Reserve police officer and politician has negligent discharge in classroom
Teaching students how to disarm someone? Really? The teacher here sounds, frankly, like an idiot, and a classic example of why police officers (and politicians!) should not be the "only ones" allowed access to firearms.
If you really feel the need to teach your students how to disarm someone, that's a perfect application for one of those blue training guns, and absolutely not for a real gun with live ammunition anywhere nearby.
I object to this regulation on the following grounds: 1) It does not conform to the law. The law says a machine gun fires multiple times for a single operation of the trigger. A bump stock device fires one shot per trigger pull, and merely automates that trigger pull based on the user applying continuous pressure with their free hand. 2) It violates my "nothing for free" policy. Gun control advocates should be required to give gun rights advocates something for every piece of legislation or regulation they put in place. There are lots of silly, stupid, small things we can get rid of in trade for this sort of thing. 3) It's only been used in crime a very few times. Possibly only once. 4) Anyone using one of these devices is explicitly trading volume of fire for accuracy of fire. That's usually a trade that unarmed civilians should want. 5) It appears to ban possession as well as trade and manufacture. That's problematic; taking people's property is always more objectionable than preventing new manufacture alone.
All that said, there's is at least one bright side to this. The very fact that the regulation does not conform to the law it claims to enable may allow for a legal challenge later, once passions have died down. THere's not much benefit to agitating that this isn't being done properly now when the strategy may be to challenge it later on that basis.
All that said, I don't think we should be giving the other side anything for free, so until someone can explain what we get from this, I'm opposed.
The adults in charge of this astroturf operation should be ashamed of themselves. Any teachers or school administrators involved in it should be fired. Abusing authority over children to push for a political cause surely violates the 1st Amendment, and even more so using school time, facilities, and funds in the effort.
Warren refuses to pledge to serve her full Senate term if elected
If she doesn't plan to serve out her full term, why elect her? If she wins in 2018, she will have two years in office before running for President in 2020. Is two years really enough? Especially when she will spend that whole time running for president?
Fundamentally, she's right. When Republicans have control of Congress and the White House, they need to advance the ball on their policy agenda, because majorities are always fleeting. And while Republicans typically have "real grass roots" instead of astroturf on issues such as gun control, the ready-made professional movement is how legislation gets passed. Just look at how feckless Congress is without that; stuff barely moves even with all three houses in Republican hands and the only thing the Republicans know how to do is pass a tax cut. We need policy wins, and to deliver those, we need to harness public opinion through current events.
School shooting? "Arm teachers to defend our kids!" Illegal immigrant commits murder? "A border wall will save lives!"
Yes, the left will likely always have an advantage here, because we have jobs and they have paid protestors. We managed to get it done with the Tea Party despite that. Imagine what a Tea Party could accomplish without Obama's IRS in the way and Republicans in Congress and the White House. Maybe we can make it happen.
The left is reaching very, very far with this one. They are trying to sell it as some sort of superspy thing; the Russians collude with Trump to win the election, and then Trump sends a secret representative to meet with one of their representatives to set up a back channel to talk to Russia. But Trump just won the election; he doesn't need a "back channel" to talk to Russia. He can just pick up the phone and talk to their ambassador directly. Unless what Trump wants to talk to the Russians about is so secret and evil that the NSA would read about it due to their spying on the Russian ambassador and be compelled to do... something, who knows what.
So far as I can tell, it appears to be a tissue of allegations held together by one fact: a meeting between a Trump supporter, some potential middle eastern clients of his firm, and a Russian happened. The rest of the apparent Mueller claims about a "back channel" are not supported by publicly known evidence, and are denied under oath by Prince. And, yet again, we have a minor campaign figure who makes big claims that seem to fall under the label of self-promotion. There's a large credibility gap there.
And Prince makes the cogent point that the intelligence here could only have come from SIGINT and unmasking.
So my take is that the people responsible for the intel and unmasking abuses have chosen to leak this information and their justification for it to the press in order to spin the story ahead of the IG report which will reveal it.
He's right about the problem, but the solution would actually make things worse. Yes, women concluding that casual sex is bad for their marital prospects and demanding marriage before engaging in sexual activity would make marriage a "better deal" for men, but only because it's making the alternative (remaining single and having semi-casual sex) worse. The overall well-being of men gets worse in that situation, not better.
To fix the problem, marriage needs to become a better deal for both men and women. To do that, you can either reduce the penalties for leaving a marriage to men (reducing their risk if the marriage goes bad) or improve incentives for women to remain in a marriage after they enter into it, rather than providing incentives to leave the marriage.
The major incentives for women to enter into marriage used to be protection and provision. In the modern world, women (married or not) can work and obtain their own provision, and leaving a marriage often comes with a legal agreement that her now-ex husband must continue to provide for her and their children. Protection is available via 911 on her cell phone.
