Dbqgolfer

It's called living in a Constitutional Republic. We can, should, and do use the democratic process to resolve societal problems. We just can't use the democratic process to infringe upon Constitutional Rights, while trying to resolve societal problems.

Sure, although i hear Sean Eichorst is the frontrunner for that position

If you are saying that if the three finalists for the AD job were Karen Jennings, Dave Rimington, and Condi Rice, you believe Dr. Rice would be the first one out because she is not a Husker, I would have to say that you are putting WAY to much emphasis on the next AD having Husker ties.

That's where society's obligation kicks in.

IMHO the more realistic danger is a class of people being attacked by another, and the gov't is either indifferent or actually supportive, like what happened with the Klan lynching blacks back in the early 1900's. To me, that's the importance of the 2nd amendment.

What about Condoleezza Rice? Shes brilliant, would be a great face for our program, has spent much of her life in academia, as Provost at Stanford was in charge of a $1.5 billion budget, was the only woman on the College Football Playoff Committee, and is a member of Augusta National, which I would think she could use to help recruit top coaches. Who wouldn't interview with her if she said the interview would take place during a round of golf at Augusta. I know it would never happen, but if people can throw out names like Saban for coach, I can throw this out there for AD.

My big picture belief is that people have the obligation to do all they can to provide for themselves. Once you change that from an individuals obligation, to an individuals right, then many will no longer make the effort to provide for themselves, because they now have the right to something, not the obligation to get it themselves......this in no way absolves society from the moral obligation to help provide for those who are unable to provide for themselves; in my opinion, preferably using gov't as a last resort. So I do not believe your example constitutes an infringement on anyone's right, as they did not have the right to the gov't help in the marketplace to begin with. This in no way means that I agree with what the Trump Administration is doing. In fact, I'll admit that I'm ignorant enough about the ACA that I probably shouldn't give an opinion about it.

As long as it was the free market that made the price end up at $100k or $1 million. Now, if the gov't put a $100k tax on the gun so people couldn't afford them, then that would be an infringement.

Cool read. My older brother recently retired, and has gone to a couple on NU's volleyball games this year. Said it's really cool to be there. Hope to make it sometime.

The lack of providing something is not the same as infringing upon your right to have it. So, if the gov't doesn't provide me with healthcare, it doesn't mean that my "right to healthcare" being infringed upon by the gov't. So, no, the lack of providing me something, even if I will die without it, is not infringing on my rights to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness. The primary person responsible for Dbqgolfer's healthcare, is Dbqgolfer; not BRB or anyone else. Having said that, of course I want the best possible healthcare for the most amount of people. I happen to believe that the free market is the best way to deliver. (health savings accounts combined with catastrophic health insurance, for example).

Still wouldn't be an infringement on my right. Just because I don't believe something to be a right, doesn't mean I don't think that society doesn't have an obligation to help.

Thanks. I always enjoy reading the different perspectives on this board.

Yep, kind of like the cost of a Mercedes prohibits me from owning one, but it isn't an infringement on my right to own one.

If the gov't did not mandate that I use GII, it would not be an infringement.

Sorry about that, should have left last sentence off my post.

Just read that Dannon Yogurt just dropped is sponsorship deal with Cam over this.....seem a bit harsh, but whatever.

When one talks about gun rights, no one is saying the government should provide the guns for them. When one talks about right to health care, the meaning is that the government should provide it. Two totally different meanings of the word right. Way to try to confuse the two to make a point.

Yep, very fortunate that even with all of our differences, the vast majority of people still want to remain living in a civilized society.

With all of the trade shows/conventions in Las Vegas, I'm sure people check into hotels with large suitcases/trunks all of the time. Probably wouldn't even raise and eyebrow.

Not a defense of Trump; but why does the San Juan mayor keep getting custom t-shirts made while Puerto Rico is suffering so much. Had another one on today that said "NASTY", which is of course what Trump called her two days ago. Just seems like an inappropriate use of time, energy and focus.

Tillerson made $240 million working for exxon-mobile from 2006-2016. He makes $203,000 as Secretary of State. I have no idea what his motivation is to be Secretary of State, he probably feels that he care serve his country, but I'm pretty sure it's not because of it's great pay.

And after 9/11, congress did hold immediate hearings, then preceded to pass the "Patriot Act" (99-1 in the senate, I believe); which, of course was later decried as a huge infringement of civil liberties. So, Friedmann didn't intend to, but he actually makes the argument to not hold hearings and pass legislation immediately following a national tragedy.

You are starting with the pressumption that stricter gun laws in American would save more lives than it ends....I'm not sure that's the case. Two books written by John Lott, Jr. "More Guns, Less Crime" and "The Bias against Guns" would certainly argue against your presumption. Admittedly, the books were written in the early 2000's, so not the most up to date stats.

In my opinion, anyone who wants to ban semi-automatic firearms, are functionally trying to disarm the citizenry....I'm sure you disagree

No, we are calling them countries that have limited their citizens gun rights, and expression rights, and religious freedom rights. (probably not a coincidence). I don't really disagree with the rest. I live in Iowa where our congressional districts are not gerrymandered, and wish all states would do the same. I wish Trump would have stayed out of the NFL protests. What he said would be fine if he were a private citizen, but not appropriate for the President of the United States. For the record, I'm not a Trump guy, first time in my life I voted for someone other than the Republican for President.