kelpdiver

Around here, they seem to get stolen from the cars of LEOs quite often. The tourist killing that propelled Trump's campaign into high gear was done with a gun from a BLM ranger. Consider it one of the prices of laws that prevent citizens from possessing weapons in location type X. Criminals don't care, but people who can't go home first may have the choice of leaving it in the car at risk, or committing a felony by bringing it.

I was talking with a stalwart GOP'er yesterday & we discussed this. Neither of us knew if this was possible. I know zilch about such things; but, one thinks that there must be some way to give him the exit boot. That day passed 2 weeks ago, on a "voice vote." If they had changed the rules to let delegates drop their committed first vote, then maybe it could have occurred, but without an obvious and willing alternative, still would likely have resulted in the Trump nomination. Now - I don't see any way it can happen unless he agrees to withdraw. He could litigate, and probably successfully. Or dies. I don't think Pence would take in place in either scenario. And I certainly don't see Trump pulling out now.

If so, then I'm thinking he is going to be very, very busy. Think he could actually win even one? I can't foresee him winning less than 15 Red states - they'd pick Satan over Clinton, and HC keeps supplying more ammunition to them. 15 blue states would pick Clinton over Jesus. It seems that his underfunded campaign is only going to focus on Ohio, Penn, Florida, and (?) North Carolina where it can swing either direction and whose EC votes he needs to have a shot. I really feel sorry for people in Ohio who watch TV without using a DVR.

Actually not, as none of the 3 were killed. (As for the anger on the CDC ban - you can blame Kellerman for this) None were germane - I explicitly talked about the mental anguish of knowing you're going to die and having no recourse. In all of these, it happened before they knew what going on. The tragedy here is that thanks to really stupid proposed (or passed) legislation like the ammo background checks in CA, we're making it harder for people to practice shooting at the range. The byproduct of which will be more accidental shootings. It of course will make little difference for these 3 children - these criminals aren't concerned about collateral damage.

I can count on you to create the strawman and skip over the point, Bill. How many 8yos killed by driveby can you list? I'll put up every unarmed girlfriend and wife killed by an angry man. I said why I consider it different. You're free to disagree. And since you're part of the movement to make everyone sheep, I guess it's good that you don't see any distinction.

They really, really, really, really wanted to. That wasn't secret at all. The opportunity never really materialized. Fox certainly tried in the first debate. Did they act with the RNC, or alone? Each candidate was asked a question that addressed their most obvious weakness. I'm fairly confident that nearly all of them were told in advance it was coming, so they could put their best foot forward on the matter. If they couldn't, then they needed to be winnowed out of the field immediately. But I don't think Fox gave the script to Trump. He clearly wasn't prepared for Kelly's question on his history of misogyny. Fox remained quite (fairly, too, IMO) hostile to him until he crossed the 50% hurdle, and then Kelly had to make nice. If anyone on earth (including Trump) actually believed he would win the nomination, then they would have taken the same sort of concerted actions behind the scenes. But they presumed the problem would work itself out. The joke is on them, and all of us. I bet Paul Ryan reconsiders his choice to stay clear of it all.

So your basing your statement on the twin planks that all employees share the same thoughts as their employers, and all husbands and wives agree on all issues? You know, it's people's refusal to avoid straw man arguments that was a considerable factor in saying Fuck it to the time wasted here. Have you devolved to be one of those people? Members of the Executive Branch act out the policy of their President. If they deviate, they do it quietly. On that subject, Clinton campaigned for TPP as Obama supports it. Now she at least says she opposes it, either because that is her belief, or because of Sander's popularity. So terrible choice for you, Jake - if she supported TPP to support her boss, then that affirms my assertion that Cuomo represented BC's policy objectives. But if she supported it because she supports it, now she's a pandering liar, and McCauliffe already slipped a few days ago that it's exactly that, and post election she'll drive forward to get it ratified as is. Again...if a GOP candidate speaks about the need for voter ID laws to protect against fraud, or abortion doctors need admitting privs to protect women, do you think they're being forthright, or do you read between the lines? It's precisely the same with Democratic leadership on gun control, based on decades of action and words.

Sadly, I'm not convinced society has so progressed. Or more specifically, enough of an element will take advantage that citizens need the choice of viable self defense. It's a tragedy when random folks get killed (as opposed to the felons killing other felons, which strikes me less so). But I find it more tragic when these people are slaughtered like sheep with no means at all. I can't imagine the anguish they feel in those last minutes knowing what's coming. As skydivers (retired in my case), we put ourselves into a death situation and then take action to end it. Those victims didn't have any actions they could take. Random misfortune selected them.

Why is the inscription in the NRA HQ lobby missing the first part of the 2nd Amendment, do you think? Is there some intent behind that? I already have done what I suggested we not do - play the same stupid constitutional game on a thread that should be about Germany. I'll answer this question, and no more, even though it was your usual avoidance of what was said by me prior. To address that I'll reiterate - Federalist #46 leaves no doubt. There was little debate on its inclusion in the Bill of Rights, other than wrt the phrasing. And since you (used to) state that the SC's writings are the only opinions that count, I give you Heller, McDonald, and Caetano. Why does the NRA truncate the verbiage? Possible answers: 1) it's then too damn long for a nice photo op like this. 14 words instead of 27. 2) tired of addressing lame strawman arguments, particularly by those who deliberately pretend not to understand what militia or well regulated means. 3) sticks to their mission, protection of individual gun rights. The ACLU can spend their time debating the first 2 clauses, as part of their odd support for only 9/10ths of the BoR. 4) As Derek suggests, go ahead and ask them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution gives a clear path on the writing (Conflict and compromise in Congress produce the Bill of Rights section). The second draft version would probably have saved people a lot of time: "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms." But that would dwarf the NRA seal on the wall, or require a font too small to be readable.

term limits have been a disaster for California. Done at the Federal level...I think we can expect that all senators in their last session will be trading votes for jobs in corporate America. Sign me up as a No for that world.

If only the people who wrote the Constitution gave us any additional information describing their intent. Oh, right. They did. Please. Try to amend it with popular support, but stop wasting time on this feigned confusion on the intent.

12 million registered Democrats (43%) apparently felt otherwise. Had they not sabotaged him, how much closer to 50 could he have gotten? In any event, let's get past this nonsense that he's not a Democrat who declines party affiliation. The party would do well to remember 2000 and the price of ignoring Nader's constituents. They want to take the left's votes for granted as they pivot to the right to grab more of the fence sitting vote (just as the GOP does the same with the Buchanan types). Sometimes this backfires, as exemplified by the Sanders supporters who want to stop Trump, but not vote for Clinton. We'll see what they actually do in November.

Obama's handling of Guantanamo Bay is what Rubio is talking about. It was easy to make campaign sound bites about closing this monstrosity, but actually doing it is a lot harder when you dig into the details. He still makes proclamations every year or so about doing it, but it's been 8 years!

Arnold was not terribly successful as governor, though I blame bad term limit policy more than him or any other potential option (I still regret not paying the money to be part of the hundreds of candidates in the recall). But Jerry Brown showed the difference between an experienced politician and one with none at all. Whether you hate Moonbeam's politics or not, the man knows how to negotiate and enact policy in a polarized Sacramento. Arnold put forth some intelligent proposals, particularly around rainy day reserves, but couldn't get anything implemented. We moved ahead on inertia and the improving economy.

Unless it's a guy who arranges to meet someone pretending to be underage and brings rubbers. He's arrested on arrival. Or as others noted, any form of solicitation results in an arrest before sex occurs.

in truth, there's little to prevent the Kremlin from altering the contents that they pilfered. If you're an outfit that employs warehouses of people to post whore on social sites all day (like Russia), that's child's play. The challenge is altering it so subtly that the author doesn't feel a need to address it with a counter, but enough to score you points.

I'm going to go out on a tiny limb and suggest that Hillary and Bill are fairly aligned on policy. The Clinton Administration leaned on S&W. Cuomo represented the Clinton Adminstration (HUD) at the time. And I can't think of any time that she deviated from the New York contingent (Schumer, Spitzer) during her time as a carpetbagger. H Clinton has been one of the most pandering, even by politician standards, Pretty much since that cookies remarks in 1991.

He enjoyed a very brief period of time where he had the 60 senators he needed to pass the ACA. Otherwise, he faced a GOP that openly vowed to block anything and everything. No chance he was going to burn political capital on a loser issue. When he did - it was knowing it was symbolic, though this year it's been mostly about forcing GOP members to vote on the record. (I'm in favor of that, just as they should be forced to vote on the record on Court nominees) I would hope these Democrats weren't serious about blatantly unconstitutional No Fly No Buy proposals.

