Orlando Attractions Area News & Developments

[jrs2]

8 minutes ago, jack said:

Not to quibble, but from a historical standpoint, the 2nd amendment was for self defense in any instance. Not necessarily to defend oneself from the government. Many states before the US constitutional had a similar clause in their own constitution.   

The emphasis on protection from the government is more of a modern day phenomenon.  

It is irrelevant. To have a free and prosperous society, we need to live as virtuous people. If not, the government will step and no good can come of that. 

The people closest to these killers either stood by or aided and abetted them. This is not only for mass shootings, you see similar issues with everyday gun violence and suicides. 

Debating the historical standpoint, etc., is not constructive here, b/c nothing good can come from getting rid of legal guns in the same way that nothing good can come from the government stepping in because we are not living as "virtuous people," whatever that actually means

Didn't the PMRC try its darnedest to censor rock music in the 1980's?  I could slam the Democrats for that one, but I won't b/c a Republican passed the Patriot Act a few years later.  So the party that's supposed to be about peace, love, rebelling against the system, is about making the system more encompassing.  And the party that's about smaller less intrusive government passed the Patriot Act among other things.  Makes no sense, right?  So why trust it?

As for the virtuous society aspect, who is the government to rate virtue on a litmus test?  By what standard?  Hitler had his standard; so did Stalin.  Do you think the government exhibits a template of virtue that qualifies them to dictate whether we as a people are living as a virtuous society?

[jack]

29 minutes ago, jrs2 said:

Debating the historical standpoint, etc., is not constructive here, b/c nothing good can come from getting rid of legal guns in the same way that nothing good can come from the government stepping in because we are not living as "virtuous people," whatever that actually means

Didn't the PMRC try its darnedest to censor rock music in the 1980's?  I could slam the Democrats for that one, but I won't b/c a Republican passed the Patriot Act a few years later.  So the party that's supposed to be about peace, love, rebelling against the system, is about making the system more encompassing.  And the party that's about smaller less intrusive government passed the Patriot Act among other things.  Makes no sense, right?  So why trust it?

As for the virtuous society aspect, who is the government to rate virtue on a litmus test?  By what standard?  Hitler had his standard; so did Stalin.  Do you think the government exhibits a template of virtue that qualifies them to dictate whether we as a people are living as a virtuous society?

I think a better understanding of our history will lead to better outcomes. I firmly believe in the right to self defense from a constitutional standpoint, and more importantly, as a human being. 

100% agree. You are making my points for me with great examples. 

No government can dictate what is moral, just or virtuous. That is my point. When society breaks down, government tries to step in and can make it worse. It is a warning, not an endorsement. 

[AmIReal]

5 hours ago, aent said:

People use guns an estimated 1.5 MILLION times a year to defend themselves against those trying to injure or kill them

I know this number has been tossed about for over a decade, but it is hard to substantiate since there is not a database that tracks this.  The figure appears to be extrapolated "from the National Crime Victimization Survey, people defended themselves with a gun in nearly 0.9 percent of crimes from 2007 to 2011, per a Harvard study. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0091743515001188

https://www.wral.com/fact-check-are-guns-used-1-5-million-times-per-year-to-save-lives/20351987/

[HankStrong]

I'm mixed in the middle because I believe in gun ownership and those freedoms, but I believe that we need much, much, much stronger laws around gun ownership.  It's so crazy easy to get a gun or even an assault rifle. I know both ends of the spectrum. 

1. I know gun enthusiasts that are the best kind of gun owner you could ever imagine.  They have all the safety protocols in place.  They take all the gun safety courses and stay current on them.  They handle their guns like museum pieces after they use them.  They know everything you could possibly want to know about their guns.  I love these kinds of gun owners.
2. I know gun idiots that act like a gun gives them the right to do whatever they want.  A neighbor has gun-related stickers on everything he owns.  He wears gun shirts every weekend.  He only talks about guns.  He owns like 15 assault rifles (I guess he's waiting on the zombie apocalypse?)  He frequently mentions how excited he'd be if someone broke into his "domicile" (he loves to use weird words for things that make him sound more important and it's really disconcerting sometimes) because he'd "put a hundred holes in them" and he celebrates this.  He bought his son his first gun on his 10th birthday and they walk around in camo all the time.  I guess he needs to hide from AT&T solicitors and the neighborhood owl.  He actually had a couple of guns stolen from his truck a few years ago when he left it unlocked.  I dislike these kinds of gun owners and frankly these kinds of humans.  This kind of gun culture is sickening.

