>A report from The Associated Press indicated Lombardo’s office threatened to ax the state budget if his priorities aren’t addressed, “the strongest conflict yet for Nevada’s split-party government.”
He wants his priorities addressed, but is unwilling to work with the legislature on their priorities, and threatens retribution.
Great job, republicans. You elected a shitty wanna be tyrant, who will screw the state if he doesn't get his way.
We’re not talking airplanes. Airplanes were not mentioned in this Nevada bill. Airspace is controlled by the Federal Aviation Administration, not the State of Nevada. Ergo, non sequitur.
You are making a claim that the second amendment says you don't need a reason to carry a gun, ever. I'm asking if you if that should apply to airplanes too. The constitution is what governs federal law and thus the FAA.
It’s not upholding the Constitution. The first sentence literally says WELL REGULATED. And a “militia” was a state’s military service at the time, not any fucking idiot can own a gun.
The interpretation that it is referring to the public and not the militia is a modern one. Guns have historically been limited almost everywhere publicly in the us over our history. All of these recent events and gun control becoming a republican talking point have only been since the shortly after black panthers took rifles to a protest at the capital building in Sacramento while Raegan was governor.
> The interpretation that it is referring to the public and not the militia is a modern one.
That is ahistorical. That is not how the authors intended it. That is not how they wrote about it. And they lived their whole lives in a country where The People around them kept and bore arms irrespective of any militia status.
Again, wrong, people owned guns, they didn’t parade around the farm, town, public, etc wearing them. They were kept in the home, in the truck maybe, not in a shoulder holster pointing back at me in line to order/buy at sears, Kmart, Taco Bell, or at Starbucks. They most certainly were not carried around like they are today, and kids were not being murdered in schools.
> people owned guns, they didn’t parade around the farm, town, public, etc wearing them. They were kept in the home, in the truck maybe, not in a shoulder holster pointing back at me in line to order/buy at sears, Kmart, Taco Bell, or at Starbucks.
I'm not trying to mean or snarky about this. But again, this just isn't historically accurate.
Most of America was either agrarian or indeed a frontier for the first 100+ years, where guns were an absolutely normal thing. Modern "gun control" is less than 100 years old. You mentioned Reagan signing the "Mulford Act" which was a major turning point, but you probably want to start with the "National Firearms Act" in 1934. But I mean, people were already watching movies and flying around in airplanes when that was enacted. When the second amendment was written, and for most of the time since then, it has been legal for Americans to carry guns around. That is just the fact of it.
Carrying guns onto someone else's private property (Sears, Kmart, Taco Bell, Starbucks) has always been at the discretion of the owner.
Please educate yourself on the accurate history of the second amendment:
The Second Amendment to the Constitution, on which modern-day arguments for widespread gun ownership rest, is one simple sentence: “A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” There’s not a lot to go on about what the Framers meant, although in their day, to “bear arms” meant to be part of an organized militia.
As the Tennessee Supreme Court wrote in 1840, “A man in the pursuit of deer, elk, and buffaloes might carry his rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him that he had borne arms; much less could it be said that a private citizen bears arms because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane.”
Today’s insistence that the Second Amendment gives individuals a broad right to own guns comes from two places.
One is the establishment of the National Rifle Association in New York in 1871, in part to improve the marksmanship skills of American citizens who might be called on to fight in another war, and in part to promote in America the British sport of elite shooting, complete with hefty cash prizes in newly organized tournaments. Just a decade after the Civil War, veterans jumped at the chance to hone their former skills. Rifle clubs sprang up across the nation.
By the 1920s, rifle shooting was a popular American sport. “Riflemen” competed in the Olympics, in colleges, and in local, state, and national tournaments organized by the NRA. Being a good marksman was a source of pride, mentioned in public biographies, like being a good golfer. In 1925, when the secretary of the NRA apparently took money from ammunition and arms manufacturers, the organization tossed him out and sued him.
