Soxbadger

If they are one of the 2 companies in my building Id take it. They never work and always have kegs. Also have some nice talent. But alas, my building is south/west of Ogilvie.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 4, 2013 -> 05:14 PM) He's doing an impressive job for a low ceiling guy. You have to give credit to Butler for really improving his shot. Im pretty sure when the Bulls drafted him I said something about the fact it would be interesting to see how he developed as Marquette is ridiculous and had him playing the 4 sometimes.

The real problem with this debate is that neither side ever wants to start on common ground. Most people agree that they want less people to be killed by violence. That should be the starting point. Now the reality is, most people on both sides also want some sort of solution to stop gun violence. You would think with that much agreement people could come up with some sort of reasonable solution that is okay with both sides. But then again, this isnt really about stopping gun violence. This is about winning elections and riling up supporters.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Feb 4, 2013 -> 04:39 PM) So to steal a point from an earlier post, how much do you 'restrict' the sales? Millions of people purchase and own guns with no problems, how much to you screw them to keep the guns away from a few bad apples? You already have laws keeping felons and crazy people from owning them. What MORE laws do you want in their place? You already have laws making it a crime to shoot people, use guns in commission of a crime and so on, what MORE laws do you want? Somewhere there is a point where restricting the supply of guns on the hope of keeping them away from a handful of bad people that will get them infringes on the rights of others to have them as well. I still call your attempts at restrictions to be just like a poll tax. And nobody anywhere ever said we should allow 'unlimited sales'. You just threw that in there to be absurd and over the top like usual. Well there is a law but it wont ever pass. If you buy a gun, you are responsible for anything that happens to it. Before you buy the gun, they take shell casing so that they can match the bullets. They also put a gps in the gun so that it can be tracked. As the gun owner you are responsible for whatever happens with the gun. If your gun is involved in a murder, you can be convicted of murder, robbery, you can be convicted of robbery. This puts the responsibility on the gun owner. You want a dangerous weapon, that is fine, you take full responsibility for everything that happens with it. I guarantee that would make people think twice about selling guns to random people, keeping their guns not well protected etc.

QUOTE (God Loves The Infantry @ Feb 4, 2013 -> 04:18 PM) But I don't think that because he's an irresponsible clown, my right to own a gun should be infringed nor should yours. So to put it as simply as possible, stupid people shouldn't be the reason for laws on normal people. I believe that the law should punish people for bad actions, not punish people just because they may do something bad. The problem is that I am in the extreme minority. Ill give examples. For drugs. I would say drugs should be legal. If you want to kill yourself with drugs, thats your call. But if you take drugs and it somehow results in the injury of someone else (drunk driving, whatever) your punishment is severe. For guns. You can buy guns. But if you or your gun hurts someone else, your punishment is severe. The problem is that the powers that be, dont want these rules. They are afraid of what will happen when they are caught breaking them. They want to ensure that the loopholes are there for themselves and their family. Like I said, this position is in the minority. Most people want to create rules that ban behaviors they dont like. They like to use rules to control people. That is why they have the jobs they do, they like rules, they like power, they like to tell people what to do, because they think they are smarter than everyone else.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 4, 2013 -> 04:15 PM) Well good for you, but what you think doesn't really mean much when we're talking gun control legislation that people want to enact today, under current law. In any discussion everything should be on the table. Laws change, rules change. At one point the law of the US allowed slavery. That didnt mean that people couldnt talk about ending slavery or changing the law.

If they call the play on the blitz it either gets blown up immediately, or is the easiest score the 49ers have all season haha

QUOTE (farmteam @ Feb 4, 2013 -> 04:01 PM) "I'll get up, he'll get up, we'll all get up...it'll be anarchy!" Back in the day I was kind of a John Bender. QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 4, 2013 -> 04:05 PM) Second, this is not OUR burden here, it's yours. Like it or not, guns are a constitutionally protected right, so you need to provide a pretty good reason, narrowly tailored, to curb that right. Your fear of being a victim of cross-fire in a fantasy world where every gun owner is a Rambo wannabe doesn't work. I disagree with the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. And I believe that one day my interpretation will be correct. We arent arguing in front of the Supreme Court, this is just merely opinion.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Feb 4, 2013 -> 02:02 PM) That's true of any offense actually. The penalty was big in that it almost eliminated the running threat so there was no constraint of the blitz. Otherwise an inverted veer or counter would have been a nice option call. True, it just seems option stalls more close, part of the reason why Meyer would go to the Tebow jump pass move. I still think a run/pass roll option is a tough one. Try and get a lb on a fb/te in the flat having to make a decision on which play to commit to. QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 4, 2013 -> 02:03 PM) I think it was on that same drive, but I definitely remember them trying a rollout late in the game and having Kaep throw the ball away because nothing was available. Yeah they it failed 1 time. I just thought when Wisconsin had Wilson that the pass/option inside the 10 was pretty devastating as it usually gets a lb isoed in space.

