Richard Cohen has most brilliantly summed up the confusion over why Republicans simply can't let go of Benghazi.
I feel about the GOP as I do about the religion of others: I don't get it. I know feelings can be strong and reason plays little part in it -- faith is faith, after all -- and this is the way I see the GOP snits about the IRS and, more pertinently, Benghazi. What are these people talking about?
Four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, died in the 2012 attack in Benghazi, Libya -- two from mortar fire, and Stevens and another man from smoke inhalation. These deaths are a serious matter for which bureaucratic blame has already been assessed. No one can possibly think the Obama administration knew the attack was coming and let it happen. There is no proof of that. Similarly, no one can still think the White House put the brakes on a rescue attempt by the U.S. military. Again, there is no proof of that.
So what is Benghazi? Beats me, I am tempted to say. But I recognize it as a transparent Republican attempt to provide the party's base with grist for its fantasy mill.
Fantasy mill, indeed. Man, they really do love this stuff, don't they?
Is it possible the Obama administration fudged the nature of the attack, refusing to apply the term "terrorist"? Yes, of course. Did the White House spinmeisters put their hands all over it? Could be. But is any of this so momentous that it has required 13 public hearings and now a select House committee that will delve and delve feverishly ... for what?
I am not sure if this rancorous partisanship is something new in American history or just the same old, same old. But I know that what I am seeing looks both petty and mean. House Speaker John Boehner talks about Benghazi with synthetic solemnity. Fox News dissects it, parsing White House talking points with the ferocious intensity of a hunting dog pointing at some prey. Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi. It will show ... It will prove ... It will expose ... What? What the hell are you talking about?
Indeed, what?
Wednesday, May 14, 2014
Tuesday, May 13, 2014
Don't Even Bother With 2016
Check out this remark from US Chamber of Commerce President Thomas Donohue.
He's right. The GOP shouldn't even bother putting up a candidate in 2016 if they don't pass immigration reform. So why aren't they doing it now? Wouldn't it help cement their chances in 2014? Of course the reason is that old, angry white people in the GOP primaries don't like wetbacks so no reform until after 2014. This speaks to a larger issue.
Right now, our elderly population is enormous given the glut of baby boomers. Most of these folks are Reagan seniors and tend to vote Republican. They are mostly white and tend to be reliable voters. They look at how the United States is changing and becoming less white as those that are younger than them grow in numbers. So, it's a whole bunch of old whites versus a growing number of non whites. No wonder they are so afraid.
This is a big reason why we have all the problems we have with no solutions. It's not necessarily a left-right thing. It's a baby boomer thing. All of their problems with race, economics, politics, science and society negatively color the day and prohibit real solutions. To be quite frank, as their numbers dwindle over the next 20 years, many of these issues won't be issues anymore and I think we are going to be cut loose from their bullshit shackles and be able to truly progress as a nation.
He's right. The GOP shouldn't even bother putting up a candidate in 2016 if they don't pass immigration reform. So why aren't they doing it now? Wouldn't it help cement their chances in 2014? Of course the reason is that old, angry white people in the GOP primaries don't like wetbacks so no reform until after 2014. This speaks to a larger issue.
Right now, our elderly population is enormous given the glut of baby boomers. Most of these folks are Reagan seniors and tend to vote Republican. They are mostly white and tend to be reliable voters. They look at how the United States is changing and becoming less white as those that are younger than them grow in numbers. So, it's a whole bunch of old whites versus a growing number of non whites. No wonder they are so afraid.
This is a big reason why we have all the problems we have with no solutions. It's not necessarily a left-right thing. It's a baby boomer thing. All of their problems with race, economics, politics, science and society negatively color the day and prohibit real solutions. To be quite frank, as their numbers dwindle over the next 20 years, many of these issues won't be issues anymore and I think we are going to be cut loose from their bullshit shackles and be able to truly progress as a nation.
