100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Community > Posts By > Drivinmenutz
|
|
|
Anti-gun Missouri Dem. arrested with 9mm pistol, refuses breathalyzer test  Earlier this week, Missouri state Senator Jamilah Nasheed, a Democrat who has sponsored several anti-gun bills, was arrested while protesting in front of the Ferguson Police Department, The Blaze reported Tuesday. What made the arrest interesting is that Nasheed was carrying a 9mm handgun with extra ammunition. The arrest was conducted without incident, CBS St. Louis said. Nasheed, however, chanted as she was taken away. On Tuesday, Nasheed said hers was a “symbolic arrest” to send a “message to the protesters that we can protest peacefully and that we must protest peacefully and that we want justice for Michael Brown.” But her arrest and news that she was in possession of a firearm brought charges of hypocrisy. According to attorney Eric Vickers, Nasheed needs the gun for her own protection and Nasheed says she holds a concealed carry permit. But if Nasheed had her way, other Missourians would not have the same right. One bill she pushed, for example, would have required the “parent or guardian of a child who attends a public, private, or charter school shall notify, in writing, the superintendent of the school district, or the governing body of a private school or charter school, that such parent or guardian owns a firearm within thirty calendar days” of enrollment. The NRA has also dubbed several of her bills as "anti-gun," and a post at Guns Save Lives said Nasheed has voted against several pro-gun bills over the last two years. USA Today said Nasheed refused to pay her $600 bond and sent the night in jail, but was released after an unidentified individual paid it for her. Nasheed, USA Today added, said her gun has not been returned. what should be news is how many americans have reading comprehension skills,,,,, to push for REGULATION of GUNS is no more 'anti gun', than supporting Drivers licenses for drivers is 'ANTI DRIVING' Yes, but it can become hypocritical depending on the types of regulation she supports. As a matter of fact, breaking gun control laws in general contradicts what she supposedly stands for. If she were intoxicated, she was breaking laws that regulate firearms. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
She looks happy and smiling after being arrested... it was symbolic,, so exposure is kind of the point she had a gun, legally, and did not use it,,, kind of what many people wish had been the case with Michael Browns shooter,,, The problem is with the word "legally". I bring this up only because of the possibility of intoxication. Were she actually intoxicated, the carry permit becomes void, making the possession of the firearm illegal. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
not once he RAN Away WITHOUT A WEAPON threat dissolved,,, When a threat retreats the IMMEDIATE threat is dissolved. This is correct regardless if the person is armed. The danger still exists, however, and vigilance is stepped up accordingly. Admittedly I haven't been following this story so maybe there is evidence that may lead to the contrary, but if a person, who was a deadly threat merely a few seconds earlier, turns and runs at you, they again become an immediate threat. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Used to believe the stereotypes until the bailouts hit a few years ago.
When one looks closely he/she would she that both parties cater to those who donate them the most money (who usually have the deep pockets). Democrats just cunningly hide behind a curtain of "good intentions", thereby making them a bit more deceptive than the republican party. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yep they can't and that's not the point. legislators aren't trying to legislate verbal actions of sex. They are trying to legislate when people can't and thus any sexual act would be deemed as rape. The things the police will consider is: * the totality of the circumstances * the age of the victim * his or her relationship to the defendant (suspect) * any handicap or disability of the victim * any threats of hardship not amounting to duress The things the the university needs to consider * The complainant was asleep or unconscious * The complainant was incapacitated due to the influence of drugs, alcohol, or medication * The complainant was unable to communicate due to a mental or physical condition As for the implementation, that's up to the institutions. What is clear is that things are going to change. I really don't think they will its too difficult to define what is 'consent' in a two person event like sex/making love I don't think this changes that,, I can think immediatel of examples where I was in a few of the above situations and made love but it wasn't rape,,, I have been involvd with someone who was 'threatening' to leave, and we were immediately after CONENTUALLY involve I have been involved with a supervisor(relationship) but it was still consentual I have been laying next to someone I was in a relationship and awakened to intimacy,, and it was consentual I have never been drunk, but many cases where that is concerned involve BOTH parties being drunk,, so I never have understood how they determine RAPE just from the drinking point being, besided possibly the handicap or incapacitation, I don't see where any of the considerations really clear up wheter something was consentual or not and AT THE END OF THE DAY,, we still will only be left with what two people say happened,,,, I say its best not to get ourselves into such iffy situations I certainly don't want to see sexual relations legislated rape is difficult to discern and prosecute, but I really don't think this adds anything that will make it any easier,,, 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
that's the thing,, there are many parts to the issue, including respect of self and others as it is, I still don't see what EXACTLY is being legislated/mandated,,, noting a difference between government LEGISLATION and school policy,, and figuring the government is mandating that schools have certain policies,, what are those policies , and how will the school be able to implement them (they certainly cant expect or teach both parties must verbally agree to sex before AND during), so how will that 'consent' policy be explained or implemented amongst the college population? I have to agree with you. Seems easy to mistranslate in the court of law. I find myself worried for the new generation about the possible greater chances of falsely claiming rape. The world of love/relationships/sex has enough "landmines" as it is. Hopefully it doesn't add more. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Been going on for a while now. In 2006 a friend of mine was side-swiped, forcing his suv into another car. Cop came to the 3 car wreck, and the driver at fault (an illegal immigrant) had an open vodka bottle, was so drunk he could barely stand up, had no license and no insurance. After a few minutes the immigrant was let go. He just left his wrecked car there and stumbled down the street. State had to dispose of the car (which was beyond totaled) According to the cop "No arrestable offense" was committed.
