A.M. Links: Islamists Expect Victory in Egypt, Obama’s Aid Package Comes With Goodies, Both Sides Losing in Syria, Boehner Offers Tax Hikes, Posting Fake Information on Sandy Hook Shooting Could Lead to Arrest

  • It is looking increasingly likely that Egyptian Islamists have won the vote on a draft constitution. Liberal and leftist rivals are claiming vote rigging took place. 
  • Obama’s Sandy aid package comes with all sorts of goodies attached, with Alaskan fisheries and the Smithsonian Institution reaping some of the benefits. 
  • House Speaker John Boehner has offered to raise taxes on high-income earners in exchange for a containment of entitlement program costs. 
  • A chase in Ohio that resulted in two unarmed men being killed by cops who fired 137 bullets has unsurprisingly prompted community complaints. The president of the police union has defended the officers. 
  • Connecticut State Police are saying that anyone who posts fake information regarding the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting could face arrest. 

Have a news tip for us? Send it to: 24_7@reason.com

The updated Reason app for Apple and Android now includes Reason 24/7!

Don’t forget to sign up for Reason’s daily AM/PM updates for more content.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • RBS||

    Via Facebook:

    Have you hugged your children's teacher today? Prayers for all teachers as they return to school today with heavy hearts & minds... It's amazing what these individuals do for our children on a daily basis & what they would do for our children if a situation presented itself. God bless teachers.

  • Ted S.||

    If I had children (I don't) and were homeschooling them, does that mean I get to hug myself?

  • RBS||

    Go ahead, "hug yourself" if that's what you call it...

  • Ted S.||

    Better than hugging you. :-p

  • ||

    How do you know that? RBS could be in meatspace be a cute, cuddly devushka. -)))

  • Ted S.||

    I have a feeling RBS is more like one of these.

  • Certified Public Asskicker||

    Hug a teacher and slip them a gun to arm them?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I'd like a nice Sig please...

  • Killazontherun||

    You're getting a 1911!

  • Killazontherun||

    You never know when the Filipino students in your district might attempt an insurrection.

  • ||

    Paging Barfman! We got a Code Chunks up here!

  • Whiterun Guard||

    I already pay your kids' dumb ass teachers. Isn't that enough.

  • Restoras||

    Last night I found out my son's social studies teacher "taught" him that Republicans represent Corporations and Democrats represent People.

    Re-education began last night.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    One of the very few, perhaps only, things, I potentially miss about having my kids in public school would be the parent-teacher conference that followed my finding out about a tidbit like that.

  • Certified Public Asskicker||

    So, no hug then?

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    That is the same simple-mindedness that calls Democrats "socialists" and Republicans "fascists" in that it is that it depicts the fringe elements accurately.

  • sloopyinca||

    I'll have to take your word on it since you're our resident expert on simple-mindedness.

  • Zeb||

    They're both fascists (not Nazis), and not just on the fringes.

  • CE||

    They're both fascists.

  • ||

    Are you going to request a meeting with said teacher? Or are you just going to re-teach everything to your son everyday moving forward?

  • RBS||

    And my wife thinks I'm crazy for wanting to home school.

  • Zeb||

    If by "people", the teacher really meant "unions and some corporations", then he pretty much got it right.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Christ--it's amazing how this incident has brought out the narcissism of so many people. That pathetic attempt to get some e-cred on the FB hugbox is simply one example of many.

  • Lord Humungus||

    Leszek Balcerowicz: The Anti-Bernanke

  • Lord Humungus||

    http://online.wsj.com/article/.....on_LEADTop

    As a former central banker, Mr. Balcerowicz struggles to find the appropriate word for Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke's latest invention: "Unprecedented," "a complete anathema," "more uncharted waters." He says such "unconventional" measures trap economies in an unvirtuous cycle. Bankers expect lower interest rates to spur growth. When that fails, as in Japan, they have no choice but to stick with easing.

    "While the benefits of non-conventional [monetary] policies are short lived, the costs grow with time," he says. "The longer you practice these sorts of policies, the more difficult it is to exit it. Japan is trapped." Anemic Japan is the prime example, but now the U.S., Britain and potentially the European Central Bank are on the same road.
  • db||

    We have to stop these crazy cops that carry around hundreds of rounds with them.

  • sloopyinca||

    +1

    Oh, you were being sarcastic? Too bad.

  • ||

    So it's obvious now that the Democrats are going to exploit Sandy Hook for all it's worth. They see this as their opportunity to pass the sweeping anti-gun legislation that they've been salivating over for years now. I'm interested in everyone's thoughts/predictions as to what we're looking at in the near future. So to that end, a couple questions:

  • ||

    1. Obviously there are going ot be public-opnion polls conducted in the wake of this tragedy. What sort of shift, if any, do you anticipate seeing with regard to popular opinion on gun control?

    2. Would an sweeping new legislation have to pass both the House and the Senate? If so, what are the chances of it passing in each? Will the Republicans exhibit any backbone on this one?

    3. If something along the lines of an outright ban (military-style rifles, hi-cap magazines, whatever) does pass, would people hand their stuff in, or would we se mass noncompliance?

  • ||

    1. A slight shift not on what type of guns should be legal, but on "who" should have a gun... even though these were legally owned by the shooter's mom.

    2. No. Obama will just "make it so".

    3. I think unfortunately there would be a lot of people that would comply, as we will see with the insurance mandate. However, they may not comply fully; they may turn in one or two guns but leave another 3-4 hidden at home. I could also foresee a lot of citizens-turned-rats, though. Turning in fellow citizens who own quite a few guns in order to get some privilege.

  • ||

    I've said it before and I will say it again, this will be the tipping point for an ObamneyCare style 2nd Amendment gutting.

    You watch.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Yep.

    Well, the right of self-defense had a good run, but we're all going to be serfs soon. Only the samurai class can be armed now.

    Again, if I were a paranoid schizophrenic, I'd already be the first Sandy Hook Truther. It's all just too damn convenient.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    I predict higher gun sales for the next four years as paranoid Glenn Beck types complain about gun bans that will (rightfully) never happen.

  • sloopyinca||

    So, you expect there to be a positive economic growth out of this? Hey, I wonder if Paul Krugman's column will also talk of the potential stimulus that could come from this. Or does he only do that when natural disasters occur?

  • ||

    Oh Shriek, you magnificent bitch. You obtuseness knows no bounds.

    ObamneyCare, though not a 100% takeover of medical care, put in forth motion for that ultimate prize, Single Payer.

    Same will happen with Gun Control, incrementally with things designed to FAIL, thus leading to more control. ObamneyCare doesn't happen all at once, and neither will Gun Control. I typed what I did for a reason, and apparently reading comprehension is not your strong suit.

    Say, what exactly do you put into gun to make it work? Hmmm? Do you have children, Shriek? Or a health insurance policy? Or homeowner's insurance in general? All of these situations do require disclosure of firearms ownership (and they do ask. Or do you frequently commit insurance fraud?)

    Owning a gun can make those policy payments increase, kinda like individual health policies have skyrocketed lately. And The American Academy of Pediatrics and other like groups have long advocated treating gun ownership as "a public health concern."

    This is not Becktard territory, Shriek, and I am not in the, "GOP Bubble."

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    If an insurer requires gun disclosure (much like as a smoking disclosure) that is so they can properly assess risk. Take that up with State Farm, pal.

  • ||

    No problem. Except that it is entirely possible insurance premimums might make it economically difficult to own one, i.e. pricing one out existence.

    Or perhaps preclude coverage if one owns a firearm. Like as part of an insurance mandate. If insurance mandates can compel a company to insure certain procedures and conditions, they can certainly compel withholding certain ones as well under certain conditions. Which under ObamneyCare is entirely permissible, by the by. I'm sure you have read the entire law, Shriek. And the law does compel the purchase of an insurance policy, no?

    Last time I checked, Kaiser Family Foundation is not terribly fond of private gun ownership, for example.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    If an insurer requires gun disclosure (much like as a smoking disclosure) that is so they can properly assess risk. Take that up with State Farm, pal

    Funny, I've had State Farm for 20 years, and they've never asked me once if I own firearms. Maybe you should take your head out of your ass, dummy.

  • sloopyinca||

    He's talking about the proposal being bandied about that says anyone owning guns will be required by law to carry a $500,000 liability policy for them.

    And you're right, because I've never been asked by my agent either. But under his scheme, I'd be willing to bet the FedGov becomes the carrier and this becomes some de facto federal registration.

  • ||

    Funny, I've had State Farm for 20 years, and they've never asked me once if I own firearms.

    Odd, I was asked as I wanted mine insured in case of theft. I don't have children and I honestly under the impression if one one has children, that disclosure of firearms ownership in a homeowner's policy was mandatory.

    Apologies if I am mistaken.

  • ||

    Also, sloop and RRR, many states require physicians, especially pediatricians, to verbally state as part of either an initial or subsequent health evaluation if firearms are owned by a parent, and this does depend on the state, but health policy underwriters will ask this, as gun ownership can be considered a mitigating health* factor.

    *Notice I said "health" and not "medical".

  • ||

    "...verbally state and in writing..."

  • sloopyinca||

    They asked me when we were admitting Banjos into the hospital 15 days ago to have the baby. I told them I would not answer as it had nothing to do with the birth of our child. The nurse dropped the matter immediately.

  • ||

    I told them I would not answer as it had nothing to do with the birth of our child. The nurse dropped the matter immediately.

    For now you can get away with that answer.

    Eventually, you won't. I am willing to bet my life on that, and no dramatics are intended.

  • ||

    "Same will happen with Gun Control, incrementally with things designed to FAIL, thus leading to more control."

    Like the 10 round capacity limit. The difference between a firearm that only loads 10 rounds and my 17+1 is that my 17+1 isn't easily concealed, so I leave it at home. The "unintended" consequence will be smaller, more easily concealed firearms walking the streets so when a shooting happens, these statists can go back for 2nds.

    Im only interested in home defense, so I got a larger gun, but if I was forced to buy a smaller gun I'd be more incentivized to get a CCW.

  • Whiterun Guard||

    In my recent (over the weekend) drunken 'debates' with leftist volunteers here, they all seemed to acquiesce to the fact that 1) anti-gun laws are unlikely to be passed (they are teh sadz) and 2) it wouldn't stop things like this even if they were.

    At which point I would say, OK, you see how you feel about this subject right now?

    That's how libertarians feel about EVERY SINGLE OTHER ISSUE IN THE ENTIRE STUPID COUNTRY.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    So they'd be happy about new laws they admit wouldn't work?

  • Whiterun Guard||

    It's not a religion of reason.

  • sarcasmic||

    So they'd be happy about new laws they admit wouldn't work?

    But the laws would "work" in the sense that those who follow the law would be unarmed, which means fewer guns on the streets. The point is fewer guns. Not because fewer guns in the hands of law abiding citizens makes us safer. It's not about actual safety. It's about feelings. It's about feeling safer, regardless of actually being safer. Guns are scary. The fewer of them out there, the safer they feel.

    Same idea with socialism. It doesn't work, it has been repeatedly shown to not work, yet the lefties will continue to cling to it because the purpose is not to make things better but to make their feelings of envy go away.

    With the left it's always about feelings.

  • wareagle||

    With the left it's always about feelings.

    and a healthy side order of control

  • Enough About Palin||

    Obama is a god damned liar when he speaks about the rising violence in this country. The stats just don't bear that out.

    Fucking, shit-hole liar.

  • AZ||

    Yes, because the main reason they want gun control is to punish low-status TEAM RED voters.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Pretty much. Look how many Hollywood celebutards walk around armed or with armed bodyguards.

    It's like Prohibition--the elites had no trouble with access to liquor during those years, but went after hillbilly moonshiners and prosecuted working-class stills with gusto. If gun bans are put in place (and at this point, about the only thing I can see going through even in these hysterical times are bans on the AR-types and 100-round mags), the elite will still be able to acquire access to self-defense while denying it to the proles.

  • wareagle||

    I keep waiting for Congress to retroactively ban Kool-Aid, fertilizer, and airplanes as each of those was also used to carry out mass murder.

  • Rich||

    But, wareagle, those weren't *designed* to carry out mass murder.

    /sarc

  • Virginian||

    Kool Aid isn't consumed by their kind of people, so they'd be ok with it. They'd love to switch to organic fertilizer. There wouldn't be any negative side effects of course, not like organic farming has a third of the yield per acre.

    Planes? Are you crazy! If we didn't have planes the flyover states would be drive through states. Or...we could build high speed trains! Yes! The stimulus effect would be huge!

    /typical fucking leftist.

