Divemedic

This gun case was a win for the gun owner, but a waste of time. A teacher in Florida was told that he could not have a gun in his car because the school district forbade it through a rule that had been adopted by the school board. Someone had anonymously informed the school on several occasions that he had a gun on campus, the school had searched him and his vehicle several times without finding a gun.

State law generally prevents people from carrying guns on school grounds. But the law has exceptions, including allowing people to have guns in cars if the firearms are secured. However, school districts can approve policies that prevent guns in campus parking lots, as long as that policy is in accordance with state law. The teacher argued that the rule as adopted by the board was not in compliance with the law, and filed a lawsuit. He specifically said that the rule, which stated that:

“No person except law enforcement and security officers may have in his/her possession any weapon, illegal substance, or dangerous substance.”

Was vague and did not specifically prohibit firearms.

The trial court agreed that the rule was not in compliance with the law, but also ruled that the teacher was not entitled to damages or relief because he had not suffered any damages, since he hadn’t been fired, suspended, or otherwise disciplined.

The state’s Fifth District Court of Appeals ruled that the “courts generally have not required individuals to subject themselves to penalties to establish an adverse effect” in order to be able to challenge a law. The court went on to say that “[the teacher] was an employee of the high school and subject to the challenged policy. Furthermore, [the teacher] actively sought to keep a firearm in his vehicle. However, [the teacher] refrained from doing so because his employer informed him that the policy was enforced and a violation of the policy would subject him to discipline, up to and including termination. Under these facts, [that teacher] was affected by [the rule against firearms in a vehicle], and adversely so.”

So now the school board has been told that the rule in place that prohibits, expect them to rewrite it to specifically include firearms. I don’t really understand what this win accomplished. It seems like it was a complete waste of everyone’s time and resources. It’s almost like the lawsuit was filed by an SJW who wanted to make sure the rule against guns was improved.

The claim was made in comments that China can’t engage in carrier flight ops. Here is a video from Chinese sources to refute that:

Yes, I understand that this video is from a Chinese source. Where else is a video taken from the deck of a Chinese warship going to come from? Still, here is a video, taken from the deck of a fishing boat which shows a Chinese carrier recovering aircraft. Here is footage taken from a US destroyer that also corroborates both videos.

Liaoning CVBG, allegedly filmed from stalking USN Warship
(via weibo @洋务先驱张之洞) pic.twitter.com/pdsEr5VM7Z

— 蜜柑🍊 (@KushigumoAkane) April 17, 2021

So there is no doubt that the PLAN can successfully carry out carrier flight ops. Next year, the latest carrier, which has catapults, will take to sea. The US has satellite images of the ship under construction.

I point out that every single conflict that the US military has engaged in since 1955 has not been against peers. It has been a large military beating up on irregulars and militias. The last time that the US faced a peer in warfare was WW2, and we only won that war because we were capable of producing insane amounts of military hardware, a feat which we cannot repeat because we no longer have that capability. We don’t have the manufacturing capability, nor will the American people stand for a long war with large amounts of casualties. A war with China hasn’t even begun yet, and the US is already “rethinking its East Asian commitments to reduce the odds of going to war with China“

If there were a battle like Operation Iceberg on Okinawa that saw over 12,500 killed in action and 50,000 wounded, the US public would scream for an end to the war. Don’t think for a second that once polls show that a war is unpopular that the politicians don’t run scared.

The comment also referenced (as proof that the US military is filled with Rambo badasses) the Battle of Kasham, where he claimed “To get a true example of American fighting prowess, we need only look at Syria. In 2018 hundreds of Russian mercenaries—many of them Spetsnaz trained—took on forty US soldiers in a four-hour firefight. The Russians lost almost every man; the Americans lost none. “

That isn’t how it went down. The battle was 500 Syrian militia men supported by some obsolete Syrian armor and a short artillery barrage of “20-50 shells” engaged 100 Americans of the 75th Ranger Regiment. Yes, the US forces won, but they were supported by nearly 100 aircraft who carried out 4 hours of airstrikes over a battlefield where they had complete air superiority. That won’t happen in a war with China.

I used to say that the biggest reason why China won’t invade Taiwan is that it didn’t have the amphibious capabilities it needs to do that. That is not the case any longer.

Here is my prediction: China will invade Taiwan at some point in the near future. When it happens, the US will not do anything but ineffectively protest to the UN and to the Chinese government. This nation, and especially this president, will NOT go to war in order to save Taiwan or any other Polynesian country.

The Chinese won’t mess with Russia or India, because the war plans for both of those nations include the use of nuclear weapons in the event of a Chinese invasion. The haven’t messed with the US, because the PLAN hasn’t been able to project power effectively. That is changing. The US is weakening, while China is getting stronger.

Dave Ramsey famously forces all of his employees to sign a morality clause as a part of their employment agreement. One unmarried woman who works for him applied for maternity leave. Since her pregnancy is proof that she engaged in sex before marriage, he fired her. She is suing.

I hope she wins.

Not because I am in favor of extramarital sex, nor am I opposed to Christians. The reason is that I do not feel like an employer should have the ability to fire you for what you do while you are ‘off the clock’ unless it has a direct effect on the business. That goes for all businesses. That means the cop who donates to the Rittenhouse defense fund is safe to speak his mind while not at work. That means a person can go to a Trump rally without being fired. As long as it is on the employee’s own time, the boss should have no say in that employee’s business.

Unless it has a DIRECT tie to the business.

For example, an employee of McDonald’s who stands outside of a store in a company uniform and complains about the food being unhealthy. The employer can discipline him, because it is directly in opposition to the business.

I have spent most of my life working for employers who claim that their employees must he held to a higher standard, whatever that means. What it means in practice is that the employees can be fired for things that are none of the employer’s business. Imagine a workplace firing you for being an NRA member, or for being a Republican and you understand why I am opposed to this.

An employee who has sex outside of work with another employee, especially if there is a subordinate relationship can be fired, but other than that, it should not be any of the employer’s business.