Read about it over at the Volokh Conspiracy (because, after all, he's a really smart lawyer...and, at a minimum, I'm not a lawyer), but basically think of it as a 9-0 SCOTUS-applied swift kick between the legs to the entire EPA.
Bwhahahahaha
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
On the Zimmerman-Marting Shooting
What we can be fairly sure we know:
1) We know that Trayvon (Tayvon? I've seen both spellings) Martin is now deceased, was 17yo at time of death, and died as the result of a gunshot wound.
2) All parties seem to agree at this point that the gunshot wound resulting in Martins death resulted from the intentional discharge of George Zimmerman's lawfully carried 9mm pistol
3)Zimmerman was and at this point remains a lawful holder of a Florida Concealed Carry License.
4) We know that Martin was black, for traditional definitions of that word.
5) We know that the local County Sheriff has declined charges at this time. State and Federal investigations continue.
6) We know that a great deal of race-baiting and demagoguery has taken place subsequent to events.
We Don't Know:
1) That Zimmerman was white (beyond inheriting a surname of Germanic origin). Available pictures are not terribly indicative. Nobody appears to have researched beyond the surname, leaving open the question of actual heritage (to the extent it's even relevant).
2) Why members of the black and progressive communities are so eager to resurrect the fine old tradition of "damn the evidence, let's not investigate - let's have us a lynching!!".
3) Whether Zimmerman was guilty of "murder" under FL law. (note, there are several - not just one - ways for someone to get unlawfully dead. Getting it right is *important*.)
I think I can reasonably, based on the very limited data currently available, say that I disagree with Zimmermans choice to make contact or to continue surveillance without some person or persons being clearly and immediately at risk. That analysis is subject to change *based on further evidence/data*.
I cannot support trying to make our proposed defendant defenseless before he is even charged (a particularly bad notion in light of the stated intent of a vigilante group), trying criminal defendants by internet petition, and reviving lynching as a community hobby in even the slightest degree.
Between the blood-dancing hoplophobes and the race-baiting profiteers we may see a landscape so obscured by fear, propaganda, and general hooliganism that it will be impossible to empanel an impartial jury to try Zimmerman - meaning that regardless of guilt or innocence, without an impartial jury he may go free.
1) We know that Trayvon (Tayvon? I've seen both spellings) Martin is now deceased, was 17yo at time of death, and died as the result of a gunshot wound.
2) All parties seem to agree at this point that the gunshot wound resulting in Martins death resulted from the intentional discharge of George Zimmerman's lawfully carried 9mm pistol
3)Zimmerman was and at this point remains a lawful holder of a Florida Concealed Carry License.
4) We know that Martin was black, for traditional definitions of that word.
5) We know that the local County Sheriff has declined charges at this time. State and Federal investigations continue.
6) We know that a great deal of race-baiting and demagoguery has taken place subsequent to events.
We Don't Know:
1) That Zimmerman was white (beyond inheriting a surname of Germanic origin). Available pictures are not terribly indicative. Nobody appears to have researched beyond the surname, leaving open the question of actual heritage (to the extent it's even relevant).
2) Why members of the black and progressive communities are so eager to resurrect the fine old tradition of "damn the evidence, let's not investigate - let's have us a lynching!!".
3) Whether Zimmerman was guilty of "murder" under FL law. (note, there are several - not just one - ways for someone to get unlawfully dead. Getting it right is *important*.)
I think I can reasonably, based on the very limited data currently available, say that I disagree with Zimmermans choice to make contact or to continue surveillance without some person or persons being clearly and immediately at risk. That analysis is subject to change *based on further evidence/data*.
I cannot support trying to make our proposed defendant defenseless before he is even charged (a particularly bad notion in light of the stated intent of a vigilante group), trying criminal defendants by internet petition, and reviving lynching as a community hobby in even the slightest degree.
Between the blood-dancing hoplophobes and the race-baiting profiteers we may see a landscape so obscured by fear, propaganda, and general hooliganism that it will be impossible to empanel an impartial jury to try Zimmerman - meaning that regardless of guilt or innocence, without an impartial jury he may go free.
Monday, March 19, 2012
Inviting your comment...
I'll hold off on my comments till later...view and comment, please...
