No, this is NOT a review of the TV show.
(I am not a regular viewer, nor a fan.)
It’s basically a send-up of the STAR TREK universe, with funny jokes and social commentary.
But the last episode (Majority Rule) was a cutting indictment of social media (Facebook, Democracy, anyone?)
The explorers visit a society wherein everyone at age eighteen they get a mandatory badge, containing a green up arrow and a red down one.
Any passers-by may choose to press one – or not.
Too many RED (usually do to some social faux paux) eventually gets one ‘reprogrammed’ (essentially lobatomized) . Escapees are killed.
Think Shirley Jackson’s The Lottery .
I unfortunately have friends who think The Electoral College should be eliminated in favor of Majority Vote. Resulting in a Ca./Ny national policy and leadership, undoubtedly.
Not only so they not understand history or The Constitution.
I would like them to watch this episode.
(Okay, you may now press my button.)
This came across my email a couple of days ago.
The point is, does it have some teeth, or it is just BLUSTER?
(from Gun Owners of America, in part)
Don’t Let Ryan Get Away with Any 2A Infringements!
This is becoming painful to watch.
House Speaker Paul Ryan is now asking — begging, really — the Trump administration to unilaterally impose gun control restrictions.
And there is virtually no conceivable way that these restrictions will fall short of eventually regulating or banning your detachable magazines.
“We think the regulatory fix is the smartest, quickest fix,” Ryan said.
What was he talking about?
The Hill explains:
Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said Wednesday the Trump administration should move quickly to ban a device used in the Las Vegas mass shooting that allows semi-automatic weapons to fire more rapidly.
So Speaker Ryan is urging the ATF to ban bump stocks — even while he has indefinitely pushed back the pro-gun agenda.
But there are two major problems with this.
First, there is no way that Congress — or the administration — will be able to ban or regulate bump stocks without also opening the door to prohibitions on other parts, accessories and magazines.
This is because all of the legislative proposals currently on the table would ban ANY item or device that helps “accelerate the rate of fire” of a semi-automatic firearm.
Using that standard, you can kiss your detachable magazines goodbye!
But the other problem is this: The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution prevents the federal government from imposing ANY infringements upon our gun rights.
If the Trump administration starts supporting infringements — even if they are so-called minor ones — it will weaken their ability and resolve to oppose the next set of infringements that come down the pike.
Help GOA stay on the frontlines. Every dollar you contribute to GOA right now will be automatically doubled, thanks to a very generous GOA Life Member!
Take Action and Put the Heat on Congress!
Please contact Your Representative and communicate the following:
1. Uphold your oath of office. Do not support ANY infringements upon the Second Amendment — including those that would jeopardize detachable magazines.
2. Tell Speaker Paul Ryan to STOP compromising. If legislators want to follow Ryan off a political cliff, they will truly regret it when voters “remember in November.”
We need to let Ryan know that millions of gun owners oppose his compromises, which will endanger our ability to own detachable magazines.
Plus, he needs to know that there will be SERIOUS ramifications at the polls if he and other Republicans do not stand up for our Second Amendment rights.
We are in a political war to preserve our gun rights.
I want to thank you for your help in putting the heat on your legislators.
So please take action, and urge your family and friends to do so, as well.
My apologies – having some issues here at home, I’ve not been as diligent as I have in the past regarding the fall-De-rall as I usually am regarding the silliness on the Hill.
And while I do support and respect Gun Owners of America, sometimes they get over excited in the name of financial support (learning from the NRA?)
So, what do you guys thing? Bluster or real danger?
Sorry Dave, no Cadacus
aka a cheat for a blog post?
SO, I finished the blog, and began my best task, ignoring the next Wednesday task is laundry!
(which I abhor, but must be done!)
And I get a telephone message from my kidney doctor – DROP WHAT YOU ARE DOING AND GET TO A HOSPITAL
Which I did.
Seems my blood test showed high levels of one chemical and dangerous levels of another!
What a way to start the day?
This was last Wednesday morning…
HE’S BA-ACK! (as of this Monday)
Aside from the illness issues, the saddest part was I broke my promise to you. Since March 5, 1911, I have written a blog post. Or two, three or four. DAILY.
