If you voted for Obama or you're a Muslim, you better not try to learn gun safety in Texas

[Wushu Panda]

Hm. Funny how the violent crime rate dropped consistently once the Brady Bill went into effect.

Most of the illegally obtained guns used in crime were stolen/illegally purchased from people who bought them legally. It's pretty hard to smuggle an american-made gun into a country it's already in. Obviously systematic gang violence using smuggled weapons that aren't legal in most western countries is an exception.

Anyway, the 2nd amendment actually is kind of ambiguous. When they wrote "bear arms," what arms did they mean? They obviously didn't specify, but does that give everyone the constitutional right to own a bazooka? It also mentions a "well-regulated militia." Now, that's even more ambiguous. How do you define "well-regulated?" Do you mean like the colonial militias in Great Britain, the occasional hoplite training sessions in Greece, or does everyone automatically belong to "the militia?" (I mean the amendment itself is pretty ambiguously worded, the various interpretations of it based on an ancient court ruling are pretty clear.)

I personally think guns need to be regulated in some way, but a complete ban is something different. The other option is to go the route of several other countries, and require everyone to undergo military training, then issue them a powerful rifle. When everyone has one, it's a lot less safe to break into someone's house, so basically as long as everyone has one or no one does, it helps the crime rate. But to be honest, if you're going to half ass it, you might as well regulate certain types of weapons. There will never be a need for any person to own an automatic weapon, since hunting with one is impractical and inefficient, target practice with one is even sillier (Have you ever tried holding an automatic weapon steadily on a target? Even in short bursts it's probably not as a effective as a semi-automatic weapon at any appreciable range), and using an automatic weapon for home defense is just going a little over the top, to be honest. No one will ever need heavy ordinance. Handguns are even less practical, as they're basically useless at any range of over 40 yards, they're easy to conceal (and thus easier to commit crimes with), they're cheap and easy to obtain, and capable of killing a lot of people quickly. When something has no practical use aside from killing people, is it really something you want to have as a widespread aspect of your society? Things like hunting rifles and shotguns, even semi-automatic ones, have clear purposes for both sport and hunting, and as long as you pass the mental health/criminal background check, you should be able to own one in pretty much any caliber allowed under the geneva convention.

Also, going back to the accidents, that's exactly the point. If guns are easy to obtain (a la no gun control laws), lazy and irresponsible people will have easy access to them, and thus accidents will happen frequently. You are more likely (statistically, probably not you personally, from your attitude) to accidentally hurt your own family member than a burglar. You can't regulate gun ownership based on arbitrary determinations of someone's responsibility/laziness, so you really can't keep stupid lazy irresponsible people from owning guns. What you can do is keep them from owning guns most likely to cause those accidents.

Exactly where is the article/document stating that crimes rates dropped in direct correlation to the Brady Bill? Exactly when does restricting peoples' access to something help the matter? Remember prohibition? USA banned alcohol and organized crime exploded. And as I have previously stated, criminals obtain guns through illegal means. If this Bill worked so well then why is there still an issue of "gun control" and wasnt solved with the Brady Bill?

Um, no. The 2nd Amendment isnt ambiguous at all. Youre either clawing at desperate attempts to prove your pathetic point or just to dull in the brain to understand. I do sincerely hope its just a sad attempt to get me angry and you really arent that ignorant. Here is a specific portion of the video I linked, if you cannot even understand the 2nd amendment then dont bother posting anymore. You shouldnt be trying to argue points if you cant even comprehend what it is youre arguing.


Honestly, reading your large paragraph makes me think youre just a troll. You just restated everything you said and paraphrased me. You didnt even contribute one real idea as to HOW guns can be regulated to ensure accidents dont happen. Sure, idiots can pass background checks so long as theyve been law-abiding idiots.

But you wanna know what I think should be done? You cant own a gun unless you provide proof of receiving instruction on proper cleaning/maintenance of firearms and additional instruction on the use (shooting). But hey, Im crazy. Im actually concerned with gun safety, but people like you only stereotype gun users by thinking that everyone wants to go hunting with automatics. And thinking that you know a thing or two about which firearms should be rightfully restricted (despite not even understanding the 2nd amendment itself).

 

[Dr Snakeman]

You know what the really ironic thing is? That you did the exact same, as you claim that I did. "You suck/are ignorant for saying Texas sucks". Your point is what, mr dramatic? That "I don't live in Texas, therefore I have no saying"? That is pathetic! And if you looked a bit closer, you might have seen my OTHER comment, in reply to another one-celled organism, that infact my animosity towards Texas stems from its somewhat-recent decision to replace their textbooks with bibles (oops! exaggeration much? Not a pinch!). Here's some google-ing for ya', cowboy: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/education/13texas.html

Wha...?

Oh, I think I get it:


You're very stupid. And the fact that you think that my living in Texas makes my IQ lower than yours amuses me.

 

[silversnake4133]

I guess this is just one of the "bad" points about being a "mosaic country". Seriously we have so many different races of people living here, it's like the whole world in one. And I believe that is where the problem lies. Everyone has his or her own way of thinking, and when this specific way of thinking isn't replicated, people can get irritated. Also, hatred isn't genetic. No one is born to hate, he or she LEARNS it from his or her environment. Hatred procreates because these children are exposed to negative impulses, actions or words and are never reprimanded when they replicated it. Therefore in their minds, children see these acts of hatred and discrimination as acceptable and continue to do it. Thus it is imprinted into their mind and unless severe counseling or intervention is incorporated, these children will become spiteful and hate-spewing just like those people who had constant contact with them.

The most severe hatred is usually grouped in areas of heavy urbanization or areas infamous for "large communities". Plus I'm sure that most of you on here can agree that it's easier to make fun of someone you don't find appealing than it is to make friends. It's easier to call out a person's faults than it is to find positive ones. Same thing goes for beliefs and religion. Every "religion" is essentially the same story/morals/lessons only with different names, rituals, and locations. Many open-minded people can understand (and even agree) that Muhammad, Jesus, Buddah, Abraham, Shiva, God, Allah, etc. are similar or, in some cases, one in the same. (Polytheistic religions are harder to pin-point because of the sheer number of worshiped deities, but they are mostly based around the natural elements and events.) Faith is what we should really be focusing on rather than "religion" because religion was a concept created and constantly altered by man while faith remains pure and untainted.

I'm not condemning anyone for a specific "religion" they follow, but they shouldn't use their religion as an excuse to commit hate crimes just for the sake of hating others. (WBC is a perfect example of this.)

 

[Jimmybobjr]

"Ha ha, Americans are bigots that make generalizations and don't understand other cultures, ha ha ha."

Uhm, i didnt say that.

 

[scorptatious]

Oh joy. Another thread filled with people who equate one guy's actions to the intelligence of an entire country.

Seriously. I thought you guys were better than this. I really do.

OT: Frankly I don't care. If he doesn't want Muslims or Obama supporters in his class then that's no skin off of my nose.

There's one restaurant around my house that only hires Asian people. And yet no one I know complains about that.

 

[thevillageidiot13]

Someone is refusing these two groups, those who oppose this mans right to guns, and tribal cultured Middle Eastern muslims (who actively denounce unbelievers in there holy scripture), access to his classes, and you are losing your faith in humanity? I mean come on, we are with 7 billion people now and you can't imagine ONE SINGLE PERSON to be not supertolerant against people who want to make laws against him and others who believe in scriptures saying he is the worst creature imaginable? Come on.

He said Muslims, not Fundamentalists. The bible says a lot of crazy shit as well. I know several Muslims, and they are alright. They behave themselves pretty much as the christians I know (except they don't drink alcohol), and none of them believe in stoning, Jihadd, etc.
Just makes you are a Muslim/Christian doesn't mean you are Al Quida/Westboro Baptist Church (CBA with spelling for either).
With your argument is that ALL Muslims are extremists, but then I can say that ALL Christians are like WBC.
Crocket is a retard because he uses the same logic. "All Muslims hate America. All Muslims will try to kill me".
So, thanks, but try again. Your argument is invalid (and a bit offensive).

The gap between the scripture and the people who say to believe in them are way bigger in christianity than in islam. The bible is a collection of a wide variety of books and it is thus more acceptable to criticize them. Also, christianity has experienced the Enlightenment.
The quran is seen as the literal words of Muhammad. Insulting or doubting the quran is thus seen as an insult to Allah and Muhammad himself. Also, the Middle East did not experience a period of Enlightenment, 'inventing' humanism or secularism.
Jesus promoted being friendly to your enemies, Muhammad fought battles.
Jesus introduced a separation between church and state, Muhammad was head of 'church and state'.

