advertisement
Forums

 

AAPL stock: Click Here

You are currently viewing the 'Friendly' Political Ranting forum
Gavin Newsome has some sauce for the gander
Posted by: pdq
Date: December 12, 2021 08:29AM
…if it’s good for the goose…

Quote

Newsom, a Democrat, said on Saturday his team will work with state Attorney General Rob Bonta and the legislature to draft a proposal in line with the Texas law that would let citizens sue manufacturers, sellers or distributors of assault weapons or ghost gun kits for at least $10,000 per violation.

agree smiley

I personally wouldn’t stop there, but that’s probably enough to get the NRAs panties in a bunch and get them to sue.

Then the SCOTUS can explain to us why this is a completely different situation.

If nothing else, it would give me a immensely satisfying and potentially lucrative hobby during retirement.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Gavin Newsome has some sauce for the gander
Posted by: Racer X
Date: December 12, 2021 09:15AM
The Nevada Supreme Court ruled that gun makers and distributors are not responsible for the actions of the gunman in the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history.

[www.courthousenews.com]



********************************************
The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

[www.youtube.com]
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Gavin Newsome has some sauce for the gander
Posted by: Lux Interior
Date: December 12, 2021 09:40AM
Quote
Racer X
The Nevada Supreme Court ruled that gun makers and distributors are not responsible for the actions of the gunman in the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history.

[www.courthousenews.com]

The US Supreme Court ruled that abortion is a right under the Constitution.

I guess these two things are now written in stone, eh?
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Gavin Newsome has some sauce for the gander
Posted by: btfc
Date: December 12, 2021 10:11AM
“ the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history “

So far...
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Gavin Newsome has some sauce for the gander
Posted by: Ted King
Date: December 12, 2021 10:15AM
Quote
Lux Interior
Quote
Racer X
The Nevada Supreme Court ruled that gun makers and distributors are not responsible for the actions of the gunman in the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history.

[www.courthousenews.com]

The US Supreme Court ruled that abortion is a right under the Constitution.

I guess these two things are now written in stone, eh?

Not that they have to be relevant, but aren't these first two responses to the OP irrelevant to the point that pdq was trying to make in the OP?



e pluribus unum



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/12/2021 10:16AM by Ted King.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Gavin Newsome has some sauce for the gander
Posted by: N-OS X-tasy!
Date: December 12, 2021 12:35PM
Quote
Racer X
The Nevada Supreme Court ruled that gun makers and distributors are not responsible for the actions of the gunman in the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history.

[www.courthousenews.com]

If gun manufacturers and sellers were found to be responsible for such events, wouldn’t the next logical step be automobile and alcohol manufacturers and dealers?



It is what it is.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Gavin Newsome has some sauce for the gander
Posted by: GGD
Date: December 12, 2021 12:48PM
Quote
N-OS X-tasy!
Quote
Racer X
The Nevada Supreme Court ruled that gun makers and distributors are not responsible for the actions of the gunman in the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history.

[www.courthousenews.com]

If gun manufacturers and sellers were found to be responsible for such events, wouldn’t the next logical step be automobile and alcohol manufacturers and dealers?

Texas set the bar pretty low by including Uber drivers, and Newsome's proposal doesn't seem to mention the actual use of the weapons in mass shootings or otherwise.

Quote

Newsom, a Democrat, said on Saturday his team will work with state Attorney General Rob Bonta and the legislature to draft a proposal in line with the Texas law that would let citizens sue manufacturers, sellers or distributors of assault weapons or ghost gun kits for at least $10,000 per violation.

"I am outraged by yesterday's U.S. Supreme Court decision allowing Texas's ban on most abortion services to remain in place," Newsom said in a statement.

"If states can now shield their laws from review by the federal courts that compare assault weapons to Swiss Army knives, then California will use that authority to protect people's lives, where Texas used it to put women in harm's way."
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Gavin Newsome has some sauce for the gander
Posted by: prymsnap
Date: December 12, 2021 12:49PM
Quote
N-OS X-tasy!
Quote
Racer X
The Nevada Supreme Court ruled that gun makers and distributors are not responsible for the actions of the gunman in the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history.

