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.
(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.