Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by ferrets_bueller

GGG:
You are correct about the ability to carry huge amount of ammunition for a semi automatic. However limiting the magazine capacity gives you a brief moment to run or fight.

In combat, I had a semiautomatic, modified M-14 with a 20 round clip. I was taught to count my own shots so that when I got to 16 or 17, I would pause if possible, get the next mag ready, and then switch. You didn't want to be flat ass empty when you needed to switch out. In like fashion, if you hear an automatic burst, or hear a pause in a semiautomatic burst, you may want to take that opportunity to recon quickly, with a view toward moving to a position with m ore advantage. More mag switches mean more opportunities to move.

But if you're carrying multiple weapons, you may just need to pull a new one out not switch the mag, right?

I have recently run into a vest set-up that would carry and make accessible up to 8 handguns. That's scary shit. The Sandy Hook shooter used two handguns and a rifle. The Pulse nightclub shooter used a rifle and a handgun.

[ferrets_bueller]

Sure. But ANY time gap is better than none, so limiting magazine capacity from the current standard of 30 rounds would be an improvement.

There are legitimate reasons, I suppose, for 10 round magazines. A mag holding 30 rounds is just a weapon of indiscriminate mass destruction.

I have no doubt that the NRA will pimp ways to empower their more goonish members and the mentally unstable, (to the extent a Venn diagram draws a distinction between the two) with the ability to commit mass murder. From now on, every time technology has a "bumpstock" moment, it needs to be banned.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by ferrets_bueller

Sure. But ANY time gap is better than none, so limiting magazine capacity from the current standard of 30 rounds would be an improvement.

There are legitimate reasons, I suppose, for 10 round magazines. A mag holding 30 rounds is just a weapon of indiscriminate mass destruction.

I have no doubt that the NRA will pimp ways to empower their more goonish members and the mentally unstable, (to the extent a Venn diagram draws a distinction between the two) with the ability to commit mass murder. From now on, every time technology has a "bumpstock" moment, it needs to be banned.

Agreed. Get it all down to 10 rounds and lives will be saved.

I guess a 30 round mag is useful in case your home is invaded by a well-armed squad from the warring drug ring, but in those cases you're probably best off just retreating upstairs and sticking your nose into the whole damn pile of coke.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

If you used it in a meeting, you deserve all the credit.

TM

All dudes. But still, I've rarely gotten laughs like that.

Just popped into my head. This place does that sometimes.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

When you're in Mexico, do you sleep until noon before heading down for some heuvos rancheros, espresso, and a bloody Mary?

I'm over 40. I can't sleep past 7 even if I try.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Agreed. Get it all down to 10 rounds and lives will be saved.

I guess a 30 round mag is useful in case your home is invaded by a well-armed squad from the warring drug ring, but in those cases you're probably best off just retreating upstairs and sticking your nose into the whole damn pile of coke.

Seems to me there should be some sort of negligent homicide charge / gross negligence suit with strict liability standard on the owner of any gun that kills a kid under, say, 10.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ferrets_bueller

If I may veer away from sebby's economics-metaphyics:

The Florida School shooting might just be a tipping point. Scalia's preposterous notion that assault weapons are something the Second Amendment allows everyone to own looks rockier than it has in years.
The NRA is looking a tad vulnerable. Having Trump, with all his baggage, as the defender of essentially unlimited gun ownership doesn't help the NRA position. So, in no particular order:

1. No private gun sales to people who haven't passed a background check. Criminal penalties and civil liability to the seller when the gun is used in a crime.

2. Civil liability for gun owners if a weapon they own is used in a crime. Try getting insurance for that one.

3. A broad based assault weapon ban, a 10 round maximum clip for bullets. Listen up: That includes currently owned assault weapons. If you can ban M-60 machine guns, you can ban M-16s. If we have to pry 'em from their cold dead hands, do it. Alternatively, allow these weapons only on private property, and require transport of those weapons to be in a disassembled state. Criminal penalties for violation. Defend your castle, but don't bring that weapon out in public. To the assertion that this would require the ban on thousands of different types of weapons, I respond: So what?

4. What happened to Rubio has to happen to every spineless political gasbag. People have to point at Rubio, in public, and tell him and others like him that half measures won't work because they are doomed to failure. Tell them that if they don't commit to a broad solution, every high school student who thinks they are wrong will make them pay politically, and drive them out of office.

5. Target politicians who are the worst NRA flag waivers. Use their own words against them. Run the mothers and siblings of victims against them. Expose them for the accomplices of murder that they are. Pick a Congressman who supports some of the idiotic positions recently taken by the NRA and force them to run on that record.

6. I'll be the old fart at the March 24 march on Washington carrying a "Combat vets against combat weapons" sign

Anyone who wants one can have a flintlock rifle, but they have to muster for militia drill every Saturday morning at 6:30 am at the high school field. No guns for anyone else.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by ferrets_bueller

My responses to sebby:

1. I should have been clearer: I advocate civil liability only for gun sellers who do not run background checks.

2. One of the tired lines I hear from NRA types is "Gun control? Sure. You control your gun and I'll control mine." Well, fine then. If you own a gun, secure it, control it, and make sure it isn't used in a crime. Take out insurance, and demonstrate to the insurer's satisfaction that you do so. Take the responsibility we place on car owners when they give the keys to a drunk. Enact statutes that require you to control your weapon or pay the consequences.

3. A full ban on assault weapons is way overdue. Take the issue head on; we are essentially in agreement.

4. The "purple states" are ripe for the picking on this issue. Politicians are going to have to walk away from either (a) the NRA or (b)what may become a mass movement of soon-to-be-young-voters.

This. The 2d Amdt. Says "well-regulated." Has to mean at least as regulated as a car. Every gun has to be registered with a million per occurrence policy.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

Seems to me there should be some sort of negligent homicide charge / gross negligence suit with strict liability standard on the owner of any gun that kills a kid under, say, 10.

I'd be fine with strict liability for any unsecured gun.

You know, if we had that, smart gun technology would take off, and deaths would plummet.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I'd be fine with strict liability for any unsecured gun.

You know, if we had that, smart gun technology would take off, and deaths would plummet.

How about a registry (blockchain!) for guns, with the last legit owner bearing strict liability for misuse?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Meanwhile, in Australia: Former Freemason, 51, found drunk and naked inside a huge pipe organ with a toy gun and remote-controlled police car says he got lost while trying to hand out cheeseburgers to the homeless.

[Replaced_Texan]

So there's been drama in Houston regarding one of our congressional primary races.

On Friday, the DCCC decided to publish their opposition research on one of the candidates running for what everyone thinks might be a swing district Texas-07. This Progressive candidate founded Daily Action right after the 2016 election, a text service that connects Progressives with their representatives on specific issues. She also moved to Texas from DC right before announcing her candidacy, but she grew up in Houston and her parents live here. Her husband was Barack Obama's videographer from 2007 until I think 2011 or so, and he's now a partner in a political media company. I believe they worked on the Sanders campaign (among others). She's been a writer and they have two kids (one of whom threw a temper tantrum right before the White House seder in front of the President a few years back).

There are seven candidates running, and there will be most definitely be a runoff. Until recently the DCCC favored candidate and the Emily's List endorsed candidate have risen to the top in terms of fundraising, but the Progressive has been surging in 2018 dollars raised. And she says this brouhaha has generated a lot more in donations.

The general word on the street is that this race is too dear to the Democrats to end up in the hands of a Progressive with baggage. As a writer who wasn't thinking of a political career, there is probably a lot (more*) out there that she's said that could be problematic to justify. Additionally, the relationship with her husband's media company has come up. Her FCC filings have shown her campaign has paid them about $50,000.

It's one of the districts that voted for Hilary but also retained their Republican Congressman John Culberson. (I used to live in the district until the lines were redrawn in 2013. I'm now in CD2, with a retiring Republican candidate and nine Republicans and five Democrats running.) It's a very diverse district, and it's been changing rapidly over the years. It's probably a centrist district, and it hasn't had a serious Democratic contender in years. Early voting has been going on for about a week now, so ballots have been cast well before this memo hit. Democrats are voting in record numbers right now in the early voting, and the actual primary is March 6.

Complicating this even more (for me only), the little girl throwing the temper tantrum in front of the President was named after my sister. Laura and Claudia were best friends in high school, and they've been as close as high school friends who live in different cities (until now) can be as adults. AND the Emily's list endorsed candidate was one of my brother's best friends in high school. They sort of drifted after high school, but kept more or less aware of each other until three or four years ago, when they were both on the board of an arts organization together and started hanging out again. Now, my brother is actively campaigning for one, and my sister for the other. (None of them live in the district either. One is in the 18th and the other is in the 29th. We live four miles apart and are in three separate districts, with another two blocks from my house. Gotta love gerrymandering.) I know one of the other candidates peripherally, and another ALSO went to our high school, but I don't know him. I've stayed the hell out of it, saying that I'll support whoever emerges after the primary.

What I don't get is what the fuck the DCCC is doing. This has done nothing for any of the other candidates but it has elevated Laura. I thought she was hitting desperation time because she brought in Hollywood types to campaign for her at the last minute, but events that weren't getting much traction suddenly are filling up because people are so pissed about the DCCC hit. Every article has only talked about Laura, not the others. I don't know if any locals were consulted before they decided to make their hit, but it's backfired. And it's shitty, because if she emerges, she's going to have hits from both sides and it's probably going to lose the district. If she's in the runoff, the other Democrat is going to have to hit her as hard as possible with this stuff, and anything else dug up. And Culberson is probably begging for her to win so he can take hits at her. I told my sister to give as much support to her friend as she can, because she's going to need it. I don't disagree that the stuff brought up by the DCCC needs to be addressed, but it should have come out months ago, not while voting is going on.

Every time the DCCC calls me asking for donations, I tell them to pound sand because until now, they've shown no interest whastsoever in Texas. Now, I want them to go away.

*The DCCC cites a Slate article she wrote that says she'd rather have her teeth pulled without anesthesia than move to Paris, Texas.

[Adder]

The most puzzling things is if that's all ya got, why even bother? A clearly out of context quote about one town and a bit of run-of-the-mill self-dealing? How did you think that would work?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

So there's been drama in Houston regarding one of our congressional primary races.

On Friday, the DCCC decided to publish their opposition research on one of the candidates running for what everyone thinks might be a swing district Texas-07. This Progressive candidate founded Daily Action right after the 2016 election, a text service that connects Progressives with their representatives on specific issues. She also moved to Texas from DC right before announcing her candidacy, but she grew up in Houston and her parents live here. Her husband was Barack Obama's videographer from 2007 until I think 2011 or so, and he's now a partner in a political media company. I believe they worked on the Sanders campaign (among others). She's been a writer and they have two kids (one of whom threw a temper tantrum right before the White House seder in front of the President a few years back).

There are seven candidates running, and there will be most definitely be a runoff. Until recently the DCCC favored candidate and the Emily's List endorsed candidate have risen to the top in terms of fundraising, but the Progressive has been surging in 2018 dollars raised. And she says this brouhaha has generated a lot more in donations.

The general word on the street is that this race is too dear to the Democrats to end up in the hands of a Progressive with baggage. As a writer who wasn't thinking of a political career, there is probably a lot (more*) out there that she's said that could be problematic to justify. Additionally, the relationship with her husband's media company has come up. Her FCC filings have shown her campaign has paid them about $50,000.

It's one of the districts that voted for Hilary but also retained their Republican Congressman John Culberson. (I used to live in the district until the lines were redrawn in 2013. I'm now in CD2, with a retiring Republican candidate and nine Republicans and five Democrats running.) It's a very diverse district, and it's been changing rapidly over the years. It's probably a centrist district, and it hasn't had a serious Democratic contender in years. Early voting has been going on for about a week now, so ballots have been cast well before this memo hit. Democrats are voting in record numbers right now in the early voting, and the actual primary is March 6.

Complicating this even more (for me only), the little girl throwing the temper tantrum in front of the President was named after my sister. Laura and Claudia were best friends in high school, and they've been as close as high school friends who live in different cities (until now) can be as adults. AND the Emily's list endorsed candidate was one of my brother's best friends in high school. They sort of drifted after high school, but kept more or less aware of each other until three or four years ago, when they were both on the board of an arts organization together and started hanging out again. Now, my brother is actively campaigning for one, and my sister for the other. (None of them live in the district either. One is in the 18th and the other is in the 29th. We live four miles apart and are in three separate districts, with another two blocks from my house. Gotta love gerrymandering.) I know one of the other candidates peripherally, and another ALSO went to our high school, but I don't know him. I've stayed the hell out of it, saying that I'll support whoever emerges after the primary.

What I don't get is what the fuck the DCCC is doing. This has done nothing for any of the other candidates but it has elevated Laura. I thought she was hitting desperation time because she brought in Hollywood types to campaign for her at the last minute, but events that weren't getting much traction suddenly are filling up because people are so pissed about the DCCC hit. Every article has only talked about Laura, not the others. I don't know if any locals were consulted before they decided to make their hit, but it's backfired. And it's shitty, because if she emerges, she's going to have hits from both sides and it's probably going to lose the district. If she's in the runoff, the other Democrat is going to have to hit her as hard as possible with this stuff, and anything else dug up. And Culberson is probably begging for her to win so he can take hits at her. I told my sister to give as much support to her friend as she can, because she's going to need it. I don't disagree that the stuff brought up by the DCCC needs to be addressed, but it should have come out months ago, not while voting is going on.

Every time the DCCC calls me asking for donations, I tell them to pound sand because until now, they've shown no interest whastsoever in Texas. Now, I want them to go away.

*The DCCC cites a Slate article she wrote that says she'd rather have her teeth pulled without anesthesia than move to Paris, Texas.

This all is crazy.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

This all is crazy.

It's the second time that Washington has come down to tell Houston how to vote in a really tone deaf manner. Last month, Chuck Schumer came down to endorse a candidate that no one has ever heard of (a "healthcare executive" from Beaumont) to replace Gene Green in the 29th when state senator Sylvia Garcia has picked up pretty much every endorsement in the state, including Gene Green's.

I've suggested that Sylvia remind voters that Chuck Schumer is the reason we do not have a Space Shuttle at the Johnson Space Center, and he has no business telling us what is good for us.