SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Lawmakers in Georgia removed a $38 million tax exemption for jet fuel from tax-cut legislation on Thursday in a move that will punish Atlanta-based Delta Air Lines.
Republicans vowed to remove the exemption after the airline cut ties with the National Rifle Association (NRA).
Georgia's Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle (R), who is also running for governor, had threatened to kill any tax legislation that benefits Delta after the company's decision to end a discount program for NRA members.
[...] "I will kill any tax legislation that benefits @Delta unless the company changes its position and fully reinstates its relationship with @NRA," Angle tweeted earlier this week.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Georgia Denies Delta Tax Break After Airline Cuts Ties With NRA
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 147 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
There's no such thing as an original sin.
-- Elvis Costello
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Saturday March 03 2018, @03:32AM (94 children)
Since when is it "right" for corporations to modify the political (and other) landscape? We've made mention of Banana Republics here before. Is it good that a corporation can manipulate a state, or a nation?
Think carefully before you say "yes". In this particular case, maybe you agree with Delta. Next time around - another corporation may decide that the disenfranchisement of inner city voters is a good idea. Think carefully. Should the tail wag the dog? If you approve of this action by Delta, how can you oppose the prison for profit industry?
If Delta wants to fight the NRA, maybe they should become a not for profit, tax exempt organization. Then, at least, we would all know that Delta is a politically motivated entity.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Whoever on Saturday March 03 2018, @03:44AM (14 children)
I believe that you have things back to front.
Delta is merely removing a preference for some potential customers. It is making things more equal. In essence what Delta is doing is removing its "modification of the political landscape."
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 03 2018, @04:14AM (13 children)
Apparently the whole dozen customers that used that discount last year might get upset.
When you make a big deal of something that tiny you are trying to virtual signal how awesome you are. So their 'savings' of about 3000 dollars is going to cost them 40 mil per year. "we are dropping this discount because no one uses it and is a waste of our time to offer" THAT everyone gets. "we are dropping this discount because we think " well you picked sides and the other 'side' has friends too. If I were a shareholder I would be seriously questioning what the fuck they are thinking.
Hell I personally have a NRA membership. I had 0 idea there were discounts attached to it. I did not care about that. I thought it was kind of cool it was an org started to help black people defend themselves against democrat KKK members by removing laws that limit peoples rights. Funny how the DNC still wants to do that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 03 2018, @06:18AM (11 children)
I don't consider gun licensing to be some dystipian theft of freedom. Car licenses are a thing and I'm glad they keep dangerous drivers off the road. Now what level of gun licensing violates the 2nd is a question to debate, but we really do need some better gun licensing.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 03 2018, @06:46AM
They won't stop at licensing.
Nobody is happy stopping at the reasonable any more. We all just go straight to full retard these days.
(Score: 4, Informative) by khallow on Saturday March 03 2018, @08:35AM
Shouldn't it fix something concrete first? My view is that if you don't have a reason for the restriction, then it is an unjustified theft of freedom. For example, recent mass shootings have been the principle driver for these sorts of regulations, but there's little that they would have done in those shootings. The Douglas school shooter shouldn't have passed existing background checks. The problem wasn't in his case too loose gun licensing, but rather a lot of "not my job" bureaucratic buck-passing. The Las Vegas shooter would likely have passed even harsh licensing requirements.
Second, gun control is notorious for power grabbing. For example, the Washington DC city council passed a law [wikipedia.org] in 1975 that prohibited most people from owning handguns or from storing their guns in a ready-to-use state. Laws like that are what created the present activist NRA in the first place (they were taken over [soylentnews.org] by "libertarians" in 1977 which changed the focus of their lobbying activities to the present approach). The Washington DC law went beyond any legitimate concerns about loose firearm ownership, undermining self-defense.
Such excessive laws are precisely why the NRA opposes even modest changes. The future of gun control is not sensible regulation, but banning as much firearm ownership and usage as possible. Sorry, there's a lot of people who just aren't on board with that.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 03 2018, @01:05PM (7 children)
2nd: "shall not infringe"
If you think failing to issue a license and thereby making it illegal to keep and carry arms is not an infringement then you don't speak English well enough to have an opinion worth paying any attention to at all.
Which amendment or article is it that guarantees the right to keep and drive? Bueller? Bueller??
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 03 2018, @03:22PM (3 children)
The 2nd amendment isn't an individual right, it's a collective right. It's the amendment that guarantees the national guard has access to weaponry, not so that jack offs can have penis enhancers. Nowhere in the 2nd amendment does it say that you or I have a right to semi-automatic rifles with large magazines. And arguably, the 2nd amendment was never ratified as there's two different versions differing by a comma.
What's more, the right to keep and bear arms has already been infringed upon. There's all sorts of weapons that we're not allowed to have, things like rocket launchers and grenades which were just as unimaginable when the 2nd amendment was debated as firearms that could shoot multiple rounds per minute and didn't require packing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 03 2018, @08:41PM (1 child)
SCOTUS ruled in Heller and McDonald that the right is an individual one.
