Nobody wants to take your guns -- they want you shot on sight.









So stop being so paranoid!

I'm not a hockey fan, I have no idea who Mr. Johnson is but this article made me audibly exhale with shock at what I read.



And it gets worse, if you can believe it.

Chelsea


Chelsea exemplifies everything that is wrong with our system incestuous political patronage. Whatever she may have achieved on her own merits there are plenty more who have accomplished just as much if not more but don't get to become multimillionaires within a few years working for hedge fund management firms (most are still working as no/low pay interns). The media gushes over her for her non-accomplishments and give her air time and favorable articles to do nothing memorable.

So why are all these corporations and media outlets heaping undeserved laurels -- and multi-million dollar commissions -- on Chelsea?

Hillary!

They took care of Chelsea so Hillary would take care of them. There is no other rationale. This is bribe-by-proxy.

I've no doubt I'll be flamed for this thread and those who do so will rely on the "but the GOP!" argument. But the GOP what? GOP control of the media? GOP corporate corruption? GOP cronyism? GOP class advantage over the poor and middle class?

A vte for Hillary is a vote to perpetuate this sad, sick, diseased, cancerous system.

I saw this thread in GD (hat tip: Newsjock). Emphasis mine --



Where, then, is the efficacy of registries and microstamping?

A KXL vote will split the party base and lead to a veto, whereas an immigration reform vote would show party solidarity and provide Obama the legislative foundation for his policies.

15 days? Most probates aren't resolved in that time and assuredly once it can be established Person X is legally entitled to dispose of property for Decedent Y the police will more than likely exhaust the balance of the 15 days as an excuse to steal property from innocent people.

But don't call it gun grabbing.

Are we obligated to conform? If not, how does that impact other UN accords? If so, is Obama obligated to crack down?

Lover Boy, his father and sister and I were having one last cook-out this weekend. It's always a good time.

When the food was done we took everything inside and had a good meal, talked football and had a few laughs. When the dishes were being cleared my FIL made mention of a pair of books on our coffee table. One was written by Tolstoy the other is "Anarchy and Apocalypse: Essays on Faith, Violence, and Theodicy."

Lover Boy said that he feels he can no longer, in good conscience in general and as a matter of faith in particular, support the state -- any state. This came as quite the shock to my FIL. When Lover Boy and I were first dating we were polar opposites. He was the conservative veteran, I was the hippie chick Progressive. We have since met in the middle, IYKWIMAITYD. But for his father, an establishment Republican, this was quite a shock.

For every objection my FIL brought up Lover Boy politely rebutted. It was obvious my FIL was getting frustrated and that's when it happened.

My FIL said, "Dammit {son}, I would have expected this from her {meaning me}, not you."

Lover Boy flipped. He exploded, demanding to know what that meant.

My FIL insisted that he didn't mean anything by it. Personally, I kind of know what he meant but LB was livid. It's uncharacteristic for him. In the years we have been together he's never so much as raised his voice to me. In fact, the bigger the controversy between us the more measured his voice becomes. But this was different.

"That's my wife." I tried to calm him but his button couldn't be un-pushed. My FIL tried to apologize but it wasn't much use. He finally said it was time to go.

My SIL was in tears (she's just a kid and we spend most weekdays together and many weekends as well). I assured her everything was going to be fine, they just needed time to cool off.

As I saw them to their car my FIL came to me to apologize. I just put my hands around his neck and kissed him on the cheek. He apologized again and told me I was the best blessing to the family he could ever ask for.

When I went back inside LB was slumped on the couch. I straddled his lap and wrapped myself around him and we held each other until I felt the tension drain from him and then I held him some more.

LB called his father this morning. Everything is going to be fine. They apologized to each other and everything seems back to normal.

Still, it was pretty intense last night.

But do they lead to less violent crime? I keep seeing the claim bandied about and can't help but think it falls within the "lies, damned lies and statistics" category. The claim is always "fewer guns means less gun violence" never "fewer guns means less violence -- period."

It hardly seems an acceptable substitute to be murdered by stabbing, asphyxiation or bludgeoning than by shooting. Over 90% of violent sexual assaults are by an unarmed attacker (of the remaining 10% less than half of those -- around 3% overall -- are by an attacker with a gun). Most robbers, regardless of what they are armed with, want money, not corpses. Mass killers want notoriety and infamy (why not ban media coverage?) and cannot be deterred as far as the means for killing.

So, what good is it to ban 500,000 to 3 million defensive gun uses annually if actual criminal violence -- regardless of weapon employed -- does not decrease? Does it?