QUOTE (God Loves The Infantry @ Feb 4, 2013 -> 03:50 PM) Again, I'd rather have a gun and not need it, than to need one and not have it. Sure, I'm probably not going to get attacked by ten guys. I know that. I was only referring to the worst case scenario with AD. But home invasions happen all the time. Who are you to tell me what I need or don't need in that case? Don't you think this arrogance is a reason I scoff at you and have no desire at all to negotiate with you? And you've yet to explain to me how me having an assault weapon, several handguns and a shotgun affects you. I keep them secured. I am well trained. I practice weapons safety like its a damn job (partially because it IS). You might think I'm an angry guy, but I have kept my rage in and my gun in its holster even when tempted by some serious madmen on the roads. Despite my anger, I still managed to deploy. I'm intense, yeah, but that doesn't mean I'm going to shoot people for no reason or have "emotional issues". Please, tell me how this makes your life worse. Tell me how innocent people are going to die because of me or my guns. If you can't do that, stop telling me what I get to own and don't get to own. I don't need your advice. Because its not about you. The United States cant make laws for individuals. I can make the same argument that my smoking weed, getting high on mushrooms, tripping on lsd, wont hurt you and therefore I should be allowed to do it. The problem is, and I would hope you can also see this, not everyone is me, not everyone is you. Not everyone can handle their drugs and not hurt someone else. Not everyone can handle their guns and not hurt someone else. So as a society we have to make a decision. Do we the people, the ones who arent going to screw s*** up, agree that we will make rules that slightly curtail our freedoms, to try and prevent other people from being injured? You were in the military. You were trained to operate weapons. My concerns are not about you on the street with a weapon. My concern is about the 19 year old, who buys a gun to be cool, never learns how to use it and does something stupid like target practice in his backyard. Peoples concerns about drugs are for the kids who take them and drive a car, or do something stupid. Sometimes we all get screwed because there are irresponsible people. I can live in both societies. Im fine with a govt that has no rules, but when I say that, I truly mean, no rules on guns, no rules on drugs. I can live in a society with rules. Most people cant really live in a no rule society. It just isnt what they imagine.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Feb 4, 2013 -> 03:27 PM) Nobody says don't write laws. Don't write laws that won't fix the damn problem. This presupposes people actually want to fix problems, as opposed to writing laws to make money. No one cares about fixing problems.

Alpha, This is an honest question. Have you ever broken any law? Speeding, parking illegally, driving while intoxicated? Because if you have, you are not a law abiding citizen, and by your very argument, you are the type of person the govt should prevent from having weapons. (edit) Damn you answered this already. But your answer is what presents the problem. Everyone bends the rules, its hard to tell which person is going to push it to far. That is the ultimate problem with guns, drugs etc. You just dont know which guy is going to be the dick that ruins it for everyone. It pains me to make these arguments, because I prefer a world where the govt has less power. The problem is that normal people constantly f*** this up and cause the rest of us to suffer. Its ultimately why I believe that the law should be more about punishing bad behavior, as opposed to just punishing something that could end in bad behavior.

Balta, Here is your answer: Who are You to judge what I NEED? Seriously, it is none of your business. YOU are not the arbiter of nuclear or chemical weapons, or of what I need, or want. I have no problem with people taking that position. As long as they are consistent, that if no one can tell them what to do, they agree that they can not tell anyone else what to do. Otherwise its just hypocrite talk.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Feb 4, 2013 -> 03:04 PM) Who are You to judge what I NEED? Seriously, it is none of your business. YOU are not the arbiter of magazine size, or of what I need, or want. Who is anyone to decide what I need? When you are part of society there is an implied contract between the person and society, whereby the person agrees to let society make rules that the person will follow. And Id venture to say that there is almost no such thing as a "law abiding citizen". I have personally never met a person who has not broken 1 law (speeding, parking meter, whatever). What you really are saying is that you have made an imaginary line in the sand for what you consider to be "criminal."

Option is harder to use as the field condenses. That being said, I think that the 49ers would have been better served trying a roll out with a run/pass option for Kap.

Teague would even be more raw than Butler.

There is a FFC right across from Ogilvie. If you are already a morning person there is very little reason not to work in the city (except for the time lost to commute) But if you are being paid 50% more, 2 hours a day commute is economically worth it. Especially as you can buy new toys for the train.

You would be surprised how close 1 mile from that train station is. That being said, I am currently in the same predicament. As my current job lets me do whatever I want, but any sort of higher paying job would require me to actually be a work b****. Maybe when I grow up

QUOTE (God Loves The Infantry @ Feb 4, 2013 -> 10:21 AM) Good grief you're pretentious. And no, I don't myself have any experience buying drugs. But I went to high school and college. I also live in El Paso. The s*** isn't rare. Would you suggest that it is? They are harder to get than legal drugs, which is the entire point. There is an argument that the govt should not restrict people's freedom to take drugs. But its a faulty argument to suggest that making drugs illegal hasnt made it harder to get illegal drugs. It has.

QUOTE (God Loves The Infantry @ Feb 4, 2013 -> 09:52 AM) Please explain to me how the same logic made drugs hard to get. As a law abiding citizen how do you have any personal experience buying drugs from the black market? Sorry Ill take my intellectualism elsewhere. I wouldnt want you to give credit to those pesky lawyers who came up with the 2nd amendment. Damn them and their book reading ways!

Was out all day. That was an odd game. Somehow Wisconsin wins, but its just not clicking.

I guess I just assumed everyone was on the same page of reading the articles about Iran threatening Israel over the attack on Syria. Since all of the conversation occurred right after that. Ill be clearer in the future, but it was about Iran escalating over Israel attacking Syria.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 1, 2013 -> 05:14 PM) For the same reasons we got involved in Libya or France got involved in Mali? But the US response in Libya was pretty quick, I believe within at least the first 6 months if not sooner. The conflict in Syria has been going on for a long time now. Something significant would have to happen at this point before the US would get involved. IE Use of chemical weapons, attack on Israel.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 1, 2013 -> 05:02 PM) An entire party spent their primary campaign demanding war and occupation of Iran immediately. Which is also why I said that "even liberals" as I was already presuming that Republicans would be okay with attacking Iran.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 1, 2013 -> 05:02 PM) Yeah, in a conflict in Syria. Which is...not Iran. Yeah I guess that part doesnt make sense to me. Why would the US all of a sudden get majorly involved in Syria unless Iran was involved? I just assumed that we were all talking about further escalation. Not that Israel and the US would wake up tomorrow and decide they wanted to kill Syria for the fun of it.