Uncategorized

My wife and I took my sister to lunch yesterday. My sister brought her youngest daughter, aged 14, with her. We had a conversation about economics. It started because my niece made the statement that people should get things that are necessary for free, because we all have a right to the necessities of life. She used feminine hygiene products as an example. I don’t hold it against her- she is a child and has no idea how life works.

So I told her that I wasn’t picking on her, but pointed out to her that, since no one was paying for tampons, there would be no money to pay the people who worked in the tampon factory, so why would anyone work there for free?

Her first reply was, “Wait! There is a tampon factory?” (Again, a child)

I said, “Well just where do you think tampons come from? Is there a tampon tree somewhere?”

She replied, “Well, in that case, I suppose you could get women to work there and pay them with free tampons.”

I said, “What would that be worth? Everyone gets tampons for free in this scenario, so how is this woman going to eat, buy gas, or buy a house?”

She said, “That’s my point. Money is stupid. Why can’t everyone just trade and barter for stuff? Why should we all have to go to work just to be able to afford the things we need to live? The government can just print all of the money we need.”

Sigh. That began my attempted explanation of how money works. She tuned me out after the first couple of minutes. The thing is, this is the exact same attitude that her 21 year old sister has.

Her older sister is 21 years old, still lives at home with mommy but is saying that she is an adult and doesn’t have to follow rules. She doesn’t have a drivers license and depends on her mother for rides to work, shopping, etc. She went to college for a year, but decided that was not what she wanted, so now works as a waitress and refuses to help with rent, food, or any other expenses or chores around the house. She expects mommy to cook, clean, and do her laundry for her. No surprise: she is a hard core left wing Democrat and dresses like a walking freak show. A lot like her mother was when she was younger.

My sister finally gave her daughter an ultimatum: she has to move out by October 1. My patience would have run out about 2 years ago.

This is a large portion of the youth of today. They want socialism because they don’t want to do anything but party. I don’t know how we can reach them. It seems to be a lost cause. Instead of working for a living, they are voting for a living. It’s been going on for a decade.

I sound like an old man bitching about “these kids today.”

On last week’s post about the use of force to prevent arson, there were some commenters who pointed out that all arson doesn’t justify the use of deadly force. That is correct, especially in one person’s example of someone burning your garden shed. Burning a garden shed or a backyard doghouse usually wouldn’t be a forcible felony. (Although it could be) Still, it is more complicated than that. Of course it is, because any time lawyers get involved, it always is.

Even armed robbery is not always a justification for the use of deadly force. For example, if the other side’s attorney can prove that, for some reason, you knew that the assailant’s firearm wasn’t functional, then you can’t use deadly force. Let’s say that you knew that the pistol in the robber’s hand was either unloaded or that the firing pin was missing. Even if some critter is pointing a gun at you, you can’t just blow his ass away, no matter how much you want to.

Some argued that, if a structure isn’t occupied, arson isn’t a forcible felony. The courts in Florida don’t see it that way. In fact, this particular legal argument has been made numerous times, and Florida courts have struck it down each and every time. See Woody v. State, 847 So.2d 566 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); Perez v. State, 840 So.2d 1125 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); Rodriguez v. State, 826 So.2d 464 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002), rehearing denied with opinion, 837 So.2d 1177 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, No. SC03-444, 848 So,2d 1155 (Fla. 2003); Diaz v. State, 837 So.2d 436 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); Delsol v. State, 837 So.2d 428 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002).

Early laws in Florida (before 1979) stated that setting a building on fire was only arson if the building was occupied. That definition was changed in 1979 because many people were finding and using loopholes.

So my thought here, and I can’t find any case law to the contrary, is that an occupiable building (like a church, a house, a business, etc) is presumed to be occupied and this makes it arson. Going back to the “reasonable” belief standard that all gun owners are familiar with means that if you KNOW that no one is inside the building, shooting someone to prevent the arson would be seen as not reasonable.

However, seeing someone beginning to toss a “destructive device” at an occupiable structure would, absent other mitigating factors, be legal, IMO.

Spain is proposing a law that would force employers to give women up to 5 days’ paid leave each month so they can stay home when having menstrual cramps.