Frankly, I'm not entirely enthralled by either officer or attorney technique here...the near-threatening tone of the attorney post-script is both offensive and makes me wonder if SPD has again sunk so low that such instruction is actually *necessary*...
Frankly, I'm not entirely enthralled by either officer or attorney technique here...the near-threatening tone of the attorney post-script is both offensive and makes me wonder if SPD has again sunk so low that such instruction is actually *necessary*...
Sunday, March 18, 2012
FB Economy 101, Part Deux
Anonymized FB'r: So what you are saying is that because of all of these regulations we have in place, we have some of the most expensive gas in the world... oh wait...
There is no need to give money to the worlds richest companies - they are already doin their damnedest to explore, refine and produce, they don't need help. Besides, we are *exporting* oil. So we don't have a supply problem.
The economy is doing better now than it has been in the past few years. One cannot claim we are 'sabotaging the economy' given the economic facts at hand. Please present evidence.
Gay_Cynic: We have fuel costs that we have some elements of control over is point the first. We are not entirely helpless at the mercy of external players. Whether or not we wish to exercise the controls we clearly have is up to us and our elected representatives.
I agree there is no need to give money to some of the worlds wealthiest companies. However, when we *stop* (as opposed to just say "let's not give them more, faster"), it's a pretty good bet that the response will be a shrug by executives and an increase in the prices they charge down the line at least equivalent to the "subsidy" that was terminated.
Nobody just passively sits and eats bright shiny new costs or reduced revenues. So, we cut off the "subsidies". Yay. At the point in the supply chain we choose to cut a long-extant subsidy, this has the effect of a new cost. That entity jacks up their prices to cover this new "cost" interfering with their revenue stream...and the next one downstream, noting the exciting new price of goods they are buying...does the same...until we come to the hapless end-user.
The problem with fuel/energy pricing is that it's a fundamental cost. In other words, when fuel prices go up for end users, the operating costs for everyone from truck drivers to airlines to Metro increase - followed shortly by inflationary activity as everything downstream adjusts. When it suddenly costs more to ship a 100lbs of wheat or Billy Joe Bob the thick-necked receptionist to their respective destinations, it rather shortly costs the bakery more to get flour or the employer to get Billy Joe Bob to show up (as Billy Joe Bob can do math and figure out that losing money to go play receptionist is a bad deal)...
In short, stable or declining energy prices tend to support economic growth. Increasing energy prices tend to suck up capital that could be used to hire employees, do R&D, or just get some flour at a decent price to make a loaf of bread.
Then, just to make it even more special, as energy prices (and as a result operating costs for both individuals and businesses) increase...the odds of compensating salary increases diminish due to reduced profits/earnings.
For energy prices, insert any other *fundamental* cost. Water would be another variable I'd describe as a fundamental cost.
So sure. Go ahead and whack the long-extant subsidies. Then watch the fun.
Anonymized FB'r: That sounds like fear tactics to me. Give me the data.
Gay_Cynic: For a *quick* skim, see below. Happily, Google is a resource available to all.
Basic economics are by definition not fear tactics.
WA Tax #: www.washingtongasprices.com
Fed Tax: http://www.oregon.gov/
Economics: http://cdixon.org/2009/10/16/whats-the-relationship-between-cost-and-price/
Oil & Transport Costs: http://www.marad.dot.gov/documents/Modal_Shift_Study_-_Technical_Report.pdf
Side Article: www.dailymarkets.com/economy/2011/04/27/gasoline-taxes-vs-exxon-profit-per-gallon/
Anonymized FB'r: So why gas prices? And why now? Why not cut defense spending, and *increase* oil subsidies?
Really, the meta question is: what is your *actual* end goal. Talking about oil subsidies is talking about a symptom, not the problem.
Gay_Cynic: Why set ourselves up for a yet worse problem "x" number of years down the road? (re increasing subsidies)
Eventually, oil subsidies (and much other federal spending) need to end...simply because they are not affordable. HOWEVER, "all at once" may not be the ideal strategy in our current economy. I would suggest that a gradual shift to a balanced federal budget is probably the best approach for our nation, but have my doubts (based on the number of political oxen that would need to be gored in even a gradual shift) about political feasibility.
