Sitting here thinking that at some point a kid will get a hold of one of those bats, and there will be some assault and "bat" tery pun, while others will start to protest about having bats at school.
Sitting here thinking that at some point a kid will get a hold of one of those bats, and there will be some assault and "bat" tery pun, while others will start to protest about having bats at school.
What rocket scientist decided that bats were a good defense against guns?
Teacher Terry,
I can imagine an informal debate about this question in the teachers' lounges in that school district: Is it more effective to club a threat over the head with your bat, or to poke him in the eye? <sarcasm>
Thanks for giving me a good laugh.
In Illinois, local efforts are underway to blunt the effect of any new legislation which may pass regulating bump stocks, high capacity magazines, etc.
In Illinois five county boards passed largely symbolic resolutions declaring themselves "sanctuary counties for gun owners". The County Board of Effingham County, (population 34,000) in southern IL voted 8-1 to bar county employees from enforcing new laws that would violate the right to keep and bear arms.
Fox News reported that the resolutions of Effingham County and 5 other county boards are intended to send a message to the Democratic-controlled legislature in IL: if it passes firearms bills, such as increasing the minimum age for owning a gun or prohibiting a bump stock, these counties will instruct their employees to ignore the new law.
Rex Huppke wrote an op-ed piece in the Chicago Tribune, sarcastically praising the Effingham County Board for its "symbolic and unenforceable resolution that addresses problems that don't exist." Furthermore he urged nervous Illinois gun owners to move to Effingham County. "... For too long, heat-packers have had to live in fear that at any moment the government or a band of raging liberals ... might swoop down and start grabbing all the guns. ...You who have been made to feel uncomfortable because school-shooting survivors have become vocally anti-school shooting, go to Effingham County. ...Go, I say. Your sanctuary awaits."
Last edited by dado potato; 5-7-18 at 1:20pm.
In Deschutes County, Oregon, efforts are underway to put an initiative on the ballot for the November elections, the Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance. If passed, the initiative would empower the Sheriff of Deschutes County to determine whether any federal, state or local regulation violates the Constitution. "Any regulation of the right to keep and bear arms or ancillary firearms rights that violate ... the Constitution... shall be regarded by the People on and in Deschutes County as unconstitutional, a transgression of the Supreme Law of the Land and its spirit of Liberty, and therefore by necessity void ab initio"
I understand that backers of the initiative need about 4,100 signatures of county residents by a certain deadline for the initiative to be placed on the ballot.
That's a perfect illustration of the greatness of America. Much like many urban areas declaring themselves sanctuaries against Federal Immigration laws, rural areas have taken notice and started declaring themselves as sanctuaries against their big city brethren's restriction of their liberties. I love this sort of thing.Originally Posted by dado potato
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
It’s amusing, but if we go too far down the path of forming little tribes and nullifying laws we find uncongenial, we wind up like the Balkans. I especially think it’s a bad idea to allow the police the power to interpret the Constitution. That is not to say that an all-powerful central government is the answer.
Apparently the New York Times is upset that the Federal government's recent efforts to finally *prosecute* violations of existing gun laws will:
" sap energy from further legislative or regulatory efforts to combat gun violence, like regulating assault weapons or increasing background check requirements."
And:
"Enforcement isn’t always the solution to those different types of crimes. The result might be to increase the federal prison population without a correlating reduction in crime.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/07/u...n-charges.html
So enforcing existing law would sap energy from the effort to pass additional unenforceable laws?
Sounds like a good example of NYT logic.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote