Obama plans curbs on guns

[JonNC]

Actually I believe private individuals, our faith based groups and charitable groups have a role to play. I simply reject your premise that those sources alone could afford to cover the help that such a large populace today is in need of but can not afford. So yes I believe government has a role to play along with individuals and private groups and don’t simply believe that if only government would get out of the way, that magically all of our problems go away. I don’t claim to have all the answers. But I also don’t know if for instance the VA is properly funded or not. I know I am so very sorry to hear of your nephew’s death and it would be even more tragic if in a country as wealthy as ours, if lack of proper funding attributed to his death. And be assured that my prayers go out for your sister as well.

Where do you think the money comes from that government spends on the bureaucracy first, then healthcare with what’s left? Are these not the same dollars, if not confiscated by government,people could apply to true healthcare, healthcare that has the compassion of faith groups?
As for my nephew, it had nothing to do with funding. It had to do with bureaucracy, and the lack of compassion the inevitably flows from it. Government wasn’t given a role in healthcare by the constitution, for good reason.
I so much appreciate your prayers

Jon

 

[GaryTaylor]

And this is merely your opinion. The difference is that, in America, your opinion is contrary to that of the founders, and in response to them, the Constitution.
Progressives are not asking for restrictions. They are demanding disarming, just as their forebearers in Europe last century did

Jon

You ever notice when gun issues arise the par excellence is Australia? In well over a half hundred years I never once heard an America state they wanted to be like Australia. Just saying but mass gun confiscation doesn’t seem like democracy to me but tyranny. Is that a true democracy?

psnews.com.au/aps/459/features/australia-not-yet-a-true-democracy

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Since we have been discussing Obama and guns, just a programming note for those who might be interested and do not know. But tonight 8p to 10p ET on CNN, President Obama has a townhall on gun violence in America with Anderson Cooper. I realize some/many are not interested. But I’m just making it known. I’m just the messenger. No need to attack me or Obama or Anderson or CNN.

A new CNN poll says 67% of Americans favor Obama’s executive orders, but only 41% say it will reduce gun deaths.

I believe the measures will reduce gun deaths some, and some is certainly better than none… One is better than none.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Where do you think the money comes from that government spends on the bureaucracy first, then healthcare with what’s left? Are these not the same dollars, if not confiscated by government,people could apply to true healthcare, healthcare that has the compassion of faith groups?
As for my nephew, it had nothing to do with funding. It had to do with bureaucracy, and the lack of compassion the inevitably flows from it. Government wasn’t given a role in healthcare by the constitution, for good reason.
I so much appreciate your prayers

Jon

You are more than welcome, Jon.

I will only say some scholars might argue that the Constitution does indeed speak of providing for the general welfare and the 9th amendment speaks of the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights.

But Constitutional matters are a forever ongoing debate with different views on it and different camps.

 

[Leo2014]

It’s amazing how many people make this argument but have no idea what it refers to. The Schenck v. US decision where the quote comes from had nothing to do with fire or theaters. Schenck, the defendant in the case, was prosecuted for opposing the draft in World War 1. Oliver Wendell Holmes used the phrase “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic” as a metaphor to describe opposition to US participation in the war. Holmes abused the Constitution to criminalize legitimate political speech, just as many global warming alarmists want to criminalize climate change skepticism.

I think you are missing the point…

There is nothing more certain in life than change (Yes, there is also death & taxes - please don’t share where that came from…).

Society interrupts the documents that have been handed down from one generation to the next. We often find grievances in something that the previous generation may have been more accepting. The example of the “screaming fire…” is to illustrate that freedom has it’s constrains. Your reference to a hundred year old case is trivial and not relevant.

The principals of change applies to the 2nd amendment. The Daniel Boone days are history, you do not need to defend yourself from wild animals and unfriendly natives. However, if you live in a region where that is a concern - Yes - the law should consider your right to protect yourself. But you are missing another point. We have a society that thinks violence is the remedy to all our grievances and events involving a gun has been escalating. It’s the classic; …live by the sword.

 

[Theo520]

A new CNN poll says 67% of Americans favor Obama’s executive orders, but only 41% say it will reduce gun deaths.

I believe the measures will reduce gun deaths some, and some is certainly better than none… One is better than none.

Just adding some staff to enforce existing laws can have an impact, something he couda/shoulda done his first week in office.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Just adding some staff to enforce existing laws can have an impact, something he couda/shoulda done his first week in office.

