From Mark Steyn’s latest comes this swipe at Bill Nye’s moronic comments re Jooooos being more neighborly:
Yeah, if only those Jews weren’t so Jewy and stand-offish. It’s not so long ago that they were all getting on eastbound trains so they could hang out in Jew camps without any non-Jews around.
It’ll be interesting to see what’s really in the 300+ page sooper seekrit regulations the FCC is voting on today. You’d think the scum inside the Beltway would have learned their lesson re the whole “have to vote on it to see what’s in it” shuck and jive.
Both Brenda and I called out Rep’s office yesterday in regard to this; short story: nobody knows nothin’. I requested a callback from their alleged FCC policy person; Kyle Teh Drone-Minion had to be reminded to take my phone number.
Not that I’ll ever get a call; I’m pretty certain I’m on Woodall’s “FY, TW” list. Because when you cannot get a straight answer, it’s apparently also wrong to complain about not getting a straight answer. Not to mention being outright lied-to by his chief-of-staff.
These people need to be introduced to 2″x4″s with rusty 16D nails at their, shall we say, business ends. I have no representation -- nor even a ghost of a polite fiction thereof -- the “social compact” has been irrevocably broken and these scumbags ought to be held to account for their actions (or lack of same).
Cool. So now we have net neutrality. I dont know what that means, but it sounds good just like “out of the shadows” and “dreamers” so it’s probably OK.
Here’s another loss in CA, but fight isnt over yet:
District Court rejects challenge to CA “gun roster” law
Posted by David Hardy ยท 26 February 2015 03:21 PM
CalGuns Foundation link to the ruling is here. You can read the first few pages and know what the outcome will be. California seeks to ensure guns are safe, etc., etc., so only very safe guns are put on the roster (“Safe” means, for example, that the gun must have a loaded chamber indicator that somehow allows a new user to know whether the firearm is loaded without consulting the manual. Every loaded chamber indicator I know of assumes that you read the manual or had someone point it out to you, so at least you know what to look for).
The contrast comes at the very end, when the court has to deal with the fact that the statute exempts law enforcement personnel (including, as I recall, employees of prosecutors’ offices). The court simply pronounces that police may have different needs for firearms than do non-police. But if the roster would truly about safety, the question must be, do police and prosecutors have a special need for unsafe guns?
One plaintiff had no right arm, and wanted a Glock with an ambidextrous magazine release. But while the Glock he wants is on the roster, California does not list it with an ambidextrous release, and considers that a different, and unlisted, firearm.
Good morning,
That is one ugly looking cat--poor thing.
G’day, GN!
Hai, Sven!
Glad that’s only an ugly cat; I feared it was a mutant -- and possibly genetically modified -- pine cone.
Need moar coffee; buh.
From Mark Steyn’s latest comes this swipe at Bill Nye’s moronic comments re Jooooos being more neighborly:
Heh.
Sure Happy It’s Thursday, Gerbil Nation!
Good morning, Sven and Fatwa!
Ugly cat? Mutant pine cone? I thought it was a prickly ‘coon.
Hai, Paddy!
It’ll be interesting to see what’s really in the 300+ page sooper seekrit regulations the FCC is voting on today. You’d think the scum inside the Beltway would have learned their lesson re the whole “have to vote on it to see what’s in it” shuck and jive.
Both Brenda and I called out Rep’s office yesterday in regard to this; short story: nobody knows nothin’. I requested a callback from their alleged FCC policy person; Kyle Teh Drone-Minion had to be reminded to take my phone number.
Not that I’ll ever get a call; I’m pretty certain I’m on Woodall’s “FY, TW” list. Because when you cannot get a straight answer, it’s apparently also wrong to complain about not getting a straight answer. Not to mention being outright lied-to by his chief-of-staff.
These people need to be introduced to 2″x4″s with rusty 16D nails at their, shall we say, business ends. I have no representation -- nor even a ghost of a polite fiction thereof -- the “social compact” has been irrevocably broken and these scumbags ought to be held to account for their actions (or lack of same).
Burn it to the fooking ground and start over.
Kilt. By an ugly cat.
Cool. So now we have net neutrality. I dont know what that means, but it sounds good just like “out of the shadows” and “dreamers” so it’s probably OK.
Here’s another loss in CA, but fight isnt over yet:
District Court rejects challenge to CA “gun roster” law
Posted by David Hardy ยท 26 February 2015 03:21 PM
CalGuns Foundation link to the ruling is here. You can read the first few pages and know what the outcome will be. California seeks to ensure guns are safe, etc., etc., so only very safe guns are put on the roster (“Safe” means, for example, that the gun must have a loaded chamber indicator that somehow allows a new user to know whether the firearm is loaded without consulting the manual. Every loaded chamber indicator I know of assumes that you read the manual or had someone point it out to you, so at least you know what to look for).
The contrast comes at the very end, when the court has to deal with the fact that the statute exempts law enforcement personnel (including, as I recall, employees of prosecutors’ offices). The court simply pronounces that police may have different needs for firearms than do non-police. But if the roster would truly about safety, the question must be, do police and prosecutors have a special need for unsafe guns?
One plaintiff had no right arm, and wanted a Glock with an ambidextrous magazine release. But while the Glock he wants is on the roster, California does not list it with an ambidextrous release, and considers that a different, and unlisted, firearm.
http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2015/02/district_court_.php