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 »


Profile Information

Gender: Male
Hometown: Missoula, MT
Home country: USA
Current location: Deep in Red State Hell!
Member since: 2001
Number of posts: 5,142

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

Senate Gun Control Bill Actually a "Christmas Tree" of Pro-Gun Measures?

Sounds like the pro-gun group Second Amendment Foundation had a heavy hand in crafting this Manchin-Toomey bill.

Here's SAF's Alan Gottlieb bragging about it:


“There’s a Million other checks in there it’s a Christmas Tree,” bragged Gottlieb, “We just hung a Million Ornaments on it.”

It sounds like, in exchange for universal background checks, quite a few pro-gun measures are going to be included in there, such as National CCW Reciprocity, and no record-keeping (hence registration), which could make it a bitter pill for the pro-control side to swallow.

Indeed, it makes you wonder how much the pro-gun side can get away with adding before the antis deep-six their own proposal.

This could be fun to watch.

These crimes will get you less jail time......

.....than having more than 7 rounds in your magazine in New York State:

120.70 – Luring a child | E Felony
121.11 – Criminal obstruction of breathing or blood circulation | A Misdemeanor
125.10 – Criminally negligent homicide | E Felony
130.20 – Sexual misconduct | A Misdemeanor
130.25 – Rape 3rd degree | E Felony
130.40 – Criminal sexual act 3rd degree | E Felony
130.52 – Forcible touching | A Misdemeanor
130.53 – Persistent sexual abuse | E Felony (repeat child molester, must be caught and convicted in two separate cases before the charges even reach this level)
130.65 – Aggravated sexual abuse 4th degree | E Felony
130.85 – Female genital mutilation | E Felony
135.05 – Unlawful imprisonment 2nd degree | A Misdemeanor
135.10 – Unlawful imprisonment 1st degree | E Felony
135.45 – Custodial interference 2nd degree | A Misdemeanor
135.50 – Custodial interference 1st degree | E Felony
135.55 – Substitution of children | E Felony (switched at birth type of thing)
135.60 – Coercion 2nd degree | A Misdemeanor
150.01 – 5th degree Arson | A Misdemeanor
150.05 – 4th degree Arson | E Felony
178.10 – 4th degree Criminal diversion of prescription medications and prescriptions | A Misdemeanor
178.15 – 3rd degree Criminal diversion of prescription medications and prescriptions | E Felony
220.28 – Use of a child to commit a controlled substance offense | E Felony
240.05 – Riot 2nd degree | A Misdemeanor
240.06 – Riot 1st degree | E Felony
240.08 – Inciting to riot | A Misdemeanor
240.15 – Criminal anarchy | E Felony
240.20 – Disorderly conduct | Violation
240.61 – Placing a false bomb or hazardous substance 2nd degree | E Felony
250.45 – Unlawful surveillance 2nd degree | E felony (Hidden cams for sexual gratification)
255.25 – Incest 3rd degree | E Felony
263.11 – Possessing an obscene sexual performance by a child | E Felony
263.16 – Possessing a sexual performance by a child | E Felony

Because clearly those "evil base toters" with their "killer monster mags" are more dangerous than sex offenders...

Atlas Shrugged Part ][

So... I thought I'd celebrate acing my Math test earlier this afternoon, so I stopped at the Redbox on the way home and picked up a DVD. And lo' and behold, what did I find?

The sequel to the classic that almost put me to sleep... but I try to keep an open-mind, so I figured I'd give it another try.

First thing I noticed is that practically the entire original cast were replaced by newbies. Did the original flop that bad that ALL the original actors/actresses wanted nothing to do with the sequel? Say it ain't so!

Sure enough, once again the set consisted of mostly stuffy board rooms, cocktail parties, and the occasional train-car interior. It's probably not hard to turn a profit on a low-budget film when your only real expenses are the fancy suits and dresses the main characters wear!

Lots more boring dialogue, a rousing speech about how money isn't evil, straw-man arguments about the government supposedly getting so oppressive that it no longer allows for workers to quit their jobs or get pay raises, nor for inventors to invent new things (no more patents!) And of course the mystery dynamo -- the power source to end all power sources.

I wish there was more to say about this film, but that really about covers it. 111 minutes dragged out with a train crash or two thrown it for effect.

It looks like Dagny finally finds John Galt in the end. Wish they would have skipped straight to that part right at the beginning when they were showing her flying her plane, because the rest was all just pretty much filler in between.

I'm not sure there will ever be a Part 3, but I am kind of curious to see what kind of "utopia" they've created, supposedly free from the corrupting vices of the rest of society.

Oh well. $1.27 and a couple hours of my life I'll never get back.

Don't You Just Love Those Regular DVDs That Advertise Blu-Ray?

Seems like they are on every regular DVD rental these days.

The advertisements feature all this sharp sound and crisp picture, suggesting you only get that high quality if you buy Blu-Ray -- except, that's regular DVD quality at work there! What you are seeing/hearing is what you already got! Otherwise, you wouldn't be able to see/hear it!

They may as well just come out and say: "You don't really need Blu-Ray, because the status quo is just fine."

Some of these advertisers never cease to amaze me...

Steubenville Rape Victim Receiving Death Threats

STEUBENVILLE (KDKA/AP) – The victim of a rape case involving two Steubenville High School football players is now reportedly receiving death threats.

Police say two 16-year-old girls are charged with threatening the girl. They say one of the suspected girls was arrested and the other turned herself in.

Police say one of the girls tweeted a threat to the victim, and they later learned of another threat from a second teen.

In a tweet to the victim, Police say one of the teens wrote, “you ripped my family apart, you made my cousin cry , so when I see you xxxxx, it’s gone be a homicide.”


Jesus... no wonder so many girls and women are reluctant to report sexual assaults.

And now the whole world knows her name...

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.


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.


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.


Maybe they should worry about protecting little boys first.

Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next »