NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

[Whose Yur Planner]

There is no way Huntsman gets the nod. He stands less of a chance than Christie. Huntsman is a true moderate and a Mormon. In other words, he doesn't even come close in the primaries. Mskis, don't worry, Christie won't get the nod either. My guess it's going to be Rubio out of Florida. He's Hispanic and doesn't have the baggage the rest do. Jeb Bush is going to have to wait a bit longer.

 

[ColoGI]

Sorry..., but Hillary is running and she will get the nomination. ...

The only question left is what kinds of majorities will Hillary have in the House and Senate.

OMG I hope you're wrong - I won't be able to stand the endless Hitlery and the Zombie Benghazi and the inane rehashing of all the debunked Big Dog scandals and the vomit repeated from AM radio and the misogyny and HillaryCare and and and and and and and. Please no.

 

[Whose Yur Planner]

OMG I hope you're wrong - I won't be able to stand the endless Hitlery and the Zombie Benghazi and the inane rehashing of all the debunked Big Dog scandals and the vomit repeated from AM radio and the misogyny and HillaryCare and and and and and and and. Please no.

That's my fear as well. We will get the Clinton years rehashed ad naseum, ad infintium.:not::-{:wall: Another strike on Huntsman is he served in the Obama administration. Mark Warner out of Virginia would be a good candidate with a strong female VP would be an interesting ticket.

 

[michaelskis]

There is no way Huntsman gets the nod. He stands less of a chance than Christie. Huntsman is a true moderate and a Mormon. In other words, he doesn't even come close in the primaries. Mskis, don't worry, Christie won't get the nod either. My guess it's going to be Rubio out of Florida. He's Hispanic and doesn't have the baggage the rest do. Jeb Bush is going to have to wait a bit longer.

Rubio is a bit better, but I still don't like some of his foreign policy positions and his amnesty stance. I agree that we need to do something to make it easier for people to come into this country, but it needs to be more of a process than just walking in. The only reason we need anything is for national security... but I don't think we should have closed borders either.

 

[Whose Yur Planner]

Rubio is a bit better, but I still don't like some of his foreign policy positions and his amnesty stance. I agree that we need to do something to make it easier for people to come into this country, but it needs to be more of a process than just walking in. The only reason we need anything is for national security... but I don't think we should have closed borders either.

Rubio can over come his baggage better than the others. Plus, it figures into the overall strategy of trying to expand the base. Finally, it solidifies Florida for them. No Rubio and Florida is very much in play. While Cruz would make the base happy, his baggage is just too great. Plus they would get Texas without him.

 

[Duke Of Dystopia]

Rubio can over come his baggage better than the others. Plus, it figures into the overall strategy of trying to expand the base. Finally, it solidifies Florida for them. No Rubio and Florida is very much in play. While Cruz would make the base happy, his baggage is just too great. Plus they would get Texas without him.

Rubio does not have the ability to be charismatic and comes off as to inexperienced. He instantly has the problem of being "For immigration before he was against it". This makes him suspect to the GOP base.

Just because he is Latino of Cuban descent will not get him a pass from the Latino section of the electorate. In fact, his flip flop is likely to actually hurt him there. The largest Tv network in the country is Univision. Its a network that is currently heaping scorn on the GOP on a regular basis. They also beat up on the democrats but not in any kind of similar way. This puts Rubio in the dual position of not being able to carry his own generalized ethnic grouping (keep in mind that "Latino" is not a monumental singular voting block") and he will be viewed suspiciously by his base. Senators also usually fair badly in presidential primaries. This means he will get picked apart in favor of a more far right candidate.

I agree he can overcome his baggage but the real question is whether a fundamentalist xenophobic base will let him.

I don't know all of the possible GOP governors that could get the nod, but you can bet the far right is done with putting forth what they consider a GOP moderate.

As far as rehashing the dirty deeds of The Big Dog, it might actually HELP Hillary. How many women do you suppose are going to feel good about Hillary being punished by their husbands actions?

Besides, we will have watched the racists run around with their hair on fire for eight years and we can get another eight years of entertainment from watching the misogynists run around with their hair on fire. If nothing else, in the course of 16 years, the landscape of the courts and the SCOTUS will be completely remade by democratic presidents. The damage done in 30 years will be undone for another 60 by that alone.

 

[Mastiff]

Having Bill back in the White House would be high comedy...

 

[Whose Yur Planner]

I don't know all of the possible GOP governors that could get the nod, but you can bet the far right is done with putting forth what they consider a GOP moderate.
.

In complete honesty, what about Pence from Indiana? He is a bona fide conservative from a very conservative state. From what I understand, he's implemented a lot of what conservatives what implemented. There are no skeletons in his closet. He would be a good fit. Mskis, what do you think of your neighbor to the south?

 

[imaplanner]

There is no way Huntsman gets the nod. He stands less of a chance than Christie. Huntsman is a true moderate and a Mormon. .

I don't think Hunstman is a moderate. He wants a constitutional ban on abortion, opposes all gun control, wants to gut social security and medicare, wants to repeal Obamacare, supports lowering corporate and high income taxes, supports relaxing most environmental regulations. But he acknowledges science and he was in the Obama administration and so conservatives hate him - which then makes him seem moderate. He is only a moderate because he doesn't make statements about sending Obama back to Kenya and he wants to govern rather than destroy. That he acknowledges the reality of governing is what makes me like him. Also, he doesn't hate gay people.

 

[The One]

HA!