I would suggest that a guiding principal might be"even if it feels good, do nothing in passion or that looks to make things worse". And my comment on gas prices (equally applicable to diesel, heating oil, etc) is based on "whatever you do, don't make things worse". I can get behind backing off that particular set of subsidies *a little bit at a time* so the economy has time to adjust, and hopefully, improved alternative energy options can emerge. Flinging ourselves over the cliff for either funsies or on some philosophical jihad seems...ill-advised.
The law of unintended consequences exists *everywhere*, but in my opinion...is writ in 30' tall letters of fire across the sky when it comes to economic matters. Caution is thus a much greater virtue than showmanship.
Anonymized FB'r: I would assume we would back off subsidies gradually (if they are significant compares to the revenues of the companies affected.) After all, Congress would have to approve such things.
Gay_Cynic: Regrettably, the current proposal (and let us be gracious, and assume that political brinksmanship and "make the other guy look bad" are significant motivators in this) does not appear to endorse gradualism. And $4 billion isn't peanuts for anyone, I don't think. Nor is this new...
http://www.cbsnews.com/obama-seeks-halt-to-tax-subsidies-for-oil-industry/
And...a little bit ago our Energy Secretary was advocating euro level gas prices to force alternative energy acceptance (of course, cynic that I am..."at what cost" is my instinctive response..)
http://news.yahoo.com/steven-chu-backpedals-advocacy-european-level-gas-prices-160100594.html
Anonymized FB'r: Obviously shocking the economy with doubled gas prices (Euro equivalent) but phasing out the subsidies seems good. I'd take a measured approach. Now what would be really keen would be to phase them our and *not* re-spend the money. Lower our taxes instead. But, fat chance of that happening either :)
Le Sigh. Progress, I suppose.
There is no need to give money to the worlds richest companies - they are already doin their damnedest to explore, refine and produce, they don't need help. Besides, we are *exporting* oil. So we don't have a supply problem.
The economy is doing better now than it has been in the past few years. One cannot claim we are 'sabotaging the economy' given the economic facts at hand. Please present evidence.
Gay_Cynic: We have fuel costs that we have some elements of control over is point the first. We are not entirely helpless at the mercy of external players. Whether or not we wish to exercise the controls we clearly have is up to us and our elected representatives.
I agree there is no need to give money to some of the worlds wealthiest companies. However, when we *stop* (as opposed to just say "let's not give them more, faster"), it's a pretty good bet that the response will be a shrug by executives and an increase in the prices they charge down the line at least equivalent to the "subsidy" that was terminated.
Nobody just passively sits and eats bright shiny new costs or reduced revenues. So, we cut off the "subsidies". Yay. At the point in the supply chain we choose to cut a long-extant subsidy, this has the effect of a new cost. That entity jacks up their prices to cover this new "cost" interfering with their revenue stream...and the next one downstream, noting the exciting new price of goods they are buying...does the same...until we come to the hapless end-user.
The problem with fuel/energy pricing is that it's a fundamental cost. In other words, when fuel prices go up for end users, the operating costs for everyone from truck drivers to airlines to Metro increase - followed shortly by inflationary activity as everything downstream adjusts. When it suddenly costs more to ship a 100lbs of wheat or Billy Joe Bob the thick-necked receptionist to their respective destinations, it rather shortly costs the bakery more to get flour or the employer to get Billy Joe Bob to show up (as Billy Joe Bob can do math and figure out that losing money to go play receptionist is a bad deal)...
In short, stable or declining energy prices tend to support economic growth. Increasing energy prices tend to suck up capital that could be used to hire employees, do R&D, or just get some flour at a decent price to make a loaf of bread.
Then, just to make it even more special, as energy prices (and as a result operating costs for both individuals and businesses) increase...the odds of compensating salary increases diminish due to reduced profits/earnings.
For energy prices, insert any other *fundamental* cost. Water would be another variable I'd describe as a fundamental cost.
So sure. Go ahead and whack the long-extant subsidies. Then watch the fun.
Anonymized FB'r: That sounds like fear tactics to me. Give me the data.
Gay_Cynic: For a *quick* skim, see below. Happily, Google is a resource available to all.
Basic economics are by definition not fear tactics.
