Facebook > Email > More Pinterest Print Twitter Play

Campus Carry: The Final Exam

A few questions about the state’s new law allowing guns on campus.

By Comments

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton thinks that under Texas’s new campus carry law, the state’s public colleges and universities must allow guns in dorms, according to an opinion issued Monday afternoon.

This is a nonbinding opinion, and in any case, the law won’t take effect until August 2016, the beginning of the next full academic year. Nonetheless, Paxton’s opinion caused some consternation yesterday among students, faculty, and staff, who don’t like the idea of guns in a residential setting populated by young adults who all too often can’t even manage to use their own bodies safely.

Beyond that, I am confident that Paxton’s opinion is wrong. And so, in keeping with the pedagogical theme, I’ve prepared a few essay questions for those of you who take a keen interest in these developments.

1. As passed by the Texas Senate, Senate Bill 11 included a provision that exempted private universities from the requirement to allow guns on campus. The version that emerged from the House removed this exemption. The version that emerged from the conference committee, and was signed by Governor Abbott, reinstated it. Brian Birdwell, who authored SB 11 in the first place, represents Senate District 22. That means he represents Baylor University, whose chancellor, Ken Starr, expects the university will opt out of campus carry, which he considers an unwise policy. Is it fair to assume that restoring the Baylor exemption was probably a priority for the Senate, during conference negotiations? What would the Senate have been willing to give the House in exchange?

2. The text of the law gives the presidents of Texas’s public universities affected a striking amount of latitude in writing plans for their campuses, and stipulates only that administrators can’t come up with a plan that would “generally prohibit” guns on campus. Isn’t that language interestingly vague?

3. Having spent a lot of the 84th Legislature dealing with guns drama, and having inarguably passed a campus carry law by Sine Die, do you think the Lege is keen to revisit the issue in 2017? Why or why not?

Please choose one and leave your answer in the comments. (That’s assuming the comments are working again, as I hear they should be—apologies for the snafu on the previous post.)

 

Related Content

  • There is nothing wrong with owning a firearm. I know most liberals are afraid of them and that is ok. But why penalize someone who isn’t and wants to defend them self? If you choose not to own a gun, then don’t.

    • WUSRPH

      I have a couple myself. In the back of a closet somewhere in the house. I have no need for them on any sort of a regular basis. Nor do I need to carry one to make me feel like a MAN. I do that naturally.

      • don76550

        Nobody I know carries to “feel like a MAN.” Guns are used by law abiding citizens about 2 million times a year to thwart criminal attack. Just because you have issues with law abiding citizens carrying weapons, that is no justification to eliminate their defense from criminal attack just to appease liberals. I carry not to feel like a “MAN” but instead to not feel “DEAD.” If you don’t want to carry I won’t degrade or insult you. Please return the favor to those who do carry. You appear to have no concept whatsoever of firearms enthusiasts.

    • Ron Kabele

      If my roommate keeps the gun in a secure gun safe, I don’t think I would have a problem with him (or, in a perfect collegiate fantasy world, her) keeping a gun in our dormitory room. And as long as the roommate isn’t bat-sh_t crazy and I would fear for my life. Aawww, does that put the prospect of us becoming roommates in jeopardy?

      • Meleen Leigh Drewery

        Problem is, in the average college dorm you are going to find at least one person who is “bat-sh_t crazy” at any given moment.

      • don76550

        Even in the people’t republic of Austin your are surrounded with concealed carry citizens, you just don’t know it. Has any of them shot you yet? Try to resolve your paranoia.

        • Ron Kabele

          In my previous post, I have hopefully established to you that the Constitution is a living, breathing document and the founding fathers intended that things can be amended to reflect changing times.

          And I am certainly open to compromise on the gun issue. You are completely correct about Concealed Carry because with proper training and the correct credentials, I see it completely within ones rights under the 2nd amendment and I see no detriment to society. Concealed Carry also seems to work well in urban areas, where you won’t frighten so many people and create an inadvertant backlash that harms your cause.

          Unlike anti-gun folks, I would be fine with keeping things at Concealed Carry. It’s the Open Carry and Constitutional Carry (I am dead set against that!) where things break down. Also, I still believe our country does not need any more than the close to 400,000,000 guns already here. I feel it would be prudent to not add to that number, and if someone needs a firearm, they simply purchase it used).

          By the way, did anyone see the PSA a few months ago with the kids finding their mom’s vibration devices and playing with them as swords? Pretty hilarious! It’s on YouTube. Just google “PSA gun vibrators”.

          • don76550

            We should limiit the number of guns to those already here? Should be also ban free speech from future citizens too? Perhaps we should stop manufacturing autos as well. The constitution is not “living and breathing” awaiting change that suits liberals, it is our founding document. You should respect it.

          • Ron Kabele

            There are limits to free speech. You can’t yell fire in a theater. Autos wear out and need to be replaced. Most guns last indefinitely, if they are properly cared for. And about the constitution, here is the post from earlier. Please re-read it.

            “Even the Founding Fathers knew it might have to change with the times. Article Five of the Constitution spells it out: “The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses [the House and the Senate] shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution . . .” States were also given a chance to propose changes, or amendments. Three-fourths of the states have to approve the amendment for it to become law.
            In the past 200 years, the Constitution has been amended 27 times. The 13th Amendment, in 1865, forever banned the practice of slavery. The 15th Amendment gave all citizens the right to vote, regardless of their race.”

          • The illiterate independent

            We have not been able to register full autos since 1986 are you meaning semi autos

          • don76550

            Full autos have been registered since about 1936. However, that had nothing to do with what I was talking about. Your screen name evidently is quite accurate.

          • The illiterate independent

            Yes but what you are misreprentating is that you may not go and register a new full auto since the 1986 ban but yes you may transfer a full auto weapon

          • don76550

            Again, that has nothing to do with what I was talking about. Again, you live up to your name.

          • The illiterate independent

            “Perhaps we should stop manufacturing autos as well”

            Your quote all I was asking was what your definition of autos was since full autos are banned from being produced except for police and military

          • don76550

            Autos = automobiles.

          • The illiterate independent

            No smart @ss remarks about me living up to my name know?

          • don76550

            You seem to suffer from the delusion that you get to dictate what I say.

          • don76550

            automobiles oh brilliant one.

          • The illiterate independent

            I have a few questions why are you dead set against open carry and constitutional Carry also how many vehicles do we have in the US yet every year we create millions more y you ask because people like new thinks and the older they get the less reliable they are weather it’s a gun or a car

          • Ron Kabele

            I just see no need for open carry, and at least in cities open carry can cause more problems than it solves. A lot of folks who conceal-carry feel it’s safer and more effective than open carry. And no need to scare the people who are uneasy around guns. I don’t really care, I worked at a place for 25 years where people routinely had guns at work. Out in the general public, though, concealed carry just seems more practical than open carry. From a public policy standpoint, I see no need to frighten people if we don’t need to, especially since so many law enforcement friends (who know far more than I) believe concealed carry is more effective anyway. Constitutional carry scares me. If someone wants to exercise their right to carry a gun, they have a responsibility to have at least minimal training in how to use it.

          • The illiterate independent

            So because you see no need for something it makes it illegitimate

          • Ron Kabele

            If you are referring to open carry, I don’t see it as illegitimate at all. I just see it as unproductive and unnecessary. I find constitutional carry potentially dangerous and completely illegitimate.

          • The illiterate independent

            Why does constitutional carry scare you so much what exactly should be the requirements to carry

          • Ron Kabele

            I copied this from the Texas Constituional Carry website…”Wyoming no longer requires a permit to carry a concealed weapon. This is for law abiding citizens of Wyoming who otherwise meet the former requirements for a permit. Also, proficiency instruction is no longer required either. Hurray for Wyoming. Texas needs this too.”

            The part I object to is not having proficiency instruction. Here is a website that shows the training that one receives when taking a firearm proficiency course to get your CH license … http://www.texaschllicense.com/proficiency-requirements/

            Everyone I know who has a concealed handgun license is serious about gun safety. And because of the course they had to take, they have at least minimal experience firing a weapon. That’s probably a good thing.

          • The illiterate independent

            I am aware of what is required I am asking what you believe should be the requirements

          • Ron Kabele

            I think the requirements in place right now should be the minimal requirements. Everyone who carries a gun in public (concealed or open) should need to pass the proficiency training course.

          • The illiterate independent

            OK do u agree they should have to go through the back ground check also

          • Ron Kabele

            We’re probably not going to stop terrorists or young men who have psychotic breaks from going on rampages no matter what we do. I don’t think background checks are that useful the way they’re set up now. There are too many guns already in circulation, and criminals can probably get their hands on them if they try hard enough. I would like to see our efforts go into better training (maybe a program that includes on-going training) so that accidental shootings are reduced. Is there a system of doing background checks or gun registration that would be effective?

          • don76550

            I see no need for you to have the right to express your opinion.

          • Ron Kabele

            My ex-wife says the same thing.

          • Ron Kabele

            About the issue of too many cars, without cars our society would break down. Unfortunately, for most people they are a necessity. About too many guns, I feel the financial incentives behind the gun industry has too great an influence on public policy. I am thinking from a practical standpoint and not an emotional one, cause that is kinda my personality. I consider a gun not a commodity but a tool with a specific purpose (although that purpose may differ from person to person).

          • The illiterate independent

            OK is there any other industry that the government should squeeze down on or just guns because you oppose them

          • Ron Kabele

            I don’t oppose guns. Not at all. But I wouldn’t mind if the government put a squeeze on drivers who take up two spaces in a parking lot. How annoying.

          • The illiterate independent

            OK so I’m confused are you for the government not allowing new guns in or not?

          • Ron Kabele

            I don’t oppose guns. Guns serve a valuable purpose. I do question whether we need to be selling more of them. At over 300 million, it seems like we have enough. If you go to a gun show, you’d be hard pressed to claim that guns are in short supply. And even if we stopped adding new guns to the count, we would have plenty of used guns to go around for decades. And by then, it won’t matter because we’ll all be dead from global warming (just kidding).

          • The illiterate independent

            If we have plenty then please tell me what difference would it make to ban new gun sales what would it help

          • The illiterate independent

            I also believe there are a huge amount used mechanic tools that we could ban new tools like sockets but what is the point of it y remove the decision from the consumer and give it to the government when it will not make a difference either way

          • Ron Kabele

            I don’t believe the gun manufacturers are interested in promoting good public policy. Since we have so many guns already, why not do away with them and let the NRA get back to what its original purpose was, training, education, and marksmanship. Those are very noble goals that even most anti-gun people could get behind. I guess the question is how to get the avid gun people and the avid anti-gun people to co-exist. I think most people are somewhere in the middle like me and just want practical solutions. What do you think?

