SSTF

A wrinkle to this case is that Federally marijuana is in the most restricted category. It’s above meth or cocaine.

Obviously a lot of people consider those drugs more harmful than marijuana, but if we are playing the legal game then marijuana is legislated as being more dangerous and that’s what the court has to work with.

SCOTUS I think has to decide if controlled substance use as a whole can prohibit legally buying a gun or not. I’m not sure if they can just make a carveout for marijuana. (Also the person taking the case up had cocaine too, so it can’t not be brought up.)

You’d be surprised how many 2A people, who are across the political spectrum, are fine with removing that category of prohibition entirely. However I wonder if it will make SCOTUS more hesitant to make such an “extreme” ruling.

A surprising amount of people don’t understand that if they live in a state where weed is legal that doesn’t mean Federal laws on it don’t apply.

The case is about overturning an existing restriction, not adding new ones.

This case is not about imposing new restrictions.

Weed is already prohibited. The case is about overturning that.

The case is about overturning existing prohibitions. Reading the article would clarify this.

I wish people would read the articles. Weed is already Federally prohibited. The case is an attempt to overturn that.

The case is not about implementing new gun control, but looking at if an aspect of existing control is unconstitutional.

The case in front of SCOTUS is not about implementing a new restriction. It is about if a long standing restriction on the unrelated use of controlled substances is a Constitutional violation. Weed is grabbing the headline, but the restriction applies to a vast range of substances.

That’s a discussion far beyond the scope of “Is the Patriot in its existing configuration working as needed?”

That’s more or less partially repeating the article on why missiles are more difficult to intercept, but it isn’t providing the actual numbers to examine. Given that Russia has modified missiles and is firing larger barrages to overwhelm defense systems, the nuance with numbers is important.

If 10 interceptor missiles are fired with an expected hit rate of 9/10, how much do the modified Russian missiles affect that? Does it drop to say, 8/10 or 3/10. The actual numbers are very important to figure out what to prioritize in defense between upgrading systems or deploying more of existing systems.

Previously Ukraine was intercepting 30%ish of missiles with Patriots which historically have a 90%+ interception rate. I don’t think the drop in interception can be entirely laid on modification to Russian missiles but also to the increase in firing and use of barrages. The interaction between all the variables is important.

I’d like a better breakdown on numbers to know if the Patriot’s inception missiles themselves are missing when they are fired, or if the problem is more on Russia firing many more missiles.

Other articles only address the total interception stats dropping rather than stats of the Patriot batteries themselves. I know the total interception rate has gone from mid 30% numbers to around 6%.

I think looking at a breakdown is an important nuance because it shows if the Patriot systems themselves need to be upgraded, or if there just need to be more of the existing systems deployed. I know the spokesperson said the modified Russian missiles are more difficult to intercept, but what does “more difficult” translate to in the percent of fired interception missiles that successfully connect? Is that a 5% drop or a 35% drop for the interception missiles actually fired?

Given that Ukraine is looking to the US for more Patriots, I suspect the systems themselves are acceptable but there just aren’t enough deployed to provide enough coverage.

This is all curiosity from a public sideline, as I’m sure that privately the ordnance experts have these numbers and details on interceptions to do better breakdowns.