WA Tax #: www.washingtongasprices.com
Fed Tax: http://www.oregon.gov/
Economics: http://cdixon.org/2009/10/16/whats-the-relationship-between-cost-and-price/
Oil & Transport Costs: http://www.marad.dot.gov/documents/Modal_Shift_Study_-_Technical_Report.pdf
Side Article: www.dailymarkets.com/economy/2011/04/27/gasoline-taxes-vs-exxon-profit-per-gallon/
Anonymized FB'r: So why gas prices? And why now? Why not cut defense spending, and *increase* oil subsidies?
Really, the meta question is: what is your *actual* end goal. Talking about oil subsidies is talking about a symptom, not the problem.
Gay_Cynic: Why set ourselves up for a yet worse problem "x" number of years down the road? (re increasing subsidies)
Eventually, oil subsidies (and much other federal spending) need to end...simply because they are not affordable. HOWEVER, "all at once" may not be the ideal strategy in our current economy. I would suggest that a gradual shift to a balanced federal budget is probably the best approach for our nation, but have my doubts (based on the number of political oxen that would need to be gored in even a gradual shift) about political feasibility.
I would suggest that a guiding principal might be"even if it feels good, do nothing in passion or that looks to make things worse". And my comment on gas prices (equally applicable to diesel, heating oil, etc) is based on "whatever you do, don't make things worse". I can get behind backing off that particular set of subsidies *a little bit at a time* so the economy has time to adjust, and hopefully, improved alternative energy options can emerge. Flinging ourselves over the cliff for either funsies or on some philosophical jihad seems...ill-advised.
The law of unintended consequences exists *everywhere*, but in my opinion...is writ in 30' tall letters of fire across the sky when it comes to economic matters. Caution is thus a much greater virtue than showmanship.
Anonymized FB'r: I would assume we would back off subsidies gradually (if they are significant compares to the revenues of the companies affected.) After all, Congress would have to approve such things.
Gay_Cynic: Regrettably, the current proposal (and let us be gracious, and assume that political brinksmanship and "make the other guy look bad" are significant motivators in this) does not appear to endorse gradualism. And $4 billion isn't peanuts for anyone, I don't think. Nor is this new...
http://www.cbsnews.com/obama-seeks-halt-to-tax-subsidies-for-oil-industry/
And...a little bit ago our Energy Secretary was advocating euro level gas prices to force alternative energy acceptance (of course, cynic that I am..."at what cost" is my instinctive response..)
http://news.yahoo.com/steven-chu-backpedals-advocacy-european-level-gas-prices-160100594.html
Anonymized FB'r: Obviously shocking the economy with doubled gas prices (Euro equivalent) but phasing out the subsidies seems good. I'd take a measured approach. Now what would be really keen would be to phase them our and *not* re-spend the money. Lower our taxes instead. But, fat chance of that happening either :)
Le Sigh. Progress, I suppose.
Saturday, March 17, 2012
A redacted FB education on the economy...
GayCynic: (status update) "end subsidies for big oil" = "drive up fuel prices as newly inflicted costs are passed through"...seems like a simple enough if/then bit of logic for most folks to understand.
Yet, our President seems to think this will lower gas prices how?
Other Conversationalist: Gas prices are a red herring. We can't really affect them here because the market is global.
GayCynic: Oh, we can affect them in MANY ways. A couple of the more direct ways is "increase expense at any link in the distribution chain" and everything downstream of "point of tweak" gets more expensive to end-consumer.
Thus...increasing taxes, "removing subsidies", imposing mandatory environmental measures, requiring the use of decades obsolete refining equipment (by refusing to permit construction of new refineries), and restricting development of new and geographically closer (thus lower transport cost, and risk) supplies...
All drive fuel prices, and are all well within the control of (variously) Congress, legislatures, and even town and municipal councils...and let us not forget the various "special governmental districts & entities".
We can and do affect end user fuel prices. It's just that other folks (i.e., each person/group along the extraction/refinement/distribution chain) *ALSO* affect those prices...
But for a quickie look at how much we affect end user pricing...take a look at the percentage of the per gallon price is made up of fees & taxes imposed by the governments we elect. For good or ill, a quick look shows WA grabbing $.375/ga at the pump and the Federal .gov snapping up 18.4 cents/ga for a total of 55.9 cents/ga before we figure in sales tax (which is also collected on gasoline). The kids in Olympia can raise, lower, or suspend those taxes.
No, it's not beyond our control...and that is only addressing one of the variables we actually can affect.
