The fact that he collected billions (worth of cash and financial instruments) in the first place is the problem. He should have been charging consumers less, and paying his workers more. He never should have accumulated his obscene wealth to begin with.
post incarceration.
Author of this article is serving a life sentence. He’s been in prison over 15 years so far, and won’t be eligible for parole for another 52 years, at which time he will be 97 years old.
“Post incarceration”, he’ll be mailed to his next of kin in a tiny plastic bag. There is no “rebuilding” of his life after incarceration. This is the rest of his life.
I do think he should be earning at least minimum wage for his work while imprisoned. But, $6.25 of his $7.25/hr wages should be garnished and divided among the estates of his victim(s). If they refuse the money, the state should offer the job to any other prisoner whose victims will actually accept restitution.
I’d go so far as to intercept up to 75% of the funds deposited into his commissary account as victim restitution.
“We’re gonna need some more buttons in here.”
There’s a common dream among gun nuts, where you squeeze and squeeze and squeeze the trigger, but the gun never fires.
It has to do with how we are often taught to shoot. If you anticipate the recoil, you tend to push the gun forward, the muzzle drops, and you miss your target. To counter that, you’re taught to slowly squeeze the trigger while you aim, and let the shot surprise you. By the time you recognize the gun has fired, the bullet has already passed through your target.
In the dream, you’re squeezing harder and harder and harder, waiting for a bang that is never going to come.
Bread was preceded by porridge (crushed grains in water or milk), which was preceded by gruel (raw, whole grains softened in water). Gruel also gave us beer.
Again: guns are an equal access opportunity for all social classes.
Yes, you’ve said that. You’ve declared that to be the problem. I quoted you saying that:
Solving “the real problem” as you described makes it no longer “equal access opportunity for all social classes”. Solving “the real problem” denies that access to those dirty poors, without substantially affecting the middle class and the rich.
Your “real problem” argument only applies to the poor. I’ve given you every opportunity to back away from that, but you’ve doubled down on it twice now. I can only take you at your word that you have a problem with those dirty poors.
For less than a couple hours’ minimum wage
Not sure if hyperbole or ignorance. I’ll charitably assume the former.
That wasn’t an assumption. That was your own words:
the real problem with gun ownership is that guns are so cheap basically anybody can get one if it is the least bit important to them.
Your argument doesn’t apply to middle class and rich “punks”. They’ll still be able to afford their guns. Your “real problem with gun ownership” argument only applies to the poor.
Pushing gun control with a sunset clause was pretty dumb, in hindsight.
Even then, they didn’t have the support to implement it without that sunset. They hoped that support would grow and it would be easy to renew.
It didn’t.
Rather than accept that gun control had become a losing issue, they doubled down, making it a central focus of every campaign across the country for the past 30+ years. They alienated more and more Democrats, year after year.
They claim they want “common sense gun control”, then vote against measures that would actually achieve it, such as public access to NICS. Why? Because they don’t want the public using NICS; they don’t want the public selling guns at all. They took that approach straight out of the “Abstinence Only” playbook.
Dropping gun control, we would have had the political capital to enact universal health care, which would save several hundred thousand lives a year, and improve the quality of life of millions more.
Trying to force gun control got us Trump and UnitedHealth, without actually achieving gun control: no federal measures have passed since 1994, and 42 States have enacted pro-gun laws since 2004.
Was it worth it?
This is the attitude I’m talking about. “Poor people are punks, who will walk up behind you with a .38spl. Guns should be more expensive to keep those filthy poors from getting them.”
Centrist, corporatist, elitist crap.
I found that I can’t convince google assistant (via bluetooth headset) to find my phone unless my phone is unlocked. The only workaround I’ve found is to set a 1-second timer.
The assault weapons ban the US had from 1994 to 2004 didn’t force the retirement of the entire set of politicians who voted for it. It simply drove the majority position across party lines, and left everyone wondering how the hell the Democrats become so out of touch with their own constituents.
I pointed out the cost to demonstrate the depth of their concern. You aren’t likely to cast a vote to ban your own hobbies. You aren’t going to vote to make your collections worthless.
20-some years ago, I took my first concealed carry class. 30 people in the room, and only 6 of us (including me and two of my brothers) had ever fired a gun before.
Democratic leadership never bothered to consider how gun ownership would affect the political opinions of all those new gun owners in swing states. It just shunned them as Republican baby killers, and wondered why they were losing votes.
The number of guns we have is completely irrelevant to the matter at hand. The relevant issue is the opinions of the people who would actually be affected by the law.
Gun control is one of the major reasons why people in 42 of our 50 states are dissatisfied with the Democrats. Gun control is one of the major reasons why Trump is now in office.
Democratic leadership should have learned this lesson two decades ago, when our Federal Assault Weapons Ban sunsetted, Democrats couldn’t get it renewed, and the US went from generally banning concealed carry to generally licensing it. Failing to recognize that fact in 2004, Democratic leadership should have picked up on it from pro-gun legislation passing in 42 states. But no, they were hell bent on pushing 1980’s gun control efforts, and ignoring any pushback against that position.
Democratic leadership refusing to follow the will of the people is how the US got itself in this disaster.
Gun control in the US is a centrist position, not a leftist position. Both the left wing and the right wing are pro-gun, and largely for the same reasons.
Its the centrist, corporatist, CEO-owned Democratic leadership who doesn’t want guns.
We have a scenario where 8 blue states have effectively banned concealed carry, 27 red states have said concealed carry is legal without a license, and 15 (former) swing states need licenses to carry concealed weapons.
Over 30 million Americans have obtained such licenses since the early 2000’s. Those 30 million Americans now hold pro-gun opinions. They have each invested thousands of dollars on expensive firearms, ammunition, range time, classes, targets, gun safes/lockers, holsters, belts, clothing compatible with concealment.
Democrats have consistently pushed for “stricter gun laws” like you are talking about. Those gun laws were never popular among the people in 27 red states, and once 30 million people in the (former) swing states started picking up licenses, those laws stopped being popular there as well.
“Stricter gun laws” being popular in only 8 states, yet being a central plank in the Democratic party, is how several swing states have turned reliably red over the past 25 years.
Stricter gun laws gave us Trump. Twice.
So, they left a bucket of water to stagnate next to a bus stop?
Worked in two factories since Covid. The first stockpiled components we produced in house, and relied in JIT logistics for external components. Which was basically the stupidest arrangement they could have cone up with. They had 10+ years worth of parts they could make in house, clogging up their warehouse. And couldn’t ship anything because they were waiting on suppliers.
The other built two new warehouses to stockpile external supplies, and never let up on production.
All use is fair use. Copyright should not exist.