All I can say is “maybe” and “wish he would have.” I’m not politically astute enough to comment on much about what you said.

I think Aurora, Sandy Hook, and San Bernardino provided a great impetus. To be truthful, it wasn’t as bad a problem eight years ago. But yes I would have liked stricter gun controls eight years ago.

 

[grotto]

Then you don’t know the same people that I do. I of course however consider healthcare to mean more than what one might receive in an ER after not being able to afford earlier care or who do not qualify for Medicaid in their states, in some cases because Republicans have refused to expand Medicaid, and who do not make enough to receive an Obamacare subsidy.

I will give you just a couple of truths for your knowledge base.

I know someone with terribly chronic pain. All sorts of back issues. Doesn’t qualify for Medicaid. Resides in a state whose statehouse is controlled by Republicans. But who also due to her health problems (back and severe headaches due to brain lesions) is not currently working and does not qualify for a government subsidy. Thank God she was approved for a medical trial which helped reduce her brain lesion. A lesion which previously she was advised was inoperable due to the risks of it being near her optic nerve. And thank God due to the trial, she recently has had her lesion now removed and for free. If not for that, there is no way she or her family could have afforded such a brain surgery. But her severe back problems remain. Yes she goes to a community clinic for treatment. The treatment costs her $65 a session. They would like to continue the treatments, even increase them to twice per wk. Although they are not yet helping and there is no guarantee they will. But that’s $130 a wk or about $500 a mo that she can’t afford right now. And in the end she might still need surgery on her back now which is out of the question financially.

Another person in a similar situation, also now caught inbetween not qualifying for Medicaid or a subsidy, has already paid out of pocket tens of thousands of dollars for 2 cataract surgeries and 2 retina surgeries over the yrs. Thank God the surgeries on one eye were successful. The person still doesn’t have a lens in their good eye. Couldn’t afford another surgery after all of the other surgeries so currently gets by wearing a contact lens as a substitute. But their other eye has had complications from the retina surgery. The buckle in that eye, which was used to hold the detached retina in place to prevent blindness, is now exposed and causes irritation to the eye and puss and a film to build up and their sight out of that eye is pretty much useless. Thank God though they have sight for distance out of one eye and for reading glasses from the Dollar Store.

Clearly all I can gather is we must live in 2 entirely different universes.

 

[Cathoholic]

LeafByNiggle.

You said:

Since these nations are in fact populated by humans, you would think that a human right in one nation ought to be a human right in another nation.

The USA sometimes DOES invoke this aspect of law. It is called “Universal Jurisdiction.”

Diplomatically we often don’t use Universal Jurisdiction, but the principle is widely recognized in the legal sphere.

Admittedly, there are differences of opinion on what falls under such a category, but the PRINCIPLE is well-known and widely recognized.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

And this is merely your opinion.

What specifically have I said that is merely my opinion?

 

[ucfengr]

I think you are missing the point…

There is nothing more certain in life than change (Yes, there is also death & taxes - please don’t share where that came from…).

Society interrupts the documents that have been handed down from one generation to the next. We often find grievances in something that the previous generation may have been more accepting. The example of the “screaming fire…” is to illustrate that freedom has it’s constrains. Your reference to a hundred year old case is trivial and not relevant.

The principals of change applies to the 2nd amendment. The Daniel Boone days are history, you do not need to defend yourself from wild animals and unfriendly natives. However, if you live in a region where that is a concern - Yes - the law should consider your right to protect yourself. But you are missing another point. We have a society that thinks violence is the remedy to all our grievances and events involving a gun has been escalating. It’s the classic; …live by the sword.

What a silly and narrow interpretation of fundamental freedoms and rights. It reminds me of Esau selling his birthright for a bowl of stew.

We actually don’t have a society that thinks violence is the remedy to all our grievances. Violent crime and gun crime have been steadily trending down for years despite the liberalization of gun laws and the continued recognition of the 2nd amendment as an individual right. In fact, if you removed a few large cities, like New York, Baltimore, Chicago, and Washington DC, which it should be noted are dominated by liberal, gun control advocates, the US gun crime rate would be nearly indistinguishable from the mostly white, Northern European countries that liberals favor.

 

[Cathoholic]

I am amazed that the arguments on this thread in support of the President REDEFINING Congressional law on what/who a gun dealer is, while continuing to ignore the downsides of this.

I know. Your point is, that if this re-definition *“saves one life, it will be worth it.” *

A RE-DEFINITION again, that USURPS an already in-place Congressional definition.

But I get it. I understand the concern shared by “yall”.

People do not want true miscreants having fire arms. Nobody does.

But the problem is what you are willing to IGNORE regarding the WHOLE of the equation here.

We’ve seen record numbers of “Executive Orders” over the last few years (sometimes even “Executive Order” itself, gets RE-DEFINED as “Executive Mandates” too).

By issuing his directives as “memoranda” rather than executive orders, Obama has downplayed the extent of his executive actions.—See USA Today here

Also see here too:

---

Many aspects must be ignored to support ANY Executive Order, which RE-DEFINES something Congress has already codified.

You are ignoring the fact that over-balanced Government power, kills people too! MILLIONS of people.

You are ignoring the fact that the President of the USA, does not have the power to “phone in” or “write” law (that does not prevent them from taking this power-and when they do, there is very little accountability).

You are ignoring the fact that you cannot break law, in the name of enforcing law.

You are ignoring the fact that you do not infringe upon law-abiding citizens due to the bad guys. (Our Constitution reminds all, “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Yes this isn’t “absolute”. But nobody here is saying it is.)

You are ignoring the fact that Government has ALREADY tried to use a PURPOSEFUL illegal gun-walking program for aims of which we do not know (because they refuse to disclose it). A program that has already resulted in many known deaths (Government basically GAVE guns to the “bad guys”)!

At least one of the whistle-blowers mentioned the possible purpose for allowing guns to illegally “walk” in Operation Fast and Furious, was allegedly a political ploy to be used to outlaw guns in the USA (“See. I told you so. Mexican’s gun violence is due to the UNITED STATES law-abiding fire arms dealers! So NOW we have another pretext to further restrict firearms of law abiding citizens”).

(I am not saying this was the case with Operation Fast and Furious. I’m just saying that due to lack of Government transparency here, the US citizens will never be able to properly evaluate such claims).

You are ignoring Operation Fast and Furious isn’t the ONLY program like this (you can look up for yourself Operation Wide Receiver and Operation Castaway).

(Admittedly the scope of these other “programs” don’t seem to have the extreme nature of Operation Fast and Furious but we don’t really know because we have nobody that came forth with the extent of inside information that they did with Operation Fast and Furious).

You might say: “Well I admit Obama EXPANDED Operation Fast and Furious but it was Bush who started Operation Fast and Furious!

But that just makes my point.

I am not defending Republicans over Democrats here.

Government in general, has a way of self-inflating beyond what it is intended to do.

That’s my point. Just because, “Republicans do it too!” does NOT make Government abuse of power OK.

The fact that these abuses of power are frequent and ubiquitous should rather increase our vigilance as good citizens to be mindful of proper Governing (and yes, also mindful of our own responsibilities as good law-abiding citizens).

This is exactly the type of attitude our founding fathers tried to foster in this great country of ours.

You are ignoring the fact that many other provisions in the “Executive Order” are left undefined, possibly PURPOSEFULLY undefined. For example, “mental health” initiatives.

“Well WHO can be against ‘mental heath initiatives’?!”

The problem is, “mental health initiatives” can be re-defined too by “executive fiat”. “Gun dealers” are not the only term that can be RE-DEFINED.

So now “helping the mentally troubled”, could morph into over-calling people “psychologically troubled” and unable to have all their rights.
(“Look. That man had Ritalin back as a first grader so no gun rights for him!”

Or

“That cop’s wife (falsely) accused him of hollering at her several times and being “intimidating”. This came out during his divorce proceedings. This cop MUST have “anger issues” and so we NEED to take his “piece” away from him and get him off the beat” [or even FIRE him].)

Or it can morph into Government “Psychologically Gulaging” political opponents as the USSR had done (“That guy is a political adversary. Make sure he gets a psychologic “evaluation” . . . . then publicly out-him as “crazy” . . . . and THEN . . . . we can cart him away to the lead mines or the salt mines without much public repercussions.”)

Or it can morph into the need for “a doctors prescription annually to be a firearm owner”.

Or it can morph into people who really need psychologic help, not seeking it, out for fear of an overzealous Government removing their rights.

**Yet no such “annual prescription of good mental health” is needed for offices of Government that can start a nuclear war with the push of a button! **

 

[Cathoholic]

Continued:

(When I say “you” here, I am merely talking IN GENERAL [not specific] about supporters in “principle” of the . . . “if it saves just one life” reason to invent “law”.

You here personally don’t necessarily think this way especially concerning all the consequences, but you MAY have imbibed a few of these “ideas”. So when you see the “you” here, it is pertaining specifically to the IDEAS and not the PERSONS)

You are ignoring the fact that America ALREADY HAS witnessed Government Gun Confiscation after Hurricane Katrina. (See it for yourself here)

Nobody in Government has ever been held accountable and went to jail for this illegal gun confiscation in Katrina to the best of my knowledge.

There has been a lot of big talk on this thread about how “gun confiscation will never occur in America” because . . . well . . . because Government politicians say so.

But the “re-assureers” against Government gun confiscation possibilities in society were nowhere to be found when this stuff was occurring.

Someone could argue and say: “Well gun confiscation was OK in New Orleans because there was a local constitutional crisis”.

OK. Then what if someone RE-DEFINED the San Bernardino shootings as a NATIONAL Constitutional crisis due to terrorism? (“Let the gun confiscation throughout the nation begin!”)

Then what?

THEN will these guys all of a sudden ALL be there to speak up on behalf of the freedoms vacated by Executive Fiat? Doubtful.

There were other Constitutional violations after Katrina too—if you saw the video, you may have seen evidence of “illegal search and seizure” for example (a Fourth Amendment Violation).

And don’t think YOU will be immune to such over-reach eventually just because you “don’t like guns”.

There are principles here that go waayy beyond the Second Amendment.

Where were you guys when the President was openly talking about gun restrictions aimed against our elderly (see here or here for example)?

If you sweepingly RE-DEFINE these people-many who ALREADY possess firearms-as being a “danger”, it virtually obligates confiscation of firearms from them.

(And you can just hear the outcome of re-defining the Elderly/Disabled as incompetent concerning their guns . . . .
. . . . . “Then what about those elderly we DON’T KNOW who have firearms? We NEED a National Firearms Registration Act NOW!”)

Inability to pass proverbial math test (do your own checkbook for WHATEVER reason) = loss of gun rights

The elderly would in effect have to pass sequential proverbial “math tests” (bill paying) to retain their gun rights in this line of thought. If not, their guns will be confiscated.

Where were you (again “ideas” not “persons”) when our military men who were forced to be in “Gun-Free Zones” in Tennessee and were being murdered by an Islamic terrorist (Mohammod Youssuf Abdulazeez –see here)?

**What about your mantra of, “police and military ought to be able to carry fire arms”? **

Where were you guys THEN?

Where were you when our military needed your public opinion (name removed by moderator)ut in favor of THEIR firearms rights?

Our soldiers rights were violated by a “Gun Free Zone” sticker on the door (“law”) and an anti-firearm policy. And they paid for it with their lives.

Where were you then? What about the “if it saves one life” claim here?

I’ve even heard “talk” about how re-defining gun dealers is GOOD for an FFL business.

Well they have incredibly strict gun laws in San Francisco.

Where were you “good-for-business guys” when San Francisco’s very last gun shop was recently closed due to arduous over-regulation (here)?

Did they contact these guys and tell them how GOOD Government over-regulation is for their business?

Where are you going to be, when a Dad gets “RE-DEFINED” as a “gun dealer” because he gets his age-appropriate son his first shotgun or his teen daughter her first .22?

What are YOU going to do to help this dad who now is RE-DEFINED as a “felon”, loses his banking job, and now as a “felon” with a “firearms violation” can’t vote, has to pay a large fine or even serve a jail sentence?

Where will YOU be helping these people who are victimized by a creative judge or politicians that don’t think these problems through before imposing their own RE-DEFINITIONS?

Where will you be, when a guy who inherits his passed-away dad’s firearm, and has to use it against a home intruder . . . now has an overzealous District Attorney breathing proverbial fire down his neck while prosecuting him for “man slaughter” and is adding to this charge, being “an illegal gun dealer” (as a “message” to the community) for having his dad’s shotgun “dealt to himself” after Dad died and now he needed to use it?

I’ve heard talk on this thread about fire arm ownership “not being a right” because other countries don’t assert it.

