Posts made by brettw97

Switzerland is the most heavily armed nation, and yet has practically no homicides.  Same can be said of Japan, in which they are disarmed.  On Australia, the data is inconclusive, as their experiment is in the relative youthful stages of long term data.  Australia has seen a spike in violent crime recently, but I would refrain from using them for comparison purposes until there's at least ten more year worth of data to draw from.

However, in the United States, the problems are much more complex.  Do you live on a rural ranch in New Mexico near the US-Mexican border where cartels are as heavily armed in many cases as the US military?  Do you live on a rural farm in Kentucky where your neighbors maybe in high end meth production in a county with literally just a couple of law enforcement officers available?  The problem is trying to narrow down the problems of such a vast country into a few simple statements.

Truth is the law already prohibits the mentally ill & felons from legally purchasing guns.  However, the loopholes are astounding because the money was never invested to get all 50 state to use the same database.  Then, with state by state HIPPA laws, mental health professionals are too afraid of being sued by their patients to do the due dilligence on what is needed, and in other states, felons are often granted full rights back so that they can vote, which in some states include gun rights.  There's alot to unpackage to have real reform.

@brianboru72:

Speaking as someone on the outside looking in- I do understand the need for gun ownership for protection and hunting purposes. However, it really feels like it has been taken to an extreme level and needs to be reined in.
For instance- would assault rifles and automatic weapons really be needed for hunting or self-defense?
And as for mental illness- as much as I see your point about responsible, medicated gun owners who have minor mental illness, as a point of public safety, I personally would feel better with stricter restrictions.

In the end, the statistics speak for themselves. Places like Australia and Japan have proven that limiting gun ownership leads to a big drop in gun related deaths and shootings. So really it becomes a question of what is more important- the lives of potential future victims, or the freedom to carry.

The Supreme Court rule in previous cases that law enforcement has no legal obligation to protect you.  You cannot leagally sue law enforcement from failing to protect you, but they can be sued if they screw up and shoot you.  If law enforcement does not have a legal responsibility to protect you, then why should you give up your capacity to defend yourself?

Then, look at nations like the UK, Sweden, France & Germany that have given up their guns.  You will literally spend more time in jail for a crude joke than you will if you are a migrant who commits a serious crime, such as rape.  The ultimate point of gun ownership is to safeguard against a tyrannical government, as last century alone saw over 120 million deaths at the hands of regimes where the populace was disarmed and unable to defend themselves.

Our policy on Chechnya makes it a dumpster fire.  When the Sovet Union fell apart, Chechnya fought a war a separatist war to break away from Yeltsin's Russia.  Yeltsin fought to keep Chechnya.  When Putin came to power, the war was raging, and the US forced a settlement down Russia's throat, who was weak at that time, to allow Russia to keep Chechnya in exchange for Muslim autonomy in Chechnya.  Any change on our position in Chechnya permits Putin to reopen that can of worms.  We never should have forced the original Chechnya settlement on Russia.

Actually, the police did screw up royally here.  Several family members in law enforce.  New SOP for active shooter/mass casualty situations is not to wait and establish perimeter.  Post-Columbine the SOP is to immediately charge in, neutralize the threat, and secure the scene for EMS.  None of that occurred here.  The police held back waited for SWAT, tried to negotiate.  None of this is SOP.

Seriously, I thought he was going to fall out of his chair and collapse when Hillary gave her acceptance speech at the DNC.  He doesn't look well at all.

As much as I want to sympathize on with Bret Weinstein, I don't.  He talked about his progressive values on Tucker Carlson, Twitter, and to the New York times, but those progressive values are what gives us identity politics that created this mess.  Some of the responsibility is at Weinstein's door bc the ideology he supports inevitably leads to this.

We should reject this deal because it's not in our interests.  Period.  It does nothing to curb the two biggest polluters on Earth today: India & China.  They've only agreed to cap how much more pollution they'll emit, but they continue increasing the amounts yearly under the agreement despite the fact China is so polluted you can't even see China from space.

Then, there's the wealth redistribution aspects to the agreement whereby first world nations agree to pay third world nations for climate change, which is not in any national interest.  The truth about climate change is that the Earth is getting overpopulated.  Europe and North America addresses that policy already.  Look at the size of families in most first world countries.  However, those issues aren't being addressed in the third world, nor are they part of any Paris Accord.

I'm for measures to tackle climate change, but I'm not going to endorse any deal that (a) not in our national interests and (b) fails to address the root of climate change.

It's a bad decision.  I have friends and family that have fought in Afghanistan and Iraq, and even they're not thrilled with the idea of even Islamic allies migrating here.  The reason is that while they were allies on the battlefield, you wouldn't want them as your neighbor.  My cousin was telling me how his interpreter saved their hide, and when they gave candy to some of the kids, the same interpreter encouraged the boys to kick the crap out of the girls who received the candy and admonished the boys who didn't.

Quite frankly, it's hard to know what we're getting in terms of cultural values, and that's a frightening prospect.  If we're going to take on migrants in the long run, such an addition should be contingent first on a major reformation within Islam itself, or else I fear many more Pulses are headed to Western society.

I majored in International Affairs and have my law degree.  He's got no choice but to return these properties.  It's one thing to revoke diplomatic immunity; it's another entire matter to seize diplomatic property.  Russian consulates, embassies, and general diplomatic missions, regardless of the fact they're in the United States are Russian Property and fall under all Russian laws.

Having went to college in DC, it's why us underage college kids used to love the Russian Embassy on Halloween.  All the kids from GW & Georgetown would line up outside the gate to walk through to get our free shots of vodka, which was perfectly legal because on Russian territory, the drinking age wasn't 21.

Essentially, seizing a diplomatic outpost is considered a hostile act, even an act of war under diplomatic protocol.  Putin opted not to respond to Obama's taunt because he figured Obama was going to be out soon enough, but if they're not returned, he's going to pick the best American real estate in Russia and return the favor.  This is a suck it up buttercup moment, nothing conspiratorial.

Secret Service protocol is you go on a No Events list.  That can be overruled by the President, but even if overruled Secret Service assigns extra agents to tag you & you must be accompanied at all times by a White House staffer.

A few things.  First, Kathy is different from other such instances in the past due to both her celebrity status and her contract with CNN.  Yes, she did have an employment contract with CNN when she posted this image, and even though CNN fired her, CNN's hesitation in doing so makes many ponder whether or not the media endorses this type of behavior against Trump.  This will hurt Democrats in the Rust Belt, whether you agree with what she did or not.

Second, those who threatened Presidents in the past were subject to Secret Service investigations, including Ted Nugent and the guy who burned Obama in effigy, and Madonna after her White House threats.  That means that those figures will be considered persona non grata for events at the White House and Presidential functions, hence why Nugent wasn't playing.  Now, if the Secret Service when evaluating this threat finds any emails, and they will subpeona Kathy's emails, that indicate she hopes some one will act on it, she will be charged with threatening the life of the President.  Let's hope she's not that stupid.

There are consequences for Free Speech.  If you do something stupid that embarrasses your employer, you will be fired.  Secret Service will ban you for Security reasons, and if Secret Service finds intent to act on that speech, you will be charged.  It was not a laughing matter for all the other nutjobs before, and it's not a laughing matter here.

If Democrats continue to push identity politics, and extreme Progressive values, while, simultaneously taking more money from Wall Street than the GOP, then it's game over.  If they embrace economic populism, ignore identity politics, and leave the GOP with immigration populism, it's a whole new ball game.

On the issue of Alex Jones.  Alex Jones is the internet's answer to the National Enquirer.  That said, the Enquirer was the same organization that broke the John Edwards sex scandal, among other political scandals.  Just because a source is considered entertainment doesn't mean the source can't do real news as well.  Just vet their stories very carefully, both the Enquirer and Alex Jones.

As a lawyer, here's the legality to the First Amendment.  You're free to act as a journalist, but if you use someone else's platform, they're free to kick you off for any reason.  If you start your own website, have your own server, you can do whatever the hell you want and have full 1A Constitutional Amendment protection.

Now, here's the part that have put Social Media Tech Stocks in legal jeopardy.  There's actually lawsuits over Dallas Police Massacre and Pulse Massacre pending because of it.  If a tech company provides a platform but doesn't unduly interfere on that platform, then the Tech Company enjoys immunity from any actions that occur in real life because of that speech.

Since Twitter and Facebook have been actively stamping out hate speech on the right while permitting ISIS to hold accounts and BLM to thrive, lawyers are arguing that their immunity has gone by the wayside because they have actually interfered in the organic flow of information.

These lawsuits have been permitted to go forward.  I look for the trial judges to permit these suits to be heard, and I honestly expect a victory at trial, but these are more litmus test cases, and the way platforms are given latitude based off these cases will be ultimately decided by the Supreme Court.

The legal angle.  The problem with the allegations against Trump he is alleged to have done is actually a crime.  Collusion is damaging politically if made public, but not a crime.  BTW, RFK sent an emissary to see Khrushchev after JFK's death asking him not to engage Johnson, Nixon colluded with South Vietnam to ensure they didn't agree to a Peace Treaty, and Edward Kennedy asked for Soviet help in the 1984 election.  All embarrassing but not criminal.

