Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Saturday March 03 2018, @03:11AM   Printer-friendly
from the under-the-gun dept.

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.

http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/376327-georgia-senate-passes-bill-that-effectively-punishes-delta-air-lines-for


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Troll) by jmorris on Saturday March 03 2018, @04:24AM (26 children)

    by jmorris (4844) on Saturday March 03 2018, @04:24AM (#646831)

    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Republicans are finally figuring out that they have to play this game, that assuming big business is "their people" is outdated.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.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   0  
       Troll=1, Insightful=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Troll' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 03 2018, @05:04AM (8 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 03 2018, @05:04AM (#646852)

    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)

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday March 03 2018, @03:06PM (#647070) Journal

      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)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 03 2018, @06:40PM (#647172)

        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)

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday March 03 2018, @10:08PM (#647293) Journal

          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]

          (3) The term “firearm” means (A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or (D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm

          • (Score: 2) by ElizabethGreene on Sunday March 04 2018, @05:52AM (2 children)

            by ElizabethGreene (6748) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 04 2018, @05:52AM (#647507) Journal

            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)

              by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 04 2018, @06:12AM (#647515) Journal

              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

                by ElizabethGreene (6748) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 04 2018, @05:17PM (#647665) Journal

                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)

            by number11 (1170) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 04 2018, @06:27AM (#647519)

            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.

            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

              by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 04 2018, @08:41AM (#647559) Journal

              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)

    by sjames (2882) on Saturday March 03 2018, @05:19AM (#646863) Journal

    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)

      by jmorris (4844) on Saturday March 03 2018, @06:14AM (#646889)

      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)

        by sjames (2882) on Saturday March 03 2018, @06:26AM (#646898) Journal

        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)

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 03 2018, @11:20AM (#646995)

          Even funnier that you say all that after TRUMP suggested grabbing the guns first, "due process" later.

          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

            by dry (223) on Saturday March 03 2018, @04:40PM (#647126) Journal

            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

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 03 2018, @06:58AM (#646907)

        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.

        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

        by MichaelDavidCrawford (2339) Subscriber Badge <mdcrawford@gmail.com> on Saturday March 03 2018, @07:16AM (#646913) Homepage Journal

        "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)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday March 03 2018, @08:41AM (#646946) Journal
        But sjames has a point. Georgia government should not be involved in this mess. It's not their job. NRA has their own tools for the job.

        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)

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday March 03 2018, @03:11PM (#647075) Journal

          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

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday March 03 2018, @03:21PM (#647083) Journal
            Delta isn't threatening anyone's legal rights. And Delta does have the legal right to engage in political speech.
      • (Score: 1, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Saturday March 03 2018, @03:08PM

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday March 03 2018, @03:08PM (#647072) Journal

        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

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 03 2018, @02:40PM (#647059)

      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)

    by MichaelDavidCrawford (2339) Subscriber Badge <mdcrawford@gmail.com> on Saturday March 03 2018, @07:01AM (#646909) Homepage Journal

    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

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday March 03 2018, @08:45AM (#646950) Journal

      I see no reason for assault weapons to even exist

      Aside from killing people who need killing or shooting for fun, I don't either.

      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'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)

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday March 03 2018, @03:19PM (#647081) Journal

      I see no reason for assault weapons to even exist

      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.

      those . . . deluded . . . guns will prevent repression . . . shootout with an A-10

      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)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 03 2018, @03:29PM (#647089)

        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

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday March 03 2018, @03:43PM (#647097) Journal

          how did that Los Vegas gunman fire so many rounds in such a short period of time?

          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.

          People like you

          Whatever, dude.