My point is that it "we're going to end subsidies to big oil" will translate almost immediately to "we're going to raise the end cost of fuel to consumers" as the increased costs will be passed right down the supply chain, and shortly after we'll weather another inflationary wave as the cost of delivering goods of all sorts (including workers to their workplaces) impacts the economy.
One could do a better job of sabotaging the economy, but it would take work.
Yet, our President seems to think this will lower gas prices how?
Other Conversationalist: Gas prices are a red herring. We can't really affect them here because the market is global.
GayCynic: Oh, we can affect them in MANY ways. A couple of the more direct ways is "increase expense at any link in the distribution chain" and everything downstream of "point of tweak" gets more expensive to end-consumer.
Thus...increasing taxes, "removing subsidies", imposing mandatory environmental measures, requiring the use of decades obsolete refining equipment (by refusing to permit construction of new refineries), and restricting development of new and geographically closer (thus lower transport cost, and risk) supplies...
All drive fuel prices, and are all well within the control of (variously) Congress, legislatures, and even town and municipal councils...and let us not forget the various "special governmental districts & entities".
We can and do affect end user fuel prices. It's just that other folks (i.e., each person/group along the extraction/refinement/distribution chain) *ALSO* affect those prices...
But for a quickie look at how much we affect end user pricing...take a look at the percentage of the per gallon price is made up of fees & taxes imposed by the governments we elect. For good or ill, a quick look shows WA grabbing $.375/ga at the pump and the Federal .gov snapping up 18.4 cents/ga for a total of 55.9 cents/ga before we figure in sales tax (which is also collected on gasoline). The kids in Olympia can raise, lower, or suspend those taxes.
No, it's not beyond our control...and that is only addressing one of the variables we actually can affect.
My point is that it "we're going to end subsidies to big oil" will translate almost immediately to "we're going to raise the end cost of fuel to consumers" as the increased costs will be passed right down the supply chain, and shortly after we'll weather another inflationary wave as the cost of delivering goods of all sorts (including workers to their workplaces) impacts the economy.
One could do a better job of sabotaging the economy, but it would take work.
Friday, March 16, 2012
In responding to liberals discussing gay-bashing...
Just a suggestion...while events are "in progress", causation is rarely relevant. Before or after we can address which attacker suffers from which pathology while the miscreant (if after) ideally occupies a cell, a hospital bed, or the morgue.
And then we can address which pathology (if any) is likely curable in someone that attacks LGBT folks simply because they are LGBT when, whatever the cause, it has advanced from irrational motivations (see: bigotry, hate) or biochemical challenges to actual physical violence.
And then we can address which pathology (if any) is likely curable in someone that attacks LGBT folks simply because they are LGBT when, whatever the cause, it has advanced from irrational motivations (see: bigotry, hate) or biochemical challenges to actual physical violence.
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Gay-Bashing in Houston...
In response to a gay-bashing in Houston (5 guys w/ baseball bats v. 2 unarmed men)...
Carrying or not carrying has very little to do with being a "real man".
And then we have that little set of reality issues that involve the large and increasing number of women that carry, and not only carry serious firearms, but wield them as well or better than the average guy. Google "Julie Golob" or "Breda the worlds deadliest librarian".
But do, if your ethics allow, get your Concealed Pistol License. Contact your local Pink Pistols chapter (or call around to the local gun groups if you don't have a chapter handy - these days the comments I hear after a bashing is reported in the gun community consist mostly of "Goddamit, why weren't they armed?") and find someone to visit the range with you (pick a range with a rental counter or a new friend with a really impressive collection...not only are you learning to shoot, you're testing for what gun works with YOUR hand...so a variety is good).
Consider training. Learn the rules of firearms safety. Learn to hit what you shoot at. Learn the local laws regarding both use of force and firearms carry. Practice.
NO SELF DEFENSE STRATEGY IS A SURE THING. "Run away, Run away" and "Be where the trouble isn't" are still the two very best self-defense strategies even if you are so heavily armed that you clank when you walk. Regrettably, they aren't always available.
Five guys with baseball bats, to any vaguely rational person, make up what's called "deadly force". Frankly, so does one guy with a baseball bat or a crowbar. Skull fractures and other impact injuries are no laughing matter and can easily be lethal.
