Miscellaneous news items that don't warrant their own thread

[SeattleGriz]

The suspect in the latest mass shooting to make the news (https://ktla.com/news/local-news/ap-pol ... area-city/) looks to me like he is of Tibetan ancestry. It'll be interesting if that turns out to be the case given he was apparently shooting people celebrating the Chinese New Year.

Rut roh..

Looks exactly like a Trump supporter.

[BDKJMU]

Rut roh..

Looks exactly like a Trump supporter.

Huu Can Tran

[JohnStOnge]

The suspect in the latest mass shooting to make the news (https://ktla.com/news/local-news/ap-pol ... area-city/) looks to me like he is of Tibetan ancestry. It'll be interesting if that turns out to be the case given he was apparently shooting people celebrating the Chinese New Year.

Never let the opportunity to exploit a tragedy go to waste. Calls from the left to ban ‘assault rifles’ in 4, 3, 2, 1..

I think that the Second Amendment protects the right to own assault weapons. I also think it protects the right to own nuclear weapons.

There are two questions involved. One is what is currently Constitutional and what is not. Another is whether the Constitution needs to be amended.

The 2nd Amendment "Keep and Bear Arms" thing is clearly obsolete. It was ratified during a very different time. There is no reason, none, to have a situation in which weapons such as what people generally call the "AR-15" type rifle should be allowed in the hands of people who are not military and not law enforcement. The idea that non military and non law enforcement people having such weapons deters the national government from tyranny is ridiculous. People having such weapons would not make them any match, at all, to the US military.

The Constitution should be amended to allow for the prohibition of such arms in the hands of people other than those in the military and in law enforcement. It won't be. But it should be.

[BDKJMU]

Never let the opportunity to exploit a tragedy go to waste. Calls from the left to ban ‘assault rifles’ in 4, 3, 2, 1..

I think that the Second Amendment protects the right to own assault weapons. I also think it protects the right to own nuclear weapons.

There are two questions involved. One is what is currently Constitutional and what is not. Another is whether the Constitution needs to be amended.

The 2nd Amendment "Keep and Bear Arms" thing is clearly obsolete. It was ratified during a very different time. There is no reason, none, to have a situation in which weapons such as what people generally call the "AR-15" type rifle should be allowed in the hands of people who are not military and not law enforcement. The idea that non military and non law enforcement people having such weapons deters the national government from tyranny is ridiculous. People having such weapons would not make them any match, at all, to the US military.

The Constitution should be amended to allow for the prohibition of such arms in the hands of people other than those in the military and in law enforcement. It won't be. But it should be.

It isn’t ridiculous when those people out number the military and law enforcement between 10 and 100 to 1, and with a large percentage of military and law enforcement being on the side of the freedom loving armed citizenry. Ex- in most blue states the majority of counties are still rural and red. And look at all the blue state sheriffs that refuse ti enforce anti 2A gun laws. No Brandon, you don’t need an F15.

TO DISARM THE PEOPLE…WAS THE BEST & MOST EFFECTUAL WAY TO ENSLAVE THEM.
George Mason

[kalm]

I think that the Second Amendment protects the right to own assault weapons. I also think it protects the right to own nuclear weapons.

There are two questions involved. One is what is currently Constitutional and what is not. Another is whether the Constitution needs to be amended.

The 2nd Amendment "Keep and Bear Arms" thing is clearly obsolete. It was ratified during a very different time. There is no reason, none, to have a situation in which weapons such as what people generally call the "AR-15" type rifle should be allowed in the hands of people who are not military and not law enforcement. The idea that non military and non law enforcement people having such weapons deters the national government from tyranny is ridiculous. People having such weapons would not make them any match, at all, to the US military.

The Constitution should be amended to allow for the prohibition of such arms in the hands of people other than those in the military and in law enforcement. It won't be. But it should be.

It isn’t ridiculous when those people out number the military and law enforcement between 10 and 100 to 1, and with a large percentage of military and law enforcement being on the side of the freedom loving armed citizenry. Ex- in most blue states the majority of counties are still rural and red. And look at all the blue state sheriffs that refuse ti enforce anti 2A gun laws. No Brandon, you don’t need an F15.

TO DISARM THE PEOPLE…WAS THE BEST & MOST EFFECTUAL WAY TO ENSLAVE THEM.
George Mason

So a rural sheriff’s job is to interpret the constitution?

[BDKJMU]

It isn’t ridiculous when those people out number the military and law enforcement between 10 and 100 to 1, and with a large percentage of military and law enforcement being on the side of the freedom loving armed citizenry. Ex- in most blue states the majority of counties are still rural and red. And look at all the blue state sheriffs that refuse ti enforce anti 2A gun laws. No Brandon, you don’t need an F15.

TO DISARM THE PEOPLE…WAS THE BEST & MOST EFFECTUAL WAY TO ENSLAVE THEM.
George Mason

So a rural sheriff’s job is to interpret the constitution?

As much as any state politician.

[kalm]

So a rural sheriff’s job is to interpret the constitution?

As much as any state politician.

A state politician’s job is to interpret the constitution?

What if the sheriff (also a politician) and the state politician disagree?

[UNI88]

As much as any state politician.

A state politician’s job is to interpret the constitution?

What if the sheriff (also a politician) and the state politician disagree?

It's situational. If the sheriff is refusing to enforce mask-wearing or gun control then the sheriff is right. If the sheriff is refusing to enforce abortion restrictions then the sheriff is wrong.

[kalm]

A state politician’s job is to interpret the constitution?

What if the sheriff (also a politician) and the state politician disagree?

It's situational. If the sheriff is refusing to enforce mask-wearing or gun control then the sheriff is right. If the sheriff is refusing to enforce abortion restrictions then the sheriff is wrong.

So who ultimately decides what the sheriff gets to enforce?

[Pwns]

1/23/23. The day I had to agree with Bernie Sanders. The SS cap is stupid and needs to go.

[BDKJMU]

A state politician’s job is to interpret the constitution?

What if the sheriff (also a politician) and the state politician disagree?

It's situational. If the sheriff is refusing to enforce mask-wearing or gun control then the sheriff is right. If the sheriff is refusing to enforce abortion restrictions then the sheriff is wrong.

Or if the state govt is in defiance of fed immigration law its ok.

If the local govt is in defiance of state gun control law not ok.

[BDKJMU]

It's situational. If the sheriff is refusing to enforce mask-wearing or gun control then the sheriff is right. If the sheriff is refusing to enforce abortion restrictions then the sheriff is wrong.

So who ultimately decides what the sheriff gets to enforce?

The sheriff. If the people of that county don't like it, they can vote him out.

And the state govt is still free to enforce what they want in that county using state resources, unless/until blocked by the courts.

You have this in NY, WA, OR, IL, etc, etc.. Wasn't it like 20 WA sheriffs that said a few years ago they refused to enforce WA's new anti 2A laws? I believe OR's and IL's new anti 2A laws are currently blocked or paused by state courts as they are being litigated.

[BDKJMU]

Rut roh..

Looks exactly like a Trump supporter.

Now deceased suspect identified as Huu Can Tran.

[UNI88]

It's situational. If the sheriff is refusing to enforce mask-wearing or gun control then the sheriff is right. If the sheriff is refusing to enforce abortion restrictions then the sheriff is wrong.

Or if the state govt is in defiance of fed immigration law its ok.

If the local govt is in defiance of state gun control law not ok.

I didn't think I needed to highlight the hypocrisy but I guess I did.

[UNI88]

[SeattleGriz]

Ban FD&C Yellow 5!!!

[HI54UNI]

It's situational. If the sheriff is refusing to enforce mask-wearing or gun control then the sheriff is right. If the sheriff is refusing to enforce abortion restrictions then the sheriff is wrong.

