text:
Owen Courreges: What about a gun control law that would actually reduce gun violence?
I awoke as the shots rang outside my bedroom window in the wee hours on Saturday. By the time I emerged from my house, wearing a garish, plaid Sears robe with my trusty shotgun in hand, there was nobody to be seen save a lone security guard. He crept forward from Eiffel Society, a venue down the street, his pistol drawn and at the ready.
The police arrived, shutting off the 2000 block of Prytania, but aside from collecting a few random shell casings there was ostensibly little investigation to be performed.
Naturally, I was unnerved by the experience. However, my fear was not turned against a mere instrumentality. Alas, the same cannot be said of the reaction of many Americans to the mass shooting that took place a week ago in Orlando.
The media has been at the forefront. The Times-Picayune published an ill-worded staff editorial this past Wednesday advocating for a new assault weapons ban. It emphasized the need to "outlaw weapons and ammunition that are meant to inflict the most harm possible," claiming that "[t]hese are not guns favored by hunters or needed for self-defense."
This type of talk is, to put it mildly, useless dreck.
Perhaps the most insipid and ill-conceived legislation ever created was the 1994 assault weapons ban. You see, "assault weapon" basically just means a scary-looking gun. It isn't defined by firepower or the danger actually imposed; rather, it is based on cosmetic features such as folding stocks, threaded barrels, flash-suppressors and the like.
Accordingly, an "assault weapon" is not measurably more dangerous than its many counterparts, as the bulk of mass shootings demonstrate. Selective, randomly-defined bans make no one safer.
Thankfully, even with the ranks of the Times-Picayune's newsroom, there was at least one voice of sanity. Staff writer Robert McClendon opined in the comments that the real question we should be asking is whether an assault weapons ban would serve its intended purpose.
"If the purpose is to limit, in any meaningful way, the ability of a madman or religious fanatic to kill large numbers of people, then I think the answer is clearly no," McClendon wrote. "If the purpose, on the other hand, is simply to say we did something or move the needle in some otherwise amorphous way, then sure, yeah, let's go for it."
That's the essence of the problem. An assault weapons ban is more about winning a victory – any victory – for gun control than it is about having any impact whatsoever on violent crime.
And as with any victory, there are opportunity costs.
Instead of arguing measures that accomplish nothing, we could be discussing real criminal justice reforms that actually impact the violence on our streets, but instead we're discussing laws with no more substance than a Tinder swipe.
There are other measures at the federal or state levels that may actually reduce the use of guns in violent crimes. For example, it is a felony to submit false information on a background check. In 2010 alone, 80,000 people lied about their criminal histories on background check forms. However, only 44 people were actually arrested for doing so.
As a consequence of this, many states have enacted so-called "lie and try" laws or policies, including Tennessee, Pennsylvania, California, Colorado, Illinois, Utah, Oregon, and Virginia.
The effort to prosecute felons who attempt to buy guns is uncontroversial, supported by both gun control advocates and the National Rifle Association. However, the effort hasn't received a tenth of the attention that the assault weapons bans or universal background checks have received, even though neither of those proposals have a direct nexus with violent criminals.
It doesn't make sense.
Hearing gun shots rattle off from outside my home was certainly frightening. What made me feel secure in the aftermath was the fact that I owned a firearm to defend myself.
There are those who would seek deprive me of that feeling of security, and they would not do so for the purpose of reducing violent crime. No, they would burden citizens' constitutional rights "simply to say we did something or move the needle in some otherwise amorphous way."
That's just not good enough. If shills for gun control could articulate a reasoned basis for reform consistent with the constitution, I would be open to that. Their inability to do so speaks volumes.
Owen Courrèges, a New Orleans attorney and resident of the Garden District, offers his opinions for UptownMessenger.com on Mondays. He has previously written for the Reason Public Policy Foundation.
72 Responses to "Owen Courreges: What about a gun control law that would actually reduce gun violence?"
Maybe a start would be holding "law abiding" gun owners responsible for properly securing their fire arms rather than leaving them overnight in un-locked cars, and the like. Background checks and assault weapons limits will not fix the lazy attitude of current gun owners that contributes to so many stolen weapons being out there on the streets.
I disagree. People shouldn't be held responsible for preventing themselves from becoming victims of crime. That's victim-blaming. I agree that we should encourage people to secure their firearms, just like we should encourage people to lock their doors, but the only person to blame for a theft is the thief.
More victim-blaming from the left. Such a predictable avenue. These are the same people that state, "she would not have been raped if she wasn't wearing that short skirt." Sick.
This is as trite an argument as "if girls wouldn't go out at night in short skirts and drink, etc………"
If someone breaks into a car, roots around, discovers, a firearm, takes it, is in the frame of mind to shoot it, and kills someone…………. Yeah. THAT person is the one to blame, not the gunowner.
One question for liberals who are pro-gun control/ban, how are you going to get the guns from the bad guys?
You emerged from your home with a shotgun and the security guard had a pistol. Exactly. Because that IS all you need to protect yourselves. Assault weapons should be banned.
That's not an argument for banning "assault weapons." As I noted in my column, it's basically a categorization based on cosmetic characteristics. Why do you think we should be banning guns based on how they look?
Well I don't expect to convince you if you see guns as only being different in terms of "cosmetic characteristics." I see them as having purposes for protection and for hunting animals. The ones that are designed for warfare and to hunt and kill as many humans and children in the shortest possible time are the guns with the "cosmetic characteristics" that I am arguing should be banned. Gun advocates have illogically and erroneously misconstrued that argument to mean that citizens who want SENSIBLE gun control somehow want to ban ALL guns. Even though NO president or congressperson has ever said that. Not once. It doesn't stop gun advocates from repeating it ad nauseum. I wonder if using a gun makes people lose their sense of reason or mastery of the English language sometimes? It seems like that.
Maybe if I quote Reagan it will make more sense?
"This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety … While we recognize that assault-weapon legislation will not stop all assault-weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals."
–Ronald Reagan, in a May 3, 1994 letter to the U.S. House of Representatives, which was also signed by Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford.
"I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense. But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home."
–Ronald Reagan, in a speech at his 78th birthday celebration in Los Angeles on February 6, 1989.
"Certain forms of ammunition have no legitimate sporting, recreational, or self-defense use and thus should be prohibited."
–Ronald Reagan, in an August 28, 1986 signing statement on a bill that banned the production and importation of armor-piercing bullets.
"With the right to bear arms comes a great responsibility to use caution and common sense on handgun purchases."
–Ronald Reagan, speech at George Washington University in a on March 29, 1991.
"Every year, an average of 9,200 Americans are murdered by handguns, according to Department of Justice statistics. This does not include suicides or the tens of thousands of robberies, rapes and assaults committed with handguns. This level of violence must be stopped."
–Ronald Reagan, in a March 29, 1991 New York Times op-ed in support of the Brady Bill.
"I think maybe there could be some restrictions that there had to be a certain amount of training taken."
–Ronald Reagan, in a press conference in Toronto on June 21, 1988, suggesting that prospective gun owners should have to receive training before purchasing a firearm.
"Well, I think there has to be some (gun) control."
–Ronald Reagan, during a question-and-answer session with high-school students on November 14, 1988.
I am aware that Reagan supported some new forms of gun control, including the assault weapons ban. Obviously, I think that he was wrong on that.
But my point remains that the assault weapons ban has absolutely nothing to do with a weapon's firepower. It has nothing to do with how dangerous it is. It has everything to do with how a gun is "styled," and a gun's styling is frankly a stupid basis for legislation. That isn't sensible, and it doesn't inspire confidence amongst gun owners in the good faith of gun control advocates.
So what do you think would be a "smart" basis for legislation? Can you see any legislation as being right? Or is any legislation"stupid", cause it will start us on the slippery slope of eventual confiscation?
Legislation that's reasonably calculated to having a measurable impact on crime would be justified. The assault weapons ban doesn't fall into that category.
So, by your definition then people should be allowed to have surface to air missiles then. I mean, it's just a bigger gun with a different style. That's an insane argument and you should be able to recognize that.