In complete honesty, what about Pence from Indiana? He is a bona fide conservative from a very conservative state. From what I understand, he's implemented a lot of what conservatives what implemented. There are no skeletons in his closet. He would be a good fit. Mskis, what do you think of your neighbor to the south?

http://youtu.be/WrjwaqZfjIY

 

[ColoGI]

He is only a moderate because he doesn't make statements about sending Obama back to Kenya and he wants to govern rather than destroy. That he acknowledges the reality of governing is what makes me like him. Also, he doesn't hate gay people.

He's a comparative moderate because he isn't talking about (what they've done in just the last two days) lynching or the Kenyan is subhuman or Obama should quit playing the race card or them wimminfolk can shut that whole thing down. They all want to smash things and do the disaster capitalism - that's how they roll.

But if you compare him to civil society, well that's just not fair to do.

 

[Gedunker]

In complete honesty, what about Pence from Indiana? He is a bona fide conservative from a very conservative state. From what I understand, he's implemented a lot of what conservatives what implemented. There are no skeletons in his closet. He would be a good fit. Mskis, what do you think of your neighbor to the south?

Pence has been a very ineffectual Governor. He proposed a large income tax reduction last year and his own party scoffed and gave him next to nothing. This year he's dancing around HJR-3 - the anti-gay marriage amendment to the state constitution - but he can't gt his party to bring it to a hearing to the point where it had to be moved into a committee that would give it the light of day. Pence is the suxxor, IMO.

Obviously, Indiana Republicans paid no attention to Minnesota where this scenario played out quite recently. The results there were generally not very satisfactory to state Republicans.

 

[Whose Yur Planner]

I don't think Hunstman is a moderate. He wants a constitutional ban on abortion, opposes all gun control, wants to gut social security and medicare, wants to repeal Obamacare, supports lowering corporate and high income taxes, supports relaxing most environmental regulations. But he acknowledges science and he was in the Obama administration and so conservatives hate him - which then makes him seem moderate. He is only a moderate because he doesn't make statements about sending Obama back to Kenya and he wants to govern rather than destroy. That he acknowledges the reality of governing is what makes me like him. Also, he doesn't hate gay people.

ok-I retract what I said about him being a moderate. In other days, he would have been considered a conservative.

 

[michaelskis]

Rubio can over come his baggage better than the others. Plus, it figures into the overall strategy of trying to expand the base. Finally, it solidifies Florida for them. No Rubio and Florida is very much in play. While Cruz would make the base happy, his baggage is just too great. Plus they would get Texas without him.

I agree with many of Cruz's positions, but not all. (Foreign policy for example) However that filibuster stunt that he pulled is total BS. It wasn't a real filibuster, it didn't actually accomplish anything, and it was a waste of time and tax payer's dollars. I agree with his position that led to the filibuster... but I think it is compatible to dumping a 5 gallon bucket of water on to the sidewalk in Arizona. It will make a splash, but the water dries up without actually doing anything.

 

[Suburb Repairman]

I don't think Hunstman is a moderate. He wants a constitutional ban on abortion, opposes all gun control, wants to gut social security and medicare, wants to repeal Obamacare, supports lowering corporate and high income taxes, supports relaxing most environmental regulations. But he acknowledges science and he was in the Obama administration and so conservatives hate him - which then makes him seem moderate. He is only a moderate because he doesn't make statements about sending Obama back to Kenya and he wants to govern rather than destroy. That he acknowledges the reality of governing is what makes me like him. Also, he doesn't hate gay people.

The thing with Huntsman though is that he is fundamentally a technocrat.

Huntsman is on the record as being comfortable with the healthcare mandate even though he also trumpeted his Utah reform that did not include it in debates against Romney. Utah's healthcare portal was the model for the healthcare exchanges found in Obamacare. You aren't going to find a Republican, no matter how "moderate," willing to offer an endorsement of Obamacare. Although he has publicly stated on Meet the Press that Obamacare should be allowed to go forward. But there are significant elements of Huntsman's reform efforts in Utah found in Obamacare. That puts him firmly in the moderate Republican camp on healthcare.

He has openly stated support for civil unions. He signed a brief on a Supreme Court case in support of same-sex marriage. He has made conservative arguments in favor of marriage equality in notable conservative magazines. I believe that makes him moderate in that regard.

I'll give you the abortion argument, but I don't consider that topic in my evaluation of national candidates because I don't see a change occurring at that level. This is happening at the state level, and that is where I hone in on this issue more. He signed bills in Utah, but I'm not sure how passionate he really is on the topic. I think the constitutional amendment thing was a show for the primary. I get the impression, given his background, that he is not inclined to fight an abortion battle if given the opportunity--other things are far more important to him.

He believes in global warming and goes on the record saying such. He has said he trusts science. He has waffled on his initial support for cap & trade, but I think that was due in some extent to primaries forcing him to move right in order to get any traction. What he said during the primaries in how he backed off of cap & trade to me is not indicative of his full environmental philosophy. I don't expect him to make great progressive advances, but I don't think he would do harm. He does favor business, but even in comments about cap & trade his backing off was due more to timing with the recession rather than an overall opposition.

On foreign policy he is clearly outside the GOP norm. Most important to me is that he "gets" China and is skeptical of some of our overseas involvement. This is a moderate position.

On immigration, he supports the DREAM act and comprehensive immigration reform. He supports granting more temporary worker visas. This is a moderate position.

Huntsman isn't exactly hardcore religious, which I prefer.



So other than abortion and some tax elements, the guy is for the most part a moderate.

 

[Whose Yur Planner]

Pence has been a very ineffectual Governor. He proposed a large income tax reduction last year and his own party scoffed and gave him next to nothing. This year he's dancing around HJR-3 - the anti-gay marriage amendment to the state constitution - but he can't gt his party to bring it to a hearing to the point where it had to be moved into a committee that would give it the light of day. Pence is the suxxor, IMO.

