Random News Stories

[von]

What you're seeing is the second amendment at work, in all of its glorious beauty.  When our forefathers began to write out the second amendment, they specifically envisioned everyone carrying their muskets with them wherever they went, especially to fast food chains.  The freedom of the American people to own guns is what keeps us from being tyrannically oppressed like all of those people in China and North Korea.  If every man, woman, and child owned and carried a gun, there would be no more violent crime, and we would be able to keep ourselves free of oppressive and tyrannical rule.

That's what those people, generally speaking, think.  In reality, it's an archaic notion that comes from a time when such a thing may have been plausible.  Before America had a "real" Army, a group of armed civilians could potentially stop an oppressive regime from forming.  They could also potentially fend off foreign invasions, and the formation of a militia was sort of dependent on everyone owning a gun.  Nowadays, most of these notions aren't even viable.  For example, between the national guard and the police force, I'll be damned if a bunch of random guys with guns are going to be able to bring down a tyrannical regime, should one start in this particular country.  There isn't really much of a reason to own a gun at all, other than hunting and maybe home defense.  I can't think of any very good reasons to carry a gun around in the open, just because it makes you feel safer.  An even greater lack of thought would have to go into the idea of carrying around a semi-automatic assault rifle openly.  All of the possible open carry arguments (self-defense and defense of others) fall right out the window.  These are weapons that actually lose their effectiveness to a certain extent at closer ranges, and at the same time become more efficient at creating collateral damage.  If you have to own a gun, why not just keep it in your house?  Even scarier to me is the growing amount of states allowing people to carry concealed weapons.  If you meet the criteria, you can wander around pretty much wherever you want with a gun on you at all times, and nobody can know until it's too late.

Just my two cents.

You and I probably have a pretty big disconnect as far as our opinions on gun rights go, but ill say this:

I support the right to carry. I even support the right to open carry of handguns, because the cost and red tape associated with obtaining a legal CCW often presents challenges to legitimately oppressed groups who need the right to self defense the most.
As for "assault rifles" (god that term irritates me to no end when it concerns semi automatic civillian arms), I own and enjoy shooting them.
Concerning the open carry of long arms, though...every time I see some fuckwit doing this, I cringe, facepalm and then cringe again. Youre absolutely right: they're pointless for personal defense...you're not going to get a rifle inslung quickly enough to repel an attacker who presents a legally defensible threat to you. You just look like a tryhard dildo when you OC a long arm.

[Junkenstein]

I have been reading way too much about juvenile killers to even start to opine on this.

Can you be persuaded? I'd be interested to know your take on it.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I have been reading way too much about juvenile killers to even start to opine on this.

Can you be persuaded? I'd be interested to know your take on it.

Maybe after finals.

[LMNO]

I think we all need a laugh right now.

In response to Maureen Dauwd's (sp) horrible column about eating a medically unsafe amount of THC, we have this:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/04/new-york-times-columnists-harsh-our-mellow


Good night, everyone.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

I think we all need a laugh right now.

In response to Maureen Dauwd's (sp) horrible column about eating a medically unsafe amount of THC, we have this:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/04/new-york-times-columnists-harsh-our-mellow


Good night, everyone.

[Junkenstein]

Mulitple layers of HA HA?:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-27761336

Postal workers in west Lancashire have said they will walk out if they are made to deliver free promotional copies of The Sun later this week.

The paper has agreed not to distribute the issues in Liverpool because of the continued anger at the way it reported the 1989 Hillsborough stadium tragedy.

It is understood six members of staff in Skelmersdale were at Hillsborough on the day of the disaster.

The Royal Mail said any concerns would be handled "with fairness and dignity".

"Ignored and dismissed promptly"

One Royal Mail worker in Skelmersdale said: "If they try to make us deliver The Sun on Thursday we will refuse and will be suspended and lose a day's pay, but we think principles are more important than money."

I deeply wish this wasn't just a regional thing and I hope it spirals shortly. A general post strike because of a mass mailing of the sun would be wonderful. Unlikely, but I can dream.

The postal staff's stance was backed by Skelmersdale North Councillor Neil Furey (Labour) who said: "Skelmersdale has a strong Merseyside connection and people will be disgusted to receive copy of the newspaper whose coverage after the disaster was very damaging and insulting."

Ever read a copy of the sun? It's utter shit and extremely difficult to find any redeeming qualities. Anyone who can read without moving their lips should be disgusted at the content of the sun. Why localise the issue like this? Oh. Yes. The place in question is of marginal importance to London beyond being a main receiving port town for Cocaine and such.

A spokesman for The Sun said it had exempted Merseyside postcodes from its promotion, adding, "the Skelmersdale issue is a matter for the Royal Mail".

"Like everything else round those parts, we wash our hands of it. Leave me alone".

I have no idea which murdoch spawned cretin dreamed up this idea but I doubt it will have the desired results.

[minuspace]

I think we all need a laugh right now.

In response to Maureen Dauwd's (sp) horrible column about eating a medically unsafe amount of THC, we have this:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/04/new-york-times-columnists-harsh-our-mellow


Good night, everyone.

deliciously irresponsible

[Junkenstein]

In contrast to a lot of the Berghdahl shit that's being spewed, this is a nice piece. Quoted in full as it's worth it:
http://politicalprof.tumblr.com/post/88301386443/bowe-bergdahl-and-the-mobilization-of-bias

So is Bowe Bergdahl a sinner or a saint? A deserter or a victim? A naive idiot or an active enemy of the United States?

Here's the one thing: I don't know.

Here's the other thing: neither do you.

Oh, lots of you THINK you know. You've "heard" things. You've "seen" things. In most cases, if you are conservative in your mind set the things you've said and heard suggest convincingly that Bergdahl was a bad soldier and a bad American. If you're somewhat more liberal in your politics, you've wiling to attribute any errors to complex times and the failed policies of the Bush administration.

The Bergdahl flare up is a classic case of what E.E. Schattsneider referred to as the "mobilization of bias." What Schattsneider realized was that persons and institutions with power can mobilize that power in an array of direct and indirect means to achieve their goals. One indirect way is to drum up public opinion or social pressure against someone.

Think about it.

Almost no one in America knew anything about Bowe Bergdahl before his release. They might — MIGHT! — have known there was an American soldier in Taliban captivity, but they probably didn't even know that. Then, suddenly, just a few hours after he was released, millions of Americans "knew" so much about Bergdahl they could cite chapter and verse about his military record, his political ideas, and his identity as a "bad" soldier.

This doesn't just "happen," folks. Lots of people had to coordinate their activities to construct this image of Bergdahl. Sources had to be found and made available to the media; media sources had to cooperate (not hard in the age of FOX, talk radio and the internet.) Into the void of NOT information poured the vitriol of biased information. And suddenly everyone "knew" what Bergdahl's story is ... and he hasn't opened his mouth to talk to anyone other than military officials that we know of.

One needs to be on guard for the mobilization of bias at all times. Whether it's the Dixie Chicks facing a "spontaneous" boycott of their music (all on Clear Channel Communications radio stations, mind you), or the "surprise" of being accused of a crime you did not commit (the "we're sorry" coverage never seems to fix what the "this person is guilty!" coverage caused), powerful people and institutions have powerful incentives to use their power to make their enemies and opponents look bad.

I don't know Bowe Bergdahl's story. Then again: neither do you.

[LMNO]

I honestly didn't see this coming.  Eric Cantor loses his primary in Virginia.  To a more radical Rightist.  I'm not even sure who the Democratic challenger is.  This one's gonna get weird, and ugly.  Virginia is kind of fucked.

[Junkenstein]

From the fait accompli files:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-27793249

The use of water cannon on the streets of Britain has been backed by the prime minister.

A Number 10 spokesman said David Cameron believed the police should have the resources they wanted.

On Tuesday, it emerged London Mayor Boris Johnson authorised the Metropolitan Police to buy three cannon for £218,000.

Mr Johnson said: "I think it's highly likely approval will be granted and the problem was if we waited we would have missed the window to buy them for the very good price that we've got."

Almost certain to be approved. What's odd is that the purchase was made and completed without checking if approval will be granted.

So, business as usual in London. Nods, winks, items bought and their use legalised at a later date. No doubt there will be a reason to use them in the near future proving their value to all.

I bet provisions are made in this area too, nice and quietly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_cannon#Dye

Objected to other countries doing it? Means it's practically guaranteed to happen here.

[LMNO]

For the good of the people.

[Junkenstein]

Well, yes. You can't respond to protests with reason or compassion. What are you, some kind of monster?

[P3nT4gR4m]

In contrast to a lot of the Berghdahl shit that's being spewed, this is a nice piece. Quoted in full as it's worth it:
http://politicalprof.tumblr.com/post/88301386443/bowe-bergdahl-and-the-mobilization-of-bias

So is Bowe Bergdahl a sinner or a saint? A deserter or a victim? A naive idiot or an active enemy of the United States?

Here's the one thing: I don't know.

Here's the other thing: neither do you.

Oh, lots of you THINK you know. You've "heard" things. You've "seen" things. In most cases, if you are conservative in your mind set the things you've said and heard suggest convincingly that Bergdahl was a bad soldier and a bad American. If you're somewhat more liberal in your politics, you've wiling to attribute any errors to complex times and the failed policies of the Bush administration.

The Bergdahl flare up is a classic case of what E.E. Schattsneider referred to as the "mobilization of bias." What Schattsneider realized was that persons and institutions with power can mobilize that power in an array of direct and indirect means to achieve their goals. One indirect way is to drum up public opinion or social pressure against someone.

Think about it.

Almost no one in America knew anything about Bowe Bergdahl before his release. They might — MIGHT! — have known there was an American soldier in Taliban captivity, but they probably didn't even know that. Then, suddenly, just a few hours after he was released, millions of Americans "knew" so much about Bergdahl they could cite chapter and verse about his military record, his political ideas, and his identity as a "bad" soldier.

This doesn't just "happen," folks. Lots of people had to coordinate their activities to construct this image of Bergdahl. Sources had to be found and made available to the media; media sources had to cooperate (not hard in the age of FOX, talk radio and the internet.) Into the void of NOT information poured the vitriol of biased information. And suddenly everyone "knew" what Bergdahl's story is ... and he hasn't opened his mouth to talk to anyone other than military officials that we know of.

One needs to be on guard for the mobilization of bias at all times. Whether it's the Dixie Chicks facing a "spontaneous" boycott of their music (all on Clear Channel Communications radio stations, mind you), or the "surprise" of being accused of a crime you did not commit (the "we're sorry" coverage never seems to fix what the "this person is guilty!" coverage caused), powerful people and institutions have powerful incentives to use their power to make their enemies and opponents look bad.

I don't know Bowe Bergdahl's story. Then again: neither do you.

I'm going to turn that over to a script that replaces the words "Bowe Bergdahl" and "soldier" with the Emmanuel Goldstein du jour and occupation and posts it as a reply to facebook outrage threads

[LMNO]

Might as well just get it all out on the table: This lawmaker has no problem with stoning gays to death, Old Testament style.

Bates asks Esk if he indeed believes that homosexuals should be put to death, and he responds, "I think we would totally be in the right to do it."

[edit: Candidate.  Hasn't been elected.]

[minuspace]

From the fait accompli files:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-27793249

The use of water cannon on the streets of Britain has been backed by the prime minister.

A Number 10 spokesman said David Cameron believed the police should have the resources they wanted.

On Tuesday, it emerged London Mayor Boris Johnson authorised the Metropolitan Police to buy three cannon for £218,000.

Mr Johnson said: "I think it's highly likely approval will be granted and the problem was if we waited we would have missed the window to buy them for the very good price that we've got."

Almost certain to be approved. What's odd is that the purchase was made and completed without checking if approval will be granted.

So, business as usual in London. Nods, winks, items bought and their use legalised at a later date. No doubt there will be a reason to use them in the near future proving their value to all.

I bet provisions are made in this area too, nice and quietly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_cannon#Dye

Objected to other countries doing it? Means it's practically guaranteed to happen here.

Everything going as planed.  Water-canon's true use will become obvious after the agricultural revolution.