HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » jimmy the one » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next »

jimmy the one

Profile Information

Gender: Male
Member since: Wed Nov 7, 2012, 08:26 AM
Number of posts: 2,275

Journal Archives

Approve Merrick Garland, due popular vote win by Hillary

Well aware it will not happen.
But while the obsolete & biased electoral college gifted the presidency to trump, the electoral college & electoral vote count should not influence the appointment of a supreme court justice who died under the auspices of our sitting president Obama, 10 months ago. The electoral college was designed to elect presidents not to appoint supreme court justices, especially those replacing justices who died 10 months prior to the election.
Earlier this year, the republican argument was that 'the people should decide', via the november election, which president should appoint to the scalia vacancy.
Well, the people decided by close to 3 million votes that Hillary Clinton was the choice for president. Totally sequitur that therefore the people decided for a liberal or democrat supreme court appointment, rather than a right wing republican one.
As I said, it will not happen, but the argument should be made prior to inauguration, & I haven't seen it. Apologies if it is indeed redundant.

Earlier 2016: North Carolina Republican Richard Burr “The American people deserve a voice in the nomination of the next Supreme Court Justice,” Burr explained.

Cruz statement read. “The People will decide. I commend Mitch McConnell and Chuck Grassley for holding the line and ensuring that We the People get to exercise our authority to decide the direction of the Supreme Court and the Bill of Rights.”

They've both changed their views, of course.

Electoral college votes biased I wrote above, will have a fuller thread in an hour or so (on general discussion) to demonstrate what I mean http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028361403
here is a snapshot:

Reliably red states Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, NDak, Oklahoma, SCar, SDak, Tenn, Texas, Utah, WVa, Wyoming.
Reliably blue states: California, Conn, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Masssa, Minnesota, New Jersey, NMex, NewYork, Oregon, RI, Vermont, Washington.

Blue states above, total population: 96.4 million; total Electoral Votes (EVs) = 194
Red states avove, total population: 77.1 million; total EVs = 191

Blue state Electoral Votes per million = 2.01 EVs/million
Red state Electoral Votes per million = 2.48 EVs/million

Red states enjoy ~25% more electoral votes per million people, than blue states do.
Traitorous Michigan & Pennsy, downgraded to purple states this year, had they been included in the blue state count, would've made it slightly worse for dems, but not significantly.
Posted by jimmy the one | Tue Dec 13, 2016, 01:14 PM (0 replies)

Electoral Vote Inequality per gun states vs. control states (REVISED)

OK, some of you see thru my ruse; I'm trying to keep it on topic by making it gun states vs control states, but it isn't really, it's just the disparity between red states & blue states when it comes to the electoral votes & subsequent electoral college.
So if you need lock it FL don't worry about offending, I'll understand; just thought it would be good for fellows on this forum to see how disadvantageous the obsolete electoral college is for democrats. Reposted from my exact same general discussion thread I started minutes ago, copied & pasted.

Reliably Red States enjoy approx 7% advantage (revised over original post) over reliably blue states in the electoral college distribution rate.

23 Reliably red states, Electoral Votes, then EVs per million: Alabama 9, 1.85 EVs/million; Alaska 3, 4.05/million; Arizona 11, 1.59; Arkansas 6, 2.00; Georgia 16, 1.55; Idaho 4, 2.38; Indiana 11, 1.66; Kansas 6, 2.05; Kentucky 8, 1.80; Louis 8, 1.71; Mississ 6, 2.00; Missouri 10, 1.64; Montana 3, 2.88; Nebraska 5, 2.62; NDak 3, 3.90; Okla 7, 1.78; SCarolina 9, 1.81; SDak 3, 3.48; Tenn 11, 1.65; Texas 38, 1.36; Utah 6, 1.97; WVa 5, 2.72; Wyoming 3, 5.10

15 Reliably blue states, EVs, then EVs per million: Calif 55, 1.39; Conn 7, 1.95; Delaware 3, 3.14; Hawaii 4, 2.78; Illinois 20, 1.56; Maryland 10, 1.66; Massachusetts 11, 1.61; Minnes 10, 1.81; New Jersey 14, 1.56; NMex 5, 2.40; New York 29, 1.46; Oregon 7, 1.71; RI 4, 3.77; Vermont 3, 4.80; Washington 12, 1.65

