HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » jimmy the one » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 Next »

jimmy the one

Profile Information

Gender: Male
Member since: Wed Nov 7, 2012, 08:26 AM
Number of posts: 1,875

Journal Archives

Question submitted by jimmy the one

The text of this question will be publicly available after it has been reviewed and answered by a DU Administrator. Please be aware that sometimes messages are not answered immediately. Thank you for your patience. --The DU Administrators
Posted by jimmy the one | Mon Aug 31, 2015, 01:50 PM (0 replies)

PBS: Police Chiefs blame guns

PBS (public broadcasting) judy woodruff interviewed two police chiefs couple nights ago, revealing but I was hardly surprised; excerpts below:

Judy: Chief Flynn, to you first. Milwaukee, an 88% {increase} — in homicides just since last year. What is going on? http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/caused-dramatic-tipping-point-deadly-shootings/

EDWARD FLYNN, Chief, Mailwaukee Police Dept: Well, we’re seeing a number of different dynamics playing out. Certainly, one of the things we have seen is a dramatic increase in the use of firearms, particularly semiautomatic pistols, in our violent deaths. We have seen that our shootings are up significantly, our homicides are up dramatically. Over 85% of our homicides are committed with firearms, and, of those, over 85% are committed with semiautomatic pistols.
We have recently passed a ludicrously weak gun law that allowed basically concealed carry permits to be granted to people who meet the statutory definition of career criminals. We have also got a situation where no matter how many times you are arrested for carrying a gun illegally, it remains a misdemeanor, even though a second offense for carrying marijuana can be prosecuted as a felony. So very weak and relatively recent gun laws are certainly a major contributor to our dramatic spike in firearms-related violence.


JUDY WOODRUFF: Chief Dotson, what about in Saint Louis, a 64% increase over last year? Is it all about guns?

COL. SAM DOTSON, Chief, St. Louis Metropolitan Police Dept: I’m seeing exactly the same thing that they’re seeing in Milwaukee, the availability of guns. We have a constitutional amendment in our state that was passed within the last year that makes it an inalienable right to have a gun. We have had courts that have declined to prosecute convicted felons that we arrest with guns. I’m seeing exactly the same thing, high-capacity magazines, a willingness to use the guns, and a judiciary that sometimes doesn’t follow through on the prosecution.
We had research done from a university here. Of about 250 cases of unlawful use of a weapon, over 61% of those cases got probation. That means those people are right back out on the street committing crimes.


Flynn: our firearms law went into effect in November of 2011. And almost immediately, we started to see an increase in the use of pistols. The tie-in to crime in Milwaukee through the use of a pistol in a crime, the biggest single number is under three months. Our firearms are easily bought legally. Ninety percent of the crime guns we seize at the scene of a crime were bought legally and sold legally, because secondary sales don’t require background checks.
It’s not the only variable. It’s significant components to our violence problem here and in other similarly situated cities. But certainly the easy availability of firearms, of large-capacity magazines is resulting in many more bullets being used at our crime scenes and many more guns being used at our crime scenes.


Dotson: the Ferguson effect, and about how some departments may see officers that have a little bit of trepidation when they go into an enforcement situation. We see criminals that have a little feeling of empowerment around the movement that’s going on.
So I think when you layer that in with the availability of guns, the trepidation of police officers and in Saint Louis a little bit now an uptick in the use of heroin, crack cocaine, difficult to find
Posted by jimmy the one | Fri Aug 7, 2015, 12:24 PM (2 replies)

NRA's Ted Nugent: Lion Killing a lie, joke

media matters: As outrage continued over the killing of tourist attraction Cecil the lion by a hunter in Zimbabwe, National Rifle Association board member Ted Nugent called the controversy "a lie" and a "joke," adding, "God are people stupid."

On Facebook, Nugent attacked those upset by Cecil's killing on July 28, writing, "the whole story is a lie. ... I will write a full piece on this joke asap. God are people stupid."

NRA figures have previously defended controversial hunting practices. In September 2013, widespread outrage occurred after the host of NRA-sponsored hunting show Under Wild Skies, Tony Makris, shot an elephant in the face. Makris, who has longstanding ties to the NRA, responded to outrage over his hunt by comparing his critics to Hitler. NBC Sports canceled the show, citing Makris' "outrageous and unacceptable" comments

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/07/29/nras-ted-nugent-people-upset-about-the-killing/204658
Posted by jimmy the one | Fri Jul 31, 2015, 11:15 AM (9 replies)

NRA's Ted Nugent: Lion killing a lie, joke

media matters: As outrage continued over the killing of tourist attraction Cecil the lion by a hunter in Zimbabwe, National Rifle Association board member Ted Nugent called the controversy "a lie" and a "joke," adding, "God are people stupid."