Obviously, Indiana Republicans paid no attention to Minnesota where this scenario played out quite recently. The results there were generally not very satisfactory to state Republicans.

Was right-to-work done under him or under Daniels? I know he's trying to reduce the inventory tax. As for HJR-3, I'm surprised it hasn't sailed through with no problems. As for skeletons in the closet, I thought he was skeleton free.

 

[michaelskis]

In complete honesty, what about Pence from Indiana? He is a bona fide conservative from a very conservative state. From what I understand, he's implemented a lot of what conservatives what implemented. There are no skeletons in his closet. He would be a good fit. Mskis, what do you think of your neighbor to the south?

Pence has been a very ineffectual Governor. He proposed a large income tax reduction last year and his own party scoffed and gave him next to nothing. This year he's dancing around HJR-3 - the anti-gay marriage amendment to the state constitution - but he can't gt his party to bring it to a hearing to the point where it had to be moved into a committee that would give it the light of day. Pence is the suxxor, IMO.

Obviously, Indiana Republicans paid no attention to Minnesota where this scenario played out quite recently. The results there were generally not very satisfactory to state Republicans.

I don't know enough about Pence to make an informed decision or add to the discussion. Did he do anything other than cut taxes? As I mentioned before, only cutting taxes is not the answer. There needs to be spending cuts and restructuring of the tax system. People who make over a particular amount will pay a percentage of their income to the government in the form of a direct tax. No loopholes, no deductions, NOTHING.

 

[Masswich]

I'm not excited about any of the candidates that have shown any interest to date. Hickenlooper and O'Malley, maybe. Hillary might make a decent president, and I think could possibly win, but I wonder about how dynamic a presidency she could preside over given her baggage from both the Clinton and Obama years.

 

[michaelskis]

What would the point of the security doors be if guns are allowed past them? Personally I can't imagine presenting justifications for why a permit should be denied or revoked with an angry dude with a gun glaring at me. I would quit if guns were allowed at public meetings or in our office. I've seen people rage out of control and been very happy no guns were in the mix. Planning isn't worth getting murdered.

I wonder if this should be it's own thread.

My guess is there have in plenty of meeting where people have concealed guns (and permits to cary them). I know of a Planning Commissioner in a rural township here who said he would quit the PC of they were told that they could no longer cary. His comment was "A sign will not prohibit someone from coming in there with a gun with the intent to harm but his gun might make them think twice." Our Mayor wants to prohibit open cary in meetings because he thinks that the guns are unsafe for everyone. I disagree 100% and hope that there are more people who would cary legally at meetings. Do you think someone would try to rob a police station or a military base? No, because everyone has a gun.

As for talking to angry people with guns, I had to talk to a guy who was in the process of target practice because his neighbors were complaining about the illegal gun range. He was furious... but he did not shoot me. Those who legally have guns are less likely to shoot someone than someone who has a gun illegally.

Personally, I think that the only way that a no-gun policy can actually be effective is if there are metal detectors at every door and security guards checking people as they enter. Signs will only let bad people know that they will be the only one with a gun.

 

[imaplanner]

I wonder if this should be it's own thread.

My guess is there have in plenty of meeting where people have concealed guns (and permits to cary them). I know of a Planning Commissioner in a rural township here who said he would quit the PC of they were told that they could no longer cary. His comment was "A sign will not prohibit someone from coming in there with a gun with the intent to harm but his gun might make them think twice." Our Mayor wants to prohibit open cary in meetings because he thinks that the guns are unsafe for everyone. I disagree 100% and hope that there are more people who would cary legally at meetings. Do you think someone would try to rob a police station or a military base? No, because everyone has a gun.

As for talking to angry people with guns, I had to talk to a guy who was in the process of target practice because his neighbors were complaining about the illegal gun range. He was furious... but he did not shoot me. Those who legally have guns are less likely to shoot someone than someone who has a gun illegally.

Personally, I think that the only way that a no-gun policy can actually be effective is if there are metal detectors at every door and security guards checking people as they enter. Signs will only let bad people know that they will be the only one with a gun.

Currently we have to go through metal detectors to enter the rooms most of our public meetings are in, because someone once tried to murder a public official.

 

[DVD]

So will they allow staff to carry weapons to defend themselves? Or pay for the staff's body armor? That is nuts.

What would the point of the security doors be if guns are allowed past them? Personally I can't imagine presenting justifications for why a permit should be denied or revoked with an angry dude with a gun glaring at me. I would quit if guns were allowed at public meetings or in our office. I've seen people rage out of control and been very happy no guns were in the mix. Planning isn't worth getting murdered.

The way the state set up the law is that firearms are allowed in public buildings unless the building has "adequate" security. Our county running on the false sense that more armed people means more safety wants to allow it, but we share space with city offices and they don't. Political Drama!!! So we have an exception for four years while we figure out how to provide adequate security which is assumed to be a metal detector at each door so no guns get in. I don't think that will happen. To be honest, it's no different than having a sign right now. That sign is not going to prevent people from carrying guns when they get mad at some poor zoning guy or more likely the tax assessor.

By the way, it does mean that I can start packing heat legally provided I go get my permit.

 

[michaelskis]

By the way, it does mean that I can start packing heat legally provided I go get my permit.

I know several who have gone done just that. One turned down a private sector job because they were 'gun free' but deal with some controversial projects.

 

[Whose Yur Planner]

I wonder if this should be it's own thread.

My guess is there have in plenty of meeting where people have concealed guns (and permits to cary them). I know of a Planning Commissioner in a rural township here who said he would quit the PC of they were told that they could no longer cary. His comment was "A sign will not prohibit someone from coming in there with a gun with the intent to harm but his gun might make them think twice." Our Mayor wants to prohibit open cary in meetings because he thinks that the guns are unsafe for everyone. I disagree 100% and hope that there are more people who would cary legally at meetings. Do you think someone would try to rob a police station or a military base? No, because everyone has a gun.

