The Current Events, News, and Politics Thread
12-20-2012, 11:34 AM
#3521
The funny thing, Congress has never had lower approval numbers, and yet the stupid electorate defaults to "there ought to be a law" every time something happens.
"Just add government" guarantees to ruin the recipe almost every time.
Reply
0
0
12-20-2012, 11:49 AM
#3523
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,026
Total Cats: 6,592
If only the founders of our country had conceived of some mechanism whereby a group of learned individuals, who have supreme authority to review all of the laws of the nation, could weigh the relative merits of each side of such a conundrum, and render an opinion to resolve conflicts where they exist.
Reply
0
0
12-20-2012, 11:56 AM
#3524
Ah, so passing a law which improves the quality of life for some, may have the adverse consequence of decreasing the quality of life for others.
If only the founders of our country had conceived of some mechanism whereby a group of learned individuals, who have supreme authority to review all of the laws of the nation, could weigh the relative merits of each side of such a conundrum, and render an opinion to resolve conflicts where they exist.
If only the founders of our country had conceived of some mechanism whereby a group of learned individuals, who have supreme authority to review all of the laws of the nation, could weigh the relative merits of each side of such a conundrum, and render an opinion to resolve conflicts where they exist.
Reply
1
1
12-20-2012, 12:06 PM
#3525
Ah, so passing a law which improves the quality of life for some, may have the adverse consequence of decreasing the quality of life for others.
If only the founders of our country had conceived of some mechanism whereby a group of learned individuals, who have supreme authority to review all of the laws of the nation, could weigh the relative merits of each side of such a conundrum, and render an opinion to resolve conflicts where they exist.
If only the founders of our country had conceived of some mechanism whereby a group of learned individuals, who have supreme authority to review all of the laws of the nation, could weigh the relative merits of each side of such a conundrum, and render an opinion to resolve conflicts where they exist.
Scalia's opinion for the majority provided 2nd Amendment protection for commonly used and popular handguns but not for atypical arms or arms that are used for unlawful purposes such as short-barreled shotguns. Scalia stated: "Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid." "We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179." "We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns." Furthermore, military grade weapons not being the sort of weapons that are possessed at home that would be brought to militia duty are not the sort of lawful weapon conceived of being protected. "It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service – M-16 rifles and the like – may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty."[73] Therefore, weapons that are most useful in military service – M-16 rifles and weapons like it – are also not provided with 2nd Amendment protection.
Notice the language? "M-16 rifles and weapons like it"? That kind of language is perfect for justifying another AWB in the name of public safety.
Reply
0
0
12-20-2012, 02:35 PM
#3530
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
Book Bags Banned At Some Local Schools « CBS Miami
grand solution.
I think they should ban clothes in general:
grand solution.
I think they should ban clothes in general:
Reply
0
0
12-20-2012, 07:33 PM
#3531
Moderator
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 20,652
Total Cats: 3,011
Depardieu Goes John Galt: French Movie Star Leaves Homeland Because of High Taxes
-Marian L. Tupy Policy Analyst, CATO Center for Global Liberty & Prosperity
Posted on December 19, 2012 at 11:26am
Few Frenchmen are more recognizable at home and abroad than the movie star Gerard Depardieu. Last week, Depardieu caused a great controversy in his native land by moving to Belgium – partly to avoid the 75 percent income tax on the wealthy that was introduced by the socialist President of France, Francois Hollande. Depardieu’s move was condemned by the French political establishment, including the Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault who called the actor’s action “pathetic.”
Depardieu shot back and, in an open letter to Monsieur Ayrault, wrote, “I’m leaving because you think success, creation, talent and anything different should be punished. I am sending you back my passport and social security, which I have never used.” The French actor claims to have “paid 85 percent taxes on his revenues this year [2012] and estimated that he had paid €145m ($189m) in total since he started work as a printer at the age of 14.”
The lessons from Monsieur Hollande’s debacle should be obvious. The rich are a mobile lot and there are plenty of countries that will welcome them with open arms. The British Prime Minister David Cameron, for example, has promised to “roll out a red carpet” for the French tax refuges. Moreover, as my colleague Alan Reynolds reminds us, high tax rates on income may discourage many wealthy people from remaining in the labor force, since, to use economic jargon, their elasticity of taxable income is much higher than that of low and middle income earners. Translated into English, people like me have to work even if our tax rates go up, because we have to come up with money to pay our mortgages, student loans, etc. The rich people don’t.
The French government was warned of the negative consequences of tax increases. It chose to ignore those warnings. Instead, the French socialists assumed that they could go on plucking the golden goose indefinitely. (Then again, the socialist grasp on reality has never been very good.) Of course, when idiotic policies backfire, politicians feign surprise and then shift the blame onto others. Thus, French Labor Minister Michel Sapin asked in a radio interview “What is more normal than those who earn enormous amounts of money paying lots of tax?” The French Culture and Communication Minister Aurelie Filippetti bemoaned Depardieu’s action by stating that “We shouldn’t be receiving moral lessons from people who abandon the battlefield when we need everyone to be mobilized.”
So, there you have it. A great actor who started with nothing and built a spectacular career that revived the French movie industry and filled the coffers of the French state is condemned for finally standing up for himself by a member of parasitic political elite that has brought a great country to the edge of fiscal ruin. Straight out of Ayn Rand’s novel.
Posted on December 19, 2012 at 11:26am
Few Frenchmen are more recognizable at home and abroad than the movie star Gerard Depardieu. Last week, Depardieu caused a great controversy in his native land by moving to Belgium – partly to avoid the 75 percent income tax on the wealthy that was introduced by the socialist President of France, Francois Hollande. Depardieu’s move was condemned by the French political establishment, including the Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault who called the actor’s action “pathetic.”
Depardieu shot back and, in an open letter to Monsieur Ayrault, wrote, “I’m leaving because you think success, creation, talent and anything different should be punished. I am sending you back my passport and social security, which I have never used.” The French actor claims to have “paid 85 percent taxes on his revenues this year [2012] and estimated that he had paid €145m ($189m) in total since he started work as a printer at the age of 14.”
The lessons from Monsieur Hollande’s debacle should be obvious. The rich are a mobile lot and there are plenty of countries that will welcome them with open arms. The British Prime Minister David Cameron, for example, has promised to “roll out a red carpet” for the French tax refuges. Moreover, as my colleague Alan Reynolds reminds us, high tax rates on income may discourage many wealthy people from remaining in the labor force, since, to use economic jargon, their elasticity of taxable income is much higher than that of low and middle income earners. Translated into English, people like me have to work even if our tax rates go up, because we have to come up with money to pay our mortgages, student loans, etc. The rich people don’t.
The French government was warned of the negative consequences of tax increases. It chose to ignore those warnings. Instead, the French socialists assumed that they could go on plucking the golden goose indefinitely. (Then again, the socialist grasp on reality has never been very good.) Of course, when idiotic policies backfire, politicians feign surprise and then shift the blame onto others. Thus, French Labor Minister Michel Sapin asked in a radio interview “What is more normal than those who earn enormous amounts of money paying lots of tax?” The French Culture and Communication Minister Aurelie Filippetti bemoaned Depardieu’s action by stating that “We shouldn’t be receiving moral lessons from people who abandon the battlefield when we need everyone to be mobilized.”
So, there you have it. A great actor who started with nothing and built a spectacular career that revived the French movie industry and filled the coffers of the French state is condemned for finally standing up for himself by a member of parasitic political elite that has brought a great country to the edge of fiscal ruin. Straight out of Ayn Rand’s novel.
Reply
0
0
12-20-2012, 08:50 PM
#3533
Moderator
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 20,652
Total Cats: 3,011
Man Attempts to Open Fire on Crowd at Movie Theater, Armed Off-Duty Sergeant Drops Hi
Oh, the ironing.
The Bexar County Sheriff’s Office says the off-duty sergeant, who was working security, heard the gunshots and came running. She saw the gunman coming out of the men’s restroom. The Sheriff’s Office says the gunman did not shoot at her, but his gun was drawn so she opened fire.
That off-duty sergeant, identified as Lisa Castellano, fired four times, wounding the gunman. Only one other person was wounded, a 49-year-old man inside the theater, who was hit by one of the gunman’s shots. Both are expected to recover.
Investigators say about 30 rounds were fired. It’s unclear why the break-up with his girlfriend caused the man to go after his co-workers. Investigators haven’t ruled out a love-triangle involving someone else at the restaurant.
With one shot, an off-duty sergeant took down a gunman who attempted to opened fire at a crowded movie theater lobby during a late night showing of “The Hobbit” in San Antonio, 1200 WOAI news reports.
Police say a gunman, identified as Jesus Manuel Garcia, chased patrons from the nearby China Garden Restaurant into the lobby of the Santikos Mayan 14 movie theater at around 9 p.m. on Sunday. Garcia, an employee of the restaurant, reportedly walked in the establishment looking for a woman.
When the woman, also reportedly a restaurant employee, wasn’t there, Garcia pulled out a gun and attempted to open fire in the restaurant but his weapon jammed.
“It started at the restaurant and then went into the parking lot and then into the movie theater,” Deputy Lou Antu told 1200 WOAI news.