          • The illiterate independent

            But what you have yet to explain is what good making new guns no more would do for our society

            Y should I give up free market when there is no upside to doing so besides making prices go up

          • Ron Kabele

            Oh gosh, you may not like my answer, but this is the Burka Blog and I feel fairly safe posting this here. Probably wouldn’t do this elsewhere.

            In its early days, the National Rifle Association was a grassroots social club that prided itself on independence from corporate influence.

            While that is still part of the organization’s core function, today less than half of the NRA’s revenues come from program fees and membership dues.

            The bulk of the group’s money now comes in the form of contributions, grants, royalty income, and advertising, much of it originating from gun industry sources.

            I spent almost 25 years working for Texas Parks and Wildlife, an excellent organization that upholds and promotes the highest standards of ethical gun ownership. Some of the greatest people I have ever had the privilege to associate worked there and taught me so much.

            When I look at both sides of the gun issue and how people on the extreme sides of the issue refuse to compromise and even listen to one another, I become very dismayed. On the one side, I believe the gun manufacturers have polluted the discourse and added fuel to the fire by altering the original mission of the NRA. I admire it’s original purposes and goals and I think they would do more good for society in general if they returned to their original purpose.

            So what do the gun manufacurers have to do with anything? My belief is they no longer serve any purpose. There are hundreds of millions of guns already in circulation in this country. If those companies were to go away, maybe a more rational discourse of gun issues would begin. I feel equally strongly on the other side, the people who would take guns from citizens, clearly a violation of our rights.

            These concepts are clearly in my own fantasy world and will never come to pass. But what if we went ahead and ignored both ends of the spectrum? If we created rational, workable public policy that would allow people to protect themselves without scaring the mom eating at a restaurant with her kids.

            Can you imagine what would happen if I posted this in some avidly pro-gun or anti-gun message boards?

            (Disclaimer – I no longer work for any state agency and my opinions are my own. Possibly, literally, just my own.)

          • The illiterate independent

            I have only 1 problem which is my problem from every one is why we should take rights from every one to hopefully correct a problem that is just a theory

          • Ron Kabele

            You are right. No significant action will likely be done until things become bad enough that the folks who do not have an emotional stake in the issue – which is the vast majority of the population, decide to get off the sidelines of inactivity and crush the extremes of both ends of the spectrum that is causing this stalemate. The anti-gun people will lose out on their goal of living in a gun-free society while the pro-gun folks will need to accept limitations on the use of how firearms are used.

            And it is always possible that technilogical advances may come to the rescue and solve the stalemate. Similar to what will happen with the abortion debate. Vaselgel is a male contraceptive that is going into clinical trials this year. When it is released, I predict its adoption will be so fast and so widespread that it will nearly illiminate unwanted pregnancies and, in turn, abortions. But it has taken a non-profit private foundation to shepherd Vaselgel through the regulatory process. A foundation that ignored the extremes of both ends of the debate and fostered a potential solution. A foundation that removed the profit motive from the equation. In five years, it is conceivable that abortion will largely be a thing of the past.

            I don’t know what the solution to the gun stalemate will be. I am not smart enough to come up with the answer, whether the answer comes from public policy or from technology. But I am certain the answer will not come from the true believers on both extremes of the debate nor the NRA.

    • 6660splendidday

      I am a flaming Liberal – have been since about the age of eight. My family always had guns and I have a couple still. Have you ever been able to shoot a gopher the instant he pops out of his hole ? I could…I respect guns and am not afraid of them. I also do not have to hang my penis out the slit in my jeans because I don’t have a penis.
      And you my good man don’t have to either, now that you have your guns.
      Freedumb….

  • Indiana Pearl

    Question 1). Private universities educate students who are often more affluent than those who attend public universities. Are less affluent students to become cannon fodder to appease the NRA agenda?

    • WUSRPH

      If you listen to the gun nuts it is the private university students who are in the most danger. After all, they will be in those dreadful “gun free zones”. The reality, however, is that if someone gets shot (say a professor who is flunking a gun nut), it will probably happen on a state university campus or at a junior college (which are also covered by the law.)

      • don76550

        Where has that ever occured, comrade?

        • WUSRPH

          There have been some shooting on campuses around the US.

          • Beerman

            I wonder if “campus carry” would have “made a difference” for the students at Kent State U. on May 4, 1970?

          • Probably not – several reenactments of shootings have shown that people who carry simply do not have enough training or the type of training necessary to be effective in an active shooter situation.

            As for Kent state – that would have made that tragedy far worse and much more prolonged than what it was.

          • Beerman

            No doubt about it……

          • Indiana Pearl

            As I recall the students were all unarmed, so yeah, it was “four dead in Ohio” in a short burst of gunfire.

          • Indiana Pearl

            Don is limed up.

          • Indiana Pearl

            I suggest, when “comrade” is used by Don, that we refer to him as “Oberleutnant” as befits his political leanings. Of course, we cannot say that word which cannot be mentioned.

          • don76550

            These were all gun free zones.

      • Indiana Pearl

        I don’t listen to gun nuts.

        If someone gets shot on a public university campus, it will because TX GOP rolled over for the NRA.

        • Jerry Patterson

          That’s BS. If somebody gets shot at a public university it will be for the same reason as past shootings – a nut job with a gun who, as in all past campus shootings, is undeterred by any campus gun ban. Do you really think someone who doesn’t care about a capitol murder charge would somehow be concerned about an unlawful carry/trespass charge? Forget your talking points about the NRA. – they’re very unconvincing. JP

          • Rules of Blazon

            The thrust of her comment is culpability: if someone gets shot on a public university campus, she says it’s the fault of you Republicans.

            She’s right.

          • Jerry Patterson

            For “Rules” and “Indiana”: 1-Look up hoplophobic 2-Determine if counseling is needed for same 3-Seek counseling JP

          • Indiana Pearl

            Mr. P., what do you fear?

          • Indiana Pearl

            If you want to play scientist, here we go:

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11018434

          • Indiana Pearl

            Sorry. That argument is flawed.

            There are nut jobs who will be undeterred by a ban, but data indicate that gun owners are four times more likely to get shot than those who don’t have a gun. Add alcohol, adolescence, and raging hormones into the mix and you have a recipe for disaster. UT is actually going to sell alcohol in Longhorn Stadium next year. Insanity!

        • The illiterate independent

          Whose fault would it be if it stays a gun free zone and there is a shooting?

          • Indiana Pearl

            The shooter’s . . . and a government that permits a gun nut to own a weapon.

          • The illiterate independent

            But if we alow them to carry it’s all of a sudden not the gun nuts fault but the fault of the gop that is pathetic

          • Indiana Pearl

            Someone will be responsible, but not the dead.

          • Indiana Pearl

            The shooter and the pols that let him/her have a gun . . .

          • The illiterate independent

            OK who’s fault is it if the shooter is a fellon with an illegal gun on an open Cary campus

          • Indiana Pearl

            Unscruplous gun merchants who sell to felons and unscrupulous politicians who pander to unhinged citizens . . .

          • The illiterate independent

            But when it happens in a gun free zone it is the same people’s fault at one point of another you have to face thee facts almost every mass shooting in America to date has been in a gun free zone but yet according to your logic it is only the gun toter and the Pol that allow him to get it that is just plain stupid and ignorant

          • Indiana Pearl

            You have no evidence to support your argument.

            When Gabby Giffords was shot, several audience members had weapons, but did not use them as they realized the cops would assume THEY were the shooter. This also happened at the recent college shooting in Oregon.

            Calling me “stupid” and “ignorant” reflects your immaturity and lack of criticalmthinking skills.

          • The illiterate independent

            OK then what is the fix for this major problem

          • Indiana Pearl

            We could begin with background checks. And lift the ban on CDC research intomgun violence.

          • The illiterate independent

            We already have background checks and the ban should be lifted

          • Indiana Pearl

            They aren’t working.

          • The illiterate independent

            OK then how do you make them work

      • don76550

        What is the difference with calling me a gun nut or me calling you an anti gun nut?

      • The illiterate independent

        I love how you put probably all though all the evidence contridicts your probable senario

    • don76550

      Are less affluent students to become defenseless to appease liberals? Mass shootings occur in gun free zones. Guess criminals don’t follow gun laws. Who would have thought. By the way we have had a very abrasive discourse in the past. I will try to indulge in less hyperbole with you, suggest you do the same no matter how difficult it may seem. I don’t suffer fools gladly which is why I have little regard or patience with liberals. But we can try to be more cordial. The same sentiment goes for WUSPRH

      • Indiana Pearl

        Why? You are symptomatic of all that is wrong with America – a racist nincompoop.

        Talk to your pastor.

        • don76550

          Anybody who disagrees with you is a racist. Typical democrat storm trooper

  • Jerry Patterson

    I too disagree with the dormitory AG ruling because a dorm prohibition doesn’t generally prohibit campus carry like a prohibition in classrooms would. Dorms are full of 18 yr olds who can’t wait to get out to an apartment, not CHL eligible 21 yr olds. I wouldn’t be surprised if the “demand” to carry in dorms is right around zero. The AG’s dorm ruling, like most of the angst on open and campus carry is much ado about nothing. It will soon fade and be forgotten. Nobody’s gonna notice a damn bit of difference except for those who write for a living and will need to find a new subject to write about.
    JP

    • Am I the only one who is wondering how Paxton graduated law school and passed the bar? I’m not a lawyer but his opinions seem to be very amateurish in nature compared to his predecessors.

      • Beerman

        There is a real good chance that Paxton will be spending some time with a bunch of amateur lawyers in the next year or so……..

      • Rules of Blazon

        He’s actually not a dummy. He just hasn’t really practiced much law since passing the bar. Instead, he devoted all of his time and energy to various short cons and Republican politics.

        His opinions would suck anyhow because they justify foreordained conclusions that lack support in the law. Sellers of Volkswagen diesels would have an easier pitch.

        I’m thinking of organizing a field trip to visit him in jail next year. Who’s in?

      • yes.

        • Indiana Pearl

          No.

      • WUSRPH

        There is no requirement in the Texas State Constitution that you have to be a good lawyer to the attorney general. In fact, you do not even have to be an attorney. Paxton got his law degree from the University of Virginia, which is supposed to be a fairly good school. Thomas Jefferson is probably twirling like a top in his grave over Paxton’s subsequent career.

        As to the quality of his opinions, if you know what you intend to rule before you start your research there is no need for a detailed discussion of how you reached your decision. In fact, if you developed one there is always the possibility that it might prove you wrong. Keeping the rulings short and specific makes it harder for people to question your judgment since you have not shown them how you reached your conclusions. Remember, Paxton is a “political attorney general” with no pretenses of being legal scholar. His supporters like it that way. Nice and simple with none of that fancy legalese confusing folks.

        • I admit I am a bit idealistic in that I want the AG to be a good lawyer and a legal scholar.

          I like the image of TJ twirling in his grave – I got a good giggle over that.

    • Erica Grieder

      That’s me! 😉 Merry Christmas, JP

      • Jerry Patterson

        And that’s your job. Merry Christmas to you as well! JP

    • WUSRPH

      Here is the question that must arise from the dorm situation. I am a student residing in a dorm….I do not want a gun in my bedroom. My roommate has a gun. Does his right under the 2nd Amendment to “keep and bear arms” outweigh my rights? What is the universities
      obligation in such a situation? Can it make him keep and bear outside our room and not within it? Does it have the obligation to provide me with a roommate who does not have a gun? Can it tell me to stuff it?
      Paxton’s opinion totally fails to take into account the rights of others than gun owners. It is too superficial of a ruling to have considered such things…But maybe someone should make him.

  • WUSRPH

    I hope you are right the next session will take a “we already did that” approach to gun legislation…However, you can be certain that, unless he gets beat, Rep. Stickland will be back with his bills to repeal all requirements for licensing and training…which he calls “constitutional carry”. Let us hope it gets no hearing, just as it did this session…….

    P.S. Any thoughts on the other, perhaps more important, AG opinion that upheld the governor’s budget vetoes despite many years of precedent and practices for the other view? It lacked any real discussion of the issues but seemed more like a summary than a reasoned opinion.

    • don76550

      Perhaps we should make private shools liable if their creation of gun free zones causes deaths. All campus shooting have been in gun free zones. Those schools should pay through the nose for disarming law abiding citizens and making them sitting ducks.

      • I don’t think it is unreasonable to start holding school administrators for creating gun free killing zones.

        • Indiana Pearl

          Where will we hold them?

          • WUSRPH

            We can make them stay after school in detention with the other bad kids.

      • BCinBCS

        A kid on the playground throws a rock
        at another kid on the playground.

        The teacher gives rocks to all of the kids since, after all,
        only a good kid with a rock can stop a bad kid with a rock.

        • don76550

          You really are a drooling liberal idoit

          • BCinBCS

            Don, that astute argument certainly convinced me of the worthiness of your side of the argument.

          • WUSRPH

            Actually, it is a well-established strategy in the world of international relations. It is called “mutual deterrence” although some wags insisted on calling it “MAD” for “mutual assured destruction”. It is right down your line. “I have a gun…You have a gun. But you won’t use yours because I have a gun.” It is the most logical thing you have suggested yet. Of course, it does not seem to work that well when two drunks with guns get riled up or two gangs meet in the street. Or before World War I when everybody “knew” there could not be another way because it would probably destroy them all. That was a well-established understanding in all the foreign ministries of all the governments. But someone….

          • BCinBCS

            WUSRPH, unfortunately stone cold evidence shows that the increased prevalence of guns directly increases the probability of mortality. I don’t know how to resolve that fact and the right afforded by the second amendment.

          • Indiana Pearl

            What’s an “idoit”?

          • Ron Kabele

            It’s a good analogy, very proactive: I do it. Sort of a Nike knock-off slogan.
            I don’t think he is an idoit at all. And being an idoit myself, believe me when I say I always recognize another idoit.

  • don76550

    If the liberal gun hating looney tunes on campuses want to goose step on the rights of law abiding gun owners, we will address you both in the courts and in the next legislature.

    • WUSRPH

      What rights are they “goose stepping” on? There is nothing in the Second Amendment that guarantees you any right to take a gun wherever you want. In fact, reasonable restrictions are specifically allowed. At least that is what the man who made the modern gun age possible, US Supreme Court Justice Scalia, says:

      “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner
      whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.”

      Justice Antonin Scalia, Heller Opinion

      The courts of his state will take his opinion of what the Second Amendment does and does not do long before anything you could suggest. And he is one of the most conservative on the SCOTUS.

      • We are where we are today because of the left’s unreasonable stance of total gun control.
        I have a big gun deal with it.

        • Indiana Pearl

          A substitute . . .

      • BCinBCS

        WUSRPH,
        Re: Second Amendment restrictions:

        We reduced drunk driving accidents without a total ban on alcohol.
        Then again, we didn’t think more alcohol was the solution to drunk driving.

    • Ron Kabele

      Just make sure I don’t see you carrying in a Target Store, or I’m calling the security guard on your a_s! Seriously, with all the guns already in circulation, if I were King I would proclaim that no more new guns be created or be imported into this country. You could still buy a used gun, so your right to firearms would not be impinged. And retail gun shops would merely need to readjust their business model from selling new guns to used guns.

      • Indiana Pearl

        And limit ammunition puchases . . .

      • don76550

        Call your mother if you want. I will make a career out of suing you, I am definately going to open carry where psychotic liberals like you congregate.

        • BCinBCS

          Yea, because psychotic liberals who don’t carry weapons are a real threat to you.

          It’s this kind of unhinged mind-set that reinforces the stereotype that gun control advocates fear. (And even without a gun strapped to your waist, with your attitude toward life, I’d be wary of you.)

          • don76550

            My issue with left wingers like you is the obvious hatred and contempt you have for our constitution and bill of rights. People like you should move to the marxist country of your choice where you belong.

          • BCinBCS

            Your rage is so irrational that it doesn’t allow you to see what is clearly in front of your face. You wrote: “My issue with left wingers like you is the obvious hatred and contempt you have for our constitution and bill of rights.” Yet in a post just above (or below – depending upon if you sort comments by newest or oldest first) I stated: “I don’t know how to resolve that fact and the right afforded by the second amendment.” indicating (to any semi-intelligent person) that I do not have “hatred and contempt” for the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment.

            You should also remember, as WUSRPH and I have previously stated MANY times, no right is absolute; all have limitations.

            And as for moving to another country, that door swings both ways. You strike me as a “make government as small as possible and then drown it in a bath tub” sort of a guy, so I would recommend that you haul your butt to Somalia: no government and lots of guns. Take it from me, you’ll love it there.

          • BCinBCS

            Jerry Patterson and WUSRPH are having a civilized conversation about gun control. It is informative and civil. I, up to this point, have been trying to do so as well. Maybe you should read (or re-read) their posts to understand how to discuss this topic in a mature manner.

          • Ron Kabele

            I love our Constitution and Bill of Rights, but I see nothing wrong in amending the very few parts that are clearly outdated.

          • don76550

            Nothing in our constitution is outdated. You love our bill of rights? Then why do you want to trash it?

          • Ron Kabele

            Even the Founding Fathers knew it might have to change with the times. Article Five of the Constitution spells it out: “The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses [the House and the Senate] shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution . . .” States were also given a chance to propose changes, or amendments. Three-fourths of the states have to approve the amendment for it to become law.
            In the past 200 years, the Constitution has been amended 27 times. The 13th Amendment, in 1865, forever banned the practice of slavery. The 15th Amendment, in 1870, gave all citizens the right to vote, regardless of their race.

          • The illiterate independent

            And yes completely law abiding person open carrying legally is a real threat to you

        • Ron Kabele

          I thought my idea was actually quite reasonable. I don’t advocate taking anyone’s firearms. And wherever guns are not allowed (like Target), you really shouldn’t take them there, anyway, cause you will get into trouble and ultimately hurt your cause. Besides, I firmly believe 400,000,000 guns is enough for one country.
          Oh, and stop being obnoxious. People will take you more seriously.

        • Ron Kabele

          I would love to call my mom, but she passed away in 1996. She was a terrific lady. And she spent most of her life in a wheelchair due to a battle with polio back in the 1950’s, way before I was even born. She also had a funny sense of humor and I can imagine her responding to you something like “well, dear, everyone learns to compensate for their shortcomings”.

  • I think that the lege will revisit this in 2017 – Paxton’s strange opinions almost demand that they revisit it.

  • WUSRPH

    My last comment:

    Don’t you just love the way the gunies seem to assume that a gun free zone somehow exerts some mysterious power on a crazed gunman drawing them like bees to pollen? It is almost like they believe that the words “gun free” or “no guns allowed” give off some sexual attractive that compels crazies to rush forth and start shooting people. Funny that most shooting appear to occur someplace else than gun free zones.

    • How many massacres have been in an open carry zone?

      • Indiana Pearl

        How many massacres have been prevented by a “good guy with a gun”?

      • WUSRPH

        The parking lot of the shopping mall in Arizona seems like a likely open carry zone…..since, according to the reports afterward, at least five people in the crowd were carrying. None of them, however, seemed to have pulled their piece and defended everybody else.

  • Rules of Blazon

    I’m thinking of going with essay question #4:

    Why would a serious journalist write even a single blog post about the Texas “Legislature” that didn’t start from the unassailable premise that it and its acts are ridiculous, contemptible, and damaging?

  • General Grant

    As a student, do I not have the right to object to a drunk stranger (or a drunk someone I don’t get along with) being armed in what is also my home at 3 AM? In reality, that’s often what your dorm roommate is.

  • Isn’t it telling how some see themselves as more equal. Liberals have the right to not carry and are free to leave the room if someone is armed.

    • Indiana Pearl

      What scares you so much, Booksie?

  • What would happen if Obama’s daughters were depicted as monkeys? Outrage….you betcha, liberals have no impulse control.

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/12/22/ted-cruz-strikes-back-at-washington-post-cartoonist-for-mocking-his-daughters-theyre-out-of-your-league/

    • Indiana Pearl

      Of course, Ted used his daughters in a political ad himself. What goes around comes around.

      • Indiana Pearl

        And the hideous attacks on Chelsea Clinton by Limbaugh and other RWNJ media were appalling . . .

  • Liberals want to ban “White Christmas” because it is racist.

    • Normally I wouldn’t dignify the garbage you post but I’ll make an exception.

      There is a certain amount of cultural ignorance in our country due to the education system having to cut out parts of subjects to make time for testing. Loss of mandatory art & music classes at the elementary level, loss of taking the time to look at more recent history beyond a listing of facts has lead to the above example. This has also lead to the song “Baby it’s cold outside” to be called the date rape song. This cultural ignorance will continue as long as we devote significant amounts of educational time to the excessive testing that goes on.

    • Indiana Pearl

      Booksie, how would you feel if the lyrics were:

      “I’m dreaming of a FAT Christmas”?

      • Madrigalian

        Yes, because in the winter it snows fat.

        • Indiana Pearl

          On Booksie . . .

