Jun 232016
 

So pretty much all day today I’ve been dealing with getting a book assembled. It’s of unusual format (11 inch-high pages about 40 inches long) and of only 27 pages length, but it cost enough to have printed that I only got ten. And so today I ran my butt 40 miles down the road to the print shop to get it (and a few other things that were printed), and once I got home I’ve spent the rest of the day dealing with these project. After many hours futzing around, I have a grand total of one copy of the book all assembled.

WP_20160622_002

Anyway, I was busy all day today. While driving home I heard something on the radio that made me think someone was playing a little joke, and then forgot all about it. So when I finally finished that first book, I turned on CNN to find that the House Democrats have lost their tiny little minds and have been having a childish temper tantrum all day. If you’ve somehow failed to hear, they’ve been having a “sit in” in the House preventing work from going forward because they lost votes on their initial ideas about restricting the civil liberties of American citizens without due process. Take, for example, Senator Diane Feinstein explaining that it is up to Americans to prove their innocence, a complete reversal of more than 200 years of American jurisprudence. She then goes on to say that that’s just the first step; next comes banning the average civilian firearm.

And the floor of the House looks like it has been invaded by an army of Trigglypuffs, shouting their inane slogans: “Why do you want to let terrorists buy a gun?” “No bill, no breaks!” And other such nonsense, like a bunch of idiot campus causehead protestors. At the same time they’re yapping about wanting a Real Debate, they’re shouting down anyone with an opposing view, like Louis Gohmert pointing out that the Orlando terrorist attack was, in fact, a terrorist attack:

Bah.

fark_EwSDzdYFxmyHYTyGgcrE8FAiQ8E

At left, Rep. John Lewis. He made his name in the 1960’s working for civil rights; now he’s working to curtail civil rights.

The reason I turned on CNN in the first place was to see the Libertarian town hall in hopes that maybe, just maybe, the Libertarians might give me hope this time around. But it was pre-empted by coverage of the Democrats House whine-in. It’s very unlikely, but just barely possible enough that maybe there was some thought in advance to scheduling this childish display in order to wipe out one of the few opportunities the Libertarians have of reaching the public.

And apparently Nancy Pelosi is sending out fundraising emails. Even the talking heads on CNN generally agreed that this was “gauche;” the Dems claim they’re doing this to protect families and children and puppies and baby unicorns, but it’s really just a craven and monumentally cynical publicity and fundraising stunt.

Even Raedthinn can’t stand these idjits, and he doesn’t even watch CNN.

WP_20160621_005

 Posted by at 12:06 am
  • Space Ghost

    How is it restricting civil liberties by preventing people on a terrorist watch list from owning firearms?

    Or would you prefer they just ban muslims, and people that kinda look like that they might be muslims, from owning firearms? Would that sit better with you?

    • B-Sabre

      The Constitution says that you cannot deprive a person of their rights without judicial due process – the ability to confront their accusers and make a defense before a jury of their peers. The right to bear arms is a personal right (per the Heller case) listed in the Constitution.

      The “terror watch list” (of which there are actually four) is NOT due process – it is a collection of names (which may or may not be correct) of people who SAID something, or BROWSED something, or maybe did NOTHING but have a name similar to someone who maybe SAID or DID something that somebody in Homeland Security found objectionable. A number of people who find DHS’s practices objectionable for civil liberties reasons seem to keep ending up on the list, for instance. How you get off the list is not clear, tends to be an arduous process, and there is no way to confront your accuser. And there is nothing keeping them from adding you back to the list at any time.

      TL:DR – The watch list is a flawed tool that has no due process elements in it that is being proposed to restrict constitutional rights.

      • Space Ghost

        It’s…a…TERRORIST….WATCH….LIST…..TERRORIST!

        • sferrin

          Say it louder. Jesus.

        • Scottlowther

          It’s also a “watch list.” You’re supposed to *watch* the people on the list. If you have pre-determined that they are too dangerous to fly or to exercise their Constitutional rights… then don’t just watch them, arrest them. Get on with it.

        • B-Sabre

          No, it’s a watch list of people who have tripped some arbitrary criteria that the DHS/FBI/CIA thinks is an indicator of POSSIBLE “terrorist” support or activity. Not convicted of terrorism, not even arrested for terrorism, just POSSIBLY supporting terrorism. Not something you should use to deny a person’s rights with.

          http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/06/AR2007090601386.html

          http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/23/us/politics/after-orlando-questions-over-terrorism-watch-lists.html?_r=0

          https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140624/15302927673/court-says-process-getting-off-no-fly-list-is-unconstitutional.shtml

          • sferrin

            Especially since they consider Veterans, Christians, and “preppers” as possible threats.

        • Brianna

          I swear to God, the Democrats could pass a bill to control the press and take all the guns just by calling it the “Save the Puppies and Kittens Act.”

          “But it takes away the most basic rights of every citizen.”
          “But it’s to SAVE… THE… PUPPIES!”

          And before you tell me it’s not the same, it’s exactly the same. They called it a terrorist watch list, and all of a sudden you don’t care about how people get on the list or anything. Due process? Whatzat?

        • Herp McDerp

          t’s…a…TERRORIST….WATCH….LIST…..TERRORIST!

          By your definition, Senator Edward Moore Kennedy was a TERRORIST.

          By your definition, Congressman John Lewis was a TERRORIST.

          Do you support TERRORISTS infiltrating our government?

        • Herp McDerp

          I hope you’re being paid to post this stuff, “Space Ghost.” I’d hate to
          think that anyone would give up even the appearance of having sanity or
          integrity for free.

    • sferrin

      How do you get on the watch list? How do you get off? How do you find out if you’re on it? You can’t answer any of these questions. THAT is the problem. What would “sit better” is “innocent until proven guilty” not “guilty until you prove you’re innocent” like the fascists prefer.

  • Space Ghost

    You’re in the minority, Scott. The vast majority of Americans support gun control legislation, no matter BS Fox News and Alex Jones tell you.

    • sferrin

      No they don’t. That’s why Obama has been gun salesman of the year for 8 years running. That’s why you can’t get draconian gun measures on a national level through Congress. Stick to your little Utopian shit holes and live the rest of us the hell alone.

      • Space Ghost

        Yes, they do:

        http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2016/jan/05/laura-ingraham/laura-ingraham-say-claim-90-support-gun-background/

        “Numerous respected polls from 2015 show around 90 percent support for some sort of expanded background checks for gun purchases.”

        You’re the minority and you’re crying for protection. How rich is that?

        • Scottlowther

          Kinda wonder what the percentage would be on supporting background checks on Mosque worshippers.

          • Space Ghost

            Given the fact that the majority of mass shootings are committed by people that look a lot like you, Scott, maybe they should have increased background on white males. Further checks if they are loners.

          • Scottlowther

            Given that most *murders* are committed by people who don;t look too much like me, it seems you’re focusing on the wrong thing. But that’s common… people with little ability to think rationally tend to freak out over the rare events and ignore the ones that are mundane, even if the mundane ones are by far the more dangerous. And so we wind up with fascists like yourself who obsess over mass shootings and want to cancel the Constitution, while ignoring the 300 murders that have happened in Chicago *so* *far* this year.

          • sferrin

            Given the fact that most of history’s REALLY accomplished mass-killers think like you maybe you, like Stalin, should have been killed in the crib. The world would have been a better place for sure.

          • Scottlowther

            Dude, no. Leave the death threats and wishes of death to the lefties. It’s all they have. And it looks bad on rational people.

          • publiusr

            Besides–what good is gun control if the left themselves won’t even enforce it?

            http://www.mndailynews.com/trending/30707-immigration-boss-who-blocked-homeland-security-agents-from-seizing-san-bernardino-gun-supplier-one-day-after-the-attack-is-to-receive-an-award-but-the-agency-won-t-say-why.html

            Ah yes–he didn’t wear flannel and live in Idaho–so hands off.
            Jerry Lewis really hasn’t been himself without Dean.

            Even Alan Dershowitz is condemning this little sit-in.

            http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/alan-dershowitz-house-sit-in-could/2016/06/23/id/735377/

            Forget the EM drive test. A microwave magnetron inside an old camcorder shell works better. Folks love being in front of that camera.

        • Michael

          Supporting “some sort of expanded background checks” is not gun control in the sense that the Democrats are promoting the idea. I support expanded background checks if that will include Muslims.

          • Scottlowther

            > not gun control in the sense that the Democrats are promoting the idea

            Indeed. The Dems are floating the notion once again of reviving the failed “assault weapon ban,” which is a civilian disarmament scheme.

          • Space Ghost

            As per usual with right wingers, civil rights only apply to people like them.

          • Scottlowther

            What, you mean humans? Homo sapiens? Yeah, pretty much by definition.

          • sferrin

            That’s rich coming from a party who’s only way of “discussion” is to scream like little babies. Is that you Trigglypuff?

          • sferrin

            Per usual with left wingers, constitutional rights only apply to people like them.

        • sferrin

          I’m “crying for protection”? Really? Projecting much? Who’s the one whining that Congress won’t ram through unconstitutional legislation? Oh right, that would be you. Now why would Congress commit such a horror if the people weren’t backing them? Hmmm. (And yeah, the 90% number Zero has been trotting out so long has long been debunked, which is why he doesn’t use it anymore.)

  • gormanao gormanao

    Even the NRA supported the National Firearms Act of 1934. I doubt they would today.

  • sferrin

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cc0TxHojKUM
    Regarding a post from the other day.

  • So what’s the book?

    • Scottlowther

      That’s a secret (unless you’re a $10 APR patron). And since it take me about an hour to assemble each copy… I think the ten copies I have will be the total publication run.

      • I am! Guess I’ll find out shortly.

        • Scottlowther

          Or a few days ago. The post over at the APR Patreon on the 20th describes what this is. The post hit with a deafening thud, and has drawn almost no response, so I guess it wasn’t the neato idea I thought it’d be. Probably shoulda worked that out before blowing my next mortgage payment on printing costs…