I have a very friendly Muslim friend too. I don't say they are all stupid and evil. But I think you must take responsibility for what and who you believe in. And Muslims clearly don't; I have never heard a Muslim say that he ignored the unbeliever-hating parts of the Qur'an.

PLEASE, watch 7:55-9:03, PLEASE!

By the way, I am atheist/agnostic, I do not defend christianity, it has very ugly texts regarding for example gays (like demanding them to be killed). But fact is, islam and christianity are not equally good or equally bad.

Churchill on Islam;

Spoiler

How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy.

The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.

A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.

No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.

Hitler on Islam;

Spoiler

Hitler expressed admiration for the Muslim military tradition and directed Himmler to initiate Muslim SS Divisions as a matter of policy. However, Nazi-era Minister of Armaments and War Production Albert Speer acknowledged that Hitler was only cooperating with Muslim figures, such as al-Husseini, because he felt the antisemitic views they shared would eventually help him win power and influence over the Middle East in the long run.[69] According to Speer, Hitler stated in private, "The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?"[69] Speer also stated that when he was discussing with Hitler events which might have occurred had Islam absorbed Europe:
"Hitler said that the conquering Arabs, because of their racial inferiority, would in the long run have been unable to contend with the harsher climate and conditions of the country. They could not have kept down the more vigorous natives, so that ultimately not Arabs but Islamized Germans could have stood at the head of this Mohammedan Empire."

Sorry, did you just try to prove that Islam is a backwards faith because Islam didn't experience humanism and secularism for themselves? Because there have been Secular Muslim societies since the Middle Ages. Also, saying that Jesus promoted peace while Muhammad waged war is a broad generalization. Frankly, Christian history is just as violent as Muslim history (see: the Crusades, the witch-hunt, etc.). On top of that, the Prophet was one of the first warrior in the history of humankind to follow certain codes of conduct for war (i.e.: no killing of innocents, no deliberately destroying enemy farmlands, etc.). And Arab Muslims invented Algebra, and it was on the principles of Arabic Algebra that Newton created Modern Physics, arguably the highlight of the Enlightenment Age. You can't give all the credit for the Enlightenment to Christian societies without first acknowledging that much of the groundwork was laid by other cultures.

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

You know, it's stories like this that REALLY strain my faith in humanity:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/31/crockett-keller-texas-gun-liberals-muslims_n_1064184.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk3%7C109052

The short version is that this gun instructor in Texas has a radio advertisement stating that "If you are a socialist liberal and/or voted for the current campaigner-in-chief, please do not take this class," and "You have already proven that you cannot make a knowledgeable and prudent decision as required under the law."

But it gets better. He also said "Also, if you are a non-Christian Arab or Muslim, I will not teach you the class. Once again, with no shame; I am Crockett Keller ... thank you and God bless America,". The best part? Apparently, he's been receiving calls from locals in SUPPORT of this.

No words, folks. No words.

1. This thread was already made in the R&P section.

2. Your title is miss leading. If your Muslim or an Obama supporter, you have been barred from ONE gun instructor in a state that has THOUSANDS, with the states high gun ownership per capita.

 

[Beautifully Chaotic]

Great, so today I have learned that a Texas family court judge abused his family, and now this. I'm really wishing I hadn't moved here just because of the world's view, I find myself constantly having to defend myself simply because this is where I live . Seems every day something new shows up to make this hot, humid, wretched state seem all that much less appealing to the general public, but it's not as bad as it seems, it's just that bad gets the spotlight over the good.

 

[Beautifully Chaotic]

Honestly, reading your large paragraph makes me think youre just a troll. You just restated everything you said and paraphrased me. You didnt even contribute one real idea as to HOW guns can be regulated to ensure accidents dont happen. Sure, idiots can pass background checks so long as theyve been law-abiding idiots.

But you wanna know what I think should be done? You cant own a gun unless you provide proof of receiving instruction on proper cleaning/maintenance of firearms and additional instruction on the use (shooting). But hey, Im crazy. Im actually concerned with gun safety, but people like you only stereotype gun users by thinking that everyone wants to go hunting with automatics. And thinking that you know a thing or two about which firearms should be rightfully restricted (despite not even understanding the 2nd amendment itself).

I think I love you lol

 

[Sean951]

Hm. Funny how the violent crime rate dropped consistently once the Brady Bill went into effect.

Most of the illegally obtained guns used in crime were stolen/illegally purchased from people who bought them legally. It's pretty hard to smuggle an american-made gun into a country it's already in. Obviously systematic gang violence using smuggled weapons that aren't legal in most western countries is an exception.

Anyway, the 2nd amendment actually is kind of ambiguous. When they wrote "bear arms," what arms did they mean? They obviously didn't specify, but does that give everyone the constitutional right to own a bazooka? It also mentions a "well-regulated militia." Now, that's even more ambiguous. How do you define "well-regulated?" Do you mean like the colonial militias in Great Britain, the occasional hoplite training sessions in Greece, or does everyone automatically belong to "the militia?" (I mean the amendment itself is pretty ambiguously worded, the various interpretations of it based on an ancient court ruling are pretty clear.)

I personally think guns need to be regulated in some way, but a complete ban is something different. The other option is to go the route of several other countries, and require everyone to undergo military training, then issue them a powerful rifle. When everyone has one, it's a lot less safe to break into someone's house, so basically as long as everyone has one or no one does, it helps the crime rate. But to be honest, if you're going to half ass it, you might as well regulate certain types of weapons. There will never be a need for any person to own an automatic weapon, since hunting with one is impractical and inefficient, target practice with one is even sillier (Have you ever tried holding an automatic weapon steadily on a target? Even in short bursts it's probably not as a effective as a semi-automatic weapon at any appreciable range), and using an automatic weapon for home defense is just going a little over the top, to be honest. No one will ever need heavy ordinance. Handguns are even less practical, as they're basically useless at any range of over 40 yards, they're easy to conceal (and thus easier to commit crimes with), they're cheap and easy to obtain, and capable of killing a lot of people quickly. When something has no practical use aside from killing people, is it really something you want to have as a widespread aspect of your society? Things like hunting rifles and shotguns, even semi-automatic ones, have clear purposes for both sport and hunting, and as long as you pass the mental health/criminal background check, you should be able to own one in pretty much any caliber allowed under the geneva convention.

Also, going back to the accidents, that's exactly the point. If guns are easy to obtain (a la no gun control laws), lazy and irresponsible people will have easy access to them, and thus accidents will happen frequently. You are more likely (statistically, probably not you personally, from your attitude) to accidentally hurt your own family member than a burglar. You can't regulate gun ownership based on arbitrary determinations of someone's responsibility/laziness, so you really can't keep stupid lazy irresponsible people from owning guns. What you can do is keep them from owning guns most likely to cause those accidents.

Exactly where is the article/document stating that crimes rates dropped in direct correlation to the Brady Bill? Exactly when does restricting peoples' access to something help the matter? Remember prohibition? USA banned alcohol and organized crime exploded. And as I have previously stated, criminals obtain guns through illegal means. If this Bill worked so well then why is there still an issue of "gun control" and wasnt solved with the Brady Bill?

Um, no. The 2nd Amendment isnt ambiguous at all. Youre either clawing at desperate attempts to prove your pathetic point or just to dull in the brain to understand. I do sincerely hope its just a sad attempt to get me angry and you really arent that ignorant. Here is a specific portion of the video I linked, if you cannot even understand the 2nd amendment then dont bother posting anymore. You shouldnt be trying to argue points if you cant even comprehend what it is youre arguing.


Honestly, reading your large paragraph makes me think youre just a troll. You just restated everything you said and paraphrased me. You didnt even contribute one real idea as to HOW guns can be regulated to ensure accidents dont happen. Sure, idiots can pass background checks so long as theyve been law-abiding idiots.

But you wanna know what I think should be done? You cant own a gun unless you provide proof of receiving instruction on proper cleaning/maintenance of firearms and additional instruction on the use (shooting). But hey, Im crazy. Im actually concerned with gun safety, but people like you only stereotype gun users by thinking that everyone wants to go hunting with automatics. And thinking that you know a thing or two about which firearms should be rightfully restricted (despite not even understanding the 2nd amendment itself).

Despite what you think, the second amendment is incredibly vague. Yes, it explicitly states that we have the right to bear arms, but it was written in a time of single shot rifles. Do you think they would be happy with this law in a time where militias are NOT necessary, and machine guns/RPGs exist? I'm saying we should ban all weapons, but I do think a city should be able to regulate what can and cannot be sold within city limits, or at the very least put up reasonable tests. If we are to interpret the 2nd Amendment as literally as you want, ANYONE should be allowed to buy ANY weapon, including that guy down the street who thinks the entire block is in on some crazy conspiracy to steal all his cereal. As it stands, the laws are so lax that Al-Queda suggests that jihadists go to an American gun show to purchase weapons, as they have very few laws regulating what can be purchased and who can purchase it.

I'm all for shotguns, rifles, and to an extent, handguns, but there is no need for fully automatic weapons or 30 round clips, such as those used by the shooter in Arizona last January.

 

[Syzygy23]

What the hell do you expect people to believe? The media demonizes Muslims and Arabs alike and atheists aren't portrayed any better. These three groups are essentially considered the enemy by some people, fully due to their inaccurate portrayal by the media and politicians alike. People are fucking confused and mislead because of this broken and unjust system.

In regards to the "No Obama voters" thing, just look at the upcoming 2012 USA presidential election, specifically the political ads, or just go to a Tea Party rally. The people are being lied to by their own candidates. Instead of presenting their arguments in a proper manner they'd rather just use scare tactics and bullshit everyone into voting for them. If supporting democracy means supporting a system that perpetuates and allows such injustices to occur then I'd rather not support democracy.

How can anyone allow people so disingenuous to run for presidency? Candidates should never use scare tactics in order to win popular support and if they do they should be thrown in the fucking gutter.

Atheists aren't being demonized, it's the opposite. At least here in washington state, where secularism and materialists seem to rule. I can't bring up God or Jesus without someone blaming me for causing all the wars and ignorance in the entire history of the earth. Which is a bit incongruous if you ask me.

As for the rest of what you said, it sounds like par for the course as far as politics are concerned.

 

[Bob_Dobb]

If you voted for Obama or you're a Muslim, you better not try learn gun safety in Texas live in Texas.

 

[Bishop99999999]

Despite what you think, the second amendment is incredibly vague. Yes, it explicitly states that we have the right to bear arms, but it was written in a time of single shot rifles. Do you think they would be happy with this law in a time where militias are NOT necessary, and machine guns/RPGs exist? I'm saying we should ban all weapons, but I do think a city should be able to regulate what can and cannot be sold within city limits, or at the very least put up reasonable tests. If we are to interpret the 2nd Amendment as literally as you want, ANYONE should be allowed to buy ANY weapon, including that guy down the street who thinks the entire block is in on some crazy conspiracy to steal all his cereal. As it stands, the laws are so lax that Al-Queda suggests that jihadists go to an American gun show to purchase weapons, as they have very few laws regulating what can be purchased and who can purchase it.

I'm all for shotguns, rifles, and to an extent, handguns, but there is no need for fully automatic weapons or 30 round clips, such as those used by the shooter in Arizona last January.

Any layman knows that fully automatic weapons are so highly regulated for purchase that they might as well be illegal. Super-ditto for explosives. And since Americans can get confused easily enough when trying to understand firearms laws, the only way that a terrorist is likely to get an assault rifle is if Eric Holder lets him have one.

And your point regarding advancement of firearms technology is so tired that I'm amazed you would even use it. It's not the rounds per minute of the weapon, it's the right to have it that's important. It's a statement, that the people have a right to overthrow their government should they decide to do so. Do you understand how profound that is? We have a right to insurrection!

 

[Darth_Dude]

Whats wrong with Muslims and Arabs (they have awesome rocking beards!)

You know, speaking as a Muslim, that is definitely the first time I've heard (You know what I mean) a non-muslim say that.

I tip my Hat to you, good sir.

 

[Avalanche91]

Its just one more of the TAEM MEARICA idiots.

Throw him on the pile, which by now roughly is the size 2 states, and move on.

 

[Vuljatar]

I wish I could say I was surprised by the amount of Texas-bashing (and America-bashing) in this thread, but I'm not.

Disgusting. I'm really starting to get sick of this community.

 

[Steven Biehler]

""The fact is if you are a devout Muslim then you cannot be a true American," Keller reportedly added. "Why should I arm these people to kill me, that's suicide."" - this phrase is mindbogglingly to me.

FUN FACT: George Washington on his DEATH BED told his people that political parties would be the end of us and to prevent them for a long as possible.

(Me)REALLY REALLY!!!! wow. Umm dude a quick word. (pulls him aside) you do know about the first amendment and a reason people originally came to this country right? (the guy) Yeah I love the 1st and 2nd amendments but they are (censored because this is a joke sentence and i don't feel like putting anyone down). (ME) Umm and why not anyone who voted for Obama? (guy) his name is the same as a terrorist so logicaly he is a terrorist who wants (insert minority here) TO TAKE ER JOB'S(in south park style speaking). (ME) (PUNCHES HIM IN FACE) It's people like you who make me weep for my countries future and and the future of humanity. We are human beings we in this country should be free to chose what we want. OH and also (punching guy in face again) NOT EVERY SINGLE MUSLIM IS A ^&*^& TERRORIST YOU FU@$@#. I hope you lose your liscence and SAME GOES FOR THE PEOPLE WHO RAN THE AD.

 

[Odd Owl]

His advert has opened him up for litigation. He can't legally discriminate though somehow I get the feeling that any civil suit would result in next to no punishment, assuming it is tried in Texas.

You are so right. Those bigoted rednecks in Texas would never, ever punish someone for being a racist. I mean, when was the last time you saw a Texas jury award a plaintiff damages in a civil rights lawsuit?

http://www.wfaa.com/news/consumer/Vulgar-voicemails-force-debt-collector-to-pay-15M-95163714.html

Oh. DAMN you Google!

Seriously, I could provide plenty more, but the awards themselves don't generally make headlines unless they're very high, and I can't provide links to the paper verdict reports sitting on my desk right now.

Certainly, Texas has its fair share of ignorant, backward, and loud-mouthed people. But its fair share isn't any more than any other state or country. It gets very tiresome to listen to people who decry intolerance and bigotry and then, in the same breath, apply stereotypes to the entire state of Texas, or Alabama, or [insert whipping boy state/country here] (and I'm no longer responding directly to you, Grospoliner - your comment was comparatively benign).

The obvious difference being that the voice mails in that article are harassment directed towards the one individual.

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/initiatives/e-race/caselist.cfm

Here are a few discrimination cases from Texas, they are mixed in with a bunch of others, so just keyword Texas. Now, those settlements in the above cases are comparatively low compared to the harassment case you linked. So yes, based on these past cases I can rightly say that I don't know if much will come of any litigation if tried in Texas.

Would you still like to criticize me for making an observation based on a review of historical facts?

This may simply be a matter of opinion as to what constitutes "much" in terms of awards or settlements coming from litigation. I did a keyword search for "Texas" as you suggested, and I found four cases decided in Texas with awards or settlements in the following amounts: $600,000; $50,000; $37,197; and $160,000. I stated that the award I linked to was very high because, otherwise, it's tough to find awards through a straight-up Google search. Only the very high ones show up as news headlines. But I wouldn't consider awards or settlements of $600,000, $50,000, $37,000, or $160,000 to be trivial, and these are the kinds of awards that a civil rights plaintiff could expect just about anywhere, at least in the United States. And I would like to point out that my criticism is limited to the the anti-Texas implication that I read (and perhaps misread) in your post. If you see these awards or settlements as low and are just criticizing the results of civil rights litigation in general, then more power to you. I don't personally see these dollar amounts as low, but that's an entirely separate issue.

 

[Beautifully Chaotic]

Whats wrong with Muslims and Arabs (they have awesome rocking beards!)

You know, speaking as a Muslim, that is definitely the first time I've heard (You know what I mean) a non-muslim say that.

Speaking to a Muslim, I would just like to say I'm sorry. I'm sorry that the actions of a few
have demonized an entire group of people. It's bullshit and stereotypes do nothing but spread hate and I hope that one day in the near future people will see that the few do not define the many.

 

[SilentCom]

I've already seen this on the news, he'll probably lose his instructors license. Also, I lost faith in humanity for seeing people lose faith in humanity over isolated instances such as this. Seriously, it is only one prejudiced guy who will probably lose his license, not everyone in Texas.