Conservatism

[TexRex]

Just skimming the post, absolutely no one has the right in the USA to tell Target they can't sell LGBTQ merchandise. I've stated my thoughts on LGBTQ but will still shop there and stand firm for their right to free speech. Heck I've been to gay clubs because they had a video game I liked it decent pool tables. I'm straight as the Kimmel and the people in there always respected that. There are signs up asking for respect of their lifestyle, so no, I'm not going to go in there and be disrespectful. I'm going to treat them like people.
Guns are the same way. Conservatives here want to keep that right for people they approve of. No...that right is absolute in this country. I read up on the Dunblane and Port Arthur massacres (I think the peeps need hooked up to a Tesla battery pack and gassed with Raptor exhaust but that's just IMO). If I go to those countries, I follow their laws. Here, if you're not a citizen but you're physically present, you have quite a few inalienable rights, bearing arms is one of them.
Maybe one day I'll visit Hobart again. I always tell people I've "been to Hobart" and they're like, "cool, it's in southwest Oklahoma just over in yonder." No, I've never been to that Hobart. I've been to the big city in Tasmania, halfway around the world.
I digress. I probably said it but I don't belong to any political party.
See ya'll tomorrow hopefully in Race C in the ridiculously colored 787b with Kermit and Miss Piggy on it.

 

[shadow0460]

Well... no right is absolute in this country. Kids don't have a right to bear arms, for example. Nor convicted felons or mentally unstable/insane. And I know you personally understand that this right does not include the right to bear arms on any and every property that exists, but it's worth pointing that out too for the people who have a tendency to forget this.

The US Constitution is very clear on a number of things, including gun rights. I don't fully agree with it either, but it's in plain English.
I'm with you on not having certain people owning or carrying guns, but it's not our decision to make.
One day I stood there in open court, pointed to a violent felon at the defendant's table, and told the judge and jury pool just that. Never mind if I or the judge or jury pool think he should have had a gun on him or not, he still has that right. Had I been retained on the jury it would have hung or ended in a mistrial.

 

[TexRex]

The US Constitution is very clear on a number of things, including gun rights. I don't fully agree with it either, but it's in plain English.
I'm with you on not having certain people owning or carrying guns, but it's not our decision to make.
One day I stood there in open court, pointed to a violent felon at the defendant's table, and told the judge and jury pool just that. Never mind if I or the judge or jury pool think he should have had a gun on him or not, he still has that right. Had I been retained on the jury it would have hung or ended in a mistrial.

Of all the things that never happened, this never happened the most.

 

[Joey D]

The US Constitution is very clear on a number of things, including gun rights. I don't fully agree with it either, but it's in plain English.
I'm with you on not having certain people owning or carrying guns, but it's not our decision to make.
One day I stood there in open court, pointed to a violent felon at the defendant's table, and told the judge and jury pool just that. Never mind if I or the judge or jury pool think he should have had a gun on him or not, he still has that right. Had I been retained on the jury it would have hung or ended in a mistrial.

So you were held in contempt I take it? You can't just stand up and say whatever you want in open court.

 

[Danoff]

The US Constitution is very clear on a number of things, including gun rights. I don't fully agree with it either, but it's in plain English.
I'm with you on not having certain people owning or carrying guns, but it's not our decision to make.

I think you misunderstood me. Children, convicted felons, and mentally unstable people do not have a right to bear arms in the united states today under current law. This is law that has been established as constitutional.

Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(d), it is unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person “has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution.”

Federal law establishes a baseline national standard regarding individuals’ eligibility to acquire and possess firearms. Under federal law, people are generally prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms if they have been convicted of a felony or some domestic violence misdemeanors, or if they are subject to certain court orders related to domestic violence or a serious mental condition.

(b) It shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to sell or deliver--

(1) any firearm or ammunition to any individual who the licensee knows or has reasonable cause to believe is less than eighteen years of age, and, if the firearm, or ammunition is other than a shotgun or rifle, or ammunition for a shotgun or rifle, to any individual who the licensee knows or has reasonable cause to believe is less than twenty-one years of age;

It is found in Colorado Section 18-12-108.5 and it prohibits any person younger than eighteen years of age from knowingly possessing a handgun. Section 18-12-108.5(1)(a).

https://leg.wa.gov/Senate/Committees/LAW/Documents/SummaryOfStateChildAccessPreventionLaws.pdf

Edit:

For anyone thinking really hard about this subject:

If you want to pick on my phrase "do not have a right to bear arms" by saying something about carve-outs for certain self-defense scenarios or something like that, I'd point out that the same phrase "the right to bear arms" is considered incompatible with such restrictions for other adults. So we have on the one had a right to bear arms encompassing something like owning a handgun, and then on other other hand saying that a child can be banned from possessing a handgun. If we then say that the child has a right to bear arms because the child might be able to use a long gun with a note from their parents at a shooting range, we're not using the phrase "right to bear arms" consistently. This contradiction means you can't have that both ways. If the right to bear arms encompasses owning a handgun (and the supreme court says it does, see Heller), then children do not have a right to bear arms because they can legitimately be denied, even prosecuted for, possession of a handgun.

 

[TexRex]

DeSantis announces inquiry into Bud Light's parent company over partnership with trans influencer

The GOP governor of Florida and 2024 presidential contender said the state is considering legal action against AB InBev.

www.nbcnews.com

Ari Cohn addressed this very tactic in the piece that I transcribed up-thread:

"They aren’t even trying to hide their perverse inversion of the First Amendment, turning the company’s right to decide what expressive products to sell into a threat of liability for deciding to sell the expressive products they disfavor.

Perhaps the AGs think that framing it as a “shareholder” concern makes the First Amendment magically go away. They are wrong."

The aim of conservatism is to punish, to hurt, to destroy that which is disfavored.

 

[Danoff]

DeSantis announces inquiry into Bud Light's parent company over partnership with trans influencer

The GOP governor of Florida and 2024 presidential contender said the state is considering legal action against AB InBev.

www.nbcnews.com

Ari Cohn addressed this very tactic in the piece that I transcribed up-thread:

"They aren’t even trying to hide their perverse inversion of the First Amendment, turning the company’s right to decide what expressive products to sell into a threat of liability for deciding to sell the expressive products they disfavor.

Perhaps the AGs think that framing it as a “shareholder” concern makes the First Amendment magically go away. They are wrong."

The aim of conservatism is to punish, to hurt, to destroy that which is disfavored.

DeSantis vs. The First Amendment is becoming a long and storied battle.

 

[shadow0460]

I think you misunderstood me. Children, convicted felons, and mentally unstable people do not have a right to bear arms in the united states today under current law. This is law that has been established as constitutional.

https://leg.wa.gov/Senate/Committees/LAW/Documents/SummaryOfStateChildAccessPreventionLaws.pdf

Edit:

For anyone thinking really hard about this subject:

If you want to pick on my phrase "do not have a right to bear arms" by saying something about carve-outs for certain self-defense scenarios or something like that, I'd point out that the same phrase "the right to bear arms" is considered incompatible with such restrictions for other adults. So we have on the one had a right to bear arms encompassing something like owning a handgun, and then on other other hand saying that a child can be banned from possessing a handgun. If we then say that the child has a right to bear arms because the child might be able to use a long gun with a note from their parents at a shooting range, we're not using the phrase "right to bear arms" consistently. This contradiction means you can't have that both ways. If the right to bear arms encompasses owning a handgun (and the supreme court says it does, see Heller), then children do not have a right to bear arms because they can legitimately be denied, even prosecuted for, possession of a handgun.

The misunderstanding is twofold: one, the idea that we can hack up and change the US Constitution without new Amendments to it, and two, that in order to defend that Constitution, one has to agree with it 100%, which I don't.

I've friends whose kids I would trust with weapons under supervision. I have friends who are felons for whatever reason I'd trust well enough to take them to a gun range (they wouldn't rat me out, either). If it became necessary I hope they'd be willing and able to use a firearm.
I know people with no reason to not own or carry a gun that I wouldn't let within ten feet of one for any reason.
I see the reason why some gun laws are passed, invalid as they are. Other gun laws are just outright stupid. Pistol braces...come again?? Banning the Hi Point 995...do these politicians even know what that is?? It's a 9mm rifle that holds ten rounds in a standard magazine compared to a 15 round standard capacity on the M9 pistol and a 30 round standard capacity on AR-15 platform rifles.
Those laws, though, are based strictly on feel good stuff, that's it. Maybe someone feels better if their representative votes in favor of a new gun law after a mass shooting. In reality, it boils down to being able to physically put a stop to violence as needed. Maybe that's an armed teacher, or maybe that's the dude who carried his pistol into the Post Office and used it to stop someone robbing the clerk. Maybe it's applying the death penalty or worse, life in prison, to those who kill others.
I don't have all the answers, but I have enough for myself and my family: hours upon hours of all types of self defense training and various tools and weapons at hand to protect myself should I wind up in a tight spot.

BTW, tone doesn't come through well on the internet. It's not life and death that we agree, just idle chat really.

 

[Danoff]

The misunderstanding is twofold: one, the idea that we can hack up and change the US Constitution without new Amendments to it, and two, that in order to defend that Constitution, one has to agree with it 100%, which I don't.

Uh... no. There's no confusion about this.

None of what I said is anyone "hacking up" or changing the constitution, and none of that has anything to do with anyone agreeing or disagreeing with the constitution. You seem to have missed what I was saying entirely.

I've friends whose kids I would trust with weapons under supervision. I have friends who are felons for whatever reason I'd trust well enough to take them to a gun range (they wouldn't rat me out, either). If it became necessary I hope they'd be willing and able to use a firearm.
I know people with no reason to not own or carry a gun that I wouldn't let within ten feet of one for any reason.
I see the reason why some gun laws are passed, invalid as they are. Other gun laws are just outright stupid. Pistol braces...come again?? Banning the Hi Point 995...do these politicians even know what that is?? It's a 9mm rifle that holds ten rounds in a standard magazine compared to a 15 round standard capacity on the M9 pistol and a 30 round standard capacity on AR-15 platform rifles.
Those laws, though, are based strictly on feel good stuff, that's it. Maybe someone feels better if their representative votes in favor of a new gun law after a mass shooting. In reality, it boils down to being able to physically put a stop to violence as needed. Maybe that's an armed teacher, or maybe that's the dude who carried his pistol into the Post Office and used it to stop someone robbing the clerk. Maybe it's applying the death penalty or worse, life in prison, to those who kill others.
I don't have all the answers, but I have enough for myself and my family: hours upon hours of all types of self defense training and various tools and weapons at hand to protect myself should I wind up in a tight spot.

BTW, tone doesn't come through well on the internet. It's not life and death that we agree, just idle chat really.

I can see that you're ranting, and it's pretty far from what we were talking about. I don't know what basis you're using to declare laws "invalid" or not, but it's not really helpful for you to just state it and move on. If you want anyone to take that argument seriously, you need to mount an actual case for why you think a law is invalid. Identifying which law you're making this claim about would be a start. If you'd like to make a case for why a 2 year old has a right to bear arms, you should go ahead and make that case. This bit above didn't help do so.

 

[shadow0460]

Nah, just chattin' really, like I would over lunch. 🙂
Have a good evening!

 

[TexRex]

I can see that you're ranting, and it's pretty far from what we were talking about. I don't know what basis you're using to declare laws "invalid" or not, but it's not really helpful for you to just state it and move on. If you want anyone to take that argument seriously, you need to mount an actual case for why you think a law is invalid. Identifying which law you're making this claim about would be a start. If you'd like to make a case for why a 2 year old has a right to bear arms, you should go ahead and make that case. This bit above didn't help do so.

