wolfriverjoe

Oh, please. Thomas wouldn't recuse himself. Thomas would be able to maintain his independence and impartiality. He would rule on the facts and merits of the case, not on any personal involvement. We REALLY need a 'sarcasm' font on here.

Oh my. Thomas' 'sugar daddy' has a brother. Who has been accused of sex trafficking. Really. https://dallasexpress.com/national/trammell-crow-jr-named-in-human-trafficking-case/ Admittedly, nothing has been proven. These are just accusations. From the article: However, for anyone who claims this is happening because of the revelations about Thomas, the original suit was filed back in November of last year.

A lot of brent's 'definitions' are rather suspect.

Oh there you go using facts again.

Georgia charges will also be state charges. No federal pardon for those. And I highly doubt any R President (if that happens, which I also doubt) would pardon Trump. He's too toxic. Don't forget that EVERY candidate in the 2022 mid-terms that Trump endorsed lost. While the MAGA morons are too big of a voting bloc to ignore, pandering to them is not what I see happening. As always, I can be wrong.

It was revealed in court filings that Fox personnel consider their viewers "cousin-fucking morons". Says something about the people who consider them a 'reliable source', doesn't it?

Apparently some people still believe that Fox has actual news on its broadcast. Rather foolish of them. Not surprising, but pretty silly.

They are currently installing Tesla chargers in the service plazas along the Ohio Turnpike. Indiana already has them.

I don't think it's 'best if we do nothing'. But I think it would be worse to 'do something' that doesn't actually do ANYTHING to address the problem. One more time: What would your suggestion do to stop school shootings? If the answer is 'nothing', then why do it? To get people used to the idea of gun control? I guess I see that as more counterproductive. One of the NRA's biggest & loudest arguments against ANY gun regulation is that it won't do anything to effectively address the issues being raised (school shooting are the current 'big topic', there have been others in the past) and it will be a beginning of a 'slippery slope' to more rules, more controls, more restrictions until 'they come and take your guns away'. People who are in favor of regulation dismiss this sort of thing as 'hysteria', but this is pretty much the plan for the anti-gun groups. I'm nowhere near as militant about gun rights as I was 20 years ago, but I still think they are important.

I would call them 'one of many tumors'.

How do you think that would stop school shootings? "Cradle to grave tracking" wouldn't have stopped many of them. For the most part, the guns were legally purchased with a proper background check. Storage requirements wouldn't have made a difference, it was the legal owner. Training requirements wouldn't have made a difference at all. These people were deliberately violating every safety rule in the book, along with a lot of laws. I understand it would have some benefits, we can argue on how effective it would be, but I don't see it having any effect on school shootings or other 'mass shooting' events.

He isn't able to bribe the prosecutor (or Attorneys General) like he always has.

I don't know if it's been mentioned on here, but I've seen it said elsewhere: If Trump were innocent, and the testimony of people who have knowledge of the situation would exonerate him, he wouldn't be trying to STOP them from testifying.

Anyone who does anything for Trump without being paid upfront in cash is a fool.

The problem with that idea is how the people who wrote it meant those words (there's a lot of notes and background material, including earlier drafts of the 2nd). "Well regulated" meant, at the time, 'properly equipped and working'. Not 'subject to rules and regulations'. And "militia" meant 'every able bodied man aged 17-60'. The word 'people', as in 'right of the people' would indicate that they meant it applied to... The people. I have always found it rather interesting that 'people' means just that in all the other amendments that have it, but not in the 2nd. As it sits now, the MacDonald decision established that 'people' means just that. It would require a new SC ruling to overturn that, and given the makeup of the court, I don't really see that happening any time soon. The cops DIDN'T stop him. Not that they COULDN'T. The police knew exactly where he was, there were kids on the phone with 911 as he was shooting. The cops were equipped and supposedly trained to deal with an 'active shooter' situation. They stood outside and did NOTHING They were fucking cowards.

In some ways, yes. However, it's possible he would incite violence. While it would be fun to see the MAGA morons go up against a police force that wasn't intentionally short-staffed, it wouldn't really be a 'good thing'. There's also the simple reality that I can't see Trump obeying any gag order. There's no way he won't shoot his mouth (keyboard) off and violate it. And face consequences for violating it. That would be cool to see.

They know full well their viewers don't care about the 'truth'. They only want to hear what reinforces their beliefs.

Fair enough. My point was that giving up rights while accomplishing nothing is foolish. I didn't mean it as 'never giving up any rights ever', although I can see how you took it to mean that. I feel the same way about spending money on it. I'm willing to see my tax dollars spent, but not if it doesn't accomplish anything.

Well, my contention is that the 'do something, do ANYTHING to make me feel safe' proposals will have: A - no real effect on the 'carnage'. B - a serious effect on the political makeup of the US, and not a good one. Masking & lockdowns are a lot different. They work. There's an argument that if the mask mandates had been actually enforced, the deaths would have been a lot lower. The 'anti' idiots like to cite the stats that lifting mandates had little effect on infections or deaths (which is true). They ignore the fact that the mandates were not enforced very well, and when lifted, the people who had been following them kept on wearing them. Actual usage rates were very similar, mandated or not. One thought (neither new nor original to me): Enforce the current laws. All guns purchased through a FFL dealer require passing a background check. Those in favor of expanded checks often cite how many people are denied a purchase because they fail the check. Intentionally falsifying the paperwork is a felony. I get that some are honest mistakes, but I can't believe its more than just a few. How many of those are prosecuted? It's kind of a 'trick question' because the answer is "virtually none". If the guy who ended up doing the killing in Aurora had been sought out, arrested and prosecuted for falsifying his paperwork and being a felon in possession of a gun as soon as the Illinois Law Enforcement Community found out about it, the shooting never would have happened.

When have I said I'm not willing to give up any rights? (honest question) While I disagreed vehemently with the AWB when it was passed in 94, it really didn't affect me much. If they passed the exact same bill again, it wouldn't affect me at all. I'm not looking to purchase anything. If they enacted 'cradle to grave tracking' (mandatory registration) that wouldn't affect me much either. If it went way further than I can see possible (say mandatory turn ins like Australia saw), I would not be happy. But I'm not worried about that happening, not in my lifetime. Nothing I said was about my rights or what I would want to keep or be willing to give up. It was about what is realistic, what could actually happen, and what the consequences of introducing such laws would be (whether they pass or not). The rights I'm worried about losing are the ones the Rs have demonstrated a complete willingness to destroy. Like the right of a woman to choose what happens with her own body. Like the right for kids to be who they really are (note: this is one that I've been passionate about for a long time, but has hit home a lot harder is the last 6 months, since I found out one of my sister's children is transitioning from male to female). Like the right for libraries to have books that some people don't like much. The Rs have made it clear they want to rule, not govern. If the Ds shoot themselves in the foot with gun control legislation (pun intended) and put the Rs back into power, I'm seriously scared for the future. Not mine. I'm an "old white guy". I'd be (mostly) safe. But the women, the minorities, the marginalized, those that are 'different' would be in real trouble.

Well, being 'afraid of the backlash' is another way of saying "not willing to attempt something that's doomed from the beginning'. Fun fact: The Ds passed the "Assault Weapons Bill" in 94. They lost control of the House and Senate in the 96 mid-terms. It was the first time in a long time that Rs had both houses. While the gun rights battle was not the entire reason that happened, it was a huge factor. The NRA made a very large push to defeat the Ds, and had a lot of success. At the national, state and local levels. The 'backlash' I'm afraid of is that if the Ds accomplish major gun control legislation, the Rs stand a much better chance of regaining power. After the shit show we've seen since Obama was elected in 08, I have (slowly) realized what the Rs are after and what they're willing to do to accomplish it. Since 2016, I have not and will NEVER again vote for a R candidate. I'd be against anything that gives them a better chance at regaining power.

I think the NRA and the 'alt right' would see that 'Responsibility' as "Registration". Your 'cradle to grave tracking' is going to be seen as wholesale registration of everyone's guns. That would be just as 'catastrophic' as any talk of modifying the 2nd. I know people who intentionally have never bought a gun through a dealer. They have never filled out a 4473. It gives them great comfort that 'the government has no idea that I own any guns.' I know one guy who doesn't own any gun sold after the Gun Control Act of 1968 was enacted. Not only does the government not know he has any guns, the government has no record of any of the guns he owns. Extreme? Yes. Paranoid? Sure. But there's a serious amount of paranoia about the 'government coming for my guns'. Not sure how to get around that. And you are absolutely right that I have ZERO ideas on how to prevent more mass shootings. The reality is that NOBODY does. I have yet to see ANY proposal that would have any significant effect. Everything is simply 'do something, do ANYTHING to make me feel safe.' Absolute 'security theater.' I'm willing to listen to ideas. I'm just not willing to support ones that: 1 - Cost money. 2 - Infringe on rights. 3 - Accomplish nothing. Your idea is being pitched as a 'beginning'. A first step that won't actually do much, but will get people open to the idea of restricting gun ownership, with the real restrictions to come later. The gun rights people have been screaming at the top of their lungs for decades that this is the exact motive behind EVERY gun control 'plan'. That's why they've fought 'tooth and nail' against every sort of restriction. The 'funny' part is that I've become a lot lest 'militant' about gun rights in the past years. Back in the 90s, I was 'full boat' pro-gun. At the time, the anti-gun crowd had a fair amount of power, had seen successes and was pushing really hard for serious gun control (read what was proposed for "Brady 2" to see what I mean). At the same time, the BATF was somewhat out of control. They had been documented abusing the rights of gun owners, they had gone 'full retard' at the Branch Davidian raid in Waco and were seen as 'evil' by many, not just the 'gun rights' people. With the expansion of gun rights, including several SC decisions and carry permits in every state, the threat has diminished greatly. At the same time, highly publicized mass shootings have increased greatly. So my 'militancy' has decreased quite a bit (I'm also a little bit 'older & wiser').

How, exactly, would his proposal have affected any of the recent shootings? Almost all of them were committed by people with no prior record, who had purchased the guns legally. They passed the background checks. The one that sticks in my mind relating to background checks or tracking of guns is the one in Aurora (Chicago) IL. The shooter had purchased the gun legally. He had passed the background check, despite having a prior felony conviction in another state (LA?). He was 'found out' when he applied for a carry permit. The more comprehensive check found the out of state felony. Was he arrested? Was his gun confiscated? No. He received a stern letter informing him that his FOID had been revoked and he should not have a gun. That was it... Until he decided to shoot a bunch of people. I find it rather depressing that so many people are calling for 'universal' background checks, when the people who lie on their paperwork and are denied are virtually NEVER prosecuted for that crime.

That's one particular restaurant in Oregon. And it's the "KKR", not the KKK. Bingo. The Klan was very powerful in the early half of the 20th century. Members held a LOT of local political offices. As in entire town councils. Or County boards. Have you ever wondered why there are so many monuments to Confederate "heroes"? https://www.history.com/news/how-the-u-s-got-so-many-confederate-monuments I still want to know what important Civil War battle happened in Indiana. Or was is just because the Klan was so influential there in that time frame?

Hi Jerry, I've heard that quote in a number of different ways, but never the attribution. And, generally, small claims isn't worth getting a lawyer for.