For some time I was convinced that Trump was self sabotaging his campaign (starting with the attack on the "Mexican" judge born in Indiana) because even he never took the campaign seriously. It was his change to ham it up for several months and do little work. But like Boris Johnson, suddenly his side was winning and now he has to go through with it. Saying stupid shit like he had all along is an effective way to ensure losing. Except that it isn't. Between a weak opponent and hordes of fans who absolutely don't care what he says, he keeps sitting around. I'm not sure how he gets enough women and Latino votes to win, but the campaign refuses to die.

There was no mistake in 'all men are created equal.' The fault laid in their interpretation of what 'all men' meant - now includes women and non whites. That's an execution failure, not a policy one. Nothing has changed in 250 years to change the reasons around speech, religion and gun policy in the 1st and 2nd. The people remain the people.

I challenged this already with an explanation but you ignored it. So this time I'm just going to say that's unsupported bullshit, and you should stop lying if you want people to take you seriously. 3 people said the same (wrong) thing, and I replied to one. The evidence is there...and not countered. But I'm grown out of the need to play the circular game. If you guys want to pretend that statements of intent to take all guns they can get don't count...have fun with it. The parallel to Texas abortion law or voter ID laws went over Bill's head, or (more likely) wasn't convenient. The point is the same - someone pandering (lying) 100 times doesn't outweigh the 1 or 2 times they admit the truth. And putting up barriers expressively for the purpose of denying use of that right is not constitutional, nor morally defensible.

The other recent example that is quite analogous is the Texas regulations on abortion clinics, made in the name of women's safety, and the SC declared that to be bullshit. Many of the 'common sense' proposals around waiting periods, training, or access to ammo are just as dishonest as the Texan government was re: abortion. The response here was to challenge the first part of that statement as false. It is in fact true, but lacks public support, is unconstitutional, and impossible to achieve. The correct response is the challenge the conclusion. No one needs to stock up on weapons, though in California it now looks like we do need to stock up on ammunition after some truly stupid legislation was passed last month. But if one doesn't have any gun and thinks they might feel a need for *one* in the future, it is prudent to do it sooner than later. The ability to get one won't (likely) abruptly disappear, but if you wait till the moment of need, you're not giving yourself an opportunity to practice. The buying choices also continue to shrink, but from a rights perspective, there's not a high likelihood that you're be unable to buy a revolver, semiautomatic pistol, deer (high powered) rifle, or shotgun. This jihad against "assault rifles" (low powered, scary looking rifles) is just silly and pointless, but gun enthusiasts are perhaps the ones ones impacted. Criminals can get whatever they want.

This is the standard line taken by a Democrat when running for office. Likewise, when GOP members talk about how voter ID bills are about preventing (non existent) fraud, do you take that at face value. They said that a million times. A handful of times, insiders admit what we know to be true: "we're doing this to suppress minority voting who favor the other side." One is a talking point, one is the truth. So when the leaders in gun control own up, those statements outweigh the pandering...like any time you see "common sense" or "support for hunter rights." Josh Sugarman (lead for VPC, generally credited for inventing the term "assault rifle" in the conversation) has long admitted the objective is not control, but banning of guns. Diane Feinstein - 60 minutes, 1995: "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here." In that same time, Andrew Cuomo promised resisters "death by a thousand cuts" and then respectable Eliot Spitzer told Glock to cooperate or "your bankruptcy lawyers will be knocking at your door." The Clinton Administration used Columbine to beat S&W into bankruptcy. This is why the product liability bill was passed. And this is one (of many) reason why Gore lost the election, and yes, he did lose Florida. It's part of why Newt's gang took over the Senate in 1994 (post AWB). Since then, the Democrats talk about gun control, but do very little. Nor should they - nothing they propose will do anything but hurt citizens. The AWB accomplished nothing. Magazine capacity limits accomplish nothing. It is security theater in a different form, the key difference being they want this half measures to fail.

for non Americans, civil rights aren't a given, or even common. For many developed nations, there are still people alive that predate having them. So their appreciation for the importance is notably lacking.

there's little point to trying to deny the obvious. These sort of statements have been on record for decades now. Unfortunately for them (and you), it results in terrible losses at the polls (see 2000, 1994). I have no doubt it's what she wants to do, and just as little concern that she actually can.