Monday, May 12, 2014
The Latest On Cliven Bundy
We haven't heard much from the Cliven Bundy standoff of late so I thought I would point out a few recent headlines. First we have this:
Cliven Bundy standoff: Locals want armed militia out, lawmaker says
I don't blame them. Amusing that people from out of state (what happened to state's rights?) are there to support Bundy.
We also have this:
One month later, Cliven Bundy, militia, residents face an uneasy coexistence
Here's an idea, federal government. Go and arrest Clive Bundy. He broke the law and has the bizarre idea (seemingly rooted in communism) that the land he grazes his cattle on is everyone's land. If anyone shoots at you, shoot back because that's what known as an armed insurrection. Honestly, I don't think they will because at their very heart, they are a bunch of fucking cowards who like to play guns.
Cliven Bundy standoff: Locals want armed militia out, lawmaker says
I don't blame them. Amusing that people from out of state (what happened to state's rights?) are there to support Bundy.
We also have this:
One month later, Cliven Bundy, militia, residents face an uneasy coexistence
Here's an idea, federal government. Go and arrest Clive Bundy. He broke the law and has the bizarre idea (seemingly rooted in communism) that the land he grazes his cattle on is everyone's land. If anyone shoots at you, shoot back because that's what known as an armed insurrection. Honestly, I don't think they will because at their very heart, they are a bunch of fucking cowards who like to play guns.
Sunday, May 11, 2014
Rand Paul Goes Rogue (Again)
In case you are keeping score, Rand Paul has said that Texas will turn blue, the GOP needs to undergo a significant transformation, there must be immigration reform, and there is institutional racism. This week, he said
Everybody’s gone completely crazy on this voter ID thing, I think it’s wrong for Republicans to go too crazy on this issue because it’s offending people.
No shit. And it's about time someone had the courage to be this blunt with the Republicans because they really are being assholes about it. Paul is sounding exactly like a candidate running for a national election in 2016 and someone who is well aware that the Republicans can't win unless they broaden their base.
That doesn't mean we give up on what we believe in, but it means we have to be a more welcoming party. We have to welcome people of all races. We need to welcome people of all classes – business class, working class … We need a more diverse party. We need a party that looks like America.
That's right. The question is...will they change?
Everybody’s gone completely crazy on this voter ID thing, I think it’s wrong for Republicans to go too crazy on this issue because it’s offending people.
No shit. And it's about time someone had the courage to be this blunt with the Republicans because they really are being assholes about it. Paul is sounding exactly like a candidate running for a national election in 2016 and someone who is well aware that the Republicans can't win unless they broaden their base.
That doesn't mean we give up on what we believe in, but it means we have to be a more welcoming party. We have to welcome people of all races. We need to welcome people of all classes – business class, working class … We need a more diverse party. We need a party that looks like America.
That's right. The question is...will they change?
The Navy Comes Through
Our government does more good things than people want to give them credit for which gets pretty frustrating for me. Here's a great example:
US Navy Cracks New Renewable Energy Technology To Turn Seawater Into Fuel, Allowing Ships To Stay At Sea Longer.
The development of a liquid hydrocarbon fuel could one day relieve the military’s dependence on oil-based fuels and is being heralded as a “game changer” because it could allow military ships to develop their own fuel and stay operational 100 percent of the time, rather than having to refuel at sea. The new fuel is initially expected to cost around $3 to $6 per gallon, according to the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory, which has already flown a model aircraft on it.
Amazing!
Consider that this same technology will be put out to the private sector at some point as well. That would completely change the face of energy on the planet. Countries like our own have access to abundant seawater which means we would be a powerhouse. Juxtapose that with out ability to innovate and that second American century is looking crystal clear.
US Navy Cracks New Renewable Energy Technology To Turn Seawater Into Fuel, Allowing Ships To Stay At Sea Longer.