Men, on the other hand, gain nothing from marriage. The old rules (where he gained regular sex and reasonable certainty of parentage for their children) no longer apply; neither sex nor children are required from a marriage, not even in the social pressure sense.
If you want to increase marriage rates, including remaining in marriages, you need to incentize men to enter into marriage by offering something of value or reducing the risk, and you need to penalize women for leaving a marriage in order to ensure those marriages last.
Obama campaign hired Fusion GPS to research Romney
This should put paid to any claim that Obama didn't know exactly what was going on between Fusion and his national security and intelligence agencies. It also raises the question of whether those agencies were abused in a similar way during the 2012 election. Remember, until Mike Rogers of NSA conducted his audit, Fusion GPS had access to the NSA database as a external contractor; if that access goes all the way back to 2012, or even earlier, there would be no need for a FISA warrant or other measures that would leave a substantial paper trail.
To anyone investigating the abuse of our intelligence agencies for political purposes seriously, this tidbit opens up a whole new can of worms.
Never let anyone claim they don't want to take your guns
That idiot is running for Senate in Texas against Ted Cruz. Or really, I suppose what he's actually doing is running to stuff his campaign fund full of donations from gun control liberals on the east coast like Michael Bloomberg. The primary results shows he has basically no chance of winning, absent Ted Cruz making a disastrous mistake. So he might as well get a bunch of campaign money and live well for the next 6 months.
How does a 17-year-old get enough contact with Islam to become a jihadi?
Note also that the individual has been investigated for violent behavior before, so it's a known-wolf situation, but from the press conference it doesn't sound like they had a lot of prior interactions over a long period of time.
I can only look at these situations and assume there's something vital missing in our culture and educational systems that leaves a hole for violent, murderous ideologies like Islam to fill. It's not religion exactly. I know plenty of moral atheists and agnostics. For that matter, plenty of moral wiccans and other pagan types. Even a few Muslims who appear entirely peaceful and functional in modern society. It's not just the religion, or just having A religion. But it's definitely something.
Hillary needs two aides to descend a staircase, and still slips twice
She's not healthy enough to be living on her own, never mind being president. Hillary needs to give up her dream and try to enjoy her remaining years in retirement, but if she did that, who would keep the grifting at the Clinton Foundation going?
For those claiming fake news, there's video at the link.
There are still terrorists, and they still want to kill us. Sometimes their terrorism is motivated by religion. Sometimes they are inspired by or even directly communicate with foreign terrorist organizations that share their religion. The media prefers to ignore the terrorist angle when they can, but when police pay attention, it can mean saving lives by arresting a terrorist before they kill people.
Note the crucial difference here. People in that age range are not being prevented from buying such firearms; they are being required to surrender those they already own. This despite the fact that simply waiting (at most) 3 years would make their ownership fully legal again.
Illinois will be buying itself a lot of trouble when it starts enforcing this law. Hopefully, it will only be legal trouble, and the courts will strike down the law promptly and emphatically.
Can there be any doubt left? Obama knew, from the beginning, what Fusion GPS was up to regarding the dossier. There is a strong argument that Fusion GPS was one of the contractors with access to the NSA intelligence database, using it for opposition research, until the NSA head shut that access down in April 2016. That shutdown precipitated the frantic search for probable cause to support a warrant. And that means that Obama knew about this since April 2016 at the latest, when the dossier work started, and probably since much earlier -- how long ago was Fusion GPS first set up with access to the NSA database as a contractor?
I'd bet a year's salary that Obama knew when it was set up.
Did you know the Parkland murderer was a terrorist?
According to the FBI transcripts, at least one of the calls warning them about the killer described him as "he's so into ISIS". It's a dangerous world out there and there are terrorists even within our own country who want to kill us.
Over a hundred thousand registered voters who aren't allowed to vote, and that's just the ones they know about who are in the country legally. What are the odds they aren't actually voting? Especially when they keep adding themselves to the voter registration lists?
I'm mildly sympathetic to the people who think that if they are being offered the option to register, they must be allowed to vote. It's a confusing situation for an immigrant when on the one hand, the rules say one thing, and on the other, the government keeps offering you the option to do something else. That's why governments should do the right thing and refuse to offer the option without demanding (and checking) proof of citizenship.
What happens to a US citizen with children who is imprisoned while awaiting trial, or after being convicted? They are certainly not allowed to take their children into jail with them. If those children have the other parent or family available, I imagine they are given into the care of those alternatives. If not, we have a foster system. But if we do that with illegal aliens, it would be essentially aiding and abetting their crime. The illegal alien children would be delivered to their destination and disappear into the illegal alien community, doubtless to receive welfare (because with their parents in jail, who wants to support them through labor?) and force the US to catch them a second time when they need to be deported.
The separation happens because of simple necessity. It's not significantly different than what would happen to a US family under similar circumstances. Yes, it sucks to be a child or parent under those circumstances. But when you cross the border illegally you signed up for that.