When you fight back, you aren't just saving yourself. When you fight back, win or lose, you shatter the meme that the LGBT community is composed solely of wild-eyed pacifists that are vulnerable and easy targets for every bully that comes along - hate-driven or not.
After all, when was the last time you heard of a group of 5 youths with baseball bats attacking a cop or a biker?
It isn't just hate that's our enemy. It's also the idea that we're a safe target.
Carrying or not carrying has very little to do with being a "real man".
And then we have that little set of reality issues that involve the large and increasing number of women that carry, and not only carry serious firearms, but wield them as well or better than the average guy. Google "Julie Golob" or "Breda the worlds deadliest librarian".
But do, if your ethics allow, get your Concealed Pistol License. Contact your local Pink Pistols chapter (or call around to the local gun groups if you don't have a chapter handy - these days the comments I hear after a bashing is reported in the gun community consist mostly of "Goddamit, why weren't they armed?") and find someone to visit the range with you (pick a range with a rental counter or a new friend with a really impressive collection...not only are you learning to shoot, you're testing for what gun works with YOUR hand...so a variety is good).
Consider training. Learn the rules of firearms safety. Learn to hit what you shoot at. Learn the local laws regarding both use of force and firearms carry. Practice.
NO SELF DEFENSE STRATEGY IS A SURE THING. "Run away, Run away" and "Be where the trouble isn't" are still the two very best self-defense strategies even if you are so heavily armed that you clank when you walk. Regrettably, they aren't always available.
Five guys with baseball bats, to any vaguely rational person, make up what's called "deadly force". Frankly, so does one guy with a baseball bat or a crowbar. Skull fractures and other impact injuries are no laughing matter and can easily be lethal.
When you fight back, you aren't just saving yourself. When you fight back, win or lose, you shatter the meme that the LGBT community is composed solely of wild-eyed pacifists that are vulnerable and easy targets for every bully that comes along - hate-driven or not.
After all, when was the last time you heard of a group of 5 youths with baseball bats attacking a cop or a biker?
It isn't just hate that's our enemy. It's also the idea that we're a safe target.
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
When somebody else has a good idea...
http://www.exurbanleague.com/misfires/Home/tabid/59/EntryId/1607/When-Like-turns-to-love.aspx
Sometimes the best you can do is share it. Blogger suggests liking the Second Amendment Foundation on FaceBook...maybe even bring them up even with the Brady Bunch...
Sounds good to me...
Sometimes the best you can do is share it. Blogger suggests liking the Second Amendment Foundation on FaceBook...maybe even bring them up even with the Brady Bunch...
Sounds good to me...
Let the Blood Dance Begin...
Ok. Here in WA we've had a series of children ventilating themselves or each other in recent weeks, with all the teary-eyed blood-dancing of the hoplophobes and the petty tyrants pushing for safe storage laws and such.
Problem is, you can't outlaw stupid. Negligence, murder, menacing, assault - all are already illegal. "Making things more illegaler" is a sort of pointless display of overwrought emotionalism, stupidity, or more malicious agendas at play - the one thing it won't do is accomplish anything positive.
The first case here was a 9yo child of felons and misfits who took one of many loaded guns laying about his criminal mothers and ex-con boyfriends abode (hint - just by HAVING guns they were committing bright shiny new felonies). The kid, sensibly enough based on what I'd read of his situation, decided to run away - and threw the pistol in his backpack...that later that day discharged at the kids school, injuring another child rather severely. The mother and boyfriend face criminal charges and the boy has already plead guilty to charges.
Next we have a cops kid that found a gun floating around in Officer Dad's glove compartment and shot her brother, killing him.
About this time we have local professional hand-wringer Ken Schram of KOMO4 television go on air with an overwrought demand to pass legislation mandating "secure storage" with criminal penalties. Schram, of course, didn't bother to check existing legislation before tossing his public hissy fit (negligence is already criminalized)...nor display any real understanding of actual gun safety.
Now, this morning, we have a WA CPL holderup from Oregon [0912, 3/14 - correction from friend] that stopped at a gas station for his special and fatal moment of stupid. He got out of the car, removed his gun and placed it under the drivers seat with two toddlers (3 and 4) in the car, and proceeded about filling the tank. The mother got out and proceeded into the store leaving the toddlers unsupervised. The 3yo got the gun and killed himself.
