World watch – Wednesday

Tuesday GMT

WorldWatch2

For posting on events, news, opinions and anything of interest from around the world.

41 Comments

  1. Patzcuaro

     /  March 28, 2018

    The orphan nobody wants – Remington.

    “And it can be had for a relative pittance. The estimated range of reorganized Remington’s enterprise value is between $470 million and $650 million – or $543 million at the midpoint, according to its bankruptcy papers. That includes $227 million of debt, implying an equity value of just $266 million. Against the $950 million of debt outstanding before Remington went bust, that’s a bargain.”

    Probably shouldn’t have wasted so much money on the NRA.

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-remington-bankruptcy-breakingviews/breakingviews-cox-a-beneficent-billionaire-should-buy-remington-idUSKBN1H32GM

    • Patzcuaro

       /  March 28, 2018

      Banks and Private Equity firms all reluctant to get involved, not wanting to be involved with a leper.

    • David

       /  March 28, 2018

      But, but, but, gun companies are making billions and spend it all on buying votes don’t they?!

      Now you are telling us they are all broke, and only worth a few hundred million?

      • Patzcuaro

         /  March 28, 2018

        Butt, butt, butt maybe they should have used the money on looking forward (R&D) rather than trying to hold back the tide coming in behind them (NRA & politicians). They might then have a more viable business going forward. Guns aren’t consumables they last and whatever the gun companies say you only need so many guns.

        • David

           /  March 28, 2018

          “(R&D)”

          ? You want them to create even more sophisticated weapons?

          “Guns aren’t consumables they last”

          Correct. Guns are very simple, don’t cost much and there isn’t much money to be made manufacturing them. Dozens of firearms manufactures have gone bust over the years, and it has nothing to do with them giving money to politicians, The simple truth is there isn’t very much money in making firearms.

      • Joe Bloggs

         /  March 28, 2018

        Buttt buttt buttt… there may not be yuuge money in manufacturing weapons… but there’s plenty of money in defending their availability. The NRA certainly doesn’t seem to be short of funding support – particularly from foreign backers:

        https://www.rawstory.com/2018/03/nra-admits-moving-money-accounts-foreign-donations-us-campaign-accounts/?comments=disqus

        That could come back to bigly sting Wayne LaPierre. Money is fungible. Keeping foreign money in the same account with domestic funds opens the NRA up to illegal campaign contribution charges despite his protestations.

        • David

           /  March 28, 2018

          How much Joe? Show us the actual numbers.

          You misjudgment is profound. The NRA’s power is not in donations, or money. It is very simple, NRA members actually get out and vote.

    • NOEL

       /  March 28, 2018

      Not just value of the company.
      ps://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/13/remington-bankruptcy-could-put-rifle-settlement-at-risk-attorneys-say.html

  2. David

     /  March 28, 2018

    I love this Russian trolling;

  3. David

     /  March 28, 2018

    And some more;

  4. Somewhere in this world, people are suffering punishments for crimes, others facing various rejecting actions of people and still others rendered inefficient due to tarnished names not because they committed any crimes but simply that they are misjudged..

  5. Gezza

     /  March 28, 2018

    Aljazeera TV Breaking News

    China has confirmed the secret visitor on the special train to Beijing limousined under heavy security to Xi’s digs was Kim Jong Un and that the two have had a formal meeting.

    • Gezza

       /  March 28, 2018

      Aljaz tv update

      Was a four day visit. First time Jongers has left his country. He’s back hime now. White House has issued a statement claiming credit (more or less).

  6. Patzcuaro

     /  March 28, 2018

    Retired Supreme Court judge John Paul Stevens calls for repeal of 2nd Ammendment.

    • Patzcuaro

       /  March 28, 2018
      • Patzcuaro

         /  March 28, 2018

        Quite a difference in the current firearm compared to the muskets available when the 2nd Ammendment was enacted. A shooter would be lucky to kill one school child before being over powered while reloading.

        • Corky

           /  March 28, 2018

          What an idiot. He should be charged with treason and shot. You probably think I’m joking…but no, I’m talking literally.

          http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/03/27/john-paul-stevens-calls-repeal-second-amendment-and-gun-control

          ”Quite a difference in the current firearm compared to the muskets available when the 2nd Amendment was enacted.”

          The 2nd Amendment is the 2nd Amendment. It’s the intent that is important, not the evolution of firearms.

          • Patzcuaro

             /  March 28, 2018

            treason
            noun
            the crime of betraying one’s country, especially by attempting to kill or overthrow the sovereign or government.