Drive-by inanity.

 

[Danoff]

Nah, just chattin' really, like I would over lunch. 🙂

That's fine. And if you're just looking for a lunchmate to agree with you that's not generally what you'll find here. I don't mind the casual conversation, but it should be a conversation. If you want to analogize it to a lunchtime conversation, I feel like I sat down to lunch and said something and the person across from me barely heard it, started talking about other stuff, and just got up and left.

You said the 2nd amendment was absolute in the US. It's not. I gave concrete legally-sound examples showing that it's not. This is the part where you say "Huh, that's a good point. Perhaps I was too black-and-white in my statement about the 2nd amendment". Children and felons not having a right to own or even possess a gun is not "ripping up the constitution" or even "feel-good" or whatever else. It's quite compatible. If that confuses you, we can chat about that.

 

[TexRex]

Conservatives: "Law and order."

Also conservatives: "Not like that!"

 

[Northstar]

They've literally ran out of things to complain about.



I regularly go to dirt track racing which is very much a conservative crowd, everyone is silent during the anthem...

 

[UKMikey]

Um... can you indict a member of the public???

 

[McLaren]

Lmao, they already sat Hillary down and grilled her for 7-8 hours once. And she’s been largely out of the eye for a while now. I don’t think even she’s worried.

This is just Republican fantasy porn.

 

[Danoff]

Um... can you indict a member of the public???

This is just Republican fantasy porn.

Attempting to justify political show trials as some kind of retaliation against a perceived injustice that you don't even attempt to establish is not exactly "normal".

It's stuff like this, this kind of lazy authoritarian reasoning that people are willing to gobble up, that makes me realize how easily people are manipulated. If you'd asked me when I was younger whether I would someday get to see events that made me realize that nazis and nazi supporters were just totally regular people... I had no idea an experience like this was coming.

I thought something special and crazy had to happen to brainwash a huge swath of a nation into authoritarian insanity. Turns out the potential just always simmers.

 

[Joey D]

Didn't Ari Fleischer leak information about a CIA office in the early 2000s and was never prosecuted for it?

 

[UKMikey]

Attempting to justify political show trials as some kind of retaliation against a perceived injustice that you don't even attempt to establish is not exactly "normal".

It's not normal but it is "normal".

I realise that in my previous post I thought Fleischer was saying "impeach Hunter Biden". Of course you can indict a non-political civilian but the motivation behind this sounds less about truth, justice and the American way and more about retribution upon those who would dare to hold the tinpot tangerine tyrant accountable for attempting to subvert democracy.

This "normal" reasoning would be akin to "They started a political witch hunt so let's show them how much better we are than them by starting a political witch hunt in return".

 

[TexRex]

AP Psychology effectively banned in Florida because of gender, sexuality chapter

The College Board said censoring those topics would mean the class couldn't be called Advanced Placement or used to earn college credit.

www.tallahassee.com

Mental illness.

 

[TexRex]

Weird.

[sad @VBR noises]

 

[TexRex]

Conservative is when you cry like a bitch.

 

[Danoff]

Conservative is when you cry like a bitch.

Paraphernalia. OMG

 

[TexRex]

Paraphernalia. OMG

Best Buy wants to cut off kids' breasts and penises!

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!

 

[TexRex]

"Pro-life."

A prison guard says she was forced to stay at her post during labor pains. Texas is fighting compensation for her stillbirth.

The seven-months-pregnant officer reported contraction-like pains at work, but said she wasn’t allowed to leave for hours. The anti-abortion state is fighting her lawsuit, in part by saying her fetus didn’t clearly have rights.

www.texastribune.org

 

[UKMikey]

They really know how to put the "criminal" into TDCJ. This sounds more about closing ranks than any form of principled stand on Texas's part. It goes without saying but I'm gonna say it anyway that my sympathies are with that poor prison guard and her husband in the face of an uncaring and inhuman bureaucracy.