The ritual blood dance is scheduled to begin shortly, quite possibly with Schram sallying forth clad in grass skirt and coconut bikini* to throw another of his spittle-flinging over-dramatic rants complete with hip-swaying and hand-gestures about the EEEEEVILS of gun ownership generally, and any gun not secured in a block of concrete specifically.
FELLOW GUN OWNERS - if you don't want stupid legislated all over you, stop with the stupid yourself. Don't be leaving guns where untrusted folks can get at them - and in general, toddlers and pre-teens are not on the list of "those to be trusted unsupervised in the presence of firearms, power tools, or vehicles" even if they are brighter than the average elected.
*Schram may not show up in the suggested costume, but I'd argue it'd fit right in with his mode of presentation, IMHO. Certainly wouldn't make any less sense than the odd noises that occur when he opens his mouth.
Problem is, you can't outlaw stupid. Negligence, murder, menacing, assault - all are already illegal. "Making things more illegaler" is a sort of pointless display of overwrought emotionalism, stupidity, or more malicious agendas at play - the one thing it won't do is accomplish anything positive.
The first case here was a 9yo child of felons and misfits who took one of many loaded guns laying about his criminal mothers and ex-con boyfriends abode (hint - just by HAVING guns they were committing bright shiny new felonies). The kid, sensibly enough based on what I'd read of his situation, decided to run away - and threw the pistol in his backpack...that later that day discharged at the kids school, injuring another child rather severely. The mother and boyfriend face criminal charges and the boy has already plead guilty to charges.
Next we have a cops kid that found a gun floating around in Officer Dad's glove compartment and shot her brother, killing him.
About this time we have local professional hand-wringer Ken Schram of KOMO4 television go on air with an overwrought demand to pass legislation mandating "secure storage" with criminal penalties. Schram, of course, didn't bother to check existing legislation before tossing his public hissy fit (negligence is already criminalized)...nor display any real understanding of actual gun safety.
Now, this morning, we have a WA CPL holder
The ritual blood dance is scheduled to begin shortly, quite possibly with Schram sallying forth clad in grass skirt and coconut bikini* to throw another of his spittle-flinging over-dramatic rants complete with hip-swaying and hand-gestures about the EEEEEVILS of gun ownership generally, and any gun not secured in a block of concrete specifically.
FELLOW GUN OWNERS - if you don't want stupid legislated all over you, stop with the stupid yourself. Don't be leaving guns where untrusted folks can get at them - and in general, toddlers and pre-teens are not on the list of "those to be trusted unsupervised in the presence of firearms, power tools, or vehicles" even if they are brighter than the average elected.
*Schram may not show up in the suggested costume, but I'd argue it'd fit right in with his mode of presentation, IMHO. Certainly wouldn't make any less sense than the odd noises that occur when he opens his mouth.
Friday, March 9, 2012
On the Seattle Ruling....
If you look at the Seattle Times article this morning, or Workman's column yesterday, there's a teeny tiny point we've missed thus far in our celebrations.
Mayor McGinn & City Attorney Holmes have effectively sworn a blood feud against WA pre-emption - that happy little provision in WA law that means that we don't have a patchwork quilt of petty anti-gun fiefdoms (you know, like NYC) with the laws changing every time you cross a city or county boundary.
With the "oomph" the radical Seattle (D) Caucus already wields, allowing them to hold both Houses of the legislature with McGinn and Holmes on the war path seems a bad choice.
Similarly, we have a critically important Governors race coming up this fall that we could lose big in...
It's not paranoia when they announce they really are out to get us...
Mayor McGinn & City Attorney Holmes have effectively sworn a blood feud against WA pre-emption - that happy little provision in WA law that means that we don't have a patchwork quilt of petty anti-gun fiefdoms (you know, like NYC) with the laws changing every time you cross a city or county boundary.
Both McGinn and Holmes issued statements after Thursday's ruling saying the city would ask the 2013 Legislature to give cities the authority to restrict gun use in public places.The 2012 election is IMPORTANT, and not just for un-electing the Obamanation. As gun-owners we desperately need folks to *vote for* (candidates) to run against known hostiles like State Senators Adam Kline and Jeanne Kohl-Welles."A park is no place for a gun," McGinn said. - Seattle Times, March 8 of 2012
With the "oomph" the radical Seattle (D) Caucus already wields, allowing them to hold both Houses of the legislature with McGinn and Holmes on the war path seems a bad choice.