It's hard to set up laws that include #1 and exclude #2.  However, something needs to be done because the ease of getting guns is wrong.  Have your guns, but the rest of us should be assured that you had to go through hoops to get them.  Getting illegal guns off the street needs to happen, too.  I love how people act like if you set up legal gun laws that won't change the illegal ones.  Duh? People drive without licenses and without insurance and without valid registrations.  Does that mean we shouldn't have laws requiring it?  No.  You make the illegal use a bigger crime.

Anyone who believes in the Good Guy With A Gun theory should probably read up on it.  It almost never works.  It does work on rare occasion, but it doesn't normally work.  There are tons of YouTube demonstrations and legitimate academic papers that have been done on it.  I will also point out that if you look at situations like the recent Texas shooting to point out that 100+ good guys with guns didn't stop 1 bad guy with one in time.  It's not nearly as cut & dry as some people think.

[codypet]

I agree @HankStrong.  Honest question.  What is well regulated militia?  How is it regulated?  Who is regulating it?  I think your case for those #2 guys under well regulated would mean he shouldn't have a gun.  Nothing about what he's saying screams well regulated.  I personally as a former gun owner never felt easy owning it despite my training.  I felt far more effective defending my house with the armory of Craftsman wrenches and baseball bats then a gun.  Part of responsible ownership is knowing yourself and what you're comfortable having around.  But if someone does break into my house and I'm near my wrenches, oy there's going to be such a mess.

[jack]

1 hour ago, HankStrong said:

 

1. I know gun idiots that act like a gun gives them the right to do whatever they want.  A neighbor has gun-related stickers on everything he owns.  He wears gun shirts every weekend.  He only talks about guns.  He owns like 15 assault rifles (I guess he's waiting on the zombie apocalypse?)  He frequently mentions how excited he'd be if someone broke into his "domicile" (he loves to use weird words for things that make him sound more important and it's really disconcerting sometimes) because he'd "put a hundred holes in them" and he celebrates this.  He bought his son his first gun on his 10th birthday and they walk around in camo all the time.  I guess he needs to hide from AT&T solicitors and the neighborhood owl.  He actually had a couple of guns stolen from his truck a few years ago when he left it unlocked.  I dislike these kinds of gun owners and frankly these kinds of humans.  This kind of gun culture is sickening.

It's hard to set up laws that include #1 and exclude #2.  However, something needs to be done because the ease of getting guns is wrong.  Have your guns, but the rest of us should be assured that you had to go through hoops to get them.  Getting illegal guns off the street needs to happen, too.  I love how people act like if you set up legal gun laws that won't change the illegal ones.  Duh? People drive without licenses and without insurance and without valid registrations.  Does that mean we shouldn't have laws requiring it?  No.  You make the illegal use a bigger crime.

Anyone who believes in the Good Guy With A Gun theory should probably read up on it.  It almost never works.  It does work on rare occasion, but it doesn't normally work.  There are tons of YouTube demonstrations and legitimate academic papers that have been done on it.  I will also point out that if you look at situations like the recent Texas shooting to point out that 100+ good guys with guns didn't stop 1 bad guy with one in time.  It's not nearly as cut & dry as some people think.

Call them by their name, gun fetishists. 

One major cause of illegal guns on the street are straw purchasers. We could just do a better job enforcing laws on the books to help stop the flow of guns to these neighborhoods. 

[spenser1058]

17 minutes ago, codypet said:

I agree @HankStrong.  Honest question.  What is well regulated militia?  How is it regulated?  Who is regulating it?  I think your case for those #2 guys under well regulated would mean he shouldn't have a gun.  Nothing about what he's saying screams well regulated.  I personally as a former gun owner never felt easy owning it despite my training.  I felt far more effective defending my house with the armory of Craftsman wrenches and baseball bats then a gun.  Part of responsible ownership is knowing yourself and what you're comfortable having around.  But if someone does break into my house and I'm near my wrenches, oy there's going to be such a mess.

The current interpretation of the amendment only goes back to the late ‘70’s. For the first almost 200 years of the Republic, it was quite different. That’s why it’s gotten so out of control in the last few decades, egged on of course by a radicalized NRA (they weren’t always like this - a primary focus was once gun safety) and one political party.

Edited July 19, 2022 by spenser1058

[jack]

14 minutes ago, codypet said:

I agree @HankStrong.  Honest question.  What is well regulated militia?  How is it regulated?  Who is regulating it?  I think your case for those #2 guys under well regulated would mean he shouldn't have a gun.  Nothing about what he's saying screams well regulated.  I personally as a former gun owner never felt easy owning it despite my training.  I felt far more effective defending my house with the armory of Craftsman wrenches and baseball bats then a gun.  Part of responsible ownership is knowing yourself and what you're comfortable having around.  But if someone does break into my house and I'm near my wrenches, oy there's going to be such a mess.

The term "well regulated" in the old days referred to the state of the fighters. Well, trained, working weapons, etc. Not regulated as in the government making rules. 

You are absolutely correct about responsible ownership and wish more people had that view. 

[FLheat]

The term "well regulated" in the old days referred to the state of the fighters. Well, trained, working weapons, etc. Not regulated as in the government making rules. 

 

This should start with:  In my opinion, or some may argue...  This is presented as fact, the second amendment is so vague and poorly constructed that many grasp at straws to make it read what they believe it to mean.

[HankStrong]

Agreed with both.  Regulated was a state, not a governance, in those terms.

[jrs2]

2 hours ago, jack said:

Call them by their name, gun fetishists. 

One major cause of illegal guns on the street are straw purchasers. We could just do a better job enforcing laws on the books to help stop the flow of guns to these neighborhoods. 

C'mon, Jack.  the mob still exists, right, and it's 2022, and not the Elliot Ness era?

There is no such thing as enforcing the laws on the books on this issue to make these problems you guys pointed to go away.  it is what it is.

Society is sick, the government doesn't do a damn thing about mental health, and the Democrats (in this case) want to point fingers (as a scapegoat).  Bullies are still bullies pissing off the bullied; bad parents are still bad parents messing up their kids' psyches; society is still fudgeed up creating disheveled individuals.  Cause and effect.  

why isn't anyone talking about narcotics here?

[spenser1058]

30 minutes ago, jrs2 said:

C'mon, Jack.  the mob still exists, right, and it's 2022, and not the Elliot Ness era?

There is no such thing as enforcing the laws on the books on this issue to make these problems you guys pointed to go away.  it is what it is.

Society is sick, the government doesn't do a damn thing about mental health, and the Democrats (in this case) want to point fingers (as a scapegoat).  Bullies are still bullies pissing off the bullied; bad parents are still bad parents messing up their kids' psyches; society is still fudgeed up creating disheveled individuals.  Cause and effect.  

why isn't anyone talking about narcotics here?

As soon as you get us the votes in the Senate to take out the filibuster, we’ll be happy to get right on it. (Remember, California has exactly as many seats in the Senate as Wyoming). Bill Clinton signed the assault rifle ban into law in 1994; however, Republicans who controlled the House and Senate refused to renew the ban when the law sunset ten years later. Attempts to do so since then could not get past the filibuster in the Senate.

Edited July 19, 2022 by spenser1058

[jrs2]

2 hours ago, spenser1058 said:

The current interpretation of the amendment only goes back to the late ‘70’s. For the first almost 200 years of the Republic, it was quite different. That’s why it’s gotten so out of control in the last few decades, egged on of course by a radicalized NRA (they weren’t always like this - a primary focus was once gun safety) and one political party.

wrong, Spenser.  The Left has been radicalized and the NRA is fighting back. 

But that's the Left's MO, isn't it... you have all these liberal news outlets in the media (I wonder why that is) and the one that isn't liberal, FOX, just rubs everyone the wrong way.  there is no live and let live with liberals.  And if you listen to Malcom X, he'll tell you, that "I don't necessarily agree with conservatives, but they tell you how it is; liberals are just more devious about it."  I think he used the term "deceitful."

It has "gotten so out of control" in the past few decades because of the following.  Here's a recap  of history that liberals will choose to ignore (I mean, ignore, delete, or change, to be PC):

-In the early 1900's- the Bolsheviks overthrew the Czar and ushered in communism, the USSR or CCCP.  they vow that to overthrow the US; it has to be done from the INSIDE.  They state that to do this, they must infiltrate the media and education system.  They also use political correctness to get the guns out of peoples' hands.  Stalin executes 8 million Russians up to 1953.  We are in a Cold War for another 40 years trying to keep the dominos from toppling on the world stage.  NATO, anyone?  Korea vs the N. Koreans backed by the Red Chinese; Vietnam vs North Vietnam backed by the Soviets, etc.  Then you have draft dodgers and the peace movement in the late '60's and early '70's.

What did the Soviets say they wanted to do in the late '70's: Create a new socialistic world order with them at the helm.  Reagan tried to bankrupt them in the '80's.  He gets shot and dude dies; some new gun laws are passed.  The policy eventually succeeds.

HW Bush then makes the New World Order speech in 1991 to the UN. Um, September 11, 1991 to be exact. 

Then in the mid '90's, Hillary tried to push for a gun registration with the UN. 

Then the WTC is dropped on September 11, 2001.

Then Obama is president and there are many "shootings" incidences; he dislikes the British (for personal reasons).  In 2012, Feinstein tries to push the gun law outlawing just about everything out there except for the politically correct revolver and shoulder stock rifles.  DHS purchases a billion rounds of .223/ .556 hollow point for "target practice" making that round unavailable.  Walmart stops selling guns.

Then Trump is president; thinks China is making out too  good with trade deals (Red China is run by the CCP- wow, sounds like CCCP).  The Wuhan drama begins with covid.

Then Biden is president and the "shootings" continue...  China wants Taiwan; Putin is in Ukraine; protests NATO; illegals are flooding into the US from the Texas border.

And we're debating the Second Amendment.  Why exactly?

[jrs2]

1 hour ago, spenser1058 said:

As soon as you get us the votes in the Senate to take out the filibuster, we’ll be happy to get right on it. (Remember, California has exactly as many seats in the Senate as Wyoming). Bill Clinton signed the assault rifle ban into law in 1994; however, Republicans who controlled the House and Senate refused to renew the ban when the law sunset ten years later. Attempts to do so since then could not get past the filibuster in the Senate.

what does assault rifles have to do with mental health measures and care?  Been downtown Orlando lately?  Why are the Democrats silent on narcotic use?  

[spenser1058]

Congratulations for that. From the fall of the czar to COVID in a discussion of gun safety. Mr. Bannon would be proud of that obfuscation.

[jrs2]

4 hours ago, codypet said:

I agree @HankStrong.  Honest question.  What is well regulated militia?  How is it regulated?  Who is regulating it?  I think your case for those #2 guys under well regulated would mean he shouldn't have a gun.  Nothing about what he's saying screams well regulated.  I personally as a former gun owner never felt easy owning it despite my training.  I felt far more effective defending my house with the armory of Craftsman wrenches and baseball bats then a gun.  Part of responsible ownership is knowing yourself and what you're comfortable having around.  But if someone does break into my house and I'm near my wrenches, oy there's going to be such a mess.

as for militias...let's talk about major protests where downtowns get destroyed (Chicago and several other cities in the past decade) because a bunch of thugs and left-backed protestors destroying property and real estate.  It is real estate and innocent people, mind you.  Are they well organized and regulated?  Who is regulating that?  Or should they have free reign to destroy whenever they deem it necessary while the community sits back in fear hoping the protest don't spread to them?  Well, in Chicago, when BLM started marching into the Mexican gang controlled area SW of downtown, there were gunshots fired and BLM disbanded and high tailed it out of there real quick.  Thank you, Mexican gang.  Where do I sign up?

As far as feeling comfortable owning a gun, most don't feel comfortable joining the military.  Does that mean it should be disbanded?

I used to hate guns.  Then I read up on our history and then world history in the past hundred years and compared it with current political trends.  I did an about face rather quickly.

most people won't bother doing that.

16 minutes ago, spenser1058 said:

Congratulations for that. From the fall of the czar to COVID in a discussion of gun safety. Mr. Bannon would be proud of that obfuscation.

I don't know what that means, but sorry I didn't erase our entire relevant history on the subject and just focus on some punks over the past couple weeks.

[jack]

1 hour ago, jrs2 said:

C'mon, Jack.  the mob still exists, right, and it's 2022, and not the Elliot Ness era?

There is no such thing as enforcing the laws on the books on this issue to make these problems you guys pointed to go away.  it is what it is.

Society is sick, the government doesn't do a damn thing about mental health, and the Democrats (in this case) want to point fingers (as a scapegoat).  Bullies are still bullies pissing off the bullied; bad parents are still bad parents messing up their kids' psyches; society is still fudgeed up creating disheveled individuals.  Cause and effect.  

why isn't anyone talking about narcotics here?

Nothing is perfect. But I was pointing out that we have laws on the book that are not being enforced. Start with that before new laws are passed.

Narcotics is just a symptom. If it did not exist something else would take its place. 

35 minutes ago, jrs2 said:

wrong, Spenser.  The Left has been radicalized and the NRA is fighting back. 

But that's the Left's MO, isn't it... you have all these liberal news outlets in the media (I wonder why that is) and the one that isn't liberal, FOX, just rubs everyone the wrong way.  there is no live and let live with liberals.  And if you listen to Malcom X, he'll tell you, that "I don't necessarily agree with conservatives, but they tell you how it is; liberals are just more devious about it."  I think he used the term "deceitful."

It has "gotten so out of control" in the past few decades because of the following.  Here's a recap  of history that liberals will choose to ignore (I mean, ignore, delete, or change, to be PC):

-In the early 1900's- the Bolsheviks overthrew the Czar and ushered in communism, the USSR or CCCP.  they vow that to overthrow the US; it has to be done from the INSIDE.  They state that to do this, they must infiltrate the media and education system.  They also use political correctness to get the guns out of peoples' hands.  Stalin executes 8 million Russians up to 1953.  We are in a Cold War for another 40 years trying to keep the dominos from toppling on the world stage.  NATO, anyone?  Korea vs the N. Koreans backed by the Red Chinese; Vietnam vs North Vietnam backed by the Soviets, etc.  Then you have draft dodgers and the peace movement in the late '60's and early '70's.

What did the Soviets say they wanted to do in the late '70's: Create a new socialistic world order with them at the helm.  Reagan tried to bankrupt them in the '80's.  He gets shot and dude dies; some new gun laws are passed.  The policy eventually succeeds.

HW Bush then makes the New World Order speech in 1991 to the UN. Um, September 11, 1991 to be exact. 

Then in the mid '90's, Hillary tried to push for a gun registration with the UN. 

Then the WTC is dropped on September 11, 2001.

Then Obama is president and there are many "shootings" incidences; he dislikes the British (for personal reasons).  In 2012, Feinstein tries to push the gun law outlawing just about everything out there except for the politically correct revolver and shoulder stock rifles.  DHS purchases a billion rounds of .223/ .556 hollow point for "target practice" making that round unavailable.  Walmart stops selling guns.

Then Trump is president; thinks China is making out too  good with trade deals (Red China is run by the CCP- wow, sounds like CCCP).  The Wuhan drama begins with covid.

Then Biden is president and the "shootings" continue...  China wants Taiwan; Putin is in Ukraine; protests NATO; illegals are flooding into the US from the Texas border.

And we're debating the Second Amendment.  Why exactly?

The NRA is a worthless organization that does nothing to protect the 2nd amendment. Never has, never will. All they do is culture war circle jerk. If they disappeared tomorrow, none of of laws would be impacted. They are nothing but a boogie man for the left to blame when things don't go their way. The organization never had any political power and never will. 

[spenser1058]

3 minutes ago, jack said:

Nothing is perfect. But I was pointing out that we have laws on the book that are not being enforced. Start with that before new laws are passed.

Narcotics is just a symptom. If it did not exist something else would take its place. 

Remember Prohibition? The war on drugs has mostly been a pork-barrel program for law enforcement (and more recently for big pharma). It’s going to take a lot of work to pare down and yes mental health budgeting is a big part of it.

In most developed countries, we’ve found that whatever approach is taken will result in about 10-15% of the population having a serious addiction regardless of the approach (even in places like China, where there have been draconian restrictions). 

if you’ve got the solution, we’ll make you king. Meanwhile, it will have to be addressed one piece at a time.

[codypet]

41 minutes ago, jrs2 said:

As far as feeling comfortable owning a gun, most don't feel comfortable joining the military.  Does that mean it should be disbanded?

I didn't at all suggest that guns should be disbanded.  For my own personal use, I didn't feel comfortable handling it despite the trips to the range and the training.  Are you suggesting I should have just lived with it uncomfortably all in the name of just having a gun in case I needed it?  

About the militia, I was genuinely curious on the intent because that line seems to mean different things to different people.

[nite owℓ]

1 hour ago, jrs2 said:

wrong, Spenser.  The Left has been radicalized and the NRA is fighting back. 

But that's the Left's MO, isn't it... you have all these liberal news outlets in the media (I wonder why that is) and the one that isn't liberal, FOX, just rubs everyone the wrong way.  there is no live and let live with liberals.  And if you listen to Malcom X, he'll tell you, that "I don't necessarily agree with conservatives, but they tell you how it is; liberals are just more devious about it."  I think he used the term "deceitful."

It has "gotten so out of control" in the past few decades because of the following.  Here's a recap  of history that liberals will choose to ignore (I mean, ignore, delete, or change, to be PC):

-In the early 1900's- the Bolsheviks overthrew the Czar and ushered in communism, the USSR or CCCP.  they vow that to overthrow the US; it has to be done from the INSIDE.  They state that to do this, they must infiltrate the media and education system.  They also use political correctness to get the guns out of peoples' hands.  Stalin executes 8 million Russians up to 1953.  We are in a Cold War for another 40 years trying to keep the dominos from toppling on the world stage.  NATO, anyone?  Korea vs the N. Koreans backed by the Red Chinese; Vietnam vs North Vietnam backed by the Soviets, etc.  Then you have draft dodgers and the peace movement in the late '60's and early '70's.

What did the Soviets say they wanted to do in the late '70's: Create a new socialistic world order with them at the helm.  Reagan tried to bankrupt them in the '80's.  He gets shot and dude dies; some new gun laws are passed.  The policy eventually succeeds.

HW Bush then makes the New World Order speech in 1991 to the UN. Um, September 11, 1991 to be exact. 

Then in the mid '90's, Hillary tried to push for a gun registration with the UN. 

Then the WTC is dropped on September 11, 2001.

Then Obama is president and there are many "shootings" incidences; he dislikes the British (for personal reasons).  In 2012, Feinstein tries to push the gun law outlawing just about everything out there except for the politically correct revolver and shoulder stock rifles.  DHS purchases a billion rounds of .223/ .556 hollow point for "target practice" making that round unavailable.  Walmart stops selling guns.

Then Trump is president; thinks China is making out too  good with trade deals (Red China is run by the CCP- wow, sounds like CCCP).  The Wuhan drama begins with covid.

Then Biden is president and the "shootings" continue...  China wants Taiwan; Putin is in Ukraine; protests NATO; illegals are flooding into the US from the Texas border.

And we're debating the Second Amendment.  Why exactly?

Interesting how you pointed out the shootings under other presidents like Obama & Biden while omitting any of the shootings under Trump, including one of the deadliest mass shooting in US history (the Las Vegas music festival).

https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/presidents-and-mass-shootings

Edited July 19, 2022 by nite owℓ

[F-L-A]

4 hours ago, jrs2 said:

wrong, Spenser.  The Left has been radicalized and the NRA is fighting back. 

[jrs2]

1 hour ago, codypet said:

I didn't at all suggest that guns should be disbanded.  For my own personal use, I didn't feel comfortable handling it despite the trips to the range and the training.  Are you suggesting I should have just lived with it uncomfortably all in the name of just having a gun in case I needed it?  

About the militia, I was genuinely curious on the intent because that line seems to mean different things to different people.

nope.  do what you feel is right.

I think the thing about a militia is like, people in a group probably contacting the state authorities or the local guard and joining (for an organized solution).  If that's not possible, then organizing with each other.  I really don't know because if things got that bad that you really had to do that, do you really want to be around anyway to live in that type of society or subjugation?  Yeah, I get it, there are extremists on both sides.  But you have to consider the worst case scenarios and their plausibility. But most people don't even think past their Netflix subscription, and others, are stones b/c the stress of analyzing what's really going on is too much for them to handle.  These are people I actually know. 

Why do you think I come to these boards and listen to Spenser and everyone else' opinions?  Because I want to be well rounded on everyone's points of view, because you can't live by living in a fox hole.  But even when Obama was president, I realized something...he was a gun merchant's best friend, straight up.  What does that tell you beyond just mere cause and effect?  It's a piece of the puzzle that tells you that it's a sadistic game the elite play on society.  So I try to tune it out.

[spenser1058]

Former OC Commissioner Allen Arthur, who was one of the original supporters of OCCC and the TDT, on the tax in 2019:

“He also helped build the convention center and served as a fervent booster for tourism. But unlike many members of Orlando’s establishment, he knew changes were needed. In one email he sent me in 2019 — 40 years after he’d voted to levy the original hotel tax — Allen said it was time to start spending those taxes on things beyond tourism promotion. Allen believed the community had more pressing needs and said he and the others who originally approved the tax never “in their wildest dreams” imagined it would generate so many billions of dollars.” -

From Scott Maxwell at The Sentinel 

https://www.orlandosentinel.com/opinion/scott-maxwell-commentary/os-op-nelson-pinder-doug-baaser-allen-arthur-scott-maxwell-20220719-ustbesow5vbgbg55nit3i5eyru-story.html
 

[jrs2]

3 hours ago, nite owℓ said:

Interesting how you pointed out the shootings under other presidents like Obama & Biden while omitting any of the shootings under Trump, including one of the deadliest mass shooting in US history (the Las Vegas music festival).

https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/presidents-and-mass-shootings

I forgot about the country folk in the Vegas shooting.  I thought that was way before that.  you're right; 2017.  

Isn't it interesting how you have country folk that are pro NRA, getting targeted, after religious groups, ethnicities, sexual orientations, and kids were targeted by shooters, when nothing got done, and then, still nothing got done?    Well, that's when you have to put two and two together to see what's really going on.  This isn't a pro-Trump statement by any stretch, but didn't he go to DC under the guise of shaking the hornet's nest?  Didn't he bring up term limits for the legislative branch?  How did that go over?   The people in DC are the elite sitting in their ivory towers, dictating to society  using a script. 

If you are liberal, do you trust a crazy redneck or Trump with a gun when you don't have one yourself?  When you are conservative, do you trust liberals with guns when you don't have one yourself?  The answer is no, and this is the analysis most people do.  If they don't want a gun themselves, they don't want the other guy to have one either. So, the elite and media make people fear guns and people with guns.  It's a manipulation.   And then you have the anti-gun sentiments on these boards for example.

Did you ever see Star Wars Episodes I-III?  In a nutshell, a senator from Naboo orchestrated a false flag to get him into power, create an army, create an environment of fear, and eventually eliminate most all opposing points of view and create a society on permanent lock down and subjugation.  That's what they did in Germany and Russia for the most part; and that's what China is today-criticize them and you're done; try to assemble and you get arrested.  China is like a business partner to the US.  Hmmm. I wonder what type of influence they have on American social policy...   They own half of Hollywood and a lot of industries.  How many politicians do they own?

[jrs2]

so...moving on I guess...

on an Attractions note, I've driven on SLR near Martin Lockheed several times in the past month for the first time in a long time... 

man, SLR looks fantastic just east of the Kirkman Rd interchange.  The Kirkman Rd extension is literally being "carved" out of the land to the east and is visible a tad at SLR and a lot at Universal Blvd to the south.  It's well under way.  I haven't seen any roadwork to the south of Universal Blvd. yet between the N/S Bldg (that Spenser is so fond of, LOL) and Vista Cay.

Epic Universe is under construction and there is visible construction a a bunch of cranes you can see from SLR and from Universal Blvd and Destination Pkwy to the east.

What is most visible are the warehouses/ back of house projects under way that are literally right at SLR, that Universal is constructing.  So they are building those and the park simultaneously.

Can the transportation experts here give a quick refresher on where DOT intends to dump Kirkman Rd onto at it's terminus?  Is it just supposed to stop at Destination Pkwy adjacent to Hilton Orlando and call it a day?  Thx.