If this comes to the US, I am going to declare myself to be a tranny so I can get a week of paid leave every month.

Seriously, though: why would any employer hire premenopausal women under such conditions?

Florida agriculture commissioner Niki Fried announced that she is adopting the Biden plan of selling gasoline that is 15 percent Ethanol (E15), instead of ten percent (E10). This move, they claim, will save motorists 10 cents per gallon, or about 2 percent.

The problem is that E15 has about 3 percent less energy per gallon than does E10, meaning that you will spend the same amount per mile because of increased fuel usage, making this plan a wash. The left is just hoping that you are too stupid to notice.

So if the Democrats pass a new law that “protects a person’s ability to determine whether to continue or end a pregnancy,” does the pregnancy that is ended have to be their own? If a person were to get drunk before driving home and get in an accident that caused the woman whose car he hit to have a miscarriage, was the drunk simply determined to end a pregnancy?

I wonder how many unintended consequences there are buried in that mess of stupidity.

Remember when the left mocked those taking Ivermectin because it was a “horse dewormer?” Now they are pushing horse pills as a DIY chemical abortion.

If you remember, there was a member of Antifa who was caught bringing explosives to a Tampa area political rally. He was found to be in possession of Antifa materials, pipe bombs, and other materials. He was charged with loitering or prowling, making a destructive device, and two counts of possession of destructive devices. That was January.

He reached a plea deal where he pled no contest to the second degree misdemeanor of loitering, received 6 months probation and had to pay a total of $575 in court costs and fines. All other charges were dropped. Why? Because the ATF ruled that none of these were explosive devices:

Watch this video of Antifa using fireworks as antipersonnel devices (at the 1:52 mark, you see a thrown firework explode in the crowd at a rally for a political candidate):

BREAKING: Antifa black bloc attacks Republican volunteers in Oregon, explosion goes off as the militants fan out waving flags pic.twitter.com/9koZhNfQCf

— Jack Posobiec 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) May 1, 2022

In Florida, a person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.

So is it reasonable for a person to believe that fireworks are capable of causing death or great bodily injury? I would argue that, being thrown deliberately into a crowd

If not, is it reasonable for a person to believe that the “unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb” is a forcible felony that must be stopped?

For reference: destructive device is defined as any bomb, grenade, mine, rocket, missile, pipebomb, or similar device containing an explosive, incendiary, or poison gas and includes any frangible container filled with an explosive, incendiary, explosive gas, or expanding gas, which is designed or so constructed as to explode by such filler and is capable of causing bodily harm or property damage.

Now the law goes on to say that fireworks are not considered to be destructive devices. I would argue that, once a firework is being used as an antipersonnel device, it has been redesigned. In fact, there is a case in Florida where a person used fireworks as destructive devices and tried to make the argument that since they were only fireworks, they were exempt. The appeals court ruled that the way a firework is used can make it a destructive device.

The analysis of Mitchell’s conduct would be more difficult had he used the devices as fireworks. But taping a firework on a window is not typically the manner by which one explodes fireworks for visible and audible effect. Rather, it evinces a purpose to destroy property. The devices in his possession were powerful enough to fall within the definition of a destructive device as one capable of causing bodily harm or property damage.

Although I am not a lawyer, I believe that in Florida, it is lawful to use deadly force to prevent individuals from using fireworks as weapons by throwing them into a crowd.

What say you?

A former Marine with a BCD was killed in Ukraine while working for a “military contracting company.” Note the details that the MSM for some strange reason chooses to omit. Did they really not ask the name of the “private military contracting company” that’s apparently recruiting prison guards in Tennessee to go fight Russia? They know his JROTC instructor, they know about his high school, and even interviewed his roommate and former boss.

Why can’t I find one single mention in any media account that mentions the name of the company?

Is there any chance this “company” could have ties to the US Govt.?

Would the name of this company be Christians In Action?

Elon Musk is a champion troller.

Stop hitting on me, I’m really shy ☺️

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 29, 2022

For those who may have forgotten where this is coming from:

If Republicans are mad they can’t date me they can just say that instead of projecting their sexual frustrations onto my boyfriend’s feet.

Ya creepy weirdos https://t.co/Z7bZCgXpWJ

— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) December 31, 2021