On Facebook, Nugent attacked those upset by Cecil's killing on July 28, writing, "the whole story is a lie. ... I will write a full piece on this joke asap. God are people stupid."

NRA figures have previously defended controversial hunting practices. In September 2013, widespread outrage occurred after the host of NRA-sponsored hunting show Under Wild Skies, Tony Makris, shot an elephant in the face. Makris, who has longstanding ties to the NRA, responded to outrage over his hunt by comparing his critics to Hitler. NBC Sports canceled the show, citing Makris' "outrageous and unacceptable" comments

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/07/29/nras-ted-nugent-people-upset-about-the-killing/204658
Posted by jimmy the one | Fri Jul 31, 2015, 10:08 AM (4 replies)

Where does the ABA stand on 2ndA? ACLU?

I was wondering how the American Bar Association (ABA) currently views 2ndA after heller & macdonald supreme court decisions. ABA has previously supported the militia interpretation. I tried googling but came up with little current, except one blurb that ABA is currently just trying to promote a fix to gun violence, & so I suspect maybe they are, as legal beagles, end played into supporting scotus decisions. ACLU however, is not, & still supports the militia view.

guncite 1993 (pro gun website, cited only for the reference to ABA & ACLU): This simple 27 word sentence {2ndA}cannot get any respect. It is ignored and disregarded by the American Bar Association, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the legal academy. For the most part, the legal community has down-played the Second Amendment by endorsing the view that the amendment protects only the right of states to maintain militias free from federal disarmament. This view, to which both the ABA and the ACLU subscribe is known as the collective.. interpretation. http://www.guncite.com/journals/quinshy.html

ABA past positions on guncontrol: 1983 The ABA supports the enactment of appropriate penalties to deter firearms-related crimes; endorses effective and proven measures to control the possession of handguns; and opposes efforts to repeal provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968.
2004 The ABA supports stronger enforcement and prosecution of federal gun laws
2011 The ABA urges jurisdictions that allow the carrying of concealed weapons to grant broad discretion to law enforcement authorities to determine whether a permit or license should be issued .. The resolution also opposes federal legislation that would force states to recognize permits or licenses to carry concealed weapons issued in another state.
2012 The ABA opposes governmental actions and policies that limit the rights of physicians and other health care providers to inquire of their patients whether they possess guns and how they are secured in the home or to counsel their patients about the dangers of guns in the home and safe practices to avoid those dangers
http://www.americanbar.org/groups/committees/gun_violence/policy.html

ACLU - American Civil Liberties Union (which we can love & hate every now & then, eh?!): Updated: 1/17/2013 "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
ACLU POSITION Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that view. This position is currently under review and is being updated by the ACLU National Board in light of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in D.C. v. Heller in 2008.
In striking down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's decision in D.C. v. Heller held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, whether or not associated with a state militia. The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. However, particular federal or state laws on licensing, registration, prohibition, or other regulation of the manufacture, shipment, sale, purchase or possession of guns may raise civil liberties questions.
ANALYSIS Although ACLU policy cites the Supreme Court's decision in U.S. v. Miller as support for our position on the Second Amendment, our policy was never dependent on Miller. Rather, like all ACLU policies, it reflects the ACLU's own understanding of the Constitution and civil liberties.
Heller takes a different approach than the ACLU has advocated. At the same time, it leaves many unresolved questions, including what firearms are protected by the Second Amendment, what regulations (short of an outright ban) may be upheld, and how that determination will be made.
https://www.aclu.org/second-amendment
Posted by jimmy the one | Fri Jul 10, 2015, 03:05 PM (2 replies)

nra gunnut tom selleck, aka water thief

july 9, 2015: Hollywood celebrity and NRA gun nut Tom Selleck has been accused in a lawsuit of stealing thousands of gallons of water from a public fire hydrant and bringing it to his California ranch. California has been in a major drought for four years.

According to the Calleguas Municipal Water District in Ventura County, Selleck loaded a tanker truck with water more than a dozen times to use for his 60-acre Westlake Village ranch. A private investigator hired by the Calleguas district says Selleck has been stealing water in this manner for at least two years.
Different areas in California have varying water usage caps as ordered by the California state government. Some must cut water use by 25 percent. Ventura County, where Selleck’s ranch is located, must cut back its use by 36 percent. That mandatory cutback was ordered in 2013.
The district of Calleguas sent several cease-and-desist letters to Selleck, urging him to stop stealing the water. CBS News noted that Selleck’s tanker truck was spotted in March while it was filling up at a fire hydrant. The district’s lawsuit doesn’t detail exactly how much water was taken by Selleck.
Selleck’s audacity and sense of entitlement is unfathomable. As a member on the NRA’s board of directors, Selleck shares company with the likes of Ted Nugent. In that spirit, he believes that the government can’t regulate what he consumes, even when others are going without

http://www.ringoffireradio.com/2015/07/nra-spokesperson-tom-selleck-steals-water-from-california-drought-stricken-town-to-water-in-ranch/

