Impartial_Observer

17 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

So when will the cars and planes be outlawed?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=r1SCu9yiBlo

27 minutes ago, foxbat said:

Haiti's problem is due to the fact that it's the citizenry that is doing the deforesting ... a true situation where the "market drives the activity."  As an extremely poor country, money can be made by selling wood for fire or by creating charcoal the old-fashioned way.  Without effective controls to keep the cutting in control and managed, there's no/very little replanting that takes place and it's pretty much everyone for themselves, to an extent.  Crippling debt imposed by countries like France as "blackmail" not to invade, US intervention that has backed dictators, then toppled them, then destabilizing the folks that they backed to topple the dictators that they backed, and other things have taken place since Haiti became the first democracy in the world based upon a slave revolt have all taken what was once a promising country and put it in a position of almost mere survival.  A lot of lost potential there. 

So, doesn't that kind of go hand in hand with what the former Greenpeace guy was saying?

1 hour ago, foxbat said:

Unlike solar/wind, the difference is that logging/lumber can be exhausted without proper control.

 

I know lumber companies get a black eye, but they're slitting their own throats when they don't replant and maintain healthy forests. I have no idea what's driving hell holes like Hati to decimate their forests. If you look at the countries where stuff like this happens, they typically aren't faring real well. But in the US for some time, we've had pretty stringent regulation on importing lumber. I don't deal in lumber much anymore, but I believe imports in the US have to be FSC Certified to be imported. EU and Australia also have similar regulations with regards to importing exotic imports.  

The US is in pretty good shape as for as lumber as a resource. The big players typically replant two for everyone they cut down. Granted this isn't a 90-120 crop, but it is a renewable resource. It should be noted, that typically softwood forests are clear cut, while hardwood forests are selective cut. This is proper forest management. 

The new Aruaco particle board plant in Grayling, MI is about to come online. You can read about some of their sustainability at their website. This plant at full capacity will be able to produce approximately 600 rail cars a day of particle board. 

https://www.arauco.cl/na/este_es_arauco/grayling-project/

6 hours ago, Von2Rov said:

Drake's Fried sushi rolls... yum😎

Fried sushi🙄

We shall agree to disagree. 

FYI is called a straw purchase, not to be confused with a strawman argument. 

On 3/2/2019 at 8:46 PM, DanteEstonia said:

Not all Conservatives are racist, but all racists are Conservatives.

And you wonder why no one takes you serious.

9 minutes ago, Wabash82 said:

You have missed the point. The purpose of the proposed law is not to make it "more illegal" for a prohibited possessors to get or use a firearm. Its purpose is to try to block prohibited possessors from getting firearms in the first place via private transfers from presumably innocent-minded transferees. In the Utah case, the friend who transferred the gun to the killer was unaware his friend was a former felon barred from possessing a firearm. If this law was in place, the presumably law abiding friend would have sought to complete the transfer by going through a licensed dealer, who upon doing the background check would have nixed the transfer to the killer due to his status as a prohibited possessor. He doesn't get the gun in the first place. 

Maybe, maybe not. I have allowed other people to fire my guns  when we're together shooting. I'm not sure I'd be so generous as to "loan" someone a firearm. This whole thing sounds a little hokey to me, I need to borrow your gun because I'm teaching a friend of mine how to shoot, and neither of us have guns? My main point being, this law is self policing, and since criminals are not really in the business of following the law....

16 minutes ago, Wabash82 said:

This is the same (ironically) strawman argument made by SF. The proposed law is not specifically intended to address strawman purchases (and re-sales) by criminally-minded transferrees. Its intent is to block criminally-minded prohibited possessors from using private purchases from presumably law-abiding, innocent sellers to avoid background checks in prder to illegally acquire firearms.  

I wholeheartedly agree with you that in the SEPARATE and distinct situation of a criminally-minded strawman purchaser knowingly abetting a prohibited possessor get a weapon, we should throw the boook at them.  This proposed laws would make those prosecutions a little easier, in that a strawman claiming he was just an "innocent dupe"would need to explain why he then failed to abide by the separate law requiring all private transfers to go through dealers, in order that background checks can be completed. 

I thought the whole purpose of this was to address straw purchases? Presumable after making your straw purchase, you will have a NICS check when the new purchaser purchases the gun from you, right?

As far as personal sales, when FB used to have gun sale pages, there were any number of criminal types lurking. Honestly I found it somewhat alarming thinking people would sell to these people. You didn't have to be an FBI agent to figure out who they were. 