I never said anything resembling that. That wouldn't even qualify as a personal arm; it would be more akin to ordinance and has definitely never been in widespread use. So no, it wouldn't be covered under Heller.
There are too many definitions of "assault weapon" out there to start splitting hairs over this. I'm sure you realize that automatic, burst capable and semiautomatic weapons with capabilities to be modified are not needed to hunt or defend your home.
In most of the recent mass murders, these guns were purchased within days of their use. Yet in Many states you must wait 3 days to get a perfectly legal abortion in a facility that is so overburdened with regulation that most have had to close.
Do you really think that any regulations on gun control are a burden to the average joe ? How many people wake up in the morning and realize they need a gun in their hand NOW? And a 50 round magazine? And don't feel they need training in how it operates or how to use it wisely?
This is common sense. Even Scalia saw a need to regulate firearms.
Why should be ban semiautomatic weapons simply on the basis that they can be modified? A folding stock or a flash suppressor doesn't make a gun more dangerous. They might not be necessary to defend one's home, but that's not the issue — the issue is why they should be banned. Obviously a rifle owner might want a folding stock or a pistol grip for personal comfort; unless those characteristics are somehow dangerous and enable criminals, why should they trigger a ban?
Likewise, why should there be a three-day waiting period? Can't we do an adequate instant check in this information age? Regardless, an FBI check can already be delayed if potentially disqualifying information is discovered. Putting in place a three day delay just strikes me as a needless burden on law-abiding gun owners that would in no way deter mass shootings. Why don't we instead focus our efforts on passing laws that, I don't know, target actual criminals?
We have no legal gap like with the RICO laws where leaders of criminal organizations couldn't be targeted. Shooters break a multitude of laws every time they attack, if not long before. The federal government took down the mafia with a lot of hard work and surveillance, a lot of it being disproportionately focused on Italians. We could apply the same tactics to mosques and New Orleans Easts across the nation to reap dramatic improvements in safety. Or we could make criminals out of law abiding citizens and keep frisking grandmothers at airports.
Automatic weapons and "burst capable" weapons are literally never used in American crimes because they are already HEAVILY restricted by the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, and so on. We'd have better success reducing deaths with alligator control, lightning strike control, or something equally silly.
All semiautomatic weapons are capable of being "modified," usually with a few tools. The Ruger 10/22 rifle is probably the most heavily modified rifle out there. Are you going to ban target practice rifles too? Why is a defenseless non-hunter with incorrect information making judgements about what is needed to hunt or defend a home? Are you going to offer NASA some advice about rocket propulsion next? Are you going to advocate banning 3D printers once someone gets killed with a 3D printed gun?
See Australia-
Australia's handgun ban had no discernible affect on crime. A University of Melbourne study showed this.
There have been several mass killings in Australia since 1996 and at least one mass shooting. There were also multiple incidents that fell just below the threshold of being a mass shooting (i.e., with only three people killed). Trying to claim that gun laws prevented something as rare as mass shootings while somehow having no measurable effect whatsoever on violent crime or homicide in general is dubious at best.
The article in TIME that you referenced stated that there had been no mass shootings since 1996. There were declines in gun violence before 1996 that have continued so there is difficulty in isolating the impact of the gun buy back and other restrictions.
There was a mass shooting in Australia in 2014. There have also been multiple other mass killings since 1996.
As for the supposed "difficulty in isolating the impact of the gun buy back and other restrictions," I would note that multiple studies have shown that there was, in fact, no impact.
there were 13 mass shootings in the 17 years prior to the 1996 firearms agreement. Since then there has been none. Coincidence?
Your statement implies that gun advocates have an interest in compromise, or safety, or common sense legislation (even if that means going back to a previous law or ban that worked)….which of course, we both know isn't true.
It's gun control advocates that appear to have no interest in compromise. They just want to restrict gun ownership in any way possible, even if that means pushing ineffectual legislation.
See. That's exactly what I've been saying. No one says we want to restrict ALL guns, but that what you hear. I give up. Bye!
Kimberlee, I'll ask you specifically, how do you confiscate the guns from the bad guys? Seriously, I really would like to know your plan.
Kimberlee, exactly how much experience do you have with gunfighting? What type of weapon did the criminal have? Were you there? Who are you and what qualifications do you possess that makes you feel entitled to decide what one law-abiding citizen "needs" to defend their life from an armed criminal?
Personally, I do not want a fair fight against a criminal with a weapon. In fact, for myself and my family, my intentions are to unequivocally neutralize the armed criminal with insurmountable firepower. Fight to win. Your life depends upon it.
All of these arguments are insane. My grandfather is rolling in his grave at the thought of someone needing anything other than a shotgun to defend themselves. I'll spare you the names he would be calling you. So is it your position that people couldn't defend themselves until we had assault weapons? That's absurd.
Kimberlee – Define "Assault weapon". Have you read the text of the assault weapon ban?
The gun deaths in the USA are off the charts compared with other developed countries with more restrictive gun laws. Must we be "exceptional" in that way? Can we not consider that we could learn from the experience of other countries?
There's no example to follow. Other countries haven't solved violent crime problems through gun control. Many nations with highly strict gun laws have high rates of violent victimization than we do. Likewise, some American states with the loosest gun laws also have some of the least crime.
Check the statistics.
I've done so.
Keep your argument here in the US. Can you explain what is happening in Chicago then? That city has THE most restrictive gun laws in the country.
1993….We had just moved into the Irish Channel that year. Gunfire was no stranger to that neighborhood. We slept behind burglar bars with a loaded rifle propped against the wall for protection. I have no qualms with responsible citizens having guns. Though guns will and can always be acquire illegally, I do take issue with easy, legal, availability.
Assault weapons were listed on a close to daily basis in the Times Picayune's classified section then, under the Sports and Recreation heading, ironically enough. What set me over the top that one morning in 1993, while perusing the paper, was the ad to sale a rocket launcher. I called the paper, wanting to know if this was really acceptable, and if so, why. I was told it was perfectly legal. (But was it moral?) Getting nowhere fast with the paper, I called the ATF. The man who answered thought I'd made a prank phone call and let off a huge belly laugh. I asked if he had a morning paper in the office, and when he said he did, I told him which page and which column to look under. "Holy shit, lady! You're telling the truth! We'll get right on it!" Politely angry phone calls from the editor in chief, followed by a politely angry letter and a news crew and camera at my front door came later…but the ads were eliminated then. Back then an editorial advocating an assault weapons ban would never have been published.
I don't know the answers, but something needs to be done. Doing nothing hasn't worked. We need to close loopholes in background checks. (Include social media in these checks?) Ban online sales. Track and limit ammo purchases, especially high capacity magazines. Tax the hell out of ammo and use the money for mental health care. (How many bullets does the average Joe use each year anyway?) ……..It's a crazy world we live in……..we don't use muzzle loaders these days.
I don't approve of any of the reforms you suggest; like the assault weapons ban, they burden law-abiding gun owners and do little to nothing to prevent criminals from obtaining firearms.
Expanded background checks are unlikely to do much of anything because only a very small fraction of guns used in crime come from private sales. Banning online sales also wouldn't be effective; online sales have never been shown to be a significant source of crime guns, and most major online markets for firearms require that all sales go through an FFL dealer and thus a background check is performed.
Limiting ammunition purchases or severely taxing ammunition is just flatly ridiculous. You want responsible gun owners to be able to become proficient through training as opposed to avoiding the range because of the expense. Criminals don't need many bullets; they're not regularly training themselves. They only need a loaded magazine to threaten people with and shoot at if necessary. Again, you're proposing something that's a huge burden on ordinary gun owners and would have little impact on criminals. It's exactly backwards.
Exactly how does any of this burden law abiding gun owners? What is this HUGE burden that you keep insisting on –while admitting that you own a shotgun, so clearly it hasn't been a burden for you.
Any measure that imposes a burden on gun owners — even one that isn't "huge" — ought to be justified by a significant impact on crime. I don't think expanded background checks or banning online sales are so justified.
A massive tax on ammunition, however, would indeed be a huge burden and would actually be counterproductive to gun safety.