[www.courthousenews.com]

If gun manufacturers and sellers were found to be responsible for such events, wouldn’t the next logical step be automobile and alcohol manufacturers and dealers?

One could argue that guns differ because their only purpose is to kill.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Gavin Newsome has some sauce for the gander
Posted by: PeterB
Date: December 12, 2021 01:44PM
Quote
N-OS X-tasy!
Quote
Racer X
The Nevada Supreme Court ruled that gun makers and distributors are not responsible for the actions of the gunman in the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history.

[www.courthousenews.com]

If gun manufacturers and sellers were found to be responsible for such events, wouldn’t the next logical step be automobile and alcohol manufacturers and dealers?

You betcha. Because those automobile and alcohol manufacturers are contributing to the deaths of people through DWI's and the like.

Oh, and while we're at it, let's start making contraceptive manufacturers liable for killing the fetuses ... after all, they're responsible for the deaths of the unborn victims too! Oh, and prosecute those pharmacists for prescribing contraceptives, Plan B, etc.

The SC has just opened the door for all manner of stupidity here. Their credibility really is going to end up in the toilet.




Freya says, 'Hello from NOLA, baby!' (Laissez bon temps rouler!)
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Gavin Newsome has some sauce for the gander
Posted by: Markintosh
Date: December 12, 2021 02:05PM
Gavin Newsom is my hero



“Live your life, love your life, don’t regret…live, learn and move forward positively.” – CR Johnson
Loving life in Lake Tahoe, CA
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Gavin Newsome has some sauce for the gander
Posted by: N-OS X-tasy!
Date: December 12, 2021 02:17PM
Quote
prymsnap
Quote
N-OS X-tasy!
Quote
Racer X
The Nevada Supreme Court ruled that gun makers and distributors are not responsible for the actions of the gunman in the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history.

[www.courthousenews.com]

If gun manufacturers and sellers were found to be responsible for such events, wouldn’t the next logical step be automobile and alcohol manufacturers and dealers?

One could argue that guns differ because their only purpose is to kill.

One could counter that intent is not as relevant as outcome.



It is what it is.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/12/2021 03:30PM by N-OS X-tasy!.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Gavin Newsome has some sauce for the gander
Posted by: mattkime
Date: December 12, 2021 03:05PM
Sniping aside, the legal arguments underpinning this move are worth exploring. I don't think its quite a mirror image of the abortion case.



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Gavin Newsome has some sauce for the gander
Posted by: Racer X
Date: December 12, 2021 05:44PM
Quote
prymsnap
Quote
N-OS X-tasy!
Quote
Racer X
The Nevada Supreme Court ruled that gun makers and distributors are not responsible for the actions of the gunman in the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history.

[www.courthousenews.com]

If gun manufacturers and sellers were found to be responsible for such events, wouldn’t the next logical step be automobile and alcohol manufacturers and dealers?

One could argue that guns differ because their only purpose is to kill.

No, they obviously have other purposes, but it is a common theme here that other obvious uses aren't validated because to many here, those uses aren't valued, thus dismissed.



********************************************
The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

[www.youtube.com]
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Gavin Newsome has some sauce for the gander
Posted by: JoeH
Date: December 12, 2021 06:23PM
Quote
Racer X
Quote
prymsnap
Quote
N-OS X-tasy!
Quote
Racer X
The Nevada Supreme Court ruled that gun makers and distributors are not responsible for the actions of the gunman in the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history.

[www.courthousenews.com]

If gun manufacturers and sellers were found to be responsible for such events, wouldn’t the next logical step be automobile and alcohol manufacturers and dealers?

One could argue that guns differ because their only purpose is to kill.

No, they obviously have other purposes, but it is a common theme here that other obvious uses aren't validated because to many here, those uses aren't valued, thus dismissed.

