I cannot tell what this crap video is about. Amy Coney Barrett is the
author of a majority opinion (they tell us some of the majority) opposed
by Clarence Thomas. It may or may not have anything to do with concealed
carry on private property, or it's about allowing states to zone areas
subject to firearms bans, not just concealed carry.

I think this is entire AI generated and there's no actual opinion.

AI has ruined everytbing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-EoPJ6S9N4

I gave up watching three minute in.

--- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
* Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)

On Aug 17, 2025 at 10:07:16 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com>
wrote:

I cannot tell what this crap video is about. Amy Coney Barrett is the
author of a majority opinion (they tell us some of the majority) opposed
by Clarence Thomas. It may or may not have anything to do with concealed carry on private property, or it's about allowing states to zone areas subject to firearms bans, not just concealed carry.

California has complete bans on firearm possession in some areas, the most significant being within 1000 feet around a school. Something that had never occurred to me before is: are people whose homes fall within that 1000-foot radius banned from even having guns in their homes?

A little research shows that California's law specifically exempts private residences from the ban but some states do not, so it's technically illegal
for people to even have a gun in their home if their home is within the school exclusion zone. I can't find anywhere that's actually been challenged, though, so I have to believe if it ever was, the court would rule in favor of the gun owner.



--- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
* Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)

Verily, in article <107t284$2eld8$2@dont-email.me>, did ahk@chinet.com
deliver unto us this message:

I cannot tell what this crap video is about. Amy Coney Barrett is the
author of a majority opinion (they tell us some of the majority) opposed
by Clarence Thomas. It may or may not have anything to do with concealed carry on private property, or it's about allowing states to zone areas subject to firearms bans, not just concealed carry.

I think this is entire AI generated and there's no actual opinion.

AI has ruined everytbing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-EoPJ6S9N4

I gave up watching three minute in.

This looks like an all-AI channel. The presenting voice has that
telltale light rasp, and all the video titles could easily be AI essays.

Gun Owners of America mentions no such ruling, and they surely would. I suggest blocking the channel or marking it as "do not recommend," to
help a little.

There's a technique to help more, but it takes effort. The approach is
to seed garbage information into the comments of AI channels. They read
the comments on their own and other AI's channels so they can follow the crowd, and a few people can seed something to discredit the channel.

The disinfo has to be very obviously false. "Donald Trump once shot
someone" won't do it, because someone might believe it. You need
something like "Donald Trump and Oprah Winfrey have eloped to Mars." If
a few accounts seed this, there's a chance the stupid AI will repeat it
and discredit itself.

--
Saturday Doctor Who watch party 1:00 p.m. Pacific time

This week: "Inferno" [Third Doctor] https://discord.gg/p3ujkCa4?event=1403862135594811423

--- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
* Origin: n/a (3:633/280.2@fidonet)

On 2025-08-17 1:36 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Aug 17, 2025 at 10:07:16 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

I cannot tell what this crap video is about. Amy Coney Barrett is the
author of a majority opinion (they tell us some of the majority) opposed
by Clarence Thomas. It may or may not have anything to do with concealed
carry on private property, or it's about allowing states to zone areas
subject to firearms bans, not just concealed carry.

California has complete bans on firearm possession in some areas, the most significant being within 1000 feet around a school. Something that had never occurred to me before is: are people whose homes fall within that 1000-foot radius banned from even having guns in their homes?

A little research shows that California's law specifically exempts private residences from the ban but some states do not, so it's technically illegal for people to even have a gun in their home if their home is within the school
exclusion zone. I can't find anywhere that's actually been challenged, though,
so I have to believe if it ever was, the court would rule in favor of the gun owner.

I've never understood the reasoning behind gun bans at schools.
Obviously no one WANTS a bad actor to carry a gun into a school but all
the ban seems to do is limit the likelihood that the proverbial "good
guy with a gun" could come to the rescue in a school shooting incident.
It (may) criminalize good guys if the courts actually punish people who
own guns in the neighbourhood but I don't see how it stops bad guys.

Of course, there MAY be a bad guy somewhere that plans to execute a
school shooting but then turns around the minute he sees the "Gun
Exclusion Zone" sign but that seems like the longest of long shots.
Someone with murder in his heart is unlikely to be deterred by a sign.

I saw an idea I liked better a few years back. Someone proposed that
teachers *who were willing to do so* should carry concealed guns so that
if someone did start shooting up a school, they'd potentially be able to
step in and counter the threat far more quickly than waiting for police
and/or SWAT units to respond. Certainly, most of the damage from a
school shooting happens in the first few minutes, long before the cops
get there.

Of course armed police is another option. I understand that some
"communities" are reluctant to allow that due to their antipathy towards
the police.

--
Rhino

--- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
* Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

On 2025-08-17 1:36 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Aug 17, 2025 at 10:07:16 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com>
wrote:

I cannot tell what this crap video is about. Amy Coney Barrett is the
author of a majority opinion (they tell us some of the majority) opposed >>> by Clarence Thomas. It may or may not have anything to do with concealed >>> carry on private property, or it's about allowing states to zone areas
subject to firearms bans, not just concealed carry.

California has complete bans on firearm possession in some areas, the most >> significant being within 1000 feet around a school. Something that had never >> occurred to me before is: are people whose homes fall within that 1000-foot >> radius banned from even having guns in their homes?

A little research shows that California's law specifically exempts private >> residences from the ban but some states do not, so it's technically illegal >> for people to even have a gun in their home if their home is within the school
exclusion zone. I can't find anywhere that's actually been challenged, though,
so I have to believe if it ever was, the court would rule in favor of the gun
owner.

I've never understood the reasoning behind gun bans at schools.

It gives you something to arrest somebody acting suspicious on before he
gets the chance to do anything.

Obviously no one WANTS a bad actor to carry a gun into a school but all
the ban seems to do is limit the likelihood that the proverbial "good
guy with a gun" could come to the rescue in a school shooting incident.
It (may) criminalize good guys if the courts actually punish people who
own guns in the neighbourhood but I don't see how it stops bad guys.

Of course, there MAY be a bad guy somewhere that plans to execute a
school shooting but then turns around the minute he sees the "Gun
Exclusion Zone" sign but that seems like the longest of long shots.
Someone with murder in his heart is unlikely to be deterred by a sign.

I saw an idea I liked better a few years back. Someone proposed that teachers *who were willing to do so* should carry concealed guns so that
if someone did start shooting up a school, they'd potentially be able to step in and counter the threat far more quickly than waiting for police and/or SWAT units to respond. Certainly, most of the damage from a
school shooting happens in the first few minutes, long before the cops
get there.

Of course armed police is another option. I understand that some "communities" are reluctant to allow that due to their antipathy towards
the police.

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

--- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
* Origin: Easynews - www.easynews.com (3:633/280.2@fidonet)

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

I've never understood the reasoning behind gun bans at schools.

Arrest for gun possession, first day of school, Chicago Whitney Young
High School

https://abc7chicago.com/post/gun-found-whitney-young-high-school-laflin-street-west-loop-1st-day-back-summer-break-chicago-public-schools/17578439/

--- MBSE BBS v1.1.2 (Linux-x86_64)
* Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)