Dbqgolfer

On 10/6/2017 at 9:25 AM, RedDenver said:

I understand what you're saying, but to me what you're deciding is that it's not ok for us as a country to use democracy to limit guns, but it's ok if corporations or the wealthy do that. What you're arguing to that we shouldn't use the democratic process to resolve our societal problems. (Yes, I know that's not what you're trying to say, but what I'm saying is that's the practical reality of your argument.)

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.

6 minutes ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

And I can throw out names like Sean Spicer for the guy inside Lil Red!!!

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

2 hours ago, Hayseed said:

Condi is not a Husker. Remember when unqualified people like Tom Osborne and Bob Devaney were given the job and neither had any "P5 AD experience"? Just shows the whole qualifications narrative they're pushing is bulls#!t. Karen would be an outstanding Face of the Huskers, just as Rimington would. Have you seen the size of the athletic department? Go ahead and look it up. I'm sure there are plenty of people who can work out details down there.

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.

On 10/5/2017 at 11:08 PM, Landlord said:

What about when people are literally incapable, even if they're doing all they can, of doing what they need for themselves? Either through injury, illness, whatever. Health care doesn't work as a free market because people's lives are held hostage.

That's where society's obligation kicks in.

23 minutes ago, dudeguyy said:

 

If *actual* tyranny was attempted, it would require the military to enforce it. I've got good faith that the military, from Mathis on down, would NOT follow someone like Trump into the void. If they did, we'd all be screwed, because nothing we could amass as citizens would amount to much compared to what they've got.

 

I'm not saying it wouldn't be better to try, but if that scenario comes to pass it seems like a rather hopeless battle to me.

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.

10 hours ago, Hayseed said:

No, I was thinking Karen Jennings.

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.

35 minutes ago, dudeguyy said:

 

This particular analogy is a pretty interesting one because right now, the government is hewing pretty closely to interfering with Americans' right to HC. While you may not believe the government is the best way to deliver healthcare (which is a fine opinion to have), I just read an article about the litany of ways the Trump administration is working to undermine current healthcare law. 

 

I think your premise is about the difference between inherent right & prohibitive cost. My point is it is a very fine line between the two & they may be intermingled in some cases.

 

For instance, if the only reason something is prohibitively expensive for someone is because of decisions by another party to make it so, one could reasonable argue the latter interfered with their right to have it. It's not that the government merely didn't PROVIDE something; it's that they actively work to AVOID their stated mission to provide something to citizens. Presumably because A) they hate why that dynamic exists B) they don't want to spends money on it & C) they disagree about whether it is a right in the first place.

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.

26 minutes ago, dudeguyy said:

 

This particular analogy is a pretty interesting one because right now, the government is hewing pretty closely to interfering with Americans' right to HC. While you may not believe the government is the best way to deliver healthcare (which is a fine opinion to have), I just read an article about the litany of ways the Trump administration is working to undermine current healthcare law. 

 

I think your premise is about the difference between inherent right & prohibitive cost. My point is it is a very fine line between the two & they may be intermingled in some cases.

 

For instance, if the only reason something is prohibitively expensive for someone is because of decisions by another party to make it so, one could reasonable argue the latter interfered with their right to have it. It's not that the government merely didn't PROVIDE something; it's that they actively work to AVOID their stated mission to provide something to citizens. Presumably because A) they hate why that dynamic exists B) they don't want to spends money on it & C) they disagree about whether it is a right in the first place.

5 hours ago, RedDenver said:

I get that but I'm asking about what you're calling a right, which luxury car ownership is not. Even car ownership is not a right.

 

Is your stance that there's no price at which your rights have been taken away even if it means the price is so high that only a fraction of the population could afford it? Like if guns started at $100k or $1 million.

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.

4 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

 

4 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

So......

 

If you know you and society know you are going to die if you don't get something, that doesn't some how relate to:

 

The unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

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). 

1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

What if by NOT buying a gun through the GII you knew you were going to die by the effects of not owning one?

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.

42 minutes ago, knapplc said:

@Dbqgolfer I disagree with your stance on this and several other issues, but I do appreciate that your posts make me think.

 

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

6 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Even if without a mandate guns were only really available to the wealthy?

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.

10 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Imagine there was an industry that was the middle man between the gun producers and the gun buyers - let's call them the Gun Insurance Industry (GII). Now if the GII could pick and choose who to sell guns to and only the very rich could get around the GII and buy guns directly from the producers, would that be an infringement of your 2nd Amendment rights? 

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

6 minutes ago, NM11046 said:

Chill man - just relayed a comment I saw elsewhere.  Way to get snippy at a stranger for no reason.

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.

1 hour ago, NM11046 said:

Saw this somewhere ... those that are very alined to "2nd amendment" and gun rights, and the NRA are the same people that are trying to take health insurance away.

 

So the man that's killed 59 and injured more than 500 has rights to own murderous weapons, but his victims don't have the right to be taken care of after he shot them.  

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.

4 hours ago, Landlord said:

Maybe this is morbid of me, but I honestly can't believe that stuff like this doesn't happen more often. Like, I've always thought how easy it would be for me to cause insane amounts of destruction and death if I really wanted to, and I guess thank God that there are a very, very, very small number of people who are twisted enough to actually decide to do that? It just doesn't seem like it'd be that hard.

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

7 hours ago, Coach Power'T said:

How’d a 64 year old man get that many guns/ammo smuggled into that hotel/casino? How’d he manage to fire from that far away that many times and hit that many people?

 

I haven’t seen anything on him being a trained gunman. He had to be extremely “lucky” (I feel like) to be that accurate. 

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.

On 10/1/2017 at 0:12 AM, zoogs said:

 

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.

5 hours ago, dudeguyy said:

Nope. Tillerson just tucked his tail between his legs and trotted back to Trump like the pet dog he is.

It's crazy the things people will sell out in order to maintain these high-paying, high-profile jobs.

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.

4 hours ago, El Diaco said:

I wouldn't say Friedman at the NYT is my favorite writer but he has a point.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/if-only-stephen-paddock-were-a-muslim/ar-AAsRwk3?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=DELLDHP

 

Quote:

"If only Stephen Paddock had been a Muslim … If only he had shouted “Allahu akbar” before he opened fire on all those concertgoers in Las Vegas … If only he had been a member of ISIS … If only we had a picture of him posing with a Quran in one hand and his semiautomatic rifle in another …

If all of that had happened, no one would be telling us not to dishonor the victims and “politicize” Paddock’s mass murder by talking about preventive remedies.

No, no, no. Then we know what we’d be doing. We’d be scheduling immediate hearings in Congress about the worst domestic terrorism event since 9/11. Then Donald Trump would be tweeting every hour “I told you so,” as he does minutes after every terror attack in Europe, precisely to immediately politicize them. Then there would be immediate calls for a commission of inquiry to see what new laws we need to put in place to make sure this doesn’t happen again. Then we’d be “weighing all options” against the country of origin.

But what happens when the country of origin is us?"

 

 

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.

17 minutes ago, Enhance said:

That's what most people were discussing in this thread before you turned it into a diatribe on 'disarming the populace.'

 

If stricter gun laws could save just one life, isn't that worth it? At the very least, isn't it worth government funded research into gun violence? The reason it doesn't happen is because the NRA and gun activists know exactly what would happen - stricter gun laws. Those opposed to at least seriously vetting the situation are saying they're comfortable with events like today.

 

We see an illness, we research it, we develop methods to attack it and we carry out those methods. Gun violence is apparently it's own special bird devoid of this treatement.

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.

1 minute ago, Landlord said:

@Dbqgolfer, still waiting for you to show us who in this thread was calling for disarming the population.

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

13 minutes ago, zoogs said:

Are we calling all the liberal democracies of Europe fascist regimes that disarm their citizenry?

 

You know what looks a lot less like a democracy? A gerrymandered-to-s#t republic where popular representation is a joke, the big money gun lobby writes the rules, and our 'leader' is going after the livelihoods of his critics while attempting to make public displays of nationalism de facto mandatory.

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.