  • Indiana Pearl
    • Jerry Patterson

      Well, not exactly. The AG’s making unlawful that which is already unlawful, and they’re making up a problem that doesn’t exist. His comment that “while you’re in VA, your subject to VA gun laws” is humorous. No CHL license allows you to ignore the gun laws of another state. This is whats wrong with the gun control advocates. They tout stuff they don’t understand, that makes no difference in gun violence, and that is already unlawful as a “sensible step”. They feel good when somebody does “something”, even if that something as in this case is a political move by some elected guy wanting to show he’s doing “something”. You folks are just too gullible to recognize you’ve been had once again. JP

      • Indiana Pearl

        Sorry, Mr. P., but the center of gravity is changing. The camel’s nose is under the tent and Dems are now willing to make a few moves for sensible gun laws.

        What do you fear?

        • Jerry Patterson

          Pearl, I guess my fears are few but my concerns are many. If you were truly serious about making us safer you would avoid spending whatever amount of political capital your side has on gun control measures that don’t make us safer just so you can say we “did something”. The truth of the matter is your side and my side of the debate believe if the other side doesn’t like what we advocate then it must be a good thing to do. The other problem is your side knows so little about the subject of guns that my side spends too much time laughing at your sides proposal to actually listen when your side comes up with something that has merit. Merry Christmas! JP

          • Indiana Pearl

            So far your side of the debate provides no logical analysis. Another point of view from WA state:

            http://www.rawstory.com/2015/12/washington-judge-bats-down-nra-and-upholds-seattles-gun-violence-tax-on-sellers-of-firearms-and-ammo/

            There’s that camel again . . .

            Merry Christmas to you as well!

          • Rules of Blazon

            As you know, our side (the Democrats) is going to wipe out your side (the Republicans) very soon. That’s why you hoplofetishists would be well-served by passing a sweeping, bipartisan gun control measure on the federal level even sooner. If you don’t, I guarantee you won’t like what you’ll get instead.

          • WUSRPH

            Does anyone have any suggestions for “sensible” gun laws?

            What about:

            * no armor piercing bullets for civilians (you know what I mean so do not get technical on me).

            * no sale, manufacturer or importing of parts that allow the conversion of a semi-automatic weapon into an automatic. (Allowed for law and military only).

            * No purchase of over 100 rounds or shells per day. No purchase of more than 500 per month. (Possible exemption for a licensed shooting range/gun club.)

            * Background checks on ALL purchases for firearms, handguns and long guns as well. (This might have to be limited to commercial sales or sales at organized events like gun shows because of technical details…but it would be a start.)

            *No sale of magazines, etc. for more than 20 rounds. (If you can’t kill it with 20 shots you should not be handling a gun anyway.)

            * Firearms sales license for anyone who sells more than 15 firearms per year, even if they are individual to individual sales.

            * Proof of completion of a gun safety course before purchase of a firearm.

            * Minimum of 5 years sentence for use of a firearm in a criminal act. NO PLEA BARGAIN. No lesser charge. MANDATORY. Must be a consecutive sentence to any other sentence. Same applies to unlicensed possession of an automatic weapon.

            Anything there seem “reasonable”? You can pick and choose, but let’s see which ones might fly.

            And do not give me that “my Second Amendment rights are absolute” crap. Even Scalia does not buy that one.

          • Indiana Pearl

            The founders never intended for citizens to have AK-47s.

          • WUSRPH

            In fact Justice Scalia hinted at just that point in his decision in the Heller case when he took the effort to point out:

            “Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.”

            in a reference to another case in which it had been held that the 2nd Amendment did not cover all kinds of possible weapons.

            He has also said in several interviews that automatic weapons, etc. are not necessarily protected.

            Of course, if you read the Miller quotation strictly it suggests that the weapons you are allowed to posses and bear are singe-shot muzzle loading black powder ball firing muskets and pistols. You might be able to slip in a couple of double barreled shotguns or handguns, but that is about it.

          • Jerry Patterson

            Automatic weapons are not protected by the 2nd amendment. I have one but I had to get permission from the local sheriff and the BATF, register it, and pay a fee. JP

          • Founders never intended for 47% of America to be on the ole….dems did.

          • Indiana Pearl

            The founders never intended for Americans to be obese. Fatties can’t run.

          • Jerry Patterson

            Please share with us what’s so bad with an AK-47? I’m serious when I ask. JP

          • Indiana Pearl

            It’s designed for military purposes.

            Frankly the second amendment has been mutilated by the gun lobby – “a well-regulated militia” is not what we have now. And there’s no way that a bunch of old white guys with guns can outshoot the U. S. military. Capitalism at work — and fear.

          • Jerry Patterson

            OK. But why does that make it more “offensive” or suitable for restrictions when compared to other semi-automatic rifles? My question is simply why is the AK “special”? Re: the “well regulated militia” clause, please read the law journal article “The Embarrasing 2nd Amendment” by anti gun UT Law Professor Sanford Levinson for an understanding of the terms as they were defined in the 1700’s. JP

          • Indiana Pearl

            The founders didn’t envisioned a device that could kill multiple people in a few seconds.

            I will see if I can find the article you cited.

          • Jerry Patterson

            OK. Thanks. I just googled and it comes up several times. It was in the Yale Law Review volume 99 pp. 637-659. Be careful that you get the original article, not one of the several critiques from both sides of the debate – you could read those later. And BTW, it is unlawful to buy an AK that can kill multiple people in a few seconds unless you are among the very few that get permission from the local sherriff, apply to BATF, have a background check that takes a year to complete, pay a special tax, register the weapon, and agree to BATF inspection of the weapon at any time. They are no longer imported to the US, nor manufactured in the US. I do not know of one instance of one being used in a crime. The semiautomatic AK’s are sold in the U.S. but they only fire one round per trigger pull. JP

          • Indiana Pearl

            Wading through this article –

          • Indiana Pearl

            Finished the article. The meaning of “militia” – or lack thereof – is glaring. Checked Levinson’s Wiki entry:

            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanford_Levinson

          • Jerry Patterson

            I probably need to read it again-haven’t read it in some time. I hope it was enlightening – at least a little bit! JP

          • Indiana Pearl

            I enjoyed reading it, but was interested to learn that gun rights advocates view it as a seminal work to support their premise. I found it be much more nuanced.

          • Jerry Patterson

            I think you’re right – It was seminal when written, particularly since the guy who wrote it was not a 2nd amendment supporter. It’s kind of been replaced by Heller. I would bet that most of these too much time on their hands guys walking into Subway with rifles slung over their shoulder probably never heard of Levinson. They believe the 2nd Amendment is absolute and it’s not, just like the 1st ain’t either. JP

          • Indiana Pearl

            When I was a child, some folks I knew guns, perhaps a handgun or a rifle. Now since the 70s, the gun lobby seems to have made Americans afraid.

            I know guns will always be available to Americans, but there is much to be gained by regulation. Would you want an unlicensed doctor performing surgery on you?

          • Beerman

            WUSRPH, way…way…way too much common sense in your suggestions! Any politician that agreed with your suggestions would immediately be on the NRA “hit list.”

          • WUSRPH

            Another question:
            If we all have a right to “keep and bear”, do we also have the right to determine how to keep and bear?
            For example, could a city in adopting public safety regulations require the “safe” storage of firearms and/or ammunition. Could it say: “in secure locked cabinets” for more than three long-arms or hand guns? Could it require trigger locks on individually stored weapons? Could it limit the number or rounds or shells (and require storage in a fire proof container)? Could it ban black powder being stored in a home?
            I believe some cities may have already tired some of these. Has anyone heard about that?

          • Jerry Patterson

            If you make the weapon unusable and or unaccessible when needed you have interfered with “keep and bear”. Some of what you suggest would cross that line some would not. In Texas cities/counties can’t lawfully do any of this. Trigger locks are dangerous and cause accidental discharges when be placed on or removed from a loaded weapon. There are bedside lock boxes that work fairly well. Requiring a weapon to be locked up, and the ammo locked up elsewhere would cross the line. Why do you focus on black powder? Whats so special about that? In the last 50 years the number of folks killed by a weapon using black powder or a bomb using black powder is zero. During the Civil War, black powder was the only powder and it was replaced in the late 1800’s with smokeless powder. Black powder is used today in replica muzzleloading caplock or flintlock firearms by reenactors and a few hunters. JP

          • WUSRPH

            I agree that right now Texas cities can require few, if any, of these things. The idea—which will never pass—would be to give them the power to enact “reasonable” restrictions on the storage of firearms. The bedside lock box for a single firearm is fine. But someone who owns multiple weapons should be require to store them d in a locked cabinet, preferably a gun safe.
            As to keeping the fun and ammo separate. You probably have a good point….However, that is why safe storage is even more important.
            Of course, a reputable and responsible trained gun-owner will be doing most of these things anyway. (My bother has a large gun safe where he also keeps the family silver.) What I am concerned about is the kind of person who leaves a pistol around where a child can find it. Those sort of “terrible accidents” happen far too often and once is too often. Everybody feels terrible afterwards…but that is too late.
            As to black powder or smokeless for that, I guess you could say I don’t like the idea of my neighbor storing 20 pounds of explosive powder in his storeroom closet. I think if should be regulated like other explosives are with the minimum being safe storage if it is kept in a residence. However, I know all the reloaders will scream so it is an idea that is more than DOA.

          • Jerry Patterson

            I agree. Texas law that I passed in 1995 does provide a criminal penalty for failing to safely store a firearm that became accesible to a child and that child or another child was injured by that firearm, but then it’s too late. I wish all the money and effort used to promote some of the useless gun control ideas was put into PSA’s about the tragedies that result when kids get access to unsecured guns in the home. In fact, the NRA paid for an effort to do that about 20 years ago. They put together a VHS cassette for schools and parents but it was more focused on teaching kids what to do if they find a firearm – “stop, don’t touch, leave the area, tell an adult”. We need heartbreaking PSA’s with interviews of parents who lost a child. JP

          • WUSRPH

            The need for training for kids, adults and even old fogies like myself is paramount. That’s why I made completing of a gun safety course a condition for buying any firearm. (Don’t you have to have training to get a hunting license?) I have had gun safety training but it has been so many years that, if I ever get around to buying that Min-14 or the Schofield Model pistol I have been looking at for some years now, I should be required to take at least a refresher course.

            If they want us to stop some people form cursing them so much, groups like the Texas State Rifle Association and the NRA and the rest of that seemingly ever increasing number of gun groups should get being a serious effort to provide education, including legislation requiring it. But the leadership is probably to afraid of the “MY right is ABSOLUTE” types to do so.

          • Jerry Patterson

            1- There is no such thing as armor piercing ammo for handguns and rifles. If it existed, why wouldn’t our Armed Forces have access to or use of it? 2-The import or sale of parts to convert to full auto is already unlawful and has been for decades 3-I’m OK with this as long as its mandatory 4- If there’s a way to do this w/o maintaining a gun registry, this is worthy of consideration 5-magazine limits won’t reduce the carnage by any measurable amount because of the ease of changing magazines. 6- I’m not sure what the law is re “being in the business of selling firearms” so I don’t have a firm opinion 7-Gun safety course requirement if free and easily available (online) is worth consideration 8- minimum sentences that you describe are in the law I think, and BTW heavily supported by the NRA JP

          • WUSRPH

            “* no armor piercing bullets for civilians (you know what I mean so do not get technical on me).”
            And that is just what you did! This means ammunition available that will penetrate the vests, etc. not “armor” armor…..That is what I meant…as you well know.
            None of the suggestions were drawn up in legalese and with strict definitions. That is, of course, where the devil will be found if the time ever came to draw up statutes.
            There are minimum sentences…BUT the difference here is that they would be MANDATORY. No plea bargaining out of them are returning a lower offense. Tis would be as close as possible to “you do the crime, you do the time”.
            Thanks for your input.

          • Jerry Patterson

            WURSPH, I’m not getting technical – really I’m not. Any good deer round can penetrate a vest. I doubt a 5.56 fired from the evil black rifle AR-15 would penetrate a vest. There is a round that supposedly had a teflon coating but there’s a reason cops and the military don’t use them. I think you believe the term “bullet proof vest” means what it says. There is no such thing as a “bullet proof vest”. There is body armor which is designed to protect primarily against handgun rounds and fragmentation. Even a high velocity handgun round could penetrate a vest, but it’s difficult. Your proposal would outlaw a 30.06, or .270 and the number of folks killed by those rounds is just north of zero. The “armor piercing bullet” issue is another BS issue from the gun control folks who kill their credibility with stuff like this. It’s similar to the “undectible plastic gun” issue they made up when Glock marketed the first polymer framed handgun and claimed terrorists could get on airplanes because the metal detectors couldn’t detect their gun. My google search can’t find anyone, cop or crimnal ever shot by such a round. I have never seen one at any gun store and I know no one who has ever seen or purchased one. I’d be fine with outlawing them because nobody, including the cops and military uses them. JP

          • WUSRPH

            I am aware that the vests are not “bullet proof”. Resistant might be a better word. However, there are alleged to be bullets (Teflon coated) that can penetrate easier. They should be outlawed…I know all about the plastic Glock fantasy……But that guy here in Austin with the 3-D printer was coming pretty close. I guess you can sum up my position on various bullets as: If the cops and the military say one significantly endangers them, it should not be sold to civilians. We might develop a schedule like they have for drugs. I am particularly concerned about the availability of 50 caliber rifles, etc. There is NO REASON why a private citizen needs a round that will go thru an engine block or a couple of feet of wall. Just to have one for the kick of shooting it is not a sufficient reason. Those rounds should only be used with military weapons by the military…..in the old heavy M1 Machine Gun or a super sniper’s rifle. What’s next, 35 mm. chain guns for “sporting use’?

          • Jerry Patterson

            Enuff already! Outlaw teflon bullets (even tho there aint any)-its OK with me! Whats the beef with a .50 cal rifle? It has NEVER been used in a crime in large part because its about 6 ft long, weighs 30 lbs, costs at least $3k, no one can afford the ammo, and there’s no place you can shoot it. There are a few folks who shoot them at 1000 meter plus competitions out West. Nobody buys them because there’s no place to shoot. I tell you what, I’ll trade you a repeal of the short barreled shotgun ban for the adoption of the .50 cal ban- deal? Merry Christmas you old coot… JP

  • WUSRPH

    Will the real Ted Cruz stand up. I guess he was really yanking on that old ear lobe.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/ted-cruz-gay-marriage-secret-audio-217090

  • WUSRPH

    The Tea Party, The Trump and the Constitution.

    http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/12/donald-trump-constitution-opinion-213458

    “A pure populism is inherently in tension with constitutional conservatism. The Constitution is a device for frustrating popular enthusiasms, as are federalism, checks and balances, and the rule of law. It’s why impassioned factions usually have very little patience for them, and why they are so central to checking government and protecting individual rights.”

  • Madrigalian

    > 2. The text of the law gives the presidents of Texas’s public universities affected a striking amount of latitude in writing plans for their campuses, and stipulates only that administrators can’t come up with a plan that would “generally prohibit” guns on campus. Isn’t that language interestingly vague?

    Even when it isn’t vague, it’s ignored by the left. ie, “Shall not be infringed.”

    > Nonetheless, Paxton’s opinion caused some consternation yesterday among students, faculty, and staff, who don’t like the idea of guns in a residential setting populated by young adults who all too often can’t even manage to use their own bodies safely.

    That’s too bad. A person’s individual rights and liberty are protected by the constitution from the irrational tyranny of the majority. Their unfounded fears do not supersede the individual’s right to defend themselves and their loved ones.

  • Indiana Pearl

    Good guys with guns aren’t doing so well:

    http://www.texasobserver.org/mass-shooting-2015-texas/

  • Going to take the kids to the gun range today so they can get a couple of guns for home and self defense.

    • Indiana Pearl

      Don’t shoot yourself in the foot.

      • I leave that to the inexperienced rookies.

        • Indiana Pearl

          Fat people can’t see their feet.

          • Not only can I see mine I can see your boats…

          • Indiana Pearl

            I don’t have boats. You don’t have brains.

          • sweetie deal with it you can’t have me

    • WUSRPH

      If they are truly kids, I certainly hope the guns are kept under lock and key or, as a minimum, with a trigger lock. Too many children kill their siblings as it is. Even if they are adults, it is always wise to treat guns as a very deadly tools they are. I’d hate to see a grandchildren die because someone did not treat any kind of a weapon with the respect it requires to be safe.

      • Why would you be so afraid of guns. Guns don’t kill crazy azz liberals kill.

        • WUSRPH

          Because guns make it so easy.

          • Now I’m curious, if dems claim they have a right to die with assisted suicide won’t guns make that easier?

            http://www.biography.com/people/jack-kevorkian-9364141

          • WUSRPH

            Making things up again…..I have never seen or heard any official “Democratic” position on assisted suicide. You just made one up…..Some Dems and some GOPs probably favor assisted suicide (or at least the right to die) but others don’t. But, as usual, the facts have nothing to do with one of your posts.

          • Indiana Pearl

            Messy.

  • 6660splendidday
    • Indiana Pearl

      You can’t make this stuff up.

      • WUSRPH

        We are far ahead of them. We had a chair of the State Board of Education, Dr. Don McLeroy, for a number of years who, the drop of a hint, would pull “the evidence” out of his brief case proving that the world was only 7,000 years ago and that evolution was a fraud. The current chair home-schooled all her children. The chairs are appointed by the governor from the elected members.

        • Indiana Pearl

          Saw him on Tee Vee – drilling someone’s teeth while raving on about the bible . . .

      • 6660splendidday

        With all the Crazies lurking around Texas, you know the ones.. “Black Helicopters expected momentarily in West Texas – what was it about..? something about stealing all the sheep or was it the Alamo .. then Jade Helm with Barack Obama on a military tank coming to get us all on those “death trains.” In Houston – last spring – Radio stations overwhelmed with calls about suspicious cloud formations over the ship channel.. jeez.. so much to report. Now, more educators in this country getting elected to school boards who say the earth is six thousand years old..I never know whether to laugh or cry.
        However, a friend told me today he went to the U of H College of Engineering graduation ceremony last Friday. For PhDs and Master’s Degrees, out of a total of more than 150 degrees earned, there were less than 10 US citizens.
        We are well and truly fooked. So sad, a state with so much potential just blowing in the wind……

        • Indiana Pearl

          Americans can’t do math anymore. Most college math departments are heavily populated with Asians.

  • Indiana Pearl

    Unnecessary deaths of innocent children . . . the NRA and those unwillingmto accept responsibilty own this:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/29/us/children-and-guns-the-hidden-toll.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

  • WUSRPH

    Awhile back when Paxton was trying (but failed) to get a ruling from the Texas Ethics Commission allowing him to take “contributions” from people from out-of-state to pay his legal expenses, I suggested we set up a “Dollar for Ken Fund” to help him out. The idea was that if the contributions were limited to one dollar per contributor there would be little chance that he would be unduly influenced. I have yet to see any of your dollars. Come on, folks, we want this trial to proceed as quickly as possible and if it takes buck from each of us to accomplish that, it is worth it.

  • Indiana Pearl
  • WUSRPH

    A lot of things can be said about Texas Atty. Gen. Ken Paxton—many of them bad—and some have on his thread, but this week his office, at least, earned some kind words for the way it handled the Texas Ethics Commission’s case against Michael Quinn Sullivan (MQS) and company in a Travis County courtroom, according to a report by the Quorum Report.

    MQS and the TEC had been fighting for a couple of years or more over some information the commission has been trying to subpoena from MQS, etc. in its investigation of the charges that Sullivan has acted as an unregistered lobbyist in violation of the state ethics/lobby registration act. (MQS has tried to claim that he is not a
    lobbyist but is a “journalist” because he runs a e-mail blog that reports on
    legislative actions….This is despite the fact that he also produces an almost
    daily memo sent to legislators telling them which votes to cast on various bills
    and even amendments to bills with the explicit hint that he will burn them with
    “true conservatives” unless they vote as he instructs. ….(MQS, in fact, used
    his blot to blast the AG for the job they did.)

    According to the QR,
    Paxton’s staff did an excellent job in presenting the TEC’s case and in fending
    off MQS’ attorneys’ attacks on the TEC and the laws it regulates…IN SPITE of
    the fact that MQS’ Midland billionaire oil man backer Tim Dunn has contributed a
    big hunk of cash to Paxton’s campaigns.

    What makes this all
    remarkable is that the job the Paxton staff is doing is in direct contrast to
    that done by the staff and office of his predecessor as AG, now governor Greg
    Abbott. Capitol talk had it that Abbott’s staff was squabbling among themselves
    to determine WHO WOULD NOT handle the politically hot case. The TEC fond the
    representation it was getting from Abbott’s office to be so deficient that at
    one point it filed a motion requesting the authority to hire its own attorney so
    that it did not have to rely on a apparently more than reluctant AG’s office to
    represent it.

    It should be noted
    that Paxton, because of his own on-going legal problems, “reused” himself from
    the TEC case…Still, it is doubtful that the AG’s staff would not have become
    aware of any feelings he might have had about how they should handle the case.
    In any case, according to QR they did a good job this week. For that both they
    and Paxton as their boss deserve a path on the back…Abbott, on the other hand,
    deserved a kick in a lower part of his anatomy for the way the AG’s office
    handled the case while he was the attorney general.

    • “(MQS has tried to claim that he is not a lobbyist but is a “journalist””
      If dems can do it why can’t MQS?

      • WUSRPH

        Show me where a “dem”, whatever that maybe, has done the same things as MQS and I will agree with you. And don’t claim that all the newspapers with editorial pages are “dems”….

        • I believe you believe what you said.

          • WUSRPH

            I repeat….show me….

          • WUSRPH

            Go ahead SHOW ME. Show me a single reporter who covers the Texas Legislature, other than MQS, who, while covering the legislature, also sends legislators lists of bills and amendments and the vote they must cast on them in order not to be badly rated. You keep excusing Republicans on the grounds Democrats are doing it….Show me where that is true.

          • Liberals have ‘made up’ what was newsworthy for years ie Dan Rather. Dems have punished those who do not vote they way they are told ie Al Edwards or Mike Richards.
            The old democrats ways of fear and intimidation are not longer acceptable, there’s a new sheriff in town.

          • WUSRPH

            None of that has anything to do with MQS using journalism as a cover for his lobbying/intimidation efforts.

          • Indiana Pearl

            Rather was accurate. He got stiffed shafted by his bosses.

  • WUSRPH

    May everyone have a good Christmas…….See you next week.

    • Indiana Pearl

      Merry Christmas, Mr. W! We’re headed to west Texas with hopes to avoid the big storm.

  • Beerman

    What is all this drama about guns in Texas? I thought that the Jade Helm invasion confiscated all the guns in Texas? Did I miss something?

    • Indiana Pearl

      Bingo!

    • WUSRPH

      You have to understand…This year’s Jade Helm was only to lull us into a state where we won’t pay attention NEXT TIME when they really mean it.

      • Beerman

        What is really alarming is that Texas has some paranoid elected officials that really believe there will be a NEXT TIME…unbelievable!!!!

        • WUSRPH

          If people like the TPPF keep pushing for nullification and others keep talking about federal overreach and secession, there may come a day when enforcing federal court rulings and laws will require more than a US Marshall with a writ. One certainly hopes not.

          • don76550

            I certainly hope so. I have no intention of marching into the Nazi/US gas chambers like the Jews with without a fight. That is the purpose of the 2nd amendment

  • Indiana Pearl

    If guns are so helpful to society, GOP congress critters and the gun lobby should have no fear of evaluating that hypothesis. Instead they hide the truth from the light of day:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/24/opinion/the-republican-fear-of-facts-on-guns.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region%C2%AEion=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region&_r=0

  • Are WAPO and NYTimes Hillary’s lap dogs?

    • WUSRPH

      The cartoon was despicable…..but candidates have used their kids (and their dogs) in political ads as long as their have been campaigns…We even had one candidate a few years ago who run pictures of himself with kids (not his) in his ads that just made people think they were….

      • BCinBCS

        Well that’s interesting. Who was it?

        • WUSRPH

          It is one of those situations where you can remember the incident but not the who. It was not that long ago and I believe a Texas legislative candidate. Perhaps someone can remember more of the details..

        • WUSRPH
          • BCinBCS

            Followed the link but had to google him to get more information. It turns out that Ben Quayle is VP Dan Quayle’s son.

            He won his election to Arizona’s 3rd district using his brother’s children in 2010 but was defeated by another Republican in 2012.

            He was voted the most conservative member of the House by the National Journal so the last line of the 2010 Phoenix New Times article about him borrowing children for the photos in his campaign brochure made me laugh. It stated:
            “It’s no secret that people dig puppies and cute kids, so candidates tend to use such images. Mass-mailing to voters pictures of a candidate blowin’ coke off a hooker’s ass probably wouldn’t generate votes, if ya know what we’re sayin’.”

          • Indiana Pearl

            Dan Quayle is an idiot.

          • What would you know about being an idiot?

          • Indiana Pearl

            I read your posts. Classic idiocy.

          • You live to read my comments, I’m serious honeychile you and I ain’t gonna happen give it up.

          • Indiana Pearl

            When a crazy fat guy leaves the house, a woman somewhere is relieved.

          • Indiana Pearl

            He was Indiana’s senator . . . his wife is lots smarter.

  • WUSRPH

    Ben is fading away so he blames his staff. That is normal, plus taking the blame is one of the things staff get paid for. I just wonder whom The Donald will blame when his time comes.

    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/12/ben-carson-trashes-his-staff.html?om_rid=AAXQ58&om_mid=_BWfEC4B9JCjNtk

    Isn’t this about the same time during the last couple of GOP presidential races that the Black candidate starts to fade away and disappear? It appears Black candidates get early attention but, when the time comes to get serious, the GOP quickly drops them. Alan Keyes, Herman Cain and now Ben Carson…seems to be a trend there.

  • vietvet3

    The pic with the post says it all. Ammosexuals have substitute penises so large that they have to sling ’em over their shoulders.

    • excite you much…

      • Indiana Pearl

        You suffer from Low T. Get meds.

        • what are you pushing today?

          • Indiana Pearl

            See your doctor. You need an intervention.

          • see your witch doctor you need a life

          • Indiana Pearl

            Says the guy who uses all the bandwidth at TM.

          • I’ve been here 3 times as long as you and yet you have more comments than me.
            Oh wait there are some comments you have no memory of posting.

          • Indiana Pearl

            More comments, much less bandwidth.

          • no one can say less with more words than you

          • Indiana Pearl

            You cut and paste entire articles that don’t read or understand.

          • “entire articles that don’t read or understand.”
            now that I understand.

  • vietvet3

    I had a friend who told me about her church. At one point she said her husband was part of an armed security force. I’m thinking “Lady, you don’t have a church, you have a paranoid armed camp where you greet strangers with one hand ready to pull and shoot.” That’s what the NRA is rapidly making this country- an armed, suspicious camp. Sad.

    • paranoia reigns in liberalville….trust but verify.

      • Indiana Pearl

        It’s not liberals who are armed to the teeth.

        • I know and that bothers you.

          • Indiana Pearl

            Crazy RWNJs with guns — most of them end up shooting themselves or their own children.

          • ForeverBanned

            Really, most of them? Is that a verified, statistical 51% or greater of all “RWNJs with guns”? Or is that just another manufactured gem from the land of la la?

          • Indiana Pearl

            Homes where there are guns are four times more likely to have an inhabitant injured or killed by a gun. Do your homework. You’re the one who lives in La La Land.

          • ForeverBanned

            I guess you decided not to back up your statement that “most of them end up shooting themselves” with cold, hard facts.

            Shame. Now you just look irrational.

          • Indiana Pearl

            I could waste my Sunday morning doing your homework for you, but I won’t. My DIL has a childhood friend whose eight-year-old brother got his father’s gun and killed himself with it. This happens almost daily in the U.S.

          • ForeverBanned

            One tragic example constitutes a 51% majority? That’s what we call ‘fuzzy math’!

            It was your statement which you chose not to support – that’s not “MY homework.” Do your own homework, Dumplin.’

          • Indiana Pearl

            What’s your hang up about 51%? Did I say 51%?

            I sent you a link.

          • ForeverBanned

            You said “most.” That’s a statistical majority. Back it up or back down.

          • Indiana Pearl

            Read the article I posted. Come back when you are willing to have an educated discussion.

          • Indiana Pearl
          • Indiana Pearl
      • vietvet3

        I believe the right has cornered the market on paranoia. Ban the Muslims, deport the Mexicans, shoot first- ask questions later, plant bugs in the Mosques, endless war. (Actually that last one is more of a business proposal) JB, I hope Santa was able to break and enter your home last night without getting shot between the eyes……. With that beard he could be a Muslim. Better safe than sorry……………

  • Merry Christmas to all my liberal friends. My gift to you, I wish you peace and prosperity and after 8 years of President Obama we deserve this:

    “It’s time for the movement to rally around Ted Cruz, to make him the next president of the United States.”

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/24/its-time-to-rally-around-ted-cruz/

    • Indiana Pearl

      You have no friends.

      • Its all perspective sweetcheeks

        • WUSRPH

          He made a better deal than your hero RR who tried to make a trade for a hostage with a chocolate cake, a bible and some anti-aircraft missiles and got nothing in return.

          • Again it is all perspective.

            Bergdahl will be court martialed. Dems see that as a badge of honor.

            see you next week.

          • WUSRPH

            I assume this is your theory of posting:

            If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people
            will eventually come to believe it.

            Joseph Goebbels

        • Indiana Pearl

          Bun belly . . .

  • For those democrats with a fuzzy memory about how the news was reported. I was reading this about former “newsmaker” Marvin Zindler.

    “At one point in the 1970s, Zindler considered running for Congress as a Republican, and the local GOP commissioned surveys that predicted he would win. However, Gertrude was hesitant to leave Houston, and the plans were dropped. Also, Zindler described himself as a social liberal who supported universal health care. He had initially been a Democrat and a Lyndon B. Johnsonsupporter.[15] Zindler’s father was a four-term mayor of suburban Bellaire and was also a liberal; he was a card-carrying member of the NAACP and opponent of the Ku Klux Klan and his clothing store was among a handful of Houston businesses that advertised in African-American newspapers.”

    My thought was you could substitute Joe Straus’ name or any other liberal.

  • Is this really “news?’ Liberals tell us it is.

  • Are you ready for the New Year my friends?

  • WUSRPH

    Teddy’s View of The Presidency:

    “My view was that every executive officer, and above all every executive officer in high position, was a steward of the people bound actively and affirmatively to do all he could for the people, and not to content himself with the negative merit of keeping his talents undamaged in a napkin. I declined to adopt the view that what was imperatively necessary for the Nation could not be done by the President unless he could find some specific authorization to do it. My belief was that it was not only his right but his duty to do anything that the needs of the Nation demanded unless such action was forbidden by the Constitution or by the laws. Under this interpretation of executive power I did and caused to be done many things not previously done by the President and the heads of the departments. I did not usurp power, but I did greatly broaden the use of executive power. In other words, I acted for the public welfare, I acted for the common well-being of all our people, whenever and in whatever manner was necessary, unless prevented by direct constitutional or legislative prohibition.”

    Theodore Roosevelt

    • So as long as it done under the guise of “for the common good” or collectivism it is ok?
      That is the mindset of progressives as they trample all over the US Constitution. The US Constitution was specifically designed to prevent this over reach.

      • WUSRPH

        I was just quoting one of the most famous GOP Presidents whom you had just quoted. Seems you and he had a different opinion about many things…..I guess you would write him out of the history of the Republican Party.

        As to the purpose of the constitution: Some would argue It was designed to protect those of us from the likes of you and the “momentary passions of the mob”. As someone recently said:

        “The Constitution is a device for frustrating popular enthusiasms, as are federalism, checks and balances, and the rule of law. It’s why impassioned factions usually have very little patience for them, and why they are so central to checking government and protecting individual rights.”

        As you will notice, Teddy said: “unless prevented by direct constitutional or legislative prohibition.” so there are clearly limits on what a president can do. Defining those limits is one of the duties of the SCOTUS.

        • Teddy was big gov through and through.

          • WUSRPH

            As usual you make assumptions that do not bear out when tested. The only part of the government that Roosevelt made substantially bigger was the Navy and the national parks and forests that he established. What he did do was make government “active” in fighting the trusts and monopolies that were dominating the economy so much so, for example, that one company, Standard Oil (the Rockefellers) controlled 90% of the oil industry…..

          • “Yet promoters of big government have long recognized TR as one of their own.”

            http://fee.org/freeman/theodore-roosevelt-big-government-man/

            “Then, in 1906, TR began giving speeches saying that America needed a federal income tax with ever steeper rates. He inspired Cordell Hull, Democratic congressman from Tennessee, to draft a proposed constitutional amendment permitting an income tax, and after it was ratified, an income tax bill. President Woodrow Wilson signed it into law in 1913.”

            http://spectator.org/articles/46519/worst-big-government-conservative

            “It was the Republican TR, who insisted in his 1910 speech on the “New Nationalism” that there was a “general right of the community to regulate” the earning of income and use of private property “to whatever degree the public welfare may require it.” He was at one here with Democrat Woodrow Wilson, who had in 1885 condemned Americans’ respect for their Constitution as “blind worship,” and suggested that his countrymen dedicate themselves to the Declaration of Independence by leaving out its “preface” — i.e., the part of it that establishes the protection of equal natural rights as the permanent task of government.”

            http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB123033881006136515

          • WUSRPH

            Seems he had a problem that the pay for a war with a credit card and big spending Republicans of today would not understand. He thought if you were going to have a big navy and an active foreign policy you should pay for it….not just run up debt.

          • come on you can admit Teddy was one of us…..

          • WUSRPH

            Yes…he was a Republican…One who would be driven out of the party today as he was in 1912.

          • Even democrats fear big government, unless of course you’re a 47%er.
            “Of course, almost every Republican–88 percent–agrees that big government poses the biggest threat to the country. But 53 percent of Democrats feel the same way, along with 67 percent of Independents. That’s a double-digit gain from 2009-10, where only 32 percent of Democrats felt we should fear our government’s power. Maybe that was before the gears of Obamacare started to move.”

            http://hotair.com/archives/2015/12/27/poll-americans-see-big-government-as-the-biggest-threat-to-our-future/

          • Indiana Pearl

            Says the guy whose business and lifestyle depends heavily on government money . . .

          • John Johnson

            With you all the way on this argument. TR was a savior, and we need another one to surface. All for paying as you go. You want it, pay for it

      • Indiana Pearl

        What’s wrong with collectivism? You can’t give a cogent answer.

    • Indiana Pearl

      Another right wing rag . . .

  • foolmesilly

    Isn’t it a little disingenuous to show a strapped rifle over a shoulder when that’s not OPEN CARRY? And another strike is not a mention of a word about all of the thousands of students that have campus carry and yet not a single shootout? ALSO not a single massacre either?

    • WUSRPH

      I guess the recent shooting death at Texas Southern Univ. doesn’t count. After all, it was just one student shooting another…and that can happen anywhere on or off campus.

      • foolmesilly

        What about all the murders every week in Chicago and especially the ones who are murdered without a gun?

        • WUSRPH

          Because conditions are bad somewhere else, does not mean that we should make them worse here.

        • BCinBCS

          In addition to what WUSRPH wrote, I would add: Chicago is a prime example of how arming a larger and larger group of people directly results in increased mortality. But then, maybe it’s because all of the people shooting each there are “bad” people and all that is needed are MORE guns…presumably for the “good” people.

          • foolmesilly

            “arming” is not the correct pretense. I seriously doubt that any were being armed. Perhaps the description of how they came into possession of the “arms” gives us a better description of the expected results. If you survey I’d doubt that you will find many who murdered were in legal possession of a gun. Hence since they don’t follow the current laws, it’s rather Einsteinion to think that passing another law would have any affect. (rather the definition of insanity)

          • BCinBCS

            Really cute, foolme. The point that I was making was that an increased number of guns leads to an increased number of deaths by guns. How they were obtained is immaterial. (This direct correlation between gun numbers and gun deaths occurs whether the weapons are legal or illegal.)

          • foolmesilly

            I’m glad you agree since all the murders committed were done so with illegal weapons. If we could get those off the street, we would change the murder method of convience to one requiring a less sterile distance and changing it to skill and introducing the closeness of using knives, clubs, sticks and tire irons. This has a profound affect of reduction of the murder rate…

          • Indiana Pearl

            First you claim the weapons are legal, then you say they are illegal. What is your thesis? You seem confused.

          • BCinBCS

            And how do you propose to eliminate these “illegal” firearms since the NRA is against ANY controls on weapons (to the extent that they will not even allow the subject of firearm mortality to be studied)?

        • Indiana Pearl

          Chicago murders are notm on college campuses.

  • Remember FDR’s “Labor Boards”, I didn’t think so….
    Federal Troops “seize Montgomery Wards” and remove Montgomery Ward’s Chief during “labor dispute.”

    • WUSRPH

      Remember the “Great Depression” and the “Great Recession” both began under Republicans…..In fact more of the 47 recessions in our history have been under GOPers.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States

      We had at least two under Regan./Bush and another “Big One” under Bush Jr. Funny it has been under Clinton and Obama that the economy has grown, after recovering from the GOP’s recessions. One thing that has been proven in the last few years is that, if you elect a Bush, you get two things: A war and a recession. But it does not look like we will have a chance to see if the same applies to JEB.

      • never let a good crisis go to waste…..

        • WUSRPH

          But why is it that it is the Democrats who have to clean up the economic mess left behind by the GOP?

        • Indiana Pearl

          Never fail to post a hackneyed turn of phrase.

    • BCinBCS

      It stands to reason that you would tie yourself to Sewell Avery, the president of Montgomery Ward. His “principled” actions which caused his removal by FDR were not only detrimental to the war effort but DIRECTLY led to the collapse of Monkey Ward in 2000. Way to choose ’em, JBB.

      • You missed the part about FDR socializing Montgomery Ward?

        • WUSRPH

          Montgomery Ward was not socialized. It was left an independent corporation and continued for many years thereafter. The action in 1944 had nothing to do with socialization. If had to do with necessary war time controls.

          • BCinBCS

            Absolutely correct W. and, if I remember my history correctly, FDR had Avery back at his desk within a week or two. (Oh, the horror, the horror. /snark/)

          • “we will socialize you” ….uh….uh….uh

          • Actually it didn’t but you never let facts get in the way.

            “The problem for Roosevelt was that Montgomery Ward did not manufacture anything essential to the war effort and everyone knew it. The public overwhelmingly backed Avery and the occupation of the offices ended quickly. However, the government maintained the right to direct the company’s operation until the war ended.”

            http://www.whatwouldthefoundersthink.com/channeling-fdr

            Democrats are the enemy of capitalism and would tax it out of existence if they could.

    • WUSRPH

      The passage of the Taft-Hartley Act, which is what you apparently mean by the post-1945 “get rid of the unions” did have an effect on unionization, however, it did not get rid of the unions. In fact, the greatest period of unionism in the US was still to come in what economists call “the Golden Age of American Capitalism”—the period from 1945 to about 1970. It was the period of great economic development, rise in the standard of living and spread of wealth (we never had less income inequality) that people look back to as being what we are missing today. The economy (in terms of the breadth of benefits it provides) has been either downhill or stable since then.
      But you go ahead and live with your little myths. (PS The top tax rate in the period was 95%).

      • Seriously you think the 95% tax rate was the reason…and not Kennedy getting rid of it. I can only marvel at liberal’s logic.

        • WUSRPH

          No…I do not believe that the 95% tax rate was the cause…I believe it showed that tax rates did not have that much effect on economic growth…as has been proven each time the GOP cuts them….

          • BCinBCS

            Ya know, WUSRPH, you use the evidence of history time and time again to point out JBB’s erroneous beliefs yet he never learns. I suppose he and his Republican brethren know that they can win all sorts of political discussions if they don’t believe in the lessons of history or the findings of science.

          • Indoctrination works best on the easily led.

          • And you are certainly the proof of that statement.

          • Indiana Pearl

            There are none so blind as they who cannot see.

          • After Kennedy REMOVED the 95% tax rate the economy exploded, but let’s not let those pesky facts get in the way.

          • WUSRPH

            If you bothered to read some history, rather than rely solely on your Myths, you would know that the “explosive’ growth had begun in the late 40s when the rate was high. You would also learn that most economists and historians, including GOPers, attribute the tremendous growth in the 50s to the largest government stimulus program in history—the Interstate Highway system. But live with you myths and Mr. L’s “Curve” that never works.

          • Indiana Pearl

            Can you prove that statement? Numbers, data, evidence?

          • WUSRPH

            Actually there was some growth in the economy:

            “The stated goals of the tax cuts were to raise personal incomes, increase consumption, and increase capital investments. Evidence shows that these goals were exceeded by large degree with the combination of tax cuts and domestic spending programs President Johnson advocated, such as Medicare..”
            But, as usual, the Troll over simplifies things. He kind of overlooks the impact of the massive stimulus spending by the federal govt. during this period on little things like the continuation of the largest stimulus program of all, the Interstate Highway Act, the Space Program, the adoption of Medicare and Medicaid and the rest of the “New Society” programs and the money they pumped into the economy and, most regretfully, the massive spending for the Vietnam War which was just getting rolling.
            But then a simple mind always seeks the simple answer.

        • Indiana Pearl

          You can “marvel,” but not disprove the accuracy of what he says.

    • Indiana Pearl

      Maxine is not running for president. You’re obsessed with her.

  • Can the democrats drag us down to their level? In 2006 then speaker wannabe Pelosi said on Meet the Depressed, “if we can drag republicans down to our level we win.” And they did. Then in 2008 democrats were able to turn the 2008 presidential race into a race baiting contest and gave us Obama.

    Now dems want to turn the 2016 presidential race into WWE cage match between Trump and Bill amid shouts of “sexism.” Can they do it?

    “Hillary Clinton will bring husband Bill Clinton onto the campaign trail, a move already escalating the acrimony between her and GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump. Clinton said after last weekend’s Democratic primary debate in New Hampshire that husband and former President Clinton would join the campaign trail in January and called him her “not-so-secret weapon.””

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/12/26/hillary-puts-secret-weapon-bill-on-campaign-trail-fueling-sexism-feud-with-trump.html

    Will the low information voter fall for it? I’m betting yes.

    • BCinBCS

      But JBB…Hillary is such an untrustworthy, horrible candidate, Bill is morally bankrupt and the Repugs have such an amazing candidate in Trump who’s going to do such “wonderful” things when elected. Why are you so concerned? Don’t you have truth and magic on your side?

      • repugs….how telling

        • WUSRPH

          At least he did not call them all liars, cheats, thieves and 47% like you all Democrats.

          • Does the truth bother you? Then stop being a democrat.

          • WUSRPH

            If losing the presidential vote 5 out of the last 6 times and soon to be 6 out of 7 bothers you, stop being a Republican.

          • If not being allowed to watch a real debate or having a vote on primary day doesn’t bother you then stay a democrat. You will be told how and when, just do it.

          • Indiana Pearl

            How do you figure that?

      • WUSRPH

        We never promised you the “perfect” candidate…Only that what ours will do for American is better than what they would do.

        • BCinBCS

          I have been voting since 1972 and there have been only two presidential candidates that closely shared my political views: John Anderson and Jon Huntsman – ironically, both were moderate Republicans (and would be considered RINOs today). Man, I sure do miss those days.

    • Indiana Pearl

      Overdosed on fruitcake, I see . . .

  • The establishment republicans and democrats are in big trouble this election cycle.

    “Jeb’s dead. and….Marco Rubio is just not catching fire in national polls or in Iowa and New Hampshire specifically. The Rubio moment in the media has been going on for at least a month on the logic that Rubio is acceptable to the Republican establishment and to many movement conservatives.”

    http://theweek.com/articles/595781/jeb-bush-comeback-kid

    That sums it up Jeb’s dead and Marco never was.
    What about the dems? Welp who do they have? Hillary or Bernie….that is your only choices. Seriously is that the best dems can do? Yep.

    So who does that leave us?
    Ben? nope
    Carly? nope
    Huckabee? nope
    Christie? nope
    Trump or Cruz? yep and if you think Trump is a serious contender I have something somewhere I need to sell you.

    Looks like it will be Cruzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz/Perry in 2016.

    Now lets look at reality….the Clintons with the help of the media, the pedants and the low information voters will try to steal the 2016 election.

    Are you better off now than you were 8 years ago? Do you really want to elect another democrat to do even more damage? there ya go Cruz in 2016.

  • Indiana Pearl

    Now Booksie is pasting entire newspaper pages and television snippets into Burka Blog.

  • Indiana Pearl

    Trump’s appeal to the worst in our national psyche:

    “Conservatives tend to be a lot more reactive to negative information and they tend to be a lot more insular in nature, and they have a lot less tolerance for ambiguity.”

    —- Bradley Okdie

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/29/opinion/campaign-stops/donald-trumps-unstoppable-virality.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-right-region%C2%AEion=opinion-c-col-right-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region

    • Marianne Carroll

      And they failed spelling in school.

  • As an entrepreneur it goes against my grain to join a union. Why? Because life, liberty and pursuit of happiness means something to me.

    Democrats support unions and collectivism. Democrats want security and are afraid. Their leaders prey upon their fears.

    I don’t need a politician controlling every waking minute of my life, democrats need it, want it and even demand it.

    I support campus carry. If you are old enough to attend a university of higher education, put on your big boy pants and learn to control your fears. Open carry is the law in Texas.

    • Indiana Pearl

      Your “entrepreneurship” is heavily subsidized by the taxpayers. Live in reality.

    • BCinBCS

      No one can say that you aren’t humorous at times. I had a good laugh at your statement: “I support campus carry…put on your big boy pants and learn to control your fears.”

      And the need for the gun is…what?
      (I love ironic humor.)

      • Indiana Pearl

        I ask these good old boys what they fear and never get an answer. I believe racism is at the core of their fears.

        • John Johnson

          Not sure how you continue to make the dislike of or disagreement with something synonymous with fear.

          • Indiana Pearl

            Dislike? I’m asking why one needs to take an openly carried gun to HEB, to What-A-Burger, to the movies. What is the purpose?

          • John Johnson

            Well, I would dislike someone trying to rob or shoot me, and would not like the fact that I could have a weapon to protect myself or others and had left it at home.

          • Indiana Pearl

            Do you have any reason to expect that to happen?

          • BCinBCS

            JJ, in the modern history of the U.S., crime HAS NEVER BEEN LOWER. If generations of Americans could do without guns, why do you feel that they are a necessity now?

          • Indiana Pearl

            Here’s a volitile topic regarding crime reduction. Social scientists have been aware of this connection. The GOP refuses to admit it exists: the abortin dividend.

            http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/DonohueLevittTheImpactOfLegalized2001.pdf

          • John Johnson

            I can’t remember when I had my last flat tire, but I always carry a spare.

          • Indiana Pearl

            You can’t accidentally kill yourself or someone else with a spare tire.

          • John Johnson

            You mean like you can with a car?

          • Indiana Pearl

            You don’t pack a car on your hip when you go into Target.

          • John Johnson

            The difference in the two is not apparent to me.

          • Indiana Pearl

            Did tornadoes cause you any harm?

          • John Johnson

            No, ma’am. Thanks for asking. My son and his family left late that afternoon to go back to Alabama. Got to the west side of Dallas on I-30 and saw bad stuff just south of them. Called back here and asked me to check weather report. The TV guy said tornado was reported on the ground and would be moving across I-30 just east of downtown. I talked them into turning around and coming back. Glad they didn’t just keep trucking on. They live in tornado alley over in Alabama. They heed the warnings.

          • Indiana Pearl

            We were in Big Bend for two nights. Planned to go to Ft. Davis for two nights. Mr. P. e-mailed the Indian Lodge and they said an inch of ice under two feet snow were predicted. We went to Bandera instead. Rainy, but no snow or tornadoes.

            When I was 15, a tornado tore off the roof of our house and killed three guys across the street. Midwesterners don’t mess around when it comes to tornadoes, although I think we get blase after awhile because they happen so frequently.

        • don76550

          How about crimeism? I don’t give a damn what color you are, if you threaten me or my family, you are history. Now I can understand why you would consider defense against criminal to be racist, since it is your 12% of the population commiting over 50% of violent crimes. How about you never try to rob, assault, or murder me or rape my family members, then we will never have a problem with each other. Nobody’s skin color gives them a right to be a predator or a thug. My problem is with criminals.

          • Indiana Pearl

            Don, you’ll suffocate on your sheet before you ever get your arthritic finger on the trigger. Racist bigot!

          • don76550

            Oh how clever. I am so devastated by your brilliant and astute response. You are a fine spokesman for the democrat party. Your credibility is astonishing.

          • Indiana Pearl

            You’re a racist, sexist looney. Come back when your shrink says you’rs sane.

          • Indiana Pearl

            Thanks! I know a bigot when I encounter one.

      • You fail to see the need for someone to protect themselves from a common thug/thief? But you strongly and wholeheartedly advocate for free rubbers in an elementary school? After all 8 and 9 year olds must protect themselves from STDs.

        Yes I agree we see things through a different prism.

        • Indiana Pearl

          How many times have you been threatened by a common “thug” or thief?

          • don76550

            I have faced criminals on 2 occasions and was not a victim because of my gun. Firing a shot what not necessary. I guess a better question is, how many times do you have to be threatened by a thug to pull your head out of your ass?

          • Indiana Pearl

            I’ve never been threatened by a criminal because I don’t do stupid things.

          • don76550

            I certainly wouldn’t consider that to be an accurate statement, neither is being a crime victim dependent on your being stupid. While being stupid helps, being smart confers no immunity to being a crime victim. There really doesn’t seem to be any connection between your mouth and your brain.

          • Indiana Pearl

            Butbutbut Don, I thought you wanted yomkiss and make up!

        • don76550

          Absolutely outstanding arguement

  • Some posters here called Cruz supporters crazy……as compared to liberals?
    Seriously have you ever met a liberal?

    • Indiana Pearl

      Your love for Maxine Waters has driven you mad.

  • Indiana Pearl

    Bandera is on a river – the Medina – which flowed past our rented ranch cabin. In the midwest they’re called “farms.” In Texas they’re called “ranches.” Why is that?

    Saw the news about Stickland. It hasn’t made the mainstream press. Why is that? I’m a legalization advocate, but hate the hypocrisy.

    • John Johnson

      Ranches are primarily for raising animals; farms for cash crops. We have both here in the state.

      Yeah, it is the hypocrisy I don’t like. Everyone has skeletons in the closet and people understand that. Fess up while you’re seeking office and people understand and even embrace you as more “human” and like them. Not many have the balls to do it. They prefer to place themselves way up on Humpty Dumpty’s throne as if they are pure as falling snow. They are gambling that there will not “be a great fall”. Stickland’s is coming. It will be broadcast bigtime. Not sure when.

      • Indiana Pearl

        Legalization will come to Texas. Saves money and is the right thing to do. Viet Nam brought pot into the mainstream.

        • John Johnson

          OK by me. Some choose to drink, some to smoke. Get rid of the inflow from down south; tax it; keep the money here. The medicinal properties excluding the THC are pretty phenomenal.

    • BCinBCS

      Pearl, Texas is divided culturally according to the predominant land use. In eastern Texas we mainly have farms while in western Texas ranches predominate. As a matter of fact, secondary roads east of Interstate 35 are called farm-to-market roads (i.e. FM 123) while the same roads west of I35 are called ranch-to-market roads (i.e. RM 123).

      • Indiana Pearl

        Yeah. The “FM” moniker was confusing at first. Interestingly many who raise cattle in the midwest also call themselves “farmers” rather than “ranchers.”

  • You mean the one Rahm made up?
    Newsflash dems just because the DNC says something it doesn’t mean everyone believes it.

    • BCinBCS

      So you’re trying to tell me that the Great Recession never happened and that it’s just a figment of Rahm Emanuel’s imagination?
      Have you no shame?
      Why would you write something that would show the world how profoundly ignorant you are?

      • Indiana Pearl

        He has no shame.

  • don76550

    Yes I think the legislature will be keen on revisiting this law if liberal colleges do all they can to thwart the law. The law was passed to protect law abiding citizens from criminals. If school insist on siding with the criminals the legislature may just bite them in the butt.

  • borgerboy

    Erica Grieder…this article along with your other concerning illegals certainly prove your liberal leanings. However, I don’t agree with either of the articles.

  • dormand

    While the Texas Legislature has imposed the ill advised campus carry law upon state supported schools in Texas, it has no authority over the choices of families in Texas.

    I predict that we will see an exodus of the better high school students to out of state colleges when they choose their place for higher education to escape this imposition by the Texas Legislature.

    Subsequently, I also predict that the substantial number of out of state students who historically have chosen to attend state supported Texas colleges will diminish to avoid the unnecessary and ill advised exposure to firearms on college campuses.