And about your other statements, read a book. Find out why the Second Amendment exists.
(Score: 2) by number11 on Monday March 05 2018, @05:18AM
Like the SCOTUS has never screwed up before. However, you're right that it's the law, until they change it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 04 2018, @12:49AM
How is "the right of the people" not clear? It does not need to reference specific weapons or ammo. It is absolutely an individual right, and the notion that the founders simply forgot to give the national guard the power to have weaponry and had to create an amendment for it is just insane.
We're already violating the Constitution, so let's do it some more. No, we should roll back the other violations.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by dry on Saturday March 03 2018, @04:36PM (1 child)
There are already tons of laws limiting arms ownership. Ignoring laws on rocket launchers and such, there are whole groups of people who, by law, are not allowed to own firearms.
No where in the 2nd is authority given to the government to limit gun possession, not to the mentally unstable, not to former criminals, not even to non-citizens as they're people as well. Perhaps the 2nd would allow forcing everyone to take some militia training in handling guns depending on the reading, but the right to bear arms is pretty simply spelled out.
It is kind of funny that in my country, with no right to bear arms, it takes a Judge to remove the privilege of owning a firearm at sentencing usually (probably by injunction as well), just like a drivers license. And Judges usually only ban firearm ownership when someone is convicted of doing something stupid with a firearm.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 04 2018, @12:52AM
Let's get rid of those laws.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Saturday March 03 2018, @06:48PM
While I disagree with the garbage reasoning that is used to justify federal gun licensing, it's also true that a plain reading of the US Constitution wouldn't work in a largely urban society with rapid transportation. What they should have been doing all along was amending the constitution rather than lying about what it says. Unfortunately, it's a bit too difficult to amend, so they had to either lie about what it says, or let the country disintegrate.
So while I agree that the original intent was that there be no federal government interference in the possession or use of fire arms, I don't agree that that's a reasonable or workable course of action today. The proper answer would be to modify the constitution, but there's a huge precedent that says "just do the right thing and create enough bafflegab to cover yourself.".
P.S.: When the amendment talks about a "well organized militia" I find no evidence that there was any intent that the federal government be involved in any way in either organizing or certifying that such a group was well organized. Remember, at that time most of the population was rural, by a huge percentage, and hunting was a normal avocation even among the farmers. And notice how silly it would be to try to organize things that way now.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 05 2018, @02:20PM
> Car licenses are a thing and I'm glad they keep dangerous drivers off the road.
Err.. do they? I thought people got caught driving without a license all the time..
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 04 2018, @12:19AM
NRA was PRO gun control when it meant disarming black people trying to defend themselves against racist white cops and armed gangs of white racists.
https://www.snopes.com/nra-california-open-carry-ban/ [snopes.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 03 2018, @03:48AM
Whooosh?
Delta used to support the NRA (financially, I'm assuming). Now they have quit. Seems like this is a good thing, Delta has effectively de-funded a bit of the lobbying capability of the NRA.
Separately we can discuss the response by the (R) legislature of Georgia...
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Grishnakh on Saturday March 03 2018, @03:49AM (28 children)
Delta isn't "fighting" the NRA, they're simply choosing to end their business partnership with them, where they gave special perks to NRA members. Honestly, I'm not sure why they ever did this in the first place, or why companies have such deals at all (AARP is a frequent partner in such deals). Of course Delta is politically-motivated: every single company is, at least by your definition. If a company refuses to give special discounts to NRA members, somehow that makes them "politically motivated" according to your logic. And really, anything any company does can be considered "political": do they lobby to except contraception in their healthcare plans for employees? Political. Do they *not* lobby and happily pay for contraception? Political again. Do they give discounts to AARP members? Political. (AARP is a huge lobbyist.) Do they not? Again, political ("they're not helping elderly people!").
It can also be argued that companies *should* try to manipulate the state, just as we voters do (through voting and also letters to politicians, protests, campaign donations, etc.), since they have the power and it's in their interest. Should tech companies *not* try to convince politicians that software patents and "xyz on the internet" patents are a bad idea? We voters certainly haven't done a great job of convincing them of this, while the patent trolls have been lobbying for the opposite.
(Score: 2, Troll) by jmorris on Saturday March 03 2018, @04:24AM (26 children)
Had Delta dropped the program two months ago on the grounds nobody was actually using it that would have been fine. Doing on command from the Proggie gun grabbers is an entirely different thing. It makes it political and means retaliation by the other side is entirely justified. When corporations get into politics it is entirely justified to treat them as a political actor because they are.
This move is nice because it shows some Republicans are finally figuring out that they have to play this game, that assuming big business is "their people" is outdated. Everything is now politicized.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 03 2018, @05:04AM (8 children)
It's not gun grabbers you twonk, unless by gun grabbers you mean the 90%+ of people who think things are way out of hand and that we need the same sort of common-sense gun regulations that have worked in other countries that had problems with gun violence.
