Just Another Az PC 
Member since Jun 17, 2010


Stats

Friends

  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Recent Comments

Re: “Save Our Guns

Dear PolyMath: If you have really researched the Founders and the 'true' meaning of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution for these united States, then you would know that it had no applicability to the States.

Therefore, in our case, only Arizona's Declaration of Rights, Article II, Section 26 applies when it comes to bearing and keeping arms.

"The right of the individual to bear arms in defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired..."

5 likes, 8 dislikes
Posted by Just Another Az PC on 12/30/2016 at 5:00 AM

Re: “Save Our Guns

"Less guns, less gun deaths.." L. Collins

Herein lies the problem with this assessment of the CITY OF TUCSON, INC.s firearm destruction program, it will not lead to less firearms.

What it hasl lead to is: A loss of well over $400,000 is revenue to help TPD purchase protective vests, radios, body cameras, etc.

The CITY OF TUCSON, INC. can ill afford to lose any revenue.

And our CITY overlords want us to approve an increase in the tax we pay on purchases (sales tax). come May 2017.

The CITY OF TUCSON INC.'s destruction program is a welfare program for firearm manufactures. The demand remains. If there are not used firearms available, the consumer will go out and purchase a new one.

Here is the biggy: What's the big deal? The firearms are auctioned off on the CITY OF TUCSON, INC website. ONLY FFL's CAN BID ON THEM. This means they go to a UNITED STATES federal government approved and licensed buyer/seller who has been investigated and authorized to establish a business buying and selling firearms. And here's the kicker, THEY CAN ONLY SELL THEM TO individuals who have a government approved I.D., who completes a multi page form and signs it under penalty of perjury and must pass a background check. I thought the Mayor and Council loved background checks?

So, all things considered, what's the big deal????

5 likes, 7 dislikes
Posted by Just Another Az PC on 12/30/2016 at 4:55 AM

Re: “Arizona Transgender Man, ACLU Sue Country's Fifth Largest Health Care System for Discrimination

Elective surgery. Pay for it yourself.

5 likes, 10 dislikes
Posted by Just Another Az PC on 06/07/2016 at 5:18 AM

Re: “Come Mid-June, Pima County Will Fine You for Texting and Driving

SonaranWinds: Why should we think Pima County will be better than Tucson? Because PC banned using electronic devices while operating a motor vehicle.

The medias reporting is mostly inaccurate on the new ordinance. It is NOT a texting while driving ban but an ordinance banning using any electronic device while driving, such as, GPS, MP3, camera, etc.

You may receive calls and talk on the phone while driving but you may not dial.

These ordinances are mostly 'feel-good' to placate the supervisors electorate because there is a lot of difficulty on the enforcement side.

1 like, 0 dislikes
Posted by Just Another Az PC on 05/23/2016 at 5:39 AM

Re: “Congressional Candidate Victoria Steele Has a New Campaign Team

Steele might be worth a look if she weren't so rabidly anti-gun owner.

4 likes, 11 dislikes
Posted by Just Another Az PC on 04/20/2016 at 8:31 AM

Re: “McCain Says He's Ready To Block an Obama Appointee to Supreme Court

Here is a solution to the vacancy on the SCOTUS created by the death of Justice Scalia (may he rest in peace).

They can do what the Congress did in 1866 to prevent the nomination of Henry Stanberry to the tenth seat on the Court, thus preventing President Andrew Johnson from appointing a justice during the remainder of his term.

The Congress passed the Reorganization of the Judicial Circuits: "An Act to fix the Number of Judges of the Supreme Court of the United States, and to change certain Judicial Circuits." 14 Stat. 209 on July 23, 1866.

Congress should pass a similar Act, reducing the size of the SCOTUS to seven Justices. By doing so, the next Justice to retire, or die will level out the Court and who is our next President will not matter.

http://www.fjc.gov/history/home.nsf/page/l…

5 likes, 10 dislikes
Posted by Just Another Az PC on 02/16/2016 at 5:49 AM

Re: “McCain Says He's Ready To Block an Obama Appointee to Supreme Court

“Members of the U.S. Senate have an obligation to uphold the Constitution and fulfill their duties, including voting on Supreme Court nominees—regardless of party affiliation,” Kirkpatrick told the press via a prepared statement.“

This is such bull crap! There isn't a single member of the Senate who votes IAW the Constitution - Not even half the time.

Funny how pols pick and choose when to follow the Constitution: When it is convenient for them to do so.

7 likes, 12 dislikes
Posted by Just Another Az PC on 02/16/2016 at 5:46 AM

All Comments »

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.
 

© 2017 Tucson Weekly | 7225 Mona Lisa Rd. Ste. 125, Tucson AZ 85741 | (520) 797-4384 | Powered by Foundation