Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[Old Man]

 

I wanted to dig into a previous post questioning whether a transgender person could legally drive across the country.  Good news: you can!  For now.  If you're an adult.

 

Tennessee recently passed the first drag ban bill so trans people will want to avoid that state.  As far as driving cross country, we'll need to keep an eye on that Ohio-Kentucky bottleneck, as well as Missouri.  Iowa has a drag ban in the works.

 

(I have yet to dig into any actual drag ban bills.  What constitutes drag?  Eyeliner?  Kilts?  Long hair?  Raise your hand if you're "guilty" of any of these.)

 

Generally speaking non-adult trans people (i.e., children) are way worse off because they get the brunt of the bathroom bills and healthcare bans.

 

I found a decent anti-trans legislation tracker if anyone else is interested in doomscrolling this particular American trainwreck.

 

 

[death tribble]

8 hours ago, Iuz the Evil said:

Sorry, that’s California specific. Firearms Safety Certificate 

 

https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/forms/hscsg.pdf

Many thanks

[Cygnia]

I mean, you should avoid Ohio just on the general principle if you're a minority...

 

Stupidity elsewhere...

 

Connecticut Republican Asks for "Evidence" Those 17th-Century Ladies Were No Witches

[Tom]

10 hours ago, Iuz the Evil said:

…<snip>…

 

I also am unsure if that is an approved firearm from the California roster approved for sale. And you cannot see if it has a threaded barrel, which is a major crime.

Probably not…. (With caveats….)

 

That looks like a Glock mag, so if we assume it’s a Glock it’s only legal if it’s Gen 3 or earlier. However it’s got an RDS, so unless it was milled after-market it’s probably Gen 4 or 5 which makes it a no-go. Barrel threading would also have to be after-market for a Glock as well unless I’m seriously mistaken.

[unclevlad]

50 minutes ago, Cygnia said:

Connecticut Republican Asks for "Evidence" Those 17th-Century Ladies Were No Witches

 

OK, but I also gotta say that a bill about witchcraft trials from almost 400 years ago is a pretty serious waste of time in my book as well.  One can interpret Dubitsky's comment as just being snarky towards the whole bill.

[Iuz the Evil]

15 minutes ago, Tom said:

Probably not…. (With caveats….)

 

That looks like a Glock mag, so if we assume it’s a Glock it’s only legal if it’s Gen 3 or earlier. However it’s got an RDS, so unless it was milled after-market it’s probably Gen 4 or 5 which makes it a no-go. Barrel threading would also have to be after-market for a Glock as well unless I’m seriously mistaken.

Well sure, but maybe the dog has a lineal descendant living in Washington? And they did an inter family transfer through the DOJ, you could get a Glock 5th Gen that way. Or the dog could be law enforcement and so exempted…

 

😂😂😂

 

 Yeah it’s probably not California legal.

[Lectryk]

1 hour ago, Iuz the Evil said:

Well sure, but maybe the dog has a lineal descendant living in Washington? And they did an inter family transfer through the DOJ, you could get a Glock 5th Gen that way. Or the dog could be law enforcement and so exempted…

 

😂😂😂

 

 Yeah it’s probably not California legal.

 

How the dog got the pistol aside, if it lives in an appropriate county and the sheriff issued a permit open carry like that would be fine, wouldn't it?   

[Iuz the Evil]

1 hour ago, Lectryk said:

 

How the dog got the pistol aside, if it lives in an appropriate county and the sheriff issued a permit open carry like that would be fine, wouldn't it?   

A CCW doesn’t help you in California if you obtained possession of a weapon you do not own by non legal means. The physical location may matter though, if it’s in a private residence and the legal firearm owner is present (since you cannot loan someone a firearm in CA outside of VERY specific circumstances), it’s fine. 
 

And Tom’s point is very true, if that’s a recently developed firearm like a Glock Gen 4 or 5, you better have a paper trail. They cannot be sold by civilians in CA through an FFL, but you can buy them from a LEO or get them from a family member. The point being either must be registered as a transfer into your name.

 

 That dog is probably in big trouble. AG Bonta is really enthusiastic about pursuing firearm charges.

[Tom]

One of the oddities of the US. 
 

Whether it’s guns, reproductive rights, LGBTQ+, or any one of a host of other things - how the law can impact you varies from state to state. 
 

People literally do plan trips around how the laws of various states affect how they want to live their lives. 

[Lord Liaden]

Sometimes you guys almost sound like the European Union. Try telling that to a Trumpist.

[Iuz the Evil]

58 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said:

Sometimes you guys almost sound like the European Union. Try telling that to a Trumpist.

It’s even more complicated than we are describing actually. Every County has somewhat different laws and rules as well, at least in CA, so that’s 58 jurisdictions with 58 slightly different standards (San Francisco City and County is materially different than El Dorado County and the city of Placerville). 
 

I’m not sure that’s a bug though, more of a feature. Local government makes decisions based on the interests of their community. It does make it difficult to know what the rules are though.