The move isn't nice, the move indicates that the politicians of Georgia are even bigger tools than we though. The will of the people is pretty clear in terms of wanting to end the current set of mass murders by taking away the assault weapons that no civilian has any need for. Nobody is talking about taking away hunting rifles and ones that are being bought for legitimate reasons. Just the ones that are only of use for killing large numbers of people.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday March 03 2018, @03:06PM (7 children)
Speaking of - twonks, did you say? - show me an "assault rifle" available to the general public. Show me, please. I'd kinda like to have that little selector switch. Manual - semi - auto. That's a cool thing. Of course, I never had a big magazine to feed a full auto burst. It would be fun just to go down to the quarry, squeeze that trigger, and watch as five or ten boxes of ammo tore a hole in the side of the hill. Well, it would fun to do a couple of times, anyway. I'm not into funding a lot of pointless nonsense. Things get expensive real fast when you're burning ammo at that rate.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 03 2018, @06:40PM (6 children)
Hey is there a legal definition that describes "assault rifle"?
I found the hard way that "firearm" can mean a "BB-gun" or "air rifle" and I was told it could even mean "sling shot". What's assault rifle mean on a state, county, and local township/city level, and what happens when they are not all the same? My "BB-gun" was classified as a firearm at a local municpal level and the book they threw at me hit pretty hard.
Firearms don't require fire, I learned... i have to think assault's don't require assault anymore either.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday March 03 2018, @10:08PM (5 children)
You're half right. There is no "legal definition" of assault rifle - and that is a huge part of the problem. But, the military commonly accepted use of the term includes full automatic fire, or at least 3-round bursts of automatic fire.
As for "firearm", in the United States, there is indeed a legal definition. No, BB-guns are not, nor are air rifles, and a sling shot is definitely out. What is more, a muzzle loading gun is exempt from the restrictions of a firearm.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921 [cornell.edu]
(Score: 2) by ElizabethGreene on Sunday March 04 2018, @05:52AM (2 children)
Quoting wikipedia...
Under the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 the definition of "semiautomatic assault weapon" included specific semi-automatic firearm models by name, and other semi-automatic firearms that possessed two or more from a set certain features:[16]
Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher
...
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday March 04 2018, @06:12AM (1 child)
I'm unsure - are you trying to establish that there is a legal definition of "assault weapon"? If so, good try. But, that particular definition was accepted by certain political partisans, in 1994 - and later rejected by the larger political body in the US. And, that definition is something of a hodge-podge of criteria, with certain brands and models listed, because there was no clear definition to identify an assault weapon.
Today, there is no legal definition of the beast that hoplophobes hope to find and kill. That makes the whole thing something of a snipe hunt.
And, LOL at "Grenade launcher".
(Score: 2) by ElizabethGreene on Sunday March 04 2018, @05:17PM
There is a new proposed definition here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/5087/text [congress.gov]
It is dramatically more draconian, defining a semiautomatic assault weapon as any semiautomatic pistol with a removable magazine size greater than 10 rounds, semiauto shotguns with a magazine size greater than 5, and semiauto rifles based on a *single* cosmetic feature from a very familiar looking list.
This provides relevant context to the recent surge in NRA membership.
(Score: 2) by number11 on Sunday March 04 2018, @06:27AM (1 child)
There is no single definition. State and municipal laws may have other definitions. I have never heard of slingshots being considered firearms, but my municipality does consider air and BB guns firearms in their ordinance prohibiting discharge within city limits. And at least until recently, my state's laws also classed them as firearms. That was struck down by our supreme court in a case where a felon was found guilty of being in possession. But I don't know how wide-reaching the decision was. (They are still classed as "dangerous weapons".) I suspect that a felon found in possession of a muzzle-loader (which would include some revolvers) would not get off, though.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday March 04 2018, @08:41AM
US Code is the authoritative source of definitions for firearms, actually. Especially when we are considering gun control laws on the federal level. Other levels of government are often times permitted to have more stringent laws than the federal government, but in any conflict between laws, USC will have all of the deciding definitions, as well as superior authority.
(Score: 5, Informative) by sjames on Saturday March 03 2018, @05:19AM (11 children)
The thing is, Ga.'s elected officials aren't supposed to be the other side of this. They are supposed to be doing what is best for the state of Ga unless and until they resign from their current jobs and go to work for the NRA. This is a blatant abuse of political office.
(Score: 0, Troll) by jmorris on Saturday March 03 2018, @06:14AM (9 children)
Do you get Earth TV on your world? The Democrats have weaponized every single lever of power they could get their hands on, government, corporate and cultural. They are now attacking one of the most fundamental human rights. Yes, they should be resisted by all means available. Defending the Constitution against all threats, foreign and domestic, IS their first job, it is their most important job.
You Democreeps are about to learn a painful lesson. Americans are forgiving, we are patient, we are slow to anger. But we are getting pissed. You have walked into a trap. You blither on about "National conversations" about issues, assuming it is going to be the usual you dictate and we listen sort of thing. Well lets have this "National conversation about guns", NOW. Now that 150 Congresscritters have stupidly signed onto a fresh "Assault weapons ban". In an election year. With a Republican controlled Congress. With the National Rifle Association at record strength. Lets DO THIS.