Outside of target shooting what exactly are those that do not include an intent to injure or kill? Ultimately that is the common thread to firearm usage, Some may have some benefits in that they can defend against another using a firearm, or be used to hunt and get food. But those do require injury or death to the target.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Gavin Newsome has some sauce for the gander
Posted by: Racer X
Date: December 12, 2021 06:29PM
There you go, dismissing the positive benefits of target shooting.



********************************************
The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

[www.youtube.com]
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Gavin Newsome has some sauce for the gander
Posted by: testcase
Date: December 12, 2021 06:39PM
"One could argue that guns differ because their only purpose is to kill."

prymsnap, did you just come down with the last rain storm?

The OVERWHELMING number of ALL firearms available in lawful commerce are NEVER used to kill.

Percentage wise, firearms don't even make it into the Top 10 causes of death according to the CDC.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Gavin Newsome has some sauce for the gander
Posted by: Racer X
Date: December 12, 2021 06:41PM
Quote
testcase
"One could argue that guns differ because their only purpose is to kill."

prymsnap, did you just come down with the last rain storm?

The OVERWHELMING number of ALL firearms available in lawful commerce are NEVER used to kill.

Percentage wise, firearms don't even make it into the Top 10 causes of death according to the CDC.

And children are far more at danger from an automobile than from a firearm. From CDC stats, and backed up by data in Canada as well.



********************************************
The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

[www.youtube.com]



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/12/2021 06:54PM by Racer X.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Gavin Newsome has some sauce for the gander
Posted by: prymsnap
Date: December 12, 2021 06:51PM
Quote
testcase
"One could argue that guns differ because their only purpose is to kill."

prymsnap, did you just come down with the last rain storm?

The OVERWHELMING number of ALL firearms available in lawful commerce are NEVER used to kill.

Percentage wise, firearms don't even make it into the Top 10 causes of death according to the CDC.

Please don't put words in my mouth.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Gavin Newsome has some sauce for the gander
Posted by: RgrF
Date: December 12, 2021 06:52PM
Quote
testcase
"One could argue that guns differ because their only purpose is to kill."

prymsnap, did you just come down with the last rain storm?

The OVERWHELMING number of ALL firearms available in lawful commerce are NEVER used to kill.

Percentage wise, firearms don't even make it into the Top 10 causes of death according to the CDC.

So the conclusion you draw is that firearms were originally developed and later refined for the purpose of target practice?
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Gavin Newsome has some sauce for the gander
Posted by: Lemon Drop
Date: December 12, 2021 08:03PM
Quote
Racer X
Quote
testcase
"One could argue that guns differ because their only purpose is to kill."

prymsnap, did you just come down with the last rain storm?

The OVERWHELMING number of ALL firearms available in lawful commerce are NEVER used to kill.

Percentage wise, firearms don't even make it into the Top 10 causes of death according to the CDC.

And children are far more at danger from an automobile than from a firearm. From CDC stats, and backed up by data in Canada as well.

A specious argument regarding causes of death. You have to have your head far down in the sand not to see the toll gun violence takes on our society.

Most folks die when they are old. Seniors are among the least impacted by gun violence so that cause is not going to rank high.

However, look at stats for folks under age 45. Homicide, usually by gun, and suicide, also frequently by gun, are in the top three causes of death. Among certain groups, like young men of color, gun violence is the leading cause of death, and in some states, like Alaska, gun violence is the leading cause of death for all younger men.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Gavin Newsome has some sauce for the gander
Posted by: Racer X
Date: December 12, 2021 08:36PM
Quote
Lemon Drop
Quote
Racer X
Quote
testcase
"One could argue that guns differ because their only purpose is to kill."

prymsnap, did you just come down with the last rain storm?

The OVERWHELMING number of ALL firearms available in lawful commerce are NEVER used to kill.

Percentage wise, firearms don't even make it into the Top 10 causes of death according to the CDC.

And children are far more at danger from an automobile than from a firearm. From CDC stats, and backed up by data in Canada as well.

A specious argument regarding causes of death. You have to have your head far down in the sand not to see the toll gun violence takes on our society.