As for General Flynn, talking with the Russians about potentially lifting sanctions isn't' a crime.  The Logan Act requires an actual diplomatic outcome to occur, and if that outcome happened on Trump's watch, then it wouldn't be considered interference under the law.  His real crime is not registering as a lobbyist for a foreign government, Turkey, which is a slap on the wrist fine, and the fine is rarely ever levied as long as you go back and fill out the paperwork.

The problem with all of the accusations against Trump is that, while damaging politically, no law was actually broken.  These are scandals in search of a crime.  Yeah, it's embarrassing, but that's all.

Live in the DC area.  Take this one with a grain of salt & try not to inject politics into it.  The initial reports was this was drinking by both sides got out of hand, and then after reviewing the perp's social media account, they decided whoops, there might be a hate crime.  I'm always suspicious when the initial report is so vastly different from what's being alleged.  The lawyer in me speaking.

I'm not arguing First Amendment rights.  I'm pointing out that with the internet anyone can become a journalist and utilize their First Amendment rights as a media outlet.  If traditional media is going to survive in this atmosphere, it is important that they be perceived by their audience as an unbiased umpire, which given the number of political cronies they hire, unlikely & give both sides of the political divide a fair shake in that they assign investigative reporters who actually want to see a story through to every allegation made by both sides.  Otherwise, their purpose as a credible neutral arbitrator of facts will cease to exist in the eyes of the public.  Without that credibility, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, et. al. will be as relevant as Buzzfeed and bloggers.

Sorry, I'm not buying.  Weiner has a long history well before this girl of doing really creepy shit along these lines.  It's also striking that Huma filed for divorce right after his plea tells me she only stayed married to ensure they'd have to plea out since spousal privilege would ensure she could never take the stand.

The real problem with fake stories runs deeper than Trump.  This election was one where Trump was the clear outsider, the guy the media did not want to see win.  Even FOX News was split on whether they wanted him.  Trump won much in the same way as FDR & JFK did: he used a new medium to bypass traditional media and project an image that the traditional media of the time could not control.  In FDR's case, the radio, JFK's case, the television, and in Trump's case, social media.

The real problem is that beginning probably in Bush's second term, social media started to evolve.  Yeah, Obama used it, but used it just to organize his own supporters to be subordinate to him.  Never before have we seen groups self-organize on the internet to back a candidate.

While this was going on, many media outlets, loss of ad revenue, had reverted to clickbait articles on their own in order to draw large audiences instead of insuring that they got the story right, which takes more time.  The problem is that when you get a story wrong, and you're likely to do so if you're too worried about being first is that you lose the only asset that is important in journalism: credibility.

So, when they turned a blind eye to Trump's massive social media reach, ignored the fact Hillary wasn't campaigning (yes, she lost because Trump flat outworked her, as she often was off the trail for days and even weeks at a time), told the country there's no way Trump could win, and then went into a meltdown when he did win, their credibility took a massive hit.

Both sides have fake articles.  Both sides have conspiracy theories.  Dems have Russian Collusion.  GOP has Seth Rich.  The traditional media pushes Russian Collusion, and calls Seth Rich a conspiracy theory.  There's valid points that deserve investigation in both.  Instead of assigning real investigative reporters to take their time, get to the bottom of these stories, and give an honest assessment as to what they find, traditional outlets are jumping the gun.  This is what is going to destroy traditional journalism.  Clickbait instead of an even-handed facts matter approach.

However, we shouldn't be surprised at this.  NBC gives contracts to the Bush and Clinton daughters.  ABC hires George Stephanopolus, a Clinton campaign aide and Clinton Foundation donor, and I could keep going, but the problem is that traditional media has tried to play inside baseball by hiring political hacks from both sides of the aisle instead of promoting real journalists based on merit.

So, it's no surprise to see traditional media on the way out.  The only question is what will replace it and how effective will it be.  I have no clue, but it's an interesting time to be alive.

First off, I'm not saying the reports are true or untrue.  Don't know.  Work as a lawyer in DC, went to school here for Undergraduate and Law degrees, and know many of the players through staffers I went to school with.  What I do know through knowing these people is that I would not trust Brennan, Clapper, or Susan Rice to dogsit for twenty minutes.  Brennan spied on Senate Staffers to see what they had on Bush era waterboarding, a clear violation of the law, and forced Dianne Feinstein to condemn him on the Senate floor, where btw, a good month of 2014 was spent discussing whether or not to fire Brennan.

Credibility matters when making accusations, and that's something that whatever shreds were left were destroyed in the passage of the Iran deal, after it was revealed and bragged about that the Intelligence Community intentionally misled Congress to secure the deal's passage.

It maybe true.  It might not be true.  Just don't get your hopes up.  Anyone who uses any of these three sources for anything will need serious corroboration.