Oh well, remember now colleagues & readers, he's innocent until prove guilty. Well, I should add, of cases prosecuted 71% result in guilty verdicts, so jimmy's corollary: 'innocent until proven guilty, but probably guilty!'

addendum: jan 2013: MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell went all the way back to a 1999 episode of The Daily Show to gain inspiration for his “Rewrite” segment last night. The subject was Tom Selleck, who became the “poster boy” for the NRA by appearing in an ad for the organization just one month before the Columbine shooting in which he declared “I am the NRA.”
In another blast from the past, O’Donnell showed a clip from “the first Rosie O’Donnell-hosted national television show.” In a lengthy clip from The Rosie O’Donnell Show, Selleck defended the NRA from accusations that they were failing to protect children from guns. After noting that 14 years later, Selleck is now on the board of the NRA, O’Donnell declared that “the time has come to do what Rosie O’Donnell refused to do 14 years ago–question Tom Selleck’s humanity.”


Posted by jimmy the one | Fri Jul 10, 2015, 02:08 PM (11 replies)

Invitation to a poll on Hillary, gun control advocate

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026527444

Here's the jist of it. It's on General Discussion (x-posted from rkba too, but link is GD). I didn't think of doing it here since I think (hope) we would all choose response #1 - as the democrat candidate in nov 2016, which is irrelevant to the poll's intent - except for the wandering souls in here desperately seeking rkba:

I prefaced: Many democrat gun enthusiasts have admonished democrat politicians who support gun control, often saying or suggesting or implying that they would not vote for such a person if they were running in their own district. Or that democrat politicians and the democrat party are somewhat doomed for taking on gun control positions.
How does this rationale sit with election 2016 & Hillary Clinton? presuming Hillary is heiress presumptive to the democrat nomination, will her gun control stance affect your 2016 vote against a surely far more 'pro gun' republican nominee? (third party candidates, regrettably, deemed negligible for this poll, but use your discretion).

Some background: Hillary Clinton lashed out at opponents of gun control regulations, saying they hold a viewpoint that “terrorizes” the majority of Americans. “We cannot let a minority of people, and that’s what it is, it is a minority of people, hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people,” http://time.com/2891821/hillary-clinton-2016-gun-control/

lapierre-head: I vow on this day the NRA will stand shoulder to shoulder with you and good, honest decent Americans and we will stand and fight with everything we've got and in 2016, by God, we will elect the next great president of the United States of America and it will not be Hillary Rodham Clinton,” Mr LaPierre said.


Poll choices:
1) I WILL vote for presumptive nominee Hillary, no matter what
2) I WILL vote for Hillary, despite her gun control advocacy
3) I will ABSTAIN from voting, due her gun control position
4) I DON'T KNOW if I will vote for her or not, due gun control issue
5) I will NOT vote for Hillary, due her gun control position
6) I will NOT vote for Hillary, for other reasoning
7) Prefer not to answer


What I mean is, even tho you may not prefer Hillary, when it comes down to brass tacks I hope we'd all vote for her instead of jebwalkerubio. But, perhaps I'm off base.


Posted by jimmy the one | Sat Apr 18, 2015, 12:23 PM (0 replies)

Will you vote for Hillary, gun control advocate?

Many democrat gun enthusiasts have admonished democrat politicians who support gun control, often saying or suggesting or implying that they would not vote for such a person if they were running in their own district. Or that democrat politicians and the democrat party are somewhat doomed for taking on gun control positions.
How does this rationale sit with election 2016 & Hillary Clinton? presuming Hillary is heiress presumptive to the democrat nomination, will her gun control stance affect your 2016 vote against a surely far more 'pro gun' republican nominee? (third party candidates, regrettably, deemed negligible for this poll, but use your discretion).

Some background: Hillary Clinton lashed out at opponents of gun control regulations, saying they hold a viewpoint that “terrorizes” the majority of Americans. “We cannot let a minority of people, and that’s what it is, it is a minority of people, hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people,” http://time.com/2891821/hillary-clinton-2016-gun-control/

lapierre-head: I vow on this day the NRA will stand shoulder to shoulder with you and good, honest decent Americans and we will stand and fight with everything we've got and in 2016, by God, we will elect the next great president of the United States of America and it will not be Hillary Rodham Clinton,” Mr LaPierre said.

As Hillary Clinton mulls running for president in 2016, she has been careful to shy away from broad, sweeping policy declarations. But not when she delivered harsh criticism of gun culture in America and denounced the idea that "anybody can have a gun, anywhere, at any time." Clinton didn't dispute Americans' right to own guns. But she said access to guns in the US had grown "way out of balance." "We've got to rein in what has become an almost article of faith that anybody can have a gun anywhere, anytime..".