My friend's insurance paid the bill and attempted to sue the drunk driver, but he was nowhere to be found. I've got a few more stories of occurrences up here in Maine in the last few years. Not from illegals, but from recent immigrants as we had an influx of Somali immigrants years ago. Most of which are decent people trying to get jobs and be productive, but a few learned the new system and are exploiting the heck out of it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The UN is not trying to take 'your guns' this is the resolution,, stealthily misprepresented as an attack on individual rights as opposed to a measure to control Arms TRADING http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/2117(2013) don't just READ the emails on this kind of stuff, its too easily researchable,,, Another misinformed liberal voter  Not every American wishes to own or drive a car (the largest cause of deaths accidental or otherwise in the US) but there is no actions to outlaw, limit, or ban them! ANY attack on, or limitation of our Constitutional, or rights by birth, is like surrendering to a criminal the gun he uses to rob you with! To give ANY foreign body power over OUR rights is surrendering your sovereignty and nothing short of treasonous stupidity!  once again, regulating INTERNATIONAL Trading is a government issue, its not a personal collection or attack on PERSONAL OWNERSHIP... Can anyone be that misinformed....really? If the US votes to fall in line with the UN SA treaty, we can kiss sovereign rights goodbye! What part of "compliance" don't you understand? And where is their authority written into our Constitution? It is said however to form friendships with all and alliances with none! Like the TPP, it does nothing for the good of the US populace! It's putting lipstick on a pig for the idiot liberals to kiss easier! its not about misinformation, once again its about perception and interpretation I don't interpret things as ALL or nothing,,, I don't believe that regulation on the trade and manufacture of vehicles, for instance, comes anywhere CLOSE to stopping me from being able to PERSONALLY own a car similarly, I don't believe regulation on trade and/or manufacture of weapons, comes anywhere CLOSE to stopping americans their 'right' to personally own a gun,,, ,,but to each their own interpretation of risk and what LT effect a decision will have,,, what has your Right to Selfdefense and the Right to Own the Implements to do it with,to do with the Privilege of Driving a Car?  You still are mixing Rights and Privileges! Rights are inherent in the Individual,not bestowed or given by Government! And the First and Second are Foremost,regardless of what Government might do! Any move against those Two is unconstitutional,regardless of what the Liberals think! its a simple analogy it has to do with 'all or nothing' thinking as in, if they start with A they will not stop until Z a move to regulate is not a move to ban,,,,regardless of what conservatives think,,,  Yes, but there was a move to BAN weapons that "look scary" (the loose, ignorant definition of assault weapons that was tossed around), ergonomic attachments, semi-automatic weapons, magazine sizes, muzzle breaks, heat shields, concealed carry, the amount of ammo one can own, and a move to add months to waiting lists for purchasing a firearm, adding various taxes to ammo and guns, limits on the number of guns one can own, strict regulations on how these guns should be stored (dismantled and under separate lock and key from ammo), etc. It seems as though there is a definite push to get from A to Z. Perhaps this is what gun owners are defensive about. Not to mention the simple inability to enforce the laws on the books already makes it rather foolish to add new ones. Just saying, regardless of what liberals think... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Bush warned of Iraq Pullout
Edited by
Drivinmenutz
on
Sun 09/21/14 07:14 AM
|
|
There is bombings, obductions, torture. intimidation. Infrastructure is still damaged. The oil ministry was the only thing that was protected by the Americans during the invasion of Iraq. Area's are radioactively poluted from the shellings the USA used with depleted uranium. Women's rights ? http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/03/26/women-s-rights-under-threat-iraq Almost every day i hear something bad happened there. I did not hear those things before when Saddam was in power. Well at least not on the same scale that i hear nowadays. If the US wants to be the judge of the world then why not go to Africa ? There is cruel dictators there also. Or Uzbekistan ? You did not hear those things because Saddam censored them, since he was behind most of it... You forget, Saddam's idea of torture is REAL torture, not waterboarding. His intimidation involved slaughtering families of those who oppose him. I am getting my information from personal experience, not from propaganda. Infrastructure is not as damaged as you think since we spent trillions rebuilding most of it. There were some areas, however, in which the Wuhhabi attacked our workers (not fighters, but workers) were attacked to the point we decided to pull out before the job was done. Don't misunderstand what I am saying. I don't necessarily agree with our country's attempts at being the world police. I am simply saying that the citizens of Iraq are not necessarily as worse off today as propaganda would have you believe. You make it sound like it was an island paradise before we got there. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Bush warned of Iraq Pullout