The development of a liquid hydrocarbon fuel could one day relieve the military’s dependence on oil-based fuels and is being heralded as a “game changer” because it could allow military ships to develop their own fuel and stay operational 100 percent of the time, rather than having to refuel at sea. The new fuel is initially expected to cost around $3 to $6 per gallon, according to the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory, which has already flown a model aircraft on it.
Amazing!
Consider that this same technology will be put out to the private sector at some point as well. That would completely change the face of energy on the planet. Countries like our own have access to abundant seawater which means we would be a powerhouse. Juxtapose that with out ability to innovate and that second American century is looking crystal clear.
Saturday, May 10, 2014
Friday, May 09, 2014
Mitt Romney: "Raise the Minimum Wage."
I, for instance, as you know, part company with many of the conservatives in my party on the issue of the minimum wage. I think we ought to raise it, because frankly, our party is all about more jobs and better pay, and I think communicating that is important to us
--Mitt Romney, May 9, 2012
Wow.
--Mitt Romney, May 9, 2012
Wow.
Fundraising Off Of Benghazi
Republicans say they want to get to the bottom of what really happened after the Benghazi attack on September 12, 2012 but what they really want to do is fundraise off the tragedy. Check out this line from the NRSC, for example.
Americans deserve the truth about Benghazi and it's clear Democrats will not give it to them. Donate today and elect a Republican Senate majority.
The NRCC is doing it as well.
So, let's see...the lives of the four Americans killed matter as much as the next campaign donation. Got it. Given that Republicans are behind the Democrats in fundraising, it's now quite clear what this latest in a serious of hearings about Benghazi is really all about.
And I'm still trying to figure out what law was broken by the Obama administration.
Americans deserve the truth about Benghazi and it's clear Democrats will not give it to them. Donate today and elect a Republican Senate majority.
The NRCC is doing it as well.
So, let's see...the lives of the four Americans killed matter as much as the next campaign donation. Got it. Given that Republicans are behind the Democrats in fundraising, it's now quite clear what this latest in a serious of hearings about Benghazi is really all about.
And I'm still trying to figure out what law was broken by the Obama administration.
Advocating Armed Insurrection
Take a look at the latest ad from Iowa GOP Senatorial hopeful, Joni Ernst.
Wow, these folks really want to rise up and shoot the president! (see: armed insurrection advocacy).
Wow, these folks really want to rise up and shoot the president! (see: armed insurrection advocacy).
The Continuing Saga of Adolescents
Check out Sean Davis's piece on the recent National Climate Assessment. A fine and illustrative example of adolescent behavior in many, many ways. Why are there people that actually take these people seriously?
Thursday, May 08, 2014
The Future Is Now
Climate change has always seemed like seem distant science fictional disaster that will happen in the distant future. Well, the future is now. It is 2014, after all.
The National Climate Assessment released Tuesday reports that climate change is already affecting the United States, as well as the rest of the world. It is being manifested not only by rising temperatures across most, though not all, the country (sixty degrees in Alaska in January), but also by increasingly heavy rains (in Florida), deadlier tornadoes that occur earlier in the season, heavier snowfalls (like last winter's, due in part to more water vapor in the atmosphere from reduced arctic ice), flooding in many parts of the country, rising sea levels (hitting Florida again), severe drought in California, the West and parts of Texas, and so on.
Some Minnesota counties have even been declared both flood and drought disaster areas in the same year: last year we got hammered by torrential downpours in the spring, but then it didn't rain for the rest of the summer.
Climate change doesn't just affect the weather: stronger storms are destroying billions of dollars of property and killing more people every year, and higher temperatures are causing more sickness and death due to heatstroke, insect-borne diseases, and asthma.
The response to these events from the right is typical: first they deny that it's happening, then they claim these events are part of the natural cycle, then they claim that humans have nothing to do with it, then they say that increased temperatures and carbon dioxide levels will be somehow "good" for us, then they say it would be too costly to act. Then they say that we'll just adapt if it happens. Well, it's happening. Now.
