Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[THE_WIZARD_]

The NFL

[Dr. Strangelove]

(1) Kapture is right. It won't pass the Senate.
(2) The origin of the law is in the inability is citizen's of some states (PA for example) to drive their autos into NY and become a felon when they pass the state line. The US Constitution is about limiting the Federal government and protecting individual liberty.
(3) There is the "full faith and credit" clause in the Constitution that mandates that the several states fully enforce the laws of other states.
(4) as usual, you progs are always flipping the reasoning in the Constitution, and you want to impose it on the whole country if possible. What the Constitution says is that I may carry a weapon for self-defense, and if I want to carry it into NY City for protection, I can do that. I have a valid CCP in MI, and NY has to recognize it. As an aside, this whole full faith and credit matter is important to truck drivers because they want protection wherever they are.

(3) There is the "full faith and credit" clause in the Constitution that mandates that the several states fully enforce the laws of other states.

But of course to you that means: take whichever state in the country has the weakest gun laws and impose those laws on every state in the country. Why isn't West Virginia obligated to enforce New York gun laws in that scenario?

I should add, it looks like this proposed bill would have compelled a few states (Wyoming & West Virginia among them) to require permits for concealed-carry for the first time.

[Dr. Strangelove]

The NFL

More like the NCAA. And even that's not a great comparison.

No pro sport franchise survives if its competitors go out of business. Microsoft certainly can. The Yankees can't play themselves.

[Dr. Strangelove]

If Hollywood had scripted the most stereotypical Alabama politician possible they would've fired the screenwriter who came up with Roy Moore

Moore said that all things considered, the last time America was great was back in the slavery days. Hes not necessarily praising slavery, mind you, but at least back then we still believed in family values, by God!

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/08/politics/roy-moore-slavery/index.html

[WingsFan]

Reminds me when Limbaugh said about the days of slavery.

“I mean, let’s face it, we didn’t have slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing. Quite the opposite: slavery built the South. I’m not saying we should bring it back; I’m just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark.”

[Kapture1]

Reminds me when Limbaugh said about the days of slavery.

?I mean, let?s face it, we didn?t have slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing. Quite the opposite: slavery built the South. I?m not saying we should bring it back; I?m just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark.?

From Snopes on that quote:

The only source we?ve turned up so far that putatively documents this quote is the 2006 book*101 People Who Are Really Screwing America, which attributes it to Rush Limbaugh but itself cites no source. On his*program*of*12 October*2009, Limbaugh disclaimed this quote as a fabricated one:

[Da Geezer]

(3) There is the "full faith and credit" clause in the Constitution that mandates that the several states fully enforce the laws of other states.

But of course to you that means: take whichever state in the country has the weakest gun laws and impose those laws on every state in the country. Why isn't West Virginia obligated to enforce New York gun laws in that scenario?

I should add, it looks like this proposed bill would have compelled a few states (Wyoming & West Virginia among them) to require permits for concealed-carry for the first time.

I don't understand why this concept is so difficult for you to understand. A NY driver drives into WV and the NY law applies (full faith and credit). Since NY law is more oppressive than WV law, the WV police officer has no reason to arrest or charge the NY driver.

The problem is when a driver from a less oppressive state drives into a more oppressive state, not the reverse.

And all citizens of the US have the right to carry weapons for self-protection

[WingsFan]

Thank you Kapture1, after all these years that is probably 'Fake News'


First paper to run Limbaugh "slavery" quote issues retraction

But now the toothpaste is being squeezed back into the tube by the Post-Dispatch. In an Editor’s Note published today, the newspaper says that the quote in question “cannot be verified, and its use did not meet the Post-Dispatch‘s standards for sourcing.”

[Kapture1]

The fine folks from Media Matters and the like have for years listened to every word he says on his show waiting for him to say the n-word or something. I dont believe Limbaugh is a racist.

[iam416]

I don't understand why this concept is so difficult for you to understand. A NY driver drives into WV and the NY law applies (full faith and credit). Since NY law is more oppressive than WV law, the WV police officer has no reason to arrest or charge the NY driver.

Out of curiosity, Geezer, what was your FF&C stance on gay marriage back before the Supreme Court created the right from the Constitution?

Or perhaps a better example would be a medical marijuana state vs. non medical marijuana state. You need your gun for protection. You need medical marijuana to alleviate a medical condition. I'm fairly certain that non-marijuana States are under no obligation to not arrest possessors, even if legally obtained in another state.

