What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Another Mass Shooting: It's Those Darn Video Games!

Status
Not open for further replies.
WeAreNDHockey said:
You're giving RWNJs far too much credit there Scoob. I don't seem to recall them being part of an all hands on deck response to the last virus that was killing more people than anything else in this country.
Click to expand...

The vaccines had everyone all hands on deck. Even Trump. Yes, everything else was a fucking dumpster fire. My point still stands.
 
ScoobyDoo said:
The vaccines had everyone all hands on deck. Even Trump. Yes, everything else was a fucking dumpster fire. My point still stands.
Click to expand...

I seem to recall experts expressing frustration that Trump was doing nothing to encourage people to get vaccinated, both before and after the election.
 
burd said:
I seem to recall experts expressing frustration that Trump was doing nothing to encourage people to get vaccinated, both before and after the election.
Click to expand...

Yes. The all hands on deck part was the companies producing the vaccines. The other part is irrelevant. You cannot fix the stupidity of Americans. It cannot be done.
 
ScoobyDoo said:
You cannot fix the stupidity of Americans. It cannot be done.
Click to expand...

Death fixes everything. It is why I celebrate the deaths of the RWNJs. Gets them out of the way, even if only one at a time and they are eventually replaced. It's why I NEVER considered it a tragedy when one of them died from covid after spending a year mocking those who wore masks and then refusing to get vaccinated. We're at war and that was a battlefield death. Doesn't even matter we're at a World War One like stalemate in a lot of ways. Fuck 'em and the unvaccinated horse they rode in on.
 
unofan said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
SJHovey said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 fuck would a gun control proponent do that?
 
ScoobyDoo said:
https://twitter.com/SawyerHackett/st...71155538395137

That's comforting after your 10 year old has been shot to death.
Click to expand...

Jesus. I wouldn't tell a friend that if they just lost their 99 year old grandmother and she had led a full, rich life and died a peaceful and dignified death surrounded by loved ones. I find it best to just say I'm sorry for the loss of your loved one. At times like that even the MOST religious person may not want to hear about God's "plan" (or "God's" plan for the heathens and non-believers out there). And it would probably be the LAST thing someone who lost a child to gun violence wants to hear. I dare him to say that to the face of one of the victim's parents. If it was me he'd be lucky to walk away with only a crushed windpipe after I punched him in the fucking throat. Typical republican, mean and clueless.
 
unofan said:
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 fuck would a gun control proponent do that?
Click to expand...

That's your argument about why liberal states shouldn't enact gun laws?

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?
 
Kepler said:
Right on brand for the Judeo-Christian god, though. Dude is a psychotic incel.
Click to expand...

He's also very jealous and vengeful. I always wondered how that squared up with traditional Xtian teaching that envy and wrath are deadly sins. Also, resting on the 7th day of creation sounds an awful lot like sloth. Dare I say He's a being of double standards? ;-)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top