Well what about firearm possession for Government politician’s personal guards?

Where are their complaints about this “right” politicians the world-over ASSUME for themselves?

Is their indignation saved only for the honest law-abiding citizens?

The problem of gun-grabber mentality isn’t some people wanting to “save just one life”, but the problem is too much reliance upon Government to be society’s pseudo-messiah.

 

[JonNC]

You are more than welcome, Jon.

I will only say some scholars might argue that the Constitution does indeed speak of providing for the general welfare and the 9th amendment speaks of the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights.

But Constitutional matters are a forever ongoing debate with different views on it and different camps.

Yes, the 9th amendment was intended to limit and restrict government power to those enumerated, making it clear that people retained rights not enumerated.
As for the general welfare clause, Madison is quite clear that it pertains specifically to what is permitted within the limits of the constitution.

The obvious conclusion to which we are brought is, that these terms, copied from the Articles of Confederation, were regarded in the new as in the old instrument, merely as general terms, explained and limited by the subjoined specifications, and therefore requiring no critical attention or studied precaution.

Madison makes the obvious point that to interpret the general welfare clause as permission for the central government to do what it wishes undermines the document and the writers’ open intent.

. Convention which formed the Constitution of any such meaning as has been constructively applied to them, may be pronounced with entire confidence; for it exceeds the possibility of belief, that the known advocates in the Convention for a jealous grant and cautious definition of Federal powers should have silently permitted the introduction of words or phrases in a sense rendering fruitless the restrictions and definitions elaborated by them.

Consider for a moment the immeasurable difference between the Constitution limited in its powers to the enumerated objects, and expounded as it would be by the import claimed for the phraseology in question. The difference is equivalent to two Constitutions, of characters essentially contrasted with each other–the one possessing powers confined to certain specified cases, the other extended to all cases whatsoever; for what is the case that would not be embraced by a general power to raise money, a power to provide for the general welfare, and a power to pass all laws necessary and proper to carry these powers into execution; all such provisions and laws superseding, at the same time, all local laws and constitutions at variance with them? Can less be said, with the evidence before us furnished by the journal of the Convention itself, than that it is impossible that such a Constitution as the latter would have been recommended to the States by all the members of that body whose names were subscribed to the instrument?

Jon

 

[ucfengr]

If you want to know why gun rights advocates are skeptical of further gun regulation, look no further than this:

A California family is outraged after a TSA agent aggressively patted down their 10-year-old daughter for nearly two minutes.

Kevin Payne, caught the moment his daughter, Vendela, was checked thoroughly by a TSA agent at an airport in North Carolina before their flight back to San Diego on December 30.

Payne said he and his daughter felt the security check was excessive, uncomfortable and inappropriate.

The reason for this intense scrutiny of a 10 year old child, you ask?

The family was stopped after a Capri Sun juice bag was found in Vedela’s bag, which she left there by accident when she went through security at Raleigh-Durham International Airport.

These are the people you want us to trust with our rights. No thank you.

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3386973/I-felt-like-screaming-time-Girl-10-left-traumatized-TSA-agents-aggressively-pat-airport.html

 

[Lily_Bernans]

If you want to know why gun rights advocates are skeptical of further gun regulation, look no further than this:

The reason for this intense scrutiny of a 10 year old child, you ask?

These are the people you want us to trust with our rights. No thank you.

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3386973/I-felt-like-screaming-time-Girl-10-left-traumatized-TSA-agents-aggressively-pat-airport.html

I don’t see any reason anyone would need a gun in that case. What are they going to do with it? Shoot the agent? And water bottles and juice boxes, etc. are associated with bombs, especially those on planes. We live in a violent society. At ten, a girl should find “patting down” nothing more than a nuisance. If the agent were a man and a pedophile, I could see the concern. It’s common practice for jihadists to strap suicide bombs to children. The whole thing was suspicious on its face and warranted investigation. I was in Charles de Gaulle in Roissy-Paris one time when the same thing happened. Caution is warranted.

Yes I do want to trust those people with my rights. I’m glad the agent did a thorough patting down the child rather than a cursory one or just being lazy and “skipping it.” Those are exactly the people I want to trust with my rights. People who do their job. The good of all much take priority over the good of one.

How would gun control have changed that situation? One can’t take a gun into an airport. If you just think the agent’s actions were excessive, they were not at all. Nor is “patting down” traumatic to a ten-year-old if she’s been raised right and knows the violence this country faces. Better yet, how about just not putting a prohibited item in a carry-on?

