Soxbadger

QUOTE (Y2HH @ May 24, 2013 -> 04:14 PM) Yes, but that's playing semantics with what they mean when they say "law abiding citizen". I consider myself a law abiding citizen, despite the fact that I'll roll through yellow or stops. I think using a bit of logic applicable to each situation helps draw the line between a person like myself, and a gun toting banger. Unfortunately some of the worst attacks on American soil have been committed by regular people who were not "gun toting bangers". The problem is that some people were "law abiding citizens" until they werent. So my general philosophy is to trust no one. Thus you create laws that equally apply to everyone.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ May 24, 2013 -> 02:44 PM) To be perfectly clear then, we need harsher penalties on people that think carrying a gun around ok...and people that use guns in crimes, be they for show, or if they're actually fired during that crime, no matter how petty. Such as "armed robbery" where the gun is loaded, but only used to scare people. We don't need, however, to jail someone that forgot to renew their f***ing FOID card. I was just making an argument to get a gun rights person to argue against stricter penalties. I knew that if I said jail time for failing to register it would immediately get pro-gun people to attack me and argue that penalty is to harsh. I just wanted to show that "not everyone agrees on making gun crimes harsher." That being said, I obviously agree that renewing your FOID card should be less of a penalty than actually having a gun while you commit a crime. I would also say that never getting a FOID card should have a greater penalty than forgetting to renew. But that wasnt the point of my statement. I merely was showing that when you try and create harsher penalties, you get blow back from gun rights people. Its also because Im so tired of hearing the nonsense "99.9% of gun owners are law abiding citizens". First of all its a made up number. Second of all almost everyone breaks the law at some point or another, gun owners non-gun owners a like. So when I hear a statement like that, I really just want to rip it apart, because its trying to create this magical world where gun owners arent real people.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ May 24, 2013 -> 02:41 PM) To start over, we need harsher penalties on gun crime. And not all gun crime is to be treated equally. I agree. Ive never said otherwise. I dont believe I suggested that someone who doesnt have a FOID card, should be subject to the same penalty as someone who commits a violent act with a gun. That would be asinine.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ May 24, 2013 -> 02:38 PM) Right. There. Let's recognize that certain laws should carry harsher penalties than others, too. Ive never said otherwise. I absolutely recognize different crimes have different penalties. But when you say "criminal", how in the world do I know what you mean? How am I supposed to guess you mean rapist, thief, drug addict, etc? They are all criminals. But I never said their crimes are equal nor that all criminals are equal, you cant find that anywhere, you are just making it up.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ May 24, 2013 -> 02:36 PM) So you are saying there is a difference in a knife and a gun and a nuclear bomb...but there is no difference between a child rapist and a person that rolls through stop signs? Shark jumped. WTG Fonzie. Where did I ever say that? I defined a word. If I used the word "weapon", the definition would encompass, knife, a-bomb, laser beam, brass knuckles. Please show me where I used the word "weapon" and then argued, that wasnt the type of weapon I meant? In fact I took the time to actually go through that in one of my earlier posts: I have no problem recognizing that certain criminals are more dangerous. Show me where I said otherwise?

QUOTE (mr_genius @ May 22, 2013 -> 10:06 PM) they should be against prosecuting anyone that harms an unborn baby in any way. It's simply a bunch of useless goo. Absolutely. Anything else is completely hypocritical and cant be rationally supported. Now obviously you can make an argument if it was illegal to abort after X weeks, then you can also prosecute after X weeks, but to prosecute for something done when it was legal to abort is inane.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 24, 2013 -> 02:14 PM) The word means nothing when you look at it in this way. Every single one of us is a criminal because we've all driven faster than the posted speed limit or made a rolling stop instead of a complete stop. You have to look at it on different levels. Not really the word means what it is intended to mean, if you break the law (regardless of how small or big) you are a criminal. I do not get into subjective arguments about what I really meant criminal to mean, because I have the power to put qualifiers in front of the word or use a more appropriate word. Perhaps you meant felons, that 99.9% of gun owners are not felons, but I wouldnt know, because you said "law abiding citizens", and that means "following the law". Otherwise the word means nothing. Because what does it matter if I dont think people who do drugs are criminals, they are. Its not my subjective opinion, its the state of the law today. I would never say Im a law abiding citizen and I admit that I am a criminal. That is the true definition of the word. Which is why I dont like arguments about how criminals should have less rights etc, because almost all of us are criminals in some way. Hence why my discussion is based not on whether a gun owner is a criminal or not, but on the fact that a gun is a dangerous tool and therefore there should be some responsibility that comes with owning that tool. Not about whether gun ownership is right or wrong, just about being reasonable to everyone. Gun owners and non gun owners a like.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ May 24, 2013 -> 01:47 PM) That's a scarier area, because what if my foid card expires and I simply forget to renew it? I don't really consider that person a criminal like you seem too. I'm talking about outright criminals. People who carry guns around are breaking the law. People using guns in gun crimes. Things such as this. These are much more black and white crimes vs a person that doesn't have a foid card, who did when they initially bought the gun they haven't seen in 20 years that they locked in a safe and haven't looked at since. Focus on the criminals we have first...then create new ones with stuff like this. The ultimate problem is that a criminal is a criminal. You cant just say "Oh well thats not my type of criminal." I guess in my opinion I am fine with people owning guns, as long as they understand that owning a gun comes with responsibility. I do not believe that it is to much to ask to keep your FOID card registered, etc. If someone can not do that, why are they trustworthy enough to own a gun? The person who locked their gun up 20 years and hasnt seen it, doesnt know where their gun is. For all we know its been stolen, lost or is in the hands of a "real criminal" who will then use it to hurt someone else. I guess I just think there should be some give and take. If you want to play the "gun owners are responsible law abiding citizens", then shouldnt we hold them to that? And this isnt my opinion. I dont get to say who is a criminal or who is not. A criminal is someone who breaks the law. If you want to create a different category "violent criminal" etc, well then we can have a reasonable discussion. But no one has framed it that way, everyone used the word "criminal" generally.

Y2hh, And as I said. They wont do that. I never said anything about writing new laws. In Illinois to own a gun you need a FOID card. It is already illegal to own a gun without one. So I said why not make the penalty harsher for that. You seemingly agreed, then completely changed your position just to disagree with me. Are you just not familiar with the law? http://www.isp.state.il.us/foid/ So there is no need for a new law, just increasing the penalties on an old law. This is exactly what you are saying, yet somehow you disagree. Does not compute.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ May 24, 2013 -> 12:23 PM) That's not why, and your point wasn't proven. At all. New York HAS harsher laws. The point of laws is to punish NON law abiding citizens, not those that follow the law. Legally obtaining a gun isn't the issue here. Do you honestly think these people murdering people with guns on the streets of Chicago obtained them legally? Try again. You target criminals, you don't pass laws that CREATE new criminals out of thin air. That's the difference in what I'm asking for, and the ridiculous solution you're coming up with. People who are selling guns without a license, not registering are breaking the law. They are criminals. How can you legitimately argue that someone breaking the law obtained it legally? They arent law abiding citizens if they are breaking the law. If you dont buy a gun properly, you are not owning it legally. If you obtained the gun legally, you have nothing to worry about in my scenario. It would only apply to criminals who did not apply the gun legally. Thus when you are arrested, you either 1) have papers to show you bought the gun legally and thus you have no issue or 2) do not have those papers and thus have an issue. Pretty hilarious how youve immediately back tracked. As now you are arguing against yourself from earlier. lol (edit) Just explain how someone who bought or sold a gun illegally is a "law abiding citizen." If you can do that, Ill concede.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 24, 2013 -> 12:09 PM) So the way to curb gun crime is to make stronger penalties for owning guns which will create tens of thousands of new criminals who should be punished so severely that they'll be put in jail for a year, all for not getting a stupid piece of paper, even though those same people today have done absolutely nothing to contribute to said gun crime you want to prevent. That's the logic that's sound in this debate? Really? Y2hh asked why cant there be harsher laws. I answered because people will fight them. QUOTE (Y2HH @ May 24, 2013 -> 11:16 AM) Pro gun people fight the banning of guns and restrictions, not the consequences of using/having them illegally. The issue is, we never talk about consequences, we talk about bans or restrictions on legal ownership. That's backwards thinking. Put consequences on actions, if you have a gun/use a gun illegally, you pay a very VERY heavy consequence. You then proved my point. Thanks for playing though.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 24, 2013 -> 11:29 AM) Those penalties are unreasonably severe. That's why we don't have them. That, and 99.9% of gun owners don't commit crimes, so you're punishing tens of millions without any evidence that it would result in any changes in crime rates. Well they are criminals. Having an unlicensed gun would be a crime, selling a gun without a license would be a crime. So those people dont fall into the completely made up 99.9% of gun owners dont commit crimes, they would be the .1% who are committing crimes. See Y2hh, this is why we cant have tougher laws. Because people will make up arguments about how "gun owners dont commit crimes". Even though the premise is not punishing a gun owner, its punishing someone who broke the law, which is a crime. I couldnt have made up a more perfect response to prove my point.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ May 24, 2013 -> 11:16 AM) Pro gun people fight the banning of guns, not the consequences of using/having them illegally. The issue is, we never talk about consequences, we talk about bans or restrictions on legal ownership. That's backwards thinking. Put consequences on actions, if you have a gun/use a gun illegally, you pay a very VERY heavy consequence. The problem will solve itself. Banning them or restricting them hasn't worked, that much is obvious. They absolutely fight the consequences. Gun owners will not go for: "If you have an unlicensed gun 1 year mandatory sentence", they will not go for "If you buy/sell an unlicensed gun, 1 year mandatory sentence." These type of consequences wont fly in the current pro-gun environment. They fought the Brady Bill, they fight everything. If they didnt, why dont we have stronger consequences?

witesoxfan, I think youre ideas are a fine compromise. It doesnt have to be all or nothing, but we should recognize that guns are extremely dangerous. And if you are a "law abiding citizen" you should have no problem taking steps to ensure youre gun use is safe. It could save a life of someone that a person was trying to protect.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ May 24, 2013 -> 11:01 AM) I agree. But we need to start doing something about these criminals, especially around Chicago. The fact that Chicago has tough gun laws with no teeth isn't helping the matter. For all of our gun laws, we have no harsh mandatory minimal sentencing, and a vast majority of those arrested with illegal guns do almost no time whatsoever. When that changes, their argument of self-defense would be weaker, but right now, I can see their point. I don't own a gun, nor do I want too. But their point is valid at the moment. If you're going to allow them to do it, you'd better allow us to do it, too. Our laws, our judges, and our system is allowing these criminals to carry, because of the near lack of consequences. The problem is we cant make harsher gun laws because pro-gun people fight every gun law tooth and nail. I dont want to allow anyone to do it. I want the punishment to be so harsh that no one would ever consider doing it. But I cant do that, if people fight tougher gun crime laws. Especially when the argument against the law is "But then criminals will be the only ones to have them".

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ May 24, 2013 -> 10:59 AM) That's a bit like believing college baseball is superior to AA baseball. I don't care if they play by different rules, you are still talking about players who are probably in about the 97th percentile with regards to their talent playing in the CFL. It logically does not make sense that NCAA teams would be better than CFL teams. Yeah it does because the players on the top 20 college teams are also in the 97th percentile, if not higher. Alabama isnt going to lose to the Toronto Argonauts. Look at the CFL rosters, they are worse than NCAA rosters. If they werent, then you would see a ton of NFL teams going after CFL guys, instead of signing UFA college guys. There is a reason why not many CFL players make it in the NFL.

