HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » LAGC » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next »

LAGC

Profile Information

Gender: Male
Hometown: Missoula, MT
Home country: USA
Current location: Deep in Red State Hell!
Member since: 2001
Number of posts: 5,091

About Me

Godless democratic socialist, look towards northern Europe for inspiration on what role-models our economy should aspire towards. Love the ACLU and donate heavily to them each year, wish they'd get with the program and defend the Second Amendment with as much fervor as they do the rest of the Bill of Rights. Proud member of the 99%.

Journal Archives

Mass. woman sues FedEx over marijuana delivery

PLYMOUTH, Mass. (AP) — A Massachusetts woman has sued FedEx, claiming the company mistakenly sent her a package containing seven pounds of marijuana, then gave her address to the intended recipients, who later showed up at her door.
..
..
Tobin said she thought the package was a birthday present for her daughter, because when she opened it, she found candles, pixie sticks and peppermint. There was also something she thought was potpourri, but it was marijuana.

Tobin said that about an hour later, a man knocked on her door looking for the package, while two men sat in a vehicle in her driveway, waiting. She said she didn't have it, and bolted and slammed the door. Tobin claims FedEx gave out her address, which led the men to her home.


http://news.yahoo.com/mass-woman-sues-fedex-over-marijuana-delivery-135742401.html

Jesus Christ... I'm not a big fan of frivolous lawsuits, but I think this woman may just have a case.

There's no reason FedEx couldn't have just sent the driver back to pick up the package.

Giving her address out to potential criminals just to save FedEx the labor/gas/trip is just plain negligent.

Someone needs to be held accountable.

Thank God Romney Isn't President Right Now

And I say this as an atheist... thank the heavenly Sky-Daddy!

Could you guys imagine this same aftermath of Sandy Hook right now? Not only would we likely be seeing the same gun control crap coming out of the White House, like a new AWB, but Mittens may have actually been able to peel off a considerable portion of the Republican vote in Congress to go along with him, just like Bush often did.

The nice thing about Obama being in the driver's seat is how predictable it is that the Republicans automatically knee-jerk against everything he does.

I mean, shit, he nominates a REPUBLICAN Defense Secretary, and the Republicans revolt along party-lines. Filibuster and everything. Go figure.

I have no doubt the Repukes are only going to increase their holdings in Congress in 2014, so it will be good to have a Democratic president to keep them in check.

Gridlock isn't necessarily a bad thing. Helps keep unconstitutional laws (like the PATRIOT Act and warrantless wiretaps) from seeping out of Washington.


So there are a bunch of conservatives in one of my community college classes I'm attending...

It's an online English Composition (writing) class, and the professor assigns us essays to read and discuss each week on a private online discussion board to help us analyze the works of famous writers. This week's required reading is an excerpt from Dreams From My Father, where Obama talks about how he first found out his dad had passed away. It was a very well-written piece and I was hopeful some good discussion might arise from it.

Anyway, the first half-dozen or so posters all said something to the effect of "I don't like Obama, so I'm not interested in anything he has to say." One even went so far as to call him a "pathological liar", which I took issue with. Here is what I wrote:

You think Obama is a "pathological liar?" I haven't noticed him stretching the truth any more than any other politician on Capitol Hill.

If anything, I think Obama has been quite candid about what he said his plans were back when he was running as a candidate, and has been quite diligent in pursuing those goals as president. He's fulfilled quite a few of his campaign promises, and those he hasn't only because of obstruction in Congress.

I don't agree with every stance of his agenda by any means, but I don't think its fair to single him out for being untruthful, considering who he has to work with in Washington.


Now I get to wait to see how many heads explode...

The Rifle on the Wall: A Left Argument for Gun Rights


"That rifle on the wall of the labourer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there." -- George Orwell

Let’s start with this: The citizen’s right to possess firearms is a fundamental political right. The political principle at stake is quite simple: to deny the state the monopoly of armed force. This should perhaps be stated in the obverse: to empower the citizenry, to distribute the power of armed force among the citizenry as a whole. The history of arguments and struggles over this principle, throughout the world, is long and clear. Instituted in the context of a revolutionary struggle based on the most democratic concepts of its day, the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution is perhaps the clearest legal/constitutional expression of this principle, and as such, I think, is one of the most radical statutes in the world.