27 minutes ago, Hughes said:

Since Chammps has closed next to the Sheraton. Where is the best coaches hangout for the state clinic. we can have two categories A) Pub/Restaurant style and B) Dollar Bill Burners. This for entertainment purposes only and by no means is binding. ( Or intended to get you in trouble with your significant other) 

C'mon man.....

Don't write anything down, don't sign anything, don't take any pics/vids and deny, deny, deny.

39 minutes ago, Wabash82 said:

One example of a shooting where this law potentially would have saved a life. I'm sure I could find more if I searched seriously.

This legislation would become more effective in saving lives if other sensible measures are passed, like laws that facilitate getting folks with mental health issues into the background system, which is hit-or-miss currently. 

It is already illegal for a convicted felon to possess a firearm. I haven't done any research, but I'm pretty sure murder is illegal in Utah as well. 

52 minutes ago, Wabash82 said:

Also, the gangs in Chicago are not buying the guns in Indiana directly themselves -- they not only have the problem of being Illinois residents, many also have the problem of being ex-felons. That is why they use strawmen purchasers who are Indiana residents without felony convictions.

Here's a thought, lets actually prosecute those individuals who make straw purchases, these are laws that are already on the books, where those found guilty walk more times than not. 

https://www.omaha.com/news/crime/woman-who-bought-gun-used-in-kerrie-orozco-slaying-sentenced/article_dcd60ace-8716-5651-9125-cb297998694e.html

https://thefederalistpapers.org/us/chicago-crime-rate-soars-as-four-time-straw-purchaser-gets-probation

http://archive.jsonline.com/news/crime/milwaukee-man-to-be-sentenced-on-gun-fraud-charge-b99560011z1-322283481.html/

A large portion of guns used for violence are stolen or bought on the black market. I doubt these people are going to be bothered with universal background checks. 

https://www.thetrace.org/2018/10/stolen-guns-are-fueling-violence-in-chicago/

11 hours ago, DannEllenwood said:

I think that goes to the brilliance of Samantha Morton’s unbelievable acting skills and facial expressions. 

Love Ryan Hurst, Beta, but his body size does not do the character justice. Beta was a former pro hooper in the comics. Enormous. Think Kane/Shaq esque. 

Maybe they did, maybe they didn’t. 😉 😉 

imho, I believe the ending of season 9 has been told to us about all season. We have heard about it and saw the preps tonight. Aaron even foreshadowed it. 

Not impressed!

https://woffordterriers.com/roster.aspx?rp_id=2568

24 minutes ago, Lemmy said:

I agree, kids are basically just pushing on each other at this age.  Injuries tend to be contusions on the arms or legs and there is no virtually no dangerous head to head contact.  I'm all for safety, but this is purely cosmetic.

"look at us, we did something".   

1 hour ago, Wabash82 said:

How is the current background check system enforced? Because that is what this Act relies on. It just extends that system to transfers of firearms that previously were not subject to background checks.

Well, if you buy from an FFL, they lose their license if they transfer ownership without a NICS check. Contrary to popular belief, you can't just order guns online and have them shipped to your door, they have to go to an FFL, who takes possession of them, and performs a NICS check before transferring ownership to you. Also contrary to popular belief, you can't just drive over from Illinois and buy a bunch of guns and take them back to Chicago to kill people. Illinois residents can not purchase firearms from an Indiana FFL. 

What this bill addresses is the so called gun show loop hole. You see my sweet Wilson Combat Beretta FS92G and you say wow IO, I have to have that gun. And we agree to a price, you hand me cash, and I hand you the gun. This bill would require us to go to an FFL and you would have to have a NICS check before taking ownership of the gun. My point being, if this were to become law, not being interested having a felony charge on my record, I would follow the law, and you're going to have to pay an extra 25-50 bucks for whatever the FFL charges for the NICS check, i.e., more hoops for law abiding citizens to jump thru to remain law abiding citizens. In retrospect, name one shooting that this bill would have prevented? It doesn't stop Sandy Hook, it doesn't stop Pulse Nightclub, it doesn't stop Parkland, it doesn't stop Sutherland Springs, it doesn't stop Aurora, CO or IL.... It's feel good legislation, at least we did "something". I feel better, don't you?

42 minutes ago, Wabash82 said:

I think you have your facts wrong. The amendment you mention passed and is part of the final Act as passed by the House.  You can read the final version that passed the house Here.  The language you are referring to is in section (t)(3)(E).  The addition of this amendment to the Act was what PO'd AOC, and led to the big dustup behind closed doors among the Dem House caucus that was in the news at the end of last week. 