Similarly, we have a critically important Governors race coming up this fall that we could lose big in...
It's not paranoia when they announce they really are out to get us...
Thursday, March 8, 2012
"Gay Cynic: We do not measure ourselves against the deeds of others, but against our own principles of what is good, decent, and necessary. This is because any other approach is merely a race to find who can find the skankiest bit of mud in the manure pile." - quoted on SayUncle, 3/8/2012Thanks for the kind quote! Now, if we can just get more folks to wrap their head around the concept....
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Tam hits it out of the ball park again...
See here - Tam cogently and tersely refutes two of the more common (and sillier) memes about the so-called flaws with libertarianism.
READ THIS. It's good for your brain.
READ THIS. It's good for your brain.
Trigger-lock madness....
It seems the Seattle Times is pontificating in favor of anti-gun foolishness again, this time pushing for a trigger lock law. My response....
The Brady Campaign is the Col. Klink of firearms issues - ask them about a given course of action, and if they support it, it's probably a bad idea... even on the days when they have good intentions.
We already have laws that:
1) Bar felons from owning guns (the childs mom & boyfriend, who being criminals, weren't especially attentive to the law).
2) Create criminal punishment for a wide variety of negligent acts, including leaving guns where a child gets them and proceeds to commit wrongful mayhem. (The current reckless endangerment statute).
3) Create civil penalties for negligence of every sort imaginable and a fair number that could be argued to be specious.
4) Criminalize both assault and homicide.
Yet, amazingly, bad things happen. Criminals (surprise!) violate the law and, if they aren't caught, KEEP violating the law.
And with each new law passed, we convert some number of law-abiding citizens into criminals either through ignorance of the new intricacies or their personal "level of stubborn" having been reached - and with many of these "look-busy" statutes, for no good purpose beyond looking busy.
We don't need another law that just runs up the tax bill, creates additional tragedy, helps legislators look busy at great expense - all in the name of making something already illegal, illegal...
Every "bad act" conceivable with a firearm (or a pointy stick, for that matter) is already addressed under law. And more than a few innocent acts.
Enough of the hoplophobic anti-gun bed-wetting. Put the blame on the felons in possession (a federal felony charge nobody has bothered to bring quite yet), the parents with bad gun handling and safety practices (already chargeable), the family that raised a boy so desperate to run away that he gathered a firearm into his bug-out bag, and finally a very misguided little boy.
Leave law-abiding WA gun owners alone - by and large a far more responsible and law-abiding group than either the general populace or the membership of Mayors Against Illegal Guns.
The Brady Campaign is the Col. Klink of firearms issues - ask them about a given course of action, and if they support it, it's probably a bad idea... even on the days when they have good intentions.
We already have laws that:
1) Bar felons from owning guns (the childs mom & boyfriend, who being criminals, weren't especially attentive to the law).
2) Create criminal punishment for a wide variety of negligent acts, including leaving guns where a child gets them and proceeds to commit wrongful mayhem. (The current reckless endangerment statute).
3) Create civil penalties for negligence of every sort imaginable and a fair number that could be argued to be specious.
4) Criminalize both assault and homicide.
Yet, amazingly, bad things happen. Criminals (surprise!) violate the law and, if they aren't caught, KEEP violating the law.
And with each new law passed, we convert some number of law-abiding citizens into criminals either through ignorance of the new intricacies or their personal "level of stubborn" having been reached - and with many of these "look-busy" statutes, for no good purpose beyond looking busy.
We don't need another law that just runs up the tax bill, creates additional tragedy, helps legislators look busy at great expense - all in the name of making something already illegal, illegal...
Every "bad act" conceivable with a firearm (or a pointy stick, for that matter) is already addressed under law. And more than a few innocent acts.
Enough of the hoplophobic anti-gun bed-wetting. Put the blame on the felons in possession (a federal felony charge nobody has bothered to bring quite yet), the parents with bad gun handling and safety practices (already chargeable), the family that raised a boy so desperate to run away that he gathered a firearm into his bug-out bag, and finally a very misguided little boy.
Leave law-abiding WA gun owners alone - by and large a far more responsible and law-abiding group than either the general populace or the membership of Mayors Against Illegal Guns.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)