When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
that conspiracy theory tingling sensation just never quits with this story.
(screenshot)
I perceive there to be a disconnect between the arguments made by the right, and the aims of the left.
Specifically, I've been seeing, once again, all of these memes pointing out that murder is already illegal, that guns used in murder were obtained illegally, and so on, as justification for what is effectively a strawman argument. An imagined argument which supposes that those on the left want to pass laws making it difficult to obtain firearms.
But that's not what the left is aiming for. They don't want to make processing firearms illegal, they want to physical remove firearms from society (except for in the hands of police, and all cops are racist bastards.)
The argument here being that if all firearms are forcibly removed from private hands, then there will be no guns to obtain, legally or illegally.
This is why the left are actually calling for a repeal of the 2nd Amendment. Or, in some cases, a radically leftist revision of it. One such example is seen in an essay by Mary Anne Franks, who, after arguing that the 1st Amendment should be revised so as to excluding saying things that hurt other people's feelings, the second should be revised as follows:
All people have the right to bodily autonomy consistent with the right of other people to the same, including the right to defend themselves against unlawful force and the right of self-determination in reproductive matters. The government shall take reasonable measures to protect the health and safety of the public as a whole.
Justice Alito Blocks Appeals Court Ruling That Could Decide PA Primary
The administrative stay Alito issued involves a unanimous decision of a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit. It said that mail-in ballots that were received on time but lacked a required date on the outer envelope should be counted. Alito is the justice who receives emergency applications from the 3rd Circuit.
The panel’s decision involved a local judge’s race in Lehigh County. But it is significant because of the too-close-to-call primary for the Republican Senate nomination involving Mehmet Oz and David McCormick. McCormick, who trails Oz by fewer than 1,000 votes, has filed a lawsuit in state court to require that such “undated ballots” be counted.
I perceive there to be a disconnect between the arguments made by the right, and the aims of the left.
Specifically, I've been seeing, once again, all of these memes pointing out that murder is already illegal, that guns used in murder were obtained illegally, and so on, as justification for what is effectively a strawman argument. An imagined argument which supposes that those on the left want to pass laws making it difficult to obtain firearms.
But that's not what the left is aiming for. They don't want to make processing firearms illegal, they want to physical remove firearms from society (except for in the hands of police, and all cops are racist bastards.)
The argument here being that if all firearms are forcibly removed from private hands, then there will be no guns to obtain, legally or illegally.
This is why the left are actually calling for a repeal of the 2nd Amendment. Or, in some cases, a radically leftist revision of it. One such example is seen in an essay by Mary Anne Franks, who, after arguing that the 1st Amendment should be revised so as to excluding saying things that hurt other people's feelings, the second should be revised as follows:
All people have the right to bodily autonomy consistent with the right of other people to the same, including the right to defend themselves against unlawful force and the right of self-determination in reproductive matters. The government shall take reasonable measures to protect the health and safety of the public as a whole.
The right's argument, aside from the obvious 2A freedoms spelled out plainly since we became a country, is that normal people are being punished for the illegal actions of thugs. Now I can somewhat understand locking up cough syrup at the pharmacy so some jackass doesn't make meth, but writ large cough syrup availability isn't spelled out in the Constitution.
This has real consequences. As George Soros DA's make everything a misdemeanor and put violent thugs back on the street, the government is taking away our right to protect ourselves and our families based on the actions of criminals. And the cops are now reacting based on potential law suits, not lives saved. Seems kinda bullshit to me.
The right's argument, aside from the obvious 2A freedoms spelled out plainly since we became a country, is that normal people are being punished for the illegal actions of thugs.
Agreed completely and without argument.
My point, however, was that those on the far-right media wagon have, as often happens, invented a fictitious stance to oppose on behalf of those on the far-left. To wit: that the far-left wishes to make it harder to legally acquire firearms.
They desire no such thing. Their goal, and they are finally being pretty transparent about it, is to repeal the Second Amendment and entirely abolish lawful private firearm ownership. They desire to completely disarm law-abiding citizens in the US
Though this headline is short, some may still believe it is, to some extent, an exaggeration for comic effect. Without conceding that is true, or indeed that I have ever done such a thing, if I were doing it here the exaggeration would be minimal:
The issue presented here is whether the bumble bee, a terrestrial invertebrate, falls within the definition of fish…. Almond Alliance of Cal. v. Fish & Game Commission, No. C093542, 2022 WL 1742458 (Cal. Ct. App. May 31, 2022).
That was the issue, and the court held that it does.
Let me try to explain WTF was going on here, and maybe more importantly who’s to blame for the completely insane result.
The dispute in this case was whether the California Fish and Game Commission had the authority to designate four bumblebee species as candidates for the endangered-species list. The opinion does not discuss the consequences of such a designation or why it was disputed, but I am guessing that either it would limit the property rights of California almond growers in some manner or there is a group of people named “Almond” in California who really *#&%ing hate bees. Possibly both. But the only issue the opinion discusses is whether the Commission had statutory authority to do this.
For that to be true, the bumblebees had to fit within the definitions of “endangered species” or “threatened species” found in the California Fish and Game Code. And that means they would have to be “native species or subspecies of a bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant.” Cal. Fish & Game Code §§ 2062, 2067, 2068. Well, bumblebees, like all other bees, are insects. This means they are not birds, mammals, fish, amphibians, reptiles, or plants. The end.
No?
This opinion is somehow 35 pages long?
Yes.
To understand why, we apparently must go back many decades and start with the California Legislature’s original definition of “fish.” (Don’t worry, this won’t make any sense eventually, either.) Back then, the Code defined “fish” as “wild fish, mollusks, or crustaceans, including any part, spawn, or ova thereof.” Are mollusks fish? Nope. Are crustaceans fish? Nope. So is there already a problem? Yep.
In 1969, the Legislature decided to expand the Commission’s authority to include amphibians. Did it do so by narrowing the “fish” definition to fish and then adding one for amphibians? Nope. It just stuck them in with the fish. And then in 1984, it wanted to add “invertebrates.” Did it take this opportunity to straighten things out? Nope. In they went. And this is how we got the statute that the Court of Appeal was interpreting in the Almond Alliance case. It now says this:
“Fish” means a wild fish, mollusk, crustacean, invertebrate, amphibian, or part, spawn, or ovum of any of those animals. Cal. Fish & Game Code § 45.
So the definition of “fish” now includes even more things that aren’t fish, including entire categories of things that aren’t even vertebrates like fish are, in addition to the mollusks and crustaceans that are also invertebrates but for some reason are still listed separately unlike all other invertebrates. But it doesn’t include insects.
Or does it?
See, insects are invertebrates. Specifically, they’re in the category of “invertebrates that aren’t mollusks or crustaceans,” which is not to say that’s a category recognized by anyone but the California Legislature, because it isn’t. But insects are definitely in that category, and that means bees are in it.
Or maybe they’re not.
Because what we now have to figure out is whether the California Legislature intended to include invertebrates that don’t live in water in the definition of “fish.” As you may have noticed, everything else in the list is something that lives in water, at least if you don’t think too hard about amphibians. This of course would make sense because this is, after all, a definition of “fish,” which definitely live in water all the time (except when they are jumping unless they are lungfish, which walk or at least creep a little). So, DOES THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE THINK NONAQUATIC INVERTEBRATES ARE “FISH” IS THE REAL QUESTION HERE, and also possibly the reason you just tore up your law school application, for which I commend you.
To answer this question, the court had to go back through decades of legislative history in an effort to figure out what the hell the Legislature was thinking. And while it was mostly thinking about water-based critters, this was not always true. In 1980, the Commission decided certain butterflies should be on the endangered list, and also the “Trinity bristle snail,” which is, the court notes, “a terrestrial gastropod that is both a mollusk and an invertebrate.” (I forgot about snails when writing the paragraph above, but I’m not going back.) But someone objected, for what seems like a pretty darn good reason: “Mr. Livingston contended that insects are not fish[.]” The Commission did not necessarily agree with this outlandish position, it seems, but the butterflies came off the list. Since then, there has apparently been an ongoing debate about whether insects are fish in California.
But, remember, four years after the butterfly crisis, the Legislature added “invertebrates” to the definition. Insects are invertebrates. And this didn’t seem to be limited to aquatic beasts, the court held, because of that goddamn snail, which is terrestrial. Nobody had ever complained about it being on the list. If the Legislature cared about the aquaticness of invertebrates, the court seems to have reasoned, it would have done something about this, but it didn’t. Therefore, nonaquatic invertebrates can be on the list, and that’s what bumblebees are.
This is why, at least for purposes of California’s section 45, bees are fish.
If you want more, there’s a wonderful discussion of worms on page 34 of the opinion, but I need a drink.
My point, however, was that those on the far-right media wagon have, as often happens, invented a fictitious stance to oppose on behalf of those on the far-left. To wit: that the far-left wishes to make it harder to legally acquire firearms.
They desire no such thing. Their goal, and they are finally being pretty transparent about it, is to repeal the Second Amendment and entirely abolish lawful private firearm ownership. They desire to completely disarm law-abiding citizens in the US
The righty media I listen to realizes what's going on. They realize that a serious portion of the Dems in Congress are actually Socialist. And all of us watched as Australia of all governments rounded up people who were running by themselves or surfing alone and put them in Covid camps, because Covid curfew. Oh, and because they could because all the guns were rounded up. Wonder what's going to happen with guns and Castro's love child up in Canada. It sure didn't end well for that little island nation off Florida when his dad took away the guns there.
Speaking of the shitstains that run California, those of us that can afford it are buying up battery backup systems so that when the brownouts and rolling blackouts inevitably come this summer, we can at least run our refrigerators so the $1,000 of food in them doesn't spoil.
Speaking of the shitstains that run California, those of us that can afford it are buying up battery backup systems so that when the brownouts and rolling blackouts inevitably come this summer, we can at least run our refrigerators so the $1,000 of food in them doesn't spoil.
My point, however, was that those on the far-right media wagon have, as often happens, invented a fictitious stance to oppose on behalf of those on the far-left. To wit: that the far-left wishes to make it harder to legally acquire firearms.
They desire no such thing. Their goal, and they are finally being pretty transparent about it, is to repeal the Second Amendment and entirely abolish lawful private firearm ownership. They desire to completely disarm law-abiding citizens in the US
Los Angeles DA Gascon's office lands 5-month probation camp sentence for teen who mowed down mom and infant
A Venice, California, driver ran over Rachel and her infant son last summer, video shows
"I was also told that his record would be wiped clean when he turns 18," she continued. "How on earth can that be? He tried to murder two innocent pedestrians. Murder. And we have video evidence. My child would be dead if I hadn’t been there to protect him."
In the harrowing collision, with a wall to one side and the approaching car on the other, Rachel said she lifted her son's stroller straight up just before impact, which she credits for saving him from more severe injuries.
"George Gascon doesn’t value my life or the life of my child, or any other victim out there and would rather reward the monsters like [the juvenile suspect] by demonstrating to them that their actions have no consequences," Rachel's statement continues. "DA Gascon is telling him and every other thug in LA County that it doesn’t matter if you try to murder people. Why are Gascon’s policies prioritizing the livelihood of rotten monsters when my child, my baby, who is incapable of protecting himself, is left to fend for himself, and is essentially being told his life doesn’t matter?"
Gascon’s office has come under fire for months for what critics say is a soft approach to prosecuting crime. He has maintained that his reforms are aimed at creating a fairer criminal justice system.
1
