Sunday Daily Delawhere [3.24.13]

Filed in Delaware by on March 24, 2013

Breck’s Mill, on Stone Block Road in Henry Clay Village. The mill was built in 1814 as a cotton-spinning mill.

© Photographs taken by and are courtesy of anonymous photographer xzmattzx.

About the Author ()

Comments (42)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Rusty Dils says:

    Todays liberal hypocrisy, brought to you by the state of Colorado. The governor of Colorado is set to sign into law new strict gun legislation, which could affect manufacturers of same in their state. When Magpul said they would probably have to leave the state, and manufacturer their munitions in another state, Costing Colorado hundreds of high paying jobs, they were told they could stay and continue to manufacturer there, as long as they sold only out of state. Apparently Colorado is fine getting the economics benefits of the manufacture of arms in its state, but does not actually want them in the state.

  2. geezer says:

    “Apparently Colorado is fine getting the economics benefits of the manufacture of arms in its state, but does not actually want them in the state.”

    There are lots of other products that I’d treat the same way.

    The real question is why people like you are stupid enough to buy the things.

  3. cassandra_m says:

    Today’s conservative lies, brought to you by RD. Is anyone surprised at this?

    First, the Governor of Colorado has already signed a new set of gun safety laws in CO last week. He isn’t “set” to sign them, he has already signed them.

    Second, Magpul makes gun magazines and they make them outside of the capacity legal to sell in CO. The gun magazine law doesn’t prohibit the making of the magazines, it prohibits the selling of magazines with a capacity of more than 15 in CO. The gun magazine law also requires manufacturers to stamp the magazines they make with a serial number and a date of manufacture. This is apparently why Magpul says it is moving its 200 jobs.

    Third, asked the State of Colorado for some taxpayer handouts a year ago and were not offered much. So I’m sure that this looks like a good opportunity to fire up the know-nothing conservative caucus and get out to a state that will give them some money.

    Your welcome, RD.

  4. Rusty Dils says:

    Geezer, I have never owned a gun in my life. I have no intention of ever owning one. But stupid people like me can still read. And the constitution says we have the right to bear arms. So it may not be a question of me being stupid, more a question of believing in the constitution of the United States.

    Any only liberals think lots of things are like that. It is still Hypocritical.

    While we are on the subject of the government needing more money, and my and other conservatives claim that the more we give the government the more they will waste, It is now being reported than on February 4th, Biden spent $585,000 on hotel rooms in Paris, and the next night he spent $460,000 on hotel rooms in London. Just between us girls, that seems excessive to me. His supporters claim that it is justified because he had to book over 100 hotel rooms for the personnel that have to accompany him. However, if you do the math, and I know liberals don’t do math, that still adds up to over $5,000 per hotel room per night. Seems like the hotels in Paris and London saw the Vice President coming. But we surely can no longer afford white house tours.

  5. Tom McKenney says:

    It is now being reported than on February 4th, Biden spent $585,000 on hotel rooms in Paris, and the next night he spent $460,000 on hotel rooms in London.

    It was also reported that Obama’s trip to asia cost $220 million and used so many ships that the navy was in danger. That turned out to be a complete lie.
    DON’T TRUST THE CONSERVATIVE MEDIA.

  6. Rustydils says:

    Tom, the info was published. You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts

  7. cassandra_m says:

    RD — you are not to be here telling anyone about facts until you can demonstrate that you know what they are. Want to explain to me how you could botch the CO gun safety story so badly? Or how about these massive layoffs that never seem to hit the paper?

  8. Rustydils says:

    I have not talked about massive layoffs. Just layoffs for small business that usually dont hit the paper

  9. cassandra_m says:

    Oh really?

    So what large health care company was it that is laying off key employees due to Obamacare? And a link to a non-wingnut source please.

  10. Rustydils says:

    I still did not say there were massive layoffs. I said it was a large health care company that my wife works for, and I knew all the people my wife said got layed off or reassigned. That does not qualify as massive layoffs

  11. geezer says:

    “And the constitution says we have the right to bear arms.”

    Without specifying the arms. That doesn’t mean they can never be specified.

    “So it may not be a question of me being stupid, more a question of believing in the constitution of the United States.”

    No, it’s a matter of you believing what you want to about the Constitution of the United States. Originalism is a quite recent development in Constitutional theory, and was never intended as anything but a tool for obstructionist forces determined to prevent the will of the people from prevailing.

  12. liberalgeek says:

    Rusty – isn’t it the case that companies that can’t compete go out of business and necessarily lay people off? Why do you hate the invisible hand of the free market?

  13. SCOTUS ruling says:

    geezer you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about District of Columbia 2008 SCOTUS ruling explains it all

  14. geezer says:

    Yes, it does. It makes clear that regulations on guns are not infringement of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

    You’ll notice, by the way, that the Second Amendment provides no right to own arms — just to keep and bear them.

    You, of course, are the one who has never read a word about the Second Amendment that didn’t already agree with whatever passes for thoughts in your head.

  15. Joanne Christian says:

    The heck with all your cloaked references to big healthcare jobs here in Delaware. The drill down is patients and families not receiving SKILLED, individual cost-effective healthcare as documented, prescribed, and proven to benefit patient outcomes. So while you can wax protective and confidential about corporate/insurance/medical management areas of industry and health care access—how about Visiting Nurses and hospice that just not 8 weeks ago or so, saw decimation of their numbers in nurses and providers on their employee rolls? Real hands on care–done.

    Nobody thinks of visiting nurses and hospice until they or a loved one needs it. You better start thinking about it now, because that was a vulnerable, easy hit to do in the industry–and nobody noticed. We’ll just send over Miss Merryweather to see your mom–she’s real nice, and will get her fixed up–you’ll like her. And yes, she has her real certificate of attending a 3 week “So this is a Patient” course all framed and kept right here in our office….just like the government has said……

  16. liberalgeek says:

    FWIW, JC, Rusty is complaining about layoffs at a health insurance company somewhere out west where he lives.

  17. cassandra m says:

    Rusty says he is not in Delaware. So instead of massive layoffs, perhaps I should have said layoffs the press would notice. Laying off “key people” and eliminating health plans for some customers and cutting back salaries 25-30% is still pretty big and the kind of thing that the press catches. But, alas, no links.

  18. puck says:

    I’m sure Obamacare does put quite a crimp in insurance companies who are suddenly forced to pay out 80% of premiums in medical benefits. Boo-hoo.

  19. Joanne Christian says:

    Not so fast puck–I kinda prefer my medical benefits be in the hands of professionals. If you think that 80% outlay is going to any real benefit in quality of care, and more of it….well just you wait. These nurse call centers, mid-level providers, and web pages exploding everywhere aren’t giving me a real confident feeling of great medical care going forward. Just a bunch of WAWAs to pick up a few things, when in fact you really need to get to a grocery store and get the real shopping done.

  20. puck says:

    The tortured web of health care we have woven to forestall the inevitable national health care is truly amazing.

  21. SCOTUS ruling says:

    Let me help you out. In the United States, the right to keep and bear arms is an enumerated right specifically protected by the US Constitution and many state constitutions such that people have a personal right to own arms for individual use, and a right to bear these same arms both for personal protection and for use in a militia.

    The core holding in D.C. v. Heller is that the Second Amendment is an individual right intimately tied to the natural right of self-defense.

    The Scalia majority invokes much historical material to support its finding that the right to keep and bear arms belongs to individuals; more precisely, Scalia asserts in the Court’s opinion that the “people” to whom the Second Amendment right is accorded are the same “people” who enjoy First and Fourth Amendment protection: “‘The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.’ United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731 (1931)

    With that finding as anchor, the Court ruled a total ban on operative handguns in the home is unconstitutional, as the ban runs afoul of both the self-defense purpose of the Second Amendment – a purpose not previously articulated by the Court – and the “in common use at the time” prong of the Miller decision: since handguns are in common use, their ownership is protected.

    The Court also added dicta regarding the private ownership of machine guns. In doing so, it suggested the elevation of the “in common use at the time” prong of the Miller decision, which by itself protects handguns, over the first prong (protecting arms that “have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”), which may not by itself protect machine guns: “It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service – M16 rifles and the like – may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home.”

    The 2008 District of Columbia vs Heller SCOTUS majority ruling shown above (in part) clearly uses the words own, ownership, and possess when discussing the scope of the 2nd amendment.

    My knowledge of the 2nd amendment as well as the scope of it is based on my personal experience surrounding my ownership of a number of different firearms over a 55 year span including several machine guns.

    People like you who choose to ignore and or infringe the lawful Constitutional rights of others is not only egregious it’s truly frightening

  22. Geezer says:

    “The 2008 District of Columbia vs Heller SCOTUS majority ruling shown above (in part) clearly uses the words own, ownership, and possess when discussing the scope of the 2nd amendment.”

    Indeed. Which reveals that “originalism” is invoked only when convenient. Meanwhile, the same opinion reiterated the right of government to restrict ownership of some weapons without infringing on the Second Amendment.

    People like you who fetishize guns are far more frightening than the fact that most people think you shouldn’t be allowed to own machine guns — or that, since you own them, we should know that fact, the better to protect ourselves from irresponsible ideologues like you.

    The money question: If there were no Second Amendment, what possible reason could you offer for your supposed need to own a machine gun?

    By the way, I am not in favor of gun control. I just like the fact that gun nuts like you cannot offer any justification for your position beyond the Constitution — which means it is a truly weak logical position.

  23. SCOTUS ruling says:

    geezer DofC vs Heller SCOTUS clearly states that the 2nd amendment protects the rights of private citizens to own the same weapons for lawful use as in common use of the militia (military). Hence no infringement other than reasons for disqualification covered in the FFL.

    I don’t have any excessive and or irrational attachment to firearms anymore than a collector of cars or collector of any other inanimate item does. I could really care less what people think I or any other person should or shouldn’t be allowed to legally own.

    Since you feel you should be allowed to know what I own for firearms I have several suggestions that follow your belief:
    How about every person charged or convicted of a DUI have the information visible on every vehicle they drive?
    How about we make convicted pedophiles wear a label clearly visible for everyone to see?

    The federal government has determined that I am not disqualified from owning firearms, that’s all you or anyone else needs to know.

    Your “money question” has no relevance it would be like me asking you if there was no First Amendment what reason could you offer for your need to be a self serving pompous ass talk show host?

    Of course you are for gun control, you stated “we should know that fact” which would require firearms registration (gun control).

    You can’t offer anything beyond the Constitution for the way you conduct yourself on the radio or when you were involved in news media. One could easily argue that if the Second Amendment is a weak position to take, then so to are the First Amendment and Fourth Amendments protection.

  24. Jason330 says:

    “DofC vs Heller SCOTUS clearly states that the 2nd amendment protects the rights of private citizens to own the same weapons for lawful use as in common use of the militia (military).”

    No it doesn’t. That case is silent on military weapons, unless I am missing some secret citation that only NRA members have access to.

  25. SCOTUS ruling says:

    I disagree and there was no need for the NRA comment. The prefatory clause contains “a well regulated militia” the ruling addresses protecting arms that “have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”
    (see below)

    The Court also added dicta regarding the private ownership of machine guns. In doing so, it suggested the elevation of the “in common use at the time” prong of the Miller decision, which by itself protects handguns, over the first prong (protecting arms that “have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”), which may not by itself protect machine guns: “It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service – M16 rifles and the like – may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home.”

    While these following examples are not directly related to the Heller decision nonetheless they are perfectly legal for private citizens to own if they have the money and the means; tanks, armored vehicles, military jets, decommissioned naval vessels.

  26. Jason330 says:

    “While these following examples are not directly related to the Heller decision…” So, basically, I was right about Heller.

    And also, where’s your link? That’s how blogs self-validate. How do I know that isn’t from a secret NRA site that only NRA members (like yourself) have access to?

  27. SCOTUS ruling says:

    No basically you aren’t right, the D of C vs Heller SCOTUS ruling was specifically about handguns, but it also addressed all “arms” hopefully you do know what “arms” are. This blog self validates that’s priceless. I really hate to burst your liberal bubble but I’m not a NRA member, but leave it to a liberal to assume that someone must be a NRA member if they are pro firearms. Next you’ll be assuming I’m anti same sex marriage.

  28. waterpirate says:

    I have a legitimate querry, or a straw poll if you will. If we can agree that all firearms that are bought and sold should be done with a FFL background check, do you support any exemptions? Or should the fee to transfer through a FFL apply to everyone to help the system work? There are currently lists of people who would be exempted, law enforcement, CCDW, retired law enforcement ect. I would support a mandatory transfer through a FFL if it applies to everyone. What say you?

  29. geezer says:

    “How about every person charged or convicted of a DUI have the information visible on every vehicle they drive?
    How about we make convicted pedophiles wear a label clearly visible for everyone to see?”

    We keep records of both. So much for that argument. Are you always this stupid?

    “It would be like me asking you if there was no First Amendment what reason could you offer for your need to be a self serving pompous ass talk show host?”

    The need for public discourse exists independent of its First Amendment protection. What reason is there for you to have machine guns?

    Do you understand the question I’m asking, or do I need to put it in pidgin English for you to grasp it?

  30. geezer says:

    Waterpirate: I’m with you. Everyone, no exceptions.

  31. cassandra m says:

    How about every person charged or convicted of a DUI have the information visible on every vehicle they drive

    Some states do have this. Minnesota (where I used to live) for one.

  32. meatball says:

    Joanne, I think mid-level practitioners are actually going to raise the bar, but just like regular ‘ole doctors now, you have to find a good one.

  33. SCOTUS ruling says:

    waterpirate the only exemptions under HB35 are current law enforcement and retired law enforcement.
    People who are not exempt from background checks; CCDW permit holders, current and retired military, current and retired safety personnel.
    I do not think anyone should be exempt from a FFL background check when purchasing a firearm at a gun dealer. I have no problem with the way our current law is concerning private gun sales.

    Not sure what you mean by transfers so I can’t answer that question.

  34. SCOTUS ruling says:

    geezer we keep records of both? Show me a central site that can be viewed showing me whether Al M. has any DUI convictions.

    If the media had published the list of pedophiles like they did gun owners every media person would have been charged criminally.

    There are no laws that protect the privacy rights of law abiding gun owners. When the gun owners turned the tables on the media no surprise they screamed foul, just like you do.

    Man you are thick headed.

    What reason is there to have a machine gun?

    Because people choose to and nobody needs to justify what we choose to purchase.

    By the way do you always feel the need to hurl insults from what I see there is very little discourse that you take part in that is civil.

  35. geezer says:

    “Show me a central site that can be viewed showing me whether Al M. has any DUI convictions.”

    Criminal records are widely available to the public, because they are what is known as “public record.” Check your spam filter for people willing to look them up for you.

    “If the media had published the list of pedophiles like they did gun owners every media person would have been charged criminally.”

    Thank you for illustrating that, despite your pretense of rationality, you’re nothing but another drooling peckerwood with nothing of intelligence to add.

    “What reason is there to have a machine gun? Because people choose to and nobody needs to justify what we choose to purchase.”

    Yes, you do, unless you want to admit that you haven’t a logical leg to stand on. Oh, that’s right — you don’t.

    I realize you are too stupid to understand the challenge, but it’s quite simple — explain why you need a machine gun, without relying on your constitutional right to one. I’ll save you time: You can’t. You COULD, if you weren’t so stupid, but being the gunpowder-sniffing moron you are, you can’t manage it. So sorry you have such an intellectually limp dick, but there you are.

  36. cassandra_m says:

    Sex offender registry. If you are a convicted pedophile, you are supposed to be in this publicly available database. Provided by the DOJ, so the media can publish what they like.

  37. waterpirate says:

    Most online gun sales are handled through a FFL. IMHO if we are going to have background checks it should be for all gun transfers period, and apply to everyone, period. If we start in with the exemptions, of which many are prolly comeing during the course of debate of HB35, it will be a fee that has to paid by some, but others get to circumvent. Laws should apply to everyone regardless of your job. Currently in DE that fee is 50.00 and up, for a 3 minute computer connection at a FFL.

  38. Dave says:

    The argument that “shall not be infringed” is absolute fails, not only becuase of the Supreme Court ruling in the DC case but because everyone supports and agrees that the metally ill and felons can and should have their rights infringed upon. Additionally, there are restrictions on what arms can be possessed, including bazookas, RPG, Stingers, etc. There are limits. The debate should be about what those limits should be.

    The refrain that laws against illegal sales are not being enforced, yet the means to enforcement (background checks and registration) are lobbied against as an infringement. How can the laws be enforced when law enforcement does not know who owned the gun or sold the gun used in a crime? Further, even if background checks and registration were required, that does not infring on someone’s rights anymore than having to buy TV time infringes on the right of free speech.

    The bias against registration is simply because the whack jobs believe that the government is going to somehow go door to door to confiscate over 300,000,000 firearms. It is this loss of a grip on reality that is the obstacle to enforcing existing laws.

    I’m not very liberal, but registration and background checks to me are the minimum measures to ensure that we can enforce the laws. It’s the sane thing to do.

  39. waterpirate says:

    I am on the fence for registration, but after the background check passes the legislature will be on to the rest of it. People in general, who ” are not whack jobs ” in a bipartisan outcry are tired of selective laws who only apply to certain people and exemt others. If this is the direction that the population in the state of DE wants to go, I am simply urging that if these laws are passed they apply to everyone equally and exempt none. That sentiment goes for parts 2,3,4,5,6,…. of the ongoing gun ownership debate. When it gets to magazine capacity, registration, type of weapon ect.

  40. William F Christy says:

    Cassandra you better read up on Delaware laws, concerning sex offenders and what can and cannot be disclosed.A real estate agent in the state of Delaware can not legally disclose if a registered sex offender lives in a neighborhood where a home they have for sale is listed. Registered sex offenders are protected under the law from any type of harassment and it’s a real thin line.

  41. geezer says:

    A law restricting the actions of real estate agents is hardly the same thing as the information being unavailable.

    Interesting, though, that you would equate gun ownership with sex crime.

  42. Paula says:

    How can we have a well-regulated militia if there’s no central database of gun owners? It seems to me that the 2nd amendment *mandates* firearm registration.

Switch to our mobile site