At Not Just The News, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us (See this article to learn more about Privacy Policies.). This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by Not Just The News and how it is used.
Log Files
Like many other Web sites, Not Just The News makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider (ISP), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user"s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.
Cookies and Web Beacons
Not Just The News does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.
DoubleClick DART Cookie
Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on Not Just The News.
Google"s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to Not Just The News and other sites on the Internet.
Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html.
These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on Not Just The News send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.
Not Just The News has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.
You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. Not Just The News"s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.
If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browser"s respective websites.
Debate is raging across Idaho as the legislature considers a bill that would allow guns on university grounds. It’s an emotional issue, and perhaps for that very reason, we should strip away the emotion and consider the issue logically.
It seems that a disproportionate share of mass shootings occur in commercial establishments or school grounds clearly marked as “Gun Free” zones. As a sentient people, we are repulsed, angered, saddened, and outraged at such heinous acts. Perhaps the problem is more related to how “Gun Free” zones attract the attention of the delusional and disaffected who are intent on making a name for themselves.
Every shooting in a school is done illegally per federal law (1995 Gun Free School Zones Act). For those intent on inflicting harm, nothing’s quite so appealing as a gun free zone, for they know all the law-abiding citizens are going to be compliant, giving the perpetrator a veritable shooting gallery to work with, unfettered and undeterred from his mayhem by a legally armed citizen. In short, criminals aren’t the least deterred by gun free zones, and if anything, they’re likely to consider any signage indicating a gun free zone as a welcome sign.
The desire to keep guns far away from innocents, especially on school grounds, is instinctive, yet must be approached logically rather than emotionally, based on empirical data. And there is a lot of it available.
The city of Chicago currently has the most restrictive gun control laws on the books, and has been declared a “gun free zone” where handguns are banned, yet it is the bloodiest city in the world in terms of gun-related deaths. The city averages 40 deaths per month from guns, nearly 500 every year. Chicago’s murder rate is 19.4 per 100,000, which is by far the highest rate in the nation, at nearly 3 times New York which is at 6, and nearly 2 ½ times Los Angeles’ 7.5.
In fact, Chicago ranks as the number one deadliest Alpha city (significant urban center in the global economic system) on the planet. Since it is no longer possible for citizens to legally own handguns within city limits, the only ones who still have them are criminals. It doesn’t appear gun control works for Chicago. In fact, the city illustrates how correct the aphorism is that if guns are outlawed, only the outlaws have guns. The law-abiding citizens do not.
The Center for Disease Control (CDC), in 2003 thoroughly analyzed fifty-one in-depth studies dealing with gun control. Those studies included everything from the effectiveness of gun bans to laws requiring gunlocks. From their objective analysis, they “found no discernible effect on public safety by any of the measures we commonly think of as ‘gun control.’”
Since gun control doesn’t work, let’s look at increasing the ability of citizens to protect and defend themselves. Simi Valley, California is consistently listed among the safest of American cities. They have all of California’s gun control laws in force, but locals know it as the home to a lot of police officers from neighboring communities. Nothing like trained and armed homeowners to keep a community virtually crime free.
In 1982, Kennesaw, Georgia, witnessing an increase in local crime, did something counterintuitive to the likes of Chicago and New York; they passed an ordinance requiring heads of households, with some exceptions, to own a handgun. Crime dropped precipitously, and has stayed down. So much so, that Family Circle selected the town as one of the 10 best in the nation to raise a family in.
Our problems with violence and mass shootings have much more to do with cultural and societal issues, mental illness, and a lack of ability on the part of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves. Guns are not the root of the problem. Our nation was brought to its knees eleven years ago by 19 fanatics armed with box-cutters. The tool of destruction is not the perpetrator; the person using or misusing it is.
Gun control has proven impotent in curbing the problem, and “gun free zones” are absurd, since they practically advertise themselves to be potential venues of mayhem and violence. More gun control is not a solution, but only serves as a Band-Aid to our emotions so we feel like we’re doing something. The problems are much deeper in our society than Band-Aids can cure.
The emotional aspect of the issue that we cannot ignore is how the students feel. They must be able to feel safe while at school, and they likely wouldn’t feel safer knowing that anyone can come on campus toting a weapon. The way the legislation is drafted, it is only licensed and authorized personnel who can carry a weapon, which should allay such concerns.
The allowance of licensed and legally authorized personnel carrying a firearm on university grounds is logical. But let’s change the signage at all of our schools. Let’s remove the signs that are so inviting to malcontents and those intending to wreak havoc, and rather than advertise them as gun-free zones, let’s post “These grounds protected by armed and trained personnel. No other weapons allowed.” It may or may not serve as a deterrent, but at least it’s not a welcome sign like “gun-free zone” is!
Associated Press award winning columnist Richard Larsen is President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, Idaho and is a graduate of Idaho State University with degrees in Political Science and History and coursework completed toward a Master’s in Public Administration. He can be reached at [email protected].
US supreme court justices appear sceptical of abortion clinic buffer zones
Court’s conservatives may be ready to strike down Massachusetts abortion clinic buffer zone law on free speech grounds
The battle lines of America’s culture wars threatened to draw closer on Wednesday, as the supreme court questioned the constitutionality of buffer zones designed to keep pro-life activists away from abortion clinics.
Though a final decision will not be reached for several months, a narrow majority of justices on the court, which is dominated by a conservative bloc, appeared sympathetic to free speech arguments against at least parts of the Massachusetts law.
“The government doesn’t get to decide what is said on the public pavement,” said Mark Rienzi, the lawyer representing the pro-life activists who brought the case.
Washington, D.C. – The complex negotiations aimed at bringing a long-term solution to the federal government’s expenditure and debt problem have produced an unconventional proposal. “Although the solution only focuses on a tiny fraction of government expenditures,” declared President Barack Obama, “it is a step in the right direction.”
“Moreover,” he added, “it will show the American people that what’s good for them is good for us, too.”
The idea is to defund and abolish the Secret Service, the Capitol Police, and all other police protection privileges enjoyed by high-ranking members of the three branches of the federal government. These forms of protection will be replaced by a simple and efficient measure from which ordinary American have long benefited: gun-free zones.
The enabling legislation — the Stay Unarmed, Coy and Confident in Equal Royalty Act, or SUCCER Act — has now reached the final negotiation stage between the House and the Senate.
The bill has both a conservative and a revolutionary dimension. On the conservative front, the new legislation would simply reinforce the symbolic nature of existing gun-free zones. For their protection, members of Congress would rely on the current Capitol gun-free zone. Similarly, the existing gun-free zone around the White House and the Supreme Court would be maintained. These gun-free zones would be enforced the same way they are enforced for ordinary citizens: by calling the ordinary police if an aggressor penetrates the zone.
Yet the SUCCER Act also contains a revolutionary feature. It would create new portable and mobile gun-free zones for the president, the vice president, Supreme Court justices, and any other member of the ruling class who faces “serious, persistent, and credible threats.” “Portable” and “mobile” are the keywords: These new gun free-zones would follow the protected person in all his or her moves.
For example, the president and the vice president would always be protected by their portable and mobile gun-free zones, which would move with them and guarantee a 30-yard-radius gun ban around them. “Because we need special protection measures,” explained Vice President Joe Biden, “we will get a more personal and dedicated gun-free zone than the general ones that cover ordinary citizens. But at least the nature of our protection arrangements will not be different from what our electors get.”
Conspicuous signs carried by court clowns would clearly identify the mobile gun-free zones.
“This is what I will tell my wife,” added the vice president, who is known for his subtle mind: “If you feel threatened, just deploy your personal gun-free zone around you.” He said that as soon as the SUCCER Act is passed, he will sell the two shotguns he and his wife keep for self-defense.
“If school children are well protected by gun-free zones,” added a White House spokesbeing, “why not provide the same protection to our high officials, with a mobile component added?”
Interestingly, the idea of a gun-free zone to protect the president and the vice president in lieu of their expensive Secret Service details was rejected by the White House just a few months ago. A “We the People” petition with more than 40,000 signatures had been presented to the White House and had to be answered. At the time, the White House rejected the proposal by arguing that the president and vice president need armed protection because they face “serious, persistent, and credible threats.”
The addition of mobile gun-free zones to the general gun-free zones that protect the rulers in their daily working environment seems to have mellowed the administration’s previous resistance.
The fact that politicians often want many supporters around them has not escaped the genius of lawmakers. The mobile gun-free zones for the rulers will include high-capacity mezzanines. In the ordinary, fixed gun-free zones that benefit ordinary citizens, high-capacity mezzanines will remain verboten.
The New York Sex Workers Union (NYSWU) is lobbying Congress against the SUCCER Act, which would lead to the dismantling of the Secret Service and the dismissal of its 4,500 agents. “Any one of these agents,” says NYSWU president Ashley Dupré, “is a potential, if not actual, customer. It is not the time, in the current economy, to destroy jobs, whether full time or blow.”
Born on Mars centuries ago, Prr Lzkdrqxcwm is Earth’s correspondent for The Martian, the main newspaper of the Red Planet. He covers the whole of the United States, even Massachusetts, California, New York, New Jersey, and DC. He’s written articles for a number of websites in the Galaxy, and has been called many names from “the Martian Tocqueville” to “the Mencken-in-the-cloud.” Occasionally he indulges in some political satire. False rumors (even fraudulent signatures) have circulated in the earthy press as to who is Prr really is…
Laissez-Faire Bookstore – by Prr Lzkdrqxcwm [SATIRE]