            I can’t see how proposing an Ammendment to the constitution is treason, in fact we are talking about the 2nd Ammendment, there have in fact been 33 Ammendment.

            Australia did away with automatic weapons after Port Arthur and the world didn’t end, in fact Australia is a safer place. When did they last have a shooting at a school?

            • Corky

               /  March 28, 2018

              I was using the word in global context. When you want to change a main pillar at the heart of American legislature, that, in my opinion, is an act of treason.

              Noun
              1.
              the offense of acting to overthrow one’s government or to harm or kill its sovereign.
              2.
              a violation of allegiance to one’s sovereign or to one’s state.
              3.
              the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.

            • David

               /  March 28, 2018

              “Australia did away with automatic weapons after Port Arthur and the world didn’t end, in fact Australia is a safer place. When did they last have a shooting at a school?”

              Australia has never had a school shooting of the type seen in the US, either before or after their gun law changes.

              Just note too, ‘automatic’ weapons are still present in Australia, they are just highly restricted. Fun fact, since Australia ‘did away with automatic weapons’, the US has become a safer place.

              New Zealand has never had a school shooting either, despite ‘automatic’ weapons being commonplace here.

            • Patzcuaro

               /  March 28, 2018

              @ Corky if we follow your logic the people that proposed the 2nd Ammendment committed treason by proposing it.

            • Patzcuaro

               /  March 28, 2018

              @ David that is the point they are highly restricted .

            • Corky

               /  March 28, 2018

              ”Corky if we follow your logic the people that proposed the 2nd Amendment committed treason by proposing it.”

              No, because there wasn’t a constitution.

            • David

               /  March 29, 2018

              “@ David that is the point they are highly restricted ”

              There where no school shootings when they were not restricted. Your point is a major fail.

        • David

           /  March 28, 2018

          “Quite a difference in the current firearm compared to the muskets available when the 2nd Ammendment was enacted.”

          The 2nd Amendment was not written around muskets.

          • Patzcuaro

             /  March 28, 2018

            It was written for a fledgling country inhabited by people wanting to start a new life away from the oppression of the feudal systems they left behind in Europe. The aim of the 2nd Ammendment was to allow the citizenry to bear arms to protect themselves against oppressive governments.

            Now we have universal suffrage, a democracy that more or less represents the wishes of the people. Do the people need to bear arms to protect themselves against the government?

            It wasn’t written around muskets but it didnt envisioned automatic weapons either.

            • Gezza

               /  March 28, 2018

              Bizarre isn’t it. They have police and FBI and ATF and National Guard to protect themselves from gun owners and NRA members & officials say they need to protect themselves from police and FBI and ATF and National Guard.

            • Patzcuaro

               /  March 28, 2018

              Yes there is no logic to it?

            • David

               /  March 28, 2018

              Apply that thinking to the 1st amendment and see where you end up.

            • Corky

               /  March 28, 2018

              OK, I may reconsider if the 2nd Amendment was replaced with ”THE PURGE.” Damn, you could settle your accounts and feel damn good doing it.

            • Corky

               /  March 28, 2018

            • Gezza

               /  March 28, 2018

              You realise it’s a movie, eh? It’s not a documentary.

            • Patzcuaro

               /  March 28, 2018

              Does make you wonder.

            • Corky

               /  March 28, 2018

              ”You realise it’s a movie, eh? It’s not a documentary.”

              It’s a dream come true for those who can see the benefits a yearly purge could make. Alas, most think it’s just another B grade movie.
              That’s the irony…it is for those who lack lateral thinking.

            • Gezza

               /  March 28, 2018

              Some ‘lateral thinkers’ need to be careful they don’t slide laterally right off the edge.

    • David

       /  March 28, 2018

      “Retired Supreme Court judge John Paul Stevens calls for repeal of 2nd Ammendment.”

      Good on him for being honest about what the intent is, but good luck with that.

  7. Gerrit

     /  March 28, 2018

    Problem with the 2nd amendment is that very few US citizens read the full transcript.

    “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

    The right to bear arms I would suggest is allowable IF it is part of a well regulated militia. Now I don’t see many NRA members being part of a well regulated (I interpret that as trained, disciplined and under the control of an official command structure) militia.

    Worth a read

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

    • Gezza

       /  March 28, 2018

      Pretty much what the state troopers & National Guard are.

    • Corky

       /  March 28, 2018

      ”The right to bear arms I would suggest is allowable IF it is part of a well regulated militia.”

      That is one interpretation.