12 battleground states, including traitors michigan & pennsy this year: Colorado 9, 1.62 (albeit becoming reliably blue); Florida 29, 1.40; Iowa 6, 1.91; Maine 4, 3.00; Michigan 16, 1.61; Nevada 6, 2.04; New Hampshire 4, 3.00; NCarolina 15, 1.48; Ohio 18, 1.55; Pennsy 20, 1.56; Virginia 13, 1.54; Wisconsin 10, 1.73:

Blue state Electoral Votes per million = 1.65 EVs/million
Red state Electoral Votes per million = 1.79 EVs/million
Purple battleground states EVs per million = ~1.60 EVs/million

Red states enjoy ~7% more electoral votes per million people, than blue states do.
Traitorous Michigan & Pennsy, downgraded to purple states this year, had they been included in the blue state count, would've made it slightly worse for dems, but not significantly.

Purple battleground states are immaterial, since they fluctuate and benefit either side, so they cannot be included in a meaningful comparison.
Less populated states get inordinately higher EVs/million than the rest, but quirky enough, there is not much advantage gained by either red or blue sides, since they pretty much balance each other out, with red Alaska 4.05, Montana 2.88, NDakota 3.90, SDakota 3.48 balanced out by blue Delaware 3.14, Hawaii 2.78, Rhode Island 3.77, & Vermont 4.80, with purple new hampshire 3.00.
Texas gets the least EVs per million with 1.36, just barely & at parity with Florida 1.40, California 1.39, and New York 1.46, the four largest states by population. Wyoming is highest EV/mill at 5.10.

Edit: My original OP used one of two different methods I used to determine EVs per million, but alas the one I posted did not provide what I said it did. I omitted 'parity' states from the method I posted, which mislead. I did this a month back & forgot the two methods in my haste to post it. Mea Culpa, Confiteor & Apologies.
The imbalance is not as pronounced as I first reported, but red states do indeed benefit from an electoral college disparity.
However, rather than being 80% of a red state voter, the rate is about 93% of a red state voter. Far less dramatic for sure, but still there.
Posted by jimmy the one | Tue Dec 13, 2016, 12:59 PM (4 replies)

Approve Merrick Garland, due the popular vote win by Hillary

Well aware it will not happen.
But while the obsolete & biased electoral college gifted the presidency to trump, the electoral college & electoral vote count should not influence the appointment of a supreme court justice who died under the auspices of our sitting president Obama, 10 months ago. The electoral college was designed to elect presidents not to appoint supreme court justices, especially those replacing justices who died 10 months prior to the election.
Earlier this year, the republican argument was that 'the people should decide', via the november election, which president should appoint to the scalia vacancy.
Well, the people decided by close to 3 million votes that Hillary Clinton was the choice for president. Totally sequitur that therefore the people decided for a liberal or democrat supreme court appointment, rather than a right wing republican one.
As I said, it will not happen, but the argument should be made prior to inauguration, & I haven't seen it. Apologies if it is indeed redundant.

Earlier 2016: North Carolina Republican Richard Burr “The American people deserve a voice in the nomination of the next Supreme Court Justice,” Burr explained.

Cruz statement read. “The People will decide. I commend Mitch McConnell and Chuck Grassley for holding the line and ensuring that We the People get to exercise our authority to decide the direction of the Supreme Court and the Bill of Rights.”
Posted by jimmy the one | Tue Dec 13, 2016, 12:19 PM (0 replies)

asssault rifle ban for those on terror watch list - at least

What congressional Dems might suggest is to create an 'assault weapons ban' for those on a terrorist watch list.
That is to say, if not a total gun ban for them as is politically improbable, at least ban those on a terrorist watch list from being able to buy assault rifles such as the sig mcx or the AR15. These both use a low weight 0.223 bullet or the similar nato round which are so light at ~60 grains they do not create much rifle recoil, which makes shooting more accurate as the rifle needs not be re-aimed as much after firing shots, as do bullets with heavier weight & larger calibers. Also known as 'rifle rise' due greater recoil.
These assault rifles using these low weight bullets are 'en vogue' for mass shootings due the same reasons soldiers like them - can carry more light weight bullets, light recoil, & higher accuracy & lethality. The lady shooter at san bernardino was reported as having an AR15, or a 0.223 rifle, & she weighed little over 100 lbs, making the AR15 ideal for her - tho whether she actually shot, dunno.
Obtaining a handgun or conventional rifle by a suspect terrorist would generally not be as effective in mass shootings as these assault rifles.
At least suspect terrorists wouldn't be able to get assault rifles, while still being able to exercise their (barf) 2nd Amendment rkba.