  • Zeb||

    Actually, it was Flavor-Aid.

  • CE||

    Cars kill 100 people a day in the US, and that's just the ACCIDENTS. When are they going to ban cars?

  • mad libertarian guy||

    1. Obviously there are going ot be public-opnion polls conducted in the wake of this tragedy. What sort of shift, if any, do you anticipate seeing with regard to popular opinion on gun control?

    Not much. People are simply to embedded in the debate to give up any ground. Any hard push from one side will be met with equally hard resistance.

    2. Would an sweeping new legislation have to pass both the House and the Senate? If so, what are the chances of it passing in each? Will the Republicans exhibit any backbone on this one?

    It'll have to pass both, AND comply with Heller which already recognizes our right to have a weapon for self defense. Pistols aren't going anywhere as they were specifically addressed in the ruling by Scalia.

    3. If something along the lines of an outright ban (military-style rifles, hi-cap magazines, whatever) does pass, would people hand their stuff in, or would we se mass noncompliance?

    Massive non-compliance. There would be bloodshed. And lots of it.

    Our American Revolution started because the controlling government tried to confiscate a weapons cache; people will remember that, and use it as a rallying cry.

  • Matrix||

    We can only hope.

  • $park¥||

    Our American Revolution started because the controlling government tried to confiscate a weapons cache; people will remember that, and use it as a rallying cry.

    You're joking, right?

  • Randian||

    Wouldn't bother me if he wasn't.

  • Brett L||

    I'm looking forward to the discussion of logistics of gun bans. There's already several thousand Americans who've been concerned enough about this to cache firearms. Then, there'll be the Minuteman type organizations that will smuggle caches of citizens' weapons between houses, businesses, and properties to avoid search and seizure. Then, there'll be the molon labe types.

    Personally, I take a reasonable point of view. The day every LEO surrenders their firearms, and every solider, sailor, airman, and marine is forbidden from leaving military installations with a firearm, I will consider surrendering mine.

  • Agammamon||

    Soldiers/sailors/airmen don't get to take their weapons home with them and they don't get to bring personal one's to work.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    I posted a wish list from the Obama administration last night.

    http://reason.com/blog/2012/12.....nt_3438320

    There is fear on the right that Boehner will offer a grand compromise of throwing gun rights away in exchange for tax cuts for the top one percent or some such nonsense.

  • SIV||

    I referred to that below. I'd love to see Boehner commit political suicide.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Boehner's already a goner. His end game is a nice easy job with a big fat salary as a lobbyist.

  • GILMORE||

    VG Zaytsev| 12.17.12 @ 11:26AM |#

    Boehner's already a goner


    That reminds me of his campaign poster, "Boehner's a Gainer!"

  • Ted S.||

    Technically, shouldn't it be Superstorm Sandy Hook?

  • LTC(ret) John||

    Win. Straight up.

  • John||

    They are going to go on a full gun control bender. You will lots of false and deceptive polls dutifully reported by the state media showing how America has finally decided to do something about the NRA and the gun culture. Fake and deceptive polls publicized by a compliant media are a powerful weapon for the proglydytes. It is all about demoralizing the opposition and making those in the middle feel that the left side is the only popular and reasonable choice.

    After many fake polls and much lying and bullying, the Left will manage to squander tons of political capital and ensure their defeat in the 2014 midterms because gun owners vote and don't give a shit what the rest of the country thinks of them. Gun control is a dead loser. But lefties can't help themselves. It is like crack.

  • ||

    They could even be honest polls, but depending on the questions they will be manipulated to make gun control seem popular. I foresee a lot of resistance to rolling back the second amendment, but then some weasel words and people caving on "Would you like to see something done to prevent Sandy Hook from happening again?"

    See: "A majority of Americans oppose Obamacare; Hey look! People favor not discriminating against pre-existing conditions!"

  • Ted S.||

    As usual, Yes, (Prime) Minister got it right decades ago.

  • Rich||

    Beautiful.

  • PapayaSF||

    There is also what I call "Yes Minister logic" that comes up after such events: "We must do something, this is something, therefore, we must do this."

  • Ted S.||

    The term they used was "politicians' logic". Yes, there is a clip of that.

  • Whiterun Guard||

    Don't get all optimistic again.

    You're right about everything, except for in the last 30 days before election, they'll come to their senses and drop the gun crap, and go into full 'free shit' mode.

    However the GOP will continue to debate them on the gun issue, which no one will care or vote about when the time rolls around, so will get trounced again.

  • ||

    I was at Cabelas yesterday. Lots of people were buying guns, ammo, and archery shit. I'm not giving up my guns or ammo.

  • wareagle||

    But lefties can't help themselves.

    neither can righties, who remain convinced that banning video games and/or instituting prayer in schools is all that can save the republic.

  • aelhues||

    Few on the right call for video game bans. Maybe more strict rules for who they're sold to...

    I haven't heard anyone suggest instituting prayer in school, since I was a kid. Unless by instituting you mean, something along the lines of " no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". In which case, I'm all for allowing people to pray wherever and whenever they want.

  • NoVAHockey||

    I walked past the White House Friday afternoon after the gun control groups held a vigil. And all the people had little candles with the paper ring to catch the wax. I was thinking, wow, where do you get all those candles on such short notice. and it occurred to me that they must have stockpiled them to break out as needed. never let a tragedy go to waste, I suppose.

  • Rich||

    I was thinking, wow, where do you get all those candles on such short notice.

    Church.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    Especially this time of year.

  • NoVAHockey||

    that's a good point

  • T||

    I dunno about where you live, but we have entire stores devoted to candles down here, because bitches like candles or some shit. So I'm sure an assload of candles isn't the hardest thing to come by.

    Hell, IKEA sells a bag of 100 tealights for like 3 dollars.

  • ||

    After many fake polls and much lying and bullying, the Left will manage to squander tons of political capital and ensure their defeat in the 2014 midterms because gun owners vote and don't give a shit what the rest of the country thinks of them. Gun control is a dead loser. But lefties can't help themselves. It is like crack.

    Yes, because ObamneyCare absolutely destroyed His Pestilency's chance at re-election. Yes, ObamneyCare, remember that little thing, John? Quothe The Boner: "ObamaCare is law of the land."

    Seems to me this time around, especially with a slavering, cock sucking press, the conditions are bit more in their favour.

  • John||

    How did Obamacare work out for him in the midterms in 2010? He won in 2012 because of low information voters. Look at the polls. The problem with the "people who are just too fucking stupid or too lazy to know any better" coalition, is that those types only show up in Presidential election years. Gun owners, in contrast always show up and always vote.

  • wareagle||

    and how did those mid-terms work for the rest of us? The freshmen in Congress were as vilified by Repubs as Dems, and Boehner was exposed as little more than an Oompa Loompa version of Pelosi.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    The most educated voted for Obama. Look at the zip codes. Cambridge, Upper East Side, Boulder, Stanford, Palo Alto, etc.

    Contrast with a West Virginia where Obama got smoked.

    Of course you are too stupid to know this.

  • John||

    No dipshit. The difference in the election was low information female voters. Obama won them by over 30 points. That is the coalition, the cronies, the stupid, and the disgusting fascist freaks like you.

  • wareagle||

    and those highly educated places are panaceas of utopia-wishing that bears no responsibility to the real world, which is why academics choose the insular cocoon of the faculty lounge. And the lifetime sinecure that comes with it. Parasites voting for another parasite. Shocking.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Reason H/R is the undisputed king of "utopia wishing". Tax rates will never go to zero and regulations will never completely cease to exist, my Shangri-La seeking friend.

  • Randian||

    The most educated voted for Obama. Look at the zip codes. Cambridge, Upper East Side, Boulder, Stanford, Palo Alto, etc.

    So look at Detroit, Cleveland, D.C., and LA?

    Yes, those are real bastions of the intelligentsia.

  • wareagle||

    there is something perfectly symmetrical about the campus zip codes and the inner city ones being of like mind, but not in a good way.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Obama also won Silicon Valley - the most productive business area in the country.

  • Randian||

    He also won, adjusted for cost-of-living, the poorest areas of the nation.

    So....what?

  • some guy||

    They may have like minds, but people from one would be terrified if they ever found themselves stranded in the other.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    The most educated voted for Obama. Look at the zip codes. Cambridge, Upper East Side, Boulder, Stanford, Palo Alto, etc.

    And people that live in those places are almost uniformly dumbshits and state cronies.

  • C. Anacreon||

    In the suburbs around SF there is the emerging central-planning "Plan Bay Area" which will force all suburbs to put in high-density low-income housing in their downtowns. Super-left wealthy elites in such Marin enclaves as Mill Valley were all for it, until they learned that it might mean scary poor Negroes would be moving into their town and thus raising crime and lowering the idyllic public schools quality. Now they are protesting, saying they are already accommodating growth and don't need new housing, because when the old people who live there die, "young families with children move in," thus trading two people for five, and that's all the growth they need, thanks.

  • Zeb||

    Yes, academics are clueless about the real world and think that government can fix everything. Not a surprise.

  • Zeb||

    I think you are being overly pessimistic. This one stands out because it was little kids, but this has happened before and shit gets all stirred up for a while, but nothing really comes of it. I expect a few states (you know which ones) will try to pass some new restrictions on certain things, but that's about it.

    I agree with John, that gun control is dead. Especially with the recent SC rulings.

  • ||

    Right, and ObamneyCare would never pass. Nor would SCOTUS uphold the Individual Mandate.

    Even Scalia is on record very recently stating that (paraphrased), "Even in the times of the Founders, they did acknowledge limits on weapons ownership", citing laws against carrying hatchets within a town's perimeter, IIRC.

  • Zeb||

    Well, nobody cares what I think anyway, so I'm just going to be optimistic. There is no prize for being the first to guess what horrible thing the government is going to do next.

  • ||

    Well, I happen to care what you think, or else I wouldn't have engaged you, Zeb.

    The prize for correctly guessing to to avoid the consequences of the next horrible thing the government is going to do and plan accordingly, which is why I am sitting here in UKR-landia. Don't lose the optimism though. -))))

  • Zeb||

    Well, I appreciate that. I really do.

  • Mike M.||

    The most repulsive thing to me about watching these left-wing vermin pretend that they love children so much is that if those kids had been aborted in the womb, they wouldn't even bat an eyelash.

  • Restoras||

    Now now, Mike, that glob of cells isn't a human until it passes through the Magical Vagina, thus bestowing humanness in the process.

  • ||

    According to His Pestilency, that doesn't matter either. Or did you miss his support for, "post-partum abortions."

    The man has no regard of proximity when it comes to children and their demise.

  • some guy||

    Another possibility is that it isn't a human until it has a shot at surviving outside the womb. Last time I checked that's around 23 weeks.

  • Restoras||

    Sure, but what happens when we can grow a human entirely outside the womb? If it is human, it must be from the get-go, unless it just isn't a human at all for not passing through the Magical Soul-Giving Vagina.

  • sloopyinca||

    Sure, but what happens when we can grow a human entirely outside the womb?

    Where's the fetus gonna gestate? Are you gonna keep it in a box?

  • some guy||

    How is murder in an elementary school anything like abortion of a fetus?

    We can have an honest debate about whether a fertilized egg cell is a person. I doubt either of us will win.

    We cannot have an honest debate about whether a healthy 6-year old is a person.

  • Ted S.||

    Were the droned 6-year-olds human?

  • some guy||

    Oh absolutely they were. I'm totally against the drone war.

    But we were talking about the Sandy Hook shooting and abortions. Stay on subject! There are pro-choice libertarians in this world...

  • Virginian||

    We know. It's why abortion threads go to 400 or so every time.

  • Mike M.||

    Yeah, we can only have so-called "honest debates" when lefties say so, which is always when they don't like the law. When they do like the law, then the issue can no longer be debated ever again.

    If only Adam Lanza had just grown up to become a late-term abortionist, he'd be competing with Sandra Fluke for the Time Magazine Person of the Year.

  • some guy||

    I'm not a lefty. I agree that 3rd trimester abortions are murder. My point is that no one is going to argue that a 6 year old is not a person. Many people will argue that a fertilized egg is not a person. So shooting a 6 year old is not the same as aborting a fetus.

  • Randian||

    Don't try to reason with the idiot yokel. His comparison is fucking moronic and you're just lending it legitimacy.

  • Mike M.||

    I agree that 3rd trimester abortions are murder.

    And yet they remain completely legal in a bunch of states, many of which ironically are the same exact states that want to take away our legal right to self-defense.