Gun rights groups have long considered Mrs. Clinton their foe. Her 2000 Senate campaign centered on a push to keep guns off the streets, and she was a forceful advocate of creating a national gun registry.. as she faced off against Barack Obama in the Democratic primary, she positioned herself as more conservative than him on gun control. She backed off the proposal for a national registry..


As presumed Democrats here on the Democrat Underground, will you or won't you vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016? .. expound upon your reasoning if you wish. I know it's an 'unscientific internet poll', just amongst ourselves, could be interesting.
Posted by jimmy the one | Sat Apr 18, 2015, 11:37 AM (94 replies)

Will you vote for Hillary, gun control advocate?

Many gun enthusiasts here on rkba have admonished politicians who support gun control, often saying or suggesting or implying that they would not vote for such a person if they were running in their own district. Or that democrat politicians and the democrat party is somewhat doomed for taking on gun control positions.
How does this rationale sit with election 2016 & Hillary Clinton? presuming Hillary is heiress presumptive to the democrat nomination, will her gun control stance affect your 2016 vote against a surely far more 'pro gun' republican nominee? (third party candidates, regrettably, deemed negligible for this poll, but use your discretion).

Some background: Hillary Clinton lashed out at opponents of gun control regulations, saying they hold a viewpoint that “terrorizes” the majority of Americans. “We cannot let a minority of people, and that’s what it is, it is a minority of people, hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people,” http://time.com/2891821/hillary-clinton-2016-gun-control/

lapierre-head: I vow on this day the NRA will stand shoulder to shoulder with you and good, honest decent Americans and we will stand and fight with everything we've got and in 2016, by God, we will elect the next great president of the United States of America and it will not be Hillary Rodham Clinton,” Mr LaPierre said.

As Hillary Clinton mulls running for president in 2016, she has been careful to shy away from broad, sweeping policy declarations. But not when she delivered harsh criticism of gun culture in America and denounced the idea that "anybody can have a gun, anywhere, at any time." Clinton didn't dispute Americans' right to own guns. But she said access to guns in the US had grown "way out of balance." "We've got to rein in what has become an almost article of faith that anybody can have a gun anywhere, anytime..".

Gun rights groups have long considered Mrs. Clinton their foe. Her 2000 Senate campaign centered on a push to keep guns off the streets, and she was a forceful advocate of creating a national gun registry.. as she faced off against Barack Obama in the Democratic primary, she positioned herself as more conservative than him on gun control. She backed off the proposal for a national registry..

As presumed Democrats here on the Democrat Underground, will you or won't you vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016? .. expound upon your reasoning if you wish.
Posted by jimmy the one | Thu Apr 16, 2015, 02:00 PM (32 replies)

ACLU position on second amendment

Gun Control Updated: 1/17/2013 ACLU POSITION Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right.
..... For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that {collective militia} view. This position is currently under review and is being updated by the ACLU National Board in light of Supreme Court decision in D.C. v. Heller in 2008.
In striking down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's decision in D.C. v. Heller held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, whether or not associated with a state militia. The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment.
However, particular federal or state laws on licensing, registration, prohibition, or other regulation of the manufacture, shipment, sale, purchase or possession of guns may raise civil liberties questions.


Although ACLU policy cites the Supreme Court's decision in U.S. v. Miller as support for our position on the Second Amendment, our policy was never dependent on Miller. Rather, like all ACLU policies, it reflects the ACLU's own understanding of the Constitution and civil liberties.
Heller takes a different approach than the ACLU has advocated. At the same time, it leaves many unresolved questions, including what firearms are protected by the Second Amendment, what regulations (short of an outright ban) may be upheld, and how that determination will be made.
https://www.aclu.org/racial-justice_prisoners-rights_drug-law-reform_immigrants-rights/second-amendment

I guess they didn't: July 22, 2010, An ACLU insider with a state affiliate told me the national organization is in the middle of “rethinking” their position on second amendment rights. http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2010/jul/22/aclu-rethinking-second-amendment/#ixzz3U5Hbzwrw

current wiki 2015: Gun rights – The national ACLU's position is that the Second Amendment protects a collective right to own guns, rather than an individual right (some state affiliates consider the Second Amendment to refer to individual gun rights). The national organization's position is based on the phrases "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State". However, the ACLU opposes any effort to create a registry of gun owners and has worked with NRA to prevent a registry from being created and has favored protecting the right to carry guns under the 4th Amendmen
Posted by jimmy the one | Wed Mar 11, 2015, 09:50 AM (4 replies)
Go to Page: 1 2 3 Next »