Most folks die when they are old. Seniors are among the least impacted by gun violence so that cause is not going to rank high.

However, look at stats for folks under age 45. Homicide, usually by gun, and suicide, also frequently by gun, are in the top three causes of death. Among certain groups, like young men of color, gun violence is the leading cause of death, and in some states, like Alaska, gun violence is the leading cause of death for all younger men.

Good Lord, parroting much? Ever look for yourself? [www.verywellhealth.com] Google search for "top causes of death US adults under 45" #2 hit. #1 hit is [www.cdc.gov]

[www.worldlifeexpectancy.com]

And for method of homicide, to winnow out types, FBI crime stats table 20. [ucr.fbi.gov] Table 8 is good too. [ucr.fbi.gov] And it's really important to note that "evil black rifles" are VERY seldom used to commit murder. Look at long gun stats.



********************************************
The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

[www.youtube.com]



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 12/12/2021 09:01PM by Racer X.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Gavin Newsome has some sauce for the gander
Posted by: deckeda
Date: December 12, 2021 09:20PM
Target practice without killing is practicing omelets you never eat; a hobby you can do without and aren’t entitled to.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Gavin Newsome has some sauce for the gander
Posted by: Ombligo
Date: December 12, 2021 09:22PM
It will never stand. Court originalists will have no issues upholding gun rights based on the 2nd amendment. That isn't the case with abortion - it isn't explicitly mentioned, so it is quite easy for those same jurists to turn it over to the states.



“No persons are more frequently wrong, than those who will not admit they are wrong.” -- François de La Rochefoucauld

"Those who cannot accept the past are condemned to revise it." -- Geo. Mathias
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Gavin Newsome has some sauce for the gander
Posted by: RgrF
Date: December 12, 2021 09:33PM
It's really just an attempt to co-opt political theater as used by the political right. That sort of game requires tapping a well of deep seated anger that simply isn't available like it is for their audience.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Gavin Newsome has some sauce for the gander
Posted by: Acer
Date: December 12, 2021 09:40PM
Isn't the point of the Texas law that it removes the courts from the equation? Whether the targeted behavior is in the Constitution is irrelevant.



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Gavin Newsome has some sauce for the gander
Posted by: Racer X
Date: December 12, 2021 09:44PM
Quote
deckeda
Target practice without killing is practicing omelets you never eat; a hobby you can do without and aren’t entitled to.

That is a value statement. I'm sure there are others here that practice hobbies the rest of us would find no value in, and just shrug our shoulders. I find watching professional sports pointless personally. Paying to watch others get paid to exercise together? How weird that is? People get injured and killed by foul balls and hockey pucks you know.

I have watched chefs on Chopped who are vegans prepare animal protein, and I watched a Chopped where there was a Rabbi who had to cook with fish and dairy. He did it, just didn't taste it. Same with shellfish. So, their cooking is pointless because they couldn't eat it?



********************************************
The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

[www.youtube.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/12/2021 09:47PM by Racer X.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Gavin Newsome has some sauce for the gander
Posted by: Ted King
Date: December 12, 2021 09:45PM
Quote
mattkime
Sniping aside, the legal arguments underpinning this move are worth exploring. I don't think its quite a mirror image of the abortion case.

In what legally significant ways are they different?



e pluribus unum
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Gavin Newsome has some sauce for the gander
Posted by: deckeda
Date: December 12, 2021 09:52PM
Quote
Racer X
Quote
deckeda
Target practice without killing is practicing omelets you never eat; a hobby you can do without and aren’t entitled to.

That is a value statement. I'm sure there are others here that practice hobbies the rest of us would find no value in, and just shrug our shoulders. I find watching professional sports pointless personally. Paying to watch others get paid to exercise together? How weird that is? People get injured and killed by foul balls and hockey pucks you know.

I have watched chefs on Chopped who are vegans prepare animal protein, and I watched a Chopped where there was a Rabbi who had to cook with fish and dairy. He did it, just didn't taste it. Same with shellfish. So, their cooking is pointless because they couldn't eat it?

My statement has nothing to do with placing values on hobbies. I enjoy several pointless ones myself.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Gavin Newsome has some sauce for the gander
Posted by: Racer X
Date: December 12, 2021 10:01PM
Quote
deckeda
Quote
Racer X
Quote
deckeda
Target practice without killing is practicing omelets you never eat; a hobby you can do without and aren’t entitled to.

That is a value statement. I'm sure there are others here that practice hobbies the rest of us would find no value in, and just shrug our shoulders. I find watching professional sports pointless personally. Paying to watch others get paid to exercise together? How weird that is? People get injured and killed by foul balls and hockey pucks you know.

I have watched chefs on Chopped who are vegans prepare animal protein, and I watched a Chopped where there was a Rabbi who had to cook with fish and dairy. He did it, just didn't taste it. Same with shellfish. So, their cooking is pointless because they couldn't eat it?

My statement has nothing to do with placing values on hobbies. I enjoy several pointless ones myself.

placing value on MY hobbies. And I'm not entitled to target shoot? Law says otherwise, as long as I follow all laws.



********************************************
The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

[www.youtube.com]



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/12/2021 10:03PM by Racer X.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Gavin Newsome has some sauce for the gander
Posted by: Janit
Date: December 12, 2021 10:38PM
Quote
Racer X
I watched a Chopped where there was a Rabbi who had to cook with fish and dairy. He did it, just didn't taste it. Same with shellfish. So, their cooking is pointless because they couldn't eat it?

What fish was he cooking? There is no prohibition against eating fish with dairy, as long as the fish itself is kosher. Hence the staple of kosher brunches -- lox with cream cheese on a bagel.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Gavin Newsome has some sauce for the gander
Posted by: Racer X
Date: December 12, 2021 11:06PM
thanks for the clarification Janit. I never even thought of the lox and schmear paradox! My knowledge is superficial about the dietary constraints.



********************************************
The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

[www.youtube.com]
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Gavin Newsome has some sauce for the gander
Posted by: vision63
Date: December 13, 2021 03:43AM
You don't really want to kill somebody. You want to "stop" somebody. If they get killed, that's just the nature of the weapon.

The purpose of a handgun is killing. Technically, the public doesn't really need to have those. You have to know how to shoot. If it's a small caliber, it might not even stop the intruder from pile-driving you. It's inefficient at the job of stopping an intruder.

You don't even have to shoot well to stop someone with a shotgun. It's "very" efficient at that. It's good protection. It's difficult to conceal and grandma can shoot the Zodiac Killer with ease.

God Bless
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Gavin Newsome has some sauce for the gander
Posted by: Lux Interior
Date: December 13, 2021 08:29AM
Quote
Racer X
And children are far more at danger from an automobile than from a firearm. From CDC stats, and backed up by data in Canada as well.

When kids are killed in a car crash - "We need to make cars safer and make things like car seats and airbags and seatbelts mandatory."

When kids are gunned down - "*shrug* There's nothing we can do to stop this."
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Gavin Newsome has some sauce for the gander
Posted by: numbered
Date: December 13, 2021 10:00AM
First, Lux Interior ftw:

Quote

When kids are killed in a car crash - "We need to make cars safer and make things like car seats and airbags and seatbelts mandatory."

When kids are gunned down - "*shrug* There's nothing we can do to stop this."

Of course there are thoughts and prayers.

Second, Newsom is making a point. The lawyers warned the Court that this could be a thing, but their desire to nuke abortion overwhelmed their good sense. While it is probably true that they will use the idea of a 'well-regulated militia' to stop Newsom, there are any number of other ideas for vigilante fu.

How about 5k for each person blowing off mask wearing? I like 10k for each person ignoring smog check (in Cali). No front license plate on your Tesla? 5k. Hide your license to cheat the bridge toll? 5k. This could be fun.