    The more the left tries to argue that my Second Amendment rights should be taken away, the more I'm going to throw this out to show what lowlife scum they truly are. I know it won't work on most though, because they're totally incapable of shame.

  • wareagle||

    you have to come up with a better line of argument than "mass school shooting = abortion." And putting Lanza on a place with Fluke seems silly.

  • wareagle||

    ...on a plaNe with Fluke....

  • mr simple||

    And putting Lanza on a pla(n)e with Fluke seems silly.

    Not if it's a one way trip to N.Korea.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    you have to come up with a better line of argument than "mass school shooting = abortion.

    Why?

    How long does it take the average abortion clinic to perform 27 2nd trimester abortions?

  • wareagle||

    How long does it take the average abortion clinic to perform 27 2nd trimester abortions?

    doesn't matter. The people undergoing the abortions are doing so of their free will; whether I agree with their decision is immaterial or not. None of those killed in CT, saved the shooter, chose to die.

    By the same token, holiday parties will result in more deaths than this incident but no one is moving to ban parties, alcohol, or vehicles.

  • ||

    None of those killed in CT, saved the shooter, chose to die.

    Neither do fetuses who have made it to the second trimester. Or children overseas droned to death. But do either of those situations affect you personally? The next kid that gets droned, does that matter one whit what happens in your daily life any more than the next kid that gets scraped? In fact, with the exception of gun control legislation, that incident in CT doesn't affect you or your daily existence one whit either.

    My point is proximity matters.

  • Bobarian||

    War Eagle, by your argument, Lanza chose to perform these late term abortions of his own free will, so...

    The argument still falls back to when is a person a person?

  • MWG||

    Behold, ladies and gentlemen, the opposite side of the exploitation coin. Where the left will use the tragedy to bring up gun control, the right will use it to being up God (Huckabee) and abortion.

  • Zeb||

    Shut the fuck up. Why does some asshole always have to bring up abortion?

  • $park¥||

    It's looking like the Republican angle is going to be video games. I was watching Fox & Friends this morning and that's all they would talk about. Dems are coming for your guns and Reps are coming for your video games.

  • ||

    Why is it so hard to say "shit happens?"

  • $park¥||

    Two choices:

    1. Fuck you, that's why!
    2. TEH CHILDRUNZ!

  • ||

    Honestly, FdA, it's because this shit didn't happen to you.

    It's when people step back and wonder, "What if this happened to me?"

    I'm in no way saying you are wrong, but you asked for an answer, and from a medical POV, that's why.

  • sloopyinca||

    Sorry doc but that's a bullshit answer. The overwhelming majority of gun control freaks never had shit like this "happen to them" either. This isn't the parents of these kids or the spouses of these adults clamoring to take away our rights. It's a bunch of the craven political class and other haters of liberty that are doing it.

    Even money says that for every victim of a shooting like this, there's a family member that goes on an anti-gun crusade and another that goes out and arms him/herself so it doesn't happen to them as well.

  • ||

    Indeed. However, this country does have a rich history, quite recently as well, of conflating, "freedom," with, "freedom from want and bad things happening."

    And this phenomenon has largely been limited to minority groups of one flavour or another, such as the "VAST SWATHES OF UNINSURED PEOPLE!"

    The "medical view" should have tipped you off at what I was getting: A shitload of otherwise well-meaning, Terribly Concerned groups (majority of them women) supported ObamneyCare, and would prefer Single Payer, under the rubric that most people either can't get medical care or can't afford it, which was debunked over and over. People didn't listen.

    They won't listen here either. Women are owning guns in record numbers, but they are sure they are perfectly OK to own one, but some dodgy looking, unshaven, smelly bum, who is most likely demonstrably mentally ill, has no business owning one.

    It's the other person, the nutbar, the weirdo, the "he's was never any trouble, kept to himself, just a little wierd" types that they are sure have no business owning one.

  • MWG||

    This.

  • Zeb||

    Seriously. Free people are free to do evil as well as good. Bad shit will happen sometimes. And without freedom, worse shit will happen.

    The thing that really pisses me off about the gun controllers is that they act like we have learned something new here. Anyone with a brain already knew that something like this was possible. That the means are available and there are people who are unimaginably deranged or evil out there. There is no further lesson to be learned. They just trot out the same arguments whenever they feel like people might be more receptive.

  • CE||

    But crime rates have dropped as video games have become more violent and more realistic. Coincidence?

  • Certified Public Asskicker||

    Now that Obama is against murdering children, he is going to suspend the use of drones.

    Right?

  • ||

    soz if this has already been posted

    Pittsburgh woman raped at gunpoint and charged with fabricating her story has won a settlement after a marathon legal battle, changing federal law along the way

    more
  • Ted S.||

    I presume the taxpayers are paying the settlement? :-(

  • Way Of The Crane||

    In a precedent-setting decision against the police, the appeal judges ruled in 2010 that Evanson wasn't reasonable and lacked probable cause when he arrested Sara, and that the case could go to trial. The police finally settled before trial on behalf of Evanson, who is still in his job.

    Wow. Just fucking wow.

  • Lord Humungus||

    Mass rape, amputations and killings – why families are fleeing terror in Mali
    At refugee camps, reports are flooding in of horrific human rights abuses in a country once famous for its music and joyous lifestyle.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/worl.....error-mali

    A man accused of using tobacco was escorted before the crowd by several members of the al-Qaida splinter group Movement for Tawhid and Jihad in West Africa.

    "Then they chopped off his hand. They wanted to show us what they could do," said Ahmed, 39, a meat trader from the town in northern Mali.

    That was not the end of it. The severed hand was tossed into a vat of boiling water. Then, according to Ahmed, the man was pinned down and over the next hour the bent, misshapen hand was sewn crudely back onto his stump. Ahmed, too terrified to disclose his full name, fled Gao the next day, 8 November: "I had to go. I could not live my life."
  • Whiterun Guard||

    Well at least they re-attached his hand. A kinder, gentler breed of religious psychos? Hooray.

    Also, Mali is disturbingly close to me.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • $park¥||

    PFLP-GC? Splitters every last one of them.

  • SIV||

    The PFLP-GC couldn't use their air power?

  • Matrix||

    Is this an effective way to get people to quit smoking?

  • Enough About Palin||

    "At refugee camps, reports are flooding in of horrific human rights abuses in a country once famous for its music and joyous lifestyle."

    Reports were flooding in of horrific human rights abuses in the Superdome after Katrina.

  • sloopyinca||

    "They're a very musical people, aren't they?"

  • Lord Humungus||

    Guns are a Blind Alley: Repair Mental Health Treatment
    http://www.nationalreview.com/.....ona-charen

    It is scandalously difficult to get treatment for the mentally ill, even the violent, in America today. Misplaced civil libertarianism and romanticization of mental illness led to deinstitutionalization in the 1960s, 70s, and 80s. Now, 95 percent of the inpatient beds we had in 1955 are gone.

    It’s important not to stigmatize the mentally ill. At the same time, there is a small subset of mentally ill people who are dangerous. They are responsible for an estimated 50 percent of rampage killings. In the name of personal autonomy, we have made it almost impossible to force them to get treatment. The horrifying consequences are all around us.
  • Lord Humungus||

    related: Thinking the Unthinkable
    http://anarchistsoccermom.blog.....kable.html

    I am sharing this story because I am Adam Lanza’s mother. I am Dylan Klebold’s and Eric Harris’s mother. I am James Holmes’s mother. I am Jared Loughner’s mother. I am Seung-Hui Cho’s mother. And these boys—and their mothers—need help. In the wake of another horrific national tragedy, it’s easy to talk about guns. But it’s time to talk about mental illness.
  • SIV||

    Shorter Liza Long:

    "It's ALL ABOUT ME!"

  • Rich||

    [13yo] Michael pulled a knife and threatened to kill me and then himself after I asked him to return his overdue library books.

    At the risk of seeming insensitive, a serious question: What does 'mental illness' have to do with this? If Joe Blow of any age threatens to kill you with a knife, do you drive him to the hospital?

  • SIV||

    She calls her husband, the state, to send over police and paramedics.

  • Zeb||

    I think you make a mistake in thinking that being mentally ill excuses criminal behavior. I'd say that making bizarre threats and being suicidal is mental illness in any case. Doesn't meat that they don't need to be arrested and locked up.

  • Whiterun Guard||

    She really sucks at raising kids or something.

  • Enough About Palin||

    +1 loony

  • ||

    Anyone else notice that kids started killing people around the same time society decided it was wrong to beat them? When I was growing up the "prescription" for a disruptive students wasn't Ritalin. It was an ass whoopin. Kids didn't think it was alright to kill back then.

    Correlation. Causation?

  • SIV||

    Jimmy Carter got so mad and unruly he shot his big sister with an air rifle. His father didn't call the sheriff and have him sent off to Milledgeville. He beat the ever-loving shit out of the future naval officer, Governor and President.

  • Brett L||

    You'd be wrong. Really wrong. Go back to the original Sandy Hook shooting thread and see the posts someone put up detailing school shootings by children back into the 19th century.

  • ||

    Saw that thread. I believe many of those shootings were committed by adults.

  • Enough About Palin||

    And many were youths.

  • JW||

    Huh. Kids with legitimate mental issues really brings out the stupid in the Lawandorderruns.

  • Zeb||

    No. No I did not notice that. And I'd bet it's not true either.

  • Zeb||

    It is wrong to beat children. Just like it is wrong to murder them. Assault and battery are among the few things that should be criminal.

    Mild physical correction is still pretty common and I don't have a problem with that.

    "Kids didn't think it was alright to kill back then."

    They don't think it is now either. You are doing the same idiotic thing that the idiotic media does whenever somethign like this happens. Take an isolated incident and pretend that it is a trend. What a stupid comment.

  • ||

    It is wrong to beat children. Just like it is wrong to murder them. Assault and battery are among the few things that should be criminal.

    Lighten up Francis. By "beat" I meant "mild physical correction."

    What a stupid comment.

    Perhaps you're correct.

  • SIV||

    National Review using a pile of children's dead bodies for a soap box.

  • nicole||

    It’s important not to stigmatize the mentally ill. At the same time, there is a small subset of mentally ill people who are dangerous. They are responsible for an estimated 50 percent of rampage killings. In the name of personal autonomy, we have made it almost impossible to force them to get treatment.

    My response to this is simple: if you can't think of a time or place in which the state would have made you a nonperson, you aren't thinking hard enough.

    My other response is completely visceral: I find this the absolute scariest kind of talk out there. And the most depressing and directly upsetting. Who thinks a person who knows the law and is sane for virtually any share of time will be willing to give up his or her rights to "get help"? And I'm talking about the people who need and want help.

  • John||

    We locked a lot of people up in asylums up until the 1960s. And while it was not ideal or even good, it was not the Soviet Union. What do you do with people who are batshit insane and stand a good chance of being violent? That is a tough question.

    One answer is to do nothing until they commit a crime. And maybe that is the right one. But understand that shit like what happened on Friday is the price we will pay for it.

  • $park¥||

    One answer is to do nothing until they commit a crime. And maybe that is the right one. But understand that shit like what happened on Friday is the price we will pay for it.

    People are violent animals. Insane people are insane violent animals. The only way to stop something like what happened Friday from ever happening again would be to eliminate all the people.

  • John||

    No. Not all people would ever walk into a grade school and kill a bunch of six year old kids. In fact, only a very very small subset of people would ever do that. And that subset don't just become that way at random one day. They exhibit all kinds of signs of insanity before they do such a thing.

    In the cases of the VATech, Giffords, Colorado and Connecticut shooters, the shooter was deeply troubled for years and would have been institutionalized in any other era but our own.

  • SIV||

    In the cases of the VATech, Giffords, Colorado and Connecticut shooters, the shooter was deeply troubled for years and would have been institutionalized in any other era but our own.

    Bullshit. The Colorado killer was in a select highly competitive grad school until just before his rampage. Lanza's mother seemed to be concealing whatever (as yet unknown) problems she was having with him and there is no evidence she sought institutionalization.

  • Whiterun Guard||

    Not to mention the many tens of thousands of people who also exhibit those same behaviours, but still don't wind up shooting up gun-free zones.

  • SIV||

    eggs/omelets ends/means

  • Way Of The Crane||

    And that subset don't just become that way at random one day. They exhibit all kinds of signs of insanity before they do such a thing.

    Your over-generalizations of "all kinds of signs of insanity" aside; do all people who exhibit these "signs" commit these kinds of crimes? If they do not, then locking up everyone who does is a Soviet-Union-style totalitarian solution.

    Random violence is the price we pay for a free society. The alternative does not abolish the random acts of violence; it adds to it the predictable and preventable acts of the state.