[Cancer]

Difficulties ... and essentiality ... of recycling solar panels

[Lord Liaden]

1 hour ago, Iuz the Evil said:

It’s even more complicated than we are describing actually. Every County has somewhat different laws and rules as well, at least in CA, so that’s 58 jurisdictions with 58 slightly different standards (San Francisco City and County is materially different than El Dorado County and the city of Placerville). 
 

I’m not sure that’s a bug though, more of a feature. Local government makes decisions based on the interests of their community. It does make it difficult to know what the rules are though.

 

 

[Iuz the Evil]

6 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said:

 

 

And this is an excellent summary of why I like working in Local government. Putting power in the hands of the barbarians in local communities.

[TrickstaPriest]

1 hour ago, Iuz the Evil said:

I’m not sure that’s a bug though, more of a feature. Local government makes decisions based on the interests of their community. It does make it difficult to know what the rules are though.

 

Yeah, I do consider things like a 'minimum standard of rights' to kind of go beyond local government though.  ie- the primary benefits of having a 'Constitution' are to set a minimum standard (a public benefit for those living there) and a set of rules and agreements so we don't 'Sengoku Jidai' every time a leader dies off (a reason why the constitution/country doesn't get destroyed every decade or two, aka stability).  So public benefit + stability are a pretty decent motivation to follow a constitution, which sets a third benefit (ie a reason to fight or defend a country other than to protect another politician's career/riches)

 

So I guess what I'm suggesting is that while we can debate what some quantifications of a 'minimum standard' are, my interpretation is that those rights aren't just a set of rules but the entire reason people/public abide by them to begin with.  Interpreting it as a 'minimum standard' is kind of the point.

[TrickstaPriest]

Related:

https://legiscan.com/TX/bill/SB1443/2023

 

part I and on are the relevant bits.  Same sex attraction would be banned in school books entirely.

[Iuz the Evil]

27 minutes ago, TrickstaPriest said:

 

Yeah, I do consider things like a 'minimum standard of rights' to kind of go beyond local government though.  ie- the primary benefits of having a 'Constitution' are to set a minimum standard (a public benefit for those living there) and a set of rules and agreements so we don't 'Sengoku Jidai' every time a leader dies off (a reason why the constitution/country doesn't get destroyed every decade or two, aka stability).  So public benefit + stability are a pretty decent motivation to follow a constitution, which sets a third benefit (ie a reason to fight or defend a country other than to protect another politician's career/riches)

 

So I guess what I'm suggesting is that while we can debate what some quantifications of a 'minimum standard' are, my interpretation is that those rights aren't just a set of rules but the entire reason people/public abide by them to begin with.  Interpreting it as a 'minimum standard' is kind of the point.

Oh certainly agree. That’s why we have parallel State and Federal court systems, after all. And there are areas that are not up to local discretion. The Bill of Rights is cross jurisdictional, but interpretation may vary.

[TrickstaPriest]

33 minutes ago, Iuz the Evil said:

Oh certainly agree. That’s why we have parallel State and Federal court systems, after all. And there are areas that are not up to local discretion. The Bill of Rights is cross jurisdictional, but interpretation may vary.

 

Yar.  I guess I'm interpreting this past conversation on guns, versus lets say trans or gay rights.

 

Mostly cause SB1443 is on the brain

[wcw43921]

"This Is Handmaid's Tale Nonsense!*"

 

 

 

*Not the actual word.  I don't have profanity permissions here.

[unclevlad]

SB1443 goes beyond nightmarish to a place I don't have words to describe.  Yeah, "any type of romantic or sexual attraction between individuals of the same sex."  SUPER broad.  So even if A makes a pass at B...and B says no, not interested...that's banned if A and B are the same sex?  But that isn't the worst.  This is far more serious IMO, because of the ripple effect:

 

  Sec. 33.024.  PURCHASE OF LIBRARY MATERIALS FROM CERTAIN  VENDORS PROHIBITED.

(a) If a school district or open-enrollment charter school determines that a material in the catalog of a  school library of the district or school is in violation of Sec. 33.023, the district or school shall report to the agency as soon as practicable the material and the vendor from which the district  or school purchased the material.

(b)  The agency shall maintain on the agency's Internet website a list of vendors reported to the agency under Subsection (a). The agency shall update the list not later than the 30th day after the date the agency receives a report under Subsection (a).

(c)  A school district or open-enrollment charter school may not purchase materials from a vendor on the list described by Subsection (b).

 

So if a vendor has *1 book* that depicts *1 action* that is being cited, their ENTIRE PORTFOLIO is rejected????  

2 horribly gross implications:

1.  Who makes this determination?  Under what standards?  Is it reviewable?  Appealable?

2.  EVERYTHING sold by a publisher.  Not just the book(s) in question.  And say the vendor is Amazon...can't buy ANYTHING from Amazon?  Or Wal-Mart???  Remember, we don't have to be talking anything trashy.  It's "any type of romantic or sexual attraction."  So a book about diving in the Olympics can't mention Tom Daley safely?  It clearly seems that mentioning he's married to another man would be verboten.  The standard is SO LOOSE that yeah, even Wal-Mart might well run afoul of it.

