This is Mary Wanna's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Mary Wanna's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Mary Wanna
Recent Activity
Ozz 7:36 - Right you are. Quality of life can mean all sorts of things. Large real estate parcel size or sparse traffic or access to rivers or forests or absence of minorities or preponderance of like-minded people. Quality of life and jobs sometimes go together but that is the exception not the rule IMHO. Just giving poor people low-income housing is not the solution. Giving them good paying jobs so they don't need low-income housing is a better idea. I have noticed what I think is a dearth of commercial or industrial zoned properties. First you need a place for businesses to begin. Look at all the Marijuana businesses clustered in one building on New Mohawk and a few of Bost Ave. in Nevada City. In a way that is a good thing but it shows how few spaces are available to rent. I blame the lame city and county good ol boys in office that have no vision. Supposedly they are pro-business but they refuse to walk the talk. Poor Todd, measuring 'himself' again.
Trump is talking like he might have grown up and started acting like an adult with his border wall compromises. What next?
Based on the number of miles of border to our south, about 2,000 miles, and the number of border patrol agents, 21,000, most of which are stationed at the southwest border, if each agent were stationed along the southern border, the agents would be responsible for about 500ft. of border. Since not all agents are available for that duty and assuming you only had 50% of the agents availble for actual bordrer wall coverage they would still only have to police 500 feet on either side of each agent..you get the point. 5 Billon would probably put a lot of Americans to work providing border security. https://www.dhs.gov/border-security-overview
I don't often hear the statement that Marijuana is a toxin. Many substances can become toxic at certain levels. Water intoxication is even possible. Is water a toxin? Cocaine and opiods have therapeutic uses and are used recreationally and can become toxic in the human body. Marijuana, alcohol, cocaine and opiates should all be regulated similarly.
Local pubbers alternately trash Obama (or Hillary or whomever) yet sing the cricket chorus about what is happening in real time with Trump et al. They like living in the past I would assume (preferably the 1950s, but any decade will do in a shitstorm). The latest misinformation Trump and the Russian trolls are peddling is that Obama did not do enough about the Russians before the election so it is all Obama's fault. Maybe the following article will help explain things to our local pubber illuminati. Spoiler alert, the blame lies with the pubber (primarily Mitch McConnell's) response to the Russian meddling. What were they afraid of? https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/obama-putin-election-hacking/?tid=sm_tw&utm_term=.2b34f23e83d7
Toggle Commented Mar 4, 2018 on Sandbox - 2mar18 at Rebane's Ruminations
George R - Using the Bundy Ranch standoff as an example of par force is a false equivalence. The Bundy believers had no par force with the federal government troops who have unlimited firepower. Bundy Ranch protester's display of firepower was an impotent display of attention seeking redneck bluster. You could say the same thing about the Dakota pipeline protests. Someone had a handgun, oh my, and fired some rounds. Is that what you call par force? Someone also had a molotov cocktail. By and large, it was the willingness of the protesters to tough it out and maintain their ground at both Bundy Ranch and Dakota pipeline standoffs in order to gain attention that made the difference, not the size or number of pea shooters that were on hand. Par force is why we had a nuclear arms race. How's that working for us? Not that well in my opinion. Now every crackpot nation wants nukes. Happy now?
So, you are a clueless fool Walt. George's Par Force argument carries no water. He is afraid his pea shooter will not stand up to an M-16 in the hands of a jack booted Federalist. So, being the Anti Federalist foot soldier that he is, he wants access to everything in Sheriff Royal's arsenal. Sorry George, a molotov cocktail or a pipe bomb will "air your grievances" as well as an M-16.
"(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54." ...those in common use for lawful purposes...AR-15 is in common use for unlawful purposes.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT No. 07–290. Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008 District of Columbia law bans handgun possession by making it a crime to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibiting the registration of handguns; provides separately that no person may carry an unlicensed handgun, but authorizes the police chief to issue 1-year licenses; and requires residents to keep lawfully owned firearms unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device. Respondent Heller, a D. C. special policeman, applied to register a handgun he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He filed this suit seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the city from enforcing the bar on handgun registration, the licensing requirement insofar as it prohibits carrying an unlicensed firearm in the home, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of functional firearms in the home. The District Court dismissed the suit, but the D. C. Circuit reversed, holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess firearms and that the city’s total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for self-defense, violated that right. Held: 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53. (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22. (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation 2 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER Syllabus of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28. (c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30. (d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32. (e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47. (f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54. 2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
Bill, I see you are confused by my last post. The 'civil' thread was closed down because SAD Todd and Paul 'fake newsman' were trading insults, what else is new? That has nothing to do with any public discourse anywhere else. Fear mongers are now talking mold issue disclosures. Double standard. What about all the shade tree mechanics dumping motor oil and homeowner painters dumping solvents into the backyard of their rental or personal real estate. Nothing new here. Scenes does not believe a homeowner can protect his or her property from water damage if they grow their legal 6 plant allotment?
Toggle Commented Feb 19, 2018 on Sandbox - 17feb18 at Rebane's Ruminations
Posted by: Bill Tozer | 17 February 2018 at 11:05 PM Yes, Bill, no wonder. 29 comments and the thread shut down. A new record. The excuse was it was a sandbox type brawl but the truth is George, Bessee et al cannnot explain the unfair and biased proposed requirement that indoor hobby gardeners are forced to provide odor control filtration for their residential hobbies. “Civil approach”? How about “bias” and “double standard” ?
Toggle Commented Feb 19, 2018 on Sandbox - 17feb18 at Rebane's Ruminations
Turns out Don is happy to talk about 'W'. But crickets so far regarding why it is fine to go all 'Cali ARB' and place pollution/odor control on MJ while letting horse turds, wood smoke from fireplaces and stoves, burning flesh from barbeques and smokers, etc. get off scot free. Why aren't the anti CARB libertarians raising hell about more pollution controls making it harder to do business here?
Paul, that is Don for you. All hat, no cattle, no clue.
If the county outlaws commercial grows how is that doing anything to bring outlaw grows into compliance? Does the county want to keep as much MJ illegal as possible so they can get Fed money to fly around with helicopters and play cowboys and indians?
DB622pm - Can you think of any other instance where a homeowner is required by a specific county to conform to a specific requirement to enjoy their own hobby on their own property? For example, Hobby - MJ - county requires air filtration for indoor grow. Hobby - Shade tree mechanic - (any regulation specific to Nevada County required) ? Hobby - Home brew wine, beer, etc. - ? Hobby - Meat/game smoker - ? Etc. Etc. Any lawyers out there want to chime in?
Walt!!! Remington going bankrupt!!! Thanks Trumpski!!! MAGA http://money.cnn.com/2018/02/12/news/companies/remington-bankruptcy-plans/index.html
Toggle Commented Feb 13, 2018 on Sandbox - 5feb18 at Rebane's Ruminations
1. Dogs off leashes have been a neighborhood nuisance problem. 2. Additional dogs off leashes still are and will continue to be a problem. 3. There is no known or accepted solutions to residential dogs off leashes problems. 4. There is no guarantee that dog leash regulations and local jurisdiction ordinances will either solve dogs off leashes nuisance problems or significantly reduce the the number of dogs off leashes.
Monica Senter wrote a good MJ related piece in yesterday's TheUnion.com. Good to know we have some voices of reason to counter the fear-based hyperbole being tossed around by a few. http://bit.ly/2Ciplwr
Posted by: George Rebane | 10 February 2018 at 02:01 PM - How you got from me offering an opinion that Mr. Bessee is fear mongering to I think Mr. Bessee should be denied his First Amendment rights is beyond my comprehension. Re: MJ trafficking - foxy use of a word 'trafficking'; a word associated with commerce and trade in day to day use, but achieves more nefarious undertones when used in conjunction with MJ. Well played. Re: "Perhaps you have some data showing how infrequently we encounter Mr Bessee's claims" - Mr. Bessee thinks he is the expert. It should be up to him to provide the proof that MJ commerce and regulations are going to hell in a hand basket with more than a few distressing anecdotes.
Posted by: Walt | 10 February 2018 at 11:48 AM - why don't you give us access to your Instagram account to get the ball rolling?
GeorgeR 1051am - Mr. Bessee has the right to post here or anywhere else as far as I am concerned. Where did I say he should be silenced? I do wish he would shut up about it if all he has are 'this happened there once' 'some shenanigans occurred somewhere', 'some people who might be associated with illegal activities were involved somewhow' and other juicy tidbits, because all that information is already out there and everyone has heard the fear mongering before. That stuff happened a century ago with alcohol prohibition. People have been transporting booze and cigarettes across state lines since then. Now risk takers are arbitraging pot, high capacity ammo clips, fireworks, whatever across state lines and national borders. Meanwhile, most everyone else is trying to live within the law.
The horribly misnamed Smart Approaches to Marijuana proponents sound more like Reefer Madness propagandists. Dire warnings; tossing around terms and phrases like, "gangs", "Big Tobacco", "wanton abuse", "violations", "Do any of you feel safer in your neighborhood?", "The reality on the ground across the state of California it that things are not better on any level, they are worse and getting worse." Bessee in fear monger mode. What Bessee is doing is providing a snapshot of the state of various issues at a given moment with no thought that these issues are being worked on to make things better. Kind of like his snapshots of Dow record closings. What happened to the Dow daily briefings now that things have changed? I was hoping for a, "Largest drop in Dow Jones history under President Trump".
Posted by: Bill Tozer | 06 February 2018 at 03:30 PM - Sure, Hillary's Democratic Party should not have nominated her in the first place. But, I remember when the Comey letter came out thinking she is going to lose more potential voters.
Toggle Commented Feb 7, 2018 on Sandbox - 5feb18 at Rebane's Ruminations
Using Trump-enomics, Obama cut 9 Trillion from the National Debt, https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/10/obama-cut-the-national-debt-by-9-trillion/
Toggle Commented Feb 6, 2018 on Sandbox - 5feb18 at Rebane's Ruminations
Posted by: Gregory | 06 February 2018 at 12:58 PM - So you want to double down on a dumb wall? How about a link to where the 9T ended up? I know it didn't end up in my pocket!
Toggle Commented Feb 6, 2018 on Sandbox - 5feb18 at Rebane's Ruminations