Wabash82
-
Posts
254 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Articles
Events
Posts posted by Wabash82
-
-
1 hour ago, Muda69 said:
Indiana middle school cancels 'slave ship' role-play lesson after parents raise concerns: https://www.indystar.com/story/news/education/2019/09/09/indiana-westen-middle-school-howard-county-cancels-slave-ship-role-play-lesson/2234566001/
Looks like the snowflakes win again.
Well, I heard the slave ship reenactment was not the school's best work, anyway -- their "The Holocaust Reimagined" choir show during Oktoberfest and end of the school year play, "Vegas Mass Shooting: The Musical" are much harder tickets to get....
-
2
-
-
I am gone for a day or two and I miss all the fun stuff! Whose making the odds on the fight, and who's holding the money? (Not Muda, I hope!)
Is it guns, knives, or just knuckles and teeth?
And where in the hell is Elwood!?
-
12 hours ago, swordfish said:
1 - It's a MEME!!!
2 - However - There is a pretty tall level of truth, and a whole lot of background (Yasser Arafat) to the claim that Christ was Palestinian......
Cooper said that for people who “don’t like Jews to begin with, it is a deadly combination of the Jews killed Jesus and now they are doing the same to his progeny,” he continued. “From a political and propaganda point of view, there is something to be gained.”
The myth that Jesus was a Palestinian dates back to the days of Yasser Arafat, when his trusted Christian-Palestinian adviser Hanan Ashrawi made the claim. Since then, the idea resurfaces now and again, according to Cooper.
“The absurdity of it is breathtaking,” Cooper said of Jesus being a Palestinian. “Jesus was born in Bethlehem, think about who is parents were – his mother, Mary, was betrothed to Joseph, a carpenter. In the Gospels, there is no mention of Palestine, only Judea, which is where Jews lived.”
Cooper said that if the Palestinians admit that Jesus was a Jew, then the idea that the Jews only arrived in Israel in 1948 and occupied Palestinian indigenous land becomes an absurdity.
He said Omar “knows this narrative is false but also that it has an inherent power to it,” said Cooper. “The ‘Benjamins,’ the big lie of dual loyalty, Jesus is a Palestinian – it is all rewriting history to plant in people’s minds that the Palestinian people go back thousands of years.”I'm sort of unclear as to what the "big lie" is related to dual loyalty. Did not President Trump just say that American Jews who vote Democratic are being "disloyal" to Israel -- which, of course, he could only say if he thinks American Jews (should) have dual loyalties?!
In any event, the term "Palestine" comes from the Greeks, and refers to the lands occupied by the Philistines -- who obviously are referenced in the Bible. While I am skeptical Jesus was of Philistine "heritage" -- that seems like the kind of thing his Jewish followers would have found sort of important to mention -- it is a bit disingenuous to say that Jesus couldn't have been a "Palestinian" simply because the Bible doesn't refer to "Palestine".
-
1
-
-
Well, Muda, you just don't know economics. You see, the Chinese are paying all those tariffs, so if we just put enough of them on enough Chinese stuff (has anyone thought about rice yet?), we can all retire early with the guv'ment subsidy checks we will receive from the Chinese tariff payments - sort of like all the farmers are doing.
-
21 minutes ago, Impartial_Observer said:
This is the issue I see. And I know I'm going to be accused of wearing a tin foil hat. In listening to those in favor of an "assault" weapons ban, the gist of it is they want all semi-auto guns banned when it all gets boiled down. If you question "what is an assault weapon" you're accused of getting in the weeds or arguing semantics. If the issue is pressed, even double action revolvers are semi-auto aren't they?
Those are drafting issues and can be handled by drafting broadly and then exempting out items that fall within the definition only semantically. But it is all moot. There are some folks who'd like to see private ownership of bazookas, and folks who'd like to ban all private gun ownership. Neither's going to happen. We are going to get lots of conversation, but no action out of these recent incidents, as in the past.
-
1 hour ago, Muda69 said:
My old savage arms over/under 410 22, both single shot barrels, should be the only firearm available to non-military U.S. citizens. No 2nd amendment violations there, right?
42 minutes ago, Bobref said:I see your logic ... but no, this would not pass current constitutional tests.
We don't know the limits, but I'd say in my opinion that would be too restrictive under the general logic of the Heller case. (Scalia bent over backwards in Heller to avoid appearing to set hard and fast rules regarding the parameters of permissible limits on types of firearms -- his main goal was to make it clear that the rights protected under the 2nd Amendment (whatever their specific scope) are rights of indivdual persons, and not withstanding the reference to well-regulated militias in the introductory clause, are not rights of the States or right "mediated" through the States.
-
On 8/8/2019 at 9:34 AM, Impartial_Observer said:
Did you watch the entire video? While Christy is clearly not an expert, reloading mags didn't take much more time. I have no plans on doing a mass shooting any time soon, and I practice mag changes at least with handguns. I would ass-u-me someone with a mass shooting in mind would practice a little.
Beyond the obvious fact that the video creates an ideal set of circumstances -- folks standing on a range, who are not shooting at moving human beings, rushing adrenalin and knowledge that law enforcement may be coming to kill them at any second, and with their reloading magazines laid out before them on a stand -- it does not represent a a "blind experiment" with some control mechanism: the people involved in the video understand why it is being made, and what conclusion the people making the video want to reach. So if they are sympathetic to that desired conclusion -- which their participation in the video would imply -- they obviously can "rig" the outcome by slowing slightly their rate of fire when using the larger magazines.
Moreover, Christy's results consistently showed a few seconds of delay in the multiple mag scenario. I again refer you to the recent Dayton incident -- a crime that lasted 30 seconds in total. A few seconds of delay in that crime would have saved lives or injuries.
On 8/8/2019 at 9:34 AM, Impartial_Observer said:So after the shooter has been hit with a chair and wrestled to the ground, granny grabbed his magazine.
Article claims the shooter paused to reload his shotgun, I found no reference to a mag change.
I don't even have to look at everytown to know what it says, it will be the opposite of the NRA's data.
The opportunity to hit him with the chair arose because he paused to reload another magazine.
The point of the link of the second article was to emphasize that delays to reload provide potential victims the opportunity to fight back, however long the delay may be last.
Well then, NRA data would be equally viewed with skepticism due to apparent partisanship, you'd acknowledge?
On 8/8/2019 at 9:34 AM, Impartial_Observer said:I understand how the market works. I'm not denying they will be hoarded and the price will go up exponentially. If passed on some arbitrary date millions of high capacity mag owners become criminals if they don't destroy their legally purchased magazines. Just as an assault weapon ban, there will be a rash of boating accidents.
I am probably being slow on the up take, but I don't understand the boating accident reference.
On 8/8/2019 at 9:34 AM, Impartial_Observer said:I was under the assumption that you we challenging that it required passing of a law to ban bump stocks.
I'm not conflating anything. Have you read the Friedman or Heller decisions?
No, I was challenging the implication in your initial post that bump stocks are already "illegal" so passage of explicit legislation by Congress to outlaw them is not necessary. My point was that the status of bump stocks as "legal" or "illegal" has changed with regulatory interpretations because there is no explicit underlying law that clearly bans them. Regulatory interpretations can change from administration to administration; acts of (laws passed by) Congress don't.
Yes, I've read the Friedman and Heller decisions several times, and they both clearly support my contention that reasonable limitations on particular methods of exercising one's 2nd Amendment rights do not represent unconstitutional infringements of that right (an unlawful deprivation of the essential liberty). You are going to have explain in more detail what you mean, if you are believe that those cases do not support my position that you are wrongly equating the underlying right (to "bear arms") to possible mechanisms of exercising that right (e.g., having a fully automatic machine gun, or a bazooka, or a cannon -- or a large capacity magazine, or a semi-automatic rifle, etc., etc.).
-
1 hour ago, Muda69 said:
I have few Jarts stored away. Want to buy some? PM me.
http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/48297354/
Hasbro just needs to add a scope to them Jarts and re-brand them as "home defense projectiles" protected by the 2nd Amendment.
-
10 hours ago, Impartial_Observer said:
You tell me:
Are you serious? A staged demonstration with folks who know what the point of the demonstration is supposed to be?!
Here are just two examples (of many) from real life:
Here's some of the research:
https://everytownresearch.org/assault-weapons-high-capacity-magazines
10 hours ago, Impartial_Observer said:As I stated, not necessarily an argument for or against. The main point I was making is on some arbitrary date, you either destroy your legally purchased magazines or you are a criminal. Who’s going to reimburse me for my investment if I’m forced to destroy them? Comparing mags to machine guns is laughable when you look at sheer numbers.
It is the way market forces work. There are other examples with comparable numbers of goods in the market at the time they were banned -- go buy some Jarts.
10 hours ago, Impartial_Observer said:On two separate occasions the ATF deemed bump stocks legal in that they did not change the mechanical firing mechanism of the rifle. In 2018 the ATF amended the regulations.
https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/bump-stocks
Makes my point: as political winds shift, they can change the regulation again. Laws, once passed, are not quite as easy to "undo" (think Obamacare.)
10 hours ago, Impartial_Observer said:To the rest of it, sure the answer is always to limit liberties of law abiding citizens.
You are conflating the right with particluat potential modes of exercising it. If your favorite form of poster board was banned because it contained toxic chemicals, your right to free speech would not be taken away. You'd just have to make your placards for the gun rights march with some slightly less nice poster board.
-
On 8/6/2019 at 11:24 AM, Impartial_Observer said:
This hits on several points of misinformation that is out there. This isn't necessarily an argument for or against just some comments:
Limiting magazine capacity. It literally takes seconds to drop a mag and reload. I don't see this changing anything.
Thirty seconds elapsed between Dayton shooter's first shot and when he was shot dead by police. He was the guy with the 100 round magazine. Killed nine and wounded 20+ others in those thirty seconds. Are you sure that even a few seconds' delay in the rate of fire wouldn't "change things"? Those are seconds that potential victims use to escape, and police officers use to close and neutralize a perpetrator.
On 8/6/2019 at 11:24 AM, Impartial_Observer said:The other issue I see with magazine limits, what happens to the millions and millions that are already out there? Do they all become illegal at some arbitrary date, or are they grandfathered? You can get 30 round Magpul mags, decent mags for 11-13 bucks each, I can't imagine every AR owner doesn't own at least a half dozen of them. The last numbers I saw out of NJ's new law were they had had 0 high capacity mags turned in.
This is the "perfect is the enemy of the good" or, "If it can't fix it immediately, it's useless" position. Yes, they won't go away over night. They WILL immediately become more expensive on any black market, and over time will disappear from the places where non-hardened criminal people -- which describes most these mass shooters -- would have no way to get them, just like fully auto weapons have become since they were generally outlawed.
On 8/6/2019 at 11:24 AM, Impartial_Observer said:Bump Stocks were just stupid to begin with. I don't know a serious shooter who had one. As we have mentioned before you can do the same thing with your belt loop and thumb. I believe they are currently illegal per ATF policy changes.
I can think of one "serious shooter" who had one in Vegas.... He seemed to do okay with it.
Policies can be changed overnight. Federal laws cannot be.
On 8/6/2019 at 11:24 AM, Impartial_Observer said:But from where I sit, gun violence seems to be a the symptom of a much bigger societal problem.
"A" problem? Per my earlier comment, I'd say that quite different "societal problems" gave rise to the El Paso shooting, the Dayton shooting, and the various mass shootings in Chicago last weekend. Unless we are going to just declare every person who ever shoots any other person for any reason to be "mentally ill", we have to face the fact that we are never going to eliminate all the many things that motivate some human beings to kill another human being -- or a whole bunch of them at once. What we can try to do is reduce the availability to such persons of technology that is specifically and directly (and effectively) designed to make accomplishing that end easy for them.
-
On 8/6/2019 at 9:07 AM, TrojanDad said:
You mean like federal marijuana laws? Federal immigration laws and sanctuary cities? Prohibition law? Who's going to enforce them? Current staffing of ATF?
Are track records for national laws that impressive?
These are relative things, but yeah, just like those laws when they are/were actively enforced. They generally worked to significantly reduce the things they were designed to reduce.
Obviously, they didn't/don't work perfectly-- they didn't eradicate marijuana use, or stop all alcohol sales, or eliminate all illegal immigration. But it is only when we start talking about gun violence that suddenly the standard for assessing "usefulness" becomes 100%, ironclad effectiveness. The real world doesn't work that way.
If a uniform result is desired, a federally-established and enforced standard is more effective in achieving that result han a patchwork of state or local standards that can be evaded simply by driving a few miles.
-
On 8/6/2019 at 9:55 AM, Howe said:
The Dayton killer was a left winger, but don't blame Sen. Warren
https://www.wsj.com/articles/politics-and-the-shooters-11565047588
Did he leave a manifesto linking the shooting to his alleged left wing views?
-
1
-
-
The Chicago situation is relevant in two respects. First, it demonstrates that the problem of gun violence in the U.S. is not simply a mental health issue. There are insane shooters, and stoned shooters, and criminal shooters, and racist shooters, and religious-fanatics shooters, and just evil shooters. Attempts to suss out in advance who the next mass shooter is by focusing on such traits -- watch that guy because he's a Muslim; keep tabs on that fella because he's got a prescription for Xanax; send the cops to look into that guy, he talks about Hitler on 8chan -- are futile. If you want to reduce gun violence in the U.S., you have to make it more diffficult for anyone and everyone to get a gun, or to get guns (and accessories) of a type that can shoot lots of bullets very quickly.
Second, Chicago shows that it is impossible to do the above simply with local (city- and state-level) laws, it will take national legislation.
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, Impartial_Observer said:
Job opportunities for robot techs!
Not for long -- they are already working on the robots to repair the robots. 😳
-
I love the "logic" of pieces like this: because some people falsely claimed they were victims of racism, that somehow indicates that actual acts of racism must not be occurring?
I guess we can advise our wives and daughters and female friends to relax -- since some women have been caught lying about being raped, that must mean that real rapes don't actually happen much.
And the thread deviates into a demand for statistical support for Dante's (admittedly inane) statement about other countries closing their doors to Americans, yet no one has questioned exactly what evidence this essay's author relies on when he makes the bald assertion that, "America is one of the least racist countries in the history of the world...."
Measured how?
-
1
-
-
19 hours ago, Muda69 said:
I doubt a con man moving from state to state today would even bother with acquiring a legal professional license issued by the state before starting his con. Whatever professional license documentation he has is mostly likely counterfeit, therefore making it easier to start his con in a reciprocal state.
Yeah, of course. It makes complete sense that having to obtain counterfeit licensing documents in order to scam people is "easier" than not needing to obtain any documents at all to pull off your scams, because the libertarians did away will all licensing requirements....
-
1
-
-
Moving from state to state to find more victims and stay ahead of the law is a pretty common con man's tactic already. Can't imagine why we'd want to make it even easier for them.
Simply having greater reciprocity between states in regard to honoring each other's licensing decisions would help alleviate many of the cost-associated concerns you've mentioned, while still protecting the public.
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, Muda69 said:
The Erica Thomas Incident Wasn't National News, But That Never Stops Our Outrage-Hungry Media: https://reason.com/2019/07/22/erica-thomas-grocery-store-racism-hoax-media/
More evidence of the media fueling the fire of hyper-racism, hyper-sensitivity/outrage. It seems today in America a member of the racial majority can't criticize a member of a racial minority, rightly or wrongly, without being branded or painted as a racist by media. Is that right, is this the America we want to live in?
Wasn't it the mainstream media who "outed" the state legislator as a hoaxer? I don't believe it is "fake news" for the media to:
(i) report on a viral social media posting by a public figure who has made some charged allegations of racism or other misconduct by another person;
(ii) look further into the public figure's social media allegations to see if they are true; and
(iii) report if/when the public figure's social media allegations turn out to be exaggerated or untrue?
I mean, isn't that pretty much exactly what the media does most every weekend after one of the President's twitter storms?
-
2
-
-
18 minutes ago, Muda69 said:
ttps://www.npr.org/2019/07/22/744005587/dont-have-your-lunch-money-one-pennsylvania-school-district-threatening-foster-c
Nothing like good 'ole local government using scare tactics. It probably won't work.
Wow, this is pretty low. The parents paying off the debt after the fact does not somehow change the fact that they (apparently) sent their kids to school on those prior occasions without breakfast or lunch, or the means to buy it. So if the school system truly believes that this failure by the parents was evidence of possible neglect, the school system should report the parents to child welfare authorities -- and, indeed, may well have a legal duty to do so -- regardless of whether the parents later settle their debts to the school system.
Which means the school system is either lying in its supposed view of the parents' (alleged) failures to feed their kids or send them with money to buy breakfast/lunch, or it is willing to use the welfare of these children as leverage in an "extortion" effort. ("We won't rat you out for neglecting your kids if you pay up.")
-
1
-
1
-
-
Just now, swordfish said:
So you DO get it......(Unless you are truly physically colorblind.....then - Sorry W)
I don't "get it" because the meme doesn't make any sense if a person claims he (metaphorically) "doesn't see color." The meme makes sense only if it is appreciated that the two eggs externally do not look the same.
That's why your claim to (metaphorically) "not see color" is such an eye roller....
-
28 minutes ago, swordfish said:
I don't get it -- two eggs in the pan in both photos ("I don't see color.")
-
Or as Einstein called it, "spooky action at a distance"...
-
2
-
-
I only attended "government school" for kindergarten and law school. In the former their was only one coloring book page with a picture of Lincoln (I made his beard purple), and in the latter we only had time to review some of his slightly less satanic activities, like freeing millions of slaves....
-
On 7/3/2019 at 5:26 PM, Muda69 said:
https://mises.org/wire/lincoln-and-trump-two-kind
Hmm, two peas in a pod. Lincoln isn't close to the saint the government history books portray him as.
You #sjw types just insist on applying your modern, "woke" PC sensibilities to historical figures. Shame!
-
1
-
1
-
The New Normal, round 2
in Out of Bound Forum
Posted
Some of us old coots remember when Bartles and James and Zima "wine" coolers were striking the death knell for beer, too. This too shall pass.