...........AR15/M16 ..... AK-47 (122 grain bullet) >>>> Free Recoil
momentum 40.4 ft-lbs .. 54.3 ft-lbs
(some rifles have 240+ grain bullets with much greater recoil than ar15)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_AK-47_and_M16

Also, the nra is fos when saying a ban on all those formerly on a terrorist watch list (as recent orlando shooter) might not be deterred by a ban on those currently on a terrorist watch list.
Some 'formerly's' indeed would be deterred by such a ban, as there would be a 'threat' of being identified as having once been on a terrorist watch list, and this in itself would inhibit many of those people from even desiring to try to purchase a gun, for either an irrational fear of being reported to cops & quickly arrested, or being exposed by the gun dealer to the community he lives in, iow paranoia.

As far as 'law abiding americans' being prohibited from buying a gun if they are accidentally on a terrorist watch list ban, the gun lobby makes the absurd conclusion that all of these people would even want to buy a gun. Most would likely not even want to buy a gun, unless they were truly terroristic of course.
Some unfairly on the list would already be gun owners, thus not being left gun-less.
Most all of the rest should not complain severely about being accidentally put on one since they could simply go to sheriff or authority & provide proof that they are legal beagles, and weighing the positive benefits from a terrorist watch list a true citizen should understand. True terrorists generally could not do this.
Posted by jimmy the one | Mon Jun 27, 2016, 01:38 PM (2 replies)

asssault rifle ban for those on terror watch list - at least

What congressional Dems might suggest is to create an 'assault weapons ban' for those on a terrorist watch list.
That is to say, if not a total gun ban for them as is politically improbable, at least ban those on a terrorist watch list from being able to buy assault rifles such as the sig mcx or the AR15. These both use a low weight 0.223 bullet or the similar nato round which are so light at ~60 grains they do not create much rifle recoil, which makes shooting more accurate as the rifle needs not be re-aimed as much after firing shots, as do bullets with heavier weight & larger calibers. Also known as 'rifle rise' due greater recoil.
These assault rifles using these low weight bullets are 'en vogue' for mass shootings due the same reasons soldiers like them - can carry more light weight bullets, light recoil, & higher accuracy & lethality. The lady shooter at san bernardino was reported as having an AR15, or a 0.223 rifle, & she weighed little over 100 lbs, making the AR15 ideal for her - tho whether she actually shot, dunno.
Obtaining a handgun or conventional rifle by a suspect terrorist would generally not be as effective in mass shootings as these assault rifles.
At least suspect terrorists wouldn't be able to get assault rifles, while still being able to exercise their (barf) 2nd Amendment rkba.

...........AR15/M16 ..... AK-47 (122 grain bullet) >>>> Free Recoil
momentum 40.4 ft-lbs .. 54.3 ft-lbs

(some rifles have 240+ grain bullets with much greater recoil than ar15)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_AK-47_and_M16

Also, the nra is fos when saying a ban on all those formerly on a terrorist watch list (as recent orlando shooter) might not be deterred by a ban on those currently on a terrorist watch list.
Some 'formerly's' indeed would be deterred by such a ban, as there would be a 'threat' of being identified as having once been on a terrorist watch list, and this in itself would inhibit many of those people from even desiring to try to purchase a gun, for either an irrational fear of being reported to cops & quickly arrested, or being exposed by the gun dealer to the community he lives in, iow paranoia.

As far as 'law abiding americans' being prohibited from buying a gun if they are accidentally on a terrorist watch list ban, the gun lobby makes the absurd conclusion that all of these people would even want to buy a gun. Most would likely not even want to buy a gun, unless they were truly terroristic of course.
Some unfairly on the list would already be gun owners, thus not being left gun-less.
Most all of the rest should not complain severely about being accidentally put on one since they could simply go to sheriff or authority & provide proof that they are legal beagles, and weighing the positive benefits from a terrorist watch list a true citizen should understand. True terrorists generally could not do this.
Posted by jimmy the one | Mon Jun 27, 2016, 01:25 PM (19 replies)

AW bans OK with US supreme court

dec 7, 2015: The U.S. Supreme Court Monday handed a legal victory to advocates of banning firearms commonly known as assault weapons.
By leaving a suburban Chicago gun control law intact, the court gave a boost to efforts aimed at imposing such bans elsewhere, at a time of renewed interest in gun regulation after recent mass shootings.