|
|
Most people in Iraq will agree with the fact that it was better before people started to kill each other now in sectarian violence, with Saddam. I know many Iraqi's who would disagree. At least a few years ago when America was still present. I hope you realize that the reason that region was a bit more settled was because of Saddam's brutality. Public executions, murdering the families of those who stand against him, etc. I've heard many horror stories from people who used to work for his sons. You should also have a look at how women of that country were commonly treated. Since 2004 these women have been slowly gaining civil rights, to include the right to vote. What you speak of is a misconception started to raise contempt against Bush and the republican party. Our actions may have destabilized that region, but saying that the people were much better off is pure b.s. Besides, there is a fast and easy way to regain stability, but we wouldn't win popularity contests. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it." Adrian Rogers, 1931 Fallacy: There are multiple examples of where the government taxed the people, then created a structure that both improved the poor and the wealthy (IE divided the wealth and multiplied wealth overall in the end). One example of this is the canal and waterway system of the 1800's. even though most legislation at the time considered the project to connect the great lakes and create canals that flowed all over the north eastern part of our country today, as a total waste of government funds. After the project was completed, Industry boomed as companies were able to move products quicker and less expensively. This not only created more jobs initially, it lead to the industrial evolution and the later development of the railway system we have today. Another example of this is our military. this is a direct source of jobs for people, and the research and development of defensive tech, offensive tech, and nonlethal tech, has both funded major companies and revolutionized technology thus created new industries. Final example NASA. During the time NASA has existed, it has created new technology that they required to be able to do the things they needed to do. This technology is used in so many different sectors of industry that I personally don't know the entire impact that it has made. It has impacted bed technology, cars, safety instruments, nylon, mechanical pencils, fashion, the list continues... Still as far as I know, the major contribution to the fall of any government is the civil unrest of it's citizens. I do agree that the government does take from people to give to others by via taxation. I however don't agree that this is morally reprehensible. In fact I believe that it's totally necessary to keep the infrastructure of any nation working. We also seem to disagree on how much a nation should place on it's infrastructure, but that's ok. I just wish we can agree to disagree rather then visa versa. What you are speaking of (aside from our military) is the generation of capital, not the redistribution of wealth. Yes, there are wise, and unwise ways our government spends money, but simply taxing people to pay others does not produce this capital. You may be onto something here though. Perhaps a new form of welfare in which people are required to work on our country's infrastructure and/or technological advancements. Maybe these supplementary jobs could be offered to the poor instead of outsourced. Also, I acknowledge that some taxation is necessary. But over-taxation merely spreads wealth to special interests. (The bailouts seem to come to mind.)I guess a good question to ask is, "How much taxation does it take to become immoral?" Meaning; Most middle class Americans pay roughly half(or slightly more than half) their income in taxes, in one form or another. How much of his or her own earned revenue should one be allowed to keep? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Drivinmenutz
on
Sat 09/20/14 03:53 PM
|
|
gun totin morons may need to take a mental wellness exam soon? That should weed out the herd LOL  "We are advised to NOT judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics." Truer words were never spoken. Hate to tell ya but... If you think you're safer with a weapon... you're part of the lunatic circle  Such a broad statement... If we were to use this logic, perhaps one should inform the president that there is no need to arm his secret service. There is no point in arming our military. Or our police force. There is also no point in disarming criminals as they would be no better off being armed. Maybe you didn't actually mean your statement in it's entirety, as I would agree that being armed doesn't keep you out of danger, but with training, it does help you handle that danger. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
