• Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, the built environment, planning adjacent topics, and anything else that comes to mind. No ads, no spam, and it's free. It's easy to join!

NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

Honestly, probably every single person on this site, regardless of politics, could probably do a better job than any member of Congress in trying to address this or any other issue. Planners are driven by facts. We are natural collaborators. We are always looking for solutions, and in particular we prefer the most pragmatic solution available. We attempt to discern symptoms from actual base problems and target solutions to the base problems. We have longer-range perspective beyond an election calendar.

I'm not going to pretend to know the solution to these mass shootings. This is because it is a multifaceted problem grounded in modern American culture & society, political influence, socioeconomics and public health. It is complex. It demands a comprehensive approach that pulls expertise from all of those areas. I do think it comes back to American culture though, which is what makes it so hard to solve.

What bothers me most about these shootings is that the legislature has done literally nothing aside from a few show-pony hearings. Not even a meaningful effort to study the issue to come up with possible solutions. Nada. Zip. Zilch.

Also, the NRA can go fly a kite. They don't represent gun owners. They represent the gun industry. Those two things are not the same and they do not have the same values/goals.
 
michaelskis said:
The vodka story is good however I don't really see the connection. Yes, a common theme is a gun. With car accidents, is the common theme a car. I know people don't like that connection, but it is real. How many miles are cars driven in the US? How many rounds are fired by civilians where a crime is not committed? One common might be an inanimate object, but the more important common is the person who is in control of that object. That is why I can support background checks and training.
Click to expand...

The point with the vodka story is that it shows how people can ignore the problem and claim something else. The common denominator wasn't the water. It was the vodka.... or a gun.

Cars serve a public purpose. We have been through this. Guns serve not real purpose. If you don't have a gun you can still do your job. You can still function. Can you do that without a car? They are not in anyway the same. Although a car is much more regulated than guns. So there is that.

Why make excuses for our current situation? Are you really scared that the guns will be taken and the government will rule us all? Is that the true reason? Because other than that, I don't understand why anyone (not just your Mskis) would defend our current system or try and make analogies to defend the crazy number of guns we have in our country.

Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Guns just make it WAY easier. I can't jump off a cliff if there isn't a cliff. If I have to go to a park, find a parking spot, get a map and a guide, walk the trails, get lost, eat lunch, etc. I may not have the same opinion when I get to the cliff. If the cliff is in my parent's bedroom, I might just jump because it is easy.

I hate the argument that guns don't kill people. They do. They unfortunately do. And it is a lot of people. Too many.
 
michaelskis said:
I think that you are correct in that we both want something to change and in many of the cases we agree on many points of change.

The vodka story is good however I don't really see the connection. Yes, a common theme is a gun. With car accidents, is the common theme a car. I know people don't like that connection, but it is real. How many miles are cars driven in the US? How many rounds are fired by civilians where a crime is not committed? One common might be an inanimate object, but the more important common is the person who is in control of that object. That is why I can support background checks and training.

We have agreement on semiautomatic vs fully automatic. You referenced my desire to want fully automatic weapons to be legal... for the large part, they are not legal today and I don't think they should be legal for most people.

There are mass stabbings but that is a different crime. Most stabbings are more of a personal, intimate thing. Mass shootings are more along the lines of bombings where you don't have to be within arms reach of the victim.


BTW, I would never throw a beer at a person. I would say thank you and pick up the discussion. As Maister and many others can tell you, I don't get emotional with this stuff, and in many cases that is what people say is my downfall. I focus on logic over emotion in most situations. I actually enjoy these open discussions because when opposing views are expressed, common ground can often be achieved, and that can be the foundation for positive change.
Click to expand...

Always first, I never want to piss someone off when we're talking politics or religion. The end result is you are right because these are topics of opinion and belief. I'm betting I can get you to throw a beer. How about a Bud Light?

My problem with the car analysis is that there are too many variables. I know I'm going to over simplify this, but you get the idea. With a car, it could be the car's fault for bad engineering. It could be the traffic conditions based on road design or weather or whatever. It can and often is driver error. When I look at the 80 year old who hit the accelerator instead of the brake and hit a bunch of people at the farmer's market I blame the driver along with the idiot state that allowed an incompetent driver on the road. Yes I believe we need better regulations on driving tests for seniors (there's a South Park on that somewhere) In the case of shootings, I also blame the shooter, but I have to blame the system that gave him access to the thing that killed. It all leads me back to taking action instead of just talking. All the political talk just seems to sidestep and justify the shootings. It was a rare case and only about religious intolerance or the guy was mentally ill. It was a one time thing. 45 times later I think we have an established pattern. There is a gun and a mentally unstable person holding it. Congress need to shut up and fix that.

I don't remember the whole alcohol joke, but it's something like this:

On Monday I had whisky and water and got drunk.
On Tuesday I had vodka and water and got drunk.
On Wednesday I had bourbon and water and got drunk.
On Thursday I had tequila and water and got drunk.
On Friday I had gin and water and got drunk.
It's Saturday and I don't want to get drunk so I think I'll skip the water.
 
Hink said:
The point with the vodka story is that it shows how people can ignore the problem and claim something else. The common denominator wasn't the water. It was the vodka.... or a gun.

Cars serve a public purpose. We have been through this. Guns serve not real purpose. If you don't have a gun you can still do your job. You can still function. Can you do that without a car? They are not in anyway the same. Although a car is much more regulated than guns. So there is that.

