header picture

The Left


Hypocrisy and The LeftJeff Soyer on 28 Apr 2014 03:08 pm

From Fox News:

For instance, DeMaio has been the target of homophobic attacks. But where are those attacks coming from? It’s not always from the far right social conservatives you’d expect; rather, it’s been from DeMaio’s left – the liberal and Democrat-affiliated groups that you’d think would be proud that an openly gay successful businessman has decided to run for office.

One false attack drew the attention of the San Diego Ethics Commission. An anonymous left-wing group funded a SuperPac and sent mailers of DeMaio Photoshopped next to a drag queen to neighborhoods with a majority of elderly and African-American voters, knowing that such a photo would depress support for DeMaio.

That was so egregious and false that the group was fined by the city’s Ethics Commission, but even after that, and with his 100 percent voting record with the LGBT community, the Left still didn’t speak up to defend him. They told DeMaio, “It’s complicated.”

I’m sure. The Right, on the other hand, did speak up about it.

“I’ve found more tolerance, acceptance and inclusion from social conservative groups who have to reconcile that I’m a Republican who happens to be gay…versus the intolerance the LGBT leaders see me as a gay man who happens to be a Republican,” DeMaio said.

Read the whole thing.

I’ve often said, here, that the gun community has been far more accepting of me as gay, than the gay community has of me being a gun nut.

The LeftJeff Soyer on 16 May 2013 08:37 am

For background, see my posts here and here.

From the Journal Gazette:

The family of a second-grade boy suspended from his school in Maryland’s Anne Arundel County for chewing his Pop-Tart-like pastry into the shape of a gun has lost a bid to have the episode expunged from the child’s record, according to the family’s attorney.

Because unlike the teen/twenties punks robbing, shooting real guns, selling drugs, killing each other, who all get off with slap-on-the-wrists from our “judicial system,” you want to make sure that a 7-year-old who bit his pop-tart into a frosted jelly gun is penalized for his entire school career.

The LeftJeff Soyer on 29 Dec 2012 04:55 am

From a nearly incoherent letter to the Editor of the Times Argus which first starts off by suggesting a conspiracy over the name, “Sandy,” we get this:

Yes, gun control is needed. As Wyatt Earp used to post at the town limits: “Check your guns with the sheriff or go to jail.”

Sure, it was Dodge City in 1880, but so what? Things are just as violent now as back then. Gun nuts need to turn their guns in to the sheriff for safekeeping, and we don’t need them running around with M-16 assault rifles or other automatic weapons. This isn’t Vietnam. Maybe they need a deer rifle, but check it in with Marshal Earp or get thrown in the slammer. We all need to be more careful and watch out for possible terrorist situations and gun nuts.

‘Kay . . .

The Left and 2012 ElectionJeff Soyer on 30 Oct 2012 05:31 pm

I.E. the “Truth to Power” promulgated by liberals. Want a simple summary? This says it all.

The LeftJeff Soyer on 28 May 2012 07:08 am

From Breitbart:

CNN Contributor Erickson and Family Targeted in Latest ‘SWATING’ Attack:

Local police received a call from an individual claiming to be Erickson, stating that an accidental shooting had occurred at his home. Says Erickson, “Tonight, my family was sitting around the kitchen table eating dinner when sheriffs deputies pulled up in the driveway.”

This follows similar - pranks? - against blogger Patrick Frey (aka Patterico) and others.

More at the link as well as here.

On a side note, I REALLY don’t like how Breitbart writers have turned the acronym SWAT (as in sending a SWAT team) into verbs such as “swated” and “swating.” If it must be done . . . well, I’m tempted to add another ‘T’ into the word. If you go to bat in a game, you are a batter, or are batting third in the lineup. Better yet, use “SWAT’ed” and “SWAT’ing” to indicate that you are bastardizing the acronym for prose.

Hypocrisy and The LeftJeff Soyer on 15 Oct 2011 05:45 am

So, how’s that new civility in political discourse working out for ‘ya? As always, it is the left that proposes violence. Details and video here.

The LeftJeff Soyer on 15 Jan 2011 07:18 am

In an inane post on Crooks and Liars, Susie Madrak writes, What if We Required Mandatory Gun Insurance?

He [her son] said it made more sense to sidestep the entire gun control controversy and instead pass state laws that require anyone who owns a gun to carry insurance. If they have risk factors (like teenagers in the house), their rates go up. If one of their kids sneaks a gun out of the house and gets caught, or uses it to commit a crime, the insurance gets canceled for some meaningful period of time — say, 10 years.

Sorry, Susie, your son’s idea is not new but has been kicked around by various anti-gun zealots for some years. Certainly there have been incidents — tragic ones — of a gun owner’s kid getting their hands on his/her gun. Blame, liability, can in part be assigned to the parent(s). But, these cases are rare — media exaggeration not withstanding — and more children drown from the backyard swimming pool then are killed by their parent’s gun.

So, you could require insurance for guns — probably pricing the cost of firearm ownership out of the reach for those who need the protections provided by same the most. Those who live in crime-infested areas. The law abiding would suffer and the illegal use of guns would not noticeably diminish. It is the illegal use of guns that causes the mayhem in our society that you (or your son) would like to vanquish.

The vast majority of illegal shootings are committed by crooks. But, here’s the thing: What psycho or criminal or gang member — the vast majority of whom obtain their firearms illegally to begin with and don’t bother with such formalities as licenses, permits, etc. — is going to call up Allstate or Geico and enroll in an insurance program?

Or, are you suggesting that if a gun is stolen from a law-abiding citizen and then used in a crime, that the original owner is civilly liable?

Well now, we can look at the cases filed regarding stolen cars that are then used in crimes resulting in personal injury or property damage. Many states, and some courts have ruled that if the car was left unattended, running or not, with the doors unlocked and the keys in the car, that the owner can be held partially liable for the actions of the thief. Most auto insurance companies fight these suits and won’t cover the owner.

If the owner lends the car to somebody who then crashes it, causing injury or damage, again, the owner is at least partially liable. Insurance policies DO cover the owner in these incidents.

But, if the car was not running — keys not in the car — doors of the car locked, then courts, states have found no liability on the part of the owner.

Using the above examples as a possible template for how insurance companies would offer insurance for firearms, we can speculate that if you leave a loaded gun laying on your porch step and someone swipes it, I guess your insurance company is not going to cover any actions resulting.

If your gun is in the house and your doors are locked (or maybe even unlocked) then I suspect that a gun insurance company will cover the damages. Incidentally, there are firearm insurance companies, including from the NRA.

Now, what about an insurance company covering your gun if you shoot a home intruder and his family decides to sue you? Fortunately, many states have adopted “Stand your ground” and “Castle Doctrine” laws that exempt you from civil (and criminal) liabilities.

Again though, thugs, gangsters, et al are not going to bother with taking out insurance so your proposal will only harm law-abiding owners.

This is all moot to the readers of Crooks and Liars. Their typical response was summarized by this comment from “Dahgrostabph-r-i”:

I would favor manditory insurance, I’m not a gun nut so it wouldn’t cost me very much - let’s go for it.

Better yet, maybe we just have a law where if you want to own a gun you need to put it in your mouth and test fire it first. c-mon, a lot of these tea baggers wouldn’t even realize it was a dumb idea until they pulled the trigger…and even then…

Yup. Just more violent, eliminationist talk by the left.

I’m not a lawyer (”but I play one on TV!”) or insurance expert so if any of you have more thoughts or ideas on this, feel free to comment. I’m sure there is already a body of case law regarding stolen guns and liability. Remember that my comments input only allows one or two links per, er, comment. More then that and you’ll have to wait till I get home from work this afternoon to “approve” it.

Feeds


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Day by Day, by Chris Muir

Please Note:
Comments close on posts
after a week or so. . .




Dig Sci-Fi?
My group SF blog novel:
Colony: Alchibah

Writings by the participants:

Never So Few
The FutureVerse

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Go to:

AlpheccaHome Page



Go to:

AlpheccaHome Page



All uncredited content is (C) Copyright 2002-2014 by Jeff Soyer. All rights reserved.


free web stat