Owen, how has the average joe owning a gun have or has had any significant impact on preventing crime? I have never seen this statistic.
The issue is debatable. John Lott has researched the issue and concluded that gun ownership and use reduces crime; others claim he is wrong. The number of defensive gun uses per year is also highly contested.
" Track and limit ammo purchases, especially high capacity magazines. Tax the hell out of ammo and use the money for mental health care. (How many bullets does the average Joe use each year anyway?)"
You, Lady, speak like enemy #1 to law abiding Constitution loving Americans. I can't even begin to dissect your argument in a meaningful way that does not transcend into pure outrage over your myopic viewpoint and willingness to circumvent even our most basic rights as citizens.
So I will comment on just one small aspect of your drivel. I am a competitive shooter and fire thousands of rounds per year. Why should my hard earned money disproportionately go towards funding mental health care because you support "taxing the hell out of ammunition"? Are you at all familiar with the Pittman Robertson Act passed 80 years ago and signed into law by Roosevelt? It states that all rifles and ammunition are taxed 11% and directly fund wildlife and conservation at the state level. In the 1970s, amendments created a 10% tax on handguns and their ammunition and accessories as well as an 11% tax on archery equipment. It was also mandated that half of the money from each of those new taxes must be used to educate and train hunters through the creation and maintenance of hunter safety classes and shooting/target ranges.
At least there's a connection there with the P-R Act. But having sportsman and law-abiding gun owners fund MENTAL HEALTH issues is, for lack of a better word, just pure crazy. I am a physician in an acute care setting and know all to well the issues with mental health. However, the onus of providing funding for treatment should not sit squarely on the shoulders of gun owners.
You are obviously not much of a history buff. But Mao, Stalin, Hitler, and other malicious leaders would applaud your effort to track gun owners and the ammunition they buy. It makes confiscation so much easier when the government decides to do so after there has been enough submission of personal rights from people like you.
Please educate yourself from sources other than the far left. The truth lies somewhere in the middle. Your comments make you appear vulnerable to oppression. Seek the truth… It's out there.
Owen, Why do you make sense on so many subjects that agree with my thoughts? We need to do something that protects citizens but limits gun abuse. So why do our politicians refuse to enforce or pass laws that do so? I for one have several weapons and will not hesitate to use them to protect my friends and property…I sat on my balcony during the flood with loaded weapons and watched the lack of respect for people, property and the law that occurred here on St Charles. And yes I live close enough to the Eiffel to remember all the shootings that have occurred there and nearby. If they enter my property they will not walk away.
Will a ban on assault weapons effectively end all murder by firearm and mass killings? The answer is no. Will an assault weapons ban keep you from owning your trusty shotgun? No. Will an assault weapons ban keep people from buying assault weapons which are designed to kill other people in large numbers? Yes. No one is trying to take your shotgun away. I also don't think the politicians supporting the assault weapons ban think it is a cure all, but it is a step in a direction that includes thinking harder about how guns are allowed to be sold and distributed to the general public. In a society where we are forced to put warning labels on cups of hot coffee I don't think its a bad idea to limit what types of guns are available for the public to purchase and defend themselves with. I would also point out that you trading bullets with the bad guys isn't making you or your neighbors safer. In my opinion that scenario puts everyone within range of your weapon in more danger than they were before. I am a gun owner so I am not saying you should be disarmed, but I do question the logic of a gun battle making any one safer.
The point I make in my column is that so-called assault weapons bans serve absolutely no purpose whatsoever. They make nobody safer, not even slightly. As defined in these bans, an "assault weapon" is defined strictly by model or by cosmetic features. It basically translates to a ban on a certain style of firearm. It has nothing to do with firepower or the capability of a firearm to kill multiple people.
This isn't a "step in the right direction" because it will have no impact whatsoever on violent crime. This isn't just my opinion, either. Multiple studies, including from the federal government itself, showed no discernible impact from the 1994 assault weapons ban.
Finally, I think citizens defending themselves against crime does, in fact, make all of us safer. If ordinary citizens fight back, criminals become less brazen. Irrespectively, it's my right and one that I will exercise.
It is true that studies say the 94 ban had a small effect on total numbers of gun deaths, authors of some studies are also cited as saying more time was needed for conclusive results. It is untrue that the stipulations of the ban were all concerning cosmetic attributes of the firearms. It's naive to say something labeled an assault weapon is not designed to assault others. It's also naive to think you in your bathrobe with a shotgun is deterring to anyone. I think your stance on the issue, as an educated member of society with potential and a platform to spread common sense and healthy thought regarding the matter is to put it lightly, unfortunate. I hope that eventually as a nation we can all come together with the intent to end the senseless violence gripping our country through innovative measured initiatives instead of more violence. I have a hard time accepting violence as an answer to stopping violence.
It's not just that the 94 ban had a "small effect" — I've never seen a study that says it had any measurable effect at all. It was completely ineffectual, or at least there's no evidence to say that it was effective in any way.
Also, I maintain that I am absolutely correct when I say that assault weapons bans are purely about cosmetic characteristics. The attributes that trigger the ban, at most, make the gun easier to handle. This is a ban on a certain type of styling that is given a label — "assault weapon" — and has nothing to do with firepower or the danger imposed by a particular weapon. Thus, this type of legislation is a useless distraction.
I am trying to spread common sense here, which is why I'm recommending laws that actually focus on criminals, as opposed to law-abiding citizens. This resort to bad old policy sawhorses like the assault weapons ban is what I view as unreasonable.
A shotgun does not deter anyone? Have you ever heard of someone surviving a shotgun blast to the head? Search for shotgun slug wound. You've got a chance of surviving a pistol or rifle being fired at you. Your chances drastically decrease against a shotgun, even in the hands of a novice. No one is dodging the shot pellets from a shotgun, and no one is getting up from a twelve gauge slug. Why form an opinion without factual information?
I own a shotgun, I am aware of its capability. If someone is desperate or crazy enough to be committing a violent crime I don't think they are going to be rationally judging the consequences of taking on a person with a shotgun. If they were acting rationally they wouldn't be committing the crime in the first place. My speculation is not about the potential damage to another human its about the other human's mental state. Also why is it acceptable to all of us to be discussing shotgun blows to the head in day to day conversation about the place we live. Our indifference to such things is a good indicator that things are out of whack.
Well, except that when we had an assault weapons ban in place (for decades) it did make us safer. Your argument, Owen, doesn't even stand up to U.S. history, let alone the success of assault weapons bans in other countries.
How did the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 (which was only in effect for a single decade, BTW) make us safer? I have literally never seen a study showing that it had any effect whatsoever on crime.
You've never seen a study because the NRA lobbied to block gun studies by the CDC. Hmmm. Why would they wanna do that?
The CDC was blocked from performing research designed to advocate for gun control because its members said that they intended to do just that. To wit:
"One of the lead researchers employed in the CDC's effort was quoted, stating "We're going to systematically build the case that owning firearms causes deaths." Another researcher said he envisioned a long-term campaign "to convince Americans that guns are, first and foremost, a public health menace."
One of the effort's lead researchers was a prominent attendee at a conference called the Handgun Epidemic Lowering Plan (HELP) Network, which was "intended to form a public health model to work toward changing society's attitudes towards guns so that it becomes socially unacceptable for private citizens to have guns."
Yes. Exactly. What's the problem with that? Because owning a gun does mean that you are more likely to bring violence to your household. You may not like that fact but it doesn't mean it's not true, statistically. These are the facts. People should always have the facts when deciding whether to carry or not. If you know that owning a gun makes suicide in your home statistically more likely, or that accidental toddler shootings are statistically more likely, then maybe you won't buy a gun. Or maybe that will lead to people keeping their guns more safely contained on their property, either way, what's the downside for citizens? Of COURSE the NRA lobbied against that! They are paid to sell more guns!!!! They aren't interested in citizens having facts and making educated decisions. Having facts about guns and gun violence is not the same as banning guns. This is actually be about personal responsibility and choice.
Kimberlee, you couldn't be more incorrect here. The Washington Times (not some right wing news site) admitted this clearly.
I'd be fascinated to see you prove your assertion.
Ban on assault weapons didn't reduce violence
By – The Washington Times
Monday, August 16, 2004
The federal assault-weapons ban, scheduled to expire in September, is not responsible for the nation's steady decline in gun-related violence and its renewal likely will achieve little, according to an independent study commissioned by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ).
Immediately after the 1994 ban, gun companies simply released slightly altered models of those "assault" weapons without the evil and scary banned features like bayonet lugs, pistol grips, barrel shrouds, etc. The functional capabilities of these weapons never changed and they continued to be sold during the entire 10 years of the ban (not decades as you claimed) along with 30 round magazines, 100 round drums, and so on. Why not just admit you know nothing about guns, and learn from the people that actually do know?
I agree especially with your last point. Owen, please please don't ever walk outside with your weapon again in any circumstance. You have it for defense. The minute you walk outside with it your are opening pandora's box of risk and escalation and liability….and to what end?
I disagree. I stayed on my property; I didn't run out into the street. The gun was purely for defense — I had heard shots and thought somebody might need assistance. If somebody had been bleeding in the street, I didn't want to be cowering inside.
What is to stop a bad guy from walking into a gym with a duffel bag of revolvers (assuming all other guns were banned) and a batch of homemade explosives? What is to stop Charles Whitman from climbing to the top of a tower with any old hunting rifle and shooting 50 people? Democrats generally blame other things (objects, oppression, etc.) for crime instead of the criminals themselves, because they have no knowledge of weaponry, but they do know that criminals are usually Democrats. Therefore, Democrats are the last people on earth that should be making any decisions about guns or crime. A lack of firearms knowledge is a symptom of irresponsibility in American men.
The assault weapons propaganda ruse would make Stalin proud. 800 rounds a minute! Fully automatic! Delivered from the internet right to your doorstep! Basically, we are supposed to give up our freedom on the basis of fear mongering lies and ignorance, while it is forbidden to even mention the race or religion of the criminals.
Owen, very well said! Thank you.
Here is what one of the Founding Fathers has to say about the 2nd Amendment. Alexander Hamilton explained exactly what they meant. It is not about individual gun ownership.
Did you actually read Federalist 29? Because that's absolutely not what it says. Indeed, it confirms that the Second Amendment means exactly what it says.
First of all, Hamilton lost this debate in two respects: 1) the Second Amendment clearly does not refer to a "select corps" of militia, but the militia in general; and, 2) Hamilton didn't support having a Bill of Rights at all, which he expressed in Federalist 84.
The gist of Federalist 29 is that Hamilton does not support disciplining the general citizenry, as others at the time (especially the anti-Federalists) did. Thus, he proposes instead disciplining the a "select corps" of militia. However, the word "militia" still clearly refers to the general body of citizenry; that's why he has to specifically refer to a "select corps." And "well-regulated" still refers to being in proper order, or in this case, being well disciplined and equipped.
If there was any double as to whether a "well-regulated militia" refers to the people generally or to Hamilton's proposed "select corps" of militia (which there isn't), it was wholly resolved by the Militia Act of 1792, which defines the militia as consisting of all male citizens between the ages of 18 and 45 (i.e., all citizens who would then be considered fit for military service).
And with respect to the right to keep and bear arms, even Federalist 29 endorses a broad-based individual right, saying: "Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped[.]" Thus, even those outside of the "select corps" are supposed to be armed.
There is simply no intellectually honest way to interpret Federalist 29 to where it supposedly neutralizes the Second Amendment.
More "dreck" is that somehow, despite all of our American rights and liberties (some of them recently established by the likes of Antonin Scalia), the United States reliably earns a top ranking worldwide in gun homicide. Pity those poor Europeans with one one gun murder to show for our ten. And they consider themselves civilized!
The United States has more gun suicides than any other other country. If Montenegro and Uruguay are discounted, we lead the rest of the world by a 100% margin. (I even know–or more precisely, knew–of few of those statistics personally). In many countries such a suicide rate might be labelled a "public health issue", but not here. We are, after all, Number One.
The guns are here. As everyone else in this thread has made clear, the guns are not going away. Still, Americans might do well on occasion to look beyond our soon-to-be-walled borders and wonder how the rest of the world does it. They're getting away not with murder, but from it.
Why are you segregating out "gun homicide" and "gun suicide?" Why does it matter what instrumentality is used, versus the crime actually being committed? I have no doubt the availability of guns in the US means that they are used more often than in many other countries, including (at least occasionally) for bad purposes, but it should be the underlying offenses that we look at, not the instrument.
Even then, though, your statistics aren't correct. We rank about 18th worldwide in terms of gun homicides per capita. As for gun suicides per capita, we do rank first. However, in terms of overall suicides, we rank 50th. That's behind counties like Iceland, France, Belgium, Finland, South Korea, and Japan. Apparently people don't need a gun to effectively end their own lives.
I simply don't see a strong correlation between violent crime rates and the strength of gun laws. Some of the safest states in the US have some of the loosest gun laws, and some of the cities and states with the most restrictive gun laws have the most problems. Studies differ on this subject, and given the absence of even a clear correlation (much less causation), we shouldn't be creating laws that punish victimless crimes.
Not directed towards anyone, but see:
Even assuming the "importance" of the preamble, it doesn't say anything remotely resembling what you're claiming, and neither does Stevens' dissent in Heller.
The two clauses dovetail with one another. The so-called prefatory or "militia clause" essentially says that a properly equipped and disciplined citizenry is necessary for maintaining a free polity. Federalist 29 backs up this interpretation; the "militia" referred to the whole body of the people, and "well-regulated" referred to the characteristic of having military discipline (which in those days meant being able to march onto the field in rows of men, trade volleys without breaking ranks, etc) and also of being properly trained and equipped with arms.
The operative or the "keep and bear arms clause" then guarantees the the right to the people to own and use firearms. This obviously ties into the prefatory clause; you can't have citizens as a reserve fighting force unless they can keep and own firearms. Disarming the populace effectively destroys the militia in any sense. This is how the two clauses dovetail.
The problem with Stevens' dissent is that it tries to emphasize the prefatory clause and assumes — without any significant argument — that this would somehow neutralize the operative clause. He interprets the words "keep" and "bear" to only refer to some kind of active military context, when that was not the necessary meaning of either word, and further does not adequately explain how "the people" refers only to those in active militia service, as though the founders wanted to say "Congress shall not disarm well-regulated state militias," but instead said something much longer that sounds completely different. If that's what they meant, why wouldn't they have said that?
Indeed, it is Stevens that brings a strained reading to claim that "the people" can refer to some species of collective right and thus neutralize the Second Amendment. He even goes so far as to argue that an individual cannot exercise a right to petition the government or to assembly — as though I can't petition the government by myself, or make my own decision who to associate with and invoke the right.
I can go on and on about how Stevens' dissent is a pathetic effort that isn't the least bit persuasive, but I think the point is made. Federalist 29 doesn't support your position in the slightest, and trying to incorporate Stevens' weak arguments by reference doesn't help matters either.
I agree gun owners should keep their guns secure. I don't believe in blaming them for becoming victims of crime.
As for fingerprinted "smart" guns, the last thing a gun owner wants is a gun that might not fire when they need it. The problems with smart guns are outlined here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/josephsteinberg/2014/05/04/smartguns/#470019153900
The Supreme Court never actually adopted any clear, reasoned interpretation of the Second Amendment prior to Heller — they just avoided the issue entirely. The only earlier decision was Miller, which seemed to intentionally avoid voicing any particular view other than the notion that the Second Amendment didn't cover weapons that wouldn't be useful for militia service (which I consider consistent with Heller).
You're perfectly free to agree with Stevens in some general sense, but he didn't even express a consistent view within his opinion of what the Second Amendment protects (if anything). I also don't think Stevens' position was either well-researched or even, frankly, intellectually honest.
The Supreme Court addressed this as far back as 1876.
In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government.[9] In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia."
From: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
You're citing Cruikshank? Cruikshank is bad law. It's been bad law for a long time, and it's only authoritative if you believe that the Bill of Rights doesn't constrain the states at all. Let's take this line from Cruikshank's syllabus:
"The First Amendment to the Constitution, prohibiting Congress from abridging the right to assemble and petition, was not intended to limit the action of the State governments in respect to their own citizens, but to operate upon the National Government alone."
Cruikshank basically dismissed the Fourteenth Amendment entirely, refusing to incorporate the Bill of Rights against the states at all. With respect to the First Amendment, it was overturned in Gitlow (1925). With respect to the Second Amendment, Cruikshank was finally overturned in McDonald (2010).
As for Miller, I addressed that above.
I'm not a lawyer and am not qualified to discuss the merits or demerits of Cruikshank. I brought this up because as a lay person it looks to me like the Supreme Court had a very long history of interpreting the 2nd Amendment in the light of a state militia rather than the right of any Tom, Dick, Harry or Sue.
I would have no problem with changing the wording of the 2nd Amendment to make it clearly pertain to the States right to form a militia. I think individual gun ownership should be a hard earned privilege and not a basic right. I know you do not agree with that.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


text:
Classroom Information
Useful Websites
Mowrey Elementary School
Meet Our Staff
Second grade
Mrs. Maranda Scott
Classroom Information
Classroom Information
Below are some key informational points about your child's second grade classroom:
Daily Schedule:
9:00-9:30 Word Work
9:30-10:30 Guided Reading Groups/Daily 5
10:30-11:10 Shared Reading
11:10-11:50 Writing
11:50-12:10 Recess
12:15-12:45 Lunch
12:45-1:15 Content
1:15-1:55 Special
1:55-3:20 Math
3:25 Dismissal
Your child is either in Group 1 or Group 2 for Specials this year. Please follow the Specials schedule that was sent home for your child. If you are unsure of your child's schedule, please contact me.
Throughout the day your child will be working on a variety of reading, math, and writing skills. A brief outline of each area is listed below.
Guided Reading Group:
Your child will be working within a small group setting with a teacher focusing on using reading strategies to help decode text, sight words, and comprehension skills. We practice using our text to help us answer comprehension questions. We also use this time to help build fluency with our reading.
Shared Reading:
This portion of our day is a whole group lesson on reading. We focus mainly on one reading skill each week such as main idea, story elements, sequencing, character traits, etc. We use classroom sets of books for this time during the day or the use of nonfiction articles. We are utilizing a new reading program this year called Wonders.
This portion of the day corresponds with our reading time. We are also using Wonders for this time block as well. We write in response to our stories, and we also have genre writing such as friendly letters, personal narratives, etc. Your child will have a mini-lesson, independent writing time, and one on one conference or small group time with the the teacher during this time frame.
During our content time your child will learn new science and social studies concepts. We focus on life cycles, physics of light, aquatic ecosystems, and balance and motion. We also incorporate map skills and local history into this block.
Word Work:
During this time we work on a variety of skills such as prefixes, suffixes, antonyms, synonyms, homophones, etc. We also work on our high frequency words at this time. We also work on our spelling words and the phonics skill that our words are focused on for a specific week. This may be short vowel sounds, long vowel sounds, word families, etc.
We use the Everyday Math 4 program with our kiddos. We work on a variety of math skills throughout the year. The skills will be seen in their HomeLinks each night. Students also take weekly math facts quizzes. Students need to be able to master addition and subtraction facts by the end of second grade.
Miscellaneous Information
Book Bags:
Your child should have a book bag and bring it to school every day. You should look for your child's homework folder every night. Inside the homework folder will be a behavior calendar to let you know how your child's day was. Please sign this calendar every day.
Lunch Money:
Please send all lunch money to school in an envelope with your child's name and lunch number on it. Look for a letter from the cafeteria for more information.
If your child is not to ride the bus on any given day, please send me a note or call the office. Without a note or a call, I must put your child on the bus. Please help me to avoid confusion and tears!
Car Riders/Walkers:
Children who are being picked up will be walked down to the back lobby at 3:25 p.m. Please do not come to the classroom.
Early Dismissals:
If your child has an appointment and has to leave early, please go to the office and the secretary will call the room to let me know you are waiting.
Parent Handbook:
Please look over this book and if there is anything you do not understand, please let me know. After you have look through the book, please make sure you have signed the last page and return it to school with your child.
Inside your child's homework folder there will be a homework log sheet that he/she is responsible for writing in each day. This will tell you his/her assignments so that you know what he/she is responsible for.
Snacks are welcome if you wish to do this on your child's birthday. Birthday party invitations are NOT to be handed out at school unless the whole class is invited. This is to avoid hurt feelings. Please check with me prior to sending in a snack so I can tell you how many students are in my class and also if any food allergies are present.
We do not have a bathroom in the classroom so there are several guidelines for you to be aware of. The children are allowed to use the bathroom when they come to school in the morning, before every recess, and at other times during the day for whole group bathroom breaks. I do not let the children use the bathroom during math, guided reading, or if I am instructing the whole group. If your child has a health problem and needs to use the bathroom more frequently, please send a note. Please reinforce to your child how important it is to be on his/her best behavior when using the bathroom, as I cannot always be there to monitor the use.
Rules will be discussed the first day of school and reviewed frequently. The children will be aware of the guidelines. A paper will come home telling you about the classroom discipline policy. Please look over it!
Website by
SchoolMessenger Presence
. © 2019 West Corporation. All rights reserved.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Status: Closed
Know more about this business than we do? Cool! Please submit any corrections or missing details you may have.Help us make it right
Home page169950attr:foods246020attr:professional grooming246021attr:full serviceclothesdentistryemergency carespays/neutersvaccines
Creswell Veterinary Hospital is a full service, AAHA accredited,
small animal veterinary hospital in downtown Creswell.
We provide preventive care, medical, dental and surgical care, and
hospitalization for dogs, cats, rabbits and rodents.
Be the first OregonLive.com user to add photos or videos of Creswell Veterinary Hospital
Dr. Sheri Schlorman & staff at Creswell Veterinary Hospital are true pet lovers. They are knowledgeable and compassionate plus having an imm...
Creswell Veterinary Hospital can be found at Po Box 1018 . The following is offered: Veterinary Medicine. The entry is present with us since Sep 10, 2010 and was last updated on Nov 14, 2013. In Creswell there are 3 other Veterinary Medicine. An overview can be found here.
Since 1983 the company has been providing Veterinarian, Animal Specialties.


text:
With two heat advisories in the next few days, the weeding will have to move to the EARLY morning. This morning I was out in the garden shortly after 7 am pulling up volunteer tomato plants that were crowding my other regular plants as well as pulling up grass that was trying to take advantage of carefully tilled soil. I would love to plant some herb seeds in the part I weeded today as the soil is really loamy.
The roses still need trimming and dead heading. Seems like there are just not enough hours that are cool enough in the day to do all that I want and need to. We'll just have to keep fighting the weeds and trimming when we can. Maybe I need to get out still earlier in the morning. This morning it meant that DD and DS had to put breakfast on while I pulled weeds as fast as I could. I also used the small "fork" to "till" around my cabbages, hot peppers, and basil plants. Hope that helps them grow more. The tomatoes are not very tall, but already starting to have blooms. I think I need to "till" around them, too.
Knitting has been mostly confined to Click for Babies hats while waiting for DD. Another one was completed last night with a different one cast on. I decided to change patterns for a bit and hope this one will turn out cute. I worked on it a bit while completing my education for work online. Thankfully this helped me to pay attention and not fall asleep which I so don't like to do, particularly with an interactive class. No cross stitching has been done since the weekend, however I was able to complete all but just a wee section of one of the five rows around the border. It is getting so close to being done and I am so ready.
While it is hot, which will hopefully help the tomatoes and green beans to grow, we have been really fortunate to have cool nights. This morning it was 63° when I got up. The cool temperatures at night help you to sleep and the days are a wee bit easier to endure. The yard will need more watering, but less mowing which will be welcomed by DH and DS. Hopefully they will be able to weed whack everything real good this weekend so that we won't have to worry about the edges so much. I'm also hoping that the chickens are not adversely affected by the high temperatures. We are getting 3-6 eggs per day which isn't grand considering we still have 11 hens, but some of them are older so we'll make do.
