alfa164
Posts: 2009
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 2:47 am

Re: Delta risks $40 mill in tax breaks over NRA riff

Wed Feb 28, 2018 3:06 am

MaverickM11 wrote:
So....what a re the odds this actually is blocked? Or is it just posturing from a guy seeking reelection?

His posturing probably just guaranteed that Amazon won't be looking at Georgia any longer... :roll:
 
IPFreely
Posts: 1837
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2006 8:26 am

Re: Delta risks $40 mill in tax breaks over NRA riff

Wed Feb 28, 2018 3:18 am

jmc1975 wrote:
It’ll all be okay. If DL is dead set on making a political statement, $40million should be well worth it for them.


They can pay it out of the $50,000,000 reimbursement Ed is getting from Georgia Power for the power outage. :D :D :D
 
wjcandee
Posts: 6646
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

Re: Delta risks $40 mill in tax breaks over NRA riff

Wed Feb 28, 2018 3:18 am

mcg wrote:
wjcandee wrote:
Aptivaboy: You beat me to it. The "the weapons are sooooo much more dangerous today" argument is historically inaccurate.

Amazing what people are being taught in school today.

Jumbo: Thanks for the intellectual honesty! Seriously. It's refreshing to see on "social media", and I salute you.


As a Parkland parent put it, explain to me how a 17 year old with an assault rifle is a 'well regulated militia'.


I would be happy to.

Of course, this particular nut was 19, not 17.

And tell me what the age was of actual Revolutionary War soldiers. Right. As young as 15 was permitted, but some were younger. (The Marquis de Lafayette, leader of the French soldiers, was 18 at the time of the Revolution.)

But why let facts get in the way?

Now to answer your question: The Second Amendment doesn't limit the right to keep and bear arms to members of a militia; that's just a discredited attempt to twist the meaning of the actual words to try to get around the protection it provides.

What DL and the media and zealots forget is that if indeed the Second Amendment is something that our people (who govern ourselves) believe should no longer be the law, all it takes is a 2/3 vote in both houses of Congress to propose an amendment, and ratification by the legislators of 3/4 of the states. If everyone agrees that it's so awful, then let the votes be cast to eliminate it. Of course, with social media today (and old timey media for the past several decades) providing an echo chamber for the anti-gun crowd, people are led to believe that the "correct" belief is more widely-held than it is. (I guess there are more of those fools in the flyover area than people think, "with their guns and religion" as someone famous once said.)
Last edited by wjcandee on Wed Feb 28, 2018 3:24 am, edited 2 times in total.
 
lostsound
Posts: 575
Joined: Mon May 21, 2012 1:43 pm

Re: Delta risks $40 mill in tax breaks over NRA riff

Wed Feb 28, 2018 3:19 am

DL should be allowed to exercise their first amendment rights just as much as the NRA exercises their second amendment right. That governor's stance should be an embarrassment to Georgia, which I'm sure has plenty of issues the residence would love to see attended to above this pettiness. I hope more companies continue to speak out, it's time this nonsense comes to an end.
 
MAH4546
Posts: 25276
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2001 1:44 pm

Re: Delta risks $40 mill in tax breaks over NRA riff

Wed Feb 28, 2018 3:21 am

Cunard wrote:
wjcandee wrote:
jumbojet wrote:

In the USA a 19yo can legally purchase a gun over the counter but can't legally buy and consume alcohol until they are 21yo, it's absolutely ridiculous!


Absolutely this. The drinking age should be 18. It is ridiculous.
a.
 
wjcandee
Posts: 6646
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

Re: Delta risks $40 mill in tax breaks over NRA riff

Wed Feb 28, 2018 3:32 am

MAH4546 wrote:
Cunard wrote:
wjcandee wrote:


Absolutely this. The drinking age should be 18. It is ridiculous.


Yeah. It was 21 for a long time, but during the Vietnam War era, when we were sending 18-year-olds to go fight and die, and the age of majority was 18, seemed kinda dumb to say they couldn't have a beer. Later, changing the legal drinking age was seen as a panacea in the fight against drunk driving. Interesting to see how that worked out.

I was in the last Freshman class in NJ to be of legal drinking age. I think the net effect is that 18-year-olds don't go to bars as much, and creepy adults who buy beer for kids get punished if they're under-21 instead of under-18.

A lot of states didn't want to change the drinking age, but the Central Government decided to withhold highway funds to those that wouldn't go along. In Europe, of course, the drinking age is generally much-younger.
 
AaronPGH
Posts: 262
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2013 9:13 pm

Re: Delta risks $40 mill in tax breaks over NRA riff

Wed Feb 28, 2018 3:37 am

NameOmitted wrote:
I'm sure local politicians tying tax breaks with who businesses partner with will help the bid for the new Amazon HQ.


Didn't think about this, but you're probably dead-on here. Atlanta's HQ2 bid is likely toast at this point.
 
mcg
Posts: 836
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2003 11:49 am

Re: Delta risks $40 mill in tax breaks over NRA riff

Wed Feb 28, 2018 3:39 am

wjcandee wrote:
mcg wrote:
wjcandee wrote:
Aptivaboy: You beat me to it. The "the weapons are sooooo much more dangerous today" argument is historically inaccurate.

Amazing what people are being taught in school today.

Jumbo: Thanks for the intellectual honesty! Seriously. It's refreshing to see on "social media", and I salute you.


As a Parkland parent put it, explain to me how a 17 year old with an assault rifle is a 'well regulated militia'.


I would be happy to.

Of course, this particular nut was 19, not 17.

And tell me what the age was of actual Revolutionary War soldiers. Right. As young as 15 was permitted, but some were younger. (The Marquis de Lafayette, leader of the French soldiers, was 18 at the time of the Revolution.)

