Divemedic

Positions of the ACLU:

NAMBLA (The North American Man-Boy Love Association) has a constitutional right to publish pamphlets that instruct members on how to break the law and molest young boys.

That 18 year old men have a constitutional right to have sex with 14 year old boys.

While at the same time, law abiding citizens do not have a constitutional right to own a gun

What I do not understand is how the ACLU can read the first amendment to mean that NAMBLA has an unlimited constitutional right to instruct men on how to rape and kill young boys, while at the same time, taking the following position with regards to the Second Amendment:

The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.

1 Where in the constitution does it say you have a right to own a car? The two are not equivalent.

2 What part of “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” do you not understand?

3 I know all about the disingenuous statements regarding the militia clause. Do we really have to discuss this again?

Since the Supreme court is poised to take a case that will decide whether or not the Second Amendment is an individual right or a collective one, I ask the ACLU this question:

If the Supreme Court rules that the right to bear arms is an individual one, will you then defend the NRA as voraciously as you do NAMBLA, or you rather support those who want to fuck young boys, instead of simply take them hunting?

In Arkansas, the Benton county government disciplines workers with “unhealthy” traits. High blood pressure, diabetes, obesity, smoking, high cholesterol, all reasons to discipline employees.

In Los Angeles, the city government is refusing to allow any new fast food restaurants to open. they claim that they will only allow “health food” eateries and grocery stores.

In Florida, one company is FIRING employees who smoke, are overweight, or who drink. This applies even to employees who smoke or drink outside of working hours.

That’s right- if you are overweight, drink, smoke, or have any number of other unhealthy problems or lifestyle, you can be disciplined or fired.

Now don’t get me wrong- if the employer wants to prohibit activities like drinking, eating, and smoking while employees are on the clock, that is certainly his prerogative. However, telling employees that they must be healthy, abstain from certain activities, and work out places tehm employee back on the clock, in my opinion. Are these employers going to pay their employees to work out? Or is this a scheme to get rid of older employees, thus legitimizing age discrimination?

After all, younger, less experienced workers are paid less, but are healthier. It is illegal to age discriminate, but “health” discrimination is totally legal.

Or is this a side effect of the planned “Hillarycare” mandatory employer insurance that is soon to be forced upon us?

DISCLAIMER: I am not a user of tobacco products, I do not drink, I am perhaps 30 pounds overweight, and I have high blood pressure (a hereditary condition that is being controlled by medication).

I was unloading some heavy supplies from my pickup yesterday, and I fell from it and hit the ground. Hard. From four feet up. I landed on my right foot, and I hard a loud crack, at the same time feeling my knee let go. Let me tell you, that is a special kind of pain.

I had one of the guys that was over drive me to the local emergency room. Four hours later, I left the ER in the knowledge that my leg was not broken, and a referral for an ortho. Having just gotten home from my ortho appointment, I can now tell you that I strained my patellar ligament.

I will be out of work for 4 to 6 weeks. Good thing I never take sick time, so I have plenty to spare.

Seeing RobertaX’s Blog and her comments about “the village” paying for “free” healthcare are in keeping with my earlier comments on the subject. The feeling that Uncle Sugar should be paying for whatever it is you want this week, be it healthcare, welfare, your retirement, food stamps, whatever, has been going on for years.

Hearing people complain that the Kelo decision and how wrong it is that the court allowed the government to take private property and give it to others makes me laugh. Whether it is New London using eminent domain to take my house and give it to a business, or it is the IRS taking my money to hand out healthcare, welfare, or whatever the cause is this week, my property has been getting taken for the profit of others for my entire adult life.

To Paul Tibbets, the man who flew the first atomic weapon to Japan

Last night, I ran a call on a woman who was, to use the medical term, “coo coo for Cocoa Puffs.” She, along with her 19 year old son, came in third in a physical altercation involving themselves, some random citizens, and the police.

During the altercation, a gun was produced by one of the actors, which caused the police to show the others all of the cool guns they possess, and some bumps and bruises were administered. That is where I come in. We arrived to find mom and son lying on the ground, with police everywhere.

The son yells things like “I’s a gangsta, yo!”
“I’m cool, like 69 degrees, yo!”

Complete with baggy pants, blue gang bandanna, underwear hanging out, and his toy gun.

I pointed out to him that flashing toy guns at people with REAL guns is not a very smart thing to do, unless one WANTS to be like, 69 degrees, yo. As in assuming room temperature.

A Miami reporter was arrested this week, for carrying a weapon on school grounds. He had a concealed weapons permit. There are a couple of problems with this arrest.

1 The law he was undoubtedly arrested for violating was 790.06(12), which states (in relevant part):

No license issued pursuant to this section shall authorize any person to carry a concealed weapon or firearm into…any elementary or secondary school facility…

Which would seem to make this a valid arrest, until you look at the statute like an attorney, At that point, you see that the legislature treats school facilities and school grounds as two different animals. See 790.115(1) (relevant parts):

(1) A person who exhibits any sword, sword cane, firearm, electric weapon or device, destructive device, or other weapon… at a school-sponsored event or on the grounds or facilities of any school…

The legislature could easily have said grounds, had it meant grounds. Instead, it chose to use the word facility. In fact, looking at the definition of “Educational facility” in 159.29(22), we see that facility DOES mean buildings:

(22) “Educational facility” means:

(a) Property, limited to a structure suitable for use as a dormitory or other housing facility or a dining facility, that is operated in the public sector and used for or useful in connection with the operation of an institution for higher education…(snip irrelevant language)

(b) Property that comprises the buildings and equipment, structures, and special education use areas that are built, installed, or established to serve primarily the educational purposes of operating any nonprofit private preschool, kindergarten, elementary school, middle school, or high school…

Even if the court decides that this reading is incorrect, it is only a Class 2 Misdemeanor. I don’t even think it will get that far, however. Because he was arrested on the sidewalk in front of the school, this would not in any way constitute the “facility.”

The second problem I have, is that since the weapon was concealed, and the reporter safely on the sidewalk, the police officer in this case had absolutely no probable cause to search him to FIND the weapon in the first place. This entire arrest smells. Perhaps this reporter was reporting on things the local gendarmes found offensive.