The question of gun rights is a political question, in the broad sense that it touches on the distribution of power in a polity. Thus, although it incorporates all these perfectly legitimate “sub-political” activities, it is not fundamentally about hunting, or collecting, or target practice; it is about empowering the citizen relative to the state. Denying the importance of, or even refusing to understand, this fundamental point of the Second Amendment right, and sneering at people who do, symptomizes a politics of paternalist statism – not (actually the opposite of) a politics of revolutionary liberation.

I’ll pause right here. For me, and for most supporters of gun rights, however inartfully they may put it, this is the core issue. To have an honest discussion of what’s at stake when we talk about “gun rights,” “gun control,” etc., everyone has to know, and acknowledge, his/her position on this fundamental political principle. Do you hold that the right to possess firearms is a fundamental political right?

If you do, then you are ascribing it a strong positive value, you will be predisposed to favor its extension to all citizens, you will consider whatever “regulations” you think are necessary (because some might be) with the greatest circumspection (because those “regulations” are limitations on a right, and rights, though never as absolute as we may like, are to be cherished), you will never seek, overtly or surreptitiously, to eliminate that right entirely – and your discourse will reflect all of that. If you understand gun ownership as a political right, then, for you, if there weren’t a second amendment, there should be.
..
..
(more)


http://www.thepolemicist.net/2013/01/the-rifle-on-wall-left-argument-for-gun.html

One LONG-assed essay, but a very good read, if you have the time.

Vatican Sides With Obama on Gun Control

The Vatican praised President Barack Obama's proposals for curbing gun violence on Saturday, saying they are a "step in a right direction."

Vatican's chief spokesman the Rev. Federico Lombardi, in an editorial said that 47 religious leaders have appealed to members of the U.S. Congress "to limit firearms that are making society pay an unacceptable price in terms of massacres and senseless deaths."

"I am with them," Lombardi declared, lining up the Vatican's moral support in favor of firearm limits.
..
..


http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Vatican-guns-control-support/2013/01/19/id/472169

Maybe they should worry about protecting little boys first.

Vatican Sides With Obama on Gun Control

The Vatican praised President Barack Obama's proposals for curbing gun violence on Saturday, saying they are a "step in a right direction."

Vatican's chief spokesman the Rev. Federico Lombardi, in an editorial said that 47 religious leaders have appealed to members of the U.S. Congress "to limit firearms that are making society pay an unacceptable price in terms of massacres and senseless deaths."

"I am with them," Lombardi declared, lining up the Vatican's moral support in favor of firearm limits.
..
..


http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Vatican-guns-control-support/2013/01/19/id/472169

Maybe they should worry about protecting little boys first.

Democratic Senator: White House Gun-Control Plans 'Way in Extreme'

(CNSNews.com) - Newly elected Democratic Sen. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota said on ABC News' "This Week" today that the gun-control proposals under consideration in the Obama White House are "way in extreme" and are "not going to pass" in Congress.
..
..
Host George Stephanopoulos asked Sen. Heitkamp: "Are you willing to sign on to some of the reforms that Vice President Biden and President Obama are already talking about?"

"You know, it's unclear," Heitkamp said. "I mean, you read Washington Post stories and you listen to what the administration says, and so I think what we need to do is we need to take a look at what happened at Sandy Hook. When I was attorney general, I was tasked with a national task force on school violence. We made a number of recommendations which, in fact, were adopted at Sandy Hook to help keep schools safer. They weren't adequate.

"Let's start addressing the problem," said Heitkamp. "And to me, one of the issues that I think screams out of this is the issue of mental health and the care for the mentally ill in our country, especially the dangerously mentally ill. And so we need to have a broad discussion before we start talking about gun control."


http://cnsnews.com/news/article/democratic-senator-wh-gun-control-plans-way-extreme

Uh oh... cue the torches and pitch-forks!!



Should be no surprise, but many rural Dems aren't on-board with new gun controls at all. And nothing is getting through Congress without them.

Looks like we'll have to look for other ways to deal with the violence instead...

I'm Kind of Enjoying All the Gun Threads in GD...

Seems like we're getting a lot more thoughtful discussion and reflection on this issue, less of the hard-core ideologues and trolls on both sides refusing to budge like most of those who dare venture into the Gungeon, already dead-set in their ways.

Maybe we should close the Gungeon once and for all and just let it all hang out in GD for good.

"It’s not easy being a leftist who loves guns..."

It’s not easy being a leftist who loves guns. It’s like being a Republican who listens to NPR or supports single payer health care. But being a leftist, I get exposed to all the liberal publications and media that invariably call for gun control every time someone does something stupid with one. Being a gun enthusiast, I also get exposed to the political Right’s oversimplification of those liberals as somehow lacking moral fiber or true appreciation of freedom. Rather than agreeing with both, I tend to end up arguing with both. It’s exhausting to always feel like I’m apologizing for the other “side”.

This article takes a point of view, but aims to do so in a way that members of both sides of the political spectrum can understand. I’ll try to give some idea as to why we on the political left roll our eyes at the rhetoric of the NRA, and how we in the “gun culture” can possibly defend something called “assault weapons”.

We all know the cycle by now: Tragic incident occurs, both sides attempt to use it for their political gain, both sides act shocked that the other would attempt to use it for political gain, insults are flung, statistics are cherry-picked, rinse, repeat.
..
..
(more)


http://kontradictions.wordpress.com/2012/08/09/why-not-renew-the-assault-weapons-ban-well-ill-tell-you/

Fairly lengthy blog read from a few months ago, but especially relevant right now.

He ends with some hard-hitting questions:

- Why ban cosmetic features?
- Why ban guns used in a mere 2% of crime?
- Why base gun control legislation on rare and statistically insignificant mass shootings to begin with?
- Why ban magazines that have been consistently sized since their invention?
- How would banning these magazines have saved lives, given that all a shooter needs is multiple magazines and 3 seconds of time (i.e. Cho)?
- How will a ban on either these weapons or magazines reduce crime, since there are many millions of them legal and available anyway, especially since production has ramped up after the ban’s expiration?

Why and how indeed.

Two Big Reasons Why New Gun Controls Aren't Going to Happen

A) The 2014 Mid-Term Elections

Among the states Democrats will be defending are Alaska, Arkansas, Louisiana, North Carolina, West Virginia, Virginia, New Hampshire, Colorado, Iowa, New Mexico and South Dakota. All of these states have very strong blocks of pro-gun voters. In Michigan, the issue could come into play if Sen. Carl Levin decides to retire.

Regardless of how the fiscal cliff negotiations end, the economy will remain weak through 2014. There is even a chance the economy slips back into recession. It is unlikely Harry Reid wants to add to the Democrats' challenge by making gun control an issue in the midterm. Midterm's have lower turnout than presidential elections, allowing an energized base of voters, like gun rights supporters, to have an out-sized impact on the results.

B) Biden Gun Violence Task Force

In Washington, blue-ribbon task forces are reserved for issues where you want the appearance of taking action, without having to actually do anything. There's a reason we've had so many task forces on government spending and the debt. Politicians want to look like they are doing something on an issue. By the time the task force completes its work, the national conversation will have moved on to a new issue.

Task forces are also effective ways to slow down a push for legislation. Legislators can defer taking action while the task force completes its "review" of the issue. Its a very convenient way to kick an issue down the road until after the immediate emotions have cooled.

Obama's press conference yesterday marked the zenith of the new push for gun control. Its momentum will fade as the raw emotions around the shooting recede. With it, the appetite for new gun control laws will fall away. Obama's task force is recognition of that.

---------------------------------

Did I leave anything out?
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next »