America - The Official Thread
- Thread starter ///M-Spec
- 39,788 comments
- 1,796,818 views
- 3,057
- Massachusetts
- GBO-Possum
Political rallies and NRA conferences.
(Oh wait, guns are banned, and attendees scanned, at these events. I guess they don’t count)
- 4,011
- Null Island
- 19,700
- Alabamamania
Mmmm...not the craziest take, but I think most people aren't terribly thrilled when a sporting venue requires the masses to pay for it (and later be charged admission for entering it).
Probably more of a bond issue and the Rays organization would have to pay it back, but Pasco County isn't going to count on tourism to make up the numbers like Hillsboro and Pinellas County would. Nobody's taking a vacation and staying in Pasco County unless they're visiting relatives in New Port Richey, and all the new sub-developers in Wesley Chapel are probably paying a pittance in impact fees.
I know, it pains me to defend Squeaky on this. (I can call him that, he has an obnoxious nasal voice and so do I.)
Last edited:
- 19,700
- Alabamamania
- 30,011
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
Given the [admittedly speculative] reporting from OutKick and [admittedly ambiguous] apparent confirmation from DeSantis' top culture warrior, as well as his having demonstrated a propensity for punitive action against protected expression, does that not seem at all like ******** to provide the flaming ****bag with plausible deniability?
- 3,057
- Massachusetts
- GBO-Possum
- 3,926
- St.Pete, FL
- NotThePrez
- NotThePrez
- 20,997
- NJ/USA
- Blitzbay
- Blitzbay
This is like an exam long answer requiring one to show their work. The final answer is correct but the method the final answer was reached is extremely wrong.Just in case anyone still wasn't sure if DeSantis is an enemy of the Constitution.
- 30,011
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
Certainly an enemy of its equal application across demographics. I'd wager he appreciates protections therein, but it's the constraints for which he harbors contempt, particularly as it constrains him as a state actor and his efforts to fight the right's culture war.Just in case anyone still wasn't sure if DeSantis is an enemy of the Constitution.
Edit: Ah. Suspending ambiguity and plausible deniability. Yes, good.
The downside is he's likely frothing for a constitutional challenge because it presents an opportunity to demonstrate his commitment to the wants and wills of his absolute ****ing garbage base. ****ing populist performativity.
Last edited:
UKMikey
Premium
- 18,421
- Grea'er Laandan
- UKMikeyA
- UKMikeyA
Meanwhile, last week in Texas:
www.nbcnews.com
Abbott calls Texas school shooting a mental health issue but cut state spending for it
While such programs require more funding, they wouldn't eliminate the need for gun control, experts said.
www.nbcnews.com
Last edited:
Joey D
Premium
- 47,523
- Lakes of the North, MI
- GTP_Joey
- GTP Joey
It's not really all that surprising. We have a pretty good idea as to why some mass shootings occur, but we don't want to fix the root cause of it. Democrats want to blame the guns while Republicans want to pretend as if nothing happened. Just imagine if both parties had an actual debate on how to solve the mental health crisis in America instead of politically half-assing it.Meanwhile, last week in Texas:
Abbott calls Texas school shooting a mental health issue but cut state spending for it
While such programs require more funding, they wouldn't eliminate the need for gun control, experts said.
Another issue is with the hospital shooting in Tulsa. A guy had back surgery and complained of pain. He claimed that the doctor did nothing for him. First off, you have to be monumentally stupid to think you're not going to be in pain after they flay you open. Secondly, while I don't know the full details, I can almost guess it was over opioids and the doctor's refusal to prescribe them.
See in America, we don't want to fix the opioid crisis. We have either gone full stupid regarding it by making them impossible to prescribe, or just looking the other way and allowing docs to turn their patients into dope feinds. I've worked in a number of clinics where pain medication is passed out like candy. My favorite was the person who was prescribed 300 Norcos for 30 days. That's 10 a day and Norco contains hydrocodone.
Politicians just love to point out issues and then do everything but actually fix them.
Joey D
Premium
- 47,523
- Lakes of the North, MI
- GTP_Joey
- GTP Joey
On some level, I think they do, especially since Biden has called for the Assualt Weapons Ban to be reinstated. The ban was stupid when it was enacted the first time and it would be stupid if they enacted it again this time.