  

[Iuz the Evil]

59 minutes ago, TrickstaPriest said:

 

Yar.  I guess I'm interpreting this past conversation on guns, versus lets say trans or gay rights.

 

Mostly cause SB1443 is on the brain

Different regions and groups of people prioritize different rights ensconced in the Constitution. With that being said, I personally am opposed to the restriction of individual Liberty, and am therefore opposed to SB1443 as an infringement on freedom of expression and apparent targeted persecution of a specific group. 

I am personally opposed to excessive restriction on the Second Amendment (deemed the right to self defense by the Supreme Court) as well. Individual interpretations may vary on all of these, including freedom of expression, and none of them are unlimited rights. But I tend to favor the expansion of rights rather than restricting them as a philosophy. I also like our right to assemble. To avoid self incrimination. There’s a lot of good rights in there, I prefer to have them protected rather than curtailed.

 

 Others will surely see that differently, just sharing my perspective such as it is.

[TrickstaPriest]

2 hours ago, Iuz the Evil said:

I am personally opposed to excessive restriction on the Second Amendment (deemed the right to self defense by the Supreme Court) as well. Individual interpretations may vary on all of these, including freedom of expression, and none of them are unlimited rights. But I tend to favor the expansion of rights rather than restricting them as a philosophy. I also like our right to assemble. To avoid self incrimination. There’s a lot of good rights in there, I prefer to have them protected rather than curtailed.

 

Unfortunately for 2A rights, I do have to agree that the greater presence of guns in our culture and society has a marked effect on it - that is to say, the greater amount of deaths by guns.

 

It's just not my priority right now one way or another. 😕

[unclevlad]

Fairly long analytical story in NYT about another disaster for Russia in Ukraine...3 weeks, and Ukraine's claimed to have destroyed 130 tanks.  The problems are numerous, but a lot of it is outright stupidity.

 

Quote

Anti-tank teams hiding in tree lines along the fields, and armed with American infrared-guided Javelins and Ukrainian laser-guided Stugna-P missiles, powered up their weapons. Farther away, artillery batteries were ready. The dirt road had been left free of mines, while the fields all about were seeded with them, so as to entice the Russians to advance while preventing tanks from turning around once the trap was sprung.

The column of tanks becomes most vulnerable, Lieutenant Bayak said, after the shooting starts and drivers panic and try to turn around — by driving onto the mine-laden shoulder of the road. Blown-up vehicles then act as impediments, slowing or stalling the column. At that point, Ukrainian artillery opens fire, blowing up more armor and killing soldiers who clamber out of disabled machines. A scene of chaos and explosions ensues, the lieutenant said.

 

When you're being channeled, ambush is *imminent.*  The point about panic is, in part, because the tank personnel are conscripts.  I can't call them troops, as that would imply some level of training that, apparently, they don't have now.  But this scene and its stages...canalize, confuse, disrupt and destabilize, and obliterate...good gosh, if this was military sci fi, I'd be shaking my head if this worked *repeatedly*....and it is.  "Come on, Mr. Writer, no one is THAT dumb!"

Surprise.  Because that's what's going on still.  

 

In some cases there's also this:

 

Quote

In this instance, they stopped about three miles short of the ambush site, just out of range of return fire, and shot in coordination with a drone pilot who called in coordinates on a radio for targets they could not see directly.

The Russian column stalled on mines and, Private Hrebenok said, The Wanderer opened fire. The Russian tank crews had little chance once they were in the kill zone, he said.

 

The private was the tank commander...yeah, Ukraine's lost lots of people too...and The Wanderer is his tank.  

 

Note that the effectiveness of tactics like this, generally suggests the Russians tend to use the same approach routes.  It also suggests they don't consider potential countermeasures...like drones and mines, especially in concert.

 

Tell ya...it would be seriously cool to watch real military types wargame this situation.  SOME of this feels like, tanks without support are horribly vulnerable...or, seriously expensive, if they're protected enough so, say, the mines aren't a major problem.  (Debatable.  A mine doesn't have to be strong enough to penetrate armor;  blowing up a tread will immobilize the tank.)  Some of this might be the issues based on the age and condition of the Russian military inventory, too, and wouldn't necessarily apply in a competently managed attack force.

[Iuz the Evil]

56 minutes ago, TrickstaPriest said:

 

Unfortunately for 2A rights, I do have to agree that the greater presence of guns in our culture and society has a marked effect on it - that is to say, the greater amount of deaths by guns.

 

It's just not my priority right now one way or another. 😕

I can understand the perspective. There’s a mechanism to change that Amendment with another one if enough folks agree, after all. It could get there, at some point.

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution

 

 It’s intentionally difficult to remove rights, I’m pretty comfortable with that as it can cut in another direction around those other ensconced rights I was talking about before.

 

 For now, it’s on the same list that I support until it isn’t.

[Ranxerox]

Both Both Republicans And Democrats Severely Overestimate How Extreme The Other Side Is

 

The ironic thing about this is that all the factors that one would expect to lead to more accurate assessments only make things worse.