As for talking to angry people with guns, I had to talk to a guy who was in the process of target practice because his neighbors were complaining about the illegal gun range. He was furious... but he did not shoot me. Those who legally have guns are less likely to shoot someone than someone who has a gun illegally.

Personally, I think that the only way that a no-gun policy can actually be effective is if there are metal detectors at every door and security guards checking people as they enter. Signs will only let bad people know that they will be the only one with a gun.

So what would you do if someone pulled a gun at a public hearing that you were at? Would you shot them if you were carrying?

 

[michaelskis]

So what would you do if someone pulled a gun at a public hearing that you were at? Would you shot them if you were carrying?

First of all I pray that I am never in a position to make that decision. But let me ask you, if you were sitting at the table in Kirkwood MO on February 7, 2008, and you were carrying, what would you do?

Or you were at the Panama City School Board meeting in 2010...

Or you were at the Ross Township PA meeting on August 5 of last year.

 

[Whose Yur Planner]

First of all I pray that I am never in a position to make that decision. But let me ask you, if you were sitting at the table in Kirkwood MO on February 7, 2008, and you were carrying, what would you do?

Or you were at the Panama City School Board meeting in 2010...

Or you were at the Ross Township PA meeting on August 5 of last year.

You are dodging the question and deflecting. To answer your question, I would hope I would do the right thing, not make the situation worse and get other people hurt and/or killed because of my stupidity. It's been my experience that it is better to defuse a situation than let it escalate. FWIW, you situation with the firing range is very mild compared to some of the stuff I have dealt with. I've more than earned my planner man card.

 

[Zoning Goddess]

.



As for Fort Hood, I thought that they were not permitted to carry on base and had to wait for the MP to arrive. http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/6970

That was the FUCKING point! You said nobody would rob a military base because everyone had a gun; but they don't! Probably 99.9 percent of people on military bases are not armed walking around, day to day. YOU SAID they all carry. Make up your mind!

 

[michaelskis]

That was the FUCKING point! You said nobody would rob a military base because everyone had a gun; but they don't! Probably 99.9 percent of people on military bases are not armed walking around, day to day. YOU SAID they all carry. Make up your mind!

You are correct, I had to go back and check because I thought I just said police department, but I did include military bases in error. I was wrong to include military bases, and I admit and apologize for my error.

The point that I was trying to get across is that signs are worthless in terms of protection from people who want to do harm and in places where there is a heavy presence of gun possession, the only people who go in there are the ones who want to be get shot and take as many down as they can before they get shot.

In short, this guy is able to clearly explain why gun free zones don't work.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0BkNGPiuQM

*this guy has some very insightful videos regarding gun ownership and is now an NRA spokes person. I don't agree with everything that the NRA puts out, but this guy is impressive.

 

[luckless pedestrian]

I think the answer to ending gun violence at random public places and schools goes a lot deeper than allowing or not allowing guns - it's a systemic societal problem of anger, hoplessness and folks generally being anesthetized regarding the killing of other people

in other words, these problems won't go away if you take away guns; and it will only get worse if everyone is armed

that's it for today

 

[imaplanner]

I think the answer to ending gun violence at random public places and schools goes a lot deeper than allowing or not allowing guns - it's a systemic societal problem of anger, hoplessness and folks generally being anesthetized regarding the killing of other people

in other words, these problems won't go away if you take away guns; and it will only get worse if everyone is armed

that's it for today

That's my thoughts as well. I understand the sentiment about wanting everyone to be armed to scare away the criminals, but I am generally less worried about getting shot by a criminal than by a law-abiding gun owner who snaps in a heated situation.

 

[Whose Yur Planner]

I think the answer to ending gun violence at random public places and schools goes a lot deeper than allowing or not allowing guns - it's a systemic societal problem of anger, hoplessness and folks generally being anesthetized regarding the killing of other people

in other words, these problems won't go away if you take away guns; and it will only get worse if everyone is armed

that's it for today

I agree as well. I'm interested to see Mskiis response on this, beyond, arm everyone, everywhere.

 

[michaelskis]

I agree as well. I'm interested to see Mskiis response on this, beyond, arm everyone, everywhere.

I don't think that everyone should be armed. When a friends ask me what gun they should get, I tell them they should get training.

In Michigan there is a quick background check system for buying some types of firearms. There is a list of things that will prevent someone from buying that firearm. Then to get a CPL, there is an even stricter level. A little more the a year ago was discussion of an advanced CPL that would also have a higher training level that would let people CC in some (most) pistol free zones unless the property owner posted a no fire arms sign. It was approved by the legislature but vetoed by the Governor since it was on his desk the day of Sandy Hook. Right now there is a loophole that let's people with a CPL open cary in some Pistol-Free zones (like schools) and the advanced CPL bill would have corrected that. But it got vetoed.

Over the past year I have come to realize that having some level of background check similar to the MI system is a good idea. It took about 5 minutes and was no big deal. This would eliminate anyone with an active retraining order against them, anyone with a felony, and anyone who has been convicted of a violent crime from just going into the store and buying. The one thing that is not clear is the appeal process, but I think there should be one.

I think that the CPL classes in MI need a better training component to them. Right now it is too easy to pass. My sister who had never shot a handgun before passed with flying colors. Her husband and I both have told her that she should get advanced training before she starts caring a gun.

I think that Chicago is proof that no-gun laws don't work. I think that with proper training, that most people should have the option of caring a gun in almost any location. (Court houses and airplanes are two places that I agree with no-cary laws).