I mean under the ban, this would be acceptable:
And this would be illegal:
The top gun is a Ruger Mini-14 and the bottom is a Ruger AR-556. Both use .223 rounds, are semi-automatic, use a magazine, and are equally as dangerous. The Mini-14 was also specifically called out in the initial assault weapons ban and was exempt. The only difference between the two guns is that the AR-556 has a high-capacity magazine and a bunch of tacti-cool crap stuck on it. Fundamentally, they really aren't different guns and the smaller magazine on the Mini-14 could be rectified by simply purchasing a higher capacity one.
Really, when you get down to it, the Democrats are categorizing how a gun looks instead of its functionality, which makes me believe it is about the guns. If they want real legislation that restricts types of firearms, there needs to be a clear-cut definition of what constitutes an assault rifle and it can't be based on cosmetics.
The other things Biden is proposing I'm OK with for the most part. Raising the age to 21 is neither here nor there for me, but stronger background checks, red flag laws, safe storage laws, and addressing the woefully bad mental healthcare in the country are all positive things that should be done. I don't agree with removing civil protections from firearm makers though, at least not without some clear-cut guidelines on what is and is not considered grounds for a lawsuit. I still believe blanketly removing the exemption would have hungry lawyers clawing to sue any gun maker any time a firearm is used in any crime.
I'd also support closing the "gun show loop-hole", a licensing system, a federal database, and holding gun owners liable for failing to properly secure their weapons.
And while Biden is less about blanketly banning guns outright, there are a number of politicians on the left that want extreme levels of gun control putting them in the same nutjob camp as the "arm everyone" crowd on the right.
I agree we need gun reform in the US, however, it can't be done as a knee-jerk reaction. It needs to be something that's intelligently talked about, debated, and have legal challenges brought against it. However, given the quality of politicians in Washington, this is wishful thinking.
- 3,057
- Massachusetts
- GBO-Possum
Well, politically speaking, "cosmetics" are important. Gun safety legislation has little chance of enactment except in small increments.
Placing focused restrictions on semi-automatic weapons which are marketed as being the same as military weapons, and styled to look like military weapons will be a lot easier than on weapons styled to look as though they are intended for pheasant shooting. Even if they have similarities in practical function. And is, of course, a lot easier than more broad gun safety legislation such as has been successfully enacted in New Zealand and Australia, and has resulted in dramatic improvements in safety for their people.
In the podcast below, listen for the parallels made to the "swiss cheese" method of protecting against Covid and California's significantly successful method of improving safety for its people against gun injuries and deaths.
Joey D
Premium
- 47,523
- Lakes of the North, MI
- GTP_Joey
- GTP Joey
By solely going after cosmetic features on a gun instead of actual functionality, it's nothing more than the government enacting the illusion of doing something productive. Someone can kill just as quickly and accurately with the Mini-14 as they can with an AR-15. Banning a gun based on how it looks would be akin to banning certain cars because they look like a racecar. For example, if someone sticks a rear spoiler, bigger wheels, a loud exhaust, and some decals on a Honda Civic, it's still a Honda Civic, not a race car. By sticking tacti-cool crap on a gun, it's still effectively the same gun capable of the same damage.
The only cosmetic thing that might make a small difference is the pistol-style grip on the AR-15. However, as someone who's shot both an AR and a semi-auto hunting rifle, I doubt in the hands of a capable shooter it would really make that much of a difference. You still need to use both hands, butt the stock against your shoulder, and go through the same motions. Larger magazines could be another thing, but at what point do you draw the line? You can still cause a mass shooting with a 5+1 capacity as you can with a 20+1 capacity. Plus it takes seconds to swap a magazine, so it's not like a shoot can't just carry multiple mags with them.
Actual legislation that would be more targeted and likely have better results would be to define a rifle in such a way that it encompasses all rifles (barrel size, barrel length, receiver style, magazine capacity, etc.), then say all rifles sold after a certain date must be bolt-action, with at least a 16" barrel, and with no more than a 10+1 capacity or something like that. Targeting military-style weapons though just bans certain guns, while allowing others that function in exactly the same way.
As for Australia and New Zealand, I don't know their laws, but I don't believe they have something in their Constitution that allows their citizens the right to bear arms. In the US we do and that makes certain legislation difficult to enact because in doing so, it could be in violation of the Constitution and thus illegal without an amendment.