  • John||

    If they do not, then locking up everyone who does is a Soviet-Union-style totalitarian solution.

    Bullshit. We locked up the insane for hundreds of years before the 1960s. Was the US in 1940 a Soviet Style state? No it wasn't. It wasn't anything close. And pretending that doing something about the mentally ill made it one is just sophistry.

  • Whiterun Guard||

    I don't know, I think if you asked the people they locked up, they might find it quite similar to a Soviet style state.

  • Way Of The Crane||

    We locked up the insane for hundreds of years before the 1960s. Was the US in 1940 a Soviet Style state?

    I did not say that it would make the nation the equivalent of the Soviet Union. I said that if it was not the case that everyone who exhibited your so called "signs of insanity" would undoubtedly go on to commit random acts of violence, then locking up everyone who exhibited those "signs" was an act of totalitarianism.

    Words have meaning John.

  • Zeb||

    "Was the US in 1940 a Soviet Style state?"

    It was as far as the seriously mentally ill could tell.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    John:

    Your over-generalizations of "all kinds of signs of insanity" aside; do all people who exhibit these "signs" commit these kinds of crimes?

    Not even close.

    Read.

  • Whiterun Guard||

    And of course, when some lobby group gets powerful enough to add their pet cause to the list, we can start locking up whoever we want.

    I mean all you need is a single gay guy to go on a rampage, and bam, we can lock up any gay guys we want to.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    the shooter was deeply troubled for years and would have been institutionalized in any other era but our own.

    No John,

    It's much more humane to let mentally ill people wander the streets, commit tens of thousands of petty crimes and a few hundred violent ones each year.

  • Zeb||

    Millions of people exhibit that kind of insanity and only about 12 of them are going to commit mass murder. I think you have to wait until they do something. I can accept that that is part of living in a free(ish) society.

  • Matrix||

    But what happens when distrust of the government becomes classified a mental disorder. We'd all be locked up and drugged.

  • ||

    ^^Bingo

    Or just being a misanthropic beyotch. If I don't like people, I must be insane and getting ready to rampage.

  • Zeb||

    Are you?

  • Randian||

    One answer is to do nothing until they commit a crime. And maybe that is the right one. But understand that shit like what happened on Friday is the price we will pay for it.

    Yep, that is the right answer.

    Now, carry that over into 9/11 and the wars, John, and you'll be a real libertarian.

  • SIV||

    But understand that shit like what happened on Friday is the price we will pay for it.

    There is no reason (that we know) to think Adam Lanza, or any of these other mass shooters would have been diagnosed as "batshit insane" and locked up if civil commitment was as easy as it used to be. Nancy Lanza could have afforded to hospitalize her son for the rest of his life if she wanted to.

    This is just another example of people trying to advance their pet cause by waving a bloody first grader.

  • nicole||

    Agree 100% with Randian and SIV

  • Brett L||

    Maybe she could have afforded to, but how long could she have in involuntarily committed? That, I think is the point of contention. And you know, I'm with those who say that we have to err on the side of rights and liberty, even if it means individuals committing mass assaults on the lives of other individuals. It is still less costly than allowing the state to do so.

  • Matrix||

    True. And you can minimize the damage by allowing and encouraging peaceful, law abiding citizens to be in possession of defensive weapons at all times. Some crazy loon starts shooting people, he might get 2 or 3 before the rest of the folks light his ass up.

    Sad for those 2 or 3 who died, but I'd take that over 20-30 dead.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • John||

    Didn't matter what she could afford. He was over 18 and didn't have to stay there if he didn't want to.

  • Whiterun Guard||

    No government can ever prevent all tragedies. The only decision is how much treasure and liberty you want to sacrifice to watch them fail at preventing them.

  • SIV||

    Only Lanza never signed himself out of a hospital did he?

    Why do you think he would have been in one in the first place?

  • Zeb||

    I think that the appropriate thing is to wait until they do something actually criminal, then lock them up in an asylum. I don't think that there is any way to figure out which psychos are really dangerous like that which won't lock up a bunch of people who don't pose a serious danger.

  • CE||

    You're forgetting that to the progressives, we're all bat-guano crazy. Give them a law to lock us up and they will.

  • wareagle||

    it's hard enough to get a drunk or an addict - most of whom are totally sane - to proactively seek help. Expecting someone on the fringes of reality to do so sounds like its own brand of lunacy.

    Folks knew Loughner was off-kilter; same with the VA Tech shooter. Forcibly rounding them up sounds good after-the-fact but if they had been forcibly institutionalized beforehand, 1) no one would know what had been prevented and 2) the term 'lawsuit' comes to mind.

  • nicole||

    it's hard enough to get a drunk or an addict - most of whom are totally sane - to proactively seek help. Expecting someone on the fringes of reality to do so sounds like its own brand of lunacy.

    Right--so who will proactively seek help and thereby lose their rights? People who are not doing great but probably not the most dangerous to others, and who are most likely ignorant of the rights they may lose in consequence.

  • ||

    From the comments:

    I am so sick of the conspiracy thinking that comes to stand in the way of doing what will protect the majority. Those with a terminal conspiracy mindset stand in the way of everything that is done to protect the public, from profiling terrorists to dealing with laws that give the mentally ill the right to be crazy instead of giving the public the right to be protected from the crazies left to their own devices and delusions.

    We are doomed.

  • Randian||

    Nah, that's a dead-ringer for a 'moderate' soccer mom. They're dumb but not hopeless. The best part about moderates is that they don't really stand for anything.

  • John||

    What to do with the criminally insane is a problem. All of these guys showed plain signs of being dangerous. Yet nothing was done. Now maybe the danger of locking the odd non dangerous person up is so great that it is worth letting the dangerous ones lose. But if it is, be honest and make that argument and don't pretend there is no downside.

  • ||

    Now maybe the danger of locking the odd non dangerous person up is so great that it is worth letting the dangerous ones lose

    This is what our entire justice system is supposed to be based on. Better to let 100 criminals go free than lock up/kill one innocent person.

  • Randian||

    Recognizing that episodic insanity will happen, the best we can do is mitigate the damage.

    We don't rail against the rain when it causes floods - we build floodwalls.

    We don't rail against the fire when a building catches - we have suppression systems and alarms.

    I don't rail against guns - I advocate for a suppression system. Arm the teachers, if they want.

  • John||

    Sure arm the teachers. So it is your contention that no one should ever be involuntarily committed for any reason other than conviction of a crime? Should be get rid of the system of involuntary commitment?

    If not, then what rules would you follow? Do you admit that some people really are insane and a danger to others? If so, what should we do about them? Nothing?

  • Whiterun Guard||

    Yes, now you're getting it.

    We should lock them up AFTER they do something.

    It's not the government's job to PREVENT crazy people from comitting crimes. They will never be able to, and expecting them to is the first step towards becoming a nice and controllable statist puke.

  • John||

    We should lock them up AFTER they do something.

    That is a great answer for libertopia. But it is not an answer for the real world. In the real world, people are not going to tolerate just letting people who are obviously deranged indulge in their derangement until they actually do harm. No civilization in the world has ever tolerated that.

    So your solution while more true Scottsman, is not a solution since it will never happen. The question is how do you run the system such that you get the right people.

  • $park¥||

    In the real world, people are not going to tolerate just letting people who are obviously deranged indulge in their derangement until they actually do harm.

    It doesn't matter what people tolerate, nothing will stop it. Go ahead and lock up every person you think is crazy and random acts of violence will still happen. Sorry to say it, but it's human nature.

    No civilization in the world has ever tolerated that.

    And what good has it done?

  • Whiterun Guard||

    People aren't going to tolerate it? Oh really? Well let's see what kind of legislation comes out of this.

    I'm aware there will be a ton of bluster, but let's see where the rubber hits the road.

    Then we'll see just how much my solution 'will never happen'.

  • ||

    What about Brian Aitken? His mom calls the cops because he seems upset and "off", and look what happened to him. That's the kind of thing you'd see more and more of if you make involuntary commitment easier. Who gets to do the diagnosing? Government-appointed "experts"? That always works out so well, doesn't it?

  • nicole||

    What Kristen said.

  • sloopyinca||

    This one's even worse, Kristin. This former marine was involuntarily committed because people who read his FB posts were worried.

  • ||

    I remember that, sloopy. Unconscionable.

  • T||

    The question is how do you run the system such that you get the right people.

    Well, first you need the right people in charge of the system...

  • Way Of The Crane||

    Well, first you need the right people in charge of the system...

    Top Men will be chosen I'm sure

  • VG Zaytsev||

    We should lock them up AFTER they do something.

    Something like a series of escalating minor crimes combined with a diagnosis of mental illness?

  • wareagle||

    Should be get rid of the system of involuntary commitment?

    the system is pretty much rid of that, save for a few instances where someone did something that posed a danger to that person or to others. Still, even that is taking action after the fact.

    If people start being rounded up and institutionalized because they may be a threat to someone, you are about a step away from thought crime. Besides, no one would have locked up Ted Bundy on the basis of an interview or watching his daily interactions in society.

  • nicole||

    So it is your contention that no one should ever be involuntarily committed for any reason other than conviction of a crime? Should be get rid of the system of involuntary commitment?

    Yes, and yes, except possibly as an alternative to regular prison for those who have committed crimes. I fail to see any way to reliably distinguish between involuntary commitment without prior crimes and simple thoughtcrime.

  • C. Anacreon||

    I fail to see any way to reliably distinguish between involuntary commitment without prior crimes and simple thoughtcrime.

    How about when someone has an acute psychosis that is making them extremely dangerous but they have not yet committed a crime? That diagnosis is very easy to distinguish.

    It is easy for outsiders to think that people getting involuntarily brought to emergency rooms for psychiatric evaluation are just because they have beliefs outside the mainstream. Psychosis is way, way different than having a esoteric value set, it is an acute disease state. And one, unfortunately, that can simultaneously convince the brain that nothing is wrong, so people might not recognize they need help.

  • SIV||

    All of these guys showed plain signs of being dangerous. Yet nothing was done.

    Just because you keep saying it doesn't make it true.

    Loughner and Cho? Maybe

    Klebold, Harris,Holmes, Lanza and most of the rest?

    NO

  • Way Of The Crane||

    All of these guys showed plain signs of being dangerous. Yet nothing was done.

    Remember, over-generalizations mean never having to admit you're wrong.

  • Zeb||

    I think that the legal system could use a guilty and insane designation for certain people. There are definitely cases where an insanity defense won't fly, but where regular prison is not very appropriate. If a person is deemed to be truly dangerously insane after committing a crime, I'd like to see an option for indefinite commitment for sufficiently serious crimes.

  • ||

    Sanity is a legal term, not a medical designation or DX.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    The best part about moderates is that they don't really stand for anything.

    Actually, that makes them extremely dangerous, because they will hysterically follow ANY bandwagon that makes them feel "safe," thus giving authoritarian movements the populist muscle they need to push their agendas.

    I have no problem believing that soccer moms would be at the forefront of cheering gulags if they thought doing so would make them safer overall.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    It’s important not to stigmatize the mentally ill. At the same time, there is a small subset of mentally ill people who are dangerous

    Sorry, but these two statements are ultimately incompatible, and as usual, the goons at NR try to weasel around the real implications of identifying mental illness and the road that leads down.

    In our pozzed-out culture of self-validation, focusing on "treatment" is ultimately a red herring. Loughner and Holmes were both getting treatment for mental illness when they went on their rampages; in another time, they would have been locked up in a loony bin and isolated from society for the safety and well-being of that society.

    A society can't aggressively reduce the chances of the mentally ill doing something outrageously violent without ulimately stigmatizing mental illness as something deviant and perhaps even dangerous.

  • ||

    In tough times, Greek sports teams can't be too choosy about their sponsors

  • ||

    Matt Damon demands more of his money be taken, because, you know

  • Ted S.||

    Did you send him the address to make a donation to the US Treasury?

  • ||

    Like he would use it, since that would require both consistency and principle.

  • Ted S.||

    Not that the TEAM BLUE slurpers would care, but doing so puts his hypocrisy on display for everybdy to see.

  • Randian||

    Sounds intrinsically paternalistic.

  • ||

    DEMAND KURV!

  • Lord Humungus||

    Time for some Godwin action:

    From Artist to Nazi Führer: The Paintings of Young Adolf Hitler
    http://www.environmentalgraffi.....-paintings

    Quaint country churches, stately cathedrals, tranquil countryside, and gentle seaside scenes, all painted in soft, soothing watercolors. These paintings could be the work of an elderly aunt, or even a young amateur artist hoping to make a few bucks selling them to tourists. In fact, the second part is pretty much the truth. Except that the young artist is not just anybody – it’s Adolf Hitler.
  • SIV||

    Do you know who else...

