Bill would ban cellphone use for those under 21
MONTPELIER — A bill has been introduced in the state Senate that would make it illegal for anyone under the age of 21 to use or possess a cellphone.
It said cellphone use while driving is one of the leading killers of teenagers. It also said young people use cellphones frequently to bully and threaten each other, something that has been linked to suicides.
The bill was introduced by Sen. John Rodgers, D-Essex-Orleans. Rodgers said Wednesday he introduced the bill to make a point.
“I have no delusions that it’s going to pass. I wouldn’t probably vote for it myself,” he said.
He said he’s a strong supporter of the Second Amendment and the Legislature “seems bent on taking away our Second Amendment rights.”
A disturbing scenario:
It was not my intention to impugn the gun owners of America as cowards or fools. My intention was only to give an example of how the fight you expect is not always the fight you get. If I were to add anything it would be this: Americans, as with all people of formerly free Western democracies ought to prepare for the possibility that their back will never be put against the wall en masse. That there will be no great peril that makes brothers in arms of those who were formally mere neighbours and acquaintances. That no definable moment will tip the scales or “cross the line”.
Edmund Burke said “When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.”
Every militia, every army and every nation can trace its history back to a single point in time when two men looked each other in the eye and agreed not to fall “one by one”. Then two became four, four became eight, and so forth.
Start associating. Because by the time you’re waiting for them at your doorstep it’s already too late.
Found at Powerline.
The y axis is homicides per 100,000 Americans.
Clueless. From Washington Times—
President Obama’s spokesman said Thursday that the record number of Americans seeking to buy guns in recent weeks is “a tragedy” that the White House is at a loss to explain.
“The more that we see this kind of violence on our streets, the more people go out and buy guns,” said White House press secretary Josh Earnest. “That is both ironic and tragic.”
The FBI conducted 185,345 firearms background checks on Black Friday, the most ever during a single day. The record number of gun sales came two weeks after the Islamic State’s terrorist attacks in Paris, but before the terrorist massacre in San Bernardino, California.
Asked why he thinks so many Americans are buying guns, Mr. Earnest replied, “I don’t know, I really don’t.”
Great article–read the whole thing.
If you think precision doesn’t matter, forget about guns for a second. Imagine I’m concerned about dangerous pit bulls, and I’m explaining my views to you, a dog trainer — but I have no grasp of dog terminology.
Me: I don’t want to take away dog owners’ rights, but we need to do something about pit bulls. We need restrictions on owning an attack dog.
You: Wait. What’s an “attack dog”?
Me: You know what I mean. Like military dogs.
You: Huh? Pit bulls aren’t military dogs. In fact “military dogs” isn’t a thing. You mean like German Shepherds?
Me: Don’t be ridiculous. Nobody’s trying to take away your German Shepherds. But civilians shouldn’t own fighting dogs.
You: I have no idea what dogs you’re talking about now.
Me: You’re being both picky and obtuse. You know I mean hounds.
You: Hounds? Seriously?
Me: OK, maybe not actually “hounds.” Maybe I have the terminology wrong. I’m not obsessed with violent dogs the way you are. But we can identify breeds that civilians just don’t need to own.
You: Apparently not.
A federal judge in the District of Columbia on Saturday overturned the city’s total ban on residents being allowing to carry firearms outside their home.
From the Court’s decision:
In light of Heller, McDonald, and their progeny, there is no longer any basis on which this Court can conclude that the District of Columbia’s total ban on the public carrying of ready-to-use handguns outside the home is constitutional under any level of scrutiny. Therefore, the Court finds that the District of Columbia’s complete ban on the carrying of handguns in public is unconstitutional.
Attorney General Eric Holder said on Friday that gun tracking bracelets are something the Justice Department (DOJ) wants to “explore” as part of its gun control efforts.
“By making them either through finger print identification, the gun talks to a bracelet or something that you might wear, how guns can be used only by the person who is lawfully in possession of the weapon.”
This not what I want to worry about when I need my gun in the middle of the night, or to malfunction when I need it most. And there are (fortunately) several million guns already in circulation, and it would be difficult to retrofit them all.
This is just another avenue for gun registration, and it will not fly.
I love my revolver–it is powerful, it is reliable, and I don’t have to wear a bracelet to shoot it.
HARTFORD, CT – In a blow to Connecticut citizens’ Second Amendment protections, U.S. District Judge Alfred V. Covello ruled that the state’s assault weapons ban is constitutional.
According to the judge, “While the act burdens the plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights, it is substantially related to the important governmental interest of public safety and crime control.”
“Obviously, the court cannot foretell how successful the legislation will be in preventing crime. Nevertheless, for the purposes of the court’s inquiry here, Connecticut, in passing the legislation, has drawn reasonable inferences from substantial evidence.”
The judge ruled without hearing oral arguments.