Colorado Dems Pull Two Of The “War On Women” Gun Bills

By William Teach March 10, 2013 – 7:57 am

However, the rest of their anti-personal protection legislation passed in the Senate

(Daily Caller) But two of the most contentious bills — one which would ban concealed weapons on college campuses and one that would make owners, sellers and manufacturers of assault-style weapons liable for violent acts committed with the guns — died when their sponsors pulled them from the agenda after it became clear that at least three or more Democrats would vote against them.

Republicans and pundits spent quite a bit of time highlighting the notion that Democrats want to disarm women and make them more vulnerable to violence. Since Democrats were quite obliging with their talk of rape whistles and telling wome to ask rapists politely to not rape them. So the concealed carry bad on college campuses was pulled before debate

But the assault weapons liability bill — which opponents characterized as a de facto ban on such weapons — was easily the most controversial of the seven that were up for consideration on Friday. Senate president John Morse, who introduced the proposed legislation, railed against the gun lobby before he pulled it from the agenda, effectively killing it.

So Morse whined like a 3 year old told he couldn’t have a cookie before dinner.

“The gun lobby has actually argued we need more guns and managed to convince Coloradans that they will lose their guns if we impose even reasonable restrictions on firearms,” he said. The bill would have opened the door for owners, sellers and makers of AR-15s and similar weapons to lawsuits if they cause damage. Makers and sellers would be liable under the bill if it was shown that they negligently sold the weapons to people they should have know would have used them in a crime.

Well, gee, perhaps we should have laws that hold car manufacturers and sellers liable if they sell a vehicle to someone they should have know would drive drunk.

“We have experienced hatred and vitriol that I have only seen on the street as a police officer,” Morse said. “This has included wishing rape, torture and death on legislators and their families.”

Yet Democrat gun control laws, which are surely the first step towards even more gun control, mostly affect the ability of law abiding citizens to protect themselves from the criminals that Democrat justice system policies coddle. Very little of what they passed in the Senate would affect criminals. Because that is not the intention.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: Colorado Dems Pull Two Of The “War On Women” Gun Bills »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Current Affairs | Comments Off on Colorado Dems Pull Two Of The “War On Women” Gun Bills | Trackback URL

25 Signs You’ve Grown Up

By William Teach March 9, 2013 – 3:11 pm

Your Saturday “Oh, dear Lord, noooooooo” moment

  1. Your potted plants are alive. And you can’t smoke a one of them.
  2. Having sex in a twin-sized bed is absurd.
  3. You keep more food than beer in the fridge.
  4. 6:00 AM is when you get up, not when you go to sleep.
  5. You hear your favorite song on an elevator.
  6. You carry an umbrella. You watch the Weather Channel.
  7. Your friends marry and divorce instead of hookup and breakup.
  8. You go from 130 days of vacation time to 7.
  9. Jeans and a sweater no longer qualify as ‘dressed up.’
  10. You’re the one calling the police because those darn kids next door don’t know how to turn down the stereo.
  11. Older relatives feel comfortable telling sex jokes around you.
  12. You don’t know what time Taco Bell closes anymore.
  13. Your car insurance goes down and your car payments go up.
  14. You feed your dog Science Diet instead of McDonald’s.
  15. Sleeping on the couch makes your back hurt.
  16. You no longer take naps from noon to 6 p.m.
  17. Dinner and a movie = The whole date instead of the beginning of one.
  18. Eating a basket of chicken wings at 3 a.m. would severely upset, rather than settle, your stomach.
  19. You go to the drugstore for Ibuprofen and antacids, not condoms and pregnancy test kits.
  20. A $4.00 bottle of wine is no longer ‘pretty good stuff.’
  21. You actually eat breakfast foods at breakfast time.
  22. “I just can’t drink the way I used to,” replaces “I’m never going to drink that much again.”
  23. Over 90% of the time you spend in front of a computer is for real work.
  24. You don’t drink at home to save money before going to a bar.
  25. You read this entire list looking for one sign that doesn’t apply to you!

Via Ned Hardy.