The court declined to take up a challenge to a 2013 law passed in Highland Park, Illinois that bans the sale, purchase, or possession of semi-automatic weapons that can hold more than ten rounds in a single ammunition clip or magazine. It specifically includes certain rifles, including those resembling the AR-15 and AK-47 assault-style firearms.
Semi-automatic weapons are capable of shooting a single round with each pull of the trigger and, consequently, can fire rapidly. Large capacity magazines reduce the need to reload as often.

A federal district judge upheld the law, and so did a federal appeals court panel by a 2-1 vote. On Monday the Supreme Court declined to hear the case.
Antonin Scalia and {his batman}Clarence Thomas said the Supreme Court should have taken the case. Thomas wrote their dissent, said the court should have granted review to prevent the appeals court "from relegating the Second Amendment to a second-class right."

In rejecting a challenge to the law, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, said "assault weapons with large-capacity magazines can fire more shots, faster, and thus can be more dangerous in the aggregate. Why else are they the weapons of choice in mass shootings?"
Lawyers for 24 states urged the Supreme Court to strike the ordinance down. They said the weapons it banned are not only commonly used but also protected by state laws that forbid local communities to restrict them.

Similar bans are in effect in California, Connecticut, Hawaii, New York, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New Jersey, and in Chicago and surrounding cities.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/supreme-court-leaves-assault-weapons-ban-intact-n475421

Posted by jimmy the one | Mon Dec 7, 2015, 11:04 AM (5 replies)

AW ban upheld Illinois

dec 7, 2015: The U.S. Supreme Court Monday handed a legal victory to advocates of banning firearms commonly known as assault weapons.
By leaving a suburban Chicago gun control law intact, the court gave a boost to efforts aimed at imposing such bans elsewhere, at a time of renewed interest in gun regulation after recent mass shootings.

The court declined to take up a challenge to a 2013 law passed in Highland Park, Illinois that bans the sale, purchase, or possession of semi-automatic weapons that can hold more than ten rounds in a single ammunition clip or magazine. It specifically includes certain rifles, including those resembling the AR-15 and AK-47 assault-style firearms.
Semi-automatic weapons are capable of shooting a single round with each pull of the trigger and, consequently, can fire rapidly. Large capacity magazines reduce the need to reload as often.

A federal district judge upheld the law, and so did a federal appeals court panel by a 2-1 vote. On Monday the Supreme Court declined to hear the case.
Antonin Scalia and {his batman}Clarence Thomas said the Supreme Court should have taken the case. Thomas wrote their dissent, said the court should have granted review to prevent the appeals court "from relegating the Second Amendment to a second-class right."

In rejecting a challenge to the law, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, said "assault weapons with large-capacity magazines can fire more shots, faster, and thus can be more dangerous in the aggregate. Why else are they the weapons of choice in mass shootings?"

Lawyers for 24 states urged the Supreme Court to strike the ordinance down. They said the weapons it banned are not only commonly used but also protected by state laws that forbid local communities to restrict them.

Similar bans are in effect in California, Connecticut, Hawaii, New York, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New Jersey, and in Chicago and surrounding cities.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/supreme-court-leaves-assault-weapons-ban-intact-n475421


Posted by jimmy the one | Mon Dec 7, 2015, 10:58 AM (11 replies)

should off duty cops carry guns at NFL games?

Actually I have little problem with this:

The Sergeants Benevolent Association has launched a petition demanding that NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell lift a league ban that prohibits off-duty and retired cops from bringing guns to games.
“In a stadium with 50,000 people, if we disarm 100 off-duty cops, we just eliminated 100 possible opportunities to suppress that attack,” Sgt. Ed Mullins, the union’s head, told the Daily News.


I think I saw maybe Minnesota also allows it, whilst googling: Only off-duty cops at Dallas Cowboys and Houston Texans games can bring a gun into a stadium.. state law allows it. http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/off-duty-cops-carry-guns-nfl-stadiums-union-article-1.2438657

Of course, I've only ever been to one nfl game, giants v redskins back in 70's, boring & not as much fun as watching it on tv in a warm home with no worry about drinking too much. So kind of a backhanded compliment to say I have no problem with it!

my concern is also one of the nfl's: If permitted to carry concealed weapons, they create deconfliction issues for working law enforcement officers and increase the potential for “blue-on-blue” response confrontations. ... Moreover, off-duty law enforcement officers are not included in the on-site law enforcement chain of command or bound by department or agency-on-duty policies that that restrict their use of alcohol or subject them to other on-duty behavior standards.
Since 2013, off-duty police officers have been prohibited from carrying guns into NFL stadiums. But in the wake of the attack near the Stade de France outside of Paris, the National Fraternal Order of Police has asked the league to once again allow off-duty officers to carry concealed weapons during games because, they write, “Law enforcement, even when working actively with highly trained and skilled security professionals, cannot be certain that all threats will be detected and neutralized.”
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/12/off-duty-cops-want-to-bring-guns-into-nfl-games.html
Posted by jimmy the one | Tue Dec 1, 2015, 01:40 PM (6 replies)

no dgu for sherry

Nov 10, 2015 Sherry McLain claims she feared for her life when a strange man approached her in a crowded Murfreesboro, Tennessee Walmart parking lot. She drew her gun and pointed it right at him in an act of self-defense. The problem? The man had just purchased a pack of cigarettes and simply asked if she had a light:
Witnesses confirmed this and security video showed the man, who we could not reach for comment, never got closer than 10 feet to McLane. When she pulled the gun, he ran back into the store to call 911

She continued pointing the gun at him as he ran, getting several other shoppers in her gun-sight as well: Others witnesses agreed. "Clearly this is a gunowner who doesn't need to own a gun," Her 7-year-old son and his grandmother found themselves in McLain's cross hairs as the man ran past them at the Walmart. "When she looked up the gun was being pointed at the three of them and the lady says I'm going to shoot you. I'm going to kill you,"


daily kos comment: I think we can all agree Sherry does not need to be walking around with a revolver in her purse. She’s been charged with aggravated assault and reckless endangerment. She remains indignant and cannot understand why she was arrested when she was merely defending herself against someone who was 10 ft away and asking if she had a lighter.
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2015/11/10/1448109/-TN-woman-arrested-for-pointing-a-gun-at-a-shopper-claims-self-defense-after-he-asked-for-a-light?detail=email

Trying to get a dgu in a very bad way. I don't understand why sherry didn't just go after her dgu with a verbal threat. Woulda saved her so much trouble & possible jail time.
After you get out of prison, sherry, next time somebody asks you for a light, just give them an evil stare & say 'go away or I'll pull out my gun'. I bet that does the trick just as well. As long as you're in a public area anyway.
Posted by jimmy the one | Fri Nov 13, 2015, 12:45 PM (1 replies)

Texas warning to campus concealed gun carriers

SAN ANTONIO - Carrying guns on college campuses and campus buildings will be legal in Texas as of Aug. 1, 2016.

Dr. Pete Blair, executive director of Texas State University’s ALERRT Center -- or Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Center -- has a warning for concealed handgun license holders who plan to carry guns on campus.

“If there’s an active shooter event and you're a person with a gun, you look like the active shooter,” .. “You need to know that. You need to be aware of that. You need to know that if police see you with a gun, there's a high probability that you will be shot.”

Supporters of the campus carry law argue guns in campus buildings could help stop an active shooter and save lives.
But there is also concern it could increase danger for would-be heroes.
“They come out in the hallway, they confront each other because they don’t know who the shooter is... So that creates the possibility of them confronting each other saying, 'You put your gun down.' 'No, you put your gun down.

Active shooter situations are extremely dangerous to the responding officers,” Blair said. “So there is danger of them being shot. So they’re not going to have a lot of time to sort that out.”

http://www.ksat.com/news/alerrt-center-warns-chl-holders-ahead-of-campus-carry-law
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Also from texas:
Can you imagine sitting in an exam room, waiting to be seen by a doctor and then BAM! You've been shot. That's exactly what happened to a Texas woman this week:
.. a woman was in the waiting room of a medical office. When she reached into her purse to pull out some paperwork, a gun fell out of her purse causing it to discharge. The round went through a wall and hit another patient in the hip.
"Everyone was sitting in the waiting room and there was a gun shot. A woman dropped her purse down on the counter and it shot through the wall and shot another lady,"
https://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/23/1437874/-Texas-woman-with-a-concealed-gun-accidentally-shoots-a-patient-in-her-doctor-s-office?detail=emailclassic
Posted by jimmy the one | Tue Nov 3, 2015, 01:58 PM (5 replies)
Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next »