 

 

I assume you made this comment based on the erroneous impression the amendment didn't pass. But I think that it is still a mischaracterization of the position of those legislators who (unsuccessfully) voted against the amendment. The purpose of the Act was to extend background checks to prevent individuals who are prohibited from possessing firearms from getting them. The focus was on preventing transfers to such folks, and the bill did not address also making sure that every prohibited possessor who was prevented from acquiring a firearm by these expanded background checks will be punished for making the attempt.  The amendment carved out a (very) specific group of prohibited possessors, illegal aliens, for that "extra" attention, for obvious political reasons.  But adding (or not adding) the amendment had no affect on "law abiders."  The 30 Dems who voted for the amendment just didn't want to be seen as "soft" on illegal immigration, so they joined the Republicans in singling out illegals for the "extra" attention. 

Apparently I was given some erroneous information. I checked the amendments that were offered and found an article stating the same thing I "thought". Apparently I was looking at the wrong info on the house website. 

As I originally stated, the bill is basically symbolic at this point there's no chance of it happening now. Not to say it won't happen in the future. 

****I have attempted to edit my original post to correct the error, but I don't have an edit option.****

Quote

But adding (or not adding) the amendment had no affect on "law abiders." 

W82, not this amendment per se, the entire bill makes life more difficult for law abiding citizens. Per FOPA, there can not be a national firearms registry, which this bill clearly states it does not create. How is it possible to enforce this feel good legislation without a national registry?

On 2/26/2019 at 9:04 AM, swordfish said:

John Wayne was unavailable for comment.

I just find it odd, we’re willing to let a group of law breakers off the hook, in order to make life more difficult for law abiders. 

Fresh off their symbolic background check win, with the passage of HR8, I find it very interesting that an amendment to the bill that would require FFL’s to report illegal aliens to ICE that failed a NICS check. The amendment was voted down on a partly line vote with several D defectors. Illegal aliens are, with a few exceptions, prohibited possessors. It begs the question, why? André Carson and Pete Visclosky, Indiana’s on D house members both voted nay. 

38 minutes ago, Grover said:

If all they are going to do is rubber stamp every request then remove them from the process.  

Did you listen to the interview, there’s a reason they have it. Look, I don’t care one way or the other, if you don’t like the rule, contact your principal and get it changed. 

1 hour ago, Irishman said:

I agree, but I also think that the meme I posted has some validity; the oil barrens have so much influence in DC, they have been able to hold back a lot of the R&D as well as the ability to use alternative energy sources to their own benefit; leaning heavily on the government to do their dirty work.

I don’t disagree, to my point, get the government out of the equation, let the market it sort it out. 

The oil industry still stands to gain, even with alternative energy technologies. The already have a retail and distribution network in place. 

4 hours ago, DT said:

Today's offensive linemen basically just stand around and watch the skill players play 7 on 7.  We will soon start to see big men migrate away from the game and return to their video game headsets and handsets.  A real shame.   

2 hours ago, BARRYOSAMA said:

Maybe both sides should get on the bio-diesel bus or get run over by it.

https://nordic.businessinsider.com/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-green-new-deal-support-among-americans-poll-2019-2

"Large majorities of Americans support almost all of the key ideas in Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal"

I don’t know anyone that’s against emerging alternative fuel technologies. The difference in opinions is how that technology develops and the extent of government involvement in either developing or forcing the technology and artificially manipulating the market. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJCTIPWPNtw&vl=en

I've tried Joe Rogan's podcasts......I just can't do it. He has some interesting people, but he puts out like 10 a day and they're 14 hours long each.

I'm hanging my hat on 9.9.1 in the case book.

A is trailing by five points near the end of the fourth period and has no time-outs left when the play ends on B's 3. The referee does not feel there is any illegal delay in unpiling and that time will definitely expire before the ball is ready and A gets in position to snap. Quarterback A1 reaches into the pile of players and grabs the ball. He then throws the ball to midfield.

RULING: Even if the referee imposes a 15-yard penalty for an unsportsmanlike act, A has accomplished its goal – the clock is stopped and it can get in position and be ready to run a play even though the clock will start on the ready-for-play signal. This situation illustrates when it is appropriate for the referee to invoke the unfair-act rule and handle the situation in any way that the referee feels is equitable. In this specific situation the referee should wind the clock and end the game without giving A an opportunity to put the ball in play.

COMMENT: The rule also gives the referee authority to take appropriate action whenever someone not subject to the rules hinders play. (3-4-6)

Not really sure this move changes anything. Typically the first move for the little ones is to stand up anyway.

4 hours ago, gonzoron said:

That was attempted in 2016. Republican Congress failed to pass it. 

Perhaps VOC could add it to the NGD.