The Heartland Institute is typical, claiming that higher CO2 levels from burning coal and oil make plants grow faster. This is true by itself, however higher temperatures will decrease crop yields, as well as evaporate water from the soil faster, causing more drought and decreasing yields far more than higher CO2 levels will increase them. The final nail in the coffin is that crops grown in high CO2 levels are less nutritious.
All of these problems are due to our burning fossil fuels faster than the earth's systems can reabsorb the CO2 produced. Yet only 40% of Americans believe that climate change is a serious threat. That low number is due mostly to conservatives, who doubt it for solely economic reasons. Even though dealing with climate change now will save us trillions of dollars even in the short to medium term.
Reducing our dependence on fossil fuels would also reduce the real-world power of bad actors like Putin in Russia, the Wahabis of Saudi Arabia, the ayatollahs in Iran, the nut-jobs in Venezuela, and the Koch brothers in the US, who are trying to buy every election in the country (even going after a zoo in Ohio).
Stanford's decision to divest its endowment from coal companies is a good first step. Coal is the worst source of energy, dirty and deadly at every phase (just ask China, with its mining disasters and pollution problems). We should be phasing out every coal-fired power plant on earth.
Higher CO2 levels are raising sea levels, increasing temperatures and flooding, and causing more powerful storms. Our quest for more oil and gas is even causing earthquakes. Yet many conservatives call climate change a "hoax," at the same time blithely blaming natural disasters on gay pride parades and abortion.
The writing is on the wall: climate change is real, and is happening right now. Luckily, we currently have the money and resources to make the transition away from fossil fuels. But if we wait until the effects of climate change get really bad, we'll be too busy digging out from the latest flood, hurricane, tornado or mudslide, or fighting wars caused by drought, famine and resource shortages.
Yes, we can adapt to future climate change. The future is now. So now is the time to do something about it.
The National Climate Assessment released Tuesday reports that climate change is already affecting the United States, as well as the rest of the world. It is being manifested not only by rising temperatures across most, though not all, the country (sixty degrees in Alaska in January), but also by increasingly heavy rains (in Florida), deadlier tornadoes that occur earlier in the season, heavier snowfalls (like last winter's, due in part to more water vapor in the atmosphere from reduced arctic ice), flooding in many parts of the country, rising sea levels (hitting Florida again), severe drought in California, the West and parts of Texas, and so on.
Some Minnesota counties have even been declared both flood and drought disaster areas in the same year: last year we got hammered by torrential downpours in the spring, but then it didn't rain for the rest of the summer.
Climate change doesn't just affect the weather: stronger storms are destroying billions of dollars of property and killing more people every year, and higher temperatures are causing more sickness and death due to heatstroke, insect-borne diseases, and asthma.
The response to these events from the right is typical: first they deny that it's happening, then they claim these events are part of the natural cycle, then they claim that humans have nothing to do with it, then they say that increased temperatures and carbon dioxide levels will be somehow "good" for us, then they say it would be too costly to act. Then they say that we'll just adapt if it happens. Well, it's happening. Now.
The Heartland Institute is typical, claiming that higher CO2 levels from burning coal and oil make plants grow faster. This is true by itself, however higher temperatures will decrease crop yields, as well as evaporate water from the soil faster, causing more drought and decreasing yields far more than higher CO2 levels will increase them. The final nail in the coffin is that crops grown in high CO2 levels are less nutritious.
All of these problems are due to our burning fossil fuels faster than the earth's systems can reabsorb the CO2 produced. Yet only 40% of Americans believe that climate change is a serious threat. That low number is due mostly to conservatives, who doubt it for solely economic reasons. Even though dealing with climate change now will save us trillions of dollars even in the short to medium term.
Reducing our dependence on fossil fuels would also reduce the real-world power of bad actors like Putin in Russia, the Wahabis of Saudi Arabia, the ayatollahs in Iran, the nut-jobs in Venezuela, and the Koch brothers in the US, who are trying to buy every election in the country (even going after a zoo in Ohio).
