“This site is dedicated to preying on peoples vanity, ignorance, or loneliness, gaining their trust and betraying them without remorse.”

Wednesday, November 13, 2013

Guns don't kill people, Democrats kill people



I'm shocked. Shocked! The LAX shooter, as it turns out, is a registered Democrat

Paul Anthony Ciancia is a 23-year-old that was described by classmates as a loner. His family is from Salem, New Jersey. He was a victim of bullying during high school and played in the marching band. Many have speculated who is he, and most importantly to a few, what political party did he support. If you guessed “Tea Party”, you’d be wrong.

Well, as it turns out that the Salem County Clerk's office has a way to tell you for sure. For $12, you can pull the voter registration records of anyone that signed up in the county. One man on the internet named “Mike” did just that to end the dispute once and for all. Turns out that the Paul Anthony Ciancia of Salem, New Jersey, born in 1990, that moved to LA, California, was a registered Democrat.”


And here the Lamestream Media thought they finally bagged the Legendary Disgrunted Right Wing Shooter. Never mind!

47 comments:

  1. Interesting thing? The TSA didn't stop him, a LA cop did...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because armed TSA would harsh the airport mellow.

      Delete
    2. Go to any European airport, say, Frankfurt, and you will see drop dead beautiful security guards (always two) randomly making the rounds, packing handguns and fully automatic assault rifles. You will know the rifles are loaded because the magazines are made of an opaque plastic that exhibits the rounds (always .223 or the NATO equivalent).

      Delete
    3. ...glad you brought it up...I just hate having my mellow harshed, especially before I am caffeinated and have had a smoke.

      Delete
    4. WiO, TSA didn't stop him, a LA cop did...

      Give thanks to a benevolent G-d! Had TSA been involved only barefooted folks would have survived the OK Corral.

      Delete
  2. Bad luck that. Well, it's back to the drawing board.

    When the record on this guy is finally released, I bet we will find that he had mental issues that went unaddressed.

    As a society, we are going to have to turn our attention away from gun control and focus on people control. There are some number of persons born in every generation who are nuts. Giving them a bottle of pills and sending them off with a pat on the back will not work.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There's a drunk driver hearabouts killed a family, went to jail for a while, got out, got in another car, killed another family (despite having his drivers' license taken away), and then went to jail again. When he gets out the state promises he won't ever come anywhere near a driver's license.

      Delete
    2. He will never drive again, by golly. "Something is sapping our precious bodily fluids."

      Seriously, that is exactly what I mean. The only license that guy should ever touch is the one he is taking out of the plate press at the prison.

      Delete
    3. Teresita Redinger Wed Nov 13, 09:41:00 PM EST
      What good is an unloaded rifle?

      It is of no use other smashing bugs, but such is the plight of our military security personnel. You may recall that the Fort Hood killer was brought down by a civilian guard. According to the brass, our guys might be too accident prone. Nuts, I know. I was on Lackland AFB last month and civilians do the security work.

      Delete
    4. Four U.S. Marines were killed Wednesday during a range maintenance operation at Camp Pendleton in California, the base said in a press release.

      The base did not provide any other details on what it called a “fatal incident,” but said it would release the names of those killed after their families were notified.

      The Marines were clearing the range of unexploded ordnance, and it was not a live firing range, a Marine official said. No further details were released.

      "We offer our heartfelt prayers and condolences to the families of the Marines lost today in this tragic accident. Our first priority is to provide the families with the support they need during this difficult time," said Brig. Gen. John W. Bullard, commanding general of Marine Corps Installations West at Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton.

      The base said the cause of the accident is under investigation, and more information will be released as it becomes available.

      The deaths come about eight months after a mortar explosion killed seven Marines during a live-fire training exercise in Nevada.

      A military investigation determined human error was to blame for that accident. According to the probe's findings, a Marine operating a 60 mm mortar tube and ammunition did not follow correct procedures, resulting in the detonation of a high explosive round at the mortar position.

      The investigation also determined that the mortar team involved in the accident had not conducted "appropriate preparatory training."

