Slashdot Mirror

Try to give a nuanced answer as to why this bill is counter productive and very few people will listen.

Generally, very few people don't listen; speak up.

People got pissed at our State Senate recently for trying to put enormous penalties for violent and sexual crime re-offenders, with mandatory minimums. One Senator (yes, it was Zirkin) told me there were no mandatory minimums because the "no judge shall issue a sentence less than the minimum defined for these crimes" line leaves them open for review; of course, another clause says that these people aren't eligible for parole until they've served those minimums, or 60% of their sentence--whichever is larger.

Here's a hint: you put them in prison; you didn't implement a prison system that turns them into productive citizens, even though that's been done in Norway, Ireland, and North Dakota; you dumped them out on the street with no aid, after locking them in cages and treating them like animals, turning them into worse criminals; and now you want to put them back in the cage because they re-offended. What did you think was going to happen?!

No, Senator, this is your fault. Stop building prisons and showing tough sentences and start rolling out dynamic security, inmate diversion, stronger and better parole programs, and prison-to-productivity pipelines.

"We're going to put violent rapists who commit rape again in prison for a lot longer" sounds great. So did the whole end-run around due process (the bill allowed courts to introduce evidence of other crimes not prosecuted so as to influence the sentencing--5-20 years, and we have too little evidence to prosecute the other 5 times you did this, but hey, we'll put you in prison for 20 years because of those too!). Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way and you're just making the problem worse.

People aren't stupid; nobody's willing to stand up and do the right thing.

I need to have a talk with Madaleno (he voted for this and is running for Governor) soon. If he doesn't shift position lickity-split, he's not getting my vote. This is coming up in my endorsement interview with central labor this week, as well; even if they don't endorse me, I intend to shift their criminal justice reform stance (which is forward, but barely), and maybe send them after these people. It might not be good for your career when a Congressional Candidate mentions in public needing to work with the State governor and legislature as part of a major criminal justice reform effort and has some unfortunate reservations about your recent position on the issue.

Well, if I'm reading the correct page (Tennessee Senate version of bill) https://legiscan.com/TN/rollcall/SB1215/id/622577, the House voted Yeas - 93, Nays - 4. All 25 Democrats voted for the bill. 68 Republicans voted for the bill with 4 voting against. The Senate vote was unanimous for the bill. Also, while I didn't read the actual text of the bill, there is this part in the summary:

"allows an electric cooperative to provide broadband service within or without the cooperative's service area, subject to certain requirements;"

Does that mean the power company isn't shut out?

Maybe after you twats realize Democrats also voted for the bill, you could stop letting them get away with goddamn murder while you scream "REEEEEEEEE" at only half of the problem.

https://legiscan.com/TN/bill/H...

Facts? Get those goddamn facts out of here.

How did HB2 help people get left alone?

HB2 addresses men imposing their presence on women in bathrooms;

No, it doesn't. It actually contains zero content relevant to criminal harassment, though as North Carolina already had such laws, it had no need to impose further upon people by forcing them to undergo genital inspections before entering a bathroom facility. Why lie? Did you think I hadn't read them?

SB 1070 and HB 56 addresses foreigners coercing Americans to support them financially and associate with them;

Nope. SB 1070 did nothing for that, as its provisions were directed at Law Enforcement, instructing them to impose themselves on individuals to determine their immigration status REGARDLESS of any other status. It had nothing to do with welfare.

Now HB 56did impact public benefits, however, that was not its exclusive content, sorry. By some arguments, it even criminalized giving an illegal immigrant a cup of coffee. It was very broadly written. It also forbade contracts and agreements, in some cases.

And in fact, some of the individuals investigated under the law had valid passports, international driver's licenses, and work permits.

I'm going to suspect that neither of those individuals was on welfare.

Prop 8 addresses gay men and women being able to coerce other Americans to do business with them against their moral conviction.

No, it didn't. It denied people's right to marry. Marriage is inherently a sanctioned practice by the state, and yes, it is coercive. Given the vast majority of marriages that remained in effect, its only result was discriminatory upon a particular group.

How exactly does that serve in the interests stated above? I might respect such an argument if it were repudiating all marriage as a state-practice, but nope, that's not going to happen.

All these laws were in response to coercive laws and practices in the US. Now, they were flawed responses, but they were the best people could do under the circumstances.

Seems they did poorly. All of them were almost completely overturned. Others were heavily challenged. And their effectiveness was less than salutary.

Did you want to discuss that, instead of the actual character and behavior of the professed conservatives as exemplified by their patterns and practices?

On the whole, I have no complaint with the character or behavior of conservatives. I do have a big problem with the bigotry, intolerance, and greed of progressives and Democrats, which is why I left the Democratic party recently.

Oh? Well, I suggest you examine the character and behavior of conservatives, or self-proclaimed conservatives, especially the ones claiming Republican Party membership.

Wasn't what we we discussing before, though.

This is the same person that wants:

Senate Bill 47 (Yee) expands the definition of “assault weapons” to BAN the future sale of rifles that have been designed/sold and are equipped to use the “bullet button” or similar device, requires NEW “assault weapon” registration of ALL those semi-auto rifles that are currently possessed to retain legal possession in the future, and subjects these firearms to all other “assault weapons” restrictions.

http://legiscan.com/CA/bill/SB47/2013

Senate Bill 108 (Yee) requires mandatory locked storage of firearms within a locked house regardless of whether anyone is present.

http://legiscan.com/CA/bill/SB108/2013

My impression of him is that he is a reactionary that responds to any situation in the most forceful way possible to please the pundits who are calling for action that the constituency doesn't actually want. He doesn't actually understand what he's legislating against in many situations, like as mentioned below the ban on video games for minors but because the pundits call for it something needs to be done.

The 3d printer is no different. Damn all the useful things that can be done with it he doesn't understand it and it can do one bad thing so ban it.

This is the same person that wants:

Senate Bill 47 (Yee) expands the definition of “assault weapons” to BAN the future sale of rifles that have been designed/sold and are equipped to use the “bullet button” or similar device, requires NEW “assault weapon” registration of ALL those semi-auto rifles that are currently possessed to retain legal possession in the future, and subjects these firearms to all other “assault weapons” restrictions.

http://legiscan.com/CA/bill/SB47/2013

Senate Bill 108 (Yee) requires mandatory locked storage of firearms within a locked house regardless of whether anyone is present.

http://legiscan.com/CA/bill/SB108/2013

My impression of him is that he is a reactionary that responds to any situation in the most forceful way possible to please the pundits who are calling for action that the constituency doesn't actually want. He doesn't actually understand what he's legislating against in many situations, like as mentioned below the ban on video games for minors but because the pundits call for it something needs to be done.

The 3d printer is no different. Damn all the useful things that can be done with it he doesn't understand it and it can do one bad thing so ban it.

How long before all RC helicopters (and all hobby RC planes for that matter) will be banned ?

They are already trying in Texas and in New Hampshire. Notice the inclusion of drones by name in the legislation, and the lack of differentiation between government use and private use.

This article from a few weeks ago shows that two other state legislatures, specifically Florida and Virginia, are attempting a legislative fix to drone use, though those attempts are targeted specifically at government use of drones. The mayor of Seattle cancelled the Seattle PD's drone program and ordered the chief of police to return the ones they'd already bought to the manufacturer for a refund.

With that said, attempts to block government use of drones are probably doomed to failure, since the FAA has already been directed by the 112th Congress to integrate drones into the national airspace via HR 658 (relevant section here,) and police departments across the nation are buying them in droves, despite what happened in Seattle. The DHS's "loan a drone" program, coupled with DHS's $4M grant program to local law authorities to acquire drones, would strongly suggest that government use of drones is here to stay.

Given the push/pull legislative wars being driven by the privacy vs. public safety debate, I doubt that banning RC aircraft is a viable legislative option. What is (probably) going to happen with RC aircraft is what has already happened with other "hobbies" that are deemed to be a threat to public safety (think: greenhouses that could be used for growing pot, legal chemicals that could be used to manufacture illegal drugs, model rockets that could be weaponized.) Purchases of RC aircraft and related equipment will be tracked at the point of sale and those records will be forwarded to the feds, where the purchasers will end up on an FBI watch list, just like the purchasers of the above-mentioned items.