So who ultimately decides what the sheriff gets to enforce?

The sheriff does. Happens everyday. Sheriff clocks someone going 56 mph in a 55 mph zone. Does he stop that person and write a ticket? Or does he let them go?

[HI54UNI]

1/23/23. The day I had to agree with Bernie Sanders. The SS cap is stupid and needs to go.

Better idea - end it and let people be responsible for themselves.

[BDKJMU]

1/23/23. The day I had to agree with Bernie Sanders. The SS cap is stupid and needs to go.

If the cap goes that doesn’t solve anything. Your benefits are based on how much you pay in. Remove the cap and someone pays 10x as much in, they get 10x as much out. Pay 100x as much in, get 100x as much out. Etc, etc.

[BDKJMU]

1/23/23. The day I had to agree with Bernie Sanders. The SS cap is stupid and needs to go.

Better idea - end it and let people be responsible for themselves.

Yep.

[kalm]

So who ultimately decides what the sheriff gets to enforce?

The sheriff does. Happens everyday. Sheriff clocks someone going 56 mph in a 55 mph zone. Does he stop that person and write a ticket? Or does he let them go?

Yes. There is sone discretion regarding traffic enforcement and penalties. Is that true across the board for all laws, regulations, and crimes?

[kalm]

1/23/23. The day I had to agree with Bernie Sanders. The SS cap is stupid and needs to go.

Better idea - end it and let people be responsible for themselves.

Will they be? Were they enough in the past ? SS is basically insurance against old age poverty and savings that enables a reasonable retirement age. Teddy Roosevelt’s Square Deal of retiring with dignity.

Elderly poor people are a sad thing in the richest country on earth.

[BDKJMU]

Better idea - end it and let people be responsible for themselves.

Will they be? Were they enough in the past ? SS is basically insurance against old age poverty and savings that enables a reasonable retirement age. Teddy Roosevelt’s Square Deal of retiring with dignity.

Elderly poor people are a sad thing in the richest country on earth.

Per capita US is #2 to Switzerland.
Median US not even top 20.
https://www.statista.com/chart/19651/co ... 0in%202019.

Or per capita:
1. Ireland
2. Switzerland
3. Norway
4. Singapore
5. US
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/25-wealt ... 52141.html

[GannonFan]

Better idea - end it and let people be responsible for themselves.

Will they be? Were they enough in the past ? SS is basically insurance against old age poverty and savings that enables a reasonable retirement age. Teddy Roosevelt’s Square Deal of retiring with dignity.

Elderly poor people are a sad thing in the richest country on earth.

Yup. What happens when people do screw it up and now they have nothing left in old age? Just tell them tough luck, hope you die soon? People, a decent amount, will screw it up, no matter what. I'm certainly not saying we need to guarantee them a life of endless riches, but not being dirt poor and unable to afford the basics doesn't seem like too much of a reach for us to provide as a safety net. Deciding on what that safety net needs to be is the issue, not whether we should have one at all.

[UNI88]

Will they be? Were they enough in the past ? SS is basically insurance against old age poverty and savings that enables a reasonable retirement age. Teddy Roosevelt’s Square Deal of retiring with dignity.

Elderly poor people are a sad thing in the richest country on earth.

Yup. What happens when people do screw it up and now they have nothing left in old age? Just tell them tough luck, hope you die soon? People, a decent amount, will screw it up, no matter what. I'm certainly not saying we need to guarantee them a life of endless riches, but not being dirt poor and unable to afford the basics doesn't seem like too much of a reach for us to provide as a safety net. Deciding on what that safety net needs to be is the issue, not whether we should have one at all.

I don't have a problem with SS in principle but it should be self-funded with people getting back what they put in plus the actual interest earned. It should not be a Ponzi scheme where current retirees are paid with funds contributed by people who are working now.

I also wish it included the option to self manage your funds. My SS would be worth significantly more if I was able to invest what I contributed in the market rather than letting the SS administration handle it.