 

[Northstar]

Conservative is when you cry like a bitch.

Watch it just be a drawing of a rainbow one of the employee's kids drew and they just pinned it to their cell/cubicle.

 

[UKMikey]

The Streisand effect strikes again, this time in an appropriately musical context as drag artist(e) Flamy Grant tops iTunes's Christian music chart after Trump ally Sean Feucht condemned Grant as a harbinger of the "last days". Maybe you-know-Who does work in mysterious ways after all?

Meet the drag queen who hit No 1 on the Christian music charts – with help from a Trump ally

When an evangelical provocateur attacked Flamy Grant, he accidentally inspired a wave of support for the musician

theguardian.com

 

[TexRex]

By trying to 'move on,' DeSantis admits his fight with Disney was a political stunt all along

It was never a principled fight against special privileges granted to a private company.

reason.com

The fact that Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is now trying to back away from his fight with the Walt Disney Company should confirm at least one thing about the whole ugly mess.

It was never a principled fight against special privileges granted to a private company. It was a political stunt meant to raise DeSantis' profile on the national stage.

That mission having been accomplished—and with the prospects of a legal battle against Disney looming—DeSantis told CNBC on Monday that he has "moved on" from the issue. He also encouraged Disney to "drop the lawsuit" that it filed in April against his administration.

In that lawsuit, Disney claimed that DeSantis led a "targeted campaign of government retaliation" after the company's then-CEO, Bob Chapek, had spoken out against DeSantis' decision to sign a bill limiting the discussion of gender and sexuality in grade school classrooms. (The ban was later expanded to include nearly all public school classrooms in the state.) DeSantis responded to that criticism by launching a crusade against Disney's special self-governing district, the Reedy Creek Improvement District, culminating in the passage of a state law that gave the governor the authority to appoint a new board to run the zone.

DeSantis and his allies have framed that maneuver as a strike against corporate special interests, but Disney's lawsuit makes a compelling case that the governor specifically targeted Disney to punish the company for Chapek's comments. The complaint draws from numerous public statements and from remarks made within DeSantis' recently published book to argue that DeSantis sought to punish Disney for constitutionally protected speech.

It makes a lot of sense for DeSantis to try to walk away from this fight, in no small part because getting his butt kicked in federal court over a fairly fundamental constitutional issue wouldn't be a good look for a guy who is hoping to become president. Even if he doesn't lose, the lawsuit will be an ongoing source of bad news for DeSantis and will give reporters the opportunity to ask questions he'd rather not have to deal with—like the newly uncovered ethical issues surrounding one of the people DeSantis appointed to the Reedy Creek board. Ending the fight would also save taxpayers from having to foot the legal bills for DeSantis' defense, which is nice.

Still, getting out of this mess is probably not as simple as asking Disney to drop the lawsuit and move on. Does DeSantis intend to ask the state Legislature to undo the governor's control over the Reedy Creek board? If not, then why should Disney back down?

Short of that, it would be useful for reporters to ask DeSantis whether he would take similar actions against other businesses whose executives criticize his policies. Disney obviously has the power to fight back, but others might not be able to do so. Is DeSantis willing to admit he was wrong to retaliate against Disney? The answer would be instructive for voters weighing his candidacy for higher office.

Ultimately, though, DeSantis' attempt to "move on" from the fight with Disney reveals how unserious the whole thing was. If this were a principled stand against corporatism, as DeSantis has claimed, it would be worth seeing the fight through to the finish. That was never the case, however, and it looks like DeSantis simply wants to end this political stunt before it blows up in his face.

 

[Danoff]

By trying to 'move on,' DeSantis admits his fight with Disney was a political stunt all along

It was never a principled fight against special privileges granted to a private company.

reason.com

Disney should rake him over the coals. They have an opportunity to go scorched earth and send a message to future authoritarians who would use Disney as a punching bag in the same way. The DeSantis fight has undoubtedly caused Disney to lose brand support among a big sector of the market. He should learn the hard way that it's not legal to do.