UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting

(no message)

(no message)

This model has worked for Planned Parenthood. Shouldn't every citizen be able to access firearms training to that gun use is legal, rare and effective?

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

PP has different blood on its hands, to continue with this line of rhetoric.

Personally, I think a pussy hat or a KKK-like antifa mask is a red flag.

I liked that one a lot. Strong point.

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

If he’d just try in his posts (I’m not expecting much because I know his limitations) to express any ideas rather than just posting childish disruptions, I’d be happy.

(no message)

African-Americans should ask themselves that.

the one you imply with your question, namely that liberals tend to assume that black people are less able to handle rudimentary, customary responsibilities, like obtaining IDs. The underlying assumption, when you get past the rhetoric, is precisely that: black people won't be able to navigate the procedures necessary to obtain identification.

Did you happen to see any articles on a recent study done about language and political beliefs? The researchers found that while moderates and conservatives generally speak the same to members of minority groups the same way they speak to whites, liberals tend to adjust their language "down" when speaking to them. You've probably experienced this before. I certainly have. Many times. The ones that stand out were examples in college. Occasions in which black students misstated facts, mispronounced words, or made points that were obvious and added nothing to the discussion, which then were left uncorrected or were not constructively criticized . Now, it might be explained that the professor and the other students did not speak up out of fear of being labeled "prejudiced," but I don't think that fully explains it. There is an underlying, paternalistic belief that members of minority groups can't be expected to do the same things as most whites can do. Like using proper terminology or diction. Like find the DMV or figure out a way to get there when they're poor. Unsurprisingly, these ideas seem to be much more prevalent among people in the intelligentsia and higher socioecnomic strata, rather than among working class whites. It turns out that assuming a belief system that you believe is most compassionate towards black people doesn't produce a great affinity with actual black people, nor does it provide you with a better understanding of their lives.

That is exactly correct

(no message)

Link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/08/09/how-americans-are-supporting-gun-control-wake-mass-shootings-like-el-paso/?noredirect=on

"Views" come and go. The Romans allowed infanticide and the Greeks pederasty. Oh! And in the 1940's the highly cultured Germans committed industrial genocide. Unfortunately, one man's gun reform is another's abridgment of freedom. These are your "views" and they are so so fickle.

others?

And driven by castration anxiety... evolution's incest prevention mechanism.

(no message)

(no message)

to their phalluses.

They are a single issue organization. They have a job to do to protect that issue. Some people don't like it that they do that job well. Others like it that they do that job well.

The are also the 3rd largest membership organization in the United States, behind AAA and AARP. That makes them pretty effective at what they do...which is (i) train people (including LEOs) in firearms use, and (ii) protect the right to defense from aggression of others.

I don't think we have to engage in any Freudian analysis. Their goals are simply stated by them (and referenced in the Constitution, no less), and they pursue those goals tirelessly.

(no message)

At least the NRA is staying true to the rights it was formed to protect. Various ACLU chapters are starting to abandon free speech rights and freedom of religion rights, among others. They've lost their appetite for defending many "unsavory" (in their opinion) defendants, which is sad.

The City wanted to move the rally to another park away from the congested downtown. The ACLU convinced a federal judge to issue an injunction. Perhaps the street fighting and car death would have been avoided if the City had been able to have forced the rally elsewhere.

It was created as - and remains - a lobbying organization designed to protect the financial interests of the gun manufacturers.

It’s like the Tobacco Institute.

It was formed in 1871 for marksmanship. Then it moved to rights protection...which is actually now the domain of the NRA-ILA, not the NRA. NRA is about responsible use of rights; NRA-ILA is for the actual protection of rights being abridged by the government.

Interestingly, even if you are right (which you are not), my point still stands. You didn't actually refute me, Chris.

If you guys are going to try to keep blacks from getting firearms by requiring IDs for purchases, you should probably try to inform yourself of your opposition.

It is a lobbying organization, registered as such.

Its primary funders are gun manufacturers.

It sells itself as a gun-rights organization, but it is first-and-foremost a lobbying org, representing he gun industry, not gun owners.

The NRA is the 3rd largest membership organization in the United States behind AAA and AARP. You can't pretend that its power doesn't come from the people.

(no message)

(no message)

That only changed in the mid 70’s with the rise of the new conservatives.

(no message)

Both Chris and Ned are wrong.

It was not formed as a lobbying group for gun manufacturers. It also wasn’t formed to lobby and advocate for second amendment rights.

Remember when the ACLU defended Nazis? They were actually defending freedom of speech for all of us, but I get that most people don't see these issues that deeply.

reasonable time, place and manner speech restrictions. They have taken ridiculous extreme positions on the Establishment clause as well. All absolutists are goofy in my view and the NRA fits that bill pretty well.

(no message)

They were fine with handgun bans back then as well.

They have changed their tune dramatically.

And, they just supported the ban of bump stocks, which seek to make an AR act like a military rifle. Without a bump stock, it does not act like that. It acts like any .223 rifle.

Such things are accepted in sophisticated countries like Switzerland, but the NRA is not radical.

What other reasonable regulations are they in favor of, magazine restrictions, universal background checks?

(no message)

You also must have edited that post to add Switzerland.

Love how you cherry pick the laws and systems of Europe when they suit your purpose.

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

He left and wrote them a letter when they chose to fight restrictions on ARs and such.

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

DUI Roadblocks

Airport Security

Sexual Orientation

Constitutional rights are always balanced through the prism of “reasonableness.”

Mass shootings tend to change viewpoints and jurisprudence re what are “reasonable” government limits to the Second Amendment.

The Supreme Court does not cling to the political dialogue, but they do pay attention to the world we live in.

That is basically what you are preparing to argue here with the 2nd Amendment, even though I assume (correct me if I am wrong) you would never make that argument with the 1st Amendment.

Then again, maybe you are ok with limiting "hate speech" (which is to say, political speech you don't like) as opposed to merely limiting directly inciting speech.

I thought we (you and I) at least agreed on free speech. No new limits. Allow hate speech...so we know where all the assholes are.

No idea what point you are trying to make re gun control legislation and the Second Amendment.

There are reasonable limits on all rights. Agreed?

There are abrogations or violations of rights. Agreed?

The two are different. Agreed?

But the former can be used as cover for the latter. "We aren't violating rights, we are just reasonably limiting them."

For the 1st Amendment, the Left uses the former (the reasonable limits) as cover to try to stop traditionally protected speech. Substantive political speech becomes "hate speech" and so can now be stopped as if only a reasonable limit is being applied.

I'm comparing that attempt, that everyone sees happening, to what you are preparing to argue regarding the 2nd Amendment. The similarity is the use of cover of reasonable limits to hide or justify the abrogation of rights.

That is the analogy which you appear to have missed.

Not the Democrats.

Not the Republicans.

Not the media.

So, if you are frustrated or concerned over the media and Democrats calling out Trump’s “hate speech,” then relax. A newspaper OpEd is not a binding precedent impacting the First Amendment.

Trump can tweet away. It is protected speech.

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

This is really a classic disagreement between liberal and conservatives. When Amy Barret replaces RBG we’ll see if you still invest so much power into the SCOTUS.

Hence, they do not write or rewrite legislation.

They sometimes interpret statutes in which there is no constitutional question in play. In other words, they are settling a legal dispute interpreting a federal statute raised in a civil or criminal case.

However, they are often interpreting a constitutional question that a state or federal statute implicates.

But, as to Second Amendment, the Court has already made clear that it is not an absolute right, and is subject to limitations. What those boundaries will be, has yet to be tested.

The Constitution does not state that. The Supreme Court stated that, and assumed the responsibility. Most scholars grant it (that they have the power, not that it is their primary duty). But some do not. Also, your point does not refute Baron's point.

Actually, your point is an extension of what the Left is doing with speech, and wants to do with guns. You want to extend "normal limits" (for the amendments) and "interpretation" (for SCOTUS), both of which are generally accepted by both sides, to substantive limits on the Bill of RIghts and activist creation of law through radical "interpretation" which is actually legislation.

You will sit here and say they are just interpreting, or using reasonable limits. But, you are actually trying to legislate and establish substantive limits.

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

None of us have the right to choose to kill someone, 521. Don't you agree?

Our rights have always ended where another person's rights begin. You can swing your fist until it starts to approach my face. You can cut with your knife until it starts to cut another human being who hasn't consented to your acts.

these tragedies, that’s inevitable and at some point there will be a groundswell.

That means that rights will necessarily decrease over time until the government is reset. All we can hope to do is slow the transgressions against human rights by government (thereby lengthening the life of government, ironically). We can never hope to stop the government from violating human rights altogether.

(no message)

(no message)

...in trying to make sure that the POTUS is weakened as much as possible. You, sir, are a Russian asset.

(no message)

Whether intentional or not, you serve their interests.

Weird that you can accuse a person of X, but when I accuse a person of X, I need deep breathing. Either we both need deep breathing for relaxation, or neither of us does. Do you agree?

He has that more than well-covered.

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)