Showing posts with label laws. Show all posts
Showing posts with label laws. Show all posts

Tuesday, February 17, 2015

New Jersey Man Arrested for Possession of a Flintlock Pistol

I think this might have been used by Aaron Burr

I know what you're thinking. You're thinking, Bryan, I'd like for you to come up with something extraordinarily stupid. Something the pushes the limits of human dumbness.

Here you go.
Simone reported that Gordon was arrested last November while heading home after lunch. A Cumberland County Sheriff’s Deputy pulled over Gordon for a traffic violation, but wanted to search his car. Upon discovering a flintlock pistol in the glove compartment, VanGilder said that another deputy wanted to let him go since he knew the firearm was an antique. The Sheriff disagreed. VanGilder was arrested the following morning, and faces up to ten years in prison; three and a half to five years of that sentence must be served before parole can be considered.

To make things more absurd, the prosecutor in the case told VanGilder’s lawyer­–Evan Nappen–who’s in the video; that ballistics test will be run on the firearm.

Ok, I'm not a scientist, but how exactly do you run ballistics on a smoothbore firearm? And even if you could, what's the point? Are they going to match it against all the musket balls pulled from unsolved crimes?

Good luck tracking this pistol via serial number, too.

Wednesday, November 19, 2014

The President Is Going to Cut Down a Law or Two Tomorrow


Sure, I agree. We all like rational stuff. Even if the House doesn't like the current Senate bill, they can always amend it, or just pass their own. What are they waiting for?

Maybe they're waiting for the new Congress to be sworn in. Maybe they're waiting for Christmas. Either way, it doesn't matter why Congress is choosing not to act; that's entirely beside the point. If the President doesn't like the lack of immigration reform bills in the Congress, maybe his party should start winning some elections. Or maybe the President could have done something for the two years he had a super-majority in Congress.

But all of this talk about the President's action and the Congress' reaction also misses the point of this being bad precedent.

The President shouldn't do what he's about to do. There's no broad public support for it. It's against the specific will of the majority of the legislative branch. The legal basis is unsound. There's no national crisis at hand that cries out for drastic action. In fact, the President is actually creating a crisis with this defiant move. It's also not a permanent fix, either. It's theater. But it's theater that sets a horrible precedent of cutting down laws by Presidential order.

But you know...I don't put 100% of the blame on the President. I blame us. The entire Democratic party is thrilled at the idea of this executive action, and it is actively encouraging him to do this. A little less than half of the electorate is excusing the means because they like the end result. There's plenty of blame to go around. The President is going to announce that he's going to ignore some laws tomorrow, and it won't really register for much of the citizenry here in our young little republic.

At the end of the day, we have to have laws that mean things. If the law can just be altered (and non-enforcement is altering the law) then what is left? I know I use this clip all the time, but it's relevant once again.


You start cutting down a little bit of the law here, a little bit of the law there, and pretty soon, a cold wind is blowing, and the Devil will turn 'round on you. Where do you hide then?

Monday, June 11, 2012

Sweden Requires Men to Pee Sitting Down?

Occasionally, you'll hear someone claiming how great life is in Scandinavia. They have great health care, great schools, and it's full of blonde-haired, blue-eyed beauties. Sounds great right?

However, they seem to be quite interested in telling you what you can and can't do. I always have an aversion to anyone telling me what to do, especially when it's "for my own good". However, this government edict in Sweden, goes too far:
The Left Party in Sörmland is taking a stand to ensure men take a seat when emptying their bladders in the county council's own toilets.

According to the party, there are two very important reasons for the proposal encouraging men to sit instead of stand when they urinate.
That's right. They want men to sit down when they pee.

According to the folks pushing this law, there are two "very important" for making the men in Sweden do something extremely emasculating, unnecessary, and personal. Even though this should be dismissed out of hand, let's at least hear the sissies out. Are you ready? Here is reason number one:
One reason has to do with hygiene and a desire to ensure that no one who uses the toilets at the county council's offices will be required to walk through puddles or residue left by stray urine which happens to splash out of the bowl and onto the floor when male employees pee standing up.
Whoa! This  is a little gross, but we're going to have  serious discussion. First of all, where are the janitors? Being a janitor is a specific job here in America. You know, janitors: the cleaning crew that comes through buildings to clean the restrooms? They mob the floor, they refill the little towels, fill up the soap, and generally...clean the restrooms. Does this job not exist in Sweden? Also, where are the urinals? A urinal pretty much makes it impossible to leave a "puddle" and solves your problem right there. Also, maybe this could be accomplished with a little personal responsibility. You make a mess, you clean it up. It's not complicated.

We here at Permanent Press are all for bathroom cleanliness, and as a spokesmen for all men out there, I'm sure that we could all do a better job of bathroom hygiene. I freely admit that. However, a law, an actual law, with the coercive power of the government behind it, that requires men to sit down while peeing is beyond absurd.

Ok, so I think we can all agree that reason number one is not so great. Maybe reason number two is a humdinger. I really doubt it though, because if reason number two was so much better than reason number one, then reason number two would probably have moved into the position of reason number one. Everyone still with me? Anyway, let's have a look:
The Left Party also cites medical research it claims shows that men empty their bladders more efficiently when they are seated.
Umm...really? I don't really want to speak for all men everywhere, but I'm pretty sure that after I finish, I'm empty. That's the point. It's also pretty efficient in any position. Someone let me know if they have a different experience. Maybe if you've got a medical problem it's a different deal, but that's not something that requires a law for all men to take a seat.

If the men of Sweden go along with this, they are doomed. Where's the Viking spirit that made Sweden great? They are descendents of men who pillaged all along the European coast and were feared and respected. This is the land of Beowulf. The were men.

I'm pretty sure that these guys didn't pee sitting down.
And it's come to this? If the men of Sweden go along with this, I hope their Viking ancestors come back to haunt them. Some busybody regulator is taking away their personal bathroom freedoms: they have to fight this.

On the list of emasculating things, being forced to sit down while peeing is got to be in the top five. I can't come up with a comprehensive list, but it's got to be up there. Any women out there want to date a guy who pees sitting down? I don't think so.

Men of Sweden: Don't take this sitting down. Better to die on your feet than live on a seat.

[H/T: @Maetenloch]