Charlie Kirk shot at (shot?) in Utah

[Elixir]

Throwing insults around is the typical tactic of the Left.

He says, in the very same five-sentence long post in which he also calls someone a "cockroach"...

He's a leftist though - just ask him if he's right wing! (He only SOUNDS like that)

 

[Elixir]

Is there a video of her screaming at multiple people at very close range?

If so, she's an amateur.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Throwing insults around is the typical tactic of the Left.

Happens on the right too (and if you don't believe that, you're an idiot), but anyway, some of us have simply stopped giving a fuck.

 

[Derec]

Biden did not prevaricate. Biden was pretty much forced to step aside.

Mostly semantics, I guess. There were weeks of will he, won' he before the decision.

Would Harris have had a better chance had she been the candidate from the convention forward? Possibly but I have my doubts.

She was the candidate from well before the convention. Biden dropped out on 7/21. The DNC convention was on 8/19-22.
Ideally, Biden would have dropped out in Summer 2023 to allow for a proper primary season. I do not think a couple of weeks more would have helped her that much, except if DNC had agreed to a blitz primary, but that would not have guaranteed that she would be the nominee.

 

[Derec]

Happens on the right too (and if you don't believe that, you're an idiot), but anyway, some of us have simply stopped giving a fuck.

Sure, overall.
But on this forum, it tends to be pretty one-sided.
In any case, it's not a good look.

I dislike Trump and Trumpism almost as much as you do, I am sure, maybe even just as much. But I also know that movement leftism is not a solution.

 

[Derec]

Police are not required to arrest people.

They certainly could have given her a ticket. But they were within their rights to arrest her, as far as I am familiar with the law.

 

[Derec]

How the Supreme Court's Latest Decision Clears the Way for Racial Profiling During Immigration Raids - American Immigration Council

This week the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision that clears the way for racial profiling during immigration raids and sweeps. Now we could see the Trump administration rapidly expand the racially discriminatory ICE practices we have already seen terrorize families, workplaces, and communities...

www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org

This is an opinion piece by an org that, judging by their web site, is maximalist on immigration.
And note that this is a temporary stay, not a final decision.

Conservatives have a big problem with reading comprehension, so it probably isn't going to do much.

And everybody who is not a leftist is automatically a "conservative" to you, right?

 

[Emily Lake]

What it is, is what I offered it as an example of, and what you said disappeared 400 years ago;
CHRISTIAN INSANITY.

You inferred wrongly and failed to understand context.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

MSN

Jimmy is coming back!
Wonder what he said that changed their mind?

Finally! My own show!

...

Oh... Kimmel... never mind.

 

[Emily Lake]

One of the points he makes is that cars are very dangerous, about 50,000 people each year die from automobile crashes. That's a cost that we, as a people, have decided is worth it in order to gain the benefits of automobiles. He pointed out that if citizens have the right to own guns, it's impossible to have zero gun-related deaths - it's not going to happen. His argument was that we should do everything we can to minimize those deaths, just as we do everything we can to reasonably minimize auto accidents and deaths. But if we wish to have gun rights in order to protect ourselves from a zealous government, then we as a society are accepting that there's going to be some deaths as a price for that right.

Too bad that we are not doing “everything we can to minimize” gun deaths.

The parallel of guns with cars continues to be used despite the absurdity of the comparison.

We could only hope that guns, designed for killing, were regulated as tightly as cars, not designed for killing.

First off... you've entirely missed the point, and you've snipped my post in order to support your wrong point. But I'm not surprised.

Why are you not surprised? Are you assuming things about me you don’t know?

Nah, just observing a fairly common trend here on IIDB.

I snipped the part I wanted to respond to. Perhaps it is a different point but it is still a valid point to address.

You snipped out the actual discussion point altogether, which changed the entire meaning of my post. It's great that you want to address something different, but kindly do so by addressing MY discussion points, rather than those of someone else that I'm relating.

I agree that if we constitutionally allow guns there will be unwanted gun deaths.

I support licensing, with required training. I don't support the removal of a constitutional right.

I agree with your first sentence. However, it’s not like constitutional rights are absolute. I support the process for amending the constitution should the people desire to do so. I don’t think the second would be repealed but I don’t hold it in such high regard that I feel it shouldnt or couldnt be.

I didn't say it can't be removed, I said I don't support such removal. Seems pretty clear to me.

 

[Emily Lake]

she said “a Constitutional right”, seemingly implying that once a right is granted within the constitution it shan’t be removable.

Did she forget about Roe?

FFS, Roe was never a constitutional right, and you know it. In fact it was never even a law, because our congresscritters never did their damned jobs. They left it hanging as an interpretation alone - and that made it vulnerable to challenge.

 

[Shadowy Man]

One of the points he makes is that cars are very dangerous, about 50,000 people each year die from automobile crashes. That's a cost that we, as a people, have decided is worth it in order to gain the benefits of automobiles. He pointed out that if citizens have the right to own guns, it's impossible to have zero gun-related deaths - it's not going to happen. His argument was that we should do everything we can to minimize those deaths, just as we do everything we can to reasonably minimize auto accidents and deaths. But if we wish to have gun rights in order to protect ourselves from a zealous government, then we as a society are accepting that there's going to be some deaths as a price for that right.

Too bad that we are not doing “everything we can to minimize” gun deaths.

The parallel of guns with cars continues to be used despite the absurdity of the comparison.

We could only hope that guns, designed for killing, were regulated as tightly as cars, not designed for killing.

First off... you've entirely missed the point, and you've snipped my post in order to support your wrong point. But I'm not surprised.

Why are you not surprised? Are you assuming things about me you don’t know?

Nah, just observing a fairly common trend here on IIDB.

I’d prefer to be treated as an individual, as I’m sure you would too.

I snipped the part I wanted to respond to. Perhaps it is a different point but it is still a valid point to address.

You snipped out the actual discussion point altogether, which changed the entire meaning of my post. It's great that you want to address something different, but kindly do so by addressing MY discussion points, rather than those of someone else that I'm relating.

Fair enough. I will recalibrate when responding to your posts.

I agree that if we constitutionally allow guns there will be unwanted gun deaths.

I support licensing, with required training. I don't support the removal of a constitutional right.

I agree with your first sentence. However, it’s not like constitutional rights are absolute. I support the process for amending the constitution should the people desire to do so. I don’t think the second would be repealed but I don’t hold it in such high regard that I feel it shouldnt or couldnt be.

I didn't say it can't be removed, I said I don't support such removal. Seems pretty clear to me.

You seemed to indicate not supporting removal of any constitutional rights, but perhaps I just read too much into your use of the article “a”. I apologize if I did.

 

[ZiprHead]

she said “a Constitutional right”, seemingly implying that once a right is granted within the constitution it shan’t be removable.

Did she forget about Roe?

FFS, Roe was never a constitutional right, and you know it. In fact it was never even a law, because our congresscritters never did their damned jobs. They left it hanging as an interpretation alone - and that made it vulnerable to challenge.

Laws can be challenged too. It being a law would have made no difference.

 

[Emily Lake]

You seemed to indicate not supporting removal of any constitutional rights, but perhaps I just read too much into your use of the article “a”. I apologize if I did.

Sometimes I feel as if really basic context is just overlooked in the hurry to respond. I naively assumed that the context of gun rights was fairly well established, and that I didn't need to be explicit about it.

That said, at present there are no constitutional rights that I would support being eliminated - I think we should keep all of them. Even so, nothing I've said suggests that they cannot be removed, only that I don't support removing them.

Obviously they can be struck off, otherwise alcohol would still be illegal in the US.

 

[Shadowy Man]

You seemed to indicate not supporting removal of any constitutional rights, but perhaps I just read too much into your use of the article “a”. I apologize if I did.

Sometimes I feel as if really basic context is just overlooked in the hurry to respond. I naively assumed that the context of gun rights was fairly well established, and that I didn't need to be explicit about it.

That said, at present there are no constitutional rights that I would support being eliminated - I think we should keep all of them. Even so, nothing I've said suggests that they cannot be removed, only that I don't support removing them.

Obviously they can be struck off, otherwise alcohol would still be illegal in the US.

I can be a bit pedantic at times. It’s how I parse reading and can easily lead to confusion on boards like this.

 

[laughing dog]

Police are not required to arrest people.

They certainly could have given her a ticket. But they were within their rights to arrest her, as far as I am familiar with the law.

No one said otherwise. Do try to keep up. The police make a jackass choice.

 

[laughing dog]

she said “a Constitutional right”, seemingly implying that once a right is granted within the constitution it shan’t be removable.

Did she forget about Roe?

FFS, Roe was never a constitutional right, and you know it.

The fuck it wasn't. Roe v Wade made a constitutional right. What the Supreme Court grants, it can remove.

 

[Emily Lake]

Laws can be challenged too. It being a law would have made no difference.

Of course laws can be challenged. But being a law would have made a huge difference. The burden is significantly different.

Roe was an interpretation, and nothing more. The decision was based on the presumed right to privacy, and was at least somewhat based on the 4th am. So for all intents, the court said "Well, 4th am give people protection from unreasonable search and seizure, which gives people a right to privacy, and what's more private than the inside of a woman's body and the decisions she makes about her own body?" It used that two steps removed right to privacy to declare that abortion must be deemed legal.

In order for that to change, all that was needed was for the SC to review that prior interpretation. On doing so, the court decided that the right to privacy as envisioned by Roe was not supported by the existing amendments of the constitution. It was an overly broad interpretation. And based on that review and reconsideration, SC decided that it's not within the purview of the courts to declare that abortion is or is not legal - and thus it rolls back to the power of the states to make that determination.

If, on the other hand, congress had done it's fucking job and made a damned LAW about it... that's an entirely different issue. In order to overturn that federal law, the court would need to show that the law itself was inherently unconstitutional. They would have to be able to defend the view that the law itself violates the constitution. And there's nothing in the constitution that it would violate.

 

[Emily Lake]

FFS, Roe was never a constitutional right, and you know it.

The fuck it wasn't. Roe v Wade made a constitutional right. What the Supreme Court grants, it can remove.

Which amendment was the abortion amendment?

 

[Elixir]

Roe was an interpretation, and nothing more.

It was a precedent setting case.
Stare Decisis, nothing more, nothing less.
Stare Decisis, which at least two of the three Trump justices (not sure about the third) swore to respect during the confirmation hearing pageant.
What a joke.

BTW Ems,
In its 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Constitution provides a right to abortion. That fact can easily be confirmed by any respectable source.

You keep forgetting what "in The Constitution" actually means. It means whatever the Supreme Court of the United States of America says it means.
It is just as correct to say that the right to abortion WAS affirmed in the Constitution, as to say that CURRENTLY it is not.