Stanford's decision to divest its endowment from coal companies is a good first step. Coal is the worst source of energy, dirty and deadly at every phase (just ask China, with its mining disasters and pollution problems). We should be phasing out every coal-fired power plant on earth.
Higher CO2 levels are raising sea levels, increasing temperatures and flooding, and causing more powerful storms. Our quest for more oil and gas is even causing earthquakes. Yet many conservatives call climate change a "hoax," at the same time blithely blaming natural disasters on gay pride parades and abortion.
The writing is on the wall: climate change is real, and is happening right now. Luckily, we currently have the money and resources to make the transition away from fossil fuels. But if we wait until the effects of climate change get really bad, we'll be too busy digging out from the latest flood, hurricane, tornado or mudslide, or fighting wars caused by drought, famine and resource shortages.
Yes, we can adapt to future climate change. The future is now. So now is the time to do something about it.
Wednesday, May 07, 2014
Just who is Anti-Keystone?
The Wall Street Journal has a piece up about the opposition to the Keystone pipeline and how it really isn't as left-right as you would think. Politico echoed this as well.
Ranchers and native tribes that oppose the pipeline formed the Cowboys and Indians Alliance, putting a non-traditional face on the anti-Keystone movement that has spanned the president’s time in office. Their goal — like that of their environmentalist counterparts — is to persuade Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry to determine that the pipeline from Canada would go against the national interest.
The ranchers — or “cowboys” — are concerned not just about protecting sensitive aquifers near the pipeline, but also about their land rights, several said at the protest. “I’m here to support the neighbors to the north that don’t want the pipeline across their land,” said Julia Trigg Crawford, a Texas rancher who rode in on horseback. She didn’t have so much luck with her own land.
Part of the Oklahoma-to-Texas southern leg of Keystone XL, which has already been built, runs through Crawford’s ranch land on the Red River. “Basically they came in and said a foreign corporation building a for-profit pipeline had more of a right to my land than I did,” Crawford said. The land can be used for grazing, but she can’t build a house or drive across it, she said. Crawford received a check for $10,395 two years ago but has never cashed it, she said.
For some conservatives, it's about property rights and federal government intrusion which I find interesting because they do have an argument. I wonder why so many conservatives who champion private property and rights love the Pipeline as much as they do.
Ranchers and native tribes that oppose the pipeline formed the Cowboys and Indians Alliance, putting a non-traditional face on the anti-Keystone movement that has spanned the president’s time in office. Their goal — like that of their environmentalist counterparts — is to persuade Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry to determine that the pipeline from Canada would go against the national interest.
The ranchers — or “cowboys” — are concerned not just about protecting sensitive aquifers near the pipeline, but also about their land rights, several said at the protest. “I’m here to support the neighbors to the north that don’t want the pipeline across their land,” said Julia Trigg Crawford, a Texas rancher who rode in on horseback. She didn’t have so much luck with her own land.
Part of the Oklahoma-to-Texas southern leg of Keystone XL, which has already been built, runs through Crawford’s ranch land on the Red River. “Basically they came in and said a foreign corporation building a for-profit pipeline had more of a right to my land than I did,” Crawford said. The land can be used for grazing, but she can’t build a house or drive across it, she said. Crawford received a check for $10,395 two years ago but has never cashed it, she said.
For some conservatives, it's about property rights and federal government intrusion which I find interesting because they do have an argument. I wonder why so many conservatives who champion private property and rights love the Pipeline as much as they do.
Tuesday, May 06, 2014
Monday, May 05, 2014
The Challenge of the 2014 Elections
Take a look at this graphic.
It's from a brilliant analysis of exactly what the Democrats need to do in order to win the 2014 elections. Sasha Issenberg illustrates the numbers and demographics behind presidential year elections and mid term elections, boiling it down to a simple question: Can the Democrats mobilize the "unreliable" voters to succeed in the 2014 election? If they can, they hold the Senate and part of me is thinking that all the hysteria right now over SHELLACKING PART TWO is simply a fear tactic to mobilize the troops.