That's federalism. The fact that Congress is stepping in very much proves the point that there is no such FF&C and, TBH, nor should there be absent federal legislation.

[Jeff Buchanan]

I don't understand why this concept is so difficult for you to understand. .......

I'm also curious about why you start out posts within which you are going to question the position of another poster with remarks like this.

What this says to DSL is, look, you dumb fuck, why are you so fucking stupid .....

Never mind that the position you took in your own post regarding "Full Faith and Credit"..... is wrongly applied in this particular case.

Generally, I enjoy your posts. The ones that start out like this though I usually just scroll through them.

[Dr. Strangelove]

I don't understand why this concept is so difficult for you to understand. A NY driver drives into WV and the NY law applies (full faith and credit). Since NY law is more oppressive than WV law, the WV police officer has no reason to arrest or charge the NY driver.

The problem is when a driver from a less oppressive state drives into a more oppressive state, not the reverse.

And all citizens of the US have the right to carry weapons for self-protection

Talent has already addressed some of the contradictions I was hinting at.

I would say that if you believe one state's laws should be imposed on every state, then you cannot logically argue against a federal law regulating concealed carry on the basis of 'states rights' or 'Federalism'.

Additionally I'm not aware that concealed carry is a right guaranteed by the Constitution. Gun ownership, sure.

[Dr. Strangelove]

I don't really like Andrew McCarthy and he's made it clear over the years that he despises Obama. This article should be read by all our Trump fans here. This is a very solid take on the 'unmasking controversy' and the newer 'Steele Dossier controversy'.

The kicker here is below but to summarize: Trump claims he is the victim of an FBI conspiracy where power was grossly abused. But as McCarthy points out, with a quick sweep of the hand, Trump could release all the information he'd need to totally vindicate himself and send dozens of Obama people to prison. He hasn't. McCarthy reasons that (unfortunately) the best explanation for why he hasn't is that the info WILL NOT vindicate Trump, will not show the criminality he claims exists, and that it's more useful politically to keep screaming about a conspiracy out to get you.

*******

Needless to say, if this is how it happened, the Trump administration would not want the information in the FISA application disclosed. To be sure, the information would not necessarily indicate there was any Trump-campaign collusion in Russian espionage. But it might show that (a) there were unsavory contacts between Trump associates and foreign government operatives; (b) there was enough FBI-verified information in the warrant application (which probably was not limited to the dossier?s allegations) for the FISA court to find probable cause to believe one or more Trump-connected people were acting as agents of a foreign power; and (c) parts of the dossier have been corroborated, which would destroy the Trump political claim that the dossier is a tissue of lies.

President Trump is uniquely positioned to reveal how the dossier was handled and what the FISA Court was told. As Congressman Jordan urges, Trump?s own FBI and Justice Department employees could easily let the Intelligence Committee examine any FISA applications derived from the dossier. Why doesn?t the president just order them to comply with Congress?s demand?

In the unmasking controversy, it seems Trump was more interested in politically exploiting the specter of abusive unmasking than in ordering the disclosure of what actually happened. Is the same thing true of the dossier? I don?t know why the FBI and Justice Department are stonewalling the Intelligence Committee. Suffice it to say, however, that the president could order disclosure if he wanted to. He hasn?t. If he persists in that posture, we have to assume he would prefer that we not know what the FBI told the FISA Court.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/454493/steele-dossier-fbi-trump-should-disclose-warrant-application

[Ed Balzer]

The problem is when a driver from a less oppressive state drives into a more oppressive state, not the reverse.

I know a couple of Vermonters who had 'oh shit' moments when they forgot to remove firearms from their cars after crossing into New York and Massachusetts.

[iam416]

Additionally I'm not aware that concealed carry is a right guaranteed by the Constitution. Gun ownership, sure.

Correct.

I don't really like Andrew McCarthy and he's made it clear over the years that he despises Obama

Correct again. He's almost always auto-ignore for me. It's too bad. He's really sharp, but his partisanship is soooooooo overwhelming. He still rates slightly ahead of VDH in terms of regular NRO writers, but barely and only because there's a chance he hits on something I find interesting, legally -- I mean, his experience is relevant -- whereas I don't give a flying fuck how the individual mandate harkens back to the fatal flaw in Carthaginian society.