perfidy

There's no right to bear arms, so it's some kind of joke I guess.

Only tangentially related, but the local daily fishwrap here has stolen all of Galactica's poundy drums to try to advance the cause of regionalism (one proposal, not that it has a whelk's chance in a supernova, was to incorporate all of Cuyahoga County into Cleveland). Nothing like authorized journalists and urban studies professors telling one with a straight face that making government more remote will make it more efficient and effective.

Scale knows it's on the way out, I think, but it will die hard.

The Plain Dealer? I remember back in the nineties that the PD was a ridiculous newspaper. I imagine that the primary reason that they want to incorporate all of Cuyahoga into Cleveland is to get a population bigger than Columbus.

First thing I noticed, they're quite big on an "... in declared emergency" exception.

Second thing I noticed was, as Nicholas saw, a specific denial of right to bear arms.

Third thing I noticed was that, yes, they're asserting the socialist system they warned about up top, with focus on taxation "that's fair to all", probably with some form of "declared emergency" exception, and ignoring that production efforts aren't fair to all.

Finally, overcome by the achingly earnest stupidity of the document, I had to stop reading.

Ken: Why do the soon-to-be-disappointed advocates think Cuyahoga County becoming part of Cleveland would help? Is there some sort of a "race to the bottom" up there of which I was not made aware?

Well, those of us who moved the hell out of town could go back to footing the bills for Cleveland's aggravated serial foolishness. That'd be a plus for somebody, I'm sure.

That won't happen, but there might be some low-grade knavery and mischief. I hear a lot about consolidating certain school districts. We got a guy on the school board here who wanted more state aid mandated--to reduce, one supposes, the burden on local . A couple of us asked him, "Where's that money supposed to come from?"

He replied, "Well, which would be less onerous?" (meaning paying more to the state, or having the board come around with its hand out for another operating levy every four years).

I said, "I know which is less onerous for the school board, but frankly I'd rather have you guys have to face the paying customers every so often."

And then, his head exploded?

The drive to avoid the rigors of answering to paying customers is a characteristic trait of the elected politician at all levels.

Remember Ken, you could always go back to having Kucinich as mayor.

Which reminds me - was there some component of the Newstates Constitution, beyond the point where I dozed off reading it, where they planned a Department of Peace?

Not that I saw. Just did a search on "peace" and found nothing. Although I did notice that not only is there not a right to bear arms, this new constitution would explicitly deny guns to anyone but the military, police and bodyguards of rich liberal celebrities.

Ironic that this abomination is hosted on a website called, "Sweetliberty"

We got Frank Jackson, who's plenty bad enough. Example:

You may have heard that a resident of the Mount Pleasant neighborhood shot and killed a 15-year-old who tried to rob him at gunpoint. The resident, who had a CCW permit, has since been driven from his home by friends and supporters of the 15-year-old (the CPD, ever protectful and servalicious, took his gun as evidence--he won't be charged, but I bet he doesn't see his handgun again either).

Even the hoplophobes at the Plain Dealer have taken notice of who appears to be actually running Mount Pleasant.

Da mayor? Not a peep, not a sausage.

My wife is a Democrat and I am not, but we are in 100% accord on this--regionalism starts heating up, we're getting out of the county.

Just the fact that the constitution mandates a planning branch is proof of its idiocy.

Medina county is quite nice. Avoid Brunswick, though.

Ken,
Well that's how it works alot of the time in blue states. If the victim (here meaning the citizen who was nearly robbed of life and property, and NOT the dirtbag who got greased) is found to have used his weapon legally- however grudging the finding might be- then comes the civil suit filed by the deceased's family, while the constabulary impounds the weapon for no adequate reason.

If he's lucky, he'll only be charged a storage fee but will get his property back. If he's unlucky, his CCW will be revoked, he'll never see his property again, and he'll pay the dirtbag's parents out the ass forever.

I'm clearly in no position to state how I would act under the cirucumstance, but I would hope that if my friend or family member were iced during an attempted armed robbery, I'd have the good grace to shut the fuck up.

Out of embarrassment, if nothing else.

I can't imagine how I might somehow construct an argument to drive the righteous shooter out of his or her home.

Patton,
You're coming at it the wrong way. Constructing logical arguments has no place here.

Instead you'll want to run purely on emotion and the conviction that guns=bad. Refine your hysteria with a dose of "he shouldn't have fought back because everything's insured anyway" (as if my insurance premiums are license for people to steal from me). Everything else will fall into place after that.

But that doesn't mean I can't respect the depth of despair that would come from losing a child. The thing is though we're not talking about a tragic accident.

This isn't the decedent's family, it's his friends and schoolmates, if the term applies, from the neighborhood. First thing they did was smash out all the first-floor windows on the guy's house. The civil suit from the family is probably coming, though.

And of course, they were free to do that. Because they knew he no longer had a gun.

Even with this set of facts, I'd have trouble mimicking their actions, but I'm resigned to the fact that's just because I'm an adult.

While I don't doubt that a civil suit is possible, I wonder what would be the cause of action. Deprivation of civil rights? Seems like those had already been forfeited.

Civil manslaughter doesn't seem as though it would pass the giggle test. The shooter is simultaneously utterly responsible, and not liable in the least.

I've occasionally played with the idea of new constitutional amendments, wondering if things could be tightened up a bit, or improved. This thing though - I just read all of it - is a nightmare.

Rather than promulgate new amendments, I think I'd make the Ninth Amendment the new First (and maybe add "Seriously. We mean it"), reword the Second so that it incontrovertibly refers to an individual right (it already does, we know, but I'd spell 'er out), and go from there.

I think the site posted it as a public service by their rights--a perusal of the front page suggests they are right-wing Truthers.