3207

I don’t know Missouri but picking a fight with the Feds is probably good local politics.

3208

Eh, they just threaten to take your highway money and then the law is repealed 30 minutes later. It’s not like Honest Abe is going to send the troops down.

You play the pot smoker’s game. You just stop doing their job for them and see what happens.
Just thinking out loud here, but they probably realize the feds aren’t going to sit idly by like they do with pot smoking states. And unlike drugs, beat cops aren’t the main enforcers. The feds usually have enough manpower to cut down the visible law breakers.

Yeah, it’s mostly for show.

3209

Well, obviously it’s for show, but it’s also so damned stupid it makes my balls ache.

3210

Think of it as civil disobedience at the state level. It’s a way to register dissent.

3211

With such glorious cognitive dissonance that it reminds the part of the country with functioning brains why we shouldn’t take them seriously.

3212

Don’t be snide.

You can certainly dismiss people out of hand - you have no obligation to do anything else. Dismissing them provides a certain comfort and a sense of moral rectitude. There is another option though, you can sit down and try and understand why they believe what they believe - why they fight for what they fight for. I think there’s a real value in understanding the people around us, especially the ones we disagree with. I think you’ll find that your truth isn’t the only truth. There are fine people who have different values than yours. They are neither right nor wrong, simply different.

3213

Reddit opens gun market. Sells branded rifles.

3214

Don’t get me wrong, I understand their position (to a point), but the method screams stupidity. :)

3215

My snideness has nothing to do with whether I agree with them or not and everything to do with this particular group of persons being grandstanding ignorant fools. Believe me, my snideness and snark is sufficiently sharp that I have no hesitation using it on those with whom I share a political affiliation.

You consistently jump to the conclusion that everyone who mocks or belittles a conservative position or person, no matter how absurd, is doing so because they are dismissing out of hand any alternative position. This is false, and has repeatedly been demonstrated to be false, yet you continue to do so. This tells me that you do not wish to revisit your own preconceptions and opinions in the face of contrary evidence and are thus not arguing or discussing in good faith, despite your overall polite and well-spoken demeanor. That is unfortunate, as this board needs educated conservative voices who can and will engage in robust discussion.

3216

But not a geographical one, right? Why is being a narcissist coastal elite so hard to self-identify?

Openly-gay legislators and other members of the GLBT Caucus held a press conference today in Sacramento to announce the introduction of a legislative resolution declaring that Proposition 8 is an illegal “constitutional revision” and thus should be declared invalid by the California Supreme Court. However, the legislators backing the resolution have no apparent qualifications as constitutional scholars to make such a finding, nor does a symbolic resolution have any standing in courts of law.

“This resolution adds nothing to the debate about the validity of Proposition 8. It is simply designed to get press coverage for the legislators involved,” said Andrew Pugno, General Counsel of ProtectMarriage.com. “The California Supreme Court, at our request, has already decided to hear the challenges to Proposition 8. We are confident that Prop. 8 will be upheld, as many legal scholars have recently commented. The Court is not swayed by meaningless legislative resolutions that have no bearing on the outcome of the court challenges.”

Hurr u r teh stupid.

3217

I’m from Arizona, actually. Moved to CA for work. Care to try again?

FWIW, Houngan, you’re one of those to whom I always try to listen, especially when I disagree with you. I don’t always come away agreeing afterwards, but I often come away more educated.

3218

Uh, wut? Seriously, I don’t understand how you got from A to B.

In no particular order:

  • I agree with him about Lemon. It’s a common rhetorical tactic he uses.
  • Shiva’s right. Nullification is stupid. It always gets thrown out, and it’s been that way for 150 years.
  • The GLBT thing is stupid too, though it’s not nullification, it’s a different variety of constitutional ignorance.
  • Characterizing them as “narcissistic coastal elite” is tasteless. It implies you can’t imagine being gay without being the other adjectives. Calling the group holding the press conference idiots is appropriate, but adding the other stuff makes you look like a bigot.
  • How the hell does that connect to ReptileHouse? Did he say something in support of the GLBT grandstanding as a tactic?
  • If he didn’t, jumping to that just because he resides in California makes it appear you believe everyone’s opinions depend on their geography.
3219

This statement is bigotry based on geography. I don’t much care for bigotry whether or not it’s pointed at me (which this is, roughly.) So in reply to his mocking of a region based on constitutionally ignorant grandstanding by the region’s politicians, I supplied an example from his area of constitutionally ignorant grandstanding.

See?

RH is the coastal elite in question, not the LGBT folks.

3220

I suspect most American believe the future is a singular destination, I would disagree. It’s whatever we imagine it to be and as culturally diverse as this country is - we imagine many different futures. One is no more right or wrong than the other. Right is culturally relative, not absolute. I am leery of that sense of moral rectitude, that self assurance belies an inability to understand the other. Regarding Missouri, apparently the local legislature felt like making a point. They clearly went to some trouble to do so which in turn suggests a certain level of passion. They care about this issue and they believe Washington is wrong.

In the eighties many small towns and communities declared themselves nuclear free zones. Not that anyone was planning on building a nuclear plant in their backyard, or that anyone was planning to stage nuclear weapons in the town square. It was simply a way for the people to register their opinion on an issue they had little control over. They hoped that widespread national support and sustained pressure would shift the national dialogue and result in real policy changes.

Nullification has been a settled issue since the days of Jackson and I doubt the Missouri legislature thought this would hold any muster. Still, I suspect they hoped this would shift the debate ever so slightly in their favor.

This tells me that you do not wish to revisit your own preconceptions and opinions in the face of contrary evidence and are thus not arguing or discussing in good faith, despite your overall polite and well-spoken demeanor. That is unfortunate, as this board needs educated conservative voices who can and will engage in robust discussion.

What are you trying to persuade me of? What point were you making? I’m more than willing to listen, but sarcasm isn’t an argument in itself.

3221

Re-reading my statement I can see where you’re getting that impression. I apologize. Such was not my intent and in my carelessness I chose my words poorly.

My concern is with people who pander to the extremes rather than seeking to discuss. Who value grandstanding and stirring up the base over being effective representatives for their constituencies. I believe the politicians in question here do that, and more, and in so doing contradict the very values they claim to hold so dear. I find this incredibly frustrating, infuriating even, as it flies in the face of everything I hold dear with regards to our political process. I believe in working to be effective as much as being right, in finding alliances across affiliations, and in honest debate and discourse. These are ideals, of course, and never in our history have we as a nation lived up to them. That doesn’t stop me from valuing them, though.

3222

I understand, and agree with your revised point. Unfortunately my cynicism has long since blasted any hope of a thoughtful political discourse at anything bigger than the city council level right out of my head.

3223

A short tempered ex-cop shoots moviegoer. Is now suddenly trying to use stand-your-ground as excuse. Florida of course. It seems like just the chance someone can get off emboldens people to use a gun in situations they otherwise would not.

Compared to Europe we live in a savage and very sick country.

3224

Shot and killed over texting in movie theatre. I hate disruptive people at the movies too, but that is a sad fucking story.

3225

Shot and killed over texting and throwing popcorn in a movie theatre. I hate disruptive people at the movies too, but that is a sad fucking story.

3226

When I saw this case, I figured he will probably be convicted. A thrown bag of popcorn might be “assault” in our silly justice system, but it’s not an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm. I’m sure you all remember how age and size differences come into play, but unless the guy leaped the seats and made an explicit threat, I don’t see a reason to pull a gun out.

I’m pretty sure Reeves betrays himself when he says he was “in fear of being attacked.” I need to go back and see if a relatively mild “scuffle” (like you’d see in a bar fight) is enough to shoot someone. I don’t think it is. It’s been years since I read Florida Firearms Law. I happen to be reading the 7th edition now, so we’ll see what Gutmacher says. (He talks about similar issues on how to respond to the trendy thug “knockout game”.)

My cynical take on the case was that this guy still thought he was a cop, and he thought he could get away with a lesser basis for deadly force than we plebians have. It’s also easier to trump something up after the fact when you’re active duty.

Regardless, this is why CCW holders need to be on even better behavior than the average citizen. You can’t go around picking fights (or, ahem following people in your neighborhood) because you might find yourself in a situation where you need to use your gun. Cops do this and get away with it, but we can’t. Which is how it ought to be for everyone. My first thought in this situation would be to change seats.

Commentary on the reporting:

“Here’s the problem: We’re trying to look into the mind of the defendant and posit what he thought was happening,” Rose said. “That’s often why these cases go trial — because you just can’t tell.”
This is a law professor, but I’m almost certain the legal justification for use of deadly force is the reasonable man provision. The jurors don’t have to figure out what Reeves was thinking, but what a reasonable person of his age and build ought to have done in that situation. I might have this completely wrong, which is why it’s time to brush up on this stuff. (It takes me a while to read the book because it usually makes me so fucking angry about all the bullshit and confusion in the law.)

On the other hand, a prosecutor could argue that as a former officer, Reeves should have known how to de-escalate the situation.
Uhh… maybe there are good cops out there, but I’ve read enough news stories to know that some of them are all too happy to start shooting. The jury might buy that though.

Last, character could come into play if the case makes it to trial. Jurors might be inclined to believe the statements of a retired officer, Rose said.
This is a shame.