The commotion sent horrified restaurant patrons into the movie theater lobby, but the gunman followed. He again attempted to open fire, and this time his gun didn’t jam. Garcia reportedly shot one man in the chest before Antu says an off-duty sheriff’s sergeant working security the theater shot him once, dropping him to the floor.
Bexar County sheriff’s Sgt. Lisa Castellano reportedly chased the gunman toward the back of the theater. The 13-year department veteran cornered him after he ran into a men’s restroom and shot him before taking his gun.
The Bexar County Sheriff’s Office says the off-duty sergeant, who was working security, heard the gunshots and came running. She saw the gunman coming out of the men’s restroom. The Sheriff’s Office says the gunman did not shoot at her, but his gun was drawn so she opened fire.
That off-duty sergeant, identified as Lisa Castellano, fired four times, wounding the gunman. Only one other person was wounded, a 49-year-old man inside the theater, who was hit by one of the gunman’s shots. Both are expected to recover.
Investigators say about 30 rounds were fired. It’s unclear why the break-up with his girlfriend caused the man to go after his co-workers. Investigators haven’t ruled out a love-triangle involving someone else at the restaurant.
With one shot, an off-duty sergeant took down a gunman who attempted to opened fire at a crowded movie theater lobby during a late night showing of “The Hobbit” in San Antonio, 1200 WOAI news reports.
Police say a gunman, identified as Jesus Manuel Garcia, chased patrons from the nearby China Garden Restaurant into the lobby of the Santikos Mayan 14 movie theater at around 9 p.m. on Sunday. Garcia, an employee of the restaurant, reportedly walked in the establishment looking for a woman.
When the woman, also reportedly a restaurant employee, wasn’t there, Garcia pulled out a gun and attempted to open fire in the restaurant but his weapon jammed.
“It started at the restaurant and then went into the parking lot and then into the movie theater,” Deputy Lou Antu told 1200 WOAI news.
The commotion sent horrified restaurant patrons into the movie theater lobby, but the gunman followed. He again attempted to open fire, and this time his gun didn’t jam. Garcia reportedly shot one man in the chest before Antu says an off-duty sheriff’s sergeant working security the theater shot him once, dropping him to the floor.
Bexar County sheriff’s Sgt. Lisa Castellano reportedly chased the gunman toward the back of the theater. The 13-year department veteran cornered him after he ran into a men’s restroom and shot him before taking his gun.
Last edited by Braineack; 10-08-2019 at 09:48 AM.
Reply
1
1
12-24-2012, 04:21 PM
#3537
Funny thing about gun control:
In the state that I currently live in, all a person needs to do to own a gun is pass a background check. You can literally have ZERO knowledge of gun laws, safety, technique, etc. You don't even need to know how ANY firearm actually functions. As long as you have a name, address, and social security number, you can purchase and shoot a gun. Now that's the first thing that needs to change.
My recommendation is that gun ownership becomes a two step process. First you apply and pass your background check. You receive a background check approval certificate in the mail. With this, you then sign up for a mandatory (40hr?) firearm safety class. Once you take and pass the safety class, the instructors issue a certificate or otherwise submit your application to the state for final approval. Then, at the very least, you have a clean background and understand the basic responsibilities of owning a firearm.
In the state that I currently live in, all a person needs to do to own a gun is pass a background check. You can literally have ZERO knowledge of gun laws, safety, technique, etc. You don't even need to know how ANY firearm actually functions. As long as you have a name, address, and social security number, you can purchase and shoot a gun. Now that's the first thing that needs to change.
My recommendation is that gun ownership becomes a two step process. First you apply and pass your background check. You receive a background check approval certificate in the mail. With this, you then sign up for a mandatory (40hr?) firearm safety class. Once you take and pass the safety class, the instructors issue a certificate or otherwise submit your application to the state for final approval. Then, at the very least, you have a clean background and understand the basic responsibilities of owning a firearm.
Reply
0
0
12-24-2012, 04:52 PM
#3538
Funny thing about gun control:
In the state that I currently live in, all a person needs to do to own a gun is pass a background check. You can literally have ZERO knowledge of gun laws, safety, technique, etc. You don't even need to know how ANY firearm actually functions. As long as you have a name, address, and social security number, you can purchase and shoot a gun. Now that's the first thing that needs to change.
In the state that I currently live in, all a person needs to do to own a gun is pass a background check. You can literally have ZERO knowledge of gun laws, safety, technique, etc. You don't even need to know how ANY firearm actually functions. As long as you have a name, address, and social security number, you can purchase and shoot a gun. Now that's the first thing that needs to change.
Reply
0
0