  • LTC(ret) John||

    John Wayne Gacy?

  • Rich||

    Clowning around again, eh, Sir?

  • LTC(ret) John||

    *groans*

  • ||

    Coulrophobia is no laughing matter, Rich.

  • Rich||

    Good thing geliophobics are no longer stigmatized.

  • ||

    The haplophobes have re-appeared instead, locked and loaded.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Haplophobia - fear of the witless.

  • ||

    Connecticut State Police are saying that anyone who posts fake information regarding the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting could face arrest.

    So we can expect hundreds of arrests of media outlets who posted the wrong Ryan Lanza, who in turn wasn't even the shooter? And furthermore, we can expect arrests of the police officers who put that incorrect information out there?

    Yeah, I thought so. Shove it up your ass, Connecticut.

  • Rich||

    "What part of 'could' don't you understand?"

    /Connecticut

  • John||

    ^^THIS^^

  • Zeb||

    Yeah, and what the fuck would the charges be?

  • Lord Humungus||

    For secretaries of Defense and State, Democrats’ short list is far too short
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....story.html

    Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts was Hillary Rodham Clinton’s only real rival for secretary of state in 2008; Susan Rice’s decision to pull out of the running means the job is his to lose. Retired senator Chuck Hagel, a Nebraska Republican, had been a top contender to succeed Robert Gates as defense secretary in 2011; he is now the front-runner to replace Leon Panetta, who ended up with the job.

    The fact that only two people, one a Republican, appear to be under serious consideration for these important jobs highlights a problem for the Democratic Party: When it comes to national security, its bench is surprisingly thin.
  • Fist of Etiquette||

    House Speaker John Boehner has offered to raise taxes on high-income earners in exchange for a containment of entitlement program costs.

    Boehner, even if serious about entitlements, might as well give it up. He has no play here. He has no hand. Obama knows that when the cliff is behind us and we're sailing through the air, it's the Republicans who will get fingered by the press as the culprits. It's all about the politics.

  • SIV||

    There's some(presumably) fake piece circulating that Boehner is going to offer draconian gun restrictions in exchange for holding the top marginal rate.

    I kinda hope people believe it. Fuck Boehner.

  • wareagle||

    the Repubs will be blamed anyway. What a good time to act on principle. If only the GOP had some.

  • Lord Humungus||

    'Jedi' religion most popular alternative faith
    Today's Census figures show that 176,632 people in England and Wales identify themselves as Jedi Knights, making it the most popular faith in the "Other Religions" category on the Census and the seventh most popular faith overall.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new.....faith.html

  • ||

    May The Farce be with you...

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Our Lady of the Sorrowful Midichlorians or Reformed Church of the Dark Force? Details matter.

  • Randian||

    The Sorrowful what now?

  • SugarFree||

    Midichlorian worshipers are the Mormons of the Jedi faith.

  • ||

    Heretic! That will be 50 Hail Schmi's, 25 Our Yoda's, and one trip to Dagobah's Dark Side tree as penance.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    So do they believe that if their faith is strong enough, they'll be able to do mind tricks and block laser shots with an energy sword like those long-ago Jedi prophets?

  • CE||

    Funny that they're all Knights, and not trainees or lay people.

  • ||

    Officially sad about this: Jackie Chan kisses authoritarian arse

  • Gene||

    Send the fucker to live in North Korea for awhile and see how he feels about it.

  • ||

    This just proves the adage that you can love what someone does but not love who they are.

    Jackie Chan is one of my favorite actors, but his politics suck. I recall having a similar reaction to Rage Against the Machine's Tom Morello's 99% bullshit last year.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    It was just Morello's 99% bullshit that set you off? I find that his marxist attitude in general is enough to dismiss him.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    The president of the police union has defended the officers.

    Talk about your unnecessary sentences.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Connecticut State Police are saying that anyone who posts fake information regarding the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting could face arrest.

    The sole charge? Resisting arrest.

  • Ptah-Hotep||

    The sole charge? Resisting arrest.

    Interfering with a police investigation, obstruction of justice. *Then* the resisting arrest.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    Then tasered, shot or beaten.

  • Whiterun Guard||

    Why not all three?

    The Trifecta!!

    /costanza

  • ||

    Seriously, doesn't anyone at The Nation have photoshop skills better than a kindergartener's?

  • sloopyinca||

    Connecticut State Police are saying that anyone who posts fake information regarding the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting could face arrest.

    Are they on their way to CBS News world headquarters with several pairs of cuffs, or does their "freedom of the press" protect them from all of their early misinformation including posting the FB profile and pics of an innocent man as the shooter?

  • John||

    http://www.nationalreview.com/.....john-fund#

    Facts about mass shootings.

    Gun-free zones have been the most popular response to previous mass killings. But many law-enforcement officials say they are actually counterproductive. “Guns are already banned in schools. That is why the shootings happen in schools. A school is a ‘helpless-victim zone,’” says Richard Mack, a former Arizona sheriff. “Preventing any adult at a school from having access to a firearm eliminates any chance the killer can be stopped in time to prevent a rampage,” Jim Kouri, the public-information officer of the National Association of Chiefs of Police, told me earlier this year at the time of the Aurora, Colo., Batman-movie shooting. Indeed, there have been many instances — from the high-school shooting by Luke Woodham in Mississippi, to the New Life Church shooting in Colorado Springs, Colo. — where a killer has been stopped after someone got a gun from a parked car or elsewhere and confronted the shooter.

    Economists John Lott and William Landes conducted a groundbreaking study in 1999, and found that a common theme of mass shootings is that they occur in places where guns are banned and killers know everyone will be unarmed, such as shopping malls and schools.

  • ||

    I would be VERY interested in having that 1999 study to throw in people's faces anytime they want to restrict guns.

  • ||

  • ||

    Five dollars will make me a little more interested.

  • Whiterun Guard||

    I'm very surprised some enterprising theater/mall owner doesn't have a 'Show your gun, get 10% off' promotion going somewhere.

  • R C Dean||

    Well, in CCW states, brandishing your concealed weapon is a violation. So, if you see this, DON'T FALL FOR IT.

  • mr simple||

    This is the most telling part:

    Lott offers a final damning statistic: “With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.”

  • ||

    Economists John Lott and William Landes conducted a groundbreaking study in 1999, and found that a common theme of mass shootings is that they occur in places where guns are banned and killers know everyone will be unarmed, such as shopping malls and schools.

    Did they get taxpayer money to study and conclude the blatantly obvious?

  • ||

    I think that work was subsidized by a grant from the John M. Olin Foundation

  • sloopyinca||

    Cop that beat University of Maryland student senseless as he celebrated a basketball victory gets home detention. Both sides complain about the sentence. I guess if the student wants justice, it'll come from the wallets of Prince George's County taxpayers.

  • Ted S.||

    Hey. Home detention is actually strict punishment for a pig.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Neither organization has been using social media to provide updates about the deadly shooting.

    “All information relative to this case is coming from these microphones," he said.

    That is untrue. At the last press conference one day last week he said that if there were any more developments the department would post the information on their website.

  • John||

    http://www.nypost.com/p/news/o.....rJ21jFasGJ

    Tell all book on American Idol. Celebrities are apparently even worse than you think they are.

  • Gene||

    Impossible.

  • $park¥||

    +1

  • John||

    They eat puppies Gene.

  • Gene||

    Sounds about right.

  • $park¥||

    That's still not worse. Even if they ate kittens it still wouldn't be worse.

  • ||

    who is that old woman sitting next to J-Lo? She looks crazy

  • Randian||

    Mary Stack.

  • ||

    heeey-0! +1.

  • ||

    I had someone tell me that they divide all applicants into 4 or 5 groups, and right off the bat throw out 2-3 of the groups without any actual review because that's how many applicants they get at any given location.

    Then, beyond that, they will reject contestants who are too good because in the end it comes down to ratings, and if there are too many "great" contestants then people won't know who to vote for and they lose interest in the show.

    He has a lot of knowledge about the showbiz world, so I felt inclined to believe him, even though it was all anecdotal at best.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Then, beyond that, they will reject contestants who are too good because in the end it comes down to ratings, and if there are too many "great" contestants then people won't know who to vote for and they lose interest in the show.

    I find this logic to be rather wanting, to be honest. Considering Americans seem to have no trouble latching on to sports teams to root for, what's to say they wouldn't do so with 5 or 6 truly talented individuals as opposed to a bunch of wannabes?

    Considering that some of the people who didn't even win the contest have gone on to good careers (Adam Lambert, Jennifer Hudson, Clay Aiken), it doesn't really seem that having talented performers would be a hindrance to ratings. If anything it would actually get people MORE invested in the outcome.

  • sloopyinca||

    What the fuck is an "American Idol"?

  • ||

    The Twitter account of Shirley Phelps-Roper from the Westboro Baptist Church has been hacked by Cosmo the God from ugnazi.com. Another of God's ways to show his disapproval of homosexuality, I suppose

  • ||

    No, God reportedly has a little problem with incest as well, and might have taken a dim view of WBC's evident consanguinity.

  • Ted S.||

    I always knew the World Boxing Council was incestuous!

  • John||

    http://www.wired.com/threatlev.....-citizens/

    Attorney General Secretly Granted Gov. Ability to Develop and Store Dossiers on Innocent Americans

  • Lord Humungus||

    IF you don't do anything wrong...

  • Ptah-Hotep||

    Attorney General Secretly Granted Gov. Ability to Develop and Store Dossiers on Innocent Americans

    Just continuing J. Edgar's legacy. Nothing really surprising about it.

  • Rich||

    Holder granted the center the ability to copy ... casino-employee lists

    Right.

    It'd be great to see Holder's dossier on himself.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Attorney General Secretly Granted Gov. Ability to Develop and Store Dossiers on Innocent Americans

    That explains the media sucking Obama's dick!

  • Tim||

    Diane Feinstein was on the air Sunday, she's going to introduce another assault weapons bill, including confiscation of existing. Now there's a job I'd like, confiscating guns.

  • John||

    Don't let the fact that this guy didn't use an assault weapon, whatever that is, or that you could kill just as many unarmed people at close range with a shotgun get in the way. Something completely idiotic and pointless must be done. And she is just the woman to do it.

  • Tim||

    I misspoke, or miss heard the radio. Here's a printed version, with link if the bloody spam filter allows it:

    "Who needs these military-style assault weapons? Who needs an ammunition feeding device capable of holding 100 rounds?" Feinstein wrote on her campaign website. "These weapons are not for hunting deer -- they’re for hunting people."

    On Sunday Feinstein laid out details of the bill.

    "It will ban the sale, the transfer, the importation and the possession, not retroactively, but prospectively," and ban the sale of clips of more than ten bullets, Feinstein said. "The purpose of this bill is to get... weapons of war off the streets."

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....f=politics

  • Ptah-Hotep||

    "These weapons are not for hunting deer -- they’re for hunting people."

    Which was the whole point of the 2nd. You would think someone who is sworn to uphold the Constitution would actually understand it.

  • John||

    Or even bother to read the Heller decision. The point of the 2nd Amendment is armed self defense. There is no right to hunt.

  • wareagle||

    and if the Second Am had anything to do with hunting deer, DiFi might have a point. But it doesn't, so she doesn't.

  • Tim||

    If the Second referred to hunting then we could sue state game commissions for limiting our right to hunt with seasons, limits, and such

  • Ted S.||

    "The purpose of this bill is to get... weapons of war off the streets."

    Why then is DoD selling surplus materiel to police departments

  • Tim||

    Weapons protecting Senators are OK. Weapons the might be used against Senators however...

  • Jordan||

    "These weapons are not for hunting deer -- they’re for hunting people."

    Irrelevant. An item doesn't need a purpose - any purpose - for me to own it. I have the right to own "assault weapons" merely because they exist.

  • Randian||

    We have a winner.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Who needs these military-style assault weapons? Who needs an ammunition feeding device capable of holding 100 rounds?

    I do, bitch. In the event that I need to defend my home against an invader, including those who would come to confiscate my firearms, I'd like to have every advantage I can get.

    How I choose to defend my home is none of your goddamn business.

  • Jordan||

    And when Obama comes it out in support of this, I wonder how Shriek will contort himself to defend him.

  • John||

    He won't. Shreek is a gun grabbing fascist lying piece of shit sock puppet. All of his claims to be anything but that, have a half life of about ten nanoseconds.

  • Tim||

    Pollsters are furiously polling right now to determine what Obama's deep heartfelt reaction is.

  • Romulus Augustus||

    Someone needs to amend her bill to require her to do the door knocking.
    Especially at some remote Montana compound or Detroit crack house.

  • Randian||

    Or in a holler in Kentucky.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    "Holler"? Fucking "holler"?

    *facepalm*

  • Randian||

    What? That's how it's spelled.

  • sloopyinca||

    Having some hill people in my family tree, I was always led to believe it was spelled "hollow" but was pronounced "holler".

    Where's -enry -iggins?

  • ||

    Well, in Okie-land, and John can back me up on this, it's not uncommon for countrifried folk to pronounce "window" as "winder", or most other words ending in "-ow", or a long "o" vowel pronunciation in general.

  • Virginian||

    I've watched all three seasons of Justified. It's holler.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Having some hill people in my family tree, I was always led to believe it was spelled "hollow" but was pronounced "holler".

    Ding ding ding!

    We here in KY also say tomater.

  • Cdr Lytton||

    What, that water running through there isn't a crick?

  • sloopyinca||

  • Bobarian||

    Uhh, because wiki is the definitive source on everything?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • sloopyinca||

    We don't need all of your sciencey linguistic jingo-jango.

  • ||

    I do sloop. -D

  • Randian||

    You know, if Diane Feinstein were smart, she wouldn't overplay her hand. I could actually see some kind of marginal move for gun control fly through Congress, but the second you talk about confiscation, all you have done is galvanize the opposition.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Diane Feinstein was on the air Sunday, she's going to introduce another assault weapons bill, including confiscation of existing.

    I hope she plans on taking full responsibility for the much more than 26 dead if this were to somehow pass. If something like this were to pass, a lot of people would die.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Egyptian Islamists have won the vote on a draft constitution. Liberal and leftist rivals are claiming vote rigging took place.

    There goes Obama siding with conservatives again. This time in Egypt.

  • wareagle||

    the Obama White House made the election of these folks possible. Who could have possibly foreseen voting irregularities were they to come to power? Your guy and Hillary own this one.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    By NOT intervening in Egypt? You do know this is a non-interventionist LP site, don't you?

    Maybe you don't.

  • wareagle||

    keep spinning. BO was all about "Mubarak must go" when anyone with a pulse, anyone but you evidently, knew his successor would be the Brotherhood.

    Verbally intervening and cheerleading the ouster of someone you were giving money to a couple of weeks earlier is still intervening. Even by your standards, your arguments reeks of intellectual dishonesty and outright bullshit.

  • sloopyinca||

    You can't intervene in the war leading up to the vote and call yourself a non-interventionist because you took the weekend off, asshole.

  • SugarFree||

    Bitch, Are You Retarded?

    EVERY WOMAN HAS A GIRLFRIEND WHO NEEDS THIS BOOK! Carlos J. Lee has been every "bad boy" that you have ever dated. He's a former dog, liar, cheater, a*****e*, user, manipulator and has slept with hundreds of women. He is here to teach you that when it comes to the man in your life it only comes down to three things, either he loves you, or he's in love with you and when to walk away! You will learn the difference between possessing a mans mind and his heart. You will also learn what most women don't know about a man, which is, a man knows within the first five minutes of meeting a woman, what role he wants her to play in his life. These are the reasons why most women find themselves heartbroken, frustrated, and losing sleep. They don't know the difference and are unaware. Today is your awakening, your epiphany and new beginning
  • John||

    How hard is it for a woman to figure out that every man who is nice to her wants to sleep with her and that you judge people by their actions not their words?

  • LTC(ret) John||

    I would think that if you bought that book, the answer would be "Yes".

  • Tim||

    A girlfriend, right.

  • Randian||

    How lazy do you have to be to go histrionic about some irrelevant self-published piece of crap?

    If it were 1999, Jezebel would be trolling MySpace and Livejournal and saying "Why does Google link to Nazis?"

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    The most hilarious thing is the Jizzie in the comments going off on the use of the "R-Word".

  • nicole||

    Sadly, that is the word I am most careful about using if I don't already know how my interlocutor(s) feel(s) about it.

  • T||

    In a similar vein, 'spaz' is apparently so offensive in Britain that it's banned from TV. The Spastics Society did some yeoman work brainwashing over there.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    It's only offensive if you use a rhotic /a/ in the second syllable.

  • SugarFree||

    The retard cops want to have their cake and eat it too. No one with mental disabilities would be called a "retard" by medical (or other) professions, but if it is used, they want to object to it as being a reference to people with mental disabilities, as opposed to how it is being used to reference people without mental disabilities being a dumbass.

    Eventually it will be no more objectionable than moron, or idiot or imbecile, which also started out as medical terms. Until then, insisting that "retard" is verboten only makes certain people want to use it more.

  • nicole||

    they want to object to it as being a reference to people with mental disabilities, as opposed to how it is being used to reference people without mental disabilities being a dumbass.

    I am very confused by what exactly it is they are upset about. Are they upset that you are comparing non-mentally-disabled stupidity to the mentally disabled? That you are implying the mentally disabled are "retarded"? That you are implying the non-mentally-disabled are in fact mentally disabled? I read something once about how it was wrong because of "othering" but obviously that didn't help me understand anything. And I say this as someone with a close family member with Down syndrome, and a whole set of family members who hate the word (and, of course, can't explain why).

  • SugarFree||

    "Retard" has become an insult, they don't want someone they love insulted. I understand it. But you don't get angry at an insult that doesn't apply to you or someone you are protective of at least in some way.

    It used to be a accurate, dispassionate medical description. It isn't any longer, but since it has been made an insult it becomes insulting retroactively.

  • ||

    Basically, nicole, when that situation happens in those families, the word "Retard" had now devolved into "N-word Privilege", and what they don't want is a dilution of the word "retarded" to what "idiot", "imbecile", and "moron" have devolved into today, as I am sure you know those were the original medical classifications of mental retardation, and don't want to see that happen with the word "retarded" and want to protect the integrity of the original definition.

  • ||

    What the hell is a*****e*?

  • Randian||

    asshole.

  • SugarFree||

    You could have simply answered his question without being a jerk about it, Randian.

  • Randian||

    I am so glad you're here to be my "straight*" man.

    * - your appearance in Jethro/Sugar slashfic notwithstanding

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Why censor the punctuation mark?

  • SugarFree||

    TMZ has a heart-warming story about the surging in Hillbilly P0rn, but the spam filter won't let me link to it in any way.

    All I'm going to say: Ozark Sex Fiends.

  • Tim||

    Ellie May fetishists?

  • ||

    Ozark Sex Fiends is all you say, anyway

    From the comments

    It's OK by me...as long as the sheep are paid scale.
  • T||

    If I want to see your home movies, I'll ask. Until then, please don't bring them up.

  • Brett L||

    Lookit them teeth! She must have 8 or 9!

  • waaminn||

    Sounds like a pretty solid plan to me dude. Wow.

    www.Anon-ot.tk

  • Lord Humungus||

    I for one am getting a little tired of the CT talk...

    The lefties and mommy-types are going full retard with gun control. FB is a case in point where I pulled a recent post suggesting that nuts are well, nuts.

    The righties - perfect example is one of my co-workers - is going full retard about cultural decay: video games, tv shows, lack of good fathers, etc.

    I'll just slip on my headphones and watch the world burn with a soundtrack of my own choosing.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edtEpPhSk20

  • Romulus Augustus||

    The righties may be on to something just not in the way they view it. Our culture is submerged in messages - originating from both GOP and Democrat sources - that one has no duty to respect the rights of others. Every stump speech, inaugural address, State of the Union speech, etc. is full of rhetoric about why it is o.k. to take from the unwilling. Why else would someone punch another in the face when the other objected to forced dues to join his club? Or god's men on earth decide to cover up predatory sex against children? Or cause non-christians to have to pay for the upkeep of public property that displays a nativity scene that a christian is too lazy, cheap or embarrassed to put on his own front lawn? A cultural just dripping with rights violations doesn't have to wait long for its less restrained members to act out their revenge on those who get in their way.

  • Randian||

    I'm sympathetic to the overarching point but trying to shoehorn in one's hobby horse where it doesn't fit is what everyone is doing right now.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Not to mention the constant justification of killing kids we hear from The One and his lackies. Collateral damage is seen as a regular occurrence that is necessary in order to get your target. Why should this kid look at kindergartners any differently than Obama looks at innocent kids in Pakistan?

    Each has a target, and there is acceptable damage (which is also substantial) that can occur in order to get said target.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Bloomberg Butt Shaking Chick goes full retard concern troll right out of the gate. What a surprise.

    TRAGEHORRIFIGASMZZZ!

    What better time than now for a benevolent dictator to save us from ourselves? I wonder if her boss knows anybody who might want that job.

    Now I'm listening to Jimi Hendrix, and I feel much better.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Butt Shaking Chick

    Wait, what?

  • db||

    If significant gun control legislation is enacted in the U.S., what will this mean for the secession movements in several states?

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Gov Haley will appoint Tim Scott at noon today.

    This reeks of affirmative action PC-ness.

  • Randian||

    You're a racist, shrike.

  • SIV||

    STFU KKKlan-boy.

  • Randian||

    I actually really have no problem calling shrike a racist here. He sees a black person succeed and thinks "affirmative action". Incredible.

  • John||

    Incredible but unsurprising. Liberals are generally racist.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Not true. Tiger Woods, Michael Jordon, and Obama earned their way up. I believe in the merit system and am totally opposed to someone being chosen for a job based on skin color as Tim Scott now has been. He is just a first term Rep.

  • Virginian||

    Tiger Woods, Michael Jordon, and Obama earned their way up.

    One of these things is not like the other.....

    Oh and you misspelled Jordan. Dumbass.

  • John||

    SHut up sock puppet. You don't believe anything of the sort. You are a fucking Democrat and believe in racial set asides, affirmative action and so forth because you are racist pustule on the ass of America.

    No go fucking die.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Fuck off, Red Tony.

    You won't hear me spouting Team Blue trash. I support the RTKB as well as cutting Medicare/caid.

  • John||

    No you don't sock puppet.

  • Lord Humungus||

    Obama

    *snort*

  • Way Of The Crane||

    We locked up the insane for hundreds of years before the 1960s. Was the US in 1940 a Soviet Style state?

    Why is it that when you think of successful black people you're first two examples are people who are good at sports?

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    OK, throw Oprah and Colin Powell (GOP) in.

  • wareagle||

    two more examples that have no correlation to Obama beyond skin color.

  • Whahappan?||

    As opposed to a first term Sen.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Wait, what?

    Dumb redheaded co-anchor set ornament.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    itrying to shoehorn in one's hobby horse where it doesn't fit is what everyone is doing right now.

    But what else should I do with this shiny hammer I have been saving for just such an occasion? Ooh, I see another nail!

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Collateral damage is seen as a regular occurrence that is necessary in order to get your target. Why should this kid look at kindergartners any differently than Obama looks at innocent kids in Pakistan?

    But Obama wants to make the world a better place!

    The ends justify the means.

  • Brett L||

    I heard a report on the radio this morning, that I haven't found a web story for yet, that Gov. Scott in FL is going to push for all private schools that take public funding (charter schools, basically) to be subject to the FCAT and other public school regulations. Its like they can't help but fuck themselves over.

  • sloopyinca||

    Want to vomit? Read this Bloomberg study on police pay in America.

    I'll be gone for a while, being sick to my stomach.

  • Whiterun Guard||

    So this is one of those "Taste this, does it taste rotten to you?" moments?

    I'll pass.

    But I assume it does line up with the old Chinese philosophy of over-paying and allowing a certain amount of corruption in bureaucrats so that they're at least harder to bribe.

  • sloopyinca||

    I'll just tell you this: the value $484,000 is in the story next to the word "salary".

  • Whiterun Guard||

    That sounds pretty reasonable to me. He also has a cap of 5 cops per city, right?

  • ||

    There is much truth to this. Canada pays it's physicians pretty well to prevent bribery for line jumpers (not to mention keeping a short leash on practitioner's scope of practice).

    Whereas in the UKR, dcotors employed by State-Run hospitals and polikliniki routinely accept bribes, called "donations" for line jumpers, even though medical care is supposed to be "free" or at a miniscule cost to the patient.

    A doc I met recently gives his two kopekii...

  • ||

    I know we don't like PoliceOne around here, and I'm as turned off by emtion-based appeals to authority as any other rational adult, but I found this interesting:

    http://www.policeone.com/activ.....structors/

    Read the comments. As we all know, to post comments on PoliceOne, you have to be verified as an LEO. So you know what you're reading are the opinions of current or former LEOs. Anyway, my takeaway, after perusing the comments:

    - The commenters are almost uniformly against any new gun-control, including AWB.

    - Many specifically voice support for CCW.

    - Many openly acknowledge that a cop isn't going to be there when needed.

    - They realize that deranged shooters are going to specifically target "gun free" zones.

    - Ballpark, more than half believe that arming teachers is a great idea, or if not arming teachers, then paying retired or reserve officers to guard schools.

    Anyway, we all have family or friends of the "guns are icky" mindset, and it might be fun to gauge their reactions when you point out to them the law enforcement, at least rank-and-file cops, are overwhelming against gun control and overwhelming in favor of an armed populace.

  • ||

    On a LOL note, one of the comments just posted suggested yanking funding for sports, band, and drama classes and putting that money toward security.

    "Moar gunz less glee club fagz!"

  • Brett L||

    "Fuck your kids' high school experience, pay me."

  • Whiterun Guard||

    Anyway, we all have family or friends of the "guns are icky" mindset, and it might be fun to gauge their reactions when you point out to them the law enforcement, at least rank-and-file cops, are overwhelming against gun control and overwhelming in favor of an armed populace.

    Meh, self-contradictory beliefs are common to all religions. I think all you'd get is "Syntax Error" type returns, if you could engage them to apply enough rationality to even look at another persons opinion.

  • sloopyinca||

    Yeah, I posted that link the other day when there were a lot fewer comments on it. Looks like they're split down the middle, as they tend to be on "civilians" exercising their 2A Rights. One thing on there is constant, though: their solutions almost always involve giving their protected class more and more firepower or control over "the sheep".

  • ||

    Looks like they're split down the middle, as they tend to be on "civilians" exercising their 2A Rights.

    I haven't actually tallied the comments, but from what I've gleaned, the cops there - and in general - lean heavily toward pro-RKBA. I've seen plenty of surveys that relfected this, at least when the rank and file were polled, as opposed to chiefs and commisioners (who are political animals).

    their solutions almost always involve giving their protected class more and more firepower or control over "the sheep".

    I've noticed many of them throwing that word around, at the same time referring to themselves as "sheepdogs" or even "wolves." "Civilian" might as well be a piece of punctuation, as often as it's used.

  • nicole||

    I've noticed many of them throwing that word around, at the same time referring to themselves as "sheepdogs" or even "wolves."

    Um...there is kind of a difference between sheepdogs and wolves, as they relate to sheep...

  • sloopyinca||

    I spend a lot of time there, so I'll clear this all up. They say there are wolves, sheepdogs and sheep.

    Wolves: anybody they suspect of a crime. Also referred to as scumbag, POS, dirtbag, filth and criminal

    Sheepdogs: any person that has ever worn a badge under all circumstances up to and often even after they are convicted of a felony for abuse of power, assault or even murder

    Sheep: any person not in the two categories mentioned above

  • nicole||

    Thanks, sloopy, that makes more sense.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    What are the odds every school in America features a uniformed cop sitting on his useless ass in a year?

  • Zeb||

    I thought they already did.

  • Brett L||

    I got hammered in the Pick'em league this weekend, but it was totally worth it to watch Eli post a goose-egg and the Pats fall short. Also, fuck the Lions. They're done for the year. Same with the Chargers.

  • sloopyinca||

    Ghost's Boasts has gotten a stranglehold on the overall record lead. I'm hoping to hang on to the points lead.

  • ||

    I got hammered in the Pick'em league this weekend, but it was totally worth it to watch Eli post a goose-egg and the Pats fall short. Also, fuck the Lions. They're done for the year. Same with the Chargers.

    I derived no small satisfaction from seeing Green Bay beat Chicago, and it warmed my cockles to see Buffalo thoroughly sodomized by Seattle. And if there's any comfort in seeing my Jaguars schooled by Miami, it's that we're very much in the running for the No. 1 pick in next year's draft.

  • Brett L||

    Picking Blaine Gabbert's replacement with that No. 1?

  • Whiterun Guard||

    I don't know, they need a new punter too...and if they wait 'til the 6th round to draft one, they may only get the 2nd or 3rd best punter in the draft...

  • ||

    Picking Blaine Gabbert's replacement with that No. 1?

    Let's hope. I just wish we'd had No. 1 (or hell, even No. 2!) in the 2012 draft. Then we'd possibly be sitting where Indy and Washington are right now: not necessarily playoff-bound, but certainly on the rise with an energized fan base.

  • Brett L||

    My Texans lived through David Carr's mediocrity, you can live through Gabbert's. (Or Tebow's)

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Then we'd possibly be sitting where Indy and Washington are right now: not necessarily playoff-bound, but certainly on the rise with an energized fan base.

    Maybe--but look at Kansas City. They parlayed some early success into establishing a strong, stable fanbase, even though they've been largely mediocre for decades. But KC has one advantage--who the fuck wants to move to KC? So they have a lot of native fans whose loyalties were nurtured over the years.

    Florida pro teams have a distinct disadvantage in that the population of the state is so migratory; everyone is from somewhere else. Hence, you get a lot of bandwagon seasons. When the Heat are doing really well, the arena's packed, but otherwise no one goes to the games. The baseball teams can't even get fans to attend unless they go to the World Series. So unless J-ville can turn it around automatically, the fans aren't going to get excited anyway.

  • sloopyinca||

    Having the #1 pick in the upcoming draft is like getting to kiss Miss Cold Sore America. Yeah, it sounds good and all until you get a good look at it.

  • Brett L||

    Given the Jags' lack of depth at, well, every position, there has to be someone they can take who would make an immediate impact. An O-lineman or that linebacker from Notre Dame or someone.

  • Whiterun Guard||

    O-lineman? Linebacker? We need at least 4 more back-up kickers and punters. It's called football, after all.

  • Whiterun Guard||

    Actually getting to kiss Miss Cold Sore America doesn't sound good at all.

  • Enough About Palin||

    "Connecticut State Police are saying that anyone who posts fake information regarding the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting could face arrest."

    I would say that given the court's ruling that it is not illegal to lie about ones war record, this will not stand.

  • ||

    "Connecticut State Police are saying that anyone who posts fake information regarding the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting could face arrest."

    Okay: "Sandy Hook was the dastardly work of Free Masons!"

    Come and get me, coppers!

  • Bobarian||

    Thats not fake...

    And when the Freemasons get you, you'll wish it would have been the cops.

  • Fluffy||

    So it is your contention that no one should ever be involuntarily committed for any reason other than conviction of a crime?

    John, we don't currently have even one piece of information that would lead us to believe that easier involuntary commitment would have had any impact on the Lanza event whatsoever.

    Remember, until a year and a half ago, his mother could have committed him against his will whenever she wanted and he couldn't have said fucking shit about it.

    I bet nobody was more surprised than his mother when the first bullet went through her skull.

    Everything I hear about this guy makes me think this was garden variety social anxiety disorder plus depression. The former condition maybe was worsened by an autism spectrum disorder. Nobody has said one word about anything that even sounds like psychosis. Nobody has said one word about previous violence. What were they going to involuntarily commit the kid FOR?

    My prediction on this kid is that it turns out that he killed these kids out of "envy of the normal". These extreme S.A.D. cases sometimes seethe with resentment at normal, happy people who aren't fucking losers like they are. I'll bet you anything Lanza decided that "people would notice him for a change" and that he chose these kids both because it would be newsworthy and because to him they represented happy, normal people valued by others (everything he was not).

  • JW||

    John, we don't currently have even one piece of information that would lead us to believe that easier involuntary commitment would have had any impact on the Lanza event whatsoever.

    And Fluffy nails it.

  • John||

    Not true

    But not long before the shooting at Sandy Hook Nancy Lanza expressed concerns that her troubled young son was spiraling out of control.

    An anonymous friend said Nancy had confided he was 'getting worse' over craft beers just days before the shooting.

    'I don't know. I'm worried I'm losing him,' the friend quoted her.

    The friend added that Nancy believed her son was hurting himself.

    'Nancy told me he was burning himself with a lighter. In the ankles or arms or something,' he recalled of a conversation they had roughly one year ago. 'It was like he was trying to feel something.'

    'I asked her if she was getting him help and she said she was,' the friend recalled....

    Former classmate Olivia DeVivo said she remembered Lanza talking about ‘blowing things up’, but added: ‘I put that down to the usual talk of boys. I think he went so unnoticed people didn’t stop to think, “There’s something going on here – maybe he needs some kind of help?”

    ‘No one is surprised. He always seemed like he was someone who was capable of that because he didn’t really connect with our high school, with our town.’

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new.....loner.html

    He wasn't just a typical Aspy. When the kid with that history was burning himself, he probably should have been committed then.

  • nicole||

    When the kid with that history was burning himself, he probably should have been committed then.

    Why should someone be committed for harming himself only? The mother in fact could have had him committed for such a thing, because in most (all?) states current law allows involuntary commitment if one is "a danger to oneself," not just "others," but do you really think that's an appropriate standard? That someone shouldn't be left alone to harm himself if he so chooses? How is that not precisely what libertarians believe should be the case?

  • Fluffy||

    She could have committed him just for fucking laughs before he was 18.

    And she didn't.

    So we're asked to believe that easier IC would have stopped this, even though his mother could have involuntarily committed him the entire time he was a minor and didn't.

    We're also asked to believe that the mother chose to train and arm someone she believed to be criminally insane. Give me a break.

    And minor self-abuse with a lighter would be a terrible standard. I know people who would routinely do the T E Lawrence match trick in college just to show off. And if you start making "cutting" a standard for IC you better be prepared to commit 15 to 20% of the white college-aged female population of the country.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    She could have committed him just for fucking laughs before he was 18.

    And she didn't.

    Maybe she was in denial--it's not out of the realm of possibility that she would have seen committing her son as a failure on her part, especially considering she had just divorced his father and by committing her son, it would mean admitting that she couldn't handle his idiosyncracies on her own.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Incidentally, I agree with you that he killed these people out of "envy of the normal," but I also think he had a lot of resentment towards his mother as well. I don't think it's any coincidence that he killed her first, then immeidately went to the school where she had worked to wreak havoc, instead of going to his father's house to ambush him there.

  • ||

    If he wanted to walk into oncoming traffic, or better yet, if your BF wanted to walk into oncoming traffic while you are physically present there, would you let him, nicole? Or let him jump off a balcony? Perhaps let him thrown himself down a flight of stairs? Or a lovely one, eat an entire bottle of APAP?

    This is not a troll, but a serious question asked in earnest, as these things do happen.

  • nicole||

    if your BF wanted to walk into oncoming traffic while you are physically present there, would you let him

    Probably not, I would do whatever I could verbally and physically to stop him, including pulling or pushing him out of the way if possible, and it would be for the kinds of shitty, semi-ethical reasons that fly only in deep personal relationships--i.e., because I would be selfish enough to attempt to force him to live against his will. That's what I would see it as, just as I have seen the reverse situation the same way. But to involve the state in that selfish use of force would be to make life even less livable after the fact. It would be unconscionable. And I don't know if I would ever forgive myself for not respecting his wishes.

  • ||

    But to involve the state in that selfish use of force would be to make life even less livable after the fact. It would be unconscionable. And I don't know if I would ever forgive myself for not respecting his wishes.

    Thank you for answering the question, nicole. -)

    This is precisely why I argue so vehemently for government out of medicine. Unfortunately, most doctors and nurses (ESPECIALLY NURSES) don't agree with my POV regarding liberty and medical care. Neither do most patients, as they forget that whenever you ask another party to pay for your medical care, they do have moral and fiduciary standing to dictate care.

    And very few people will allow another to TX them and absolve the practitioner (licensed or otherwise) of responsibility of a course of TX goes awry, which unfortunately also happens, as medical is provided with the highest confidence interval of successful resolution of a given malady (either physical ailment or psychiatric) and not a 100% guarantee of total, complete resolution of outcome complication free.

    Even fewer people want to assume total risk of their health and medical themselves.

  • nicole||

    No problem. Believe me, I know I'm out of the mainstream here. As in many other areas ;)

  • $park¥||

    My opinion, stop them once and try to figure out why or convince them it's the wrong thing to do. If it happens again, leave them be to do whatever it is they're going to do.

  • ||

    Serious question, do you parent your children this way, Sparky?

    Also, have you witnessed people dying in front of your eyes? Most people haven't, absent relatives dying in the hospital or nursing home, or combat veterans. Some people die is especially painful and unpleasant ways. (Google APAP overdose.)

