hydrospanner

Wouldn't the combo of the first amendment and the supremacy clause pretty neatly dismantle the new Louisiana law?

Right.

Honestly for as much "woe is me" that they crammed into this piece, my takeaway was mostly just, "Hmmm...good."

Like...I love rural PA, I'm just not wild about a lot of the people who live there. They vote against my own interests (and theirs), disproportionately influence state government, and welcome corporations that proudly destroy the environment while taking a hostile stance toward anyone not like them.

This isn't down to every last person, of course, but broadly speaking, the ones who aren't fitting that template are also not the ones doing most of the dying.

So the piece is reading, to me, more as, "the people most responsible for keeping the shitty aspects of Pennsylvania shitty are dying faster than they're breeding"...which is good news for the more reasonable residents of the state.

Are you from rural PA?

So you just don't work at all?

Knocked it out of the park with this comment.

Sincerely,

Someone originally from the same town as you, basically.

I'll assume that I'm just missing a reference or three because the alternative is that I'm having a stroke.

Hell, in the inter-war period, mainstream America was even generally pretty comfortable with...uh...if not actual fascism, at least things that looked and sounded a lot like fascism.

Because they've also got the lie-a-beetus.

The Great Basilisk is displeased by your repeated misspelling of the word "falter".

Prepare your simulated ass.

Better yet: on Lemmy it doesn't matter if you're right or wrong, support yourself with facts or have someone else do it, admit mistake or not...if what you post isn't in alignment with the overall masses, it's ~~jail~~ downvotes.

A few local places incorporate mayo into so many of their rolls that I actually avoid those places because with me not really liking mayo, I can only order from like 30% of their menu.

I hate making something like that mandatory, but another benefit would be to reduce the stigma of guns in general.

It always surprises me how frequently I hear from otherwise pretty open minded people some version of, "I don't own guns and I've never needed a gun. Therefore nobody anywhere needs one or should have one for any reason and I'd fully support completely banning them, and if that violates the constitution, so what, it's what I want."

Further, gun education would reduce the ideas and legislation to restrict guns based on nonsense. There's a lot of fear of "scary guns" based on little more than superficial appearance, and I even see a lot of ideas from people claiming to want compromise, but it usually comes down to one of a few things: some arbitrary delineation between guns they're okay with because they don't look scary, something that would do little more than make criminals out of otherwise law abiding people, or depriving law abiding citizens of constitutionally guaranteed rights without due process.