Read: 25 Signs You’ve Grown Up »

Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach March 9, 2013 – 1:00 pm

…is snow created by massive heat, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day The Jawa Report, with a post on funding Palestinian terrorists

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

If You Don’t Believe In Hotcoldwetdry You Must Hate Women’s Equality

By William Teach March 9, 2013 – 12:08 pm

I bet you give the high sign of the he-man woman haters club and say the oath all the time

I… Stymie… Member in good standing of the He-Man Woman Haters Club… Do solemnly swear to be a he-man and hate women and not play with them or talk to them unless I have to. And especially: never fall in love, and if I do may I die slowly and painfully and suffer for hours – or until I scream bloody murder.

All because you don’t believe in “climate change”

Mary Robinson: Climate Change’s Gender Gap

On International Women’s Day, Ireland’s first female president looks at the challenges ahead, including why women will bear the brunt of global warming.

In honor of International Women’s Day, I recently sat down with Robinson in Washington, D.C. to talk about her book, her long history of fighting on behalf of women’s rights, and her latest efforts to bring climate justice into the international spotlight. Here are excerpts from the interview: (big snip)

I would love it if you could explain the idea of how climate change disproportionately affects women.

It’s so clear and obvious, when you undermine poor livelihoods, it is women who bear the brunt. First of all, and my focus in Africa because that’s my knowledge base, particularly, the farming in Africa is done mostly by women. Seventy to 80 percent of the farmers are women. So if the seasons are not cyclical, and they’re not anymore—there are long periods of drought and flash flooding—it’s women who have to adapt. Women on the whole don’t get agriculture training. And they’re having to learn now to diversify their crops, to have seeds that can survive in drought or survive in waterlogged [conditions], and so there’s a disconnect between even the donor community for this agricultural training, mainly focusing on men, and who’s [actually doing the farming]. Also, if there’s more drought and less water, the women have to go further for firewood and right across the board, it affects women more. And I learned a lot from a good friend of mine at this stage, because we met quite a bit, Constance Okellet of Uganda, as I mention in the book. She’s the mother of eight in Uganda who, when she was growing up, had seasons. And now they have this drought and flash flooding and a destroyed school. But what happened when you have this weather shock and the school was destroyed? There’s no insurance, there’s no Plan B—it’s the women. It was the women, because they knew how to form a women’s group, who pulled that village together. And she became a leader by necessity, and then Oxfam learned about her and she learned that it wasn’t that God was punishing the village, it was rich people.

Go that? Weather has changed, so women will suffer. In fact, the majority of the interview has nothing to do with hotcoldwetdry (granted, she does have her own “climate justice” foundation, for which she takes lots of fossil fueled trips around the world) but other issues about women’s struggles around the world, and especially 3rd world shitholes developing countries. Yet, the headline is about “climate change.”

Oh, and Mary doesn’t seem all that concerned about the plight of women under hardcore Islam. Sure, she mentions, briefly, her concerns about the plight of women in Afghanistan once the US leaves, but fails to discuss just how poorly women are treated in most Islamist nations. Because climate change or something.

Read: If You Don’t Believe In Hotcoldwetdry You Must Hate Women’s Equality »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Berkley Councilman Proposes Taxation on Emails To Save Postal Service

By William Teach March 9, 2013 – 7:42 am

What would you expect from a confirmed Leftist in Berkley?

(Huff Post) If the post office is going to go down, perhaps it should at least go down with a fight.

Gordon Wozniak, a city councilman in Berkeley, Calif., has proposed an email tax to provide much-needed revenue to the ailing U.S. Postal Service, local blog Berkleyside reports. The idea comes amid efforts to avoid the sale of a local post office building due to the service’s flagging revenue, both locally and on the national scale: In its latest budget year, the U.S. Postal Service lost more than $15 billion.

“There should be something like a bit tax,” Wozniak said, according to CBS Berkeley. “I mean a bit tax could be a cent per-gigabit and they would still make, probably, billions of dollars a year… And there should be, also, a very tiny tax on email.”

