing individuals to fend for themselves with muskets and single-shot pistols.  And men were expected to form into state and local militias if foreign invaders breached our borders.

                We now have standing armies and professional police forces to shoulder the bulk of that burden.  Guns are now predominantly a recreational toy, despite their vastly enhanced lethality.  They all should be strictly licensed and controlled, and if used simply for recreation, designed with safeguards and lowered lethality to reduce death and injuries.

                That your livelihood depends on opposing the above doesn't make your arguments any more sensible or convincing.

                • Negev says:

                  That is awesome Davie did you just make that up? Nearly the exact opposite of the documented intent of the Founding Fathers with exceptional focus on the fear of a standing army, which was of course a major contributing factor to the 2nd. I urge you to provide any citation you can muster up to support your perverse interpretation of the context of the 2nd. I'll link to and handful of quotes by the authors to illustrate just how much your personal opinion deviates from reality then we can get into who's convincing who.

                  I am curious now just for the comical value how you interpret the 4th Amendment and how it relates to the issue at hand? 

                  I will make a fortune when you ban guns. If my livelihood depended on it I would donate to your cause.  

                   

                  • Curmudgeon says:

                    Let's go ahead and entertain the 2nd Amendment fantasy for a moment.  So, Negev, you and your stalwart Middle Aged Militia are going to take on the firepower, technology, and training of a hostile power, or even worse, that of our own military?  Gonna need more than bump-stocks and high-cap magazines, you dig? 

                     

                    • Davie says:

                      Negev must live for "Red Dawn" and "Diehard" to come true in real life wink

                    • Negev says:

                      You make a lot of sense there Curmy you seem to have a firm grasp on logic and critical thinking. I would hope at some point you would harness this power and analyse the notion that laws stop criminals and someday see the conflict in this rationale. 

                      You do however seem to assume the military would be against the stalwart MAM (ewe I like it) when, constitutionally speaking, they are most likely against you. How many sheriffs have enforced the mag ban?

                       

                    • Curmudgeon says:

                      Who said I'm against the 2nd Amendment? I'm in favor of it.  I say, own as many weapons as you want to make you feel safe.  Just don't pretend you and the MAM are doing anything for our benefit.  The whole idea of your MAM (or, if you like…Pudgy Platoon?)  making a brave stand is amusing to anyone who knows anything about modern warfare.

                        

                  • Davie says:

                    Negev, you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.  My recitation of history above is not an interpretation of anything.  If you don't agree that in the 18th century the US was a sparsely populated nation, etc. then your lack of reading comprehension skills would explain a lot, I suppose.

                    • Negev says:

                       Read this:

                      "[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
                      – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788

                      Show me a citation along the lines of "The right to bear arms is so you can fend for yourselves and fight an enemy that comes to our shores" by someone during that time and in the "context" you have conjured up. Ya not gonna find it. 

                    • Curmudgeon says:

                      "This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."  Well, luckily, we don't need a substitute for a standing army, do we?  You kinda missed that part. 

                       

                    • Davie says:

                      If you want to dispute this, you'll have to get the school boards across the nation to rewrite the history books:

                      …a sparsely populated frontier nation still needing individuals to fend for themselves with muskets and single-shot pistols.  And men were expected to form into state and local militias if foreign invaders breached our borders.

                      And in the cities of the time, it was not the norm to carry either a musket or a pistol upon one's person (unless in your warped view of history, you think duels were a common everyday event for all 21 and older gentlemen).

                      Here's a quick refresher in case you forgot (or never knew) what life in the 18th century was all about.  My ancestors came here in the 17th century and fended for themselves and joined the militia a hundred years later to fight (and die) for their families and their newborn nation's future.

                      You and your ilk have disgraced their sacrifice and perverted their legacy.

                    • Negev says:

                      … and the best possible security against it, if it should exist…. You kinda missed that part.

                    • Curmudgeon says:

                      Oopsie…

                      Shootin' blanks again, are ya, Nev? 

                    • Davie says:

                      Our resident ammosexual gun sucker needed an extra few hours to ransack through his RMGO-supplied talking points, and that's all he could come up with…

                      Tee he he! cheeky

                    • Curmudgeon says:

                      Negev, you're pretending warfare hasn't changed in well over 200 years?  Back in A. Hamilton's time, an actual militia would have been plausible security against the actions of a standing army; the weaponry and training available were similar enough.  Not so these days.  Not even close.  So, while I fully support your right to bear arms, I laugh my ass off at your justification for it.

  5. Davie says:

    It must be Thursday

     

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.