      Delete
  3. I missed the LAX shooter by 3 days. I was in that exact same spot 3 days before him. Terminal 3, base of the escalators.

    ReplyDelete
  4. On this day in 1956, the Supreme Court affirmed a ruling that stated segregated bus laws were unconstitutional.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Supremes also said, last year, that the Obamacare mandate is a tax. So 40 Pubs in the House are going, OK, if it's a tax, the bill has to originate in the House. Let's see what Roberts says about THAT.

      Delete
    2. Doubt a legal case ever gets there, Ms T.

      Delete
    3. The case is Sissel v United States Department of Health and Human Services. It was brought by the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) on behalf of Matthew Sissel, a small-business owner.

      A district court has already dismissed the case, but that led the PLF to file an appeal over the summer. Oral arguments in the case are likely next year.


      The Republicans, by not bringing the suit themselves, are merely by-standers.
      The Courts will find that Mathew Sissel has no standing to bring the suit.

      The Republicans are dancing, Kabuki style.

      Delete
    4. The Government's "Motion to Dismiss" is ....
      http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1282&context=aca

      The Motion to Dismis was granted.
      I only glanced at it, may not have been dismissed for lack of standing, there was plenty of depth to the Governments motion.
      Mr Sissel's standing may or may not have been mentioned.

      Delete
    5. On reading the Motion it appears Mr Sissel did not even bring up the "Origination" issue in his first filing.
      It is not addressed in the Motion to Dismiss. The original suit seems to have been a Commerce Clause case.

      Delete
    6. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    7. SISSEL v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES et al - Document 51
      Court Description:

      MEMORANDUM OPINION regarding 43 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on June 28,

      www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=20&cad=rja&ved=0CGIQFjAJOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Flaw.justia.com%2Fcases%2Ffederal%2Fdistrict-courts%2Fdistrict-of-columbia%2Fdcdce%2F1%3A2010cv01263%2F143261%2F51&ei=oFWEUpXaGejUyQHNoYCIAQ&usg=AFQjCNERVtSjXn6iWfEcx0pLkWFI-gyqdQ&sig2=NwqwsBfw_sdjoKRABpl7FQ&bvm=bv.56343320,d.aWc

      It is an interesting read, the reason why the Origination Clause does not apply.
      Much to long to cut & paste in its entirety.

      The Judge seems to understand the issue and the precedents.

      Read it for yourselves, if you have a mind, too.

      Delete
    8. The Plaintiff, Mr Sissel amended the original suit, to add the Origination Clause aspects, which is why Origination was not mentioned in the original "Motion to Dismiss".

      Delete
  5. Below is part of the reasoning and some of the precedents for granting the Motion to Dismiss - in a nut shell ....
    so long as the primary purpose of the provision is something other than raising revenue, the provision is not subject to the Origination Clause.
    //////////////////////////////////////////.....................................................///////////////////////////////////////////////////////.....................................................

    Hence, when any revenues raised by a bill are “‘incidental’ to that provision’s primary purpose,” the bill is not one “for raising Revenue” within the meaning of the Origination Clause. See Munoz-Flores, 495 U.S. at 399; accord Nebecker, 167 U.S. at 203 (concluding that provision under review was not revenue-raising where its “main purpose” was “to provide a national currency”); see also United States v. King, 891 F.2d 780, 781 (10th Cir. 1989) (“Where the main purpose of the act is other than raising revenue, it is not subject to challenge under the origination clause.”); United States v. Herrada, 887 F.2d 524, 528 (5th Cir. 1989) (holding that Supreme Court precedents “instruct us to consider the overarching purpose of an Act when one of its provisions is subject to an Origination Clause challenge”). The text of the Clause itself confirms this purposive approach. See U.S. CONST. art. I, § 7, cl. 1 (applying only to “Bills for raising Revenue.”(emphasis added)). A purposive analysis is therefore necessary to discern whether a provision is “for raising Revenue.”

    Following this purposive approach, the Supreme Court has held that “a statute that creates a particular governmental program and that raises revenue to support that program, as opposed to a statute that raises revenue to support Government generally, is not a ‘Bill for raising Revenue’ within the meaning of the Origination Clause.” Munoz-Flores, 495 U.S. at 398.