Its not so much that. Its college and the pros are completely different. Part of being a college coach is loading your team with more talent than the other team. In college the talent gap can make any coach look amazing. A lot of what Kelly did was to take advantage of the inexperience of college players. He also happened to play mainly PAC teams, which isnt a conference known for defense. The last time they played a SEC team, they scored 13 points prior to the 4th quarter (LSU) The year before they played Auburn and scored 19 points total. In 2009 they scored 8 points against BSU and 17 against OSU. So there is some reason to question just how adaptable he is.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ May 24, 2013 -> 10:46 AM) The bold point was the only necessary point. The rest of this is reductio ad absurdum. I think the argument you'll get from them is that if the criminals are going to have guns, so should those they target. Or knives. Or cleavers. It's the same argument non-hunters often pose to hunters. Would you be as willing to shoot that deer if that deer also had a rifle and a scope it could use to shoot back? Terrorists may have a nuclear weapon, how can I protect myself without one? Terrorists may have bombs, how can I protect myself without one? We cant base our world on what criminals are doing. If we do, then we should have no laws, because the premise of the argument is that "criminals wont follow laws". So if they wont follow them, why have them? Like I said, its inane. The best argument is "I want a gun because it makes me feel safe." And my counter argument is "I dont want you to have a gun, because you having a gun makes me feel unsafe." At that point we have to make a societal decision. Right now we lean towards allowing someone to protect themselves at the risk to another. Maybe that is the best way, maybe it is not. But at least its a sound argument that I wouldnt be embarrassed to argue. Its why I cant take many pro-gun people seriously, they refuse to recognize the hypocrisy and discuss the issue on a meaningful level.

Kelly has been a HC at a higher level than Trestman. I think most believe NCAA > Canadian Football League. But I am not so sure Kelly's offense will translate amazingly to the NFL.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ May 24, 2013 -> 10:18 AM) Victim. Singular. You avoided the point though, so I'm glad to see you can do that. Anything can kill you at any given moment. The fact that people live until they're 70 or 80 or 110 is incredibly lucky to begin with. Perhaps we should start banning everything until all we have is a naked wasteland of people, right? Or maybe you can add something constructive to the debate instead of making convervatives look like reactionary idiots. Nope, that is impossible because their position is, as we know, based on hypocrisy. Either we recognize that certain weapons are inherently more destructive and thus should be subject to greater scrutiny, or we do not. The reason we know they are hypocritical is because almost no one is willing to argue that I should be allowed to have my own personal nuclear weapon. Its basically arguing there should be no speed limit because you can die in a car fatality even if the car is only going 1 mile an hour, so why have a limit speed at all? The inanity of the argument is mind blowing.

I suggested killer whales, i cant see anyone that wouldnt want to be part of team killer whale.

killer whales They are pretty awesome. (edit) Most mammals work together. Elephant, etc.

Witesoxfan, Im not ignoring the allure of a championship game. Im saying the following: 1) Championship games in football occur out doors, including the National Championship game and NFL playoff games 2) That weather, whether it is warm or cold, can impact a game. 3) And that if we believe that weather impacting a game is negative, we should remove all weather from a game. I personally like football and the elements. But I can see why some people would want football indoors. I just believe that if you want it indoors, all games should be indoors, not just a random few. The NFL is moving the exact opposite direction, in that they will have a Super Bowl in NY outdoors.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ May 16, 2013 -> 10:41 AM) Making teams play with a basketball that nobody else in the world uses should be a joke, but its not. You mean respecting a company that helped Bo out? http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/02/sports/n...ed=all&_r=0 Wisconsin is sponsored by Adidas (who makes basketballs), Bo Ryan is doing this because back in the day Sterling did his program a solid. Cant say there is anything wrong with that.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ May 16, 2013 -> 10:43 AM) +1. Snow/Rain ball sucks. Cold ass snow ball in the upper midwest in late november is 100% dumb. Then all NFL/NCAA games should be indoors. No reason why it cant be like arena league. Bears game in December, gone. Packers game in January, gone. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, it just seems pretty hypocritical the stance Alvarez is specifically taking, as his team has an outdoor stadium.