Another interesting part of the article is this.
Add it all up, and the Democrats’ midterm conundrum comes to look like an actuarial one. “If twenty years ago, you said the midterm electorate is older, I would have said, ‘Yahoo! Glad to hear it,’ ” says Celinda Lake, a Democratic pollster. “But now the Roosevelt seniors are dead and the Reagan seniors are voting.” Increasingly, those older voters are backing the same side: In 2000, Al Gore won the youngest and eldest bands of the electorate by slight margins; in 2012, the over-50 vote broke for Mitt Romney by 12 points.
There are also simply more of those older voters overall. Since Obama’s first appearance on a presidential ballot, the population of Americans over the age of 55 has increased by nearly 13 million. By 2022, it will have increased by another nine million. People tend to grow more conservative as they age, but as a cohort, Generation X—whose oldest members will soon reach their fifties—is appreciably more conservative than the Millennials who follow them. “When the Millennials are fifty-five, they’re going to vote more Democratic,” Lake says, not exactly cautioning patience. “That’s thirty years away.”
This ties in to what I have been saying about how much the electorate is going to change over the next 20-30 years. Imagine what will happen when we have "Obama seniors" and the Reagan seniors are gone.
It's from a brilliant analysis of exactly what the Democrats need to do in order to win the 2014 elections. Sasha Issenberg illustrates the numbers and demographics behind presidential year elections and mid term elections, boiling it down to a simple question: Can the Democrats mobilize the "unreliable" voters to succeed in the 2014 election? If they can, they hold the Senate and part of me is thinking that all the hysteria right now over SHELLACKING PART TWO is simply a fear tactic to mobilize the troops.
Another interesting part of the article is this.
Add it all up, and the Democrats’ midterm conundrum comes to look like an actuarial one. “If twenty years ago, you said the midterm electorate is older, I would have said, ‘Yahoo! Glad to hear it,’ ” says Celinda Lake, a Democratic pollster. “But now the Roosevelt seniors are dead and the Reagan seniors are voting.” Increasingly, those older voters are backing the same side: In 2000, Al Gore won the youngest and eldest bands of the electorate by slight margins; in 2012, the over-50 vote broke for Mitt Romney by 12 points.
There are also simply more of those older voters overall. Since Obama’s first appearance on a presidential ballot, the population of Americans over the age of 55 has increased by nearly 13 million. By 2022, it will have increased by another nine million. People tend to grow more conservative as they age, but as a cohort, Generation X—whose oldest members will soon reach their fifties—is appreciably more conservative than the Millennials who follow them. “When the Millennials are fifty-five, they’re going to vote more Democratic,” Lake says, not exactly cautioning patience. “That’s thirty years away.”
This ties in to what I have been saying about how much the electorate is going to change over the next 20-30 years. Imagine what will happen when we have "Obama seniors" and the Reagan seniors are gone.
Sunday, May 04, 2014
The Columbine Effect
My home state is reeling this week over the revelations that John David LaDue was planning a Columbine-like school attack. LaDue is yet another teenage male with mental health issues that turned to plans of violence. Today's Strib had this as the front page story.
'Columbine effect': Alarm is rising over copycats
It's a very disturbing yet accurate piece over a phenomenon that has evolved in culture since the Columbine shooting. The piece echoes many of the things I have written about on here about young men in culture. As more is revealed about LaDue, I'm sure we will see that he had most if not all of what I have been calling the magic cocktail (mental health issues, feelings of persecution and lack of attention, taking SSRIs, easy access to weapons, played violent video games, poor parental involvement, lack of community support and/or involvement).
What is very clear from this piece is that the Columbine Effect is part of our culture now and it won't be going away anytime soon. So, what should do about it? The piece has some very general suggestions but this has become a very complex problem. It's no longer as simple as "gun problem" or a "mental health problem." It's an American Culture problem that has to be addressed in a very complex way because it evolved in a complex way.
In many ways, it's become like a puzzle with some easy answers and some difficult ones which contain solutions that will be a big lift. Getting people to stop being lazy and engage young men takes a lot of energy. I know I sound cynical but I don't think most Americans have it in them. I base this on my own experience with parents so I do admit to bias. Changing our antiquated gun laws would help but, honestly, that's a small piece of the puzzle.
This has to be a cultural shift and it will obviously take a lot of time. So, where do we start?
'Columbine effect': Alarm is rising over copycats
It's a very disturbing yet accurate piece over a phenomenon that has evolved in culture since the Columbine shooting. The piece echoes many of the things I have written about on here about young men in culture. As more is revealed about LaDue, I'm sure we will see that he had most if not all of what I have been calling the magic cocktail (mental health issues, feelings of persecution and lack of attention, taking SSRIs, easy access to weapons, played violent video games, poor parental involvement, lack of community support and/or involvement).
What is very clear from this piece is that the Columbine Effect is part of our culture now and it won't be going away anytime soon. So, what should do about it? The piece has some very general suggestions but this has become a very complex problem. It's no longer as simple as "gun problem" or a "mental health problem." It's an American Culture problem that has to be addressed in a very complex way because it evolved in a complex way.
In many ways, it's become like a puzzle with some easy answers and some difficult ones which contain solutions that will be a big lift. Getting people to stop being lazy and engage young men takes a lot of energy. I know I sound cynical but I don't think most Americans have it in them. I base this on my own experience with parents so I do admit to bias. Changing our antiquated gun laws would help but, honestly, that's a small piece of the puzzle.
This has to be a cultural shift and it will obviously take a lot of time. So, where do we start?
Saturday, May 03, 2014
More Tampering With The Free Market By The Gun Cult
Man, the Gun Cult really doesn't like the free market...
Threats against Maryland gun dealer raise doubts about future of smart guns
The latest skirmish over the nation’s first smart gun, marked this week by death threats against a Maryland gun dealer who wanted to sell the weapon, has raised doubts about its future and prompted some gun-control advocates to back away from legislative efforts to mandate the technology. Engage Armament, a Rockville gun shop, endured an outpouring of vitriol from gun rights activists who fear the technology will be used to curtail their Second Amendment rights by limiting the kinds of guns they can buy in the future.
What kind of vitriol?
Somebody told one of Raymond’s workers that the store, Engage Armament, wouldn’t be selling the gun because there wouldn’t be a store — it will burn down. At another point, Raymond picked up the phone and said, “Hi, this is Andy. How can I help you?” The caller said, “You’re the guys selling the smart gun?” Raymond tried to reason with him. But the caller said, “You’re gonna get what’s coming to you (expletive).”
Cool. I guess he had to sleep in his store because he worried his private property would be damaged.
What a mentally balanced group of people...
Threats against Maryland gun dealer raise doubts about future of smart guns
The latest skirmish over the nation’s first smart gun, marked this week by death threats against a Maryland gun dealer who wanted to sell the weapon, has raised doubts about its future and prompted some gun-control advocates to back away from legislative efforts to mandate the technology. Engage Armament, a Rockville gun shop, endured an outpouring of vitriol from gun rights activists who fear the technology will be used to curtail their Second Amendment rights by limiting the kinds of guns they can buy in the future.
What kind of vitriol?
Somebody told one of Raymond’s workers that the store, Engage Armament, wouldn’t be selling the gun because there wouldn’t be a store — it will burn down. At another point, Raymond picked up the phone and said, “Hi, this is Andy. How can I help you?” The caller said, “You’re the guys selling the smart gun?” Raymond tried to reason with him. But the caller said, “You’re gonna get what’s coming to you (expletive).”
Cool. I guess he had to sleep in his store because he worried his private property would be damaged.
What a mentally balanced group of people...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)