Unsurprisingly, Wozniak has donated to Democrat groups. Not unsurprisingly, the ideas to save the postal service never seem to include things like streamlining operations, reforming the pension system, or anything else that a private sector business would do.

“The internet being free gives it an advantage which is impacting the post office negatively,” he said. “The bit tax is a pretty painless way to help even the playing field.”

I think we should enact a miles per travel tax on automobiles in order to even the playing field with horse travel, which has suffered quite a bit since the invention of the automobile. Because nothing should ever change, and it’s a shame that no one travels across country in horse drawn caravans.

Read: Berkley Councilman Proposes Taxation on Emails To Save Postal Service »

Posted in Barking Moonbats, Democrats | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

South Dakota First In Country To Allow Guns For Teachers

By William Teach March 9, 2013 – 6:44 am

They’re the first state interested in protecting children from crazy people who see “gun free zones” as easy pickings

(NY Times) South Dakota became the first state in the nation to enact a law explicitly authorizing school employees to carry guns on the job, under a measure signed into law on Friday by Gov. Dennis Daugaard.

Passage of the law comes amid a passionate nationwide debate over arming teachers, stoked after 20 first graders died in an elementary school shooting in Newtown, Conn., in December. Shortly afterward, the National Rifle Association proposed a plan for armed security officers in every school, and legislation to allow school personnel to carry guns was introduced in about two dozen states. All those measures had stalled until now.

Several other states already have provisions in their laws — or no legal restrictions — that make it possible for teachers to possess guns in the classroom. In fact, a handful of school districts nationwide do have teachers who carry firearms. But South Dakota is the only known state with a statute that specifically authorizes teachers to possess a firearm in a K-12 school, according to Lauren Heintz, a research analyst at the National Conference of State Legislatures. (big snip)

The law says that school districts may choose to allow a school employee, a hired security officer or a volunteer to serve as a “sentinel” who can carry a firearm in the school. The school district must receive the permission of its local law enforcement agency before carrying out the program. The law requires the sentinels to undergo training similar to what law enforcement officers receive.

This is all voluntary for each school, they don’t have to allow guns for protection, but it’s fantastic that they have the option. If there is just one or two armed and brave people in a school it could make a huge difference in making a nutjob say “no, I think I’ll commit mass murder somewhere else”. Heck, teachers and administrators could simply carry an unloaded weapon if they’re squeamish and never let anyone know it’s unloaded, and it would be a deterrent.

Opponents, which included state associations representing school boards and teachers, said the bill was rushed, did not make schools safer and ignored other approaches to safety.

The article includes exactly zero other approaches. Let’s go to the comments

peterheron – I trust there is not a single teacher in South Dakota who will opt to bring a gun into his / her classroom. Metal detectors, OK fine, but teachers with guns? This is an extraordinarily stupid law; the article does not make clear the NRA’s stance on this–did they provide money to the legistrators / Governor?–but the intent is clear: more guns. That benefits no one but gun manufacturerers, and morticians who specialize in coffins for children.

So, we should trust teachers to mold and shape the minds of our kids who are in their hands for 8 hours a day or so, but shouldn’t be trusted with actually protecting their charges?

Now, we wait to see what the politicized Obama DOJ does. Making schools gun free zones is a federal law, which still allows for “resource officers”, but does the law disallow other school employees from carrying? Will the DOJ threaten to sue or actually sue the state? All while ignoring Colorado’s marijuana laws?

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: South Dakota First In Country To Allow Guns For Teachers »

Posted in 2nd Amendment | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Most Insurers Not Particularly Concerned With Climapocalypse

By William Teach March 8, 2013 – 2:28 pm

Bloomberg is flogging this story with the headline Most Insurers Lack a Plan to Address Climate Change, as if they’re doing something wrong, yet we learn (via Tom Nelson)

Almost 90 percent of insurance companies lack a comprehensive plan to address climate change and fewer than half of them view it as a likely source of financial losses, according to a report released today.

Only 23 of 184 insurers surveyed demonstrated a “comprehensive climate change strategy” and 88 said they consider climate change a future loss driver, Boston-based Ceres said today in a report.

So, essentially, insurers understand that bad weather happens. Always has, always will, regardless of the climate.