But why let facts get in the way?

Now to answer your question: The Second Amendment doesn't limit the right to keep and bear arms to members of a militia; that's just a discredited attempt to twist the meaning of the actual words to try to get around the protection it provides.

What DL and the media and zealots forget is that if indeed the Second Amendment is something that our people (who govern ourselves) believe should no longer be the law, all it takes is a 2/3 vote in both houses of Congress to propose an amendment, and ratification by the legislators of 3/4 of the states. If everyone agrees that it's so awful, then let the votes be cast to eliminate it. Of course, with social media today (and old timey media for the past several decades) providing an echo chamber for the anti-gun crowd, people are led to believe that the "correct" belief is more widely-held than it is. (I guess there are more of those fools in the flyover area than people think, "with their guns and religion" as someone famous once said.)


History lesson is interesting, but irrelevant. The authors of the Constitution were crystal clear, the right to bear arms was clearly linked to a 'well regulated militia' (for what it is worth I support this right 100%). The second amendment is not an abolition of gun regulation, gun regulations have been on the books for many years, fully automatic weapons were outlawed in 1930's when the FBI found itself out-gunned by the criminals of the day. It's up to Congress to their duty and pass a set up common sense gun regulations.
 
wjcandee
Posts: 6646
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

Re: Delta risks $40 mill in tax breaks over NRA riff

Wed Feb 28, 2018 3:41 am

lostsound wrote:
DL should be allowed to exercise their first amendment rights just as much as the NRA exercises their second amendment right. That governor's stance should be an embarrassment to Georgia, which I'm sure has plenty of issues the residence would love to see attended to above this pettiness. I hope more companies continue to speak out, it's time this nonsense comes to an end.


DL is not only allowed, as an organization, to exercise its First Amendment rights -- meaning its right to express an opinion without fear of punishment by the government, that's arguably what it did.

However, exercising that right isn't free of consequences, it's merely free of restraint by the government.

The point of this thread, I think, is that it was probably shortsighted for somebody at DL to do a knee-jerk reaction to a tragedy, and weigh in on a white-hot political matter in a manner that can only be seen as a slap in the face to people who support the right of people to carry guns, and to those who support responsible gun ownership, including education in gun safety.

I think they're gonna find that tens of millions of NRA members won't forget this. It isn't going to put them DL out of business, but, as a common carrier, it really isn't something they should be doing.
 
jumbojet
Posts: 2295
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2003 3:01 am

Re: Delta risks $40 mill in tax breaks over NRA riff

Wed Feb 28, 2018 3:44 am

MaverickM11 wrote:
So....what a re the odds this actually is blocked? Or is it just posturing from a guy seeking reelection?


Blocked.

Do folks really need to be reminded of the facts?

Delta contributes $300 million annually to Georgia state and local governments through taxes and fees. Atlanta's Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport generates $58 billion in annual economic impact, much of that fueled by Delta's investments. And, oh by the way? With 33,000 employees statewide, Delta is Georgia's No. 1 private employer, one that's added more than 6,500 Georgia employees since 2008.

I'm pretty sure at this moment, LG Cagle is being reminded of these very facts. Cagle obviously was very emotional when he said what he said. No way it happens.
Last edited by jumbojet on Wed Feb 28, 2018 3:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
wjcandee
Posts: 6646
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

Re: Delta risks $40 mill in tax breaks over NRA riff

Wed Feb 28, 2018 3:46 am

mcg wrote:
History lesson is interesting, but irrelevant.


I think it is a problem when people believe that history is irrelevant. But whatever.

And you're entitled to believe what you want to believe. Which is a good thing.

(PS Sensing your lawyerly instincts, nice creative use of the term "linked".)
 
jumbojet
Posts: 2295
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2003 3:01 am

Re: Delta risks $40 mill in tax breaks over NRA riff

Wed Feb 28, 2018 3:50 am

Here are some really great comments from a Mike Lupica article. Mr. Lupica is a well respected journalist and has been writing for the NY Daily News for a very long time. I quote:


This is what Lt. Gov. Kathy Hochul said, "As Lieutenant Governor, I work hard not only to keep the businesses we already have in New York, but to entice new businesses to make New York their home. That's why I was particularly shocked to see a fellow Lieutenant Governor so blatantly trash one of their largest employers. All is fair in this business — that's why I used the opportunity to extend a warm New York welcome to Delta on social media, and the response has been overwhelming."

Mayor de Blasio also jumped in, telling me, “I love it.

And as the great Jimmy Breslin so often said in this newspaper: Beautiful. Maybe that really is the most beautiful possible outcome for Delta: Delta leaves them and comes here. It would mean Delta refuses to let itself be gooned this way by a small-timer like Casey Cagle, another American politician on the wrong side on guns at this time in America. Delta Air Lines really should just turn itself into a free agent, the way American Airlines did 40 years ago.

At the time, in 1979, American's headquarters were still on Third Ave., in the Murray Hill section of Manhattan. Then the company up and moved its headquarters to Dallas. If American can go from Third Ave. to Dallas, Delta can move from Atlanta to New York, and bring an awful lot of jobs with it. Then Casey Cagle can explain to his constituents how him being such a rough tough conservative gun guy, and the self-appointed voice of the conservative movement in America, worked out for his constituents.




complete article here:


http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politic ... -1.3845415
 
Aptivaboy
Posts: 428
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2016 3:32 pm

Re: Delta risks $40 mill in tax breaks over NRA riff

Wed Feb 28, 2018 3:54 am

As a Parkland parent put it, explain to me how a 17 year old with an assault rifle is a 'well regulated militia'.


It's because what is viewed as a militia today, using 21st century vocabulary and word meanings, isn't what it means when the Constitution was written. Back then, every able-bodied male of a certain age (usually 16 to 18) was a member of the local militia. He had to be ready to muster when called, and to defend his home, town, village, county, etc. Even if he wasn't drilling on the common green but was a frontiersman out in the wild he was still a militia member capable of exercising self-defense against enemies "foreign and domestic," to hijack that phrase. In order to do so, he had to be well-armed. You also have to understand that when the country was formed, we really didn't have standing armies and navies. The country was paranoid about a strong, well-armed central government assuming tyrannical control. How to avoid that? Arm the public. Let militias become the de facto military, thus ensuring that the central government would remain subservient to the people, and not the other way around. Again, to achieve this end required an armed citizenry.

Nikolas Cruz was and is 19, not 17. He is an adult. However, he also wouldn't ever have gotten a gun had the school, the sheriff's office, the local prosecutor, and the FBI actually done their jobs and not failed miserably. For me, this isn't even a gun control discussion. This is a discussion about the rank incompetence of our governmental official at many levels. Cruz should have been prosecuted for bringing bullets to school instead of merely expelled. That conviction might have gotten him on the NICS list. The sheriff could have arrested him at any time after coming out to his house 39 times in four years for abuse, disturbing the peace, making public threats, etc. 39 times! Again, a conviction might have gotten him on the NICS list. The prosecutor could have actually filed charges, but no, apparently they were busy doing other things. Then, the FBI failed twice to investigate tips reporting him as a probable school shooter. Don't even get me started about the deputies who knew where Cruz was during the assault and refused to engage him, doubtless costing more lives. These gems reportedly went so far as to not allow emergency medical people inside the school for 45 minutes after the shooting stopped, probably causing many victims to bleed out and die. No, this isn't about guns, not really. This is about a great number of people who need to be unemployed and not receiving the taxpayers' money in the form of a monthly paycheck since they're apparently incapable of doing their jobs.
 
mcg
Posts: 836
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2003 11:49 am

Re: Delta risks $40 mill in tax breaks over NRA riff

Wed Feb 28, 2018 3:59 am

wjcandee wrote:
mcg wrote:
History lesson is interesting, but irrelevant.


I think it is a problem when people believe that history is irrelevant. But whatever.

And you're entitled to believe what you want to believe. Which is a good thing.

(PS Sensing your lawyerly instincts, nice creative use of the term "linked".)


I don't think history is irrelevant at all, simply (with all due respect) the lesson you provided has no relevance to the question at hand. History tells us that congress can regulate guns. I think they should, in a reasonable way. We also know the primary reason that Congress hasn't regulated guns more effectively is that the NRA has simply bought off many members of congress.

Please tell me how a teen with an AR-15 is a 'well regulated militia' because perhaps that's the standard we should be aiming for.
 
wjcandee
Posts: 6646
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

Re: Delta risks $40 mill in tax breaks over NRA riff

Wed Feb 28, 2018 4:08 am

Aptivaboy: Bravo.

Also goes back to my original point about the how ineffective it has been to handle with kid gloves the mentally-ill and those with violent proclivities that haven't exploded into a murder. They gave this kid at least 39 "second chances". This is much like when they find a kid dead in a home that DFCS has been to ten times, clearing the parents each time, and much less a rational argument for more restrictions on guns.

Much easier to blame the instrumentality of harm than all those people that you mentioned.
 
wjcandee
Posts: 6646
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

Re: Delta risks $40 mill in tax breaks over NRA riff

Wed Feb 28, 2018 4:12 am

MCG: Nice use of the word "Teen" in the verbal picture you're trying to create.

Kindly recognize that using your definition, much of our military is Teens with M16s. Interesting that they don't usually frag their bases or their commanders or hometowns, isn't it? And if you think that's because of some kind of effective ammo control, think again.

And my last word on this: the NRA hasn't "bought off Congress". That implies that the views of the NRA aren't actually shared by a significant group of voters, who actually vote. Fact is, they are. It's the fear of voters, not the taking of money, that motivates the representatives who have chosen to be judicious about gun regulation. And the concern that if they get too aggressive, someday the Supremes are gonna look at this and actually construe the Constitution in other than a manner designed to play to the middle of the road of political thought rather than the actual text.
Last edited by wjcandee on Wed Feb 28, 2018 4:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
zippy
Posts: 86
Joined: Sun May 11, 2014 9:46 pm

Re: Delta risks $40 mill in tax breaks over NRA riff

Wed Feb 28, 2018 4:17 am

wjcandee wrote:
I think they're gonna find that tens of millions of NRA members won't forget this. It isn't going to put them DL out of business, but, as a common carrier, it really isn't something they should be doing.


The NRA only claims to have five million members (well nra.org says "more than five million members"), a number which many believe is already inflated. Tens of millions is quite a stretch. Unsure how cutting support of the NRA would go counter to the idea of Delta being a common carrier. The NRA is a registered lobbying organization and runs a large PAC (NRA-PVF). If anything, providing support to the NRA runs counter to the concept of being a common carrier.
 
wjcandee
Posts: 6646
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

Re: Delta risks $40 mill in tax breaks over NRA riff

Wed Feb 28, 2018 4:23 am

zippy wrote:
wjcandee wrote:
I think they're gonna find that tens of millions of NRA members won't forget this. It isn't going to put them DL out of business, but, as a common carrier, it really isn't something they should be doing.


The NRA only claims to have five million members (well nra.org says "more than five million members"), a number which many believe is already inflated. Tens of millions is quite a stretch. Unsure how cutting support of the NRA would go counter to the idea of Delta being a common carrier. The NRA is a registered lobbying organization and runs a large PAC (NRA-PVF). If anything, providing support to the NRA runs counter to the concept of being a common carrier.


Just fascinating. You're buying into Delta's theory that punishing one side of an issue constitutes being impartial. That was a nifty attempt at spin by Delta, but most people seem to be recognizing it for what it is.

Let's review. Delta is a Common Carrier. As it should, it generally offers group discounts to virtually all traveling groups that aren't acting illegally or advocating for illegal activity, without regard to the purpose or beliefs of the group.

THAT is being impartial.

What it has now done is to revoke such a discount as is routinely offered to such a group.

THAT is "taking sides", no matter how DL now wants to spin it.
 
zippy
Posts: 86
Joined: Sun May 11, 2014 9:46 pm

Re: Delta risks $40 mill in tax breaks over NRA riff

Wed Feb 28, 2018 4:27 am

wjcandee wrote:
Just fascinating. You're buying into Delta's theory that punishing one side of an issue constitutes being impartial. That was a nifty attempt at spin by Delta, but most people seem to be recognizing it for what it is.

Let's review. Delta is a Common Carrier. As it should, it generally offers group discounts to virtually all traveling groups that aren't acting illegally or advocating for illegal activity, without regard to the purpose or beliefs of the group.


Offering financial assistance to lobbyists is hardly impartial. What other lobbying groups does Delta support? Delta is not preventing NRA members from flying, nor are they supporting the NRA. That stance is about as impartial as you can get. If, OTOH, you expressed disappointment that Delta is no longer favoring your preferred lobbying group that would at least be a more earnest argument.
 
Cunard
Posts: 1322
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2016 6:45 pm

Re: Delta risks $40 mill in tax breaks over NRA riff

Wed Feb 28, 2018 5:24 am

I can't believe how long this thread has been allowed to run without being locked!
 
jupiter2
Posts: 1290
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2001 11:30 am

Re: Delta risks $40 mill in tax breaks over NRA riff

Wed Feb 28, 2018 5:32 am

wjcandee wrote:
MCG: Nice use of the word "Teen" in the verbal picture you're trying to create.

Kindly recognize that using your definition, much of our military is Teens with M16s. Interesting that they don't usually frag their bases or their commanders or hometowns, isn't it? And if you think that's because of some kind of effective ammo control, think again.

And my last word on this: the NRA hasn't "bought off Congress". That implies that the views of the NRA aren't actually shared by a significant group of voters, who actually vote. Fact is, they are. It's the fear of voters, not the taking of money, that motivates the representatives who have chosen to be judicious about gun regulation. And the concern that if they get too aggressive, someday the Supremes are gonna look at this and actually construe the Constitution in other than a manner designed to play to the middle of the road of political thought rather than the actual text.


The analogy of using teen members of the military and comparing them to the teen who carried out this crime is ridiculous. Trying to justify the use of an automatic assault rifle in a school to murder people and comparing that to trained soldiers, who have taken to the military as a job, or full time career and their use of comparable weapons, seems to be a typical pro gun tactic. If this kid had been in the military, the chances are he would've been discharged as not mentally fit and had absolutely no right to have any weapon, never mind an automatic assault rifle.

There is simply no place in a modern society for automatic weapons, never mind assault rifles. In all seriousness, what the hell does someone need an assault rifle for ? Hunting ? Not good enough to shoot a defenseless animal with a single shot rifle and need to spray the scene with bullets to hit the target ? Is it the thrill of being macho and having a big gun, because you never know when that herd of savage deer can come storming through your local village, town or city ?

In all seriousness, why do Americans think they have the right to these weapons, besides a statement written hundreds of years ago, which has absolutely no relevance in a modern society ? Does anyone seriously think the author could have envisaged how far the fairly simple firearm of the time has progressed and seriously think that the author would say the same thing, seeing the carnage that happens in the modern U.S.A. ? It is just dumb. Have your small hand guns, have your rifles if you must hunt, you can still kill each other, just not in the mass numbers you do now. It is these weapons in particular that need to be stopped, I don't believe there is anyone that is contemplating a total ban on guns, even though that is a nice idea.

The Lt Gov in Georgia would appear to be someone who has a vested interest in the N.R.A. staying strong and spreading their campaign funds. Politicians will quickly align themselves with whoever gives them decent funding and obviously the N.R.A. will only target those politicians who they feel will be sympathetic to their cause, whichever side of politics they are on.

As for DL, they are free to do as they wish, they have no duty to offer discounts to the N.R.A. or any other organisation, nor do they have to upgrade medal winners. It is their business to run, if they were to suffer financially from this decision with the general flying public, I would be surprised, but they can always reverse the decision further down the track. The one playing with fire here is the politician acting like a spoiled brat, the state of Georgia needs DL far more than DL needs Georgia. Not that I can see DL doing anything drastic anyway. The companies who have pulled their discounts from the N.R.A. are doing what they think is right and what is right by public opinion.

It is simply time for gun mad Americans to recognize that it is time to be realistic, there is no justifiable excuse to have automatic assault type weapons, none.
 
wjcandee
Posts: 6646
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

Re: Delta risks $40 mill in tax breaks over NRA riff

Wed Feb 28, 2018 6:00 am

It wasn't automatic. Automatic weapons are illegal. Time to do some research before you post.

And, under existing gun laws, this 19-year-old ADULT shouldn't have been able to purchase the weapon, and wouldn't have if anybody had ever arrested him on the 39 trips they made to his house, or responded properly to any number of other events that would have put him in the system, like actually having the kid arrested at school.

And by the way, true criminal 16 year olds have no difficulty obtaining an illegal weapon, even just to rent it from a fellow gang member or other neighborhood friend. All you guys are talking about is regulating weapon possession among people who generally choose to obey the law. In today's world, police aren't allowed to stop people just because they suspect that they're carrying a weapon, so more gun laws just become more gun laws that you won't let the police enforce.
 
Jouhou
Posts: 576
Joined: Tue May 24, 2016 4:16 am

Re: Delta risks $40 mill in tax breaks over NRA riff

Wed Feb 28, 2018 6:08 am

If you think about it, that's a reasonable price for the amount of publicity this is getting.
 
MaverickM11
Posts: 16295
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

Re: Delta risks $40 mill in tax breaks over NRA riff

Wed Feb 28, 2018 7:48 am

wjcandee wrote:
It wasn't automatic. Automatic weapons are illegal. Time to do some research before you post.

Just wondering, when was the last mass shooting in the US involving an automatic weapon?
E pur si muove -Galileo
 
wjcandee
Posts: 6646
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

Re: Delta risks $40 mill in tax breaks over NRA riff

Wed Feb 28, 2018 8:17 am

MaverickM11 wrote:
wjcandee wrote:
It wasn't automatic. Automatic weapons are illegal. Time to do some research before you post.

Just wondering, when was the last mass shooting in the US involving an automatic weapon?


Full-auto? Don't know. With the bump stocks, Vegas was kind of "auto-lite". It takes practice to make the gun fire smoothly with a bump stock, and the speed one can obtain varies due to a number of factors, including the skill of the operator. On the Vegas videos, one can hear significant differences in rate of fire coming from the bump-stock-equipped weapons as the lunatic changes weapons and windows.

Had that nut been able to shoot with a weapon that provided full-auto, it would have been, I think, significantly more deadly and terrifying. Despite the horrific carnage that he was actually able to inflict with the psuedo-auto weapons, he might have been able to shoot as much as double the volume for short periods, depending on the weapon. A limiting factor of course, which this guy probably anticipated given the number of weapons in his room, is the ability of the weapon to shoot continuously without overheating. An AR, if modified to full auto is arguably good for only short burst of fire. The Vegas shooter was operating at a much lower rate of fire, but seemed to want to fire essentially-continuously.
 
blrsea
Posts: 1696
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 2:22 am

Re: Delta risks $40 mill in tax breaks over NRA riff

Wed Feb 28, 2018 8:53 am

All this debate about blaming companies for "taking sides" reminds me of the same-sex marraige/union support in the 2000s in the US. When companies started offering benefits for same-sex couples, they were in similar position, with politicians trying to brandish their "conventional marriage" credentials (and many even do now). I wonder whether the people who are accusing DL of taking sides in this issue would have accused companies for promoting same-sex marriages/unions!
 
User avatar
Pellegrine
Posts: 2015
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:19 am

Re: Delta risks $40 mill in tax breaks over NRA riff

Wed Feb 28, 2018 9:42 am

Airlines should not give preferential rates to members of organizations promoting the ownership and sale of guns without simultaneously giving preferential rates to members of anti-gun organizations.

Unless they do, they are not "neutral".
oh boy, here we go!!!
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 15388
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Delta risks $40 mill in tax breaks over NRA riff

Wed Feb 28, 2018 10:52 am

Seriously, why are people getting so excited over a possible loss (it hasn't happened yet) of a $40million tax benefit? That number won't even show as a rounding error in DL's accounts.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
blueflyer
Posts: 3859
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 4:17 am

Re: Delta risks $40 mill in tax breaks over NRA riff

Wed Feb 28, 2018 1:44 pm

Can't help but notice a member of the party that wants corporations to be free to refuse to do business with whomever they don't like, wants to punish a business for exercising that right, and not even cutting ties entirely... Politics is nothing if not irony.
MAGag
 
Aptivaboy
Posts: 428
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2016 3:32 pm

Re: Delta risks $40 mill in tax breaks over NRA riff

Wed Feb 28, 2018 3:46 pm

Blueflyer,

No, I think Pellegrine has it right. Delta is free to do business with whomever it pleases, but to be neutral means doing business with all parties to an issue or none. To do otherwise is not neutrality, its taking sides.
 
User avatar
NameOmitted
Posts: 391
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2016 7:59 pm

Re: Delta risks $40 mill in tax breaks over NRA riff

Wed Feb 28, 2018 3:53 pm

As far as Delta is concerned, $40 million is sound and fury signifying nothing. However, it world be illegal to signal them out, so the tax issue also world effect other aviators. Any speculation as to how?
 
User avatar
TWA772LR
Posts: 5606
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:12 am

Re: Delta risks $40 mill in tax breaks over NRA riff

Wed Feb 28, 2018 9:44 pm

How about a compromise?

Limit magazine sizes to 10 rounds
Stricter background checks
Create one federal CHL requirement, eliminating CHLs at the state level.
Require all criminals to turn in any magazines larger than 10 rounds, if not, then steep finds and/or jail time for a Class A misdemeanor.
0 tolerance on all non-self defense-related gun crimes.
Require a local law enforcement presence at all schools, my school districk has their own PD and had a police sub station in every high school.
Severe mental patients that have been taken in by the state and people with more than 4 Class A misdemeanors are aloud limited purchasing access to firearms on a case-by-case basis, to be verified by background checks.
Laws requiring to investigate all tips of shootings, terrorist threats, etc... no matter how small or obscure.
You know all is right is the world when the only thing people worry about is if the president had sex with a pornstar.


The thoughts and opinions shared under this username are mine and are not influenced by my employer.
 
User avatar
aemoreira1981
Posts: 1389
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 12:17 am

Re: Delta risks $40 mill in tax breaks over NRA riff

Thu Mar 01, 2018 1:09 am

I wonder if Delta, using Cagle’s own words against him, could consider a Commerce Clause lawsuit since the intent is crystal clear...trying to extort discounted fares across state lines in exchange for a tax break. At any rate, Delta should consider a move to New York City (its second largest presence with over 500 daily flights in market) and moving ATL MRO jobs to Pinal Airpark.

scbriml wrote:
Seriously, why are people getting so excited over a possible loss (it hasn't happened yet) of a $40million tax benefit? That number won't even show as a rounding error in DL's accounts.

Because the stated rationale is likely both a state and federal crime.
 
User avatar
einsteinboricua
Posts: 6254
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:11 pm

Re: Delta risks $40 mill in tax breaks over NRA riff

Thu Mar 01, 2018 1:59 am

Aptivaboy wrote:
Blueflyer,

No, I think Pellegrine has it right. Delta is free to do business with whomever it pleases, but to be neutral means doing business with all parties to an issue or none. To do otherwise is not neutrality, its taking sides.

So you would agree that a baker has to bake a wedding cake to gays as well, no matter his/her religious convictions, or close up their shop?

After all, it's a private business and if it wants to remain neutral then it means (and I quote):
doing business with all parties to an issue or none.


Thank you for considering the LGBT community's situation :smile:
"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
 
MaverickM11
Posts: 16295
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

Re: Delta risks $40 mill in tax breaks over NRA riff

Thu Mar 01, 2018 4:43 am

wjcandee wrote:
MaverickM11 wrote:
wjcandee wrote:
It wasn't automatic. Automatic weapons are illegal. Time to do some research before you post.

Just wondering, when was the last mass shooting in the US involving an automatic weapon?


Full-auto? Don't know. With the bump stocks, Vegas was kind of "auto-lite". It takes practice to make the gun fire smoothly with a bump stock, and the speed one can obtain varies due to a number of factors, including the skill of the operator. On the Vegas videos, one can hear significant differences in rate of fire coming from the bump-stock-equipped weapons as the lunatic changes weapons and windows.

Had that nut been able to shoot with a weapon that provided full-auto, it would have been, I think, significantly more deadly and terrifying. Despite the horrific carnage that he was actually able to inflict with the psuedo-auto weapons, he might have been able to shoot as much as double the volume for short periods, depending on the weapon. A limiting factor of course, which this guy probably anticipated given the number of weapons in his room, is the ability of the weapon to shoot continuously without overheating. An AR, if modified to full auto is arguably good for only short burst of fire. The Vegas shooter was operating at a much lower rate of fire, but seemed to want to fire essentially-continuously.

So you’re saying the automatic ban...works? :duck:
E pur si muove -Galileo
 
wjcandee
Posts: 6646
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

Re: Delta risks $40 mill in tax breaks over NRA riff

Thu Mar 01, 2018 6:55 am

Mav: Full-auto weapons have been illegal for sale to the general public since the National Firearms Act of 1934. Over 80 years. It doesn't prevent massacres, but it can sometimes reduce the carnage. Of course, determined hardened criminals who don't care about whether it is illegal for them to have the weapon can modify some weapons to full-auto and/or can readily purchase full-auto weapons from people who don't care if it is illegal to sell them. A regular nut like the ones under consideration here would probably have trouble getting their hands on a full-auto weapon, which is on balance probably a good thing. But it won't stop them from killing people, because they will find some or several instrumentalities with which to do it. So well-intentioned bans on things like the AR-15 do basically zero.
 
wjcandee
Posts: 6646
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

Re: Delta risks $40 mill in tax breaks over NRA riff

Thu Mar 01, 2018 6:58 am

TWA772LR wrote:
How about a compromise?

Limit magazine sizes to 10 rounds
Stricter background checks
Create one federal CHL requirement, eliminating CHLs at the state level.
Require all criminals to turn in any magazines larger than 10 rounds, if not, then steep finds and/or jail time for a Class A misdemeanor.
0 tolerance on all non-self defense-related gun crimes.
Require a local law enforcement presence at all schools, my school districk has their own PD and had a police sub station in every high school.
Severe mental patients that have been taken in by the state and people with more than 4 Class A misdemeanors are aloud limited purchasing access to firearms on a case-by-case basis, to be verified by background checks.
Laws requiring to investigate all tips of shootings, terrorist threats, etc... no matter how small or obscure.


Of course, virtually none of these would have prevented the Florida shooting. These are all happy, simple-sounding, hopeful things..."We need to do something!!!!" There are plenty of such laws on the books, but they won't prevent mass shootings. People enforcing those laws have to do that.

This kid wouldn't have been able to buy the weapon if the authorities in Florida had ever arrested him. They are probably representative of authorities throughout America, are were hesitant to arrest the poor, sad, weird kid, and don't have the resources to follow or work on every weird person or person who says weird threatening things. They DID come talk to the kid. 39 times. None of them thought he was a sufficient threat to do anything. And all of them knew that no prosecutor would likely take a case against him on any of the things they were called out for, because such cases are notoriously hard to win. So, no likely prosecution, no arrest.
 
WIederling
Posts: 5899
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Delta risks $40 mill in tax breaks over NRA riff

Thu Mar 01, 2018 10:19 am

wjcandee wrote:
MCG: Nice use of the word "Teen" in the verbal picture you're trying to create.

Kindly recognize that using your definition, much of our military is Teens with M16s. Interesting that they don't usually frag their bases or their commanders or hometowns, isn't it? And if you think that's because of some kind of effective ammo control, think again.


You ignore the "well regulated" part that induction into the military provides.
I don't think that even the US military is bringing guns and teens together indiscriminately.
Murphy is an optimist
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 1973
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Delta risks $40 mill in tax breaks over NRA riff

Thu Mar 01, 2018 1:54 pm

I say bring back the sort of gun control that was in effect at Dodge City around the turn of a couple centuries back.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
bagoldex
Posts: 553
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2007 3:33 pm

Re: Delta risks $40 mill in tax breaks over NRA riff

Thu Mar 01, 2018 2:28 pm

frmrCapCadet wrote:
I say bring back the sort of gun control that was in effect at Dodge City around the turn of a couple centuries back.


Sounds great, as long as we can confine and wall off you and all of your like-minded compatriots in one of the big square flyover states and televise it live 24/7.
 
2122M
Posts: 114
Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2013 1:35 pm

Re: Delta risks $40 mill in tax breaks over NRA riff

Thu Mar 01, 2018 2:44 pm

wjcandee wrote:
Mav: Full-auto weapons have been illegal for sale to the general public since the National Firearms Act of 1934. Over 80 years. It doesn't prevent massacres, but it can sometimes reduce the carnage.


You said it yourself. A ban on certain types of weapons can sometimes reduce the carnage. Is that not reason enough to follow though with those bans? Isn't that all anyone is trying to do? I don't know how you can say in one post that one ban on a certain type of gun saved lives, but you oppose any further legislation that, by your own admission, can have life saving consequences. Will it prevent crazies from trying to do terrible things? Of course not. Will it reduce the carnage? By your own admission, YES!
 
wjcandee
Posts: 6646
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

Re: Delta risks $40 mill in tax breaks over NRA riff

Thu Mar 01, 2018 3:11 pm

2122M wrote:
You said it yourself. A ban on certain types of weapons can sometimes reduce the carnage. Is that not reason enough to follow though with those bans? !


Absolutely-not.
 
2122M
Posts: 114
Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2013 1:35 pm

Re: Delta risks $40 mill in tax breaks over NRA riff

Thu Mar 01, 2018 3:22 pm

wjcandee wrote:
2122M wrote:
You said it yourself. A ban on certain types of weapons can sometimes reduce the carnage. Is that not reason enough to follow though with those bans? !


Absolutely-not.


So its safe to say you are pro-carnage? I don't mean to be sensationalist or extreme, but when you concede that the automatic gun ban saved lives but you would "Absolutely-not" consider further action along those lines, I can only assume you have no interest in gun safety or saving lives.

Do you even agree with the automatic weapons ban?
 
Aptivaboy
Posts: 428
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2016 3:32 pm

Re: Delta risks $40 mill in tax breaks over NRA riff

Thu Mar 01, 2018 4:21 pm

So you would agree that a baker has to bake a wedding cake to gays as well, no matter his/her religious convictions, or close up their shop?

After all, it's a private business and if it wants to remain neutral then it means (and I quote):
doing business with all parties to an issue or none.


Thank you for considering the LGBT community's situation :smile:


TRIGGERED!!!!!!

Wow, someone just went totally of the rails, injecting a gay wedding cake dispute into a firearms thread. This is seriously like when my freshmen stare at with furrowed brows in a vain attempt at understanding.

Talk about totally putting words in someone’s mouth and completely misunderstanding the point that I was trying to make. Wow, just wow. Nowhere did I say anything about the gay wedding cake issue. It hadn't even come up in this thread before, so seriously, where in the HE*L did that come from? :o

But, since you were unable to comprehend the simple quote, “but to be neutral means doing business with all parties to an issue or none. To do otherwise is not neutrality, its taking sides,” I’ll try to explain it to you in simple words that even my freshmen can understand.

“…doing business with all parties to an issue or none:” the bakers can either bake cakes for everyone who enters their shop (they are holding themselves out for commerce to the general public as defined in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, after all), or to no one. That way they’re neutral. However, if they choose to make cakes for one group of customers but not another, then they are clearly not neutral. It’s really simple. Does that make sense to you? Were those words clear enough? Jeez, we’re talking basic reading comprehension here. Oh wait, I forgot: freshmen. Furrowed brows. Vain attempt... ;)

Back on topic, in the same way, Delta can either offer discounts to all groups involved in politics and/or specific political campaigns like firearms rights and gun control, or to none. That way, they are neutral and are not taking sides.

Okay, now that I’ve explained it, back to the home with ‘ya, old man. Time for your nap.
 
wjcandee
Posts: 6646
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

Re: Delta risks $40 mill in tax breaks over NRA riff

Thu Mar 01, 2018 4:31 pm

2122M wrote:
wjcandee wrote:
2122M wrote:
You said it yourself. A ban on certain types of weapons can sometimes reduce the carnage. Is that not reason enough to follow though with those bans? !


Absolutely-not.


So its safe to say you are pro-carnage? I don't mean to be sensationalist or extreme, but when you concede that the automatic gun ban saved lives but you would "Absolutely-not" consider further action along those lines, I can only assume you have no interest in gun safety or saving lives.

Do you even agree with the automatic weapons ban?


Sweetheart, go away now.
 
2122M
Posts: 114
Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2013 1:35 pm

Re: Delta risks $40 mill in tax breaks over NRA riff

Thu Mar 01, 2018 4:41 pm

wjcandee wrote:
2122M wrote:
wjcandee wrote:

Absolutely-not.


So its safe to say you are pro-carnage? I don't mean to be sensationalist or extreme, but when you concede that the automatic gun ban saved lives but you would "Absolutely-not" consider further action along those lines, I can only assume you have no interest in gun safety or saving lives.

Do you even agree with the automatic weapons ban?


Sweetheart, go away now.


Absolutely Not.

Look, I'm really sorry that you seem to have cornered yourself here in admitting a gun ban saved lives. If the best you can do now is "Absolutely-not" (with a hyphen for no apparent reason) and "Sweetheart, go away now" then I'll assume its because you are focused on re-evaluating your stance on gun legislation. I know that's not likely, but here's hoping!
 
wjcandee
Posts: 6646
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

Re: Delta risks $40 mill in tax breaks over NRA riff

Thu Mar 01, 2018 4:45 pm

You're playing checkers in the last two posts, my friend. Very-simplistic views of a very-complex problem -- as well as a complete misunderstanding of the implications of my statements -- and I'm choosing not to play, absolutely-comfortable with what I actually believe.
 
2122M
Posts: 114
Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2013 1:35 pm

Re: Delta risks $40 mill in tax breaks over NRA riff

Thu Mar 01, 2018 4:53 pm

I know you've managed to convince yourself that this is some incredibly complex issue in order to justify your views when in fact there are some very simple steps that can be taken. The NRA and it's ilk wants the world to believe that this is incredibly complex because the simple solution of putting limits on the kinds of guns people can own doesn't align with their main goal of keeping gun manufacturers as rich as possible.

Also, it really sounds to me like you are taking a self-righteous approach to avoid answering some pretty simple questions. For example; do you agree with the automatic weapons ban?

Also, why all the hyphens?
 
jupiter2
Posts: 1290
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2001 11:30 am

Re: Delta risks $40 mill in tax breaks over NRA riff

Fri Mar 02, 2018 9:48 am

wjcandee wrote:
It wasn't automatic. Automatic weapons are illegal. Time to do some research before you post.

And, under existing gun laws, this 19-year-old ADULT shouldn't have been able to purchase the weapon, and wouldn't have if anybody had ever arrested him on the 39 trips they made to his house, or responded properly to any number of other events that would have put him in the system, like actually having the kid arrested at school.

And by the way, true criminal 16 year olds have no difficulty obtaining an illegal weapon, even just to rent it from a fellow gang member or other neighborhood friend. All you guys are talking about is regulating weapon possession among people who generally choose to obey the law. In today's world, police aren't allowed to stop people just because they suspect that they're carrying a weapon, so more gun laws just become more gun laws that you won't let the police enforce.


Automatic, semi automatic is all semantics, the only thing slowing down a semi automatic is how quick the shooter can pull the trigger, otherwise it's just reloading another magazine.

Please answer me why anybody needs the type of gun used in the Florida shootings ? Because I can see absolutely no reason whatsoever why anybody has a requirement for such a weapon, except to make up for their own inadequacies or insecurities. Don't confuse security with insecurity either.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 6741
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Delta risks $40 mill in tax breaks over NRA riff

Fri Mar 02, 2018 11:59 am

wjcandee wrote:
Mav: Full-auto weapons have been illegal for sale to the general public since the National Firearms Act of 1934. Over 80 years. It doesn't prevent massacres, but it can sometimes reduce the carnage. Of course, determined hardened criminals who don't care about whether it is illegal for them to have the weapon can modify some weapons to full-auto and/or can readily purchase full-auto weapons from people who don't care if it is illegal to sell them. A regular nut like the ones under consideration here would probably have trouble getting their hands on a full-auto weapon, which is on balance probably a good thing. But it won't stop them from killing people, because they will find some or several instrumentalities with which to do it. So well-intentioned bans on things like the AR-15 do basically zero.


Banning semiautomatic weapons would reduce the carnage, same argument as for automatic weapons. Nobody needs a semiautomatic for hunting. Nobody needs big magazines, but for killing people, same as nobody needed a full automatic gun, a howitzer, a tank and so on.

Start with registering guns, at least all semi auto and all handguns. Cars are registered, have insurance and so on.
Have laws about training if you want to carry a gun, and I do not mean a half hour once in your life.
Make laws how guns are kept when not in use, so children do not find a gun and kill another child. It makes also stealing a gun difficult.
Mandatory insurance for your gun, so to pay for any carnage.
Stop banning research of gun death, by cutting of all funding in congress. And here come in all the strange things regarding gun death in the USA, like simply just reporting and collecting data.
Stop banning a computerized register comparing guns used in criminal acts, with where they are coming from and who sold them, see above.
Stop exempting gun producers and dealers from normal liability for their products.
Make it possible to confiscate guns from persons having done a criminal act.
Make it possible to take guns from homes that are prone to domestic disputes, people who are beating up their spouse or children, often use a gun in the end.
Have a register of people not aloud to have guns that works.

If you want than to really cut down on gun carnage, ban all semiautomatic long guns that have an exchangeable magazine. Only single shot, manual repeating rifles and shotguns, and semiautomatic rifles and shotguns, that are limited to a 3 shot fixed magazine, are aloud.
Semiautomatic hand guns should be limited to something like 8 shot magazines. Ban for anybody not being an professional, police, guards etc, more than one 8 shot spare magazine.

Have a look over the border, difficult for an US citizen I know, and have a look at how other countries limit gun carnage. Most countries do not ban guns per se.

And stop about all this myth that a sensible gun control does not work anyway.

The worst thing about gun control discussion is the myth that more guns in people hands means less crimes. The USA has the most guns per population in the world, so it should have the least crime in the world.
Think again. More guns in cars, means more people shot in road rage incidents, more guns at home means more kids shot by accident and more women shot by their husbands in rage incidents. And where, but in the USA will a ten year old take a shotgun and shots the neighbors kid, because a dispute while playing, not invited to participate in a game or something like that.
People carrying a gun to a bar and start drinking, so you have carry while intoxicated.
If you let millions of people run around with guns carrying them everywhere accidents will happen and in most cases carrying that gun is completely unnecessary.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos