Crime and Punishment: Oklahoma (& Texas) style!

[GIThruster]

No less than FIVE posts in a row, all on prohibition, in a thread that has NOTHING to do with prohibition.

This is just one reason no one can take you seriously simon; you don't have any common sense.

[Diogenes]

Right back atcha, digot!

(edit) Bullsh*t deleted.


Please provide a definition for the rest of us:
Who or what is the 'sane part of the nation'?

Not the SPLC or it's fans.



FRC Shooter Picked Up His List of Poltiical Targets to be Assassinated from the Southern Poverty Law Center Websites' List of "Hate Groups"

SPLC is a hate group. They gin up fear in order to raise funds.

They are the perfect example of moral hazard. They profit off of perceived hate and fear.

-- Ben

Posted by: Ace at 04:27 PM

http://minx.cc/?post=337290

[williatw]

GUNS (Virtual State of the Union 2013)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_T-F_zfo ... e=youtu.be

[williatw]

Warrantless searched proposed -- for Third time-- by WA Democrats

http://pjmedia.com/blog/warrantless-sea ... democrats/

Imagine if Republicans in Utah or Alabama, responding to a horrifying sex crime, introduced a bill allowing warrantless searches of homosexuals’ homes to make sure they weren’t holding little boys as sex slaves.

The national media would be discussing this gross violation of the Fourth Amendment incessantly, using it as an example of how fundamentally fascist the Republican Party is — everywhere.

Cut to Washington State: in this case, liberal Democrats in the legislature have introduced an assault weapon ban that includes annual inspections of the homes of people that already own assault weapons to make sure that they are being safely stored.

There is no need for a warrant; there is no probable cause requirement; and the Seattle Times columnist writing about this clearly unconstitutional law observes that the sponsors include “Sen. Adam Kline, D-Seattle, a lawyer who typically is hyper-attuned to civil-liberties issues.”

After a stream of criticism, the author withdrew the warrantless search section of the bill, calling it a “mistake.” Yet, as Bryan Preston points out, the warrantless search section – word for word — was included in bills by Kline in 2009 and 2005.

[williatw]

Court won't reconsider Illinois concealed carry ruling


http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/illi ... 36ee7.html

A federal appeals court on Friday narrowly rejected Illinois' request to reconsider a ruling that found the state's concealed carry weapons ban unconstitutional, leaving lawmakers in the only state that still prohibits concealed carry grappling with how to proceed.

The 5-4 ruling by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals gave state Attorney General Lisa Madigan the option of appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court — a move that could affect gun laws in other states. It also came on the same day that state lawmakers held a hearing on the issue in Chicago — a city that's drawn national attention for its soaring gun violence and homicide rate, including the death of a 15-year-old honor student a mile from President Barack Obama's home.

Madigan said in a statement she has not yet decided whether to appeal. But she said a dissent written by four of the judges "provided a clear framework to guide the legislature in drafting a new law." Those judges said some restrictions — including limits on who may carry and where they may do so — could be considered constitutional.
"With the 180-day deadline still in place, it is critical that the legislature continue to work to enact a law that will protect public safety," said Madigan, a Democrat from Chicago.

Madigan had asked for the entire 10-judge federal appellate court to consider the case after a three-judge panel in December gave lawmakers until June 8 to legalize the concealed carry of firearms. She argued that the ruling conflicts with decisions by other federal appellate courts and goes beyond what the U.S. Supreme Court has held.

In a 5-4 decision, with one judge not participating, the court denied Madigan's request.

The majority did not expand on the opinion written by Judge Richard Posner in December, which said there is "no suggestion that some unique characteristic of criminal activity in Illinois justifies the state's taking a different approach from the other 49 states."

Richard Pearson, the executive director of the Illinois State Rifle Association, said the ruling makes clear that courts believe the prohibition violates Second Amendment rights. If Madigan opts to appeal and the U.S. Supreme Court agrees to hear the case it's possible the justices could strike down not only Illinois' ban on concealed carry, but also gun restrictions in other states, such as New York and Maryland.

"If she does (appeal) I would be happy," Pearson said. "There's a very good chance they'll rule in our favor."


Whoorah...victory for gun owners and the right to self-defense in Illinois.

[williatw]

Family fights back when 3 gunmen storm their home; one intruder shot .


http://www.khou.com/news/local/21-year- ... 75271.html

HOUSTON –A 21-year-old man sprang into action to protect his family Thursday night when three suspects barged into their northwest Harris County home.

The young man was home with his mother and father in the 3900 block of Brook Garden when the armed men forced their way into the house around 8 p.m., according to Harris County Sheriff’s deputies.

The family was in the middle of baking a cake, when there was a knock at the door.

“I see a young boy and I think it is a friend of my son so I open it a little bit,” the father explained. “These guys push and out comes two more, they push me on the ground.”

After the father was down, the suspects went after the mother. That is when the son ran and got his dad’s gun. He opened fire and hit one of the suspects, who died in the back bedroom. The other two suspects fled the scene.

“I just hear a couple of times; boom, boom, boom. One young life is lost,” the dad said.

Deputies responding to the call spotted a vehicle carrying two men who matched the suspects’ descriptions and pulled it over. The men were taken into custody for questioning.

Deputies said they do not know why the suspects targeted this home.

“At this point, we don’t know what the motive is behind this home invasion, but they did force entry into the residence,” said Sgt. Greg Pinkins, Harris County Sheriff’s Office.

Neighbors said the son was just doing what he had to do.

“People can’t go breaking into people’s homes and not expect some sort of consequence," said Harry Moulder.

No charges were expected to be filed against the homeowner’s son.


Would like to know what firearm he used, sure it only had 7 rounds, after all why would you need more?

