billeisele

Jerry - That is also how it works here in SC. We've had 3 sheriffs, that I know of, removed from office in the last 5 years. All were for some type of illegal activity; drug use, fraud, stealing, etc. In this case the law went into effect as soon as it was passed. I suspect that objections to the law will be quickly filed so that no one will lose a job. There is a political cost to those actions.

Taking a page out of the Democrat playbook, IL passed gun legislation that is clearly unconstitutional. No doubt this will be challenged and struck down. The recent OR attempt at gun control was blocked by the court until arguments are heard and a ruling issued. Seventy-four sheriffs have publicly stated that they won't enforce it. The Gov Pritzker says, "yes you will." The law bans the manufacture or possession of dozens of semi-auto rifles AND pistols, 50 caliber guns, high capacity mags and makes it illegal to own an item that increases the rate of fire. The law requires that existing owners register the items with the State police including the serial number. "No Illinoisan, no matter their zip code, should have to go through life fearing their loved one could be the next in an ever-growing list of victims of mass shootings," the governor said. "However, for too long people have lived in fear of being gunned down in schools, while worshipping, at celebrations or in their own front yards. This legislation will stop the spread of assault weapons, high-capacity magazines, and switches and make our state a safer place for all." Opponents of the legislation have said it would do nothing to reduce violent crime in Illinois. People who break the law, people who commit violent crime are not going to register their firearms, are not going to turn in their magazines. This will not stop that crime. What will happen is law-abiding gun owners will be yet again impacted by laws in this General Assembly, yet again have their Second Amendment rights restrained," The problem with these attempts is there is no credible evidence that they will be successful in reducing gun violence. They seem to ignore the fact that mass shootings are not the primary problem and that criminals don't follow the law. It seems that politicians continue to pander to their voters so they can say they tried even though they should know it was meaningless. I'm all for effective legislation but it must be legal. It seems that banning items that increase the rate of fire should be doable. Stiffer background checks, red flag laws and more. https://abcnews.go.com/US/illinois-latest-us-state-ban-assault-weapons/story?id=96356906 https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/pritzker-signs-illinois-assault-weapons-ban/

Background info https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/12/politics/biden-documents-final-days-vice-president-aides-scramble/index.html?fbclid=IwAR1lYPMa4-Akvm9-Uf4ZqUuYHUPKnnjnSaN0MO8Jp6j7IRcNdirQ6rnnZ8U

Joe, "How one anyone could be that irresponsible? And I thought, what data was in there that may compromise sources and methods, just totally irresponsible." VP's have no authority to declassify anything except items that they had classified. The documents had been there for years. Some were moved, twice. One location was accessible by anyone including the drunk/druggie party boy with the famed laptop, and a key was given to a Chinese spy. One location was funded by China and accessible by anyone including students. Of note, there is a young woman sitting in prison for taking CI documents home. She took them during COVID because access to the info was limited because the building wasn't often open so she took them home so she could work. Not smart. There have been Washington staffers instantly fired for mishandling CI. Yes there are differences. Yes, Trump had many more documents that we're still waiting to hear about. And many other differences that are bad for Trump. Trumps docs were locked up but still not in a "SCIF" as required by the National Security Act. None of Joe's docs were locked up, protected and definitely not a SCIF. It's difficult to believe his statement that he takes this seriously. Deliberate or not, obstruction or not, all instances are a violation. Let the spinners spin away, deflect and all the other things they do. The DOJ has some fact finding and unraveling to do.

Rod Stewart

"What else is there that we don't know?" Second set of classified documents recovered. And one honest person, "not authorized to publicly discuss ... ... spoke on condition of anonymity", stepped forward to report it. Seems that hiding the first one wasn't a good idea. Let's keep going with this transparency thing. None of the political wrangling is good for the country.

Jakee - yes, there are some significant differences. But so much is the same. Regardless of who is doing it, it shouldn't be occurring. And there's the "you people" thing as if everyone fits into certain convenient boxes. The world is not that simple. Folks could say the same about you but then they would be guilty of the same silliness.

I'm glad you said "seem." That implies (i got it right that time, thanks) that you've read some of my prior posts. What I'd prefer is a leader in either party. One with a brain that was working properly. One that has major accomplishments in their past. One that doesn't denigrate others. One that recognizes and accepts their responsibility, can prioritize and act accordingly. One that is most interested in protecting the nation and upholding all the laws. One that doesn't regularly make serious mistakes. One that isn't absent from the job 40% of the time. Those people exist but, it seems, that most wouldn't want to job because of the phonies, dishonesty, etc., of Washington and politics.

Mr Joe - it was hard to miss since it was on twitter, tiktok, cnsnews, outkick, pjmedia, presstv, sputnikmews, FB, summit news, whitehouse.gov, youtube, infowars, investmentwatchblog, irna (iranian news), ussanews, and a long list of other sources Maybe the President Harris error is more explainable. I guess this was his speech impediment.

It is and will be more fun watching supporters and the media spilt hairs over how one criminal violation was different than the other criminal violation. No doubt there are differences, and some are significant. But at the end of the day they are both violations. It does raise the question, "What else is there that we don't know?" And that goes both ways. It's interesting that the records were discovered and turned over before the mid-terms but it's just now been publicly known. So much for, "this administration will be the most transparent “bring transparency and truth back to the government to share the truth, even when it’s hard to hear,”

Man out on parole from a 20-year jail sentence for armed robbery breaks into a home with a woman and 2 kids inside. He was armed with a shovel and lug wrench. She defended herself and the intruder is dead. Yes, she took a risk by having a gun in the house. In this case the risk saved her and the kids. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/mother-fatally-shoots-shovel-wielding-intruder-broke-louisiana-home-au-rcna65057

It will be interesting to learn why, how the gun was obtained, and info about the parents and family situation.

It's best to ignore facts so the one-sided illusion can continue. It's like a spotlight that only allows light to exit from half the lense.

This makes me want to spin some more albums. The kids were interested so we started using the turntable over the holidays. Have some great music on vinyl. They liked the Beatles albums from the late 60's and 70's. Peter Frampton, Boz Scaggs, Pink Floyd, Gordon Lightfoot, Fogerty, etc.

Good morning Ms Wendy. Hope you're enjoying the mild winter weather. It's 65 degrees here and we were jumping of Monday. Crazy weather. Absolutely not. IMO that's a big mistake. Strap on a gun and go, is crazy. IMO the permit thing is worse. It can give permit holders the misperception that they are now somehow a weapons expert. I'm surprised that there are not more shootings. Specifically on this topic I've stated that the requirements to get a permit are too lax. There should be retraining and/or proof of competency for renewal, and more. Here in SC the permit process is much too easy. Looking are some states that we have reciprocity with, it's even easier. Anyone can go to a class having never touched a gun. They can use a .22 pistol to quality on the shooting range and pass the written exam just by listening to a few hours of instruction. There are many, what I consider, basic things that the training doesn't cover. That gets them a concealed weapon permit. They can strap on a 45-caliber handgun and walk the street. That's crazy.

U R usually quite accurate and a good source of info but not on this one Politifact https://www.politifact.com/obama-like-health-care-keep/ NPR - lie of the year https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/12/13/250694372/obamas-you-can-keep-it-promise-is-lie-of-the-year Wall Street J https://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-WB-10716 Unfortunately, many Americans have been living the limiting and expensive consequences of the lie.

Bill - I don't know about "thousands" but I had a specialist that quit. At my last appointment he flatly stated that being a doctor was no longer fun for him. The new bureaucracy was just too much.

All tragedies for sure. Unfortunately these mass shootings are a small fraction of the deaths that occur from handguns. The "motivating event" may be when it directly effects one or more of them. This article arrived today. Some of this is what I'm concerned about. Passing laws that are ineffective and passing laws that will not stand up to court challenges. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/after-the-supreme-court-s-major-gun-decision-these-states-passed-restrictive-new-laws-in-2022/ar-AA15VCyQ?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=d87ef16379d040119024cfdad6807aac

Good morning, Happy NY and all that stuff. I think that nothing will change until there is a motivating event. Not sure what that would be. Maybe a few with personal tragedies, term limits, voters replace a bunch of them, removal of the incentive/reward for inaction. and who knows what else. I'd like to see a few moderates of both parties join together and demonstrate that not everything is strictly D or R. That there can be consensus and that representing the best interests of the country is a good thing. As Wendy said, compromise is needed. That also requires negotiating in good faith. Honesty and integrity are needed. People like Santos need to be hammered as hard as possible to send a clear message. Political office should not be haven for the inept, dishonest and immoral.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. The data is interesting for sure and thanks for the link. I'll dive into this and read the original data at Giffords. I'm not questioning your "R's banned the research" statement but would like to read up on that. Is this a reference to the Dickey Amendment? It's way past time for Congress to do their job on immigration policy and action on firearms.

Of course it matters. The point is that laws don't prevent all deaths. BV implied that many dangerous things/activities had laws and stated that billions was spent on research. Then said, "... when laws are proposed that would protect kids from gun deaths." That implies that there are no laws on guns and that the proposed laws would be effective. I'm sure he didn't mean to imply that there were no laws. CA has many laws and the deaths continue. The new law in OR just started so we'll get to see if it's effective. One challenge is it's difficult to quantify how many deaths were avoided by the passage of a law. In CA a CCW is difficult to get and keep, and the purchase/manufacture/gift/loan of a large capacity mag is prohibited. Lastly, the sentence stated that the proposed laws would prevent deaths. That may have been the case but maybe not. Certainly, some of the proposed laws would have provided some benefit but the opposite is also possibly true. IMO unbiased research needs to be done to determine what methods would be practical that would also effectively reduce gun deaths. The results would provide valuable information from which laws could be crafted. No doubt this is a tricky subject. The better the research the more difficult it will be for people to oppose the proposed laws.

Yet kids keep dying from all the above. There are laws on guns intended to do the same thing. One thing we don't know is how many lives are saved because of these laws. We also don't know how many laws exist that have little to no impact. Most remember when containers didn't require a seal. People were nicer, politics wasn't as nasty and there were lines that weren't crossed. All it took was one person to decide to switch out some pills in a bottle to harm people. Could laws on all these things be improved, no doubt. The gun thing is especially sticky because of the rights infringement or perceived rights infringement, and other issues and personalities that are difficult to overcome and manage. But that shouldn't stop our law makers from trying to enact effective legislation. IMO Until a bipartisan effort is made, nothing will change.

There are laws for a reason. Some of the posts seem to infer that ignoring the law is OK. We all have opinions on various topics. Rather than discuss the opinion some folks want to attack and label the person. IMO laws should be enforced. If they are bad laws then they should be repealed not ignored. Yes, shipping out all the undocumented isn't doable and it wasn't suggested. But stopping, controlling and vetting the current inflow is doable. IMO unfettered immigration is a problem that leads to other, worse, problems. Some don't seem to care unless it directly affects them. There is a bigger picture and how it affects others and the nation. The number of fentanyl deaths should be enough to concern everyone. The 2022 deaths exceed 100,000, that's doubled in 4 years, and it's double the number of deaths from guns including suicide. Tougher border enforcement would slow it down but maybe it just comes from elsewhere, who knows. Drugs, prostitution, human trafficking, terrorists - all are a ticking time bomb. Once it does affect one personally it's too late. Prevention is the best option. There is plenty of evidence on crime, drugs and human trafficking that are, IMO, a problem. The impacts on the social support systems and law enforcement are tremendous. That reduces the support for Americans like veterans and the homeless American citizens. The leadership and citizens of the border states, even Denver, are screaming about the problems and DC isn't listening. The administration flies out those that we're visible, and in the news, and that was OK. But when the border states ship a small fraction of immigrants to certain places the whining is quite high. One would think that the President would care about the personal suffering of the immigrants and of Americans, to enforce the law. The cartels and China are loving our President. They are making millions. To your question. Lock down the border, vet all immigrants according to the law. Many studies have shown that's it's financially impossible to solve the problem by bringing all people in need to America. Helping those countries improve their living conditions is the only viable option. We've been doing it at various levels for years, that needs to continue and be reenergized.

If you mean waking up and recognizing what's occurring at the border and how it's impacting the country, that's a great thought. One primary function of the federal government is border security. It would also be nice if Congress, both parties, did their job and took action on this.