Tonight while it is cooling down outside, I hope to finally cut out some clothes for sewing. The fabric and patterns have been sorted, but every time I try to work on something, another task gets in the way. It almost would make one wonder if maybe they don't need to sew new clothes.
Unfortunately there are no pictures yet, but I hope to have some soon of some of the projects that are being worked on or are finished. Stay cool and enjoy your summer!


text:
Photos La Verne April 19, 2014
The Cool Cruise April 19, 2014-La Verne.
Find CarShow Photos in CarShow Gallery La Verne
Got there early, maybe too early because it looked like everyone was just getting there. This is a great atmosphere for a car show. Classic cars lining the streets of La Verne, stores open with vendors, music & food. Started the morning with a Ranchero parked on the street, then 2 more pulled in. Both '64's.
Check out The Show CarShow Gallery La Verne.
Collection Photos: Rancheros, Ranchero Emblems & Ranchero Signatures.


text:
$11M price towers over repairs for historic building razed in '12
TIFFIN — The price tag for a new Seneca County Courthouse is on the rise, surpassing the cost estimates of renovating the former courthouse as advocated in 2011 by preservationists, who argued at the time that restoring the historic courthouse was cheaper than demolition and new construction.
Tiffin and county officials learned recently that the projected cost of a new city/ounty courthouse could be $11 million, up from the $10 million target price, and a March, 2014, estimate of $8.5 million.
What seems clear now is that renovation of the courthouse, if undertaken in 2011, would have been cheaper than the now planned new construction. That undercuts arguments at the time that the need for a new building was because of economic necessity.
"To scream and holler for $8 million, now it's OK for $11 million?" Tiffin resident and preservationist Karin Brown said.
Officials estimated in 2011 that the cost to renovate the Beaux Arts-style courthouse would have been about $8 million.
Pitching in to cover that would have been $1.65 million in donations pledged by preservationists, $500,000 from the Ohio Department of Development, $500,000 from the Seneca County Common Pleas Court, and a $5 million low-interest loan from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The county would also chip in $350,000.
image: http://www.toledoblade.com/image/2016/02/04/300x_b1_cCM_z/n1gapingwound-3.jpg
The Seneca County Courthouse's exterior columns were ornate and detailed — as was the rest of the structure.
THE BLADE Enlarge | Buy This Photo
Franklin Conaway, head of the Seneca County Courthouse and Downtown Redevelopment Group, said his group's estimate in 2011 was that a new courthouse, including the cost to demolish the old one, would carry a $15 million price tag.
"We knew [demolition] was not the wise economic decision to make," Mr. Conaway said. "If the commissioners were thinking of long-range value to the taxpayers, clearly, the courthouse should have been eventually renovated, even if they didn't have the funds at the time."
'It is a shame'
Former Commissioner Dave Sauber, who opposed in 2011 the plan to demolish the courthouse, said the decision was one of the biggest mistakes ever made by the commissioners. Mr. Sauber had advocated that the building be mothballed by a private group, because the county couldn't afford demolition.
"It is a shame, and I think people really, really regret their decisions now," Mr. Sauber said.
Mr. Sauber wasn't always a courthouse backer. In 2006 he and former commissioners Ben Nutter and Joe Schock voted to demolish the courthouse.
IN PICTURES: Buildings of architect Elijah E. Meyers
Preservationists tried to sway the commissioners toward restoring the courthouse, designed by renowned 19th century architect Elijah E. Myers, by bringing to Tiffin the head of the Texas Historic County Courthouse Preservation Program, Stan Graves.
Despite laudatory comments by Mr. Graves about the courthouse — he declared its craftsmanship better than the Myers-designed Texas statehouse — Mr. Sauber said at the time that the decision to tear down the courthouse had already been made.
That testimony, and many other pleas by preservationists and experts, had little effect on the commissioners at the time.
"We are dealing with two individuals who are ignorant, who are arrogant, and who are intellectual midgets," Dieter Schneppat, a member of the Tiffin Historic Trust, said at the time about Mr. Nutter and Mr. Sauber. "They are not men enough to stand up and say, 'We made a mistake.' "
Mr. Nutter was unbowed in 2011 after voting to finally destroy the building, saying: "If that's my legacy, that's fine."
image: http://www.toledoblade.com/image/2016/02/04/300x_b1_cCM_z/n1demolition-2.jpg
Former Commissioner Dave Sauber, who opposed in 2011 the plan to demolish the courthouse, said the decision was one of the biggest mistakes ever made by the commissioners. The demolition cost approximately $375,000.
THE BLADE Enlarge | Buy This Photo
Mr. Nutter has not changed his view on his vote to destroy the historic courthouse, which graced Tiffin's downtown for 128 years.
He told The Blade recently that he stood by his decision, saying in 2010 and 2011 there was a dispute over whether the cost estimates to renovate the old courthouse were accurate. The building wasn't properly mothballed — "It was abandoned," he said — increasing the price of renovation and making new construction a better deal for taxpayers. He claimed that was the fault of commissioners before his time.
Besides, the scope of the project has changed, with the city of Tiffin now included in the project, making price comparisons unfair, he said. "You are comparing pickup trucks and apples."
Less for more
The current scope is different. While the historic courthouse was 33,000 square feet, the proposed new structure would be about 36,000 square feet. The joint Tiffin and county project would devote 75 percent of the space to Seneca County, along with 75 percent of the cost, with the city moving its Tiffin-Fostoria Municipal Court to the joint center.
Under those estimates, the county would have 6,000 square feet less in the new courthouse than the demolished historic building, with a current cost sharing of about $7.25 million, though that doesn't include the approximately $375,000 to demolish the old courthouse, and doesn't include the $1.6 million Tiffin preservationists pledged if the commissioners would have agreed to restore the former historic courthouse.
It is clear, they say, that when all the financing options are considered, the current board of county commissioners is now faced with spending significantly more taxpayer money to build a new courthouse because past commissioners were too shortsighted and bent on destroying the former courthouse.
Mr. Conaway said Mr. Nutter is wrong to say there were problems with restoration estimates and the preservationists' financing plans.
The architect said the renovation plans were detailed because preservationists knew they had to provide sufficient information if they were to persuade the commissioners and the public.
image: http://www.toledoblade.com/image/2016/02/04/300x_b1_cCM_z/n1yay-6.jpg
Seneca County Courthouse renovations, as drawn by Steve McFarren in 2007, would have cost an estimated $8 million. Enlarge
The firm that created the renovation design, Schooley Caldwell Associates, has successfully worked on several large renovation projects — including the Ohio Statehouse, the Utah State Capitol, the Columbus Museum of Art, and the Old Montgomery County Courthouse in Dayton.
Preservationists also had independent contractors prepare estimates to confirm the projected costs of renovation.
Former commissioner Jeff Wagner, who expressed skepticism over renovation as soon as he took office in November, 2010, and supplied Mr. Nutter a second vote in 2011 to demolish the courthouse, told The Blade he wouldn't talk about his decision, saying only it was "time for everyone to move on."
Myers' legacy
Local and state preservationists were so adamant about the need to preserve Seneca County's courthouse because of its quality, craftsmanship, and the man who designed it — Elijah Myers, who in the 1880s was one of the pre-eminent architects of public buildings in the country, building not only the Texas but also the Michigan and Colorado state capitol buildings, which still stand.
Preservationists from around the country marveled at the quality of the courthouse.
"This building is literally irreplaceable," said Kerry Chartkoff, historian of the Michigan Capitol, in 2007 after inspecting the building. "They have a fortune in materials that are no longer available anywhere.
"It is really irresponsible if they go ahead with demolition," she said then. "One hundred years from now people will look back in amazement that they destroyed this building, but if they do we'll be there to get as much stone from the building as possible for repairs to our building."
image: http://www.toledoblade.com/image/2016/02/04/300x_b1_cCM_z/n1boo-1.jpg
A conceptual plan shows the joint justice center that will be shared by Tiffin and Seneca County. The proposed structure would be about 36,000 square feet.
