gewing

In our 'what the ####?!!!!" Story of the week for me
 
A Georgia Man is ordered to cut off his own dog's dead head by a deputy
 
 
I get that the Deputy shot the dog because it lunged at him. I don't like it when dogs get shot, but in this case I get it. I can get that the dog's vaccinations need to be confirmed. But telling a man he has to cut off his own dead dog's head off, that you shot, RIGHT NOW or he's going to jail for 'Reasons' (Which you will find by God) is borderline insane, and such a grotesque and surreal metaphor for abuse of power my mind boggles. 
 
 
 
 

I don't want all media controlled by a single company, no matter WHO founded it.
 
Lucius Alexander
 
I might be okay with all media controlled by palindromedaries, but how likely is that?

That's Riff-Raff's job.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/05/politics/jeff-flake-writes-doug-jones-check/index.html

Just heard on BBC and All Things Considered: Ratko Mladich, organizer of the Srebrenica massacre and other atrocities in the Bosnian Civil War, has finally been convicted of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
 
Dean Shomshak

And here is a bit about a couple celebrating their wedding anniversary 70 years ago.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/in-pictures-42002426

So, Roy Moore and his wife have evidently forged those letters of support they got from Alabama pastors.  I think it's safe to say he knows he's busted.

The generals doth protest too much. 

that and companies who operate in more than one state, particularly in certain fields, prefer to abide by Federal Law. 
 
Actually, I am surprised Trump and his AG jackass have not tried to go after the tax profits of the states that have allowed medicinal or recreational sales.        A lot of my former co workers are heartfelt supporters of marijuana usage...  won't admit there could ever be any problems from it...
 
Every time I see  "it is a natural plant"  I want to say "so is Deadly Nightshade, do  you want to smoke it?"  or else " well, 100 years ago, sure.  at current levels of THC content due to selective  breeding and hydroponics?   not so much. "
 
I have become a curmudgeon...  :-(

Is everybody following the Brett J. Talley judicial appointment?  He's one of the district judge appointments Trump has procured. The Senate Judiciary committee has not been kind (and for good reasons).
 
The American Bar Association has voted that he is not qualified for this position.  It gets better: The vote was unanimous (14 plus one abstention). Its the first "unanimous not qualified" since 2006. He has never tried a case, or argued a motion, and he has practiced law for a whopping three years.  Oh, but he does have a prolific, solidly conservative blog. In case you thought the ABA was a bunch of unfair left-wingers. The committee approved him anyway (along partisan lines).  It's no secret that when a party is power they try to pack the lifetime appointments with young, ideologically correct judges.  I mean, generally they try to get qualified judges while they're at it, but whatever. He did not mention that he is married to a White House lawyer.  The questionnaire. requests relationships "likely to present potential conflicts of interest", and he didn't mention he is married to Ann Donaldson, the chief of staff to the White House counsel, Donald F. McGahn II. So either he lied or he messed up filling out a legal form, and I'm not sure which is worse. The Senate is going to vote on him soon. Just . . . wow.

I'm still holding out for Giant Meteor, myself.

. . . from a completely unbiased source.
 
Sorry, I can't take anything from the NYT on the subject without a massive grain of salt.
 
 
 
 

Thank you. I'm not taking our discussion as anything other than a casual brain storming session, so perhaps that's a bit spiral-inducing, but sometimes it helps to examine an issue from all sides.
 
 
 
Let's pause here for clarification, because I think we're talking past each other. There are two issues that have been discussed:
 
1. Basic responsibility. That covers safe operation, understanding of when to use or not use the tool, how to store it and prevent unauthorized access, how not to endanger others when using it, etc. IOW, training.
 
2. Criminal activity. When I'm talking about educational activities, the only kind of criminal activity that those might curtail is inappropriate  defensive use of force. Mass shootings and murders aren't really going to be curtailed by training.
 
 
It's not an attitude towards guns that needs to change. The gun isn't seducing people into killing people. The problem of criminal gun use is not analogous to the smoking problem or the drunk driving problem because there is a HUGE difference in intent.
 
Think about this: When's the last time you think a smoker lit up a cigarette with the intention of getting cancer or causing bystanders health problems from secondary smoke? They don't. There's no ill intent, just a desire to feed a personal addiction, to seek relief from stress, or whatever other reason people smoke. Awareness campaigns work because people are not good about weighing long term consequences versus immediate gratification. That same problem factors into drunk driving.
 
Your theory is flawed because you don't account for intent.
 
I'm not responsible for someone else's intent.
 
As a society, we can influence intent. There have been programs proven to work to curb gang violence, for example, that were posted by me or someone else on the boards a few years back.
 
If you want to look at gun violence as a whole you need to look at motives, then do what you can to remove them.
 
 
So, you're saying that your apples taste better than our oranges?
 
I think American attitudes toward individualism and rebelliousness are definitely part of our national identity, and that a lot of us take those attitudes a bit too far to say the least.
 
IMO, the firearms debate is a symptom of that. But it's just one of many issues that it's easy to get Americans riled up about. The key problem is we're easy to get riled up.
 
 

Are we going to go down the road that law abiding gun owners are somehow responsible for criminal misuse of firearms?  I'm going to have to ask for clarification here.
 
Also, non-accidental shootings are ALSO on the decline. Mass shootings are trending upward for whatever reason, but violent crime as a whole is down.
 
 
What message? I'm saying there are resources for information. It's up to the individual to seek out that information. Attempts to disseminate even the most basic gun safety information have been consistently blocked by the anti-gun crowd, by the way. 
 
 
The popular media tends to skew very left in this country. So perhaps you're putting this one on the wrong side? It's not like the media can get even the most basic facts about firearms, firearms safety, self defense law, statistics on gun use or any other number of things right, and it's not like the many, many anti-gun actors, producers and directors are going to suddenly reverse years of hypocrisy in glorifying gun violence in entertainment.
 
 
The NRA mouthpieces are political animals. They use emotions, and mostly negative ones, to promote their cause, to drum up funds, etc. So, I don't give them any funds. But they're also the only major game in town. The body of the organization is composed of responsible gun owners.
 
Whether you or I like their methods, their voice is the ONLY one that's going to get any media soundbites, precisely because they so often sound strident and absurd. There are other organizations that don't get the press coverage, and they won't. Because they are rational. What you are asking for already exists. Go look at the amicus briefs Heller or McDonald, and you'll find them.
 
This isn't on "responsible gun owners" this is on what passes for the press.
 
 
If it bleeds it leads. Rational discussion doesn't bleed enough for our news media to cover. There IS rational discussion, but you'd need to be Indiana Jones to dig it up. I heard a pretty decent roundtable discussion on NPR (which was unbiased, despite its reputation for a leftist slant) a while back. I think it was the middle of last year. I'll leave it to you to dig up the numbers on NPR's audience size vs. CNN, Fox, or the rest of the 24/7 news giants. Then figure that the one spot I heard ran maybe a couple of times during the week it was aired vs. the wall to wall stupid that our news media presents the public.
 
If you have any ideas on how to penetrate that wall of stupid, maybe we can then formulate a message of responsible gun ownership that will reach the masses.
 
I realize that's pretty heavy on the sarcasm, but I don't disagree in principle with what you're saying. I just don't think there's any reasonable way to get it done. As the song goes, you don't tug on Superman's cape, you don't spit into the wind, and you don't shout down the NRA or Bloomberg.

I think it would come down to the devil being in the details on a deglamorization campaign. For instance, how would it differ from the current efforts at demonizing gun ownership? In other words, how would you make it not look like the political rhetoric we currently have flying back and forth?

Either the Cannae EM drive is a hoax that cannot be killed or we need to face the fact we may have to rebuild modern quantum physics again.
 
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/10/pilot-wave-theory-suggests-trumpet-shaped-emdrive-would-have-more-thrust.html

Actually it is something we agree on, unfortunately both sides have quite a few of their constituents who don't get what we are describing as gun control.  You'd be surprised but I can get on the automatic weapon bandwagon to some extent, perhaps to a large extent.  But, their does seem to be too many liberals of whom also seem to think gun control=no guns.  That is what gets some conservatives nervous. 
 

http://www.puttyandpaint.com/projects/15088

What is this "thought" of which you speak?

I endorse this. Then again, I am an unrelenting proponent of the 2nd Amendment and I am NOT a racist. 

we need trustbuster Teddy!

we need trustbuster Teddy!

Former President Barack Obama has been summoned for jury duty in Chicago. His primary residence is currently in Washington, but he still keeps a second home in Chicago.
 
The report indicates he does in fact plan to report. Other former Presidents have reported for jury duty (George W. Bush went in 2015), but while Obama has a good understanding of the law (he has a degree from Harvard and has taught Constitutional Law -- and of course there's the little matter of eight years in the Presidency) I sincerely doubt an attorney would want him on their panel.  Especially not if the case is at all political. But it would be amusing if this conversation took place in the "charm school" at Joliet.
 
'Damn Obama for sending me to prison!"
"But you were convicted in 2017!"
"I know!"
'And you're here for bank robbery...."
"It's still his fault I'm here!"
"Why was it his fault? He wasn't even in office. And he didn't sign an executive order making it illegal to rob banks."
"The bastard was on the jury!"