Leaderboard

The Chicago situation is relevant in two respects. First, it demonstrates that the problem of gun violence in the U.S. is not simply a mental health issue. There are insane shooters, and stoned shooters, and criminal shooters, and racist shooters, and religious-fanatics shooters, and just evil shooters. Attempts to suss out in advance who the next mass shooter is by focusing on such traits -- watch that guy because he's a Muslim; keep tabs on that fella because he's got a prescription for Xanax; send the cops to look into that guy, he talks about Hitler on 8chan -- are futile. If you want to reduce gun violence in the U.S., you have to make it more diffficult for anyone and everyone to get a gun, or to get guns (and accessories) of a type that can shoot lots of bullets very quickly. Second, Chicago shows that it is impossible to do the above simply with local (city- and state-level) laws, it will take national legislation.

These are the kinds of comments written by someone who doesn't understand the MIC. It is a curious pickup for Warren, but they're always going to be searching for a game at that time with the way their schedule is constructed, and it probably won't be anyone in a major conference since they're mostly all wrapping up that week.

Either option is fine with me. If we are getting tax dollars from the same pot, then all should play by the same rules, or stop taking the tax dollars.

That’s the key point ... and the [so far] insoluble dilemma. You can’t find the shooters beforehand in any practical sense. So the key is to make the means less available to them ... and walk the tightrope between the 2nd Amendment and real security steps. You can’t take away guns, but you can constitutionally make them less effective for mass shootings: limit magazine size, no bump stocks, no conversion kits, no armor piercing ammo. All of these measures pass constitutional muster. And all of them have been vigorously opposed by the gun lobby, employing the intellectually lazy “slippery slope” line of reasoning. It’s no longer a question of constitutional law (if it ever was). It’s a question of politics.

Antifa comparisons coming up next.

And THERE it is! Chicago! We all knew it was coming, lol. Predictable rubbish.

https://twitter.com/Zach_ABC21/status/1158461087517425667?s=09

That's your opinion. If calling these terrorist POS's "angry" versus "sick" makes you feel better, more power to you. Bottom line is that 2 idiot snowflakes who obviously couldn't deal with life today picked up weapons, used them unlawfully and murdered a bunch of innocent people. Neither you nor I, nor any politician did it. And (IMHO) no new law except someway of being able to predict behavior could have prevented it.

Lol

Brebeuf Jesuit appeals split with Catholic Church, barred from holding all-school Mass: https://www.indystar.com/story/news/education/2019/08/05/brebeuf-jesuit-appeals-split-catholic-church-barred-holding-mass/1920187001/ The Jesuits aren't giving up the fight.

They had some issues at one end, it has been resolved... No turf being laid as of last Thursday. Hopefully in the next couple of days they start laying it. Last I heard they were going to have 2 crews out to lay it in hopes of cutting the time down.

It's just not the same now. Before Pike and LC left for the MIC, an argument could've been made that they were the 3rd or 4th best conference in the state when it came to football. Pike, LC, CN, Southport and Bloomington schools were at times ranked and ranked pretty high at various times dating back to 2008. With the defections of Pike, LC, Perry meridian and Franklin central over the years and only adding the Terre Haute school's its dropped the conference down big time. This season it'll be Columbus North and everyone else. Southport has built up a decent program but they'll be replacing a lot. Maybe they'll be better than advertised. Bloomington South will still be a tough out in 5A even though they've taken a step back since there nice runs from 14-16...

I do work in education and coached football for a couple of years. I agree all players play to win, but they also play to get away from situations, have some structure in their lives, and to be part of something. Most of the kids that I coached needed a family more than a win. I guess that is something you can't relate to. Sorry about that.

That doesn't somehow make you an expert on how a kid who plays football for a school 100 miles away from you thinks. Young men where you are from might be taught about having things handed to them based on fairness. Some kids are taught to compete no matter what hand they are dealt. Anyway, your opinion is respected. Have a great night.

It's one thing to state facts based on records, scores, and past history. It's another to pretend to know what an 18 year old at a high school more than 100 miles away from you is thinking.

Has a part of the Bishop Sycamore program... I can appreciate your concern for us being on your schedule... our young men look forward to the challenge that is ahead of them... I hope that you all come to the game. It's going to be more interesting than you think.. 😉

https://reason.com/2019/08/02/the-city-wants-to-force-this-familys-eviction-from-their-home-because-their-guest-committed-a-crime-they-didnt-know-about-somewhere-else/ This law appears to have been enacted primarily to combat drug trafficking and so-called 'drug houses'. Yet when it comes to government and law enforcement overreach the law of unintended consequences rears its head once again.

Everyone Has a Right to Call Politicians "Idiots" …: https://reason.com/2019/08/03/everyone-has-a-right-to-call-politicians-idiots/ 13.1K people are talking about this No, calling politicians idiots or "Four Horsemen [of the Apocalypse]" isn't "inciting violence" or "encouraging gun violence." It is urging people to dislike the politicians—a basic right of every American. That's so when people criticize President Trump or the Republican Congressional leadership or the left wing of the Democratic party or anyone else. It's so regardless of what groups those politicians belong to. It's true that some tiny percentage of listeners may react to such criticism by deciding to violently attack its targets, whether the targets are on the Left or on the Right. But one basic premise of free speech isn't that we don't treat speech as "inciting violence" (a label for constitutionally unprotected speech, see Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)), and suppress its communication to the 99.9999% of people who don't act violently because of it, just because of a risk that 0.0001% would act violently. And that's so even for much harsher speech, such as calling people traitors or fascists or other such labels that some might see as morally justifying attacks. It is even more clearly true of simply calling them idiots or "Four Horsemen" (for a famous earlier Four Horsemen reference, see here). That's true, I think, not just a matter of law but also of political ethics: There's no basis for morally condemning such speech as supposedly "inciting violence." (One might mildly condemn it as being nonsubstantive, but that condemnation would of course apply to a vast range of common criticism, and of common praise, of political figures from both sides.) It most certainly does not "NEED[] TO COME DOWN." Reps. Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Ayanna Pressley have set themselves up as leaders of the left wing of the Democratic Party. They have achieved national prominence, not just individually but as a group. In my view, their policies and views merit criticism; but even if you agree with them, surely others have a right to disagree. People have a right to criticize them as a group and not just individually. People have a right to continue to criticize them even when the politicians had gotten threats from third parties (as Omar, Tlaib, and Ocasio-Cortez, and Pressley reportedly have, and as I'm sure many other politicians have as well). People have a right to criticize them disrespectfully and not just respectfully. They have a right to criticize them with slogans and not just substantively, again just as they do with President Trump or Republican Congressional leaders or anyone else. And of course they have a right to call them "idiots." UPDATE: I revised the post slightly to make clear that my analysis applies just as much to calling people "The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse" as "idiots." UPDATE: Some people seem to think that this speech becomes incitement of violence because it's a gun store that puts it up, presumably because somehow viewers of gun store advertising are particularly likely to buy a gun and shoot a politician because she was called an "idiot" (and, obviously hyperbolically, an idiotic Horseman of the Apocalypse). No: Calling a politician an idiot, whether it's on a gun store billboard or anywhere else, isn't incitement of violence, whether as a legal or as a moral matter. It's criticism, and one of the fundamental rights of free citizens. Note also the implications of that sort of argument: If this sort of criticism becomes illegal or immoral when a gun store says it, surely the same must be even more so as to gun rights advocacy groups (which tend to have much more public stature than ordinary gun stores). Presumably it would be as to prominent gun rights advocates, too. And if something like "idiot" is "inciting violence" in that context, then of course most other criticisms would qualify. (Indeed, criticizing a politician as advocating bad policies would be slightly more likely to encourage violence than criticizing them for being "idiots," not that either likelihood is substantial enough to warrant condemning the criticism.) What a convenient way for politicians and advocates to try to suppress criticism that comes from their political adversaries.

Yes, good for this young man. That said, what exactly do you want regarding taxpayers funds and private/parochial/charter schools Irishman? Do you want these private/parochial/charter schools to change their admission standards and hiring/firing processes to 100% match those of their government school counterparts or do you want to revoke the taxpayer funds from going to these institutions altogether?

Rubbish? FACTS! 2 mass shootings - very much ignored by the national media because it was Chicago......With the strictest gun laws in the country..... You don't want to bring this dynamic into the conversation, fine - ignore it.......Along with Baltimore, L.A., Oakland/San Fran, etc.