You think your unAmerican, European ideas about seizing weapons are popular, that the 2nd Amendment is an embarrasing anachronism. You fools willfully ignored reality as State after State passed Castle Doctrine, Stand Your Ground and Concealed Carry laws and crime rates went down, the "Dodge City" scenarios you assure everyone would occur pointedly didn't happen. You kept ignoring what was happening on the ground out here in flyover country as States moved on to Constitutional Carry. The Heller Decision was just an anomaly you could sweep away with a single SCOTUS appointment. None of that matters, goad one more kid into a rampage in a gun free shooting gallery, this time in a major media market with carefully trained drama queens ready to flood the TV and this time it will work! We will surrender our rights "for the children."
Wanna know what happens now? You lose. The "Gun Free Zone" signs come down, teachers / coaches are trained to carry in enough schools the experiment will be run. When the schools that keep the signs keep getting shooters and the ones without don't and also don't suffer ill effects it goes universal in a couple of years. Just like sportsball stadiums, airports and other places that would be targets of mass shooters. Of the 150 who co-sponsored a gun grab, 10+% go down to defeat in November, their support of gun banning is blamed and the "gun issue" goes back on the radioactive list for a decade. And with no fresh supply of dead children to grandstand on it stays a settled issue.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday March 03 2018, @06:26AM (2 children)
Funny that you think I'm a Democrat. Even funnier that you say all that after TRUMP suggested grabbing the guns first, "due process" later. (Yes, unlike Obama, TRUMP is actually coming for your guns) Also funny that you think I am against the 2nd amendment.
OTOH, the NRA jumped the shark when it started giving awards out to people for things other than gun rights support or advocacy.
Looks like I pressed a button and your knee jerked so hard you broke your nose. You should get that looked at.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 03 2018, @11:20AM (1 child)
To be fair, Trump wants due process [twitter.com] for those accused of domestic violence, sexual assault and sexual harassment.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by dry on Saturday March 03 2018, @04:40PM
Where does the Constitution give the power to the government to limit firearm ownership to "accused of domestic violence, sexual assault and sexual harassment." Not even convicted, just accused.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 03 2018, @06:58AM
I would say the same thing about the NRA. It would be one thing if they actually advocated things like marksmanship, gun safety, and sporting. You know, like they used to do. But instead they've gone off the deep end. No laws restricting any kind of guns, any place, anywhere, any time, at all. If they were like they were 50 years ago, and were for things like background checks and perfectly reasonable restrictions, people would be more sympathetic and willing to work together and compromise. But after a good solid 30 years of nothing but WHAARRRLLLGAARBLLL from the NRA, people are pissed and have finally had enough and it's basically come down to "fuck those guys".
Then there's a the whole thing where the R in the NRA basically stands for Republican, and they are advocating and lobbying and using scare tactics for things that have absolutely nothing to do with guns. The latest example is them giving an award to Ajit Pai, which is disgusting. Which is why there's also a large number of guns owners (myself included) who are also firmly in the "fuck the NRA" crowd. And we're pissed because we're more than likely going to get caught up in the blowback despite not supporting in the NRA in any way (fun fact: less than 10% of gun owners are members of the NRA).
This has been coming for a long time, and the Florida school shooting was just the tipping point. But it's snowballing. Stick a fork in it, the NRA is done. The brand is toxic now, and anyone associating themselves with the NRA is going to get killed at the pools (not literally) when their term is up. Maybe if the NRA took a clue when George H.W. Bush resigned his membership over 20 years ago(!), things would be different now.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Saturday March 03 2018, @07:16AM
"Only"? You quite reasonably protest.
Yes: "only"
Because three hundred eighteen million Americans are NOT members
What the NRA has that the lucidly sane people do not: organization
Not yet anyway
But those kids in Florida are changing that
Some forward thinking chap is seeking one hundred million dollars on GoFundMe to be spent lobbying for gun control legislation
I gave him thirty-five bucks. I'll give him more when I get paid which will be soon because I finished my project today
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday March 03 2018, @08:41AM (2 children)
Having said that, I reevaluated the situation and think that Georgia can indeed legally attack Delta in this way. They're not singling Delta out for penalty (like levying a fine or dropping a contract with Delta), but rather deciding not to grant a boon that they haven't yet granted (a proposed tax break fails to materialize).
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday March 03 2018, @03:11PM (1 child)
Disagree. It is the job of representatives at all levels of government to safeguard their constituent's rights. The Second Amendment is actually one of the important ones.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday March 03 2018, @03:21PM
(Score: 1, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Saturday March 03 2018, @03:08PM
Unfortunately, you are probably wasting your breath, jmorris. Or, typing effort, as the case may be. The progressives don't understand what you're saying. They don't want to understand, and they won't understand. They understand one thing, and one thing only: The Narrative.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 03 2018, @02:40PM
Entertainingly this won't hurt Delta. Their headquarters doesn't run on jet fuel. They, like all other airlines affected by this tax, simply won't fly as many planes to Atlanta and it'll lose its status as the largest air transport hub in the country. They'll just use a cheaper airport as a transport hub.
The politicians in Georgia originally were wildly for the fuel tax breaks not to benefit Delta, but to attract more travel to Atlanta. While a large number of people would be flying in just to transfer to another plane flying elsewhere, it would still drive down ticket prices to Atlanta and more people would decide to travel there for other reasons. Conferences and such would choose to set up in Atlanta over other places, because the cost of flying there would've been significantly lower than to other places. The corporate benefit was secondary to the benefit of the state itself. It still makes the most economic sense to cut the jet fuel tax, but they've decided they'd rather pander to the NRA and its constituents than do what makes economic sense.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Saturday March 03 2018, @07:01AM (4 children)
And proud to be one.
I think it would be completely reasonable to require a gun safety course before on may possess a gun
I see no reason for assault weapons to even exist
For those who are so deluded as to think their guns will prevent repression, I suggest you try a shootout with an A-10. The pilot sits in a titanium tub. The high-speed Gatling gun shoots depleted uranium armor-piercing bullets
Or perhaps you'd prefer to go head-to-head with a Massive Ordnance Air Burst, more commonly known as the Mother Of All Bombs.
There is no justification whatsoever for anyone to possess more than one gun.
But I I've misled you with a little white lie: I'm not a Proggie at all. The Progressives are quite far to my right.
In reality I am a pre-Soviet Marxist.
And damn proud to be one
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday March 03 2018, @08:45AM
Aside from killing people who need killing or shooting for fun, I don't either.
There's only so many of those toys and they can be used against the state as well as for it. A heavily armed citizenry would be in addition to a rebel army.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Saturday March 03 2018, @03:19PM (2 children)
As far as you and I are concerned, they don't exist. You can't buy one. I can't buy one. You think you can? Show me - provide a link to some place that either you or I can buy an assault weapon.
You're near enough right to get half a point. It would take a crew operated weapon to bring down an A-10. And, a crew with a helluva lot of discipline - not to mention some luck. Even a genuine assault rifle isn't going to do it. Not even if you have Rambutt - I mean Rambo - on your side.
But, what you've forgotten is, the silly sumbitches who give orders to the guy in the A-10 are vulnerable to small arms. And, if the silly simbitches have forgotten that, then maybe it's time for a reminder. And, BTW - the pilot of that A-10 will also be vulnerable when he walks away from his plane at the end of the day.
Think, before you blather, Michael David.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 03 2018, @03:29PM (1 child)
You're an idiot. If you can't buy one, then how did that Los Vegas gunman fire so many rounds in such a short period of time?
Here's a hint, he was able to take legally available parts and use them for their intended use. Magazines the size of the ones he had and bumpstocks on top of a long rifle are intended to mow down large numbers of people, they literally have no other purpose.
People like you that like to pretend like there's no assault weapons being legally sold in the US are purposefully ignorant. The GOP allowed the assault weapons ban to lapse awhile back.
When I was younger, you had individuals going around with MAC-10s and I can't recall the last time I heard about anybody having one of those. The reason why, is that you can't legally buy or sell them the way you can the current crop of assault weapons.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday March 03 2018, @03:43PM
Are you aware of how much time that bastard devoted to PREPARATION? I'll bet you have no idea how much time he put into practice. I don't remember how many weapons he had - not even sure I've seen an official number of weapons. Any fool can prepare a pile of loaded weapons, empty one, grab another, empty it, grab another. The size of the magazine used is of far more importance than your silly "assault weapon" tag. An endless supply of ammunition would be awesome, if you are intent on murder and mayhem. But, still, preparation and practice. This bastard spent DAYS preparing for this event. He spent months or years assembling his arsenal, his ammo, and his skills.
He didn't kill all those people because he had an "assault weapon". He killed so many because he prepared, extensively, right down to choosing his high vantage point.
Whatever, dude.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 03 2018, @11:14AM
These "partnerships" are all about marketing. Companies like Delta partner with membership organizations so they can get access to the very detailed membership demographic information. Targeted ads - as direct mail, emails, or inserts in membership information packages - allow for planting the seeds of brand loyalty.
These "special offers just for <your organization's name here>" make the members feel as though they are benefiting from their membership in the organization. Since it often can take many "touches" to bring in new customers, the company offering the special discount wants to take advantage of the known target audience with tailored ads.
The NRA isn't unique in this kind of arrangement. As you noted, the AARP does this with just about any company it can. Any memebership organization will take advantage of these partnerships because it generates fees and costs them nothing. Alumni associations are desirable organizations for partner companies to work with due to the allegiance many alum have with their alma mater.
The NRA's members' response to Delta shows that they feel as though they are losing something (even if only 13 NRA memebers actually took advantage of the discount in 2017). The members want to feel "special" even if they don't use the benefits offered.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 03 2018, @03:50AM
Giving NRA discounts was altering the political landscape. Having NRA pay the same as everybody else isn't. If you look at this close enough, it looks like government creating policy based on politics, not sound reasons.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 03 2018, @03:53AM (29 children)
The full impact of Burwell v. Hobby Lobbyis that *for-profit* corporations have First Amendment rights.
if you want to consider Delta's move as political speech (which you seem to imply) then this is the most protected of all modes of speech and the GA State government has just punished somebody for speaking in a way they don't like. What's next? If you don't donate to the NRA, they will raise your property taxes?
Even if you don't want to make the argument that this is political speech, Delta still has protection from the "right to association" clause.
Frankly, I think Burwell v. Hobby Lobby was an incredibly stupid decision. But these are the consequences for it, and it is a bit late for slippery slope arguments.
(Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Saturday March 03 2018, @04:30AM (26 children)
I disagree on why Burwell v. Hobby Lobby was stupid (the religious objections were triggered by an abuse of government power over a near trivial issue, mandating that health insurance provide easily affordable birth control, in the first place), but it is a good argument. The government should not be punishing businesses because those businesses have taken on unpopular political stands.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 03 2018, @05:09AM (4 children)
You're an idiot khallow. Corporations do not have the right to make religious decisions for employees. That's a violation of the law. It's no different from any other violation of an employees religious freedom or other violation of public accommodation.
Hobby Lobby could have chosen to just shut down if they felt that strongly, instead, they deprived their minimum wage workers access to birth control pills in a cynical move aimed at harming others as a means of exerting control over them. Nothing in the Bible allows for people to behave like that.
The government wasn't punishing businesses for having unpopular political stands, the government was punishing businesses for forcing their religious views on the employees. When one opens a business one waives certain portions of their constitutional rights. As a private citizen, I can refuse to help people based upon their ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation if I like. However, if I have a business, I'm no longer free to pick and choose the way that I could if I were making the decision as a private citizen.
Ignorant people like you, seem to not be aware of why those laws were put into place. Places like Georgia would have laws on the books and enforced that would prevent people of color from receiving equal service at businesses or in public places.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by archfeld on Saturday March 03 2018, @06:24AM
Speaking of religious rights and obligations...Hobby Lobby, so devout, that they could not in good conscience provide birth control to their employees, is NOW open on Sundays. Seems Jesus needs a new pair of cleats.
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday March 03 2018, @08:46AM (2 children)
That is not the issue at stake. Perhaps you ought to read those rulings to see what it actually was about.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 03 2018, @03:35PM (1 child)
That's exactly what it was about khallow. They didn't want to spend money on birth control and pregnancy planning that their employees may or may not want to use.
By refusing to pay for the birth control devices, they were forcing the employees to find their own money and since Hobby Lobby pays minimum wage for so many of their positions, it meant that the employees couldn't have the pills without finding a nonprofit to pay.
Shy of going around inspecting employees' medicine cabinets for birth control products, it's hard to get much controlling over the workers. Refuse to pay a decent wage and then refuse to pay for the birth control products that they were legally obligated to pay for.
Unfortunately, the right has been allowed to stack the SCOTUS with unqualified rightwing nutjobs so it was allowed an exemption. But, it certainly wasn't a constitutional exemption. Corporations aren't people and as such, they have no constitutional rights. Just because the GOP was able to appoint a number of incompetent and corrupt judges, doesn't change that. I'll believe that a corporation is a person when Texas executes one. Until that time, they're not people.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday March 03 2018, @03:38PM
Then where's the flood of other companies to emulate this cost saving?
Or paying for the pills themselves. Minimum wage is not no wage and birth control is not that expensive.
Except it turns out that they weren't legally obligate to pay for those birth control products.
The First Amendment and its prohibition against religious prosecution exists contrary to your assertion that there wasn't a constitutional exemption.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by sjames on Saturday March 03 2018, @05:24AM (18 children)
It is interesting that the same political party that moans about poor people having kids they can't afford also opposes abortion and birth control, isn't it?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday March 03 2018, @06:00AM (17 children)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday March 03 2018, @06:06AM
(Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday March 03 2018, @06:16AM (14 children)
That is irrelevant. The real issue is complaining about both the pregnancies and the means to avoid them.
The reduction in unwanted pregnancies is probably due to birth control (including plan B) becoming more widely available in spite of the GOP.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday March 03 2018, @06:23AM (13 children)
(Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday March 03 2018, @06:28AM (11 children)
Irrelevant since those "minor evils" are on the rise, fully explaining the reduction in the "major evil".
But you knew that.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday March 03 2018, @07:19AM (10 children)
And you know that how? By evidence such as what I presented.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday March 03 2018, @08:34AM (9 children)
The ability to remember the last few years.
For example, plan B becoming OTC in 2013, the ACA becoming law, etc.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday March 03 2018, @08:47AM (8 children)
(Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday March 03 2018, @08:56AM (7 children)
Yes, we can indeed return to illegal coathanger abortions and a high rate of unwanted births among the poor. Apparently what you really hate is not getting to whine and moan about poor people having babies they can't afford. Is that what you really hope for?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday March 03 2018, @09:08AM (6 children)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by sjames on Saturday March 03 2018, @09:20AM (5 children)
Unless you are trying to deny that plan B became OTC in 2013 (and has a non-zero rate of use) and that the ACA mandated insurance providing birth control (which only a few like Hobby Lobby deny after a bitter court battle), it is you that would need to provide evidence that somehow birth control doesn't have the ability to reduce unwanted births.
I know you may not want to admit to even yourself that your desire to make religious decisions for others is ultimately destructive to even your own stated goals WRT poor people having babies, but there it is.
I suspect you will now try to argue that up is down and black is white whenever it is necessary for you to not be wrong, as usual
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday March 03 2018, @02:28PM (4 children)
I haven't tried in the least to show that. My evidence shows the contrary.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday March 03 2018, @04:08PM (3 children)
So what's your point then?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday March 03 2018, @04:28PM (2 children)
Offering supporting evidence for an assertion is reason 101.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday March 03 2018, @04:47PM (1 child)
So you're basically posting irrelevant information. The GOP, as I said wants to oppose all of the above even though birth control is pretty much the only effective measure to reduce both abortion and having babies people can't afford.
So they oppose the problem AND they oppose the solution. They offer nothing in the way of an alternative solution that actually works. No wonder they get called the party of NO.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday March 03 2018, @05:18PM
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 03 2018, @11:44PM
Lol birth control as a minor evil? Khallow is a religious but in too of being a rwnj! Damn khallow, just when I thought you couldn't surprise me further.
(Score: 1) by Behindmyscreen on Saturday March 03 2018, @05:54PM
you know why they have declined over all (but increased in bible thumping states)? Because of access to contraception, comprehensive sexual education, and more recently kids have more entertainment so they just don't have sex as much.....That still doesn't remove the fact that people have a right to choose without douche bag theocratic fucks deciding what they can and cannot do with their bodies.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by aristarchus on Saturday March 03 2018, @08:10AM (1 child)
Yeah, that's the NRA's job! And you are an idiot, khallow. A fluffly and potentially ammosexual idiot.
(Score: 0, Redundant) by khallow on Saturday March 03 2018, @08:48AM
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday March 03 2018, @03:26PM (1 child)
Yeah, some of that makes sense - except - Delta isn't being punished. Delta WAS being rewarded for services rendered, and maybe for the atmosphere in which those services were rendered. Delta has withdrawn some portion of a service, and destroyed the atmosphere in which those services were rendered. Thus - no more reward. Now, they pay their way, instead of relying on a discount for being nice.
(Score: 2) by number11 on Sunday March 04 2018, @06:46AM
And Delta is likely to raise the price of fares for all flights originating in Georgia to make up the for the money lost to taxes. It will (slightly) degrade their competitive position vs. other airlines, which (since their hq and hub are there) will result in losses to Georgia, though it's hard to know (it's possible that Georgia was losing money overall by not taxing their fuel). There ain't no free lunch. I don't live in GA and haven't flown in a decade, so I don't see it as being a problem. Other than Atlanta, it's just one more state in the armpit of the nation.
(Score: 3, Informative) by sjames on Saturday March 03 2018, @05:11AM (9 children)
Keep in mind that the NRA is not a government organization. It is an advocacy group that is now advocating things that Delta doesn't really want to be associated with. How is that going beyond their rights? It is the Ga. Lt. Governor that is now trying to wag the dog by making decisions not for the benefit of state and it's people who he is supposed to represent, but for the sole benefit of that non-government advocacy group.
The Lt. Governor was quite explicit that he was supporting the removal of the tax break unless Delta changed their mind about removing support for the NRA.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 03 2018, @02:42PM
Citation needed.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday March 03 2018, @03:32PM (7 children)
The Georgia lawmakers are acting in the interest of Georgia. A helluva lot of Georgians are gun owners. A little simple math should help. There's something like 3 firearms per citizen owned by the citizenry of the US. There are some states that make firearm ownership quite difficult. In those states, there may be one firearm per citizen - or less. That means, states like Georgia probably have five or more firearms per citizen. That's a helluva lot of gunowners, now isn't it?
You may, or may not, wish to look up real numbers, and do actual math. My numbers are close enough for my purposes.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday March 03 2018, @04:05PM (6 children)
All fine reasons why passing legislation that supports the 2nd amendment would be consistent with representing the people of Georgia. But the NRA is not the people of Georgia, it is a private organization, and one that has recently gone off-mission at that. The set of people that support the NRA is a subset of people who support the 2nd amendment.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday March 03 2018, @04:13PM (5 children)
Perhaps all of that is true. But, tradition. The NRA has been the "good guys" since before I was born - and it's going to take a lot more than your say-so to convince Georgia that they aren't still the "good guys".
(Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday March 03 2018, @04:24PM (4 children)
If Georgians care to join the NRA, that's their concern. But that is distinct from the elected officials using the power of the state to punish people or corporations who choose not to support the NRA. Would you support a law in your state that said join the NRA or pay 10% more in property tax, for example?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday March 03 2018, @10:16PM (3 children)
I would support a law that said that I can pay 10% LESS tax, if I were to join a tax-exempt that promotes youth, education, health, whatever.
But, Delta isn't being punished. Delta has enjoyed a special TAX EXEMPTION in decades past. Delta pissed off the legislators, and has lost that special consideration. Now, Delta pays full price - that is the NORMAL PRICE - for their fuel purchased in Georgia. It isn't a "punishment" to lose a special perk, or privilege. It would be a punishment if Delta had to pay a special tax, on top of the same tax that everyone else has to pay.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday March 03 2018, @11:36PM (2 children)
OK, we'll implement a 10% discount on taxes if you join a particular organization that supports youth, islamic education, health, and free marijuana for everyone under 18 years old. Then we'll hike property tax by 10%.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday March 03 2018, @11:43PM (1 child)
Religion is out, remember? No Islamic education. I don't think the free marijuana is going to make it through, either. There are lots of subsidies in this country, but very few 100% subsidies. Only if you can weaponize the marijuana can you get a 100% subsidy.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday March 04 2018, @03:43AM
We'll just call it "philosophy".
Or perhaps they can just get indoctrinated that guns are evil and that only a monster wouldn't choose a strictly vegan diet.
Still good with that "we swear, it's not a tax increase, just the lack of a discount'?
(Score: 3, Informative) by Whoever on Saturday March 03 2018, @05:22AM (1 child)
I think that you will find that the SCOTUS decided that corporations had the right to promote political viewpoints, in the Citizen United and other cases.
Now, I think that Citizens United was a bad decision, but it is the law of the land and it clearly allows for Delta to take (or remove) a political stance.
The state of Georgia is also entitled to respond to that, but must also be prepared to take the consequences for the state's response.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday March 03 2018, @06:15AM
I disagree. If corporations and their representatives didn't have First Amendment rights, then stuff like this could be used to steamroll them into supporting terrible things. But the way the CU decision treats these organizations (which include a lot more than just businesses like non profits and labor unions), it has baked in a legal obstruction to government actions by state or federal governments to selectively punish the speech of companies. That is the sign of a good law IMHO.
We already have seen several awful leaders of the US in a row (G. W. Bush on) and there's no reason to expect that things like that can never get worse. Companies that can defend themselves are a means to counterbalance that threat. And do we really want to give someone like Trump (or perhaps someone far worse!) the power to crush companies that don't parrot the right political views? Anyone here think that is a remotely good idea?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 03 2018, @05:31AM
A corporation is made up of people, and people have values. I think it's perfectly legitimate for Delta to do this.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 03 2018, @08:36AM
Nice Whataboutism there bro.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by FakeBeldin on Saturday March 03 2018, @12:09PM
This is called "lobbying". Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] can answer your question.
TL;DR: The US constitution was supposed to curtail the influence of "factions" (including lobbyist). It failed. Railroad subsidies lobbying in 1869.
So, in practice lobbying was accepted from right after the civil war. Lobbying was frowned upon in public opinion till the last few decades, when winning a political race became so expensive a candidate needed financial backing.
If you were asking for opinions instead of facts: Delta withdrew from an alliance. Legislature literally decided to punish them for this.
Your question should be: "In what cases is it acceptable for legislature to financially punish companies for making or breaking alliances with organisations outside their domain?".
An answer to that would resemble "if other organisation is banned, then yes, otherwise no". So no arms deliveries to oppressive regimes, no supporting terrorist organisations, ... , but you like or dislike a lobbying club? Who cares?
The Georgia state legislature, apparently.
(Score: 1) by Behindmyscreen on Saturday March 03 2018, @05:47PM (1 child)
Um....Corporations have a right to specify promotions. The criminal actions here are the state legislators trying to induce a company to provide a discount based on politics. The state should butt our of a corporate decision.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday March 03 2018, @10:12PM
Those "promotions" were being REWARDED by the state, with tax exemptions. When a "promotion" was ended for political reasons, the state has every right and authority to re-examine those tax exemptions. So, now, Delta gets to pay the normal price for fuel, along with the taxes on that fuel. You and others who are making charges that the legislature has done something wrong are neglecting the fact that Delta has not been paying full fare for fuel sold in Georgia. They've had special treatment, and profited from that treatment by millions of dollars annually. Special treatment ends, they have nothing to bitch about - not any more than the NRA members who have lost some special treatment.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by MachineShedFred on Saturday March 03 2018, @11:59PM
Since when is it "right" for a government entity to punish or reward a private corporation for ending a relationship with another private entity, for any reason whatsoever?
This is Republicans in Georgia sticking it to a corporation to look like they are supporting the NRA, without actually risking anything at all. Delta will still contribute to all of their reelection campaigns, and nothing of consequence will actually happen, except for a rounding error of tax money being added to all Delta ticket prices in the amount of a few cents to a dollar in order to balance out the change on the books.
Does anyone really think Delta is going to just eat this increase in costs? Anyone at all?