Interesting News, Articles & Stuff

ClusFcuk

Member
A team of biologists recently hauled in the heaviest Burmese python ever captured in Florida, officials said. The discovery was part of the state’s python removal program.

The female python weighed in at 215 pounds (98 kg), was nearly 18ft long (5 metres) and had 122 developing eggs, the Conservancy of Southwest Florida said in a news release.

The team used radio transmitters implanted into male “scout” snakes to study python movements, breeding behaviors and habitat use, said Ian Bartoszek, wildlife biologist and environmental science project manager for the conservancy’s program.

“How do you find the needle in the haystack? You could use a magnet, and in a similar way our male scout snakes are attracted to the biggest females around,” Bartoszek said.

The team used a scout snake named Dionysus – or Dion for short – in an area of the western Everglades.

“We knew he was there for a reason, and the team found him with the largest female we have seen to date.”

Biologist Ian Easterling and intern Kyle Findley helped capture the female snake and haul it through the woods to the field truck.

A necropsy also found hoof cores in the snake’s digest system, meaning that an adult white-tailed deer was its last meal.

National Geographic documented the discovery, highlighting the continued impact of the invasive pythons, which are known for rapid reproduction and depletion of surrounding native wildlife.

Bartoszek said removal of female pythons plays a critical role in disrupting the breeding cycle.

“This is the wildlife issue of our time for southern Florida,” he said.

Since the conservancy’s python program began in 2013, they’ve removed more than 1,000 pythons from approximately 100 sq miles (258 km) in south-west Florida.

Over that stretch, necropsies have found dozens of white-tailed deer inside Burmese pythons. Data researchers at the University of Florida have documented 24 species of mammals, 47 species of birds and 2 reptile species from pythons’ stomachs.

Prior to the recent discovery, the largest female removed through the conservancy’s program weighed 185 pounds (84 kg) and was the heaviest python captured at the time in Florida, officials said.

The state’s python removal program runs for two weeks in August. Participants compete for prizes, including $2,500 for capturing the most pythons.

Last year’s challenge involved more than 600 people from 25 states.



 

vapviking

Old & In the Way
A team of biologists recently hauled in the heaviest Burmese python ever captured in Florida, officials said. The discovery was part of the state’s python removal program.

The female python weighed in at 215 pounds (98 kg), was nearly 18ft long (5 metres) and had 122 developing eggs, the Conservancy of Southwest Florida said in a news release.

The team used radio transmitters implanted into male “scout” snakes to study python movements, breeding behaviors and habitat use, said Ian Bartoszek, wildlife biologist and environmental science project manager for the conservancy’s program.

“How do you find the needle in the haystack? You could use a magnet, and in a similar way our male scout snakes are attracted to the biggest females around,” Bartoszek said.

The team used a scout snake named Dionysus – or Dion for short – in an area of the western Everglades.

“We knew he was there for a reason, and the team found him with the largest female we have seen to date.”

Biologist Ian Easterling and intern Kyle Findley helped capture the female snake and haul it through the woods to the field truck.

A necropsy also found hoof cores in the snake’s digest system, meaning that an adult white-tailed deer was its last meal.

National Geographic documented the discovery, highlighting the continued impact of the invasive pythons, which are known for rapid reproduction and depletion of surrounding native wildlife.

Bartoszek said removal of female pythons plays a critical role in disrupting the breeding cycle.

“This is the wildlife issue of our time for southern Florida,” he said.

Since the conservancy’s python program began in 2013, they’ve removed more than 1,000 pythons from approximately 100 sq miles (258 km) in south-west Florida.

Over that stretch, necropsies have found dozens of white-tailed deer inside Burmese pythons. Data researchers at the University of Florida have documented 24 species of mammals, 47 species of birds and 2 reptile species from pythons’ stomachs.

Prior to the recent discovery, the largest female removed through the conservancy’s program weighed 185 pounds (84 kg) and was the heaviest python captured at the time in Florida, officials said.

The state’s python removal program runs for two weeks in August. Participants compete for prizes, including $2,500 for capturing the most pythons.

Last year’s challenge involved more than 600 people from 25 states.



Yet another reason to stay outta Florida!
I read the article fully anticipating, "remains of Florida man found inside," but it never came. An adult white tail deer is pretty impressive!
Maybe they could train the pythons to eat Iguanas? hmmm... :hmm:
 
Last edited:

MilesHigh

Well-Known Member
BREAKING VICTORY — Supreme Court strikes down New York law on concealed carry.

6-3 decision is expected to allow more people to legally carry guns on the streets of the nation’s largest cities — including New York, Los Angeles and Boston — and elsewhere. A quarter of the U.S. population lives in states expected to be affected by the ruling, the high court’s first major gun decision in more than a decade


Justice Thomas: "the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual's right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home."
 

florduh

Well-Known Member
When I was younger I used to hear the term "activist judges" thrown around a lot. If I recall correctly, it referred to Judges who used the bench to write law. Using court rulings to change policy instead of elected legislators passing laws to change policy. I don't know how this can be considered anything other than legislating from the bench by activist judges.

The NY State Law was passed 111 years ago. The US is only 245 years old. Doesn't really pass the smell test to say a law that's been in existence for nearly half of our history was never constitutional. To me, if you want to change a 111 year old law , the legislature was the place to do it.

Justice Thomas: "the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual's right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home."

The Second Amendment says nothing about self defense. It only refers to defense of the nation. I guess you can have a tortured interpretation of the 14th Amendment that if the State prevents you from being strapped everywhere you go, they're endangering your life. But that's hardly sticking to the text.

In any case, it just goes to show that there's no such thing as a "Constitutional Originalist" or "Textualist". They're all activist judges who believe in a "Living Constitution" and legislating from the bench. IMO, the Supreme Court is just Congress with extra steps. Politicians carrying out their political agendas. Though, unlike Congress it looks like they actually get stuff "passed".
 

MilesHigh

Well-Known Member
Yeah, people never read the whole thing haha. There's an idea out there that the Second Amendment is in place in case we need to overthrow the government. That's a modern idea, not something the Founders were out there talking about. That Jefferson quote about "watering the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots" is about the French Revolution. Not America. The Founders actually believed in all this democracy stuff. They didn't want anyone overthrowing it.

The 2A was put in there because there was a huge debate about having a standing national army. Some were worried that an army could be used for a counter-revolution. That's pretty common throughout history. The compromise was to have State militias. They were there to ensure the security of our Free State against foreign armies (and to catch runaway slaves, but that's another story).

So it seems very obvious to me that the Founders would be more than ok with regulating the "militia", including mandating training. How else would the militia be prepared to defend our Free State? Maybe it wasn't as necessary a few centuries ago. People just had to learn to properly use firearms to fend of Indians and whatnot. But it's definitely necessary now.

Also the people against having a standing army were proven completely wrong in 1812.

whburn.jpg

Actually the point of tbe 2nd Amendment was to make sure we could defend ourselves from our own government as well as local tbreats.


"The Founding generation mistrusted standing armies. Many Americans believed, on the basis of English history and their colonial experience, that governments of large nations are prone to use soldiers to oppress the people."


Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) was the third president of the United States and the principal author of the Declaration of Independence. In this 1787 letter, Jefferson writes to a friend about Shays' Rebellion, an armed uprising that took place in Massachusetts because of rebels' increasing dissatisfaction with state and federal government. The rebellion was organized by Revolutionary War veteran Daniel Shays, who led 4,000 people rebelling against perceived economic and civil liberties and injustices. Although Shays' Rebellion was defeated, it prompted numerous national leaders to call for a stronger national government to suppress future rebellions.


You can read the complete letter at the link below.


Shay's rebellion essentially prompted the framers to write the constitution. In his letter Jefferson says " god forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion" he also says "And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms...."

The letter is very clear about watering the tree of liberty and it ties it to our constitution. No doubt the intent was to stop corrupt governmental overreach and demicide.

I often hear how that could never happen in the USA, it already has. Shay's rebellion and The Battle of Athens are two cases where veterans and regular citizens took up arms against the government.

The Battle of Athens (sometimes called the McMinn County War) was a rebellion led by citizens in Athens and Etowah, Tennessee, United States, against the local government in August 1946. The citizens, including some World War II veterans, accused the local officials of predatory policing, police brutality, political corruption, and voter intimidation.



And as for the argument regular people cant withstand the US military without the jets and tanks and such the government has that citizens dont. Tell that to the Afghans.
 
Last edited:

florduh

Well-Known Member
The letter is very clear about watering the tree of liberty and it ties it to our constitution. No doubt the intent was to stop corrupt governmental overreach and demicide.

My mistake on the Jefferson quote. Thanks for the tidbit about The Battle of Athens. Turns out they rebelled because of police brutality and misconduct. Given how things turned out, I'd say they failed.

Gotta say... I'm sympathetic to the idea that people need to be armed as a hedge against an authoritarian government that kills its citizens. But... in my opinion we're already are in that situation and I don't see The Militia doing anything about it.


The Heritage Foundation correctly points out the 2A was put in place because the Founders feared a national army, while recognizing we need some sort of national defense. They provide no evidence that the 2A was written so individual citizens can defend themselves during Costco runs. That's a modern interpretation that dates back to 2008. I have shoes older than that.

And as for the argument regular people cant withstand the US military without the jets and tanks and such the government has that citizens dont. Tell that to the Afghans.

I've seen the same argument about the Vietcong clapping America's butcheeks. Though the NVA had plenty of Soviet military equipment too.

I'm split on this one. Maybe you could use AR-15's to wage a long guerilla campaign against the US Military here at home. Maybe not. I will say the Afghans and Vietnamese are harder people than Americans. That might have something to do with their success.

There's another example happening right now in Ukraine. It's not going so well for them though. And I'd say any success they've had is more due to the Turkish drones and Javelin missiles than semi auto rifles. Two weapons the 2A apparently doesn't cover.

I'm not squeamish about the argument that we need guns to fight the government. But I wish gun control opponents on Fox News would be very clear about what they're saying. "Look, we can't do any gun control because one day I might need to murder cops and active US Military personnel". That's like the average Fox watchers two favorite kinds of people.
 

pakalolo

Toolbag v1.1 (candidate)
Staff member
All right, enough about guns and gun control. FInd something else to talk about or somewhere else to debate gun policies. Any further posts on this topic will be deleted.
 
pakalolo,
  • Like
Reactions: vapviking

MilesHigh

Well-Known Member
Context is everything when you read the 2A. James Madison felt that because the American people were armed it would therefore be almost impossible to subdue through military force, even if one assumed that the federal government would try to use an army to do so. In Federalist No. 46, he wrote:

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes."

The unalienable right of self-defense: the right to have arms, the militia, and the absence of standing armies. These principles are woven throughout the United States’ legal documents, starting with the Declaration of Independence which set forth the general principle of self-defense.

Similar to the Declaration, the state constitutions drafted before the U.S. Constitution in 1787 recognized that the natural defense of a nation rested in local hands. Of the seven state constitutions which had a Bill of Rights before 1787, all seven said that permanent, standing armies were unsafe and should not be maintained in time of peace.79 In 1776, for example, Virginia’s Bill of Rights said the following: “Standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty.”80

The presupposition was that, by nature, the fundamental defense of a state should work from the inside-out. While every state Bill of Rights asserted this in some form, four of them explicitly stated that the militia (a citizen-army) was the natural defense of the state.81 Virginia’s Constitution said that, “A well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free State.”82 The state militias included every male between the ages of 17 and 45;83 that is, everyone except for a few public officials.84 Every citizen was required to be armed and prepared to fight.85

The three constitutions which did not mention the militia by name stated that every individual had the right to own firearms either for his own defense or for the common defense.86 Pennsylvania’s Constitution, for example, stated both: “The people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state.”87 Weapons were considered to be a necessary unalienable right of self-defense: the right to have arms, the militia, and the absence of standing armies. These principles are woven throughout the United States’ legal documents, starting with the Declaration of Independence which set forth the general principle of self-defense.

Similar to the Declaration, the state constitutions drafted before the U.S. Constitution in 1787 recognized that the natural defense of a nation rested in local hands. Of the seven state constitutions which had a Bill of Rights before 1787, all seven said that permanent, standing armies were unsafe and should not be maintained in time of peace.79 In 1776, for example, Virginia’s Bill of Rights said the following: “Standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty.”80

The presupposition was that, by nature, the fundamental defense of a state should work from the inside-out. While every state Bill of Rights asserted this in some form, four of them explicitly stated that the militia (a citizen-army) was the natural defense of the state.81 Virginia’s Constitution said that, “A well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free State.”82 The state militias included every male between the ages of 17 and 45;83 that is, everyone except for a few public officials.84 Every citizen was required to be armed and prepared to fight.85

The three constitutions which did not mention the militia by name stated that every individual had the right to own firearms either for his own defense or for the common defense.86 Pennsylvania’s Constitution, for example, stated both: “The people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state.”87 Weapons were considered to be a necessary means for self-defense. If individuals were denied this means, then the very backbone of self-defense would have been crippled.

In addition to the right of bearing arms, the states also affirmed the importance of maintaining a militia instead of a standing army. The state constitutions recognized that self-defense was an individual right and duty, flowing from the inside-out, not vice-versa.-defense. If individuals were denied this means, then the very backbone of self-defense would have been crippled.

In addition to the right of bearing arms, the states also affirmed the importance of maintaining a militia instead of a standing army. The state constitutions recognized that self-defense was an individual right and duty, flowing from the inside-out, not vice-versa.


Sorry I thnk we cross posted, I was posting when you posted pakalolo
 
MilesHigh,
  • Like
Reactions: florduh

pakalolo

Toolbag v1.1 (candidate)
Staff member
Sorry I thnk we cross posted, I was posting when you posted pakalolo

Yes, you can tell from the timestamps. I'll allow it.

I want to point out that unlike almost every other gun control disucssion, this one did not develop into a flame war; however, it is now way off topic and a conflagration could burst out at any moment.
 

florduh

Well-Known Member
No flame from me. I'm all out of fuel for that. Well, I still have a little bit left but I save it for a very small percentage of people. And none of them are on FC.

Even if you're talking to someone you vehemently disagree with... I don't think the flames aren't worth it. Unless they're some centimillionaire or politician, they're just swimming in the shit with the rest of us. There was a political commentator who suddenly died a few years ago. He was about my age too. I think he summed it up best:

Eef2xOCWsAAYXGP.png
 

florduh

Well-Known Member
They (SCOTUS) don’t give a shit about public opinion, they are elected for life. This is our version of a monarchy.

They were at 25% approval before this week. That number will probably be cut in half. This is what I mean when I say I get waning days of the Soviet Union vibes from this country. Almost no one believes anything good could even plausibly come from this system except for the elite it's designed to serve.
 

Abele Rizieri Ferrari

Well-Known Member
It's the same here in Netherlands, historically low trust in government. Neolibs have failed to keep up even the appearance of NL having their shit together, but as per neolib policy it's mainly been the poor who've suffered.

This results in a angry low wage working class looking for extreme alternatives and with extreme right marketing billions that's what many fall right into. So poor people make extreme right powerful and the part of the population that still makes enough keeps current policy makers in power so now it's mostly minorities that suffer.

Probably the biggest scandal was like the foulest racial profiling by Dutch IRS equivalent, resulting in forced paid backs for falsely suspected fraud with gov welfare and people spiraling into debt to the point of getting their kids taken away and suicide.
 

His_Highness

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king
I watched the last SCOTUS interviews and semantics aside each of them implied they wouldn't fuck with Roe. When you have to lie to get the job, you probably shouldn't have the job.

EDIT: Now that I think about it.....if you lie to get a job you'll probably get fired when the lie comes out. Hell...even if it were a politician you could at least vote them out because of the lie. Would be nice to have a similar recourse for the SCOTUS.
 
Last edited:

florduh

Well-Known Member
This results in a angry low wage working class looking for extreme alternatives and with extreme right marketing billions that's what many fall right into. So poor people make extreme right powerful and the part of the population that still makes enough keeps current policy makers in power so now it's mostly minorities that suffer.

idxmkwks7za81.jpg


I watched the last SCOTUS interviews and semantics aside each of them implied they wouldn't fuck with Roe. When you have to lie to get the job, you probably shouldn't have the job.

They were literally grown in a Federalist Society birthing vat to do exactly that though. They were lying, everyone knew they were lying, and everyone knew that they knew they were lying. More Soviet Union vibes.


Note: not just gay marriage. Privacy in the bedroom in general is on the chopping block.
 

florduh

Well-Known Member
Re: SCOTUS I'm also reading concerning reports about a verdict basically stripping you of your Miranda rights? Shits saddening really.

They sort of did, yes.


Specifically, there is now no recourse if your Miranda Rights are violated. But I'm pretty sure you still have the right to remain silent. Unfortunately pro-cop propaganda is drilled into us from birth, so this will make it easier for these pigs to railroad the gullible. We should teach people that cops are not your friends. You should almost never speak to them. And if you have to, only use one word sentences. At least one of which should be "Lawyer".

Speaking of which:


Dystopian States of America. They also don't look very defunded to me. They're outfitted like motherfuckin Space Marines.
 

His_Highness

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king
Having driven abortion rights to the "states" and the population being 51.1% women .... perhaps the 51.1% (minus the women who would willingly give up their rights) is just what the democrats need to reverse the expected trend "at the state level" come November.

One request....if/when you burst my bubble regarding the above please do so gently....its been a bad day.
 

florduh

Well-Known Member
One request....if/when you burst my bubble regarding the above please do so gently....its been a bad day.

Well, I have my suspicions but I won't burst your bubble. I've given up on predicting the future. I'll only say that Democrats have had 50 years to codify Roe. They've spent a long time fundraising off of this. And they're already sending out more emails asking for money. People can do what they want, but I think if you have money to donate it should be going to aid organizations. Many have been planning for this and have plans in place to help women in the affected States.
 
Top Bottom