 

[ucfengr]

I don’t see any reason anyone would need a gun in that case. What are they going to do with it? Shoot the agent? And water bottles and juice boxes, etc. are associated with bombs, especially those on planes. We live in a violent society. At ten, a girl should find “patting down” nothing more than a nuisance. If the agent were a man and a pedophile, I could see the concern. It’s common practice for jihadists to strap suicide bombs to children. The whole thing was suspicious on its face and warranted investigation. I was in Charles de Gaulle in Roissy-Paris one time when the same thing happened. Caution is warranted.

Yes I do want to trust those people with my rights. I’m glad the agent did a thorough patting down the child rather than a cursory one or just being lazy and “skipping it.” Those are exactly the people I want to trust with my rights. People who do their job. The good of all much take priority over the good of one.

How would gun control have changed that situation? One can’t take a gun into an airport. If you just think the agent’s actions were excessive, they were not at all. Nor is “patting down” traumatic to a ten-year-old if she’s been raised right and knows the violence this country faces. Better yet, how about just not putting a prohibited item in a carry-on?

Of course you do, Professor. Only a right wing, nutjob, crazy would have a problem with government agents groping a 10 year old girl for several minutes over the unlawful possession of a juice box, or have a problem putting those people in charge guaranteeing our rights. Good job, professor. Moral obtuseness like this must require a substantial amount of effort.

 

[zz912]

If it existed before the Constitution, you cannot use the Constitution as your primary evidence for this right. The courts also upheld the right to privacy as a pre-existing right to an abortion that the law would not infringe. Yet the courts were wrong in so doing. If you are going to use documents of the US government to support claims of universal rights, you would have to accept that ruling too.

You can cite the Constitutional notation for reference. The Constitution recognizes Natural Law in that man has certain rights that are universal and precede govt or constitution. Referencing it helps to point out how universal the right is and that it is a foundational principle.

And no, I wouldn’t have to accept that insipid and stupid ruling. It violated multiple rights to create a false right out of thin air. In the Declaration of Independence, which is the lens through which the Constitution must be viewed, it clearly states that the right to LIFE is first and foremost. Any claimed “right” which denies the right to life is null and void. The “right” to kill your child is not a right at all.

No, merely a US government recognized right. It is not a right elsewhere in the world. Just because a US government founding document says it is universal does not make it so.

Just because a right is not recognized by other governments doesn’t mean the right doesn’t exist. It merely means that govt is violating the rights of its citizens. The rights don’t disappear. Just as the disbelief of atheists does not cause God to disappear from existence. His existence does not depend on an atheist recognizing Him. And human rights exist whether govts want to recognize them.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Of course you do, Professor. Only a right wing, nutjob, crazy would have a problem with government agents groping a 10 year old girl for several minutes over the unlawful possession of a juice box, or have a problem putting those people in charge guaranteeing our rights. Good job, professor. Moral obtuseness like this must require a substantial amount of effort.

I don’t think “patting down” constitutes “groping.” My sister and I have been “patted down” numerous times because we have some East Indian blood and look East Indian. It was nothing. It would have been nothing but a nuisance had I been ten, too. I’d much rather see a ten-year-old patted down by a female as this one was for two minutes than see a plane blown up because a suspicious juice bag, i.e. a prohibited item on board was found. There is no groping. There is nothing sexual about it. And females pat down females.

Jihadists strap bombs to children.

I trust people who actually do the job they were hired to do, so I commend this agent, not condemn her. She didn’t harm the girl at all. How about the parents see their child doesn’t put prohibited articles in her luggage? Take some parental responsibility. Problem solved. I noticed the comments on the story were in favor of the agent.

It’s not an issue of morality. It’s an issue of public safety.

 

[ARSpade]

You’re right. I live in a universe where government causes more problems than it solves. You seem to live in one that wants more of that.

Jon

As a person who works with the federal government, the people who seem to think more government is going to help entertain me.

Yup, that guy working for the private insurance company who denied your claim is a bad person, but if we make him an unfirable GS-12 suddenly he’ll care about you.

One of my customers announced the first week of December that they were “done working” for the year. They still came in (except on their CWS day and their ‘work from home (lol)’ day), they just didn’t do anything. All that and they get 6 figures too.