yep that's why I'm giving you the info that I know of. Sorry that you don't trust the census though. There is a certain amount of unreliability taken into account in any statistical survey. And any statistician worth their grain of salt does what ever it takes to reduce as much bias as they can. How they do this is a bit complicated and very mathy (it deals with laws of probability and normal distributions of discrete random variables). I unfortunately don't have many solutions to this problem other then redistribution of wealth. But that's an argument that is defined as "Against Capitalism", so I'm trying to find different ways. like placing an income cap on CEO's (majority of the top 1% earn their income through being CEO's). increasing the national minimum wage to $10 per hr (which will cause even more issues then you will think). A national tax on Excess profit in big businesses? we need to find a way to hit the 1% hard. Like robin hood but legally. any Ideas? I personally believe this war on the wealthy mentality would do more harm than good. Problem is that "wealthy" is defined as those making $250k+ annually. Unfortunately 250k is not all that much when taking into consideration, say, a doctor paying $3000 a month on student loans, $1,000 a month in malpractice insurance (and this is cheap insurance), and also paying the additional income tax. There is also a myth about wealthy individuals only paying 15% of their income on taxes. This is actually just dividends. If we raise this, we raise taxes average folks pay on selling their houses for a profit, or 401k (or the majority of retirement plans by that matter), which hurts the middle class. Raising minimum wage, again, hurts the middle class despite helping the poor. I personally don't believe minimum wage should be a living wage. It's supposed to be for those jobs you get in high school or early college years for a little extra spending cash. That being said, IF ANY cap is placed on administrative salaries, it should be a percentage not a limit, therefore still encouraging innovation and advancement. Maybe no one in a company should be making more than 75 times what the lowest paid employee makes. Or better yet, start small. For instance, ceo's/administrative personnel cannot get a raise unless everyone in the company gets the same percentage pay raise. But maybe this regulation is not the answer. Perhaps it would be more beneficial to lower American corporate tax rates to roughly 25%, and slap an import tax on products coming in from overseas. Instead of encouraging businesses to bring work elsewhere we should focus on getting those middle income producing jobs back over here. Maybe if fewer people were making minimum wage, the income gap would even itself out a bit. This a million times. Even when people try to talk about the 1% it isn't even the 1% getting tax breaks etc. It is more like the .001%. Even then it is often investment returns which unrealized gains are not taxed at all and people just don't understand investing. Exactly It's all political. Pitch one demographic against another, with the majority gaining ground. Besides, the poor are taken care of. The middle class is dwindling. It would help everyone out if we could bring more people into the middle income category |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
yep that's why I'm giving you the info that I know of. Sorry that you don't trust the census though. There is a certain amount of unreliability taken into account in any statistical survey. And any statistician worth their grain of salt does what ever it takes to reduce as much bias as they can. How they do this is a bit complicated and very mathy (it deals with laws of probability and normal distributions of discrete random variables). I unfortunately don't have many solutions to this problem other then redistribution of wealth. But that's an argument that is defined as "Against Capitalism", so I'm trying to find different ways. like placing an income cap on CEO's (majority of the top 1% earn their income through being CEO's). increasing the national minimum wage to $10 per hr (which will cause even more issues then you will think). A national tax on Excess profit in big businesses? we need to find a way to hit the 1% hard. Like robin hood but legally. any Ideas? I personally believe this war on the wealthy mentality would do more harm than good. Problem is that "wealthy" is defined as those making $250k+ annually. Unfortunately 250k is not all that much when taking into consideration, say, a doctor paying $3000 a month on student loans, $1,000 a month in malpractice insurance (and this is cheap insurance), and also paying the additional income tax. There is also a myth about wealthy individuals only paying 15% of their income on taxes. This is actually just dividends. If we raise this, we raise taxes average folks pay on selling their houses for a profit, or 401k (or the majority of retirement plans by that matter), which hurts the middle class. Raising minimum wage, again, hurts the middle class despite helping the poor. I personally don't believe minimum wage should be a living wage. It's supposed to be for those jobs you get in high school or early college years for a little extra spending cash. That being said, IF ANY cap is placed on administrative salaries, it should be a percentage not a limit, therefore still encouraging innovation and advancement. Maybe no one in a company should be making more than 75 times what the lowest paid employee makes. Or better yet, start small. For instance, ceo's/administrative personnel cannot get a raise unless everyone in the company gets the same percentage pay raise. But maybe this regulation is not the answer. Perhaps it would be more beneficial to lower American corporate tax rates to roughly 25%, and slap an import tax on products coming in from overseas. Instead of encouraging businesses to bring work elsewhere we should focus on getting those middle income producing jobs back over here. Maybe if fewer people were making minimum wage, the income gap would even itself out a bit. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Should we go to war again?
|
|
I can say only one thing -Terrorism cant be suppressed with terrorism. There is always ways to talk, negotiate and settle issues. US has fund and power to go for war all over the world. but that a'int gonna solve terrorism perpetually. Of course, eradicating terrorism was not the primary agenda for US in all the instances. It was just an eye washer to the public. This is so wrong on so many levels, I don't even know where to begin?....wow Churchill might have been right on the Button,addressing this strategy, when he said: "An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last."! He indeed was correct. I believe we started to fuel ISIS when we released several prisoners in response to their releasing Bowe a while back. Europe's policy is to pay ransom money for hostages which results in these organizations collecting 60(ish)% of their funding from kidnapping. Wonder why they still do it? Why do you think they killed our reporter? They knew America wouldn't pay up and wanted to "send the world a message". We should have sent a message right back IMO. ISIS was "being fueled" long before you were born.... Perhaps I should have used the term "encouraged". Trust me, I know ISIS was being "fueled" for a long time. I suppose my point was more about kidnapping being a huge source of funding/leverage for organisations such as these. Which is why the U.S. SUPPOSEDLY adopted the policy to "never negotiate with terrorists". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Should we go to war again?
|
|
I can say only one thing -Terrorism cant be suppressed with terrorism. There is always ways to talk, negotiate and settle issues. US has fund and power to go for war all over the world. but that a'int gonna solve terrorism perpetually. Of course, eradicating terrorism was not the primary agenda for US in all the instances. It was just an eye washer to the public. This is so wrong on so many levels, I don't even know where to begin?....wow Churchill might have been right on the Button,addressing this strategy, when he said: "An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last."! He indeed was correct. I believe we started to fuel ISIS when we released several prisoners in response to their releasing Bowe a while back. Europe's policy is to pay ransom money for hostages which results in these organizations collecting 60(ish)% of their funding from kidnapping. Wonder why they still do it? Why do you think they killed our reporter? They knew America wouldn't pay up and wanted to "send the world a message". We should have sent a message right back IMO. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Should we go to war again?
Edited by
Drivinmenutz
on
Mon 09/01/14 06:56 AM
|
|
We have the technology, resources and intelligence to nearly wipe ISIS out in a month's time. If we ever "took our gloves off", which I add, hasn't been done in generations, the threat would be eliminated very quickly.
I am not saying this is the avenue we use to deal with ISIS, but the only way to deal with extremists such as these is to make the fight not worth it. Its cold, yes. But that is the only method that consistently works. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There seems to be a disconnect from reality here. You are assuming the officer was not trained well enough, and/or that he panicked. Anyone who has any sort of training or experience would have fired if a man like Brown were charging them, especially after a physical altercation. well, that is only going to hold true if there was actual 'charging',, an AGGRESSIVE RUN TOWARDS SOMENOE which I still feel is most likely bS That's right. You feel. Emotion interferes with logic. In fact it is often the fuel behind most critical thinking fallacies. Lets hope the jury thinks with their heads first and not their hearts. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There seems to be a disconnect from reality here.
You are assuming the officer was not trained well enough, and/or that he panicked. Anyone who has any sort of training or experience would have fired if a man like Brown were charging them, especially after a physical altercation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Drivinmenutz
on
Thu 08/28/14 10:21 PM
|
|
no way of knowing he was a teen except FACE TO FACE Confrontation no way of knowing he isn't trained, except he isn't in a uniform nor carrying any weapon...and had a FACE TO FACE Confrontation that would kind of expose his level of 'skill' and his 'armed/unarmed' status,,, and the statement that a TRAINED professional killed an UNARMED TEEN,,,,is not a statement about what the killer may or may not know, just a statement of what effectually HAPPENED.... even though he did know he wasn't armed,, and PROBABALY knew he was a teen,, although many people mistake male black teens for older if they happen to be larger males,,, Can you guess a person's exact age just by looking at them? How can you judge someone's training and/or life experience from looking at them as well? Answer: (in the real world) No, and You can't. You could tell he was the size of an adult. I would have guessed late teens/early twenties. But twenties is still considered a full grown adult. Being 6'4'' and 300lbs, the likely hood of walking away from a physical confrontation takes a drastic hit. All uniforms come off. Life experience often provides a better education than training. It would be incredibly foolish to assume that someone out of uniform isn't trained or experienced. The reality is, we are all vulnerable. I've seen 13-year-olds kill. I know many who were 18 when they took their first life. When on leave the uniforms came off. Now we are out of the military you could not tell the difference between us and other civilians. I have also seen people from the streets take down martial arts experts. Again, in the REAL world those terms are not only bias, but they are irrelevant. What matters is; Did Brown surrender, or did he charge? This would determine guilt or innocence. Anything else is a mere distraction. |
|
|
|
|
Previous
