The Supreme court will soon announce if they will hear an appeal case from Washington DC.
Washington DC has a long history of being wildly liberal. A few decades ago, they banned firearms. Total ban. As such, violenct crime has skyrocketed in Washington DC, much of it gun crime, as criminals are now not worried about their victims being armed.
The law was challenged as being a specific violation of the 2nd Amendment, which gives the right to both keep and bear firearms to the individual.
Anti-gun people claim that this Amendment only applies to militias, not the individual (even though the Amendment is in a list of Amendments applying to the individual and specifically mentions the individual, and rights given to the State Militias are covered elsewhere, leading any but the clueless and the anti-gun agenda-driven people to suggest that the 2nd Amendment applies specifically to the individual.)
If this case is not heard, or heard and the ruling deemed correct, then Washington DC citizens will, once again, be allowed to legally own firearms.
The next step would then be a concealed carry program, in which the citizen could make use of their constitutional rights to keep and bear a firearm.
Keep and Bear. those two words have meanings, despite what the left will tell you.
I find it sad yet humorous that they banned all guns and the crime rate went up.
And most anti-gun people can't see far enough down their noses to see the total failure of what they are pushing.
Not just missing the failure, but calling that failure success.
Oh man... I say we ban paper next. Yea, that'll teach those damn loggers!
lmao, or we ban cars, we'll teach those gas guzzlers.
Damn those bastards who drive to work every day!
*shakes fist angrily*
Don't you know you are killing the rare yellow-tayled Peredigm falcons with your pollution?
You laugh.
Right now, California is suing the Federal Government so that it can enact its own MUCH more leftist environmental standards plan, which would require all car manufacturers to make radical redesigned to automobiles if they want to sell any new ones in California.
This will HEAVILY hit the average person in their choices of cars, as the costs always get passed along to the consumer.
This will also affect the trucking industry, which will spread to all transportation across the US.
Wtf.
I hate you, State of California.
I also hate you, car manufacturers, for wasting my money. Hybrid cars (not trucks, torque is different from speed) are actually quite cheap to produce; they just want our $$$.
yup... power becomes an issue with the hybrids and/or the full electric cars.
Though, really, those don't remove us from fossil fuel dependence as much of the power we use is made by some form of fossil fuels.
I'd love for us to build a bunch of nuclear plants. little to no pollution.
Then we'd have enough power to justify the changeover to electric cars.
Though, the left would never allow it. Too much comes in from the fuel taxes.
The environmentalists lobbied against nuclear power and made crap up about how unsafe plants are. Now everyone is afraid of the "n" word...
: (
Yup. they demonized the only form of energy that is environmentally clean AND doesn't impact or alter the environment.
Even dams have to alter the topography of an area to produce energy...
They also block efforts to drill in a barren wasteland in Alaska, calling it a "Reserve" and claiming that it'll hurt the caribou. (The caribou are affected by oil pipelines... they congregate around them for warmth, and then breed. Liberals don't know that, for the most part.)
but..... then they blame the conservatives for our dependence on oil.
I love all the "they" "them" and "left" everyone seemed to adapt in this blog and pursuing comments. How about providing facts instead of random messages of hate. Why is crime so high in DC? Is it because of a lack of firearms or is it b/c it has some of the poorest neighborhoods in the country? Why is California forcing companies to improve fuel efficancy is it b/c they disregard the average American and simply want a clean planet or is it b/c CA is and always has been the leading state in all matters of enviorment, technology, and progress? What are the actual benefits and risks of drilling in Alaska? I can listen to the bickering forever but in the end FACTS will make me change my mind, not complaining.
Silent enim leges inter arma
Ok... Facts.
Violent crime rates SOARED after the initial DC Firearms ban in the mid 70's. Criminals knew that the victims would be unarmed, so there was no fear of victimizing them. On the contrary, violent crime has largely FELL as states instituted at least "Stand your Ground" Laws, if not also concealed carry laws. (Marion, the mayor in DC, who even got reelected after being convicted of dealing crack, said something to the effect of "Apart from the murders, Washington DC is one of the safer cities."... yeah... apart from the violence, it isn't real violent...)
Any FBI crime report study can show you that. Google is a magical thing.
As for California.... amazingly interesting choice of words you use. CA's environmental policies have lead the nation indeed..... they've kept us oil dependent by not allowing nuclear power plants, they have some of the nation's most expensive gas (due both to the very special mixes required by California, but also by the state's HIGH tax on fuel), and they also have led to an environment in which brush is not cleared away, by law, which makes for good wildfires (like the ones they just had). Making new laws to force car manufacturers to build cars to suit THEIR specific desires (or else not be allowed by law to sell a car in that state) does nothing but drive up the cost of automobiles for everyone, to no affect. Minnesota, for YEARS did car emission testing for yearly tabs. Then, after a decade of studies, they realized that even though they ensured that all cars were lower in pollution, the overall pollution across the state had not changed. As it turns out, much of the gobal warming 'raping mother earth' enviro-weenie stuff is just a myth.
As for drilling in alaska, the area has been surveyed to be able to provide enough oil to get away from needing OPEC at all. (In fact, we'd be able to domestically produce more than we import from Opec)... that would really help oil prices go down. However, thanks to the Demorats halting of drilling, we can't get it. Not only that, but it'd take 10 years or so to set that pipeline system up.
(By the way, Canada, one of our larger importers of oil, drills on the Canadian side of where we want to drill. They're drilling oil that WE could be pumping, then they sell it to us... and THEY laugh all the way to the bank.
Ok the last comment is funny to me. Canda drills in Canda...which means it is not and can never be our oil, they arent stealing oil we could possibly be getting, they're drilling their own oil to do with it as they please.
Secondly I do appreciate they you took so long to write out your thoughts about the three subjects that have been mentioned but I didnt see one indisputable fact. I don't know where you got any information b/c you don't cite any references.
For example I've read that there is less oil in Alaska than is widely believed and would last for less than six months. And also it would take ten years to get down here...so 6 months of oil for ten years of construction.
In addition, whatever CA laws are passed are made by legislators that Californians elected and thereforre believe they can do their jobs. There is a reason the entire industry would have to change if CA passed a law, CA has so many cars. In addition I would like to believe you aren't trying to bash the CA government because of a natural disaster. It has been shown by every government agency that fires are necessary to the ecosystem and that to impede in that process would be disasterous...as in removing brush statewide.
Now see both your comment and mine would be a lot better if we cited information. B/c right now it is just your word v. mine. And for some nagging reason, I still believe mine.
Silent enim leges inter arma
Canada drills on the canadian side of the border between alaska and canada (You do know that the two border each other directly, right?) the plan was to drill on the american side as well, shot down because it might disturb the caribou that actually seem to LIKE the oil pipelines.
I didnt see one indisputable fact.
No, you saw many facts, what you did not see were links to someone else saying the same thing I said. One could 'prove' anything as a fact if all they had to do was show links to the internet. Heck, according to the internet, ( http://www.thewatcherfiles.com/ ), Bush is influenced by aliens... so it must be true.
Do you have any actual evidence to prove me wrong? or just rants?
I used to provide TONS of links for things when I 'debated' on the internet, but I largely stopped. I found that if someone disagreed, it didn't matter what evidence one provides... the 'site' isn't trustable enough, or it is a 'kook' site, or it is 'based on wrong information' . . . .
In short, if you don't want to believe that water is wet, the whole ocean wouldn't satisfy you.
That last line truly made me laugh, it's a perfect way to describe the vast number of people in various websites, tv, and newspapers. Although I do believe there are plenty of "kook" sites out there on the web, there are also a few good ones. But you're right what's the point of going through all that work if the person isn't going to change their mind. I appreciate the time and effort you put in already and will let you be.
And if Bush is controlled by aliens then wouldn't he be a vastly superior human being, because any alien that had technology to get to earth is going to be vastly superior to us...just a thought.
Silent enim leges inter arma
ahh, but the pro-'we're controlled by aliens' crowd would say that is the plan.... to appear dumb.
Remember, however..... those on the left talk about his crafty plans in one sentence and how dumb he is in the next. Can't have it both ways.
Now the left doesn't even have Rove to blame it on.
Truth is, he's smart. VERY good grades in a VERY hard college. He did much better than Kerry did, in terms of grades, Kerry Averaging C's, President Bush averaging A's and a couple B's (I seem to remember hearing about him getting a C in a class in college, but never saw more proof then people talking about it.)
Charisma does not equate to intelligence. I've talked to enough super-genius scientist types to know that.
Oh I wasn't trying to imply he was stupid, even if it came off that way a bit. I know his history and I also know his grades now. I was implying that if someone was controlled by aliens those aliens would be mathematical geniuses, to discover long term space flight, brillant physicists and socially superior creatures. Bush is just a man with strengths and weaknesses.
People like to bash the President all the time for appearing stupid however we are talking about the leader of the free world...he didn't get there by being dumb and he DID do a lot of the work himself. He's not an empty vessel who just listens to the people around him.
Silent enim leges inter arma
As much as they'd like to say otherwise, you really can't become president if you're a moron.
That may be proved false if somebody elects Hillary Clinton. She's dumb as a box of rocks, and I mean that in a literal sense because she is basically incapable of thinking beyond "oh boy, now I can shut down all the businesses from this country, steal the taxpayer's money, and turn the good old US of A into a socialist nation"
Also, Al Gore came close and his grades were not so hot.
Oh, she's smart. VERY smart. Very calculated to.
She managed to win a seat as one of your senators even though she was a resident of Arkansas..... And did so as a march to the Presidency.
I know... wtf.
I just like to put her down because she pisses me off. She's a manipulative little bitch, but they are not as smart as they think, and one day they will make the wrong move and everybody will see through the Clinton Warrior Team.
I think enough voters are sheep that she has a shot.
Remember that the Democrats have effectively been failures at everything since the end of world war 2, when we gave Stalin incredible concessions.
Every war has been a failure that they've led. (and, in fact, the only time the Democrats worry about a price tag is when it is something for the military.... then they want to make sure that money can't be spent on 'better' causes, like art classes for the homeless.)
Carter caused a recession (which was stopped by Reagan). Clinton caused a recession (which was halted and reversed by a Republican Congress.) And, despite all the newspaper articles and tv whining about this 'current recession' . . . the stock market keeps going up.... each time it dips down, it recovers and gains ground.
Watch for another recession in the next couple of years, that will be blamed on republicans (even if we have a demcorat congress and democrat president), but is actually due to the increases in minimum wage.
They fail at everything, but promise free money.... so they get votes. (Especially when compared to conservatives, who suggest personal responsibility and work makes one successful.)