Rare marble
It turns out that Elijah Myers used the best materials available for the Michigan Capitol and the Seneca County Courthouse — the same black carbonized limestone and beautiful white Vermont marble was used for the black and white tiles in the floors throughout both buildings.
The Vermont General Assembly has passed a law that none of the scarce remaining white marble may be quarried out of the last quarry in the state where it is found.
Valerie Marvin, who also works at the Michigan Capitol, visited Tiffin to inspect and photograph the courthouse for the Elijah Myers archives that Michigan maintains.
"You can see the original woodwork. Much of it has never been painted. The quality is better than what we have at the Michigan Capitol," she said. "The original glass transoms are still there with the original department names painted on them.
"The staircases are all original cast iron and there are two or three large vaults to store records, with original doors and circular cast-iron staircases in them," Ms. Marvin said.
But for her, finding the black limestone and white marble tiles was a moment she'll always remember.
image: http://www.toledoblade.com/image/2016/02/04/300x_b1_cCM_z/n1tileofhistory-5.jpg
Elijah E. Myers, who designed the Seneca County Courthouse, used black carbonized limestone and beautiful white Vermont marble for the black and white tiles in the floors throughout the Beaux Arts-style courthouse.
THE BLADE Enlarge | Buy This Photo
"There was dirt on the floors, but in the vault I looked down and saw the tiles. I got down on my hands and knees and spit on the floor to clean a spot, and saw the tiny white sea creatures embedded in the black tiles," she said. "They are the same as the tiles in the Michigan Capitol, and we have hundreds of geologists, students, school kids, and tourists who come each year just to see our tiles and the architecture of the building."
None of such glowing expert testimony moved Mr. Nutter and Mr. Wagner, however, who besides voting to have the courthouse demolished also refused to allow preservationists or archivists from Michigan's capitol to salvage material from the structure.
Karin Brown, the Tiffin preservationist who was on the city's Historic Trust board, said that preservationists tried for years to convince commissioners of the importance of renovation and on the economic benefit, to no avail.
"We fought for years and years and years, and there was absolutely no way that you could make them understand what the courthouse could have brought to the county," she said.
Staff writer Jim Provance contributed to this report.
Contact Nolan Rosenkrans at: email@example.com or 419-724-6086, or on Twitter @NolanRosenkrans.
Read more at http://www.toledoblade.com/Politics/2016/02/07/New-courthouse-s-cost-to-Seneca-Co-continues-to-rise.html#AzadvU2TVJ7XijFY.99


text:
OTTAWA — Foreign Affairs Minister Stephane Dion says Canada can help kickstart the world's stalled nuclear disarmament efforts by pushing for tougher controls to prevent terrorists from building a nuclear weapon.
Dion joined his G7 counterparts on Monday in calling for a renewed effort towards nuclear disarmament after visiting the atomic-bombed Japanese city of Hiroshima.
But the minister also appeared to express frustration at what many see as the glacial pace of nuclear disarmament efforts.
Foreign Minister Stephane Dion, Britain's Foreign Minister Philip Hammond, and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry wave to children as they and fellow G7 foreign ministers visit the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park in Hiroshima, western Japan Monday, April 11, 2016. (Photo: Jonathan Ernst/AP)
"It's a challenge because over the last 20 years, it's stalled," Dion said in an interview from Tokyo, adding that there's been "no major progress" on ridding the world of nuclear weapons in that time.
Dion said Canada will focus on the growing international effort to revive the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty, or FMCT. It has been more than half a century since the United Nations embarked on creating the treaty, which would control the spread of nuclear materials.
"What I think we should do, very strongly, is focus on the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty," he said. "It's the one that is the least difficult to reach.
"I'm not saying it's easy."
Canada picks up slack on Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty
Canada picked up the ball on the treaty in 2012, sponsoring a resolution at the UN General Assembly establishing a commission of experts to push for its creation.
The proposed treaty would outlaw the production of the highly-enriched uranium and plutonium, the key ingredients for building a bomb. Earlier this month, Canada pledged $42 million towards the global effort to protect fissile materials at the Washington summit hosted by President Barack Obama, where the need to prevent terrorist groups from acquiring bomb making materials was a hot topic.
Paul Meyer, a retired diplomat and former Canadian disarmament ambassador, said Canada's past actions supporting FMCT efforts leave it "uniquely positioned to be the champion among like-minded states" to make sorely needed progress.
"There is a real need to move from talking points to negotiating points on the FMCT if the global non-proliferation and disarmament regime is to retain credibility."
Otherwise, Monday's G7 declaration was filled with "stale slogans" and lacked any concrete plan of action, said Meyer.
Top powers not taking part in summit
The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, a global umbrella group for hundreds of organizations, said it is not helpful that the G7's nuclear powers — the United States, Britain and France — are not taking part in a United Nations conference to be held next month in Geneva that will look at creating new laws around nuclear weapons.
"The G7 countries should join the majority of governments that recognize this and participate in the process to prohibit nuclear weapons," the group's executive director Beatrice Fihn, said in a statement.
Dion and his fellow ministers joined U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, who is the highest-ranking U.S. official to visit Hiroshima since the Second World War, when the U.S. dropped the first atomic bomb there, eventually killing 140,000 people.
"Mr. Kerry showed a lot of dignity, a lot of respect, for the consequences, for the victims," said Dion.
"Of course I thought about the victims. But my colleague the minister of foreign affairs of Japan said at the outset, this visit is not about the past, it's about the future."
Story continues after slideshow:
Japanese Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida said the G7 declaration would reinvigorate nuclear non-proliferation efforts, which have waned.
Kishida said "it was significant that the G7 ministers saw the reality of the atomic bombing," at the Hiroshima memorial.
The museum the G7 ministers visited graphically displays the effects of the American blasts on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945, including torn children's clothing and the deformities caused by radiation. Kerry called it "gut wrenching."
The G7 communique condemned North Korea's recent nuclear tests and missile launches.
Dion said it was a positive step to see China support new sanctions against North Korea, but said the country needs to exert more of its influence "to convince the North Korean regime and their leader to stop threatening the world."
The G7 ministers also condemned the recent terror attacks in Belgium, Turkey, Nigeria, Pakistan and Ivory Coast.


text:
My top 3 apps to stay organized
Organization & Productivity 07. 06. 20150 Comments
I take my IPhone everywhere I go and it can be indispensable as personal assistants and productivity aids. I use some great apps that help me stay organized and productive. For me it is important to have apps that can be used on my phone, tablet or computer.
And these are my 3 top apps:
Swipes helps you collect, organize and take action on the right tasks at the right time.
I use Swipes for my personal daily task when I'm on the go. I like it because it's simple to use, have clean design and it's easy to snooze or schedule tasks. The only thing I don't like is slow synchronization.
Wunderlist is the easiest way to get stuff done. Whether you're planning a holiday, sharing a shopping list with a partner or managing multiple work projects, Wunderlist is here to help you tick off all your personal and professional to-dos.
Wunderlist is my best shopping list app that I can share with my partner. I also use it to collect my blog ideas and other business related ideas. I like their lists but for daily task I prefer Swipes. 🙂
For everything you'll do, Evernote is the workspace to get it done.
First I didn't like it. For me it was useless: to much everything, bad for saving link… Some time ago I give him a second chance and I have been pleasedly surprised. It looks different, simpler, and decluttered. Now I like it for writing my blog drafts and other stuff. I especially like mobile app that works perfectly! It is easy to use, especially when you mix text, photos and links… 🙂


text:
- Home
- Our Products
- Alkaline Ionizer Purifier Energizer by AOK Health
Product Description
The AOK water purifier is not particularly portable, because it hooks to the sink faucet or directly to your plumbing. It is non-electric and creates really clean, good-tasting, energized drinking water! This filter-type hydrogen machine hooks right onto your faucet with an easy-to-install diverter [provided].
