HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » SoutherDem » Journal


Profile Information

Member since: Sat Jan 22, 2011, 12:32 PM
Number of posts: 2,306

About Me

I am not an English Major. I do and will from time to time make grammatical and spelling errors. It would be appreciated if those errors are pointed out using DU mail, but if you must show your superior ability to use the English language by posting on the forum, do not be offended if I choose to point out your need to show that superiority on the public forum also.

Journal Archives

A curiosity question

Recently there have been several posts discussing gun regulation and open verse concealed carry in both the control forum and this one. I have noticed occasionally someone will state point blank they want all guns banned. I realize that opinion without a doubt exists. So here are my questions for those who have this opinion.

How would you get it?
How exactly would it work?
Will it make a difference?
What about possible consequences?

When should one's rights end and the employers rights begin?

Yesterday I read a post where a pizza delivery person was held up, defended himself but would most likely be fired because it was company policy not to carry a weapon while delivering pizzas. If he didn't have a gun he might be dead or wounded. At the very least he would have been robbed of the money from the deliveries he just made. Would the employer then require him to pay the stolen money back?

I guess a department store not allowing their employees to carry a gun while at work is understandable (even though they don't restrict their customers from bringing a gun in their store). But, what about those who work off property, delivering or servicing customers?

Follow the policy and possibly get killed. Defend yourself and get fired.

Should the employer be allowed to tell a person what they can have on their body, even if they are following all State and Federal laws? When you are on the clock are you the property of the employer?


Last night I was listening to a right-wingnut on the radio who as they all do blame EVERYTHNG bad on President Obama.

Long story short he was mad because we are closing embassies because of the current terror threat, yet he is also mad because we didn't do anything to stop Benghazi. So no matter what President Obama does it is wrong.

So I guess the question is WWWD or What would "W" do, sinse they seem to be able to forgive him for missing 9-11-01 and yet accept any and all actions he did to "protect" us.

I have to wonder just what would "W" have done for Benghazi? Go to war with Libya? Attack Iran? And, what would he have done about the current threat?

Maybe a better question would be WWRD, What would Romney do?

It is amazing how the Republicans could rubber stamp every action "W" did while condemning everything President Obama does. I am sure if Romney won the rubber stamp would be getting well used.

What laws should we change/create, which will stop a future George Zimmerman?

Change Stand Your Ground to Duty to Retreat? Wouldn’t that have applied to Trayvon Martin too? If the jury was told the 2006 law wouldn’t the question have been why didn’t they both retreat?
The only eyewitness saw Trayvon Martin on top in the fight, so wouldn’t the out come be the same?

How do you write a law which would protect Trayvon Martin from George Zimmerman?

Question about Neighborhood Watch Programs

How organized are they? Do they normally take turns patrolling the neighborhood? My father is "president" of his neighborhood watch which means nothing. He was the one who got the neighbors to participate. They never meet, they don't patrol, they don't follow any suspicious people. They simply call the police if they see someone acting suspicious.

When they had their first and only meeting it was with the Chief of Police who instructed them no not follow anyone, simply call the police with as much information as possible, description of the person, cars being driven and if you are just suspicious or if something is really happening.

What is normal?

Innocent vs. Not Guilty

I am not a lawyer, so I have always used those terms interchangeably. I think of one as the legal term while the other is a common non-legal term.

When a major trial is being close to ending I will see someone make a post using the wrong term and they are corrected multiple times.

When I have read the two definitions they seem so close they could be interchanged. But, innocent does seem to be more general, as to the religious meaning free from all guilt, but that aspect seems to disappear when you move from the religious, while not guilty seems to be more specific to a specific event.

I remember similar arguments to acquitted vs not guilty.

Can someone help me with the real differences and why people get so upset when the terms acquitted, not guilty and innocent are used interchangeably?

Zimmerman verdict?

Well the trial is almost over soon the jury will make a decision and we will have an answer. It may nor not be the answer a person wants and for sure about half of the people who are interested will feel justice has been served and the rest will feel a great injustice has occurred, no matter the verdict.

If by chance the verdict is mistrial then this will happen all over again and if Zimmerman is convicted there will be an appeal, so we may be hearing about this for a long time.

End results no matter how the jury decides there will be controversy.

I for one do not envy the job they have before them.

This might have been discussed before, but I was just wondering...

Any post on the subject of guns can only be posted in two areas, the Gun Control Reform Activism Group and the Gun Control & RKBA Group. Right?

But the Gun Control Reform Activism Group is more sterile than most operating rooms. Even be misunderstood as a Pro-gun/Pro-2nd Amendment person and your post will be removed, alerted or you will be band from the group. Right?

So that leaves the Gun Control & RKBA Group. Right?

The Gun Control & RKBA Group allows frank and even heated discussions on the subject. Right?

But the Gun Control & RKBA Group has a few regular posters whose goal seems to just antagonize anyone who is Pro-gun/Pro-2nd Amendment without any real want to discuss anything, to the point the goal is to get us to cross the line and be alerted on and our posts removed. Right?

So my question is if Pro-gun/Pro-2nd Amendments members of DU can't carry on a discussion on the subject without being verbally attacked with the risk of being alerted on if we respond in kind, is it time for a 3rd Group one that is the RKAB Activism Group?

Just wondering.

Background Checks

This may be a dumb question but I keep hearing about Universal Background Checks as the grand solution between those who want stricter gun control and those who don't. I don't have a problem with checking to see if someone has a criminal records before they purchase a weapon. But each time I purchase a gun I have to fill out a form and have the gun store check my record, so other than including private purchases, what is the difference between what we have now and what some are wanting to go to?

Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next »