Decoy73

It won’t even be warm. The days of NU’s coaching carousel every 3-5 years are over.

More prudent? Hmm. Well, prudence aside, you replied to a 12/5 post in donations when I was aiming to discuss how the virus may effect attendance. That’s all.

Not why this old thread was bumped, but okay.

You have to wonder how the COVID-19 Coronavirus will affect NU's football attendance in 2020. Could the sellout streak also be put into jeopardy? I would imagine, assuming the virus ramps back up again in the fall, that across the country sporting events as well as other large crowds will be avoided by many. Who knows at this point, but I hope this is something NU's AD is considering.

They cannot take your guns and unless you've committed a crime, they cannot detain you either. So no, basically nothing can be done.

This is a biased take from a law firm representing gun owners rights and who is also associated with the NRA. The article and video offers many opinions and very little facts to support those opinions. They fail to address the "sense of urgency" that is necessary when dealing with an individual who is likely to commit imminent harm. They mention that "due process" is not afforded and that is not true. They also fail to mention that you actually have to have a good and factual reason to request a ERPO, you can't just do it at will. Also, they make no mention of the fact that it is a class III misdemeanor to provide false information in requesting an ERPO against someone. The guy in the video speaks of "countless" news stories of people wrongfully being subjected to an ERPO. Really? I've never heard of one. I call BS on that. But the main thing that gives this stance little validity is that there are ZERO reasonable alternative solutions or amendments provided. It's like their entire M.O. when it comes to gun control legislation is to oppose, oppose, oppose. And that is the problem I have with Gov Ricketts and many of our state representatives of Congress. They just oppose everything and claim "infringement" on "law-abiding" citizens gun rights instead of also offering any alternative solutions. I'm sorry, but pursuing mental health commitment is not enough.

I would imagine there is not much they could have done as far as taking weapons, etc. That is exactly were Red Flag Laws come in. Something can be done and you don't have to rely soley on the police to take action.

Agree. Your point is also why I absolutely don’t get “gun free “ zones (With a few exceptions) when it comes to concealed carry. I’m pretty sure the criminals aren’t going to abide by them.

Redux is right. This isn’t realistic in the USA. Not when 300 million plus guns are floating around.

If you’re talking a broad confiscation from everyone, that ship has sailed my friend. Guns aren’t going anywhere. But, at least we can be smart about them.

How do you think it should be better worded? I’m all for improving vagueness to laws What are some other approaches to this issue that would be more effective in your opinion? I ask all this and enjoy debating it so I can learn different points of view from others such as yourself. I have my thoughts, but they aren’t set in stone by any means.

To clarify again. I made the original comment about this case before any facts were known to ILLUSTRATE a broader point. Please stop focusing just on the validity of this case.

Read my original post. I was illustrating a broader point considering red flag laws. To my knowledge WI doesn’t have them. But I was hoping you could provide answers to my questions. I like to get others thoughts on gun control issues. But with specific reasoning, instead of vague “canned “ responses that say a politician would give. Why do I care about this so much? Because something has to be done. Gun violence is already out of control and with inaction it’s only going to get worse. Also, as a hunter and gun owner myself, I fail to see how the gun control proposals that are popular today (universal background checks, red flag laws, banning assault rifles and high capacity magazines, etc.) are in any way a bad idea. So I would like to hear specifics on why people think they are so bad so we can debate it.

Your being too vague. Two questions. And I’m referring to Nebraska’s proposed law. How is it poorly written ? How does it punish law abiding gun owners?

Tell me that one wouldn’t have. I don’t know the specifics of this one, but was merely illustrating a broader point. That point is mass shootings like this potentially can be prevented in certain cases. There is no one fix for these shootings. Take away everyone’s guns? No, that’s not the answer. Temporarily take away guns from those deemed a threat to themselves or others? Yes. It’s only logical to include this in a multi pronged approach to minimize these types of attacks. To oppose Red Flag laws is pure nonsense.

Thank goodness no pesky Red Flag laws got in the way of this shooters right to exercise his freedom. Isn’t that how it’s supposed to be, Gov Ricketts?

I agree, but will the average voter do that?

I think Biden has the best chance. I’ve seen the polls and don’t put a lot of stock in them at this point. That will change in 6 months. I believe Bloomberg’s chances are dwindling due to some of the factors you mentioned. I will say that a Sanders/Warren ticket would be intriguing. I think we have to focus on the swing states here and I believe Florida is essentially a must win for the Dems. I think it’s going to be very tough to defeat Trump in WI, PA, etc.

It’s almost comical watching Dems tear Bloomberg down to nothing when he is one of maybe two who could actually beat Trump. The Dems are well on their way to screwing this election up just as bad as 2016.

I can see the potential to add some "good" weight to that frame. Maybe it's the camera angle, but those are some massive shoes!

OK so what makes a person a "good" debater? Stay consistent with your stances no matter how badly attacked? Remaining stoic in the face of personal attacks? Lying and demeaning your opponent with accusations? Speaking with facts and personal convictions? Showing confidence no matter how right or wrong you are? Behaving like a royal jacka$$? Just curious..

Bloomberg has been in all of one debate and he endured about 6 people constantly attack him about his money and past transgressions. How could anyone look good in that situation? This past one was the only debate I've watched, but I thought Biden looked OK. Nothing bad, nothing spectacular. The thing is though, what makes you think Trump will be a good debater? He wasn't against Hillary and I'd actually be surprised if he would agree to more than one debate, if that. There is a trove of Trump's bad behavior the Dem could pile on him almost at will and could cause him to loose his cool very easily. So, while I don't see any of the dems as particularly "good" debaters, I certainly don't see Trump as one. I think he's scared to do them and will likely think of an excuse to get out of it.

Oh, I doubt that. Hopefully we'll get to find out

Republicans lost the house because of D-bags like you, Devin. I expect the margin to be even wider next year at this time.

This scares the heck out of me too. I like Bernie, but despite what polls say now, I don’t think he can win. I still maintain only Biden and Bloomberg. Although the other candidates are doing their best to paint Bloomberg as a Democratic Trump.