Why make excuses for our current situation? Are you really scared that the guns will be taken and the government will rule us all? Is that the true reason? Because other than that, I don't understand why anyone (not just your Mskis) would defend our current system or try and make analogies to defend the crazy number of guns we have in our country.

Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Guns just make it WAY easier. I can't jump off a cliff if there isn't a cliff. If I have to go to a park, find a parking spot, get a map and a guide, walk the trails, get lost, eat lunch, etc. I may not have the same opinion when I get to the cliff. If the cliff is in my parent's bedroom, I might just jump because it is easy.

I hate the argument that guns don't kill people. They do. They unfortunately do. And it is a lot of people. Too many.
Click to expand...

I would argue yes, you can do your job without a car. You just need to live close enough to work to get there and with telecommuting it is even simpler. I did it one day a week and on days of bad weather with my last job. Not all that hard to do in fact.

People to kill people. You might not be able to jump off a cliff if there is not a cliff, but a building or some other elevated platform works just the same. As for the cliff in your parent's bedroom, I agree that is a problem that needs to be fixed. As I have repeated over and over and over and over again, there needs to be increased education for those to buy guns on how to safely store those weapons when they are not in the owners physical possession. My guns are all locked in containers and I am the only one who has the keys and the the combinations. More so, they are very in expensive too. I have 3 lock boxes for pistols that are TSA compliant that cost me $20 each.

My point is people are quick to blame the gun when that is just a symptom of the problem which is an epidemic problem in our society. We are so eager to find a quick fix that we as a society are unwilling to really look into the real problems. I agree 100% that something needs to be done in terms of who can buy guns and the level of training that they have. But that is only part of the solution and frankly a very small one. We need to do a better job of dealing with mental health issues in this country. More so as a society, things like bullies and accepting low level violence has become all to accepted. We hear on the news all the time "Oh I didn't see nothing" or "victim is unwilling to cooperate with police". We are a nation that is willing to not do the wrong thing, but we are hesitant to do the right thing.

As for yesterday's shootings, the hero in all of this was a former veteran who charged the guy and was shot 5 times and was almost killed himself. What if he would have had a weapon? Odds are he is trained to use one. How many people could have been saved? How many shots to him and others could have been prevented? He did the right thing even though he could have gotten away without being harmed and no one would have thought any less of him. But he chose to step up knowing the risks.

Nothing personal, but I don't care that you hate the comment that guns don't kill people. I have guns in multiple sizes, configurations, and types. Not only have they never killed anyone, they have never even been pointed at another human being. In fact there are over 310 million privately owned firearms in the US, although there is quite a bit of discrepancy in the numbers. What percentage of those guns are used in a crime? What percentage of legal gun owners commit a gun related crime? Many statics say between 1/4 and 1/3 of the US population owns a gun. With your idea that guns kill people, if most mass shootings are at least 4 people, we as a nation would have been dead a long time ago.
 
michaelskis said:
My point is people are quick to blame the gun when that is just a symptom of the problem which is an epidemic problem in our society. We are so eager to find a quick fix that we as a society are unwilling to really look into the real problems. I agree 100% that something needs to be done in terms of who can buy guns and the level of training that they have. But that is only part of the solution and frankly a very small one. We need to do a better job of dealing with mental health issues in this country. More so as a society, things like bullies and accepting low level violence has become all to accepted. We hear on the news all the time "Oh I didn't see nothing" or "victim is unwilling to cooperate with police". We are a nation that is willing to not do the wrong thing, but we are hesitant to do the right thing.

As for yesterday's shootings, the hero in all of this was a former veteran who charged the guy and was shot 5 times and was almost killed himself. What if he would have had a weapon? Odds are he is trained to use one. How many people could have been saved? How many shots to him and others could have been prevented? He did the right thing even though he could have gotten away without being harmed and no one would have thought any less of him. But he chose to step up knowing the risks.

Nothing personal, but I don't care that you hate the comment that guns don't kill people. I have guns in multiple sizes, configurations, and types. Not only have they never killed anyone, they have never even been pointed at another human being. In fact there are over 310 million privately owned firearms in the US, although there is quite a bit of discrepancy in the numbers. What percentage of those guns are used in a crime? What percentage of legal gun owners commit a gun related crime? Many statics say between 1/4 and 1/3 of the US population owns a gun. With your idea that guns kill people, if most mass shootings are at least 4 people, we as a nation would have been dead a long time ago.
Click to expand...

What you can't seem to understand is that people aren't like you. You are a good gun owner. If everyone was like you, we wouldn't have this problem.

We don't need burglary laws either, since I doubt you steal things from stores.

We don't have rules for people like you. We have rules for everyone who disregards general societal pressures. We have rules to assure that weakest, dumbest, or sleeziest, of our society cannot take advantage of the systems we all agree to follow.

We need a quick fix. We need something that stops this fast. If we have to back track and figure out how to grant more freedom afterward.... cool. I am willing to give up some short term freedom, to assure we are protected. I think we go TSA style, with fast changes and then figure out what is working and what isn't.

The idea that we don't do anything, is just appalling to me.
 
Hink said:
What you can't seem to understand is that people aren't like you. You are a good gun owner. If everyone was like you, we wouldn't have this problem.

We don't need burglary laws either, since I doubt you steal things from stores.

We don't have rules for people like you. We have rules for everyone who disregards general societal pressures. We have rules to assure that weakest, dumbest, or sleeziest, of our society cannot take advantage of the systems we all agree to follow.

We need a quick fix. We need something that stops this fast. If we have to back track and figure out how to grant more freedom afterward.... cool. I am willing to give up some short term freedom, to assure we are protected. I think we go TSA style, with fast changes and then figure out what is working and what isn't.

The idea that we don't do anything, is just appalling to me.
Click to expand...

I agree, to sit on our hands and do thing is just stupid. I think we need mandatory background checks ASAP and progress into required training.

As for 'rules' the main rule that I am opposed to is the gun free zone rule. Do we need background checks, yes. Do we need a minimum level of training for pistol and weapons that can hold more than 5 cartridges, yes. But the fact of the matter is gun free zones don't reduce mass shootings. If they did, we would have more mass shootings in places that permitted guns. But there has only been one in the past 50 years.

To make matters worse, in many cases these gun free zones don't have any level of prevention beyond the sign. TSA and courtrooms have metal detectors, some schools have them, but otherwise it is on a persons honor. Someone who is going to show up and shoot a bunch of unarmed people has no honor to start with and the sign is just going to be a joke to them.

As for stealing, we have things in place to prevent that in many cases. Namely the sensors tat the doors. But I think that you highlight an important difference in our thinking here. The gun free zone rules make the possession of a firearm illegal in particular places. We already have laws against unlawful discharge or use of a firearm, laws against shooting someone, laws against murder, and about 20 others. Personally, I don't think that the possession of a firearm for personal protection should be illegal *** IF *** a person has appropriate and continuous training on how to use it.
 
Changing topics on everyone because we all agree something needs to change about guns, but no one is going to do anything so we'll cover it after the next horrific mass shooting. I hope everyone survives it.

The court is already lining up next years cases.

One case over redistricting and if we should count illegals or not. So who gets representation in this country or are we just trying to weed out the liberals down in Texas?
Evenwel v. Abbott

Another case is over affirmative action, Texas again. Is the poor white girl not allowed into college because she's white and we need more minorities or is she just not smart enough to get into the school?
Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin
 
dvdneal said:
Changing topics on everyone because we all agree something needs to change about guns, but no one is going to do anything so we'll cover it after the next horrific mass shooting. I hope everyone survives it.

The court is already lining up next years cases.

One case over redistricting and if we should count illegals or not. So who gets representation in this country or are we just trying to weed out the liberals down in Texas?
Evenwel v. Abbott

Another case is over affirmative action, Texas again. Is the poor white girl not allowed into college because she's white and we need more minorities or is she just not smart enough to get into the school?
Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin
Click to expand...

Oh Texas... :r:

And yes, they've been trying in earnest for the last two decades to weed out every democrat/liberal. Our redistricting process here and the resulting maps are disgusting insults to representative democracy. Abbott will lose that case.

The UT case may get tossed out. I think it is too hard for her to prove standing, plus the UT admissions policy has other issues at play that while bad, may actually help them to provide a defense. There's a growing controversy about what appears to have been a back-door admissions policy for the wealthy & powerful. Link to article
 
Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin:
Anytime that one's race is taken into consideration for a decision, it is racism. We want equality but as long as race is a factor we will never have it. I believe that we as a society should stand on our achievements and character, not the color of our skin. Affirmative Action is a double standard. Why should a minority get preference based only on their minority status. One does not choose the color of their skin, ethnic background, or gender... (Unless your Bruce "Caitlyn" Jenner), so why should any institution use this as a factor. Would it be fair of she was African American instead of Caucasian woman and this happened and the decision was only on the color of her skin, would that be acceptable?


Evenwel v. Abbott:
Voting is a right that is granted to US citizens by the Constitution. If they want to be counted in terms of representative distribution, they need to become US Citizens. I also think that citizenship needs to be binary, you are, or you are not. No middle ground. Place of current residency does not automatically grant citizenship.
 
michaelskis said:
Evenwel v. Abbott:
Voting is a right that is granted to US citizens by the Constitution. If they want to be counted in terms of representative distribution, they need to become US Citizens. I also think that citizenship needs to be binary, you are, or you are not. No middle ground. Place of current residency does not automatically grant citizenship.
Click to expand...

While voting is a right granted to U.S. citizens, those voted into congress have a duty to represent all residents of their districts regardless of whether they are voters, registered voters, eligible to register, felons, children, unnaturalized resident aliens, etc. etc.

Changing the representative distribution to be based on voters or eligible voters wont just hurt districts with large numbers of unnatralized residents but also families with more children, communities with large prison populations (in states where felons cannot vote), large urban areas which are more likely to have a disproportionate number of convicted felons, and college towns.

Further, the way the current decennial census is set up, they are not allowed to ask the citizenship question (or if somebody is an eligible/registered voter) and it would take, literally, an act of congress to get that changed.

I hope that this case gets decided to keep representation based on the total population.
 
WSU MUP Student said:
While voting is a right granted to U.S. citizens, those voted into congress have a duty to represent all residents of their districts regardless of whether they are voters, registered voters, eligible to register, felons, children, unnaturalized resident aliens, etc. etc.

Changing the representative distribution to be based on voters or eligible voters wont just hurt districts with large numbers of unnatralized residents but also families with more children, communities with large prison populations (in states where felons cannot vote), large urban areas which are more likely to have a disproportionate number of convicted felons, and college towns.

Further, the way the current decennial census is set up, they are not allowed to ask the citizenship question (or if somebody is an eligible/registered voter) and it would take, literally, an act of congress to get that changed.

I hope that this case gets decided to keep representation based on the total population.
Click to expand...

As long as it is legal population, I will agree with that. Places like Utah where they have 26 kids will likely get greater representation. Illegal's should not have representation in congress because their residency by definition is illegal.



**** disclaimer... I do think that we need to simply the process to become a US Citizen.
 
michaelskis said:
Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin:
Anytime that one's race is taken into consideration for a decision, it is racism. We want equality but as long as race is a factor we will never have it. I believe that we as a society should stand on our achievements and character, not the color of our skin. Affirmative Action is a double standard. Why should a minority get preference based only on their minority status. One does not choose the color of their skin, ethnic background, or gender... (Unless your Bruce "Caitlyn" Jenner), so why should any institution use this as a factor. Would it be fair of she was African American instead of Caucasian woman and this happened and the decision was only on the color of her skin, would that be acceptable?


Evenwel v. Abbott:
Voting is a right that is granted to US citizens by the Constitution. If they want to be counted in terms of representative distribution, they need to become US Citizens. I also think that citizenship needs to be binary, you are, or you are not. No middle ground. Place of current residency does not automatically grant citizenship.
Click to expand...

Evenwel: I'm going to play devil's advocate here with your comments. You can be here illegally and still be issued a tax ID number for the purpose of paying SS/Medicare taxes as well as income taxes. If they pay their taxes, then failing to include them in the population for districting purposes is essentially taxation without representation. Note: this is also why I have a problem with convicted felons being deprived voting rights following completion of sentences.

Fisher: Issue number one is that the anti-affirmative action group picked a bad plaintiff that elicits no sympathy. They needed to find a plaintiff that grew up poor, as lack of wealth has ties to low access to opportunity much like race has. Such a similarity would help the individual's standing in the case as well as in the court of public opinion. The second is that SCOTUS already heard the case once. You already have two district court decisions and two appeals court decisions (the 5th Circuit is widely regarded as the most conservative appeals court in the nation). The third is that the plaintiff is presenting a weak argument in asserting the lack of an educational interest in diversity. By that token, one could argue that universities can use only grades & test scores.
 
Suburb Repairman said:
Evenwel: I'm going to play devil's advocate here with your comments. You can be here illegally and still be issued a tax ID number for the purpose of paying SS/Medicare taxes as well as income taxes. If they pay their taxes, then failing to include them in the population for districting purposes is essentially taxation without representation. Note: this is also why I have a problem with convicted felons being deprived voting rights following completion of sentences.

Fisher: Issue number one is that the anti-affirmative action group picked a bad plaintiff that elicits no sympathy. They needed to find a plaintiff that grew up poor, as lack of wealth has ties to low access to opportunity much like race has. Such a similarity would help the individual's standing in the case as well as in the court of public opinion. The second is that SCOTUS already heard the case once. You already have two district court decisions and two appeals court decisions (the 5th Circuit is widely regarded as the most conservative appeals court in the nation). The third is that the plaintiff is presenting a weak argument in asserting the lack of an educational interest in diversity. By that token, one could argue that universities can use only grades & test scores.
Click to expand...

For me, it still comes down to citizenship. If one wants to be treated and counted as a citizen, then they need to become a citizen. I think also think that convicted felons, despite stupid decisions, should be able to vote.


For the affirmative action situation, I don't think it needs to be just based on grades, but should be based on things that are within the applicants control, be it community service, academics, athletics... but not race or gender.

Which brings up an interesting question of race. At what point does a person cross the threshold of being a minority when they come from a blended family? (I hate the term blended family) For example, my niece and nephew have a white mother (my wife's sister) and a black father. Same thing with the president. I my step cousin, has two white grandmothers, one white grandfather, and one black grandfather. Her dad is biracial. What category does she fall into? As time progresses and society becomes more accepting of it (and rightfully so), more and more people seem to come from biracial families.




**** as an associated rant, I need to pound my head against the desk regarding the amount of misinformation out there on FB regarding shootings. There have been the potential for mass shootings being prevented by armed citizens. They were not mass shootings because they were prevented and resulted in few if any deaths. There have been only 2 mass shootings not within a gun free zone since 1950 and only one in the past 50 years (AZ shooting with Gabby Gifford). DC has one of the highest gun related homicide rates in the US and the strictest gun regulations in the US. More than half of the mass shootings since 1950 were done by people who purchased or acquired the guns legally. In every mass shooting case there was evidence of depression, mental illness, or religious hate by the shooter. --- No response needed.
 
Hmmm

A million dollar insurance policy taken out on each and every firearm in the home and a umbrella policy for the home policy. Paid for by the owner of the gun and home. If that gun is EVER used against another human being (not clearly defense related), the policy pays out. If you don't carry insurance for your gun, you don't get to keep a gun. If the cost is too high, that is your problem. No gun for you.

or some variation on this theme. Only the rich could stockpile guns. They should LOVE THIS....

Carry On......
 
The One said:
A million dollar insurance policy taken out on each and every firearm in the home and a umbrella policy for the home policy. Paid for by the owner of the gun and home. If that gun is EVER used against another human being (not clearly defense related), the policy pays out. If you don't carry insurance for your gun, you don't get to keep a gun. If the cost is too high, that is your problem. No gun for you.

or some variation on this theme. Only the rich could stockpile guns. They should LOVE THIS....

Carry On......
Click to expand...

Carry on as in concealed carry on? Or open carry on?

As for insurance, I already have it.
USCCA


Right now it is an optional thing, but I don't want to chance it. However, what your telling me is only those who can afford $30 a month to defend them self? So this is another separation between the wealthy and the poor? Personally, I rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
 
I have a feeling with the UT case that the girl just wasn't qualified to go. Universities tend to be fairly multicultural places for my experience. I'm sure some aren't as nice. UT also seems to be large enough that they really don't care about race as a decision making factor. It's not like it's an exclusive country club or Trump Towers trying to keep "those" people out. I hate the idea of making any choices according to race, but since racism isn't dead and we still have a disproportional amount of access and opportunity for the poor we still need some affirmative action. We can't go pulling a Bush and scream mission accomplished.

For the other case, I'm more disgusted about the political reasons behind it more than anything else. We can argue illegals having representation of some kind, but the point of this case was to make right wing boundaries more right wing. It's one of those things that common sense needs to just call BS and move on. And you Texas people, stop giving bad ideas to our politicians! Let them create their own bad ideas.
 
dvdneal said:
I have a feeling with the UT case that the girl just wasn't qualified to go. Universities tend to be fairly multicultural places for my experience. I'm sure some aren't as nice. UT also seems to be large enough that they really don't care about race as a decision making factor. It's not like it's an exclusive country club or Trump Towers trying to keep "those" people out. I hate the idea of making any choices according to race, but since racism isn't dead and we still have a disproportional amount of access and opportunity for the poor we still need some affirmative action. We can't go pulling a Bush and scream mission accomplished.
Click to expand...

A very real possibility. UT is the most difficult public university to get into in Texas, and among the most difficult in the nation. The race factor at UT is "a factor of a factor of a factor," and receives very light consideration. She got into LSU, a flagship university of another state, so it isn't like she was damaged.

The interesting part is the law in Texas that requires admission of any high school graduate in the Top 10% of his/her graduating class to the Texas public university of his/her choice. That policy was done to increase racial, cultural, socioeconomic & geographic diversity, and has been successful in accomplishing that goal. A ruling against UT would likely be quite narrow, tailored to the specific circumstances of the UT case in which the Court might find that because of the successful diversity increases under the 10% rule, the consideration of race as part of the subjective acceptance of non-Top 10% fails to pass the Grutter test. Rather than rollback the Grutter case, the court is likely to affirm it and then directly apply it against the UT program to find UT's specific program unconstitutional.

I still think it is a pretty weak case against UT. If UT can present an effective "critical mass" argument (which it probably can since that issue was telegraphed in the 2013 ruling), then the plaintiff's case amounts to trying to prove a negative... that the reason the white person was denied entry was because a less qualified minority person took the spot. To prove that, she would likely need to find an example among all accepted minority students of at least several that are less qualified. It isn't like the white person has history of racial discrimination that grants benefit of the doubt. A large portion of the admission qualifications are subjective... which is better: Habitat for Humanity or working the local soup kitchen? Eagle Scout or student council president? And what about the person's personal statement/essay? There are so many other variables that likely contributed to this individual being denied acceptance.

The fact that the very conservative 5th Circuit has already ruled in favor of UT twice, with the second time focusing extensively on the definition of "critical mass" of diversity, makes it very unlikely Fisher will prevail. I think you might be able to eventually make a case against UT, but Fisher was the wrong Plaintiff for Donors Trust to test the case. Remember, Rosa Parks was not the first person to refuse to give up her seat--she was chosen strategically as an ideal plaintiff. Interest groups are careful in selecting plaintiffs to support in cases with SCOTUS potential.
 
The story with the UT girl noted that she was not in the top 10% of her school. But it makes me wonder where exactly she was compared to people who did get in. If there as a different reason for denial other than race, gender, then I think that would be 100% acceptable.
 
I just think this is one of those get over it cases. You didn't get accepted, move on with your life. It seems she's doing okay at LSU. For whatever reason UT didn't pick her. Maybe they figured she needed more athletics in her life. Going by the interwebs, she can make the grade, but had average SAT scores. Sometimes average just inst' good enough. I'm hoping the court will reject the new case based on the why are we still talking about this principle.
 
Sad thing is, this is what people want to hear. It just gave Fox News their 2016 talking points. Maybe Trump is just running for a Fox commentator job. I'd make fun of another network, but we are talking right wing and not left wing craziness.
 
Hmm

michaelskis said:
Carry on as in concealed carry on? Or open carry on?

As for insurance, I already have it.
USCCA


Right now it is an optional thing, but I don't want to chance it. However, what your telling me is only those who can afford $30 a month to defend them self? So this is another separation between the wealthy and the poor? Personally, I rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
Click to expand...

Nope....not even close. Those policies only cover "self defense" whatever that company decides that might include:-c:-o What about the pedestrian you brained while throwing 12 rounds at the bad guy? Or the baby in the crib of the house 300 yards south of where you were firing into that guy with a knife? Or that guy that was shot by mistake during a shootout because the insured "thought" he was the bad guy, but it turns out he was returning fire on the real bad guy? Or the guy sleeping in the house next door while you fired blindly into the night......{insert 1 million other examples of how bad things DO get}
I'm talking about full coverage insurance that will cover negligence by the owner of the gun. If you can't afford it, you can go buy a knife. The 2nd amendment doesn't say anything about the gun ownership having to be cheap (oh and there is that 100% tax to cover the costs to "society"). Oh and when the insurance company figures out a way not tot pay (only a boy scout would say they wouldn't do that), you are liable for every penny. :D

Only a partial solution.
 
The One said:
Nope....not even close. Those policies only cover "self defense" whatever that company decides that might include:-c:-o What about the pedestrian you brained while throwing 12 rounds at the bad guy? Or the baby in the crib of the house 300 yards south of where you were firing into that guy with a knife? Or that guy that was shot by mistake during a shootout because the insured "thought" he was the bad guy, but it turns out he was returning fire on the real bad guy? Or the guy sleeping in the house next door while you fired blindly into the night......{insert 1 million other examples of how bad things DO get}
I'm talking about full coverage insurance that will cover negligence by the owner of the gun. If you can't afford it, you can go buy a knife. The 2nd amendment doesn't say anything about the gun ownership having to be cheap (oh and there is that 100% tax to cover the costs to "society"). Oh and when the insurance company figures out a way not tot pay (only a boy scout would say they wouldn't do that), you are liable for every penny. :D

Only a partial solution.
Click to expand...

Do you seriously think that an insurance requirement is going to make an ounce of difference or are you just trolling?

There are tons of situations where bad things could happen, and requesting insurance coverage is not likely to prevent those from occurring. Proper required education on how to use and store firearms will. You can attend these classes for less than $100 and the cost of a basic nanovault 100 for $15.00. Proper training will teach the person not to shoot blindly in the night. Real defensive ammo will mushroom out faster on impact to prevent in and out shots from causing harm or damage to unintended targets. Additionally, they teach situational awareness where you assess the threat and know your target. You don't look blindly at the shooter but the situation to determine the number of aggressors, the direction that they are shooting, is there ways to prevent from having to take a shot, and determine if you can get a clean shot off without collateral damage. An insurance company isn't going to teach any of that.

I hope you were joking about the 300 yards comment. At 300 yards would need to be a decent riffle and there is likely to be a crap load of obstacles for it to go through. For an example, in most situations maximum effective distance for a 9mm is only 25 to 50 yards. After 100 yards it would start to drop, at 300 yards it could possibly be lethal, but it would require the shooter to arc the shot and it would require an unobstructed travel path and a flesh contact into a critical area without bone obstruction into a vital organ. A 40 or a 45 will require less arc to make it there, but once again, at 300 yards obstructions like walls, cars, tree branches, heck, even a window would substantially reduce if not eliminate the velocity. Most gun fights happen between 3 to 7 feet, they are not like on TV were you see a someone from SVU shooting a bad guy on the run 1/4 mile away and dropping him.

Finally, can you point to any of the mass shootings in the past 50 years where you in all honestly an insurance requirement would have saved peoples lives? I can't.

Besides, it sounds like you only want wealthy people to have guns while the middle class is prey for those who don't want to follow the laws to start with and will find a way to harm regardless of an insurance requirement.

Planit said:
...and Jeb Bush responds with "You know stuff happens"
Click to expand...

Jeb is an idiot.
 
Nah...

michaelskis said:
Do you seriously think that an insurance requirement is going to make an ounce of difference or are you just trolling?

There are tons of situations where bad things could happen, and requesting insurance coverage is not likely to prevent those from occurring. Proper required education on how to use and store firearms will. You can attend these classes for less than $100 and the cost of a basic nanovault 100 for $15.00. Proper training will teach the person not to shoot blindly in the night. Real defensive ammo will mushroom out faster on impact to prevent in and out shots from causing harm or damage to unintended targets. Additionally, they teach situational awareness where you assess the threat and know your target. You don't look blindly at the shooter but the situation to determine the number of aggressors, the direction that they are shooting, is there ways to prevent from having to take a shot, and determine if you can get a clean shot off without collateral damage. An insurance company isn't going to teach any of that.

I hope you were joking about the 300 yards comment. At 300 yards would need to be a decent riffle and there is likely to be a crap load of obstacles for it to go through. For an example, in most situations maximum effective distance for a 9mm is only 25 to 50 yards. After 100 yards it would start to drop, at 300 yards it could possibly be lethal, but it would require the shooter to arc the shot and it would require an unobstructed travel path and a flesh contact into a critical area without bone obstruction into a vital organ. A 40 or a 45 will require less arc to make it there, but once again, at 300 yards obstructions like walls, cars, tree branches, heck, even a window would substantially reduce if not eliminate the velocity. Most gun fights happen between 3 to 7 feet, they are not like on TV were you see a someone from SVU shooting a bad guy on the run 1/4 mile away and dropping him.

Finally, can you point to any of the mass shootings in the past 50 years where you in all honestly an insurance requirement would have saved peoples lives? I can't.

Besides, it sounds like you only want wealthy people to have guns while the middle class is prey for those who don't want to follow the laws to start with and will find a way to harm regardless of an insurance requirement.



Jeb is an idiot.
Click to expand...

No troll here. But if there were a way to hold owners financially accountable and at the same time pay a lot of money to a family that lost a loved one (to support children, wives, husbands and so on after their loss....) that could be a good thing. True the insurance thing isn't going to help with a tragedy inside a family. As far as saving lives, if gun owners had to think about this stuff before buying a gun, it could help drive home the point about being 100% sure before squeezing a trigger.
 
The One said:
No troll here. But if there were a way to hold owners financially accountable and at the same time pay a lot of money to a family that lost a loved one (to support children, wives, husbands and so on after their loss....) that could be a good thing. True the insurance thing isn't going to help with a tragedy inside a family. As far as saving lives, if gun owners had to think about this stuff before buying a gun, it could help drive home the point about being 100% sure before squeezing a trigger.
Click to expand...

And that is where training comes in. You never, ever touch the trigger unless you are 100% sure. Its not about money, it's about life or death for one, if not both parties.

The financial thoughts and more need to be at the forefront of ones mind not only when they are in the heat of the moment, but also when they are thinking about which gun to buy. During one of my classes we had a lawyer come in and more or less tell us that we will almost always get sued if we squeeze the trigger. Then he went over the costs and fines associated with it even if the gun owner was 100% in the right and cleared of any charges. He also stated that the first call should always be to the police and the second call should always be to a lawyer. That is why I carry that insurance policy. He has been sued because did need to use his weapon when he lived in Detroit and someone broke in to his apartment. They had a gun he told them to drop it, the guy raised his gun so the lawyer shot the guy 3 times killing him. The family of the guy who broke in sued the attorney and lost.

WSU MUP Student said:
This is exactly the type of "responsible" gun owner who needs liability insurance against whatever damage they might cause:

Gun Owner Shoots at Suspected Shoplifters Outside Auburn Hills Home Depot :facepalm:
Click to expand...

Something does not sound quite right. Regardless, that person will likely lose their CPL and their weapon as it was not for personal defense, unless the jeep was trying to run him over or the thief was pointing a gun at someone, that gun should not have left its holster.

But I think it brings up a good point. Odds are the event was within 50 yards and the shooter hit the jeep several times and likely didn't hit anyone. (although the story is unclear about that one). At 300 yards the odds of getting hit or hurt from a handgun with obstacles in between are almost zero.
 
Yeah, you're correct something doesn't "sound right". What doesn't sound right is some guy deciding that he's judge, jury and executioner in a matter of seconds. Last I checked shoplifting wasn't a capital crime and I don't think these guys were fleeing with guns a blazing. But keep defending him when one of his shots richochets and hits someone. He was "exercising his rights" so it's all good I guess.
 
MD Planner said:
Yeah, you're correct something doesn't "sound right". What doesn't sound right is some guy deciding that he's judge, jury and executioner in a matter of seconds. Last I checked shoplifting wasn't a capital crime and I don't think these guys were fleeing with guns a blazing. But keep defending him when one of his shots richochets and hits someone. He was "exercising his rights" so it's all good I guess.
Click to expand...

Can you show me where I was defending him? Go back and re-read my post before making a comment like that.

(now I learn it was a her, and she will likely face criminal charges).
 
Yup.....

All of this confusion about when you can use a gun....the situation.....is the owner trained......liability issues......will the bad guy drop on my property......will my action be a crime.....can I make the shot......is that the right person to aim at......are there too many people nearby......and the other 100 issues that need to be considered before "squeezing" that trigger.....
Just go to show that arming EVERYONE is clearly a silly option.
 
The One said:
All of this confusion about when you can use a gun....the situation.....is the owner trained......liability issues......will the bad guy drop on my property......will my action be a crime.....can I make the shot......is that the right person to aim at......are there too many people nearby......and the other 100 issues that need to be considered before "squeezing" that trigger.....
Just go to show that arming EVERYONE is clearly a silly option.
Click to expand...

On this we will agree 110%. That is why I support comprehensive background checks and proof of training before someone can buy a handgun. It will weed out some and educate others.
 
After listening to an interview with Ben Carson on NPR's Marketplace, I am convinced that he has absolutely no clue what he is talking about when he talks about the budget and debt ceilings or how government spending works.
 
WSU MUP Student said:
After listening to an interview with Ben Carson on NPR's Marketplace, I am convinced that he has absolutely no clue what he is talking about when he talks about the budget and debt ceilings or how government spending works.
Click to expand...

I would trust him with my child's neurological problems. That's about it. He is pretty lost on the economy, separation of church and state, social issues, foreign affairs, and the list goes on.
 
WSU MUP Student said:
After listening to an interview with Ben Carson on NPR's Marketplace, I am convinced that he has absolutely no clue what he is talking about when he talks about the budget and debt ceilings or how government spending works.
Click to expand...

Every time I see him on TV I wonder if he suffers from narcolepsy. He always seems drowsy, eyes half-closed and could just drop off at any time.

Of course sleeping through a presidency might not be a bad thing. It did wonders for Ronald Reagan and the Republicans think of him as a demi-god. ;)
 
WSU MUP Student said:
After listening to an interview with Ben Carson on NPR's Marketplace, I am convinced that he has absolutely no clue what he is talking about when he talks about the budget and debt ceilings or how government spending works.
Click to expand...

I didn't hear the interview, but from my impression of the debates, it would not surprise me. It makes you wonder what his advisers are teaching him.

I think that parts of it could work in concept, but it would be only in conjunction with a complete overhaul of the system eliminating all tax breaks for everyone and taxing all sources of income. I don't think he is willing to do that.
 
McCarthy decided he is not going to run for speaker. What is going on here? Boehner resigns the post, and the most likely person decides now he does not want it? Something weird is going on with the Republican party right now. Something is not quite right here.
 
michaelskis said:
McCarthy decided he is not going to run for speaker. What is going on here? Boehner resigns the post, and the most likely person decides now he does not want it? Something weird is going on with the Republican party right now. Something is not quite right here.
Click to expand...

The R's are in for a shake up. They deserve it, but it is going to be ugly. I feel bad for any R that is still a pragmatic person. They are now going to be marginalized for the next year. Jason Chaffetz? Wow. That is the best the Republicans can muster? Yikes....
 
michaelskis said:
McCarthy decided he is not going to run for speaker. What is going on here? Boehner resigns the post, and the most likely person decides now he does not want it? Something weird is going on with the Republican party right now. Something is not quite right here.
Click to expand...

Hink said:
The R's are in for a shake up. They deserve it, but it is going to be ugly. I feel bad for any R that is still a pragmatic person. They are now going to be marginalized for the next year. Jason Chaffetz? Wow. That is the best the Republicans can muster? Yikes....
Click to expand...

I saw this quote about the situation (& I agree);

The inmates have taken over the asylum.
 
Planit said:
I saw this quote about the situation (& I agree);

The inmates have taken over the asylum.
Click to expand...

I would go as far as saying the inmates have taken over the asylum and are holding the abusive tyrannical caretakers hostage. There are no good people in this equation.
 
michaelskis said:
I would go as far as saying the inmates have taken over the asylum and are holding the abusive tyrannical caretakers hostage. There are no good people in this equation.
Click to expand...

I don't like John Boehner, but he certainly is the good guy in this scenario. He quit to let the idiots try and lead the House. Obviously, they can't do that with the "Freedom" Caucus or whatever they think they are doing. Boehner tried to reach his hand across the aisle, he tried to lead a group of 5 year olds, and he couldn't.

I have absolutely zero faith that a tea partier, or other nut job R, can lead. Which is why most of them aren't doing it. They can't lead. They just bitch. And try and scare people. And provide zero rational solutions. And when you lead, you can't do that. Your only job is to provide solutions. The problem with the republican party is that they have no leader. No one that can remind the idiot tea partiers that their job isn't to get nothing done because "they were elected to change things up". They were elected to get things done. The idea that if they don't get EXACTLY what they want means they can't support something, is what a five year old does.

Lead. For God's sake, lead. Put a person who wants to lead. Put ideas on the table. Find solutions. Not perfect solutions. Just incremental solutions. Give in when it makes something better. Even if it isn't what you want exactly. Ask for help achieving your goals and expect they given in to help you get there. Find middle ground.

Lead. We need pragmatic people who are willing to lead. Not follow some asinine litmus test of conservatism.
 
Another shooting at a university. Northern Arizona this time. 1 dead, 3 injured. My guess, the shooter was mentally unstable, we'll make an excuse about it being a gun free zone - it's not, if those frat kids were armed it wouldn't happen, and everyone else is politicizing the tragedy. Another day, another shooting, and still no change of any kind.

Since we already discussed it to death, back to figuring out the next speaker. What's with the mystery letter about skeletons in the closet? I'll have to go read something.
 
I wonder if the republican party is in self destruction mode and there will be enough decisiveness to result in a tangible 3rd party.


Regarding the shooting... 1:30 AM at a frat house. I wonder if alcohol was involved in this one.
 
OK, the campus related shootings can stop at any point now.

One person is dead after a shooting at Texas Southern University. The southeast Houston campus remains on lockdown. Houston police say a possible suspect is in custody.

We're hearing from Houston police that two people may have been shot in the 3500 block of Blodgett Street near Canfield around 11:30am. The shooting happened at the Tierwester Oaks section of the University Courtyard Apartment Complex. The apartment complex is owned by TSU and is on campus property.

University spokesman Kendrick Callis said the campus is on lockdown and classes have been canceled.
Click to expand...
 
Kevin McCarthy's Exit Came After Personal Threat Over Affair Allegations

In the hours before House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) abruptly withdrew his candidacy to be the next speaker of the House, he received an email from a conservative activist threatening to expose an alleged affair with a colleague. The subject line: “Kevin, why not resign like Bob Livingston?”

The email, sent just after 8 a.m. on Thursday, came from Steve Baer, a Chicago-based GOP donor known for mass-emailing conservative figures and Republican lawmakers. It was addressed to McCarthy and numerous others, including the personal account of Rep. Renee Ellmers (R-N.C.), whom conservative media sites have suggested is tied romantically to McCarthy.
Click to expand...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry..._5616f004e4b0082030a1e0a8?utm_hp_ref=politics
 
Sincere question: according to some research approximately 50% of the general population at some point engages in an extramarital affair. Why then are we surprised to hear when an elected official has an affair? And why should it affect their ability to discharge the duties of their office?
 
Maister said:
Sincere question: according to some research approximately 50% of the general population at some point engages in an extramarital affair. Why then are we surprised to hear when an elected official has an affair? And why should it affect their ability to discharge the duties of their office?
Click to expand...

I don't think it's "surpise". Americans just love gossip and salicious behavior. We love to build people up in this country and then tear them down. It's sort of our national pastime. We (collectively) are just begging to be disappointed if we expect our elected officials (and you could throw clergy in here too) to not make the same kinds of bad decisions (not just infidelity) that many people do. We're all human. Humans do dumb things at times. It's how you deal with it that matters more to me. As for the affairs, as long as they're not using public dollars to cover it up or go on trips or whatever, it's simply not in my nature to care. I figure it's between the families directly involved and if they can work it out then what business is it of mine? I've got enough to worry about in my own life. I'm not condoning any of that type of behavior, I'm just saying that it happens, it doesn't mean the people involved are inherently evil and incapable of doing good in their personal or professional life. I do enjoy some gossip when one of the "righteous and holier than thou" types gets caught doing something they shouldn't. Glass houses, know what I'm saying?
 
Maister said:
Sincere question: according to some research approximately 50% of the general population at some point engages in an extramarital affair. Why then are we surprised to hear when an elected official has an affair? And why should it affect their ability to discharge the duties of their office?
Click to expand...

I think the problem with the affairs is that they often seem to be politicians that like to trumpet the sanctity of marriage and traditional values. We don't mind having flawed humans in elected positions but we do mind having hypocrites.
 
Back
Top