    Otherwise, it's medical people who deal with this sort of thing, and it's not as easy as it looks, Sparky.

    Anacreon can back me up on this one as well.

  • $park¥||

    Serious question, do you parent your children this way, Sparky?

    I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this, but yes I would do this even if it were my children.

    Also, have you witnessed people dying in front of your eyes?

    No I haven't, but I'm not sure how that would change things.

    Otherwise, it's medical people who deal with this sort of thing, and it's not as easy as it looks, Sparky.

    I don't ask that other people follow my views. If you don't, you don't. It is my personal opinion that true freedom includes the freedom to die if you choose to. If one of my children committed suicide I would feel very slightly responsible as a parent for not teaching them better, but only slightly as compared to the disgust at them for ending their own life.

  • ||

    I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this, but yes I would do this even if it were my children.

    You would let your children eat an entire bottle of APAP? Forgive me for calling bullshit, but I don't believe you. I believe you would stop them or take them to an ER stat.

    No I haven't, but I'm not sure how that would change things.

    If one of my children committed suicide I would feel very slightly responsible as a parent for not teaching them better, but only slightly as compared to the disgust at them for ending their own life.

    If you believe totally, 100% in self-ownership, why feel any emotion at all? Or bother to render assistance? Or feel any responsibility at all?

    The reason I asked this is I don't believe for one New York minute, from engaging you over the year(s?), you would stand idly by.

  • $park¥||

    If you believe totally, 100% in self-ownership, why feel any emotion at all? Or bother to render assistance? Or feel any responsibility at all?

    Maybe I didn't put it right. If one of my children tried to commit suicide, I would try to stop them one time. I would like to believe that I could convince them to never try to do it again. If by chance one of them succeeded, I would feel partly responsible for failing as a parent and not teaching them better.

    The reason I asked this is I don't believe for one New York minute, from engaging you over the year(s?), you would stand idly by.

    There are many things in this world that I am largely ambivalent about, suicide is not one of them. Since I know my kids well, I feel very strongly that I have impressed upon them a respect for their own lives and that neither of them would ever even think of suicide. But, that may just be the wishes of a hopeful parent.

  • $park¥||

    I am largely ambivalent about

    Let me amend that somewhat. Ambivalent and/or apathetic.

  • C. Anacreon||

    The problem with a pure libertarian view on this is that it assumes a clear-thinking individual. The vast majority of people who are seen involuntarily as a danger to self or danger to others don't rise to that standard, at least not at the time of the action.

    You give me a man with Lou Gehrig disease, who knows he is headed for an incurable and awful death, who talks it out with his loved ones and decides he wants to die today instead? I support that one-hundred percent.

    But what about the person who has a psychotic confusion that causes him to walk into a busy freeway, thinking there is nothing to fear? The drunk college student who just broke up with their significant other, and in a fleeting and regretful act, swallows a bottle of tylenol?

    We see dozens of people like this every day. Almost all get better quite quickly and are very thankful for the help. We then get them home as soon as possible. Why would we want to "lock them up" for any longer than necessary? We are caregivers, we want to help, not harm.

    In the other interpretation, we would just let all these people die, because that is their "right."

  • nicole||

    The problem with a pure libertarian view on this is that it assumes a clear-thinking individual. ...we would just let all these people die, because that is their "right."

    Who can determine who is and isn't clear-thinking, and thus who does and does not have the right to choose when to live or die? How do you know whether the "drunk college student" will regret his actions when you decide to "help" him?

    Almost all get better quite quickly and are very thankful for the help. We then get them home as soon as possible. Why would we want to "lock them up" for any longer than necessary? We are caregivers, we want to help, not harm.

    What if, instead of "getting better," they still want to die? Do they stay locked up because they aren't thankful for the "help," because it's still "necessary" to save their lives?

  • C. Anacreon||

    Who can determine who is and isn't clear-thinking, and thus who does and does not have the right to choose when to live or die?

    I don't want this to devolve into a "top men" argument, but for those of us who see thousands of emergency patients a year (on top of years of training), determining who is clear-thinking is not difficult, and that determination usually has little to do with their suicidality per se.

    The laws are usually set up to say a person can be held for evaluation if they are a danger to self or others because of a mental illness. No mental illness, can't hold them. That's why skydivers, who some could say are dangers to themselves, and mafia hit men who are dangerous to others aren't kept in psychiatric hospitals. (cont.)

  • C. Anacreon||

    (cont.)
    Though I have no doubt that there are abuses, realize there is no reason to keep people in psychiatric hospitals if there isn't something treatable. Psychiatrists are not jailers and have no reason to lock people up -- it is a lot of work, a lot of testifying in court (our hospital has an on-grounds superior court just for psychiatric cases, and docs have to go there four days a week,) and there is no reimbursement for someone who is not ill. Docs aren't like the jail psychiatrist in Terminator II, they just want to do their job as well as they can, and get home to their families like the rest of us.

    We almost never get complaints in our ER about keeping someone against their will. But we get complaints every day about discharging people. Typically it goes, "Doctor, I can't believe you are releasing him/her! Something is going to go very wrong, and then we will sue you." I always answer about patients' rights, and then tell them the correct spelling of my name in case they need to subpoena me.

  • nicole||

    In my state, "mentally ill" or not, you can be involuntarily committed if anyone testifies that you are an immediate danger to yourself. So if you are 100% clear-thinking and state an intention to kill yourself to someone who knows they can and would like to commit you, boom, you're locked up for up to 72 hours. There may be "no reason to keep people in psychiatric hospitals if there isn't something treatable," but there isn't exactly a shortage of people who think being suicidal is prima facie evidence of mental illness that should be treated.

  • $park¥||

    1. I am not a libertarian.
    2. If you stop someone from committing suicide, what do you do next time?
    3. How much time and resources do you spend trying to stop someone from committing suicide?
    4. I don't begrudge you wanting to save a life if at all possible, but sometimes it isn't possible.

    As I see it, the two most evil acts that humanity is capable of are slavery and suicide. It is 100% my opinion that people who WANT to die should be allowed to do so for the betterment of everyone else in the world.

  • C. Anacreon||

    The problem with a pure libertarian view on this is that it assumes a clear-thinking individual. The vast majority of people who are seen involuntarily as a danger to self or danger to others don't rise to that standard, at least not at the time of the action.

    You give me a man with Lou Gehrig disease, who knows he is headed for an incurable and awful death, who talks it out with his loved ones and decides he wants to die today instead? I support that one-hundred percent.

    But what about the person who has a psychotic confusion that causes him to walk into a busy freeway, thinking there is nothing to fear? The drunk college student who just broke up with their significant other, and in a fleeting and regretful act, swallows a bottle of tylenol?

    We see dozens of people like this every day. Almost all get better quite quickly and are very thankful for the help. We then get them home as soon as possible. Why would we want to "lock them up" for any longer than necessary? We are caregivers, we want to help, not harm.

    In the other interpretation, we would just let all these people die, because that is their "right."

  • Brett L||

    Tasers are non lethal!

    PITTSBURGH (KDKA) – The former Rankin Police chief died Friday after an apparent heart attack, while in police custody following an altercation with his estranged wife and her male companion.
    ...
    When Briston didn’t comply, true to their word, police say he was Tased in the “upper right leg” one time for two seconds.
    ...
    Police called Cannonsburg Ambulance and Briston went into cardiac arrest.

  • db||

    Tasers are non-lethal less than lethal less lethal!

  • The Late P Brooks||

    I have steadfastly avoided any intentional contact with coverage of the school shooting. I have heard bits and pieces, though, and what disturbs me even more than standard run-of-the-mill anti gunner huffing and puffing are the people who eagerly beat the drum for involuntary commitment.

    Based on the historical record of government efficiency, how many harmless eccentrics would be ensnared in the obsessive quest for one truly dangerous malcontent?

  • John||

    Based on the historical record of government efficiency, how many harmless eccentrics would be ensnared in the obsessive quest for one truly dangerous malcontent?

    Based on the actual historical record of when we did this, fewer than you think. We never had a homeless problem in this country until we got rid of voluntary commitment. Go to any major city and you will see obviously ill people wandering the streets living in filth. Were their lives better in mental institutions? Hard to say. But it is doubtful it was any worse.

    I am not convinced either way to be honest. But Libertarians don't help themselves by pretending that One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Next was reality.

  • Fluffy||

    We never had a homeless problem in this country until we got rid of voluntary commitment.

    This really isn't true.

    It's propaganda put out by (drumroll) people seeking funding for programs focused on mental illness and substance abuse.

    There have been winos and bums in every major American city since the first moment they became cities.

    Do you know how many major movies and novels from the 30's and 40's alone revolve around a bum or a tramp?

    We had such a huge homeless population that ONE SMALL SLIVER OF IT - homeless bums that liked to ride trains - became a legendary subculture.

    We never had the visible homeless problem we do now not because of IC but because cops had carte blanche to beat the shit out of hobos that strayed out of Skid Row. Now the homeless can wander into "nice" neighborhoods to beg without getting their skulls cracked, so we see them more.

  • ||

    I have steadfastly avoided any intentional contact with coverage of the school shooting.

    I've been doing precisely the same.

    . . . people who eagerly beat the drum for involuntary commitment.

    That, and laying the blame on violent video games, TV shows, and movies.

    I myself am wondering if this kid was on some sort of anti-depressant. I've read that's a common theme in these mass shootings.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    ‘No one is surprised. He always seemed like he was someone who was capable of that because he didn’t really connect with our high school, with our town.’

    Yes; this is plainly a sufficiently rigorous test. Let the rounding up commence!

  • nicole||

    Seriously. OMG YOU DON'T CONNECT WITH OUR TOWN??? She's a witch!

  • db||

    In an article linked to from here over the weekend, a sociology professor at Penn likens the search to the millions of people searched by TSA in the quest to find the very rare potential hijacker/bomber.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    We never had a homeless problem in this country until we got rid of voluntary commitment.

    Who's imagineering history, now?

    We had a substantially reduced homeless problem before the urban planners went all out to eliminate tenements affordable urban housing and single-room-occupancy hotels. We also had a less obvious problem with the"un/underemployable" before we piled ten thousand pages of employment law on the people who could give some smelly hobo a job for a day or two in exchange for a meal or a place to sleep.

    In the country, the "homeless" were harder to see, but they were out there.

  • Fluffy||

    I did see one factoid in a gun control article linked to this tragedy that I didn't know before:

    Apparently after receiving death threats Martin Luther King, Jr. applied for a gun permit so that he could get a gun for self-protection.

    His application was denied.

    And that right there, ladies and gentlemen, is the reason we can never have "reasonable" gun control, even in the wake of horrible tragedies like what happened in Connecticut. Because whatever you think of MLK (and I tend to think that the stories that he was a Communist and in many ways a son-of-a-bitch are - gasp! - true) here's one thing I think we should be able to agree on: out of all the Americans to ever apply for a gun permit, he was probably the man least likely to abuse the "privilege". But he was denied.

    If the state can't be trusted to acknowledge that Martin Fucking Luther King Fucking Junior is honorable enough to be allowed to carry a gun, then it can't be trusted to administer "reasonable gun control". Sorry.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Apparently after receiving death threats Martin Luther King, Jr. applied for a gun permit so that he could get a gun for self-protection.

    I think "may issue" is complete bullshit, but how could anybody deny the legitimacy of that application?

    Except for somebody who really wants to see King rubbed out, that is.

  • Fluffy||

    That's the whole point.

    It's why the gun control argument is either delusional or in bad faith.

    It's also, partially, why I think the "we need more involuntary commitment" argument isn't really on point here, either.

    There is no gun control regime other than a total ban on all private gun possession whatsoever that would have stopped this. Because "rich, blonde white lady living in $1.5 million house whose ex-husband heads a GE Capital unit" will always get approved to get a gun, in any situation not involving a total ban. And MLK won't. So "sensible gun control" will be good at getting uppity black activists killed, and really, really bad at stopping rich white boys from shooting up elementary schools.

    And if rich blonde white lady doesn't think her son is crazy and won't commit him, he won't get committed. Under any feasible commitment regime. So easing up on commitment standards will make it much easier for Britney Spears' family to steal her money, but won't do anything to stop rich white boys from shooting up elementary schools, as long as they have their mom's support.

  • ||

    There is no gun control regime other than a total ban on all private gun possession whatsoever that would have stopped this.

    A crazy person bent on shooting up a school will always be able to get whatever guns he desires in order to do so. Even with an outright ban on all private gun ownership, the best you could hope for is that he'd have to jump through a few more hoops and pay a higher price.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement