Jump to content

Welcome to Hoosier Sports Nation | Indiana Basketball and Sports Forum

Welcome to HoosierSportsNation 3.0 -- our newest and best iteration.  We promise we won't bite -- come on in and register to join the party!


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Hoosierhoopster last won the day on January 4

Hoosierhoopster had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

407 Excellent

About Hoosierhoopster

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  1. Ohio State Pregame Thread

    I think we find a way to win - not based on stats, but based on heart and effort. Our guys can pull this one out
  2. Morgan's All B1G Season

    Teams are doing what they can to take him out as he’s our best player and leading scorer. I’m sure part of it is the grind, but you also recognize the impact of game planning to minimize his impact
  3. So Very Sad....

    I am going to step back as a mod from this discussion but think a couple points you make are good for discussion. First, what the the writers of the Constitution and it’s Amendments intended is and always will be a part of this and every other Constitutional discussion. It is central to every case addressing Constitutional rights, what they really mean, and what restrictions should be placed on them. No, no one is a fool for considering whether or not those who wrote the Constitution or its Amendments considered technology— whether they did or in the context of the language is a matter of interpretation, and in the context of the Second Amendment, it’s purpose was to address the need for an urban militia. What does technological advancement have to do with the general public’s easy access to rapid fire weapons? That’s not the point. But I could not agree more that - while the gun debate is endless (and really driven by the influence, on Congress, of the gun lobby and NRA), there is room in the middle for reasonable compromise— in the interest of public safety. The availability of these weapons needs to be better regulated. If anyone argues to the contrary they are turning a blind eye to what is now, clearly, a growing problem of school and public shootings using weapons that kill as many people as possible quickly.
  4. So Very Sad....

    I understand what you’re saying but 1) you’re focusing only on the AR 15, I’m not, my post obviously wasn’t, and this thread isn’t, it’s about school shootings and mass shootings and placing reasonable restrictions on the availability of rapid fire weapons used now in multiple school and mass shootings; and 2) and as to the AR 15, line KoB i’ve read descriptions and claims that cut both ways. Regardless, it’s clear that something needs to be done about limiting the availability of semi-automatic weapons, and the bump stock etc. theses are clearly not at all like hand guns and if you think I somehow proved they are then you should take a step back and re-read what I wrote
  5. So Very Sad....

    OK was insulting. Seriously? Golly I'm sorry I'm spreading ignorance. We could spend time actually quoting the applicable statutes and case law interpreting them along with current 2nd Amendment case law (you know, the Amendment that begins "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of the state"), as a lawyer and not someone cherry picking his way through a result-driven discussion, but this is going away from the actual point, you know, these horrible school and public shootings and what can be done about them. Do you really think FBI statistics on the percentage use of AR's or semi-automatics in homicides compared to handguns has ANYTHING to do with the use of AR's and sem-automatic weapons, AR 15's or other, in school shootings?? Or the use of the bump stock?? That is a a clearly meaningless and irrelevant statistic in this context, it has absolutely no bearing on what is going on right now with school shootings, cinema shootings, and other MASS shootings. Gee, why didn't those mass shootings involve handguns? Isn't that obvious? And you post that while calling KoB's car argument "highly specious?" The "popularity" of the AR 15 for hunting is also irrelevant. The discussion is about what can be done, to a certain extent within the bounds of current interpretation of 2nd Amendment law -- but to a much greater extent within what is politically viable, e.g., what can get past the gun lobby and NRA money and political influence-- to reduce the ability of these deranged killers from killing large numbers of people, quickly, as in school children, or crowds of people, because of the ease of access to such rapid fire weapons, however they may be defined by Congress, with gun lobby and NRA influence. And no, you don't need rapid fire weapons to hunt deer, ground hogs, or anything else. You're obviously grossly offended that there would be a discussion that could somehow miscast these weapons despite the numerous school shootings in the past several years. That's sad.
  6. Hoosiers In the NBA

    Saw that, and he did, from the standpoint that an owner publicly telling his team that it's best that they tank is publicly acknowledging that the fans are not paying to see an actual competitive game, they're watching deliberate losing. But the flip side of that is what about the cause? We all know teams tank, because the model still favors tanking to get a better shot at the draft. Regardless, gotta love Cuban.
  7. Nebraska Game Thread

    Time to grab another beer and tell the wife to run out and buy some more beer
  8. Nebraska Game Thread

    I disagree. He’s more abnoxious!
  9. Nebraska Game Thread

    This Smith guy is pretty good. And go Rob!
  10. Nebraska Pregame Thread

    Hey, don't we have a game tonight??
  11. Home Renovation

    If you heard me swearing it up while struggling with those faucets and fittings you might just retract that thought.... I did all that on my first house, back when home ownership was new and those were piecemeal repairs when something failed. I would really struggle with it today! The remodeling work you're doing sounds cool though, exhaustion aside.
  12. So Very Sad....

    Again, as the short article I quoted noted, the problem with the pre-1994 AR ban rules was that the prior (1968) law didn't address assault rifles etc. because, as you note, consistent with that article, those weapons weren't readily available -- " “With the rise of assault weapons in the 80s and 90s, the [1968] law was made obsolete,” says Josh Horwitz, executive director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. As assault weapons became more popular over the next few decades among both manufacturers and gun owners, the minimum age requirement of 18 for purchasing long guns still applied to these more powerful rifles." And the '94 law, as with any gun law, reflects compromises pushed by the NRA and the gun lobby. That's the problem, not the answer. I fully agree a solution needs to be worked out to address this nonsense. It's complete nonsense. Raising the age, which is about as obvious as obvious could be, is a start. There are all kinds of other things to address, though, like how easy it is to buy guns at gun shows, as opposed to stores, etc. At least the public conversation is finally getting some traction. I really don't get the need to push for semi-automatics, or assault rifles, there's just no reason for those to be available to the common guy, but at least get some reasonable restrictions out there, these school shootings are horrible, as was what happened in Vegas. It also should be embarrassing. Name the other countries that experience anything like what we suffer, as a country, in gun deaths. All rights have restrictions, rights are not absolute, and the idea of protecting gun ownership, and especially the right to buy what are just flat out killing machines, is one that is and should be met with calls for restraint.
  13. So Very Sad....

    As a general side note, under current Constitutional law, you do not have a right to privacy in public. It's really that simple. There's some grey when it comes to questions like how much drones can do in gathering information, filming you, etc., but current law does not restrict installing security cameras everywhere (and btw, that's how the Boston Marathon shooters were initially identified) and filming you, taking photos of you, etc. It's hard to balance this discussion without people getting into politics. This is an off topic forum, but it's still a bball site, not a political forum, and we do not want to encourage (and will not permit) partisan political discussion. (Frankly, it's nice to have an escape from all of that.) The discussion though is one worth having, if we can avoid getting into politics (again, it's a difficult line to try to draw). So to your point, I'll go back to my college days, when I spent a summer in the then Soviet Union, under Gorbachev. My IU and Duke group would spend nights roaming Moscow and Leningrad (with an internal KGB tail that we had fun losing whenever we could). Even to a college kid, what was really interesting was how "free" we were to run the streets without any real worry of crime, getting held up, etc., but completely without "liberty." Whereas in the US we'd have tons of liberty, but with personal safety etc. at risk. Where you draw the line between those two ends of the spectrum, and how you work laws to try to get there, is an ongoing question without easy answers.
  14. So Very Sad....

    Actually this is an inaccurate statement of gun laws. Among other things you have ignored the 1994 fed assault weapons ban, that Congress allowed expire, and the fact that gun laws focused on handguns because it didn't use to be the case that assault weapons were easily obtainable and used. Here's a writeup that provides more explanation: The AR-15–style rifle that authorities say Nikolas Cruz used in his shooting rampage at a Florida high school on Wednesday was easier for the 19-year-old to legally purchase than a handgun, thanks to an absurd discrepancy in America’s gun laws. While federal law requires gun buyers to be 21 to purchase a handgun, in many states anyone 18 or older can buy rifles. This includes the AR-15, a semi-automatic version of the military’s M16 that was also used in recent mass shootings in Newtown, Connecticut; Aurora, Colorado; and San Bernardino, California. Federal gun laws have traditionally treated handguns differently from rifles, shotguns, and other long guns. When the Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed, legislators raised the legal age to purchase handguns to 21. Congress likely focused on handguns because they were, and still are, used in the majority of firearm-related crimes. Yet, 18-year-olds were still allowed to buy rifles, often used for hunting, under the act. At the time, assault rifles like the AR-15 were not popular or widely available to the American public. “Handguns were far, far more common and assault rifles had not reached the market saturation that they have today,” Avery Gardiner, co-president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, told Slate. That wasn’t the case for long. “With the rise of assault weapons in the 80s and 90s, the [1968] law was made obsolete,” says Josh Horwitz, executive director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. As assault weapons became more popular over the next few decades among both manufacturers and gun owners, the minimum age requirement of 18 for purchasing long guns still applied to these more powerful rifles. Subsequent gun laws struggled to keep up with this trend and largely failed to address the gap. Finally, in 1994, Congress passed a federal assault weapons ban that was set to last for 10 years. The law effectively made it illegal to manufacture a wide variety of assault weapons for civilians. Though one could still own and resell existing guns, people weren’t supposed to be able to buy most new AR-15s—it didn’t matter if you were 18, 21, or 45. A decade later, however, the Republican-controlled Congress let the ban expire. Thus, the Gun Control Act of 1968 is still a major pillar in our current federal firearms laws, especially when it comes to age restrictions. Even though AR-15–style rifles are becoming more and more sought-after—the NRA claimed in 2013 that “Americans own about five million AR-15s”—we’ve in many ways reverted back to laws that were crafted when these weapons were barely available. As Gardiner said, “It’s shocking that a 19-year-old can’t buy a beer, and can’t buy a handgun, but can buy an AR-15 under federal law.” https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/02/a-brief-history-of-the-laws-that-make-it-easier-for-teens-to-buy-ar-15s-than-handguns.html