I think Disneyland in Anaheim has proven that your neighborhood doesn't have to be perfect for an attraction to attract folks. I'm sure it'd be nice if the Zoo was up on a shining hill next to a Starbucks and a Super Walmart, but I bet you that wouldn't actually help as much as you think -- because a Zoo needs land, and it needs it to be cheap, and it needs to to be accessible to folks. (If the proposal was to move it to Metrocenter I might be more interested. :)

As to getting to the Zoo, those of your who are afraid to tell people to take 220 to Capitl and then it's two blocks in, you could send people on Woodrow Wilson to Parkside to Capitol or Fortification to Woodrow Wilson to Parkside to Capitol. Not only is that route almost 100% non-threatening to Tahoes, even with Rankin plates, it's actually got nice blacktop roads and it's pretty quick.

And the Zoo is pretty nice. They've got animals and everything. I say go ahead and check it out, particularly if you've got kids. Make the trip and THEN come back and report to us what you think should be done next.

I guess there's some question as to how much the Obama Administration needs to compromise since ACA is already a law. If the GOP would introduce legislation designed to deal with problems that have already cropped up, I imagine the Senate and White House would take those proposals as they come.

What the GOP seems to keep doing is trying to "un-pass" it. It passed. They want it un-passed.

The real solution would be to find any particular problems -- who are all of the people being hurt by this largely Republican idea that was successfully implemented in Massachusetts under Governor Romney -- and introduce legislation to help those people or tweak the implementation.

But they don't do that. GOP lawmakers in the state sit on their hands and try to wish ACA away by not implementing exchanges (where things would be bought and sold for goodness sake). National GOP leaders pass useless bill after useless amendment trying to undo ACA.

Wicker himself has introduced no legislation this year regarding ACA, although he's co-sponsored bills like the "American Liberty Restoration Act" designed to strike down the "mandate" for health insurance. (It's actually, technically, a tax penalty, and a smart one -- since if you don't have insurance you'll probably be asking or healthcare on the government's dime at some point.)

So, they're not serious. It's political posturing. It's, apparently, as clever as they get these days.

And it's the "completely fail to govern" strategy that will, ultimately, relegate the GOP to permanent (or, well, generational) back-bench status.

Notmuch: I'm curious... can I count on your support for my 2A-ID plan?

Wouldn't it be safer for everyone if people had to register for a special identification in order to own a gun? We could include literacy tests, gun proficiency tests, vision tests and so on.

Totally circumvents the weaknesses in background checks... if you don't have your 2A-ID, you can't buy or register your gun.

If you're worried about the costs, I'm sure we could roll this out at the Department of Safety office... it could be an addendum to your driver's license, etc.

@BubbaT: Interesting. Very interesting.

I have to admit that I didn't see the "rename them 'Assault Papers'" strategy coming.

Genius.

OK... the proverbial shot you've fired over my proverbial bow has been HEARD.

I say go ahead... call your congressman and get that renaming campaign ramped up... if you MUST.

But know THIS -- you and all of your freedom-hating friends in the battle to wrongly classified the press as assault press -- We'll fight it.

We'll fight it for as long as it takes.

We'll fight in the hills, in the valleys, in the halls of Montezuma.

The shores of Tripoli.

We'll fight in Congress... we'll fight in ale houses across this great land... we'll fight in the pages of our own sacred Freedom Papers.

We'll fight.

We'll fight until the battle is won...

...or tyranny reigns.

Because you, Mr. T, must know that I won't give you my First Amendment rights without a fight.

You can't take them from me while I still breathe free air.

You'll have to pry my MacBook from my cold, dead hands.

{Exeunt}

*I guess you would be fine with the restriction of the freedom of the press under the 1st Amendment by requiring training, registration, licensing and insurance , and penalties for not reporting publishing the truth for journalist and reporters and even some outright bans on freedom of the press too. I know could go along with that. :)*

*BubbaT: Yes, I would, as long as the First Amendment mentions a "well-regulated militia."

Let me know what you find.

Interesting article here details how different states treat the definition of "assault weapon" (and some of the difficulties in doing so) along with the origins of the term "assault weapon"... which came from the gun manufacturers!

http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-world…

And I do have to say I was a little surprised to see Gun Digest go off the reservation in 2008 and publish the "Gun Digest Buyer's Guide to Assault Weapons."

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0896896803/ref…

I doubt they did it to exclusively undermine Bubba's argument, but it certainly doesn't hurt.

Bubba... LOL... I love it. You're right... gun manufacturers don't call assault weapons "assault weapons."

Why? Obviously both gun nuts and the gun manufacturers themselves don't like the term "assault weapon" because that's what people keep wanting to BAN.

So they call them other things. Like "Military and Police" -- even though anyone can buy one. The Smith & Wesson M&P15 'Sport' is a 30-rounder starter AR.

Take, for instance... the Bushmaster ACR -- Adaptive Combat Rifle. ("but but but that doesn't have the word assault in it... just COMBAT.")

http://www.bushmaster.com/firearms/acr.…

It is, of course, available in semi-auto versions available for "home defense." They're giving one away on freaking Twitter and Facebook.

(They also have a product safety notice up because their ACR sometimes accidentally shoots too many bullets when you pull the trigger. Oops. Their bad. http://www.bushmaster.com/pdf/ACR-
Web-Notification.pdf)

Why do they call it a "combat rifle" instead of an "assault weapon"? Same reason cigarette manufacturers don't call their products "cancer sticks."

Instead, Bushmaster calls it a "combat rifle," overprices it and tells you that you can "Get Your Man Card Back." Apparently they use the same agency as Axe deodorant and 10-Calorie Dr. Pepper.

Who hasn't gotten the memo? How about Heckler Koch?

The "sport rifle" USC -- "Derived from the Heckler und Koch submachinegun UMP - the civilian utility carbine USC." -- *derived from their submachine gun? Yikes!*

Or their "sport rifle SL8" -- "The technology of the G36, the Assault Rifle of the Federal German Armed Forces, makes the SL8 very user-friendly and minimizes maintenance requirements..." -- *uses assault rifle technology? Whoa!*

Whoops... getting pretty close to "sport rifle" = "assault something" in there, aren't we?

The truth is, as much as gun nuts like to hand wave about this, there is a definition of an assault weapon that can be agreed upon -- pistol grip rifle, semi-automatic, designed for detachable higher-capacity magazines. Ban those -- or, require training, registration, licensing and insurance, just like with cars -- and you'd pretty much have your weapons ban figured out.

Agree? Disagree? If you've had Devil's Harvest and have a different opinion, let me know. I'm also soliciting ideas for other beers to review. (Although I've probably got six months worth mapped out in my head. :)

http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/news/20…

Yes, hilarious.

The law used to say "concealed in whole or in part,"

now it says, thanks to a brand new section that spends a lot of time talking about what is NOT defined as concealed...

*(4) For the purposes of this section, "concealed" means hidden or obscured from common observation and shall not include any weapon listed in subsection (1) of this section, including, but not limited to, a loaded or unloaded pistol carried upon the person in a sheath, belt holster or shoulder holster that is wholly or partially visible, or carried upon the person in a scabbard or case for carrying the weapon that is wholly or partially visible.*

Thus codifying the concept generally referred to as "open carry."