But while in the hospital, I was unable to access my blog on my cellular telephone. NOT THAT I HAD ANY TIME…
There were tests, and blood draws and injections and largely inedible food.
And friends and family to remind me I had reasons for all this!
To get to the chase, I had HYPOKALEMIA (low blood potassium) and HYPERCALCEMIA (excessive blood calcium).
Many of the recommendations for each disease are opposing, i.e. one says drink more water, the other, less water!
AND, I get to visit many doctors, because it’s undetermined WHY this is happening.
(at least I am home!)
The debate on restricting the sale of gun magazines that hold more than ten cartridges has been going on since the first mass shooting. The fact that the magazines have been available to the public for many years prior brings the question of “Why worry about it now?”
Neither conservatives nor liberals can deny that the 2nd Amendment protects a citizen’s right to own firearms. The question is, “how much is too much?”
There’s no real answer due to the fact that limiting one aspect of the 2nd Amendment can cause other aspects to be limited as well.
Almost every mass shooter in history has used large magazines and semi-automatic weapons in their attacks on unsuspecting citizens. While many claim that reducing the number of rounds they can fire in a second or two would save lives, others can also claim that if teachers were allowed to be armed it wouldn’t matter how many rounds the shooters had available.
Is the Size of the Magazine Really That Important?
The main debate revolves limiting magazines that carry ten rounds or more. Legislators seem to miss the fact that it’s the person that pulls the trigger, not the weapon. If the person is intent on harming others, they will find a way to do it whether they have a ten round clip or a 100-round magazine.
The debate will continue to go on as long as there are people in society who have different points of view. The answer may be in the opposite direction, however. Instead of limiting the rights of the people who can use weapons effectively, let’s keep the weapons and their accessories out of the hands of those who misuse them.
~ Firearm Daily
While I don’t thing this was written by a knowledgeable firearm owner, it does make some points for conversation.
As for my .02, I strongly believe in the nose-under the tent, If we allow magazine size, then it’s number of magazine carried, or total rounds carried. Or weight of weapons. Or permissible calibers…
This is not about GUN CONTROL.
It’s about CONTROL!
September 11. The Sixteenth anniversary of the attack on American soil by segmented tribal forces of the Islamic right.
Have we ‘won’? Hell no!
Yes, we got Bin Laden. But the attacks now continue, internationally.
Including home-grown terrorists, here.
What are the choices? To give up and eventually be assimilated (or killed) by radical Islam?
Or continue to fight the good fight?
I choose the latter. And I’m medically retired and 64. But I still have some fight left in me.
Today, I will take a moment to remember the innocents who died in the Twin Towers (including those who worked for
TMCCC, my former employer, and all the first responders)
And just remember…
(from Liberty Headlines)
(CNS News) Rep. Tom McClintock (R.-Calif.) said on the House floor on Thursday that Senate Republicans had surrendered operational control of the Senate to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.)—and that the debt limit and spending dealt that President Donald Trump had made with Schumer was evidence of that.
McClintock argued that the ultimate problem was the Republican Senate leadership’s unwillingness to reform a cloture rule that allows the minority party to block virtually all substantive legislation that the minority does not want to see enacted.
He noted that, by contrast, the Senate had reformed the cloture rule on Supreme Court nominations, thus allowing the confirmation of Justice Neil Gorsuch. But, then, House leaders fearing a filibuster in the Senate declined to move forward with a substantial repeal of Obamacare.
“Earlier this year, the Senate briefly recognized this and chose to reform cloture for Supreme Court nominations, but not for the legislation absolutely vital to the interests of our country,” McClintock said.
“The news yesterday that the President has now had to capitulate to Democratic demands on the debt limit should come as no surprise,” he said. “By failing to reform cloture, Senate Republicans have effectively given Chuck Schumer operational control of the Senate.”
“That is how we got wrapped around the axle on repealing and replacing Obamacare,” McClintock said. “The House could have passed a comprehensive bill that completely and cleanly abolished Obamacare and fully replaced it with all of the market and tax reforms that Republicans agreed with and campaigned on, popular reforms that put consumers back in charge of their healthcare decisions and placed those decisions within their financial reach…
Now, I’m a libertarian, so I don’t have a dog in this fight. (But, if I must choose, it’s more often with the Republicans than the Democrats.)
But, I did expect certain conservative Republicans to reverse some of the last administration’s follies.
(from Liberty Headlines)
(WND) A hurricane is on the way, and preparations always include boarding up windows, stocking up on food, water and batteries, and sometimes fleeing inland.
A governor in one U.S. territory, however, has another plan: Grab all the guns.
According to the Daily Caller, the governor of the Virgin Islands, a U.S. territory, has signed an order to that effect.
The order explains that Gov. Kenneth E. Mapp authorized the territory’s adjutant general “to mobilize such units of the National Guard as are necessary to maintain or restore public order, and to guarantee the safety of life and property,” as Hurricane Irma approaches from the Atlantic.
The adjutant general, he said, “is authorized and directed to seize arms, ammunition, explosives, incendiary material and any other property that may be required by the military forces for the performance of this emergency mission, in accordance with the Rules of Force promulgated by the Virgin Islands National Guard and approved by the Virgin Islands Department of Justice.”
Irma was reported on Tuesday to be a Category 5 hurricane, with winds up to 175 miles her hour, and the eye is expected to pass just north of the heart of the islands on Wednesday.
The Daily Caller said Mapp signed the order Monday.
He warned, “This is not an opportunity to go outside and try to have fun with a hurricane.
“It’s not time to get on a surfboard,” he continued.
The gun seizure order technically also allows authorities to take control of “any other property.”
Puerto Rico Gov. Ricardo Rosselo and Florida Gov. Rick Scott also declared states of emergencies in anticipation of Irma. But they did not include the gun confiscation authorization.
Mapp wrote that the order was issued under authority of Title 23, Chapter 19, Virgin Islands Code, and insisted it is necessary “to maintain the health, welfare, and safety of the people of the Virgin Islands.”
The adjutant general is given the right to “take whatever actions she considers necessary to carry out the assigned missions.”
The order provides for “payment for salaries, benefits, health insurance, worker’s compensation, necessary meals, fuel and other operational and administrative costs.”
But there was no mention of compensation to gun owners.
DON’T THESE CLOWNS REMEMBER KATRINA AND THE RESULT OF ILLEGAL GUN CONFISCATION THERE?
(or any other interested parties)
New Arizona Laws
The 2017 legislative session ended on May 10. Laws passed during a session are generally effective 90 days after adjournment. The following pro-rights bills will become law on August 9. You can view the status of all the bills AzCDL monitored during the session at our website’s Bill Tracking page.
HB 2216 (Rep. Paul Boyer, R-LD20) makes it unlawful to require a person to use or subject themselves to electronic firearm tracking technology, a component of “smart gun” technology that limits the operation of a firearm as well as tracking its location and logging its use.
SB 1122 (Sen. Gail Griffin, R-LD14) prohibits a city, town, county, or the state from requiring the search of any federal or state database as a requirement for transferring personal property, such as your firearm. Passage of this law should help complicate efforts we expect to see requiring “universal background checks” on private firearm transfers in Arizona.
SB 1344 (Sen. John Kavanagh, R-LD23) is the AzCDL-requested bill that clarifies that state and local governments cannot regulate the possession of weapons by employees or contractors in or on their privately owned property or vehicles. This bill grew out of over-zealous local governments believing they can control all aspects of an employee’s or independent contractor’s private life.
Ballot Measure Reforms
The Constitution of Arizona, along with several other states, contains a provision influenced by the “Progressive” (i.e., Socialist) movement of the early 20th Century. This provision allows for changes in state law, or even the Constitution itself, via a “citizen initiative” ballot measure bypassing the legislative process. All that’s required to put an issue on the ballot are petition signatures from a small percentage of registered voters. Unlike other states, once a citizen initiative ballot measure is passed in Arizona it can never be overturned by the Legislature.
Billionaire and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has been exploiting this weakness in state constitutions to further his drive to disarm law abiding Americans. In 2014 he successfully used the ballot measure process to achieve gun owner registration via “universal background checks” in the state of Washington. In 2015, the Oregon legislature accommodated Bloomberg by passing similar laws. In 2016, a Bloomberg backed ballot measure passed in Nevada. We expect to see a Bloomberg backed ballot measure calling for “universal background checks” in Arizona, possibly in 2018.
This year the Legislature passed, and the Governor signed, two laws that restore integrity to Arizona’s petition gathering process for ballot measures.
HB 2244 requires strict compliance to the ballot referendum constitutional and statutory requirements.
HB 2404 prohibits payment to petition “circulators” based on the number of signatures collected. It also invalidates signatures collected by a paid circulator who fails to register with the Secretary of State. New provisions have been added for challenging a ballot measure. Apparently this new law is so threatening to those who want to take your rights away that a ballot petition has already been filed to overturn the provisions of HB 2404 in 2018.
We expect bigger challenges next year. Those who want to disarm you, realizing that there is little chance of restricting your rights at the national level, are redoubling their efforts at the state level where they have the greatest chances to succeed. Arizona is their number one target. Stay alert. Don’t succumb to “Trump Sleep.”
These alerts are a project of the Arizona Citizens Defense League (AzCDL), an all-volunteer, non-profit, non-partisan grassroots organization.
AzCDL – Protecting Your Freedom
A new Oregon gun control law was recently passed by the governor in an attempt to establish Extreme Risk Protection orders. The governor, who signed the bill with no comment remarked previously that the new law was the, “best way to ensure that a person who is at risk of harming themselves or others is identified, while still ensuring their rights are protected by a court review.”
Unfortunately, the law is a far cry from being protective of individual gun owners’ rights as it allows police to confiscate a valid owner’s firearm without providing them with their day in court before the confiscation occurs. While those affected by the law would have a right to be heard in court, the owner would not be able to appeal their rights in court until after they have been revoked.
In essence, the law is multi-faceted allowing police officers to confiscate a gun owner’s weapon if the police, a family member, or close friend reports that they pose a risk to themselves or others. Once the order is established by the court, the individual will be prevented from buying firearms or ammunition for the duration of a year, and the police will have the right to seize the owner’s weapons or require them to be stored with a gun dealer for the duration of the order.
While this new law was created to reduce the risk of firearm related suicides that has been on the rise in recent years, it is doing it at the expense of law-abiding citizen’s rights and requires them to prove that they are not a danger to themselves or others. This situation could cause many well-meaning family members and friends to have their loved one’s rights stripped from them for something that may be no more than an unfounded concern or an attempt at revenge.
In the United States, a citizen has the right to due process, which requires that a person is informed of the crime they are being charged with as well as the rights they are entitled to during the criminal process. After they are informed, they may be temporarily detained until they are seen by a judge. The proceedings will then proceed to trial and a sentencing phase if convicted, but during this entire process, a citizen’s rights may not be limited until they are convicted and sentenced in a court of law.
The new Oregon law SB 719A will have citizens subject to the restriction of rights based on suspicion or presumption. It is then their responsibility if they want those rights back to schedule a hearing and prove they deserve them, in essence violating some of the most important laws that established the founding of this country.
In addition to the fact that the law will allow citizens to be stripped of their 2nd amendment right to bear arms before they are granted the right to due process, it will also put the determination of one’s mental state and intention in the hands of people that are not qualified in the mental health field or even have the tools to make a valid determination on one’s mental health. Quite simply we have mental health professional make these types of assessments because they are the ones who are properly trained to do so.
The new law also provides gun restriction requirements for those who have had a restraining order filed against them by a significant other as well as allowing the indefinite delay of gun sales to be completed. The previous law gave the state three days to determine whether or not a gun purchase could go through. With the new law, this period could be extended indefinitely, which in effect will inhibit a citizen’s right to obtain personal protection.
While the intentions of the new gun confiscation law in Oregon may have started with good intentions, to achieve the desired results, the state is allowing law-abiding citizens to be stripped of their rights without due process and proper assessment. The new law will end up having more citizen’s in court explaining why they deserve their rights instead of the court system fighting to protect the rights of their citizens.
Whatever happened to DUE PROCESS?
Of course, Oregon is rapidly becoming California North. And Washington isn’t far behind. Seems the pioneer spirit that brought folks westerly stopped at Idaho, Utah and Arizona.
This seems to be prevalent on both coasts.