 

[Planit]

That's my thoughts as well. I understand the sentiment about wanting everyone to be armed to scare away the criminals, but I am generally less worried about getting shot by a criminal than by a law-abiding gun owner who snaps in a heated situation.

Does the name George Zimmerman mean anything?

 

[michaelskis]

Does the name George Zimmerman mean anything?

Wow... A civilian snapping and you bring up George Zimmerman? I guess you don't know much about that case beyond what CNN said.

 

[btrage]

Wow... A civilian snapping and you bring up George Zimmerman? I guess you don't know much about that case beyond what CNN said.

He killed an unarmed kid?

 

[michaelskis]

He killed an unarmed kid?

First of all, I think it was stupid for Zimmerman to follow Martin. There is no question about that. But based on the information that was presented in the court case and what we now now about Martin's background, I believe that Zimmerman ended up in a situation where he would have been killed if he did not pull the trigger. Just because the kid did not have a gun or a knife, does not mean that he is not capable of great bodily harm and death.

Like I said, I don't think it was a good idea for Zimmerman to follow Martin. Personally, I would have stayed of the phone with 911 and did my best to keep track of where Marin was going (since he was dogging in-between homes and cutting across back yards).

 

[dw914er]

I don't think that everyone should be armed. When a friends ask me what gun they should get, I tell them they should get training.

I think we should just open carry and wear kevlar vests. That will be the best bet (I'm kidding ). I personally wouldn't feel comfortable if I was at a PC or CC meeting and other people were carrying weapons because I generally think people are nuts. We're just too emotional and may end up alittle too overzealous in that setting, and I think these meetings can get tense enough as is from irate and upset people. Don't take this as a stance against gun rights, because that isn't my intent, but I generally think people make bad choices in emotional situations and having a gun there wouldn't help. Do I think a sign will stop people? No... But it says alot about how we view our society if we think that we need to pack a weapon because we think someone else will in order to inflict harm.

I think that Chicago is proof that no-gun laws don't work.

I would say that Chicago is proof that the issue is much more complicated. I lived in London, England, which is also a place of no guns, even for most police officers, and it was honestly felt to be the safest urban place I've been to. Sure, petty theft occurs (like in any urban and high touristy city), but the perception of guns and their issues or benefits was very different than what I see here. But the issue is not "no guns = limited protection and higher shooting sprees."

 

[Planit]

Does the name George Zimmerman mean anything?

Wow... A civilian snapping and you bring up George Zimmerman? I guess you don't know much about that case beyond what CNN said.

He killed an unarmed kid?

First of all, I think it was stupid for Zimmerman to follow Martin. There is no question about that. But based on the information that was presented in the court case and what we now now about Martin's background, I believe that Zimmerman ended up in a situation where he would have been killed if he did not pull the trigger. Just because the kid did not have a gun or a knife, does not mean that he is not capable of great bodily harm and death.

Like I said, I don't think it was a good idea for Zimmerman to follow Martin. Personally, I would have stayed of the phone with 911 and did my best to keep track of where Marin was going (since he was dogging in-between homes and cutting across back yards).

You don't know me too well then. My family hails from the area where Georgy pulled the trigger. I have lots of family in and around the Tampa Bay Area so for you to say I got all my news from CNN is a joke. I know more about that area than you can shake a stick at (& I don't go around saying you don't know shit about the UP and only get your news from FAUXNews - enough with the personal attacks because you think you're superior in your opinions than us minions. Seriously get off your high horse once in a while). Zimmerman had a history too of being overly zealous. He's a civilian who was carrying a gun and wasn't going to scare off a 'criminal' whether he had a gun or not. He engaged the situation and snapped - he didn't do the "right" thing by what you would have done.

 

[michaelskis]

I think we should just open carry and wear kevlar vests. That will be the best bet (I'm kidding ). I personally wouldn't feel comfortable if I was at a PC or CC meeting and other people were carrying weapons because I generally think people are nuts. We're just too emotional and may end up alittle too overzealous in that setting, and I think these meetings can get tense enough as is from irate and upset people. Don't take this as a stance against gun rights, because that isn't my intent, but I generally think people make bad choices in emotional situations and having a gun there wouldn't help. Do I think a sign will stop people? No... But it says alot about how we view our society if we think that we need to pack a weapon because we think someone else will in order to inflict harm.

I would say that Chicago is proof that the issue is much more complicated. I lived in London, England, which is also a place of no guns, even for most police officers, and it was honestly felt to be the safest urban place I've been to. Sure, petty theft occurs (like in any urban and high touristy city), but the perception of guns and their issues or benefits was very different than what I see here. But the issue is not "no guns = limited protection and higher shooting sprees."

I agree with a lot of your comments in your post. I think part of it is a cultural issue. I will be blunt, if I hadn't witnessed 2 people die from shootings and see 3 others (one of which I am very happy I did not get hit), I would not even consider carrying a gun. If I had time and money, I would do a cultural study of the backgrounds of those who have committed a violent crime and their cultural perceptions.

Chicago also has a significant gang problem and not all the violence is gun related. There are still significant issues without guns. I would be interested to get into the head of people who are committing those crimes to understand why they do what they do.

You don't know me too well then. My family hails from the area where Georgy pulled the trigger. I have lots of family in and around the Tampa Bay Area so for you to say I got all my news from CNN is a joke. I know more about that area than you can shake a stick at (& I don't go around saying you don't know shit about the UP and only get your news from FAUXNews - enough with the personal attacks because you think you're superior in your opinions than us minions. Seriously get off your high horse once in a while). Zimmerman had a history too of being overly zealous. He's a civilian who was carrying a gun and wasn't going to scare off a 'criminal' whether he had a gun or not. He engaged the situation and snapped - he didn't do the "right" thing by what you would have done.

And you don't know crap about me or my background. What I do know is that the statement was he was unarmed. I posted that I agree he should not have engaged. But he did not approach the kid with the intent to harm him. The jury even agreed.

Let me ask you, based on the information that was presented during the case, do you think that Zimmerman would have been killed or otherwise severely injured if he hadn't pulled the trigger.

I don't care if you want to cary a gun, own a gun, or live in fear of guns. That is your business. I believe what I believe and do what I do regardless of your whining about it.

As for a personal attack... if you think that me saying that you need to get news beyond CNN is a personal attack, then you need to toughen up a bit.

 

[Hink]

The movie theater killing is my response to everyone should have guns. You know what would have happened to that guy who was texting his daughter if everyone had a gun? He would have been shot. Having 10 guns in that theater would not have stopped that guy. The gun issue is a very real issue that many seem to be unwilling to consider a danger.

A retired police officer was defending himself when he fatally shot another man in a dark movie theater yesterday, the accused killer's attorney argued this afternoon. But the 71-year-old man will stay behind bars for now.

http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/story/24442737/2014/01/14/accused-theater-shooter-heads-to-court

 

[btrage]

Just so I understand, if I have a gun and I am in a confrontation with someone that I created, I can shoot them if I feel they could do me great bodily harm, even if they don't have a gun?

Interesting.

 

[imaplanner]

Just so I understand, if I have a gun and I am in a confrontation with someone that I created, I can shoot them if I feel they could do me great bodily harm, even if they don't have a gun?

Interesting.

Yes actually. In many states, where stand your ground laws are in place, the answer is yes.

 

[Planit]

And you don't know crap about me or my background. What I do know is that the statement was he was unarmed. I posted that I agree he should not have engaged. But he did not approach the kid with the intent to harm him. The jury even agreed.

Let me ask you, based on the information that was presented during the case, do you think that Zimmerman would have been killed or otherwise severely injured if he hadn't pulled the trigger.

I don't care if you want to cary a gun, own a gun, or live in fear of guns. That is your business. I believe what I believe and do what I do regardless of your whining about it.

As for a personal attack... if you think that me saying that you need to get news beyond CNN is a personal attack, then you need to toughen up a bit.

1. The only thing I know about your background is what you post - and you post a lot of your info and your knowledge and your opionios. I made a comment based on some incomplete knowledge of yours.
2. I'm not whining about it, just as you are not. I'm making a statement as you are...and you are right, it's my business.
3. I'm fine if you represent things correctly. Your snap judgement on me because I used an example of something imaplanner stated is alarming.

I walk into every BOC meeting knowing that at least 3 Commissioners are packing, along with 2 deputies and at least 4 fine upstanding citizens in the audience. That does not make me fell safer.


Edit: Oh sorry forgot this one: Yes George might have been beat up some and Trayvon would have been beaten up too by the encounter. That's what happens when you get in a fight, but both would have been alive now.

 

[michaelskis]

1. The only thing I know about your background is what you post - and you post a lot of your info and your knowledge and your opionios. I made a comment based on some incomplete knowledge of yours.
2. I'm not whining about it, just as you are not. I'm making a statement as you are...and you are right, it's my business.
3. I'm fine if you represent things correctly. Your snap judgement on me because I used an example of something imaplanner stated is alarming.

I walk into every BOC meeting knowing that at least 3 Commissioners are packing, along with 2 deputies and at least 4 fine upstanding citizens in the audience. That does not make me fell safer.


Edit: Oh sorry forgot this one: Yes George might have been beat up some and Trayvon would have been beaten up too by the encounter. That's what happens when you get in a fight, but both would have been alive now.

Perhaps it would be best if I explain something. If someone doesn't want to cary a gun, I have no problem with that. I rather that people who are unsure about it not cary until they have gotten proper training. If someone does not feel more comfortable around people are carrying guns, that is ok two. The first priority is personal safety and the safety of my family. Others come second. I am sorry of that seems mean to other people, but that is the way it is.

As for sap judgments, people use that on me all the time. How many times have I been accused of only getting my news from FOX on a daily basis because I don't follow a liberal point of view on some things, even those I have repeatedly stated that I don't trust any of them.

Secondly, regarding the for the 'fight', I base my opinion of the evidence on the eyewitness. (Link) . From this, it sounds like there is a reasonable understanding that Zimmerman feared for his life. If you disagree, that is ok. You are entitled to your opinion and I respect that even if I don't agree.

Finally, I have stated before, I don't think that Pistol Free Zones are any safer than anywhere else unless they had metal detectors at the doors. The only thing that they prevent is people who choose to cary legally, from carrying in that location. If someone is going to commit a crime, the sign is worthless.



Oh, one additional thing, I don't take any of these discussions personally and over the past several years, there has been only one time that I have taken something o heart because that person crossed a line. Since then I have forgiven them and we just keep our distance. That is why it has been quite some time since I received so much as a warning from a moderators. I understand where the line is and I don't cross it. I almost never use profanity and I always make at least an attempt to understand the argument from the other person's side. When someone makes a good point, I agree with them. When I post something in error, I own up to it. I do have to admit it is frustrating that others don't always do the same.

Just so I understand, if I have a gun and I am in a confrontation with someone that I created, I can shoot them if I feel they could do me great bodily harm, even if they don't have a gun?

Interesting.

Yes and no. It varies from state to state depending on how the law is written. But if there is evidence that you went out looking for a fight and there is evidence that you are the aggressor in the situation, then in MI, you stand a good chance of being charged for some level of homicide. It is common that after a shooting here, the shooter is taken into custody immediately until there is a good understanding of what occurred.

 

[Duke Of Dystopia]

That was the FUCKING point! You said nobody would rob a military base because everyone had a gun; but they don't! Probably 99.9 percent of people on military bases are not armed walking around, day to day. YOU SAID they all carry. Make up your mind!

You are correct.

However, the presence of guns on any military base is never seen as a scary thing. You will find side arms and other issued weapons in all areas but the retail areas. Imagine if you will, 1/10th of the people in a Burger King carrying a M-16 at any given time. Standard issue weapons are in peoples possession often at any given time. Once in a soldiers possession, they are to be within arms reach or slung safely on their person at all times. This was common at any ARMY base I was ever stationed on.

Just because you have a weapon on a military post also does not mean you are lawfully allowed to carry ammunition with that weapon. Even had there been many soldiers with thier issued weapons been present, only the MP's would have had bullets for their weapons. Essentially, Mskis argues that those few with weapons should have charged into an unknown situation and tried to club the Fort Hood shooter to death. Not likely. Way less than a 1/10th of the units at Fort Hood are infantry in origin. You definitely do not want a lot of someones with an I.Q. of 60 (or less) running around unsupervised with both the firearm and the bullets at the same time!

Mskis has never served in the military nor has he been a part of a military unit, so his ignorance of conditions shines through brightly again.

 

[michaelskis]

You are correct.

However, the presence of guns on any military base is never seen as a scary thing. You will find side arms and other issued weapons in all areas but the retail areas. Imagine if you will, 1/10th of the people in a Burger King carrying a M-16 at any given time. Standard issue weapons are in peoples possession often at any given time. Once in a soldiers possession, they are to be within arms reach or slung safely on their person at all times. This was common at any ARMY base I was ever stationed on.

Just because you have a weapon on a military post also does not mean you are lawfully allowed to carry ammunition with that weapon. Even had there been many soldiers with thier issued weapons been present, only the MP's would have had bullets for their weapons. Essentially, Mskis argues that those few with weapons should have charged into an unknown situation and tried to club the Fort Hood shooter to death. Not likely. Way less than a 1/10th of the units at Fort Hood are infantry in origin. You definitely do not want a lot of someones with an I.Q. of 60 (or less) running around unsupervised with both the firearm and the bullets at the same time!

Mskis has never served in the military nor has he been a part of a military unit, so his ignorance of conditions shines through brightly again.

Can you point out where I argued that or are you making accusations regarding my statements? I am curious where your comment about someone with an IQ of 60 (or less) comes from. I agree with your statement but I am curious where it comes from.

Furthermore, I have admitted that I have never been in the military several times and admitted my error regarding ZG's post above.


BTW, than you for your service our Country. I don't pretend to know how it is, but I appreciate it nonetheless.

 

[Duke Of Dystopia]

The movie theater killing is my response to everyone should have guns. You know what would have happened to that guy who was texting his daughter if everyone had a gun? He would have been shot. Having 10 guns in that theater would not have stopped that guy. The gun issue is a very real issue that many seem to be unwilling to consider a danger.



http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/story/24442737/2014/01/14/accused-theater-shooter-heads-to-court

Hink, if everyone in that theater was armed, it would have went something like this.

1st) Ridiculous guy shoots and kills for texting.
2nd) Scared nutbag in audience, sees his chance to kill someone for something, he doesn't understand. Scared nutbag does what comes naturally, he fires at the muzzle flash.
Scared nutbag shoots and kills surprised bystander (actually sitting minding their own business) in seat next to dead texter.
3rd) Ridiculous guy wildly fires back at the muzzle flash of Scared nutbag. 1 in 10 chance he hits Scared nutbag.
Anyone who is not armed is diving for cover.
4th) Meanwhile, the other 20 people who are armed do not know what is going on or who the aggressor is, but assume half (10) decide to aim at Ridiculous guy and half (10) aim at Scared nutbag.
Now there is a mass casualty scenario taking place to to ricochet and piss poor aiming. Remember, human nature is to aim at the muzzle flash, not 24" behind the muzzle flash.
5th) Now there are 22 people in a theater spanging away in the dark at every muzzle flash they see.
6th) When the cops show up and enter the melee scene you are really going to have a pickle to sort out. Every person with a gun is guilty of probably manslaughter as well as scores of counts of reckless endangerment of some type(s). Not to mention the civil lawsuits for what remains of their assets when the survivors get done with the surviving MOB of gun wielding idiots.

Can you point out where I argued that or are you making accusations regarding my statements? I am curious where your comment about someone with an IQ of 60 (or less) comes from. I agree with your statement but I am curious where it comes from.

...

BTW, than you for your service our Country. I don't pretend to know how it is, but I appreciate it nonetheless.

I was replying to ZG. Read your statement. Realized you have no idea how a military base, training, or life on them takes place. I gave context to "guns on military bases".

Its a crack at the infantry.

If people really supported the military, they would force the VA to change SO MANY POLICIES that screw over servicemen after they are out of the service, but have to face the full effects of what was asked of them.

 

[michaelskis]

If people really supported the military, they would force the VA to change SO MANY POLICIES that screw over servicemen after they are out of the service, but have to face the full effects of what was asked of them.

I don't want to sound disrespectful, but I am curious what policies you think need to be changed. Odds are I am going to agree with you because from what I know of my cousin who did two tours in Afghanistan, she is furious with the way things are handled when you get out.

 

[imaplanner]

Hink, if everyone in that theater was armed, it would have went something like this.

1st) Ridiculous guy shoots and kills for texting.
2nd) Scared nutbag in audience, sees his chance to kill someone for something, he doesn't understand. Scared nutbag does what comes naturally, he fires at the muzzle flash.
Scared nutbag shoots and kills surprised bystander (actually sitting minding their own business) in seat next to dead texter.
3rd) Ridiculous guy wildly fires back at the muzzle flash of Scared nutbag. 1 in 10 chance he hits Scared nutbag.
Anyone who is not armed is diving for cover.
4th) Meanwhile, the other 20 people who are armed do not know what is going on or who the aggressor is, but assume half (10) decide to aim at Ridiculous guy and half (10) aim at Scared nutbag.
Now there is a mass casualty scenario taking place to to ricochet and piss poor aiming. Remember, human nature is to aim at the muzzle flash, not 24" behind the muzzle flash.
5th) Now there are 22 people in a theater spanging away in the dark at every muzzle flash they see.
6th) When the cops show up and enter the melee scene you are really going to have a pickle to sort out. Every person with a gun is guilty of probably manslaughter as well as scores of counts of reckless endangerment of some type(s). Not to mention the civil lawsuits for what remains of their assets when the survivors get done with the surviving MOB of gun wielding idiots.

I've heard law enforcement say this is their worst fear when heading into a situation with an active shooter, that they won't know who the bad guy is and people who aren't trained are shooting away trying to be a hero. A few years back the neighborhood I grew up in had a situation, where a guy was robbing a store and he had a gun. The store owner had a gun and shot at the robber, unfortunately missing the robber and killing a bystander. The store owner was found innocent of the charges of manslaughter, because he was deemed to be defending himself.

I just don't trust people enough to feel comfortable with people carrying guns everywhere. More guns in my mind equals more law-abiding gun owners shooting an innocent bystander or snapping and shooting a movie-texter or unarmed kid walking through the neighborhood with candy.

Oddly enough, I would trust mskis with a firearm more than almost all people I know, as he seems to have a very emotionally grounded attitude even as crazy and ungrounded as his politics are to my mind. But I don't trust most people to be able to control emotions. Most mass shooters are legal law abiding gun owners up until the second they snap.

 

[Duke Of Dystopia]

Oddly enough, I would trust mskis with a firearm more than almost all people I know, as he seems to have a very emotionally grounded attitude even as crazy and ungrounded as his politics are to my mind. But I don't trust most people to be able to control emotions. Most mass shooters are legal law abiding gun owners up until the second they snap.

That is putting to much trust in anyone. We all have a snapping point. We are ALL capable of murder. We are social creatures with a tendency toward violence.

It is REALLY difficult to kill someone with your bare hands. It happens, but rarely. Usually you end up with some broken fingers, rib, nose and some black eyes. We are still neolithic in the sense that our fight instinct is WAY faster than our rational thought process. We have been perfecting violence as a society to a fine edge since before we came down out of the trees. The first thing our ancestors did when they started loosing a fight was to grab a stick. The stick used was better than a fist and the speed of its use was more instantaneous. Then came spears, followed by spear throwers, and the bow. Soon we could hit our targets at 100 yards or more. Otzi the Ice Man was murdered by a projectile weapon 7,000 years ago. As our weapons have improved, our ability to think rationally in a clutch or "agitated" state has not kept pace. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Its the fight or flight response and has saved many people and created heros.

The problem is that a firearm strapped to your side, concealed or open carried, can be accessed faster than any other weapon in hominid history. Standard military training for any ambush is turn into the enemy and engage the enemy and move into them. That is the natural fight response. All of us have an action point where we will access that weapon, cock it, and fire at your target within 1 to 2 seconds. No thinking included. I could load a 120 mm tank round from ready rack to prepared to fire at targets down range in 3.5 seconds flat (member of 1,000 point tank crew and later part of a Canadian Army Trophy Team). That is not enough time for rational thought to supersede the fight or flight response. It can't, or it wouldn't have been a benefit for us from before we could speak words.

Mski's, Me, or anyone. Hand guns are easily the most dangerous weapon man has ever wielded against other men. FACT

I don't want to sound disrespectful, but I am curious what policies you think need to be changed. Odds are I am going to agree with you because from what I know of my cousin who did two tours in Afghanistan, she is furious with the way things are handled when you get out.

There are 2 VA's. One provides medical services to vets. It is way over worked and under funded. This VA needs more staff and facilities to deal with the work load. Good luck with that, because it would reduce the number of aircraft carriers, F-35's, and other toys the pentagon wants. Care through the VA is rated as meeting the care requirements of the ACA. The existing vets, recent wars, and the bad economy has forced many vets into the VA. Wait lines are longer than the civilian size. I have many ideas on how to improve the speed and greatly reduce costs. However, they won't listen to anybody, because it needs congress to act to make changes. So it will not happen. Certainly, the GOP will not side with injured soldiers because it will cost money. The really silly thing is that vets by and large vote GOP for the most misguided reasons.

The second is the Compensation and Pension system. The process of filing claims with the VA is a quasi legal process where the veteran is presumed to be lying and or attempting to defraud the US government and the citizens of the US. The burden of proof is always on the soldiers. NEVER on the armed forces. Many vets die before they can receive the compensation the regulations pretend to state they are owed. It's pay to play. If you can't afford help to battle the VA, you get squat.

Kind of bitter.

 

[michaelskis]

Kind of bitter.

I would be to and I agree with just about everything you said. The rest is stuff that I was not aware of. I
think that we need to provide the care and coverage for our vets. They risked their lives to "protect" this country, even when it had nothing to do with the US.

To cover the costs, I think we need a domestic military. We don't belong in most of the places around the globe. We should not be the worlds police force, and we don't need this big of a military. Our focus should be on protecting the US and it's citizens.

Furthermore, our troops and our teachers are two of the most underpaid professions.