[MSimon]

No less than FIVE posts in a row, all on prohibition, in a thread that has NOTHING to do with prohibition.

This is just one reason no one can take you seriously simon; you don't have any common sense.

So true. And yet me and my cohorts (mostly on the left) are promoting States rights and defeating prohibition. If we succeed I imagine we will shrink the Federal Government by at least one agency. I wonder how that is possible? I further wonder why the right doesn't like States Rights and shrinking the Feds.

[MSimon]

Let each man do as he will, as it does no harm.

That's one statement of the Libertarian position, one I agree with. Also part of the philosophy is that if a man messes up (such as by having children he can't afford), his neighbour isn't on the hook. The argument that the man should not be held responsible is more libertine than libertarian.

Many positions advocated by the "libertarian" party in fact are blind to harm, thus more libertine, when viewed from a more conservative position. It is on this point of whether an activity is really harmless to society that I often differ from MSimon and the libertarian party.

Here are the political positions of Gary Johnson who I voted for in the last election:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_ ... ry_Johnson

Which are the ones which are libertine positions? Cutting spending across the board by 43% to head off our financial Armageddon? Support for the 2nd Amendment? Probably in your eyes ending the ruinous war on drugs?
Because of course he thinks drug use is harmless: http://ouramericainitiative.com/issues/drugs

We advocate a “Don’t do Drugs” policy. Drugs can be harmful, addictive and destructive to our lives and society. The current war on drugs, however, has not been successful. ...Our America Initiative believes that one of the best solutions to help with the many problems caused by drugs is to legalize marijuana. We do not advocate the legalization of any other drugs and believe that harm reduction measures should be implemented.

Well we have a Dr with an opposing view - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kvwz9WyI3OM he says every one should be eating cannabis for heart health. He was a heart surgeon before he retired. He thought all that medical pot stuff was bunk until he became misinformed by reading the literature.

[williatw]

New O’Keefe Video: Cops Say ‘You’re On Your Own’ Without Gun

http://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/2013 ... thout-gun/


James O’Keefe’s latest video shows the ugly truth: if you don’t own a gun, you are on your own. In the video, he goes into police stations (predominately in the anti-gun Northeast) and collects a shocking harvest of responses from officers about how the police have no ability to protect them. Traffic and time prevent effective responses to 911 calls. O’Keefe’s undercover protagonist pushes the issue, “well, how am I supposed to protect my family if I don’t have a gun?”

“You’re on your own,” is the common response. Others suggest defending your family with bleach, 2 x 4′s, yelling, or holding a cell phone to your ear and pretending you are talking to the police.

[GIThruster]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84ptFVq22PY

[paperburn1]

Well we have a Dr with an opposing view - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kvwz9WyI3OM he says every one should be eating cannabis for heart health. He was a heart surgeon before he retired. He thought all that medical pot stuff was bunk until he became misinformed by reading the literature.

Unless you making a killing growing your own weed and selling it.
One high-profile case was the arrest of Dr. David Bruce Allen, 53, a retired heart surgeon from Pascagoula.

Harlan Kirgan/Press-RegisterDr. David Bruce Allen arrested in March in Oakland, Calif., after a February raid on his Escatawpa property
He was arrested in March in Oakland, Calif., after a February raid on his Escatawpa property. He was charged with cultivation of marijuana and sale of hashish while in the possession of a firearm.

Then in December, he was accused of felony witness tampering, bribing a witness, attempting to induce perjury and misdemeanor marijuana possession.

[Stubby]

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/83209531/

[williatw]

The great gun control fizzle

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/r ... 89628.html

Rarely has the political class whipped itself into a lather that has abated so quickly. After the Newtown, Conn., massacre, so many invested so much hope in President Barack Obama’s pledge to “use whatever power this office holds” to pass new gun control laws.

The president has certainly done his part. He has held rallies. He has used children as props. He has held events with parents of the little victims of Newtown. He has shamed the nation for its alleged forgetfulness over the terrible events of that day and urged members of Congress to “join me in finishing the job — for our communities and, most importantly, for our kids.”


....But the assault weapons ban has been deep-sixed by Democrats in the Senate. Same with any limit on the size of magazines. The argument now is all about increasing the reach of background checks, although any bill that can pass the Senate and the House will be much less extensive than the president or his supporters would like.

The gun control debate has shown the president again to be hopelessly detached as a legislative mechanic and ineffectual as a shaper of public opinion.

[kcdodd]

I think it may have been a mistake for so many gun-rights groups to jump on the bandwagon of blaming mental health for mass shootings. While those who have gone on these rampages were almost certainly not mentally healthy by almost anyone's standard, I think the vagueness of what mental health actually means, and by what procedure one determines someone unfit to own a gun, opens a huge door to the government. While overt gun control may be dying in congress, I think the soil is being tilled for lowering the bar on what makes someone mentally unfit to own a gun.

[williatw]

I think it may have been a mistake for so many gun-rights groups to jump on the bandwagon of blaming mental health for mass shootings. While those who have gone on these rampages were almost certainly not mentally healthy by almost anyone's standard, I think the vagueness of what mental health actually means, and by what procedure one determines someone unfit to own a gun, opens a huge door to the government. While overt gun control may be dying in congress, I think the soil is being tilled for lowering the bar on what makes someone mentally unfit to own a gun.

Well in many states my understanding is that even an order of civil protection, something an estranged spouse can easily have their lawyer request from a very compliant judiciary, (sometimes as a tactic in a rancorous divorce), gives the police the right to enter you home, an confiscate all of your firearms, and rescind your right to own guns for life. This without charges being filed, trial, criminal conviction, or even an accusation of unlawful behavior or threat. In many cases the person usually a woman only has to say she doesn't feel safe or "threatened" without any actual action or threat being made to start the wheels turning.