Originally posted by WeAreNDHockey
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Another Mass Shooting: It's Those Darn Video Games!
Collapse
X
-
**NOTE: The misleading post above was brought to you by Reynold's Wrap and American Steeples, makers of Crosses.
Originally Posted by dropthatpuck-Scooby's a lost cause.
Originally Posted by First Time, Long Time-Always knew you were nothing but a troll.
-
Originally posted by ScoobyDoo View Post
The vaccines had everyone all hands on deck. Even Trump. Yes, everything else was a ****ing dumpster fire. My point still stands.
Comment
-
Originally posted by burd View Post
I seem to recall experts expressing frustration that Trump was doing nothing to encourage people to get vaccinated, both before and after the election.
**NOTE: The misleading post above was brought to you by Reynold's Wrap and American Steeples, makers of Crosses.
Originally Posted by dropthatpuck-Scooby's a lost cause.
Originally Posted by First Time, Long Time-Always knew you were nothing but a troll.
Comment
-
Originally posted by ScoobyDoo View Post
The vaccines had everyone all hands on deck. Even Trump. Yes, everything else was a ****ing dumpster fire. My point still stands.
Comment
-
Originally posted by WeAreNDHockey View Post
My post was really just an attempt at a joke Scoob. I think the overall point you were making in that post was correct.**NOTE: The misleading post above was brought to you by Reynold's Wrap and American Steeples, makers of Crosses.
Originally Posted by dropthatpuck-Scooby's a lost cause.
Originally Posted by First Time, Long Time-Always knew you were nothing but a troll.
Comment
-
Originally posted by ScoobyDoo View PostYou cannot fix the stupidity of Americans. It cannot be done.
Comment
-
Originally posted by unofan View Post
The point Hovey is trying to make is that states kept passing anti abortion laws to keep doing away at it. Which he's not wrong about from a technical stand point.
What he's missing is that the court has been majority conservative the entire time and receptive to such arguments, even if they kept things narrow to this point. Doing the same thing from the other side when facing a 6-3 majority against is just asking the court to dig in further and further.
What have there been, like 3 gun cases in the last 50 years?
It's none of my business but you guys seem to spend an awful lot of time making excuses.
That community is already in the process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where non-conformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing, takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose.
Comment
-
I'll make sure to keep that diatribe so the next time a 5 year old gets blown away by an AR-15 I have something for the family.**NOTE: The misleading post above was brought to you by Reynold's Wrap and American Steeples, makers of Crosses.
Originally Posted by dropthatpuck-Scooby's a lost cause.
Originally Posted by First Time, Long Time-Always knew you were nothing but a troll.
Comment
-
Originally posted by SJHovey View Post
I'm not missing anything. Abortion opponents were more than willing to go right back to the same Supreme Court that had just established the constitutional protection in the Roe case, and challenge how far that protection might extend. What have there been, 20+ SCOTUS decisions in one way or another touching on Roe since then, all of them (as of the date of this post) reaffirming that constitutional protection? Did the abortion opponents just give up? How far does a constitutional protection extend until you keep pushing the boundaries of it? Isn't that what happens on things like right to counsel, search and seizure issues, etc...?
What have there been, like 3 gun cases in the last 50 years?
It's none of my business but you guys seem to spend an awful lot of time making excuses.
And anti abortion laws didn't really pick up until the 90s, and even then were barely a trickle until the Court finally upheld one in Carhart. Then the game was on as the evangelical wing of the GOP knew it had a sympathetic Court and was looking for ways to limit access to abortions.
Your strategy you think liberals should do for guns is the reverse. You're asking liberal states to enact laws they know will get shot down so that SCOTUS can keep expanding the limits of the 2nd amendment to infinity, a little bit at a time. Why in the **** would a gun control proponent do that?
Comment
-
Here’s Texas AG Ken Paxton on what he would tell Uvalde victims’ families: “I believe god always has a plan. Life is short, no matter what it is.”
That's comforting after your 10 year old has been shot to death.**NOTE: The misleading post above was brought to you by Reynold's Wrap and American Steeples, makers of Crosses.
Originally Posted by dropthatpuck-Scooby's a lost cause.
Originally Posted by First Time, Long Time-Always knew you were nothing but a troll.
Comment
-
Originally posted by ScoobyDoo View Post
https://***********/SawyerHackett/st...71155538395137
That's comforting after your 10 year old has been shot to death.
Comment
-
Originally posted by unofan View Post
There have been as many if not more 2nd amendment cases as abortion ones in the last 10 years. They just all expand gun rights, as would be expected given the makeup of the court.
And anti abortion laws didn't really pick up until the 90s, and even then were barely a trickle until the Court finally upheld one in Carhart. Then the game was on as the evangelical wing of the GOP knew it had a sympathetic Court and was looking for ways to limit access to abortions.
Your strategy you think liberals should do for guns is the reverse. You're asking liberal states to enact laws they know will get shot down so that SCOTUS can keep expanding the limits of the 2nd amendment to infinity, a little bit at a time. Why in the **** would a gun control proponent do that?
First, how are they going to expand beyond "the right to bear arms?" Are they going to rule we have to bear arms???
That argument is silly. Let's say California decided to pass a law that says that for any gun purchase, a) you have to wait three weeks, b) the local sheriff has to be notified, with an opportunity to comment, or perhaps interview you, and c) you have to bring in a note from your doctor that says you suffer from no mental illnesses or psychosis that would pose a danger to yourself or the public if you owned a gun.
That seems like the structure of a type of law that abortion opponents would come up with, right?
So now lets say the NRA or some gun purchaser wants to challenge that law as an unconstitutional infringement on their "right to bear arms," and the case makes its way all the way to the Supremes.
First, I'd argue, you don't know for certain how the SCOTUS would rule. This present court is certainly inclined to recognize 2nd Amendment rights, but I don't believe they've ever said that no regulation is permissible. They have affirmed that felons, the mentally ill, and people who commit domestic assault can all be barred. That's the thing, we don't know because you guys refuse to test the boundaries because you are afraid you might lose.
But let's say you did lose? Would you be worse off? So the Court says you can't have a law mandating a three week waiting period, requiring notice to the sheriff and a note from you doctor. I've got news for you. You don't have that law now, so what have you lost?
Finally, with respect to your claim about abortion cases, I call B.S. It's one of the benefits of actually having been around in the 1970's and 80's.
Even before the 70's were over states were passing "informed consent" laws and were passing laws that attempted to cut off funding for abortions, and all of those cases made their way to the SCOTUS. In 1976 the Court struck down laws requiring spousal consent, and parental consent. In 1979 it struck down a law that required doctors to save the lives of fetus that "might" be viable. In 1980 they upheld a law that restricted access to public funds for abortions, except in limited cases. In 1981 they allowed a law that required notification of parents of a minor child, who resided with her parents, so long as there was a mechanism to bypass that through the courts. In 1983 they struck down laws that required that the mother be told about fetal development, the risks of abortion, etc... Do you want me to keep going?
All of those laws were implemented by the states knowing that the SCOTUS had said abortion was constitutionally protected, but passed with the sole goal of making it much, much harder for a woman to get an abortion. Isn't that sort of your goal here, with guns, to make it much, much harder for someone to buy guns, to put up as many roadblocks as possible?That community is already in the process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where non-conformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing, takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Swansong View Post"God has a plan"... that involves the murder of children?! What an horrible thing to say.Cornell University
National Champion 1967, 1970
ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020
Comment
Comment