The Alkaline Ionizer Purifier Energizer (AOK-909) contains 8 layers of filtration which purify the tap water, remove the bacteria, eliminate the chlorine, heavy metals, TDS, copper, iron, pesticides, a plethora of volatile organic compounds and fluoride, alkalize the water and give it a good ORP [antioxidants] as well!
The Alkaline Ionizer Purifier Energizer by AOK Health Can Produce High Levels of Molecular Hydrogen!
Here is a video showing my testing of the Alkaline Ionizer Purifier Energizer by AOK Health. The AOK demo starts at about 14:30. In this demo you can see me get about 9 pH; almost -800 ORP; and .3 ppm of molecular hydrogen. See this report to learn more about the importance of molecular hydrogen to all of health.
Under Sink Installation
If you want to install your Alkaline Ionizer Purifier Energizer under the sink you should check the option for that above. You can choose:
- To include with your purchase the fitting (alternate cap piece) needed to install the Alkaline Ionizer Purifier Energizer to your own filter faucet. This is a special piece that goes on the top of the system, instead of the piece that is on there already. It is fitted with a compression nut. This special piece enables the system to become properly pressurized (a necessary part of any undersink installation). You would then be able to hook in to your own filter faucet.
- Or you can include with your purchase the entire undersink installation kit, which includes: fittings to connect with water supply; the special cap (described above); hoses and faucet (Note: The faucet is chrome and the hole size for the faucet is 1 1/4 inch diameter).
- There is also an option for those who already have the Alkaline Ionizer Purifier Energizer to purchase only the Special Pressurized Cap. You can use the filter faucet of your choosing, purchased locally, but will need this cap to make the filter system work under pressure.
Special Pressurized Cap for installing the Alkaline Ionizer Purifier Energizer under the sink
High-Quality Filtration
The Alkaline Ionizer Purifier Energizer by AOK Health is Water Quality Association & FDA approved. The NSF ratings are 42 & 61 (for the Calgon Carbon and KFF filter media used). The AOK water purifier filter lasts 1,000 gallons. It doesn't have a filter-counter, but the average family will need to change the filter every 6-9 months. We suggest you get a filter-counter so you always know exactly when to change it.


text:
TOPIC 5: synaptic transmission
A synapse is a junction between two neurons. The space between the neurons is called the synaptic cleft and is about 20nm wide. An action potential travels from one neuron to the next via the synapse via substances called neurotransmitters such as acetylcholine (ACh).
Cholinergic Synapse
Cholinergic Synapse
- Presynaptic action potential causes release of a transmitter substance
- Presynaptic = the first neuron with the action potential
- Postsynaptic = the neuron receiving the action potential
- Diffuses across the gap
- Generates a new action potential in postsynaptic neuron
- Presynaptic = the first neuron with the action potential
- Synapses that use acetylcholine as the neurotransmitter are called cholinergic substances
- Region at the end of the axon which is slightly bulged and stores neurotransmitter
- Contains many mitochondria
- Active process
- Lots of ATP required
- Active process
- Large amount of SER
- Vesicles of acetylcholine
- Transmitter substance
- Chemical
- Diffuses across the synaptic cleft
- Transmitter substance
- Voltage gated calcium ion channels in the membrane
Postsynaptic Membrane
Transmission Across the Synapse
Acetylcholine esterase
Action Potentials and Cell Signalling
Role of Synapses
One presynaptic nerve may diverge to many postsynaptic neurons
Ensure signals are transmitted in the right direction
Filter out low-level signals
The creation of specific pathways within the nervous system is the basis of conscious thought and memory.
- Contains specialized sodium channels that can respond to the transmitter substance
- 5 polypeptide molecules
- 2 have a receptor that is specific to acetylcholine
- 5 polypeptide molecules
- When acetylcholine binds, the sodium channels will open
- Is the only membrane with neurotransmitter receptors so the signal is unidirectional
Transmission Across the Synapse
- Action potential arrives at synaptic knob
- Voltage-gated ion channels open
- Calcium ions diffuse into the synaptic knob
- Calcium ions cause the synaptic vesicles to move to and fuse with the presynaptic membrane
- Acetylcholine released by exocytosis
- Acetylcholine diffuses across cleft
- Acetylcholine binds to the receptor sites on the sodium ion channels in the postsynaptic membrane
- Sodium channels open
- Sodium ions diffuse across post synaptic membrane into postsynaptic neurone
- Excitatory postsynaptic potential (EPSP) is created
- EPSPs can combine, reaching the threshold potential
- New action potential created in the postsynaptic neurone
Acetylcholine esterase
- Enzyme in the synaptic cleft
- Hydrolyses acetylcholine to ethanoic acid and choline
- Stops transmission of signals
- Ethanoic acid and choline are recycled
- Re-enter synaptic knob by diffusion
- Recombined to acetylcholine using ATP from respiration in the mitochondria
- Stored in synaptic vessels for future use
Action Potentials and Cell Signalling
- All or nothing response
- Does not vary in size or intensity
- Process are the same in all neurons and cholinergic synapses
Role of Synapses
- Several presynaptic neurons converge to one postsynaptic neuron
- Allows signals from different part of nervous system to create the same response
- Useful when different stimuli are warning us of danger
- Allows signals from different part of nervous system to create the same response
One presynaptic nerve may diverge to many postsynaptic neurons
- Allow one signal to travel to several parts of the nervous system
- Useful in the reflex arc
Ensure signals are transmitted in the right direction
- Only presynaptic knob contains vesicles of acetylcholine
Filter out low-level signals
- Low-level stimuli may create action potentials
- These are unlikely to pass across a synapse to the next neuron
- Vesicles of acetylcholine will not be released
- Low-level signals may be amplified
- Persistent stimulus may cause several action potentials
- May cause generator potentials to join together to produce an action potential
- Synapses may run out of transmitter substance and become fatigued
- No longer respond to stimulus
- Helps to avoid over stimulation
The creation of specific pathways within the nervous system is the basis of conscious thought and memory.


text:
Special Interest Auto Works Inc.
25923 78th Avenue South, Kent, Wa 98032
25923 78th Avenue South, Kent, Wa 98032
Special interest Auto Works provides knowledgeable staff combined with our state-of-the-art equipment to ensure your satisfaction and comfort knowing you have chosen the right company to serve your auto parts and towing needs.
Special Interest Auto Works was first incorporated as a collision repair center located in Federal Way in 1991. In 1997 Special Interest Auto Works expanded to offer roadside assistance.
In 2006, we opened our current location in the Kent Valley along the Green River, which now includes auto wrecking services and Auto Sales. We are currently on tow-rotation for the Washington State Patrol, Kent Police Department, Federal Way Police Department and King County Sheriffs Office. Our exemplary response time and professional interaction with Valley Communications (911 emergency services) places our company as one of the best towing companies in South King County.
Copyright © Special Interest Auto Works


text:
Friday ~ July 19 ~ 7-8pm
Experience the ancient meditation technique of YOGA NIDRA (yogic sleep). This technique will take you through pancha maya kosha (5 levels of self) while you rest in a comfortable savasana (corpse pose). Enjoy the deeply nourishing effects of Vibrational Healing using a Crystal Singing Bowl. These two therapies can bring immense physical and emotional healing and inner balance
*Space is limited, please call to reserve your place*
Do you like this post?


text:
Static Test Suite allows combining multiple Scenarios and arrange them in required sequence. This Suite can then be executed as a single unit.
When you are building end-to-end test flows, sometimes it may be required to link multiple Scenarios with inputs/outputs. For example, consider the following end-to-end test:
- Scenario 1: Create a Purchase Order
- Scenario 2: Verify PO in the back-end
- Scenario 3: Cancel PO
Scenario #1 outputs the PO number, which needs to be passed as input to some of the steps in the 2nd and 3rd Scenarios. You accomplish this by storing the output from a Step in the first Scenario into a Run Parameter and then using this Run Parameter for parameter overriding in a subsequent Scenario. This is a 2-step process:
- From the initial Scenario, store required output in a Run Parameter: Click on the name of the output parameter in the Scenario step and redirect the output
- For subsequent Scenarios, override the input of a step with the above Run Parameter: Click on the Input parameter name in the Scenario step and override the parameter