muff528

To be fair she is not too lazy to vote. She "managed to find a way voting place on the right day vote." She is just too lazy to get a f'n ID over a period of 94 years. Either that or her lazy-ass son couldn't take a little time to get her down to the DMV to get her an ID.

Right. Flickering light will make things so much easier. Wow! How long has it been since you've been to a movie!?

I don't understand your question.... But I will try to clarify. Gun show - This would be like a flea market.... Lets say you owned the land and held a flea market. Bob showed up and wanted to sell velvet Elvis paintings and I showed up to sell firearms. YOU are not a firearms dealer, BOB is not a firearms dealer. DEALERS are required to call in a NICS check. YOU and BOB are not dealers and therefore do not need to have a firearm license. So I would have to call in any firearm sale I made.... Bob would not need to call anyone when he sold a painting. You have no duty to make any phone calls since you just provided the space. What people call a 'loophole' is just Steve trying to sell Bob a firearm. He could make the sale all day everyday, but people call it a 'loophole' if it is done at a gunshow. The ATF is pretty tough on anyone selling guns for profit without being a dealer. What people are calling a loophole is just personal face to face sales. I hope that cleared things up. Also, (if not prevented by any State Laws) the two parties involved in the face-to-face private sale must be residents of the same state. If not, the transaction must be brokered by a FFL dealer in the buyer's state and a background check must be conducted. I think the gun must be physically transferred to the dealer and then to the buyer.

You left out the last part of that statement which is "as long as they get a tax deduction for that donation". I never understood why this is a problem for folks. Because they have to debase christianity in anyway they can, no matter how stupid the trivial accusations are...I just wish they could do it in a more humorous and entertaining fashion. Maybe, maybe not. But I was thinking more in general terms, not only faith-based but any donation (including faith-based).

You left out the last part of that statement which is "as long as they get a tax deduction for that donation". I never understood why this is a problem for folks. The donor is giving the earnings away and does not benefit from that money. Why should he be taxed on it? Let the beneficiary of that donation, whomever that may be, make their case for its "taxworthiniess". Otherwise the donor could just cap his earnings at an amount that does not include what he would have donated and simply not have to deal with the constant whining about "loopholes" and false tax breaks.

She would be in a lot less trouble now if she had simply executed the little fellers when the legal window of opportunity was open.

Well, to further clarify, I wasn't considering a direct "attack" on the POTUS. I was referring more to Chango's statement that "...the Federal Government will defeat you ...". That's why I wondered if the allegiance of the Armed Forces is to the leadership or to the Constitution. A little off topic anyway.

Yes, this.

That's the reason why they agreed on a constitutional form of government putting The Rule Of Law above all else! It's preposterous to assert that the Second Amendment is there for the purpose of allowing any well-armed citizen to decide which laws they will accept as legitimate through the force of arms. (I believe this is one of the arguments that the NRA included in their amicus brief in the Heller case.) According to the NRA, "The Framers also sought to ensure a well-regulated militia by guaranteeing private ownership of firearms, as civilian ownership and use of firearms would confer experience and arms invaluable to militia service, and a right of private ownership would prevent the federal government from effectively disarming the populace by declining to organize the militia." It doesn't matter how many weapons you collect, the Federal Government will defeat you if you try to overthrow it by force. The Civil War should have settled the matter. Nullification through armed conflict is exactly what The Constitution must prevent. Having a bunch of seriously armed insurrectionists each deciding on their own that the federal government is the enemy is the worst possible scenario. It can only lead to chaos and tyranny. I wonder if it is possible that over the course of the past 236 years the 2nd Amendment has already deterred potentially "adventurous" leaders from going "extraconstitutional". I wonder if the Armed Forces would stand behind a government that starts operating outside the bounds of their Constitutional authority. Are they required to defend their lawless leaders or the Constitution? How far should the citizenry or the Armed Services allow a rogue government to go? I don't think you have to worry about an insurrection simply over unpopular laws. So far, the closest thing to a lawless "insurrection" that I can see is the Occupy movement. (I'm not old enough to have witnessed the shame brought upon my people by Sacco and Vanzetti and others.)

"(5) Nothing in this part 2 shall be construed to limit, restrict, or prohibit in any manner the existing rights of a private property owner, private tenant, private employer, or private business entity." Thanks. That clears the public/private question. But, I do agree with the right of private property owners to disallow weapons on their property if that is their choice. It just doesn't appear to be against the law to carry on their property in spite of those rules. But, if they ask you to leave and you don't you would then be illegally trespassing. Am I wrong in understanding that #5 is the Statute/Law and if you carried, you would be violating that? I agree with you. I agree they get the choice to make that call, but don't agree with the call. Matt I dunno. I looks to me that #5 restricts the law from violating a property owner's rights (to make rules, etc.) ...not the CC holder. Individual property owners can't write laws, only rules. Maybe a lawyer can weigh in.

Nobody. At the very minimum they watched it via 1.25 second delay. Ummm... don't tell Buzz Aldren that! He may pop you one in the nose! I'm sure he watched it real-time! What distance from an event is considered to be the maximum distance for a "real time" observation to take place?

"(5) Nothing in this part 2 shall be construed to limit, restrict, or prohibit in any manner the existing rights of a private property owner, private tenant, private employer, or private business entity." Thanks. That clears the public/private question. But, I do agree with the right of private property owners to disallow weapons on their property if that is their choice. It just doesn't appear to be against the law to carry on their property in spite of those rules. But, if they ask you to leave and you don't you would then be illegally trespassing.

1. how is a public building defined in Colorado? 2. see edit above.

Well, if it's not then it seems they can't prohibit concealed carry at all. There is no #4. Edit -It appears that even if they do make "rules" it is not illegal to carry unless one of the 3 listed conditions are met. I suppose they could deny your entry but why would you tell them you were carrying?

You have no idea if there was another gun holder in the theater. If there was, they were breaking the theater rules: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2012/07/20/Ebert-Gun-Free-Theater-Proves-Concealed-Carry-Doesnt-Work Looks like the theater has to go a bit further than just having house "rules". "Places off-limits when carrying: 1. Any place prohibited by federal law (e.g. federal offices or courthouse) 2. Any property of public school grades kindergarten through 12, unless the firearm remains inside a container in a locked vehicle 3. Any public building that prohibits ALL weapons which posts guards and permanent metal detectors at all entrances and requires all entrants to surrender handguns to security personnel before entry." http://www.usacarry.com/colorado_concealed_carry_permit_information.html Also -- "Open Carry: Unrestricted under state law; localities may regulate this aspect independently." So the shooter may not have broken any laws until he started shooting.

Nobody. At the very minimum they watched it via 1.25 second delay. In my reference frame I watched it as it happened.

Groups of grown men and women holding hands and sticking their tongues out at each other.

How do you mean? Short of an assassin killing him, it will get to a judge at the least. The defense will try to get it stopped at that point under SYG. My suspicion is that they will fail to get a pre trial dismissal. Since he's out on bail again, the damage to him isn't as great as if he were in prison. (still sucks, but he didn't do himself any favors with the court in the last couple months). I still don't see how there's enough evidence of any sort to get a conviction beyond doubt, but the jury selection process would be quite a circus if it gets to that point. Obviously "judges" have already been, and will continue to be, involved. I meant I don't think it will get to a "Judge and Jury" as in an actual trial. I don't believe SYG applies here but I agree that his atty will probably try to get it booted based on that. I'll just restate that it's my opinion that too many highly-placed, agenda-driven folks who have already invested too much into this case, politically and ideologically, can't allow a real trial to happen IF there is even a small chance that Zim is telling the truth. Of course, if Zim is actually guilty he'll eventually be convinced to plead anyway. The question of a real threat to his (and his family's) life?.. That will follow him forever, whether he spends time in prison or if he is exonerated. His assassin would probably be held up as a hero. But that's just my prediction. Also, he is either guilty or not. Dumbass stuff he does on TV, etc. shouldn't have any bearing on his guilt or innocence but, of course, it does because this case is not driven by his guilt or innocence.

I'm predicting that this case will never see a judge and jury ...one way or another. The kangaroo court has already dropped the hammer.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/07/18/tourists-detained-on-way-home-from-vancouver-after-discovering-kinder-surprise-eggs-are-illegal-in-u-s/ "...brushed off the offence and merely told them never to bring the Kinder Surprise eggs across the border again." sounds a lot like "...bawled us out and told us never to be seen driving garbage around the vicinity again, ..."

I'd be 42 years younger. I'd settle for 42 years old.

Why criticize this girl? Are her claims really any more egregious than the bullhorn-amplified rants of the attention whores who have already invaded the city with their unfounded racist charges of racism against him? Are her attacks on Zim's family really any more despicable than the attention whores who have issued fatwahs and "death warrants" against them and their supporters? More vile than the nationally-televised attention whores who, as public servants holding high elected office, and who have sworn to protect and defend the Constitution, and in the name of We the People whom they represent, pronounced his guilt and condemned him before the first shred of evidence ever found its way into a courtroom? (This is like playing "The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carroll" backwards.)

The article is not disputing that lower tax rates cause revenues to increase. It is attempting to show that the cause for that phenomena is not an increase in economic activity, but that during periods of high tax rates investors and earners (not just the rich) have a tendency to try to find ways to phuck the government out of "its" share. e.g. The article implies that revenues are reduced because income is not reported, etc ...not because economic activity is squelched by higher marginal rates. Early in the article the writers illustrate the fact that when capital gains taxes were raised that folks bailed out of their investments early to avoid the higher rates that they knew were coming (dam them!)

You're asking about the details of state regulations that have yet to be written. No. I'm asking whether these folks have typically been included in the "officially reported" unemployment rates and, if so, whether or not they will continue to be included even if they not now required to seek a job as a condition of their continued participation. Nothing to do with regulations. Either they have been counted or they have not. I'm just asking the question because I don't know.

Are these folks (who were required to look for jobs under the TANF welfare reforms) included in the unemployment numbers? If so, can they now be "un-included" in unemployment calculations?