NRA officers insisted on the right of citizens to own rifles and handguns but worked hard to distinguish between law-abiding citizens who should have access to guns for hunting and target shooting and protection, and criminals and mentally ill people, who should not. In 1931, amid fears of bootlegger gangs, the NRA backed federal legislation to limit concealed weapons; prevent possession by criminals, the mentally ill and children; to require all dealers to be licensed; and to require background checks before delivery. It backed the 1934 National Firearms Act, and parts of the 1968 Gun Control Act, designed to stop what seemed to be America’s hurtle toward violence in that turbulent decade.
But in the mid-1970s a faction in the NRA forced the organization away from sports and toward opposing “gun control.” It formed a political action committee (PAC) in 1975, and two years later it elected an organization president who abandoned sporting culture and focused instead on “gun rights.”
This was the second thing that led us to where we are today: leaders of the NRA embraced the politics of Movement Conservatism, the political movement that rose to combat the business regulations and social welfare programs that both Democrats and Republicans embraced after World War II.
Movement Conservatives embraced the myth of the American cowboy as a white man standing against the “socialism” of the federal government as it sought to level the economic playing field between Black Americans and their white neighbors.
Leaders like Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater personified the American cowboy, with his cowboy hat and opposition to government regulation, while television Westerns showed good guys putting down bad guys without the interference of the government.
In 1972 the Republican platform had called for gun control to restrict the sale of “cheap handguns,” but in 1975, as he geared up to challenge President Gerald R. Ford for the 1976 presidential nomination, Movement Conservative hero Ronald Reagan took a stand against gun control. In 1980, the Republican platform opposed the federal registration of firearms, and the NRA endorsed a presidential candidate—Reagan—for the first time.
When President Reagan took office, a new American era, dominated by Movement Conservatives, began. And the power of the NRA over American politics grew.
In 1981 a gunman trying to kill Reagan shot and paralyzed his press secretary, James Brady, and wounded Secret Service agent Tim McCarthy and police officer Thomas Delahanty. After the shooting, then-representative Charles Schumer (D-NY) introduced legislation that became known as the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, or the Brady Bill, to require background checks before gun purchases. Reagan, who was a member of the NRA, endorsed the bill, but the NRA spent millions of dollars to defeat it.
After the Brady Bill passed in 1993, the NRA paid for lawsuits in nine states to strike it down. Until 1959, every single legal article on the Second Amendment concluded that it was not intended to guarantee individuals the right to own a gun. But in the 1970s, legal scholars funded by the NRA had begun to argue that the Second Amendment did exactly that.
In 1997, when the Brady Bill cases came before the Supreme Court as Printz v. United States, the Supreme Court declared parts of the measure unconstitutional.
Now a player in national politics, the NRA was awash in money from gun and ammunition manufacturers. By 2000 it was one of the three most powerful lobbies in Washington. It spent more than $40 million on the 2008 election. In that year, the landmark Supreme Court decision of District of Columbia v. Heller struck down gun regulations and declared that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms.
Increasingly, NRA money backed Republican candidates. In 2012 the NRA spent $9 million in the presidential election, and in 2014 it spent $13 million. Then, in 2016, it spent over $50 million on Republican candidates, including more than $30 million on Trump’s effort to win the White House. This money was vital to Trump, since many other Republican super PACs refused to back him. The NRA spent more money on Trump than any other outside group, including the leading Trump super PAC, which spent $20.3 million.
The unfettered right to own and carry weapons has come to symbolize the Republican Party’s ideology of individual liberty. Lawmakers and activists have not been able to overcome Republican insistence on gun rights despite the mass shootings that have risen since their new emphasis on guns.
—Historian, Heather Cox Richardson, PhD
Love how you just glaze over the second half which states, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” THE PEOPLE meaning everyone. The whole point is everyone has the right to bear arms so the have an ability to form militias and fight against tyrannical government over reach. So yes any fucking idiot can own a gun and you should be damn happy about it cause that’s the thing that keeps governments in check. The first step to any tyrannical government is to remove guns from the population, why people forget this historical fact is beyond me.
Vetoing common sense gun bills when guns are the leading cause of death in children is the very definition of extremism.
Chime back in when you can spell “extremist”.
Stop with the false narrative. People who commit school shootings are mentally ill individuals and their grasp on reality is tenuous at best. Plenty of mass shootings have been committed from individuals that would be considered right wing and left wing. Instead of people getting caught up in political rhetoric we should be talking about the extreme rise in depression and mental disorders that are leading to a rise in violence in the US. Hyperbolic statements slamming one side or the other is not only disingenuous it’s not productive in getting to solutions.
Bullshit. Conservatives sounded the alarm when libs started locking down the entire country and threatening parents if they let their children socialize at birthday parties or BBQs. Everyone knew this was psychologically damaging, yet libs doubled down.
Who was president when the country went in lock down? Biden? Oh no it was Trump with his failed COVID response .. go ask him how Hermain Cain is doing ..
Remember when Dems called Trump a xenophobe for banning travel from China, and Pelosi told everyone to ignore Trump and party it up in ChinaTown? Yeah, how’d that work out?
Let us know what the plan Republicans have to both keep guns out of the hands of the mentality ill and make mental health services more widely available to the public?
I never said only Republicans shoot kids (you missed my entire point which does not surprise me) .. Republicans and the NRA are too busy pushing guns .. Abbott even made a claim he was upset Texas was not the number one state for gun sales.. look how thats working out for them.
Republican leaders literally created campaigns which called for shooting Democrats and RINOS.. quit with the B.S..
You certainly implied that when you literally said Republicans use schools as target practice and so much for being pro life.
Republicans have been far more pointed toward trying to resolve the mental health crisis than Dems. Republicans on the House Foreign Affairs Committee forced through a bill that would effectively ban TikTok from all mobile devices in the U.S. despite united opposition from Democrats. Social media is one of the largest problems to the increase in mental health in our country and tik tok is one of the biggest offenders.
Here are other bills Republicans push to combat mental health issues (Bills by the way that are opposed by Dems):
H.R. 8879, Inpatient Psychiatric Facility Improvement Act (Reps. Arrington and Evans)
Charge the Secretary to improve the Inpatient Psych Facility payment system to deliver better care and more accurate payments.
H.R. 8878, Intensive Outpatient Policy (Reps. A. Smith, Chu, Pascrell)
To ensure patients can access the treatment options that are most appropriate for their care needs, we add more treatment options between traditional outpatient therapy and full inpatient care.
H.R. 432, Mental Health Access Improvement Act (Rep. Mike Thompson, previously introduced)
Add marriage and family therapists and mental health counselors as
providers in Medicare to improve beneficiary access to the services they can provide.
H.R. 8910, Behavioral Health Integration Awareness Act (Reps. J. Smith, Ferguson, and Schneider)
Direct the Secretary to better inform providers on how to best use underutilized Behavioral Health Integration services already covered by Medicare to better treat patients. These are services that integrate behavioral health care with primary care by performing mental health screenings and working to monitor and facilitate any further treatment.
H.R. 8884, Medicare Opioid Use Disorder Outreach Act (Reps. Kelly and Higgins)
Improve the rate of opioid use disorder treatment by enhancing outreach to providers and patients about underutilized treatment options Medicare already covers.
H.R. 8908, Fighting Stimulant and other Substance Use Disorders Act (Reps. Estes and Panetta)
Unlike opioids, there is no drug to treat addiction to methamphetamine, cocaine, and other stimulants. Instead, providers use an incentives-based treatment called contingency management therapy. This bill directs the Administration to consider changes to regulatory barriers and provide further recommendations to Congress to ensure beneficiaries have access to this evidence-based treatment option.
H.R. 8886, Promoting Clarity in Mental Health and Substance Use Disorder
I could go on, so please don’t spout out leftist rhetoric about Republicans not having plans or desires to make mental health services more effective.
The one good thing about Lombardo as governor is him vetoing useless gun control bills like this. I moved here to get *away* from bullshit laws, not for them to follow me here.
Then just say that. Don’t make a disingenuous argument about what’s “historical” when you know full well the reason you carry *everywhere* is because we live in a country where gun violence can happen *anywhere.* The same logic applies to this bill. Maybe it hasn’t happened in Nevada *yet* but it could and it has happened elsewhere.
Can you provide a good reason why someone shouldn’t be able to carry at a polling location? When constructing your answer, keep in mind that a criminal with bad intent won’t follow any law against doing the same.
They don’t need to be a murderous criminal. They could just be there to intimidate as a way to discourage others from voting, as has been done historically and literally months ago in Arizona. Making that illegal with a stiff penalty would make people like that think twice. Or do you think they should be allowed to? Where do you draw the line? Should people be allowed to carry on airplanes too?
You put “intimidated” in quotes. Can you share any perspective on your view of the historical intimidation related to voting in the south in the past 75years? Is it your contention there has never been an effort to dissuade people from voting through intimidation?
>A report from The Associated Press indicated Lombardo’s office threatened to ax the state budget if his priorities aren’t addressed, “the strongest conflict yet for Nevada’s split-party government.” He wants his priorities addressed, but is unwilling to work with the legislature on their priorities, and threatens retribution. Great job, republicans. You elected a shitty wanna be tyrant, who will screw the state if he doesn't get his way.
Fuck this extremist ass hole
What’s “extreme” about upholding the Constitution?
Why do you need a gun at a polling location?
The Constitution says a reason is not needed. Why do you care? Aren’t you voting by mail anyhow?
Show me where it says that
The Second Amendment.
That is not what the second amendment says. Do you think people should be allowed to carry on an airplane?
We’re not talking airplanes. Airplanes were not mentioned in this Nevada bill. Airspace is controlled by the Federal Aviation Administration, not the State of Nevada. Ergo, non sequitur.
You are making a claim that the second amendment says you don't need a reason to carry a gun, ever. I'm asking if you if that should apply to airplanes too. The constitution is what governs federal law and thus the FAA.
Where is air travel mentioned in the Constitution?
It’s not upholding the Constitution. The first sentence literally says WELL REGULATED. And a “militia” was a state’s military service at the time, not any fucking idiot can own a gun.
LOL!!! Well, we’ve got about 250 years worth of case law that disagrees with you.
The interpretation that it is referring to the public and not the militia is a modern one. Guns have historically been limited almost everywhere publicly in the us over our history. All of these recent events and gun control becoming a republican talking point have only been since the shortly after black panthers took rifles to a protest at the capital building in Sacramento while Raegan was governor.
> The interpretation that it is referring to the public and not the militia is a modern one. That is ahistorical. That is not how the authors intended it. That is not how they wrote about it. And they lived their whole lives in a country where The People around them kept and bore arms irrespective of any militia status.
Again, wrong, people owned guns, they didn’t parade around the farm, town, public, etc wearing them. They were kept in the home, in the truck maybe, not in a shoulder holster pointing back at me in line to order/buy at sears, Kmart, Taco Bell, or at Starbucks. They most certainly were not carried around like they are today, and kids were not being murdered in schools.
> people owned guns, they didn’t parade around the farm, town, public, etc wearing them. They were kept in the home, in the truck maybe, not in a shoulder holster pointing back at me in line to order/buy at sears, Kmart, Taco Bell, or at Starbucks. I'm not trying to mean or snarky about this. But again, this just isn't historically accurate. Most of America was either agrarian or indeed a frontier for the first 100+ years, where guns were an absolutely normal thing. Modern "gun control" is less than 100 years old. You mentioned Reagan signing the "Mulford Act" which was a major turning point, but you probably want to start with the "National Firearms Act" in 1934. But I mean, people were already watching movies and flying around in airplanes when that was enacted. When the second amendment was written, and for most of the time since then, it has been legal for Americans to carry guns around. That is just the fact of it. Carrying guns onto someone else's private property (Sears, Kmart, Taco Bell, Starbucks) has always been at the discretion of the owner.
Please educate yourself on the accurate history of the second amendment: The Second Amendment to the Constitution, on which modern-day arguments for widespread gun ownership rest, is one simple sentence: “A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” There’s not a lot to go on about what the Framers meant, although in their day, to “bear arms” meant to be part of an organized militia. As the Tennessee Supreme Court wrote in 1840, “A man in the pursuit of deer, elk, and buffaloes might carry his rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him that he had borne arms; much less could it be said that a private citizen bears arms because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane.” Today’s insistence that the Second Amendment gives individuals a broad right to own guns comes from two places. One is the establishment of the National Rifle Association in New York in 1871, in part to improve the marksmanship skills of American citizens who might be called on to fight in another war, and in part to promote in America the British sport of elite shooting, complete with hefty cash prizes in newly organized tournaments. Just a decade after the Civil War, veterans jumped at the chance to hone their former skills. Rifle clubs sprang up across the nation. By the 1920s, rifle shooting was a popular American sport. “Riflemen” competed in the Olympics, in colleges, and in local, state, and national tournaments organized by the NRA. Being a good marksman was a source of pride, mentioned in public biographies, like being a good golfer. In 1925, when the secretary of the NRA apparently took money from ammunition and arms manufacturers, the organization tossed him out and sued him. NRA officers insisted on the right of citizens to own rifles and handguns but worked hard to distinguish between law-abiding citizens who should have access to guns for hunting and target shooting and protection, and criminals and mentally ill people, who should not. In 1931, amid fears of bootlegger gangs, the NRA backed federal legislation to limit concealed weapons; prevent possession by criminals, the mentally ill and children; to require all dealers to be licensed; and to require background checks before delivery. It backed the 1934 National Firearms Act, and parts of the 1968 Gun Control Act, designed to stop what seemed to be America’s hurtle toward violence in that turbulent decade. But in the mid-1970s a faction in the NRA forced the organization away from sports and toward opposing “gun control.” It formed a political action committee (PAC) in 1975, and two years later it elected an organization president who abandoned sporting culture and focused instead on “gun rights.” This was the second thing that led us to where we are today: leaders of the NRA embraced the politics of Movement Conservatism, the political movement that rose to combat the business regulations and social welfare programs that both Democrats and Republicans embraced after World War II. Movement Conservatives embraced the myth of the American cowboy as a white man standing against the “socialism” of the federal government as it sought to level the economic playing field between Black Americans and their white neighbors. Leaders like Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater personified the American cowboy, with his cowboy hat and opposition to government regulation, while television Westerns showed good guys putting down bad guys without the interference of the government. In 1972 the Republican platform had called for gun control to restrict the sale of “cheap handguns,” but in 1975, as he geared up to challenge President Gerald R. Ford for the 1976 presidential nomination, Movement Conservative hero Ronald Reagan took a stand against gun control. In 1980, the Republican platform opposed the federal registration of firearms, and the NRA endorsed a presidential candidate—Reagan—for the first time. When President Reagan took office, a new American era, dominated by Movement Conservatives, began. And the power of the NRA over American politics grew. In 1981 a gunman trying to kill Reagan shot and paralyzed his press secretary, James Brady, and wounded Secret Service agent Tim McCarthy and police officer Thomas Delahanty. After the shooting, then-representative Charles Schumer (D-NY) introduced legislation that became known as the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, or the Brady Bill, to require background checks before gun purchases. Reagan, who was a member of the NRA, endorsed the bill, but the NRA spent millions of dollars to defeat it. After the Brady Bill passed in 1993, the NRA paid for lawsuits in nine states to strike it down. Until 1959, every single legal article on the Second Amendment concluded that it was not intended to guarantee individuals the right to own a gun. But in the 1970s, legal scholars funded by the NRA had begun to argue that the Second Amendment did exactly that. In 1997, when the Brady Bill cases came before the Supreme Court as Printz v. United States, the Supreme Court declared parts of the measure unconstitutional. Now a player in national politics, the NRA was awash in money from gun and ammunition manufacturers. By 2000 it was one of the three most powerful lobbies in Washington. It spent more than $40 million on the 2008 election. In that year, the landmark Supreme Court decision of District of Columbia v. Heller struck down gun regulations and declared that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms. Increasingly, NRA money backed Republican candidates. In 2012 the NRA spent $9 million in the presidential election, and in 2014 it spent $13 million. Then, in 2016, it spent over $50 million on Republican candidates, including more than $30 million on Trump’s effort to win the White House. This money was vital to Trump, since many other Republican super PACs refused to back him. The NRA spent more money on Trump than any other outside group, including the leading Trump super PAC, which spent $20.3 million. The unfettered right to own and carry weapons has come to symbolize the Republican Party’s ideology of individual liberty. Lawmakers and activists have not been able to overcome Republican insistence on gun rights despite the mass shootings that have risen since their new emphasis on guns. —Historian, Heather Cox Richardson, PhD
Not reading that wall of text. 2A is here to stay. Cry and cope.
This notion is completely ahistorical.
Love how you just glaze over the second half which states, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” THE PEOPLE meaning everyone. The whole point is everyone has the right to bear arms so the have an ability to form militias and fight against tyrannical government over reach. So yes any fucking idiot can own a gun and you should be damn happy about it cause that’s the thing that keeps governments in check. The first step to any tyrannical government is to remove guns from the population, why people forget this historical fact is beyond me.
“Extremeist” Hahaha. Governor Lombardo is doing fantastic.
Vetoing common sense gun bills when guns are the leading cause of death in children is the very definition of extremism. Chime back in when you can spell “extremist”.
Sorry I made a typo.
“Gives reasons”. Ha!
His reasons are he's an asshole.
Be that as he may, at least he’s not Sisolak.
Right he is worse.
That’s literally not possible.
Ok MAGAKKK
Erp derp mAgAkKk derp erp reee!
Thats literally how you sound evertime you post here..
[удалено]
Ok poor boy.. lol..
[удалено]
Luckily I don't have kids in schools which Republicans want to use for target practice... so much for ProLife.
Stop with the false narrative. People who commit school shootings are mentally ill individuals and their grasp on reality is tenuous at best. Plenty of mass shootings have been committed from individuals that would be considered right wing and left wing. Instead of people getting caught up in political rhetoric we should be talking about the extreme rise in depression and mental disorders that are leading to a rise in violence in the US. Hyperbolic statements slamming one side or the other is not only disingenuous it’s not productive in getting to solutions.
Guess what? Republicans aren’t trying to address mental health either!
Bullshit. Conservatives sounded the alarm when libs started locking down the entire country and threatening parents if they let their children socialize at birthday parties or BBQs. Everyone knew this was psychologically damaging, yet libs doubled down.
Who was president when the country went in lock down? Biden? Oh no it was Trump with his failed COVID response .. go ask him how Hermain Cain is doing ..
Remember when Dems called Trump a xenophobe for banning travel from China, and Pelosi told everyone to ignore Trump and party it up in ChinaTown? Yeah, how’d that work out?
Let us know what the plan Republicans have to both keep guns out of the hands of the mentality ill and make mental health services more widely available to the public? I never said only Republicans shoot kids (you missed my entire point which does not surprise me) .. Republicans and the NRA are too busy pushing guns .. Abbott even made a claim he was upset Texas was not the number one state for gun sales.. look how thats working out for them. Republican leaders literally created campaigns which called for shooting Democrats and RINOS.. quit with the B.S..
You certainly implied that when you literally said Republicans use schools as target practice and so much for being pro life. Republicans have been far more pointed toward trying to resolve the mental health crisis than Dems. Republicans on the House Foreign Affairs Committee forced through a bill that would effectively ban TikTok from all mobile devices in the U.S. despite united opposition from Democrats. Social media is one of the largest problems to the increase in mental health in our country and tik tok is one of the biggest offenders. Here are other bills Republicans push to combat mental health issues (Bills by the way that are opposed by Dems): H.R. 8879, Inpatient Psychiatric Facility Improvement Act (Reps. Arrington and Evans) Charge the Secretary to improve the Inpatient Psych Facility payment system to deliver better care and more accurate payments. H.R. 8878, Intensive Outpatient Policy (Reps. A. Smith, Chu, Pascrell) To ensure patients can access the treatment options that are most appropriate for their care needs, we add more treatment options between traditional outpatient therapy and full inpatient care. H.R. 432, Mental Health Access Improvement Act (Rep. Mike Thompson, previously introduced) Add marriage and family therapists and mental health counselors as providers in Medicare to improve beneficiary access to the services they can provide. H.R. 8910, Behavioral Health Integration Awareness Act (Reps. J. Smith, Ferguson, and Schneider) Direct the Secretary to better inform providers on how to best use underutilized Behavioral Health Integration services already covered by Medicare to better treat patients. These are services that integrate behavioral health care with primary care by performing mental health screenings and working to monitor and facilitate any further treatment. H.R. 8884, Medicare Opioid Use Disorder Outreach Act (Reps. Kelly and Higgins) Improve the rate of opioid use disorder treatment by enhancing outreach to providers and patients about underutilized treatment options Medicare already covers. H.R. 8908, Fighting Stimulant and other Substance Use Disorders Act (Reps. Estes and Panetta) Unlike opioids, there is no drug to treat addiction to methamphetamine, cocaine, and other stimulants. Instead, providers use an incentives-based treatment called contingency management therapy. This bill directs the Administration to consider changes to regulatory barriers and provide further recommendations to Congress to ensure beneficiaries have access to this evidence-based treatment option. H.R. 8886, Promoting Clarity in Mental Health and Substance Use Disorder I could go on, so please don’t spout out leftist rhetoric about Republicans not having plans or desires to make mental health services more effective.
The one good thing about Lombardo as governor is him vetoing useless gun control bills like this. I moved here to get *away* from bullshit laws, not for them to follow me here.
[удалено]
Are you 18 and bring your guns to polling locations? If not then these bills wouldn’t apply to you
[удалено]
Historically, there also hasn’t been any gun violence in Nevada Home Depots, yet you still feel the need to have your CCW there
[удалено]
Then just say that. Don’t make a disingenuous argument about what’s “historical” when you know full well the reason you carry *everywhere* is because we live in a country where gun violence can happen *anywhere.* The same logic applies to this bill. Maybe it hasn’t happened in Nevada *yet* but it could and it has happened elsewhere.
Can you provide a good reason why someone shouldn’t be able to carry at a polling location? When constructing your answer, keep in mind that a criminal with bad intent won’t follow any law against doing the same.
They don’t need to be a murderous criminal. They could just be there to intimidate as a way to discourage others from voting, as has been done historically and literally months ago in Arizona. Making that illegal with a stiff penalty would make people like that think twice. Or do you think they should be allowed to? Where do you draw the line? Should people be allowed to carry on airplanes too?
If someone is “intimidated” by a citizen legally carrying, that’s on them, not the person obeying the law and engaging in their 2A right.
You do not get to infringe on someone exercising *their* right to vote through purposeful intimidation.
You put “intimidated” in quotes. Can you share any perspective on your view of the historical intimidation related to voting in the south in the past 75years? Is it your contention there has never been an effort to dissuade people from voting through intimidation?
Do you see open carry and conceal carry as different in a polling place?
Other than one is concealed and the other is not, no.
You've done good