Read: Most Insurers Not Particularly Concerned With Climapocalypse »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach March 8, 2013 – 1:00 pm

…is precious water which can never be used again being wasted on a fossil fueled planet killer, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Daley Gator, with a post on the latest from the NRA.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

We’re Saved! Greenpeace Executive Director To (Supposedly) Live By Green Ideas For A Week

By William Teach March 8, 2013 – 11:14 am

Um, why isn’t he living them and many others every day? (via Tom Nelson)

So far he hasn’t announced any today.

Read: We’re Saved! Greenpeace Executive Director To (Supposedly) Live By Green Ideas For A Week »

Posted in Climahypocrites, Global Warming | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Uh Oh: Because You Drive A Fossil Fueled Vehicle A New Ice Age Was Averted

By William Teach March 8, 2013 – 9:18 am

Wait, what?

(NY Times) Scientists say that if natural factors were still governing the climate, the Northern Hemisphere would probably be destined to freeze over again in several thousand years. “We were on this downward slope, presumably going back toward another ice age,” Dr. Marcott said.

Instead, scientists believe the enormous increase in greenhouse gases caused by industrialization will almost certainly prevent that.

As Open Blogger at Ace of Spades points out “can someone explain to me again why mile thick glaciers over the northern states are desirable again? I missed that explanation the first time.”

This is all in conjunction with the new and breathtakingly alarmist report about “The Scariest Hotcoldwetdry Graph Just Got Scarier“. Of course, Mother Jones climate astrologer calls it “climate change”, not hotcoldwetdry. All sorts of other Warmists are freaking out and saying Something Has To Be Done, yet none are calling for Warmists to change their own behavior and give up fossil fuels. Strange that, eh?

Even if the temperature increase from human activity that is projected for later this century comes out on the low end of estimates, scientists said, the planet will be at least as warm as it was during the warmest periods of the modern geological era, known as the Holocene, and probably warmer than that.

So, it was actually warmer during the Holocene?

That epoch began about 12,000 years ago, after changes in incoming sunshine caused vast ice sheets to melt across the Northern Hemisphere. Scientists believe the moderate climate of the Holocene set the stage for the rise of human civilization roughly 8,000 years ago and continues to sustain it by, for example, permitting a high level of food production.

Humans have done better during this warmer period than during a glacial period? Who would have thought that?

In the new research, scheduled for publication on Friday in the journal Science, Shaun Marcott, an earth scientist at Oregon State University, and his colleagues compiled the most meticulous reconstruction yet of global temperatures over the past 11,300 years, virtually the entire Holocene. They used indicators like the distribution of microscopic, temperature-sensitive ocean creatures to determine past climate.

Anthony Watts has a few things to say about the data and methods, and is not impressed. The GWFP notes

In the paper, and in the many press reports of it, it said that the climate has been warming since the industrial revolution kicked into gear, and that the two are related via greenhouse gas emissions. But prior to 1950 anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions were to weak to have an a significant effect on the atmosphere. It is implausible to suggest that mankind’s greenhouse gas emissions in the 19th century were changing the climate causing global temperature rise.

And there’s the rub of the matter: CO2 and other GHG emissions were at low levels when this “spike” started, not enough to have any sort of real effect. In fact, some have suggested that all the smoke and other particulates from the industrial revolution (which has given Warmists the cushy lifestyles that allow them the time to decry Other People’s modern lifestyles) would have blocked sunlight and decreased temps. What we have here is a casual link without proof of anthropogenic causation. It simply implies that Mankind is at fault without definitive proof.

What caused the end of the last glacial period? The study says the Sun and other natural factors. What caused the other warm periods during the Holocene, interspersed with cool periods? The study says the Sun and other natural factors. Why can’t that be the answer now, with a small percent caused by anthropogenic factors (many of which are localized, not global)?

But, again, if you Believers truly believe, you’ll make your own lives “carbon neutral.”

Read: Uh Oh: Because You Drive A Fossil Fueled Vehicle A New Ice Age Was Averted »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Climahypocrites, Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 2 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove