chasfh

I would agree that people who have been touched by such violence, and have actually buried children as a result, are far more likely to set aside all the niceties of liberty and give it all up for safety. I would not agree that makes up a majority of people living there, not even a slim majority. The news media may make it sound like Detroit is one big dystopian minority-ruined wasteland in which everyone who trods its ground is inevitably going to be murdered there, and I'm sure any number of posters here would affirm that belief. But I would bet more people who live there would not want to unilaterally disarm against their idea of a jacked white suburbia that has been hostile to them for decades, so granny down the street can feel marginally safer. This is all hypothetical anyway, since there will be no handgun ban passed in America anyway. Well, not at least until the Trumped-up fascists take over. 😉

So ... there's a chance they might lift the mandate after Thanksgiving? That would be a plus, since I fully expected it to last into next spring.

You might be underestimating the desire of the average Detroiter to allow the average suburbanites to maintain their arsenals just so the cops can come through his own neighborhood and confiscate the guns. What was it the man said? "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." A 21st Century amendment of that phrase might read, "Those who would cave on their own freedoms while allowing others to maintain theirs, just to obtain some theoretical safety from some theoretical guy down the street, deserve the unequal society they get in return."

I don't know about house to house. How did they do it in Australia? However they used the police to do it there, my theory—or hypothesis, I guess—is that if they did the same here, communities of color would certainly be cleaned out of their firearms, and white communities would go largely untouched. Is that a good thing? Sure, you'd possibly get some reduction in certain crimes, but is uneven application of the law, in which historically-marginalized communities are the most heavily-policed yet again, the only or best way to get there? Seems to me this would be such a very clear and obvious case of othering that it would create an uproar.

How do you tax bullets made by 3D printers? (Yeah, remember those things?)

I have an armchair theory for you: If the police were charged with confiscating illegal firearms after a handgun ban in America, a high percentage of cops would focus their efforts on people in communities they have no respect for, and would completely look the other way when it came to people they are simpatico with.

But anyway ...

OK, that's different from where I am. There is a statewide indoor mask mandate, and compliance is practically 100%. If my state didn't have the mask mandate and the place I go into is mask-optional for vaccinated people, I wouldn't mask up, either. But then, that would also mean we'd be in a different place re the trajectory of the pandemic.

Here's another question: if laws are only for the law-abiding, then why do we prosecute non-law abiding people? After all, Bunker says laws aren't for them.

To be clear, are you saying that people are actively spurning a mask mandate in, for example, a store that has a sign at the door that requires a mask?

Guns don't kill people. People with guns kill people.

Where are all these vast majority of people who don't wear masks? Where I live, there is an indoor mask mandate at most indoor establishments, and mask compliance is near 100%, same as it was a year ago. There are still a high percentage of people who walk the street in masks, which I think is overkill, but hey, that's their choice, and it's a much safer choice than someone being deliberately unvaccinated and deliberately unmasked around others, because they care only about themselves. Are people in Michigan actively spurning indoor mask mandates to make a point?

Wait until they sue for the right to terminate employees who got the vaccine because religious freedom. That’ll be fun.

Well, in republican leadership’s defense, they lie only because they believe everything will work out just fine.

OK, I misspoke. He is not engineering a fascist takeover. He is the Potemkin leader of the fascist takeover.

Yeah, what lawyer would want the inside track potential that comes with working for the guy who's engineering what could be a successful fascist takeover of Amerika? I would bet a high percentage of them are true believers and are besotted by his orange celebrity sheen.

Good thing he can't lob any nukes at Ch-EYE-na to distract us from all this.

Just doing his (real) job.

And there the tweet goes ...

I'm sorry, you can blame me for that. I've also started seeing more open shelf space in that aisle, so I picked up three extra big packages of Northerns last week. Also, three extra big packages of Viva paper towels. Better in my house than in a ship in the harbor.

You flatter with your implication that he's engaging in serious debate.

Oh well, there goes that dream.

If the Bengals can kick a field goal (37-11) or score a touchdown (41-11) and that’s it, we’d have a scorigami.

Succession returns tonight.

Maybe they beat the Jaguars to London. They do have a team nickname the Brits can get behind, plus they are used to watching bad gridiron football teams over there.