    Hence, when revenues raised by a provision support a “particular governmental program,” id., it is clear that the primary purpose of that provision is not “to raise revenue to be applied in meeting the expenses or obligations of the government,” see Nebecker, 167 U.S. at 203. The earmarking of revenues for a particular government program, however, is but one way for a court to discern that the revenues raised by a provision are merely “‘incidental’ to that provision’s primary purpose.” See Munoz-Flores, 495 U.S. at 399. The court may also analyze more generally whether the provision in question “was a means for effectually accomplishing” an end other than “meeting the expenses or obligations of the government.” See Nebecker, 167 U.S. at 203. Under the Supreme Court’s precedents—sparse as they may be on this subject11—so long as the primary purpose of the provision is something other than raising revenue, the provision is not subject to the Origination Clause.

    ReplyDelete
  6. allenWed Nov 13, 09:29:00 PM EST
    Bad luck that. Well, it's back to the drawing board.

    When the record on this guy is finally released, I bet we will find that he had mental issues that went unaddressed.

    As a society, we are going to have to turn our attention away from gun control and focus on people control. There are some number of persons born in every generation who are nuts. Giving them a bottle of pills and sending them off with a pat on the back will not work.

    ***

    Unaddressed issues. That's the deal with Panama Ed. Unaddressed issues.

    Intervention needed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Same deal with desert rat, by the way.

      Delete
    2. And Fudd Buster too.

      Delete

    3. I guess the definition of a lunatic is a man surrounded by them.

      Delete
    4. You're lucky Ernie was around to speak for you and get you out jail.

      Come on Ezra, broadcasting for Mussolini - that was really shabby.

      And all that crap about usury.......

      The desert whacky boy might even call you a........fascist!

      Delete

    5. “Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power”

      Delete
    6. Capitalism has borne the monstrous burden of the war and today still has the strength to shoulder the burdens of peace. ...

      It is not simply and solely an accumulation of wealth, it is an elaboration, a selection, a co-ordination of values which is the work of centuries. ...

      Many think, and I myself am one of them, that capitalism is scarcely at the beginning of its story.”

      Delete

    7. “The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations.”

      Delete
    8. This misunderstanding of the meaning of 'corporatzione' spread rapidly in the United States....
      Chip Berlet discusses the corporatzione - councils of workers, managers and other groups set up by the Fascist Party to control the economy and everyone in it.
      http://www.publiceye.org/fascist/corporatism.html

      Delete
  7. What a man! I have lost my heart!... Fascism has rendered a service to the entire world... If I were Italian, I am sure I would have been with you entirely from the beginning of your victorious struggle against the bestial appetites and passion of Leninism.

    Winston Churchill, in a letter to Mussolini, after a visit to Rome (1927)

    ReplyDelete
  8. If one had to choose between Leninism, Nazism, or Fascism, by all means choose Fascism, as it allows the most space for private property and respite from the State.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Best of all immigrate to an uninhabited wilderness.

      Delete
  9. It is possible that rat's probables were caused by hypothyroidism during the early development stages exacerbated by dysfunctional family life in the early years.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A severe serotonin problem can't be ruled out at this time either.

      Delete
  10. I say small man complex complicated by birth order syndrome. Though it's hard to see how those alone could give rise to the inability to think. They do explain the frustration, the anger, the threats though, the cursing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't see how that covers the obsessive/compulsive aspect of it, anon.

      Delete
    2. hmmm....it might a be lack of whack. Things are either in whack, or out of whack. When one is out of whack, one is whacky. Whack is similar to serotonin, not as well known. A deficiency of whack is a serious malady.

      Delete
    3. Well, anon, it would explain the lack of humor, and the disinterest in any form of music.

      Delete
    4. Yes....hmmmm.....the joylessness....you may be onto something, anon.

      Delete
    5. Don't forget the utter disregard of any form of natural beauty. That is telling.

      Delete
    6. Yes! A robot drone has more personality.

      Delete