Actually, I do not like any of these but the Court opened the door...
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Gavin Newsome has some sauce for the gander
Posted by: Ted King
Date: December 13, 2021 10:40AM
.



e pluribus unum



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/13/2021 10:40AM by Ted King.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Gavin Newsome has some sauce for the gander
Posted by: pdq
Date: December 13, 2021 11:21AM
Quote
testcase
"One could argue that guns differ because their only purpose is to kill."

prymsnap, did you just come down with the last rain storm?

The OVERWHELMING number of ALL firearms available in lawful commerce are NEVER used to kill.

Percentage wise, firearms don't even make it into the Top 10 causes of death according to the CDC.

But they do somehow make it into the top ten causes of murder.

Number one, in fact. And it’s not even close. Firearms outnumber all other methods combined.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Gavin Newsome has some sauce for the gander
Posted by: Lemon Drop
Date: December 13, 2021 03:39PM
Quote
vision63
You don't really want to kill somebody. You want to "stop" somebody. If they get killed, that's just the nature of the weapon.

The purpose of a handgun is killing. Technically, the public doesn't really need to have those. You have to know how to shoot. If it's a small caliber, it might not even stop the intruder from pile-driving you. It's inefficient at the job of stopping an intruder.

You don't even have to shoot well to stop someone with a shotgun. It's "very" efficient at that. It's good protection. It's difficult to conceal and grandma can shoot the Zodiac Killer with ease.

God Bless

This made my day.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Gavin Newsome has some sauce for the gander
Posted by: vision63
Date: December 13, 2021 10:06PM
Quote
Lemon Drop
Quote
vision63
You don't really want to kill somebody. You want to "stop" somebody. If they get killed, that's just the nature of the weapon.

The purpose of a handgun is killing. Technically, the public doesn't really need to have those. You have to know how to shoot. If it's a small caliber, it might not even stop the intruder from pile-driving you. It's inefficient at the job of stopping an intruder.

You don't even have to shoot well to stop someone with a shotgun. It's "very" efficient at that. It's good protection. It's difficult to conceal and grandma can shoot the Zodiac Killer with ease.

God Bless

This made my day.

hee hee hee :-)
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Gavin Newsome has some sauce for the gander
Posted by: Janit
Date: December 13, 2021 10:10PM
Quote
Racer X
thanks for the clarification Janit. I never even thought of the lox and schmear paradox! My knowledge is superficial about the dietary constraints.

It's all very arcane. Fish can be mixed with anything unless it's not a kosher fish. Maybe he was cooking catfish?
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Gavin Newsome has some sauce for the gander
Posted by: Racer X
Date: December 13, 2021 10:20PM
Quote
Lux Interior
Quote
Racer X
And children are far more at danger from an automobile than from a firearm. From CDC stats, and backed up by data in Canada as well.

When kids are killed in a car crash - "We need to make cars safer and make things like car seats and airbags and seatbelts mandatory."

When kids are gunned down - "*shrug* There's nothing we can do to stop this."

Stop releasing career criminals? RICO Act prosecutions for 2 or more gang members arrested together? Less time for flipping, but never let them walk on weapons charges? 3 Strikes REALLY IS You're Out. No bail for weapons charges so they can't continue killing while out on bail? Removing a monitoring anklet so you can go on committing crimes gets you convicted on all charges? Violating parole becomes a REAL thing when you contact old friends who are convicted criminals?

LOADS of things that can be done. When what was a 2 year stint becomes 30, with no early release because you broke parole once already. Might change things.

And with the school shooting situation, secure storage laws and go after those who didn't secure, allowing it to happen. Prosecuting parents who supply the offending firearm to a minor. The terrorism angle is VERY interesting.



********************************************
The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

[www.youtube.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/13/2021 10:34PM by Racer X.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Gavin Newsome has some sauce for the gander
Posted by: Sarcany
Date: December 13, 2021 10:57PM
Quote
Racer X
RICO Act prosecutions for 2 or more gang members arrested together?

No.

Traditionally, that has been abused terribly. Cops round up neighborhood kids and illegally search them and if one is found with drugs or a weapon they arrest all of them as a "gang." They've put tens of thousands of innocent black kids (at least) behind bars on this pretext.

Quote
Racer X
Stop releasing career criminals? RICO Act prosecutions for 2 or more gang members arrested together? Less time for flipping, but never let them walk on weapons charges? 3 Strikes REALLY IS You're Out. No bail for weapons charges so they can't continue killing while out on bail? Removing a monitoring anklet so you can go on committing crimes gets you convicted on all charges? Violating parole becomes a REAL thing when you contact old friends who are convicted criminals?

LOADS of things that can be done. When what was a 2 year stint becomes 30, with no early release because you broke parole once already. Might change things.

In fact, everything you've cited has been exploited by racists to incarcerate and lay a stigma of criminality on generations of black kids.

Even "holding parents accountable" turns very quickly into "jail the whole family or fine them and then jail them for failure to pay the fine." And middle-class or wealthy white parents never seem to get prosecuted.

None of that works when judged by the standards of a free and democratic state.



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Gavin Newsome has some sauce for the gander
Posted by: Racer X
Date: December 13, 2021 11:30PM
Quote
Sarcany
Quote
Racer X
RICO Act prosecutions for 2 or more gang members arrested together?

No.

Traditionally, that has been abused terribly. Cops round up neighborhood kids and illegally search them and if one is found with drugs or a weapon they arrest all of them as a "gang." They've put tens of thousands of innocent black kids (at least) behind bars on this pretext.

Quote
Racer X
Stop releasing career criminals? RICO Act prosecutions for 2 or more gang members arrested together? Less time for flipping, but never let them walk on weapons charges? 3 Strikes REALLY IS You're Out. No bail for weapons charges so they can't continue killing while out on bail? Removing a monitoring anklet so you can go on committing crimes gets you convicted on all charges? Violating parole becomes a REAL thing when you contact old friends who are convicted criminals?

LOADS of things that can be done. When what was a 2 year stint becomes 30, with no early release because you broke parole once already. Might change things.

In fact, everything you've cited has been exploited by racists to incarcerate and lay a stigma of criminality on generations of black kids.

Even "holding parents accountable" turns very quickly into "jail the whole family or fine them and then jail them for failure to pay the fine." And middle-class or wealthy white parents never seem to get prosecuted.

None of that works when judged by the standards of a free and democratic state.

So the parents who bought that kid a pistol for Christmas and never locked it up get to walk in your eyes? Good to know.



********************************************
The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

[www.youtube.com]
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Gavin Newsome has some sauce for the gander
Posted by: Sarcany
Date: December 13, 2021 11:41PM
Quote
Racer X
So the parents who bought that kid a pistol for Christmas and never locked it up get to walk in your eyes? Good to know.

Where does it end? How about jailing the school admins who let the kid stay in class? How about imprisoning the legislators who failed to give the school money for counselors?

How about putting you behind bars for all the times you bought something on the Internet and didn't pay tax on it? After all, you did it more than once. Three strikes?

Strict sentencing is always abused. Always.

And vengeance is not justice.

Lay off the blood-lust.







Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/13/2021 11:46PM by Sarcany.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Gavin Newsome has some sauce for the gander
Posted by: RgrF
Date: December 14, 2021 12:09AM
Quote
Racer X
Stop releasing career criminals? RICO Act prosecutions for 2 or more gang members arrested together? Less time for flipping, but never let them walk on weapons charges? 3 Strikes REALLY IS You're Out. No bail for weapons charges so they can't continue killing while out on bail? Removing a monitoring anklet so you can go on committing crimes gets you convicted on all charges? Violating parole becomes a REAL thing when you contact old friends who are convicted criminals?

LOADS of things that can be done. When what was a 2 year stint becomes 30, with no early release because you broke parole once already. Might change things.

And with the school shooting situation, secure storage laws and go after those who didn't secure, allowing it to happen. Prosecuting parents who supply the offending firearm to a minor. The terrorism angle is VERY interesting.

These incarceration proposals, including 3 strike laws, are almost exactly what happened during the '90s crackdown on crime and have proven themselves counterproductive.

Everything you propose is a blueprint that might have been put forward by the private for profit prison industry. We already incarcerate more people per capita than any "so-called" civilized society and that hasn't worked. Isn't it time we look for alternatives?
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Gavin Newsome has some sauce for the gander
Posted by: Racer X
Date: December 14, 2021 05:47AM
If poor and illegal behavior doesn't result in a negative outcome, it will continue.

It has been proven time and time again, that getting children to start out properly, and get them learning and reading by the 3rd grade, we can head off most problem behavior.

But putting money into early childhood education isn't a priority.

My partner has a Masters in Education with over 2 decades in Early Childhood Education. I have gone with her to numerous conferences around the world, and have sat in on numerous sessions. One was run by the Afganistan Minister of Education. We brainstormed plans for completely rebuilding their education system from the ground up. This was back in 2008 in Budapest. Now, I just hope he is still alive. Everyone needs to buy into the solution for it to work.

And it would take a decade to start to show real change. Until then, I still have to keep me and mine safe and alive. They have a Right to an education. But I also have a Right to live, and a means to facilitate it.



********************************************
The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

[www.youtube.com]
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Gavin Newsome has some sauce for the gander
Posted by: pdq
Date: December 14, 2021 09:12AM
Quote
Racer X
But I also have a Right to live, and a means to facilitate it.

By having those weapons in your home, you are doing the exact opposite, for both yourself and your loved ones.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Gavin Newsome has some sauce for the gander
Posted by: Racer X
Date: December 14, 2021 04:58PM
Quote
pdq
Quote
Racer X
But I also have a Right to live, and a means to facilitate it.

By having those weapons in your home, you are doing the exact opposite, for both yourself and your loved ones.

are they going to leap out of my safe and shoot me? And, it is my choice.



********************************************
The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

[www.youtube.com]
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Gavin Newsome has some sauce for the gander
Posted by: RAMd®d
Date: December 14, 2021 06:09PM
You don't really want to kill somebody. You want to "stop" somebody. If they get killed, that's just the nature of the weapon.


That's pretty close to my training and mantra, so much so I'll take it as is.

I'll add that failure to stop somebody, whether they are killed or not, means the possibility or likelihood of someone else being killed or injured, for those not clear on the concept.

While I like the spirit of vis' post, I'll dip into the Pendant's Only Pool and mention you have to aim a shotgun.

Seriously.

The spread of 00 buck from bbls 14-18" is less than 2" at about 12' or less.

There are relevant subtleties to using a shotgun in home defense, but as this is just a dip into the POP I won't digress.

But yes, if grandma can aim she will stop Zodiac.




I am that Masked Man.

Your boos mean nothing to me, I've seen what you cheer for.

Insisting on your rights without acknowledging your responsibilities isn’t freedom, it’s adolescence.

I've been to the edge of the map, and there be monsters.

We are a government of laws, not men.

Everybody counts or nobody counts.

When a good man is hurt,
all who would be called good
must suffer with him.

You and I have memories longer than the road that stretches out ahead.

There is no safety for honest men except
by believing all possible evil of evil men.

We don’t do focus groups. They just ensure that you don’t offend anyone, and produce bland inoffensive products. —Sir Jonathan Ive

An armed society is a polite society.
And hope is a lousy defense.

You make me pull, I'll put you down.

I *love* SIGs. It's Glocks I hate.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Gavin Newsome has some sauce for the gander
Posted by: Sarcany
Date: December 16, 2021 08:15PM
Mandatory minimum sentencing:
[jalopnik.com]



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Gavin Newsome has some sauce for the gander
Posted by: Racer X
Date: December 30, 2021 06:57PM
Quote
Sarcany
Mandatory minimum sentencing:
[jalopnik.com]

And it was swiftly commuted [www.yahoo.com]



********************************************
The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

[www.youtube.com]
Options:  Reply • Quote
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login

Online Users

Guests: 110
Record Number of Users: 186 on February 20, 2020
Record Number of Guests: 5122 on October 03, 2020