StrangeSox

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Apr 6, 2009 -> 12:29 PM) He may have but I also said somethign like that. The media and anti-gun groups like to throw around the term sami-automatic as if it is a weapon in itself, when almost every gun made today is semi-automatic and nothing special. Unless you go for the old fashioned double barrelled shotgun (I have one of those!), then you ony get 2 shots before reloading. FYI, technically speaking, revolvers aren't semi-automatic even though they chamber the next round because they don't also eject the spent cartridge. But they're still scary!!!!!

QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 6, 2009 -> 11:53 AM) I think it was you a couple of months back that was talking about the word "semi-automatic" being used in some media report as if it was some mysterious uberdangerous weapon, which is pretty funny since a step down from semi-automatic would be like a manually loaded single-shot weapon that you had to re-chamber every time you fired it. Ban muskets. Really, I didn't know a damn thing about guns until a few years ago when the AWB was getting ready to expire. Just listening to the media reports, I had a feeling that they didn't know WTF they were talking about. Just spending a little time reading up on what firearms are what really helps illuminate how inaccurate their reporting really is. I've only fired a gun once, and that was a little pea-shooter sized bullet in Boy Scouts. Google search "buy an ak-47" turned up this site. You can buy AK-47's all day long. They're not anything like Soviet Army AK-47's other than what they look like. http://www.impactguns.com/store/romanian_ak47.html

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 6, 2009 -> 11:38 AM) Semi-automatic? Hell, we don't even ban fully automatic, large caliber, military style heavy weapons. The guy in this case had a fully automatic AK-47 and it was totally legal for him to have it, and that's a hell of a lot more powerful than what you just said. I know I've been over it several times in this forum. Do not rely on media reports whenever guns are involved, because they are hilariously misinformed. You can buy semi-automatic AK-47 look-a-likes all day long, but they are not functionally equivalent to real AK-47's. A real AK-47 was not used in this crime. Fully automatic weapons have been very heavily regulated since the 30's. There have only been two incident of a legally-owned one being used in a crime since then, and one was by a police officer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act I know this is a bit snarky, but the anti-gun crowds are just completely ignorant when it comes to knowing what guns actually are.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Apr 6, 2009 -> 11:35 AM) Yes, people with sketchy mental history (the Va Tech shooter) should never be allowed to purchase a gun. I'm sorry but those "problems" never go away. Also, if they arent completely banned already, civilians should not be able to purchase any type of military style semi-automatic machine gun. I see no reason someone would need one. Events such as what happened in Pittsburgh and Binghamton will never go away, unfortunately. But I think the absolute wrong course of action would be to ban guns completely. And I dont think there is any way to completely prevent these things from happening either. It'd be nice, but it's not realistic. You can't control lunacy. That's the thing about living in such a free society, there will always be people on the fringe who try to f*** up life for everyone else. There is no such thing as a "semi-automatic machine gun." Fully-automatic weapons are already very heavily regulated in this country; people can own them, but there's a lot of hoops to jump through and they had to have been manufactured prior to 1986. The rest of civilian firearms are either semi-automatic or single-shot. Each pull of the trigger results in one bullet fired, but a semi-automatic weapon (handguns, many rifles) chambers the next round while a non-semi-automatic means you have to load a round for each shot. The "military-style" weapons on the civilian market are cosmetic look-a-likes with completely different functionality. You or I could go buy an AK rifle, but it wouldn't be the same thing as what you see insurgents using. It would look similar, but it would have to be a semi-automatic. I am in strong disagreement with your last point that I bolded, though. IMO, the government needs to show strong evidence and reasoning for restricting something, not the other way around.

To be fair, last time their was a Dem. Pres, they did pass a ban, and Obama and others in his admin. have spoken in language supporting that sort of idea.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 6, 2009 -> 07:03 AM) So how about if the teacher is proselytizing about gay marriage instead? I wouldn't be comfortable with it, that's for sure, but I don't know enough about the law to say whether or not it is illegal. I do know enough that preaching in a public school is absolutely illegal, and perhaps more importantly, completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 6, 2009 -> 07:47 AM) Are we talking about individual kids praying on their own account, or a school employee leading a prayer for everyone? Children are allowed to pray on their own account as much as they want. They can even organize clubs like FSA and use school resources after-hours. Just can't have the teachers or administrators doing it.

My opinion is that the nuclear cat is out of the bag (or out of Schrodinger's sadistic box, if you prefer) and there's no going back. I support a reduction in arms but not a complete disarmament.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 6, 2009 -> 06:53 AM) No one died with someone saying a prayer in school either FWIW. No, but their rights were sure as hell violated if their teacher was proselytizing to them. What rights of yours are violated if two men or two women get married?

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Apr 4, 2009 -> 09:51 PM) And you're damn right I will criticize Obama, since no one else seems to give a s*** that he's moving our country to a Euro-weenie social democracy.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Apr 4, 2009 -> 05:26 PM) Too late. I mean, he is going to save us from everything, is he not? He's just SO AWESOME! I'm so glad he went over to Europe this week to save us from ourselves. You know, that's probably why this guy did this... he's upset Mr. Obama left the country and didn't take care of him in his time of need when he was so upset. And seriously, I'm not making light of the situation... because it's a bad one. But, when you have Mr. Obama making quotes like this and some other things he has said about guns, people get fired up. It DOES NOT make some quack head doing something like this right, but this story and others like it will be used so "gun control" can be created; thus giving Mr. Obama another messianic moment. Those fearing gun control shouldn't give front-page stories for gun-control supporters. It really seems like you're making excuses for this guy and just using any possible moment to criticize Obama.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Apr 3, 2009 -> 12:57 PM) They were already allowed to. It was about the right to marry whom (trying to recall The Office debate about when to use who/whom) Right, just like 40 years ago, both blacks and whites could marry, they just couldn't marry each other. It's still a violation of civil liberties.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 3, 2009 -> 12:58 PM) Polygamy should be legal as long as its between consenting adults. Marrying your first cousin should be legal. (Better question is about allowing them to procreate.) In fact marriage to first cousins is legal in many states. http://discovermagazine.com/2003/aug/featkiss Wouldn't a lot of laws have to be re-written or re-interpreted in light of multi-party marriages? You'd also have problems dealing with private entities like insurance plans.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 3, 2009 -> 12:37 PM) Polygamy results in abuse at a high frequency, and first-cousin marriage results in children at an astronomically high rate for all sorts of problems. In both cases, the societal damage is documented and huge. Gay marriage does no such thing - it doesn't promote abuse any more than any other marriage, and it doesn't result in retarded or handicapped children. Actually, I recall reading a couple of studies showing that genetic abnormalities in offspring of closely-related people (such as 1st cousins) aren't really that much higher than the general population. I'll see if I can dig them up some time today or tomorrow. Also, not all marriages result in children, so that isn't a stipulation anyway. I don't know much about polygamy abuse rates, but I'm not surprised since they usually come from extreme fundamentalist authoritarian societies.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Apr 3, 2009 -> 12:35 PM) So there's nothing wrong with polygamy The entire system is set up as a legal contract between two people, so it poses problems there, but morally, who am I to tell someone else they can't be a polygamist? First-cousin marriage is still common in many places and was common in the Western world until recently. Hell, Einstein married his first cousin. Again, who am I to tell you who to marry?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 3, 2009 -> 12:11 PM) No matter how you cut it, his QB rating went down 3 years in a row...we call that a regression. Of course I was being an ass when I said it, but the numbers are the numbers. I think QB rating is a stupid stat anyway. Or expected statistical deviations, aka "Noise." That's not a regression trend. Your arguments here just don't make any sense at all. You've just blindly asserted that the Bears overpaid and can't back it up at all.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 3, 2009 -> 06:47 AM) Pace doesn't even have a "very good" year left in him. One or two good/decent years, yes. But he's going on 34 years old, and 34 in O-line years is 95. He's no where near the player he used to be. The Bears replaced Tait with...a new Tait. Which is good, since it negates the loss of Tait, but it doesn't really improve them any. And no, we didn't trade all of our picks, just the ones that usually mean anything. Except for the Bears, because they manage to f*** up way more 1st rounders than not.

Fantastic day for Bears fans. This trade is putting my excitement for opening day on the back burner (at least for a few days). edit: and I wish Orton nothing but the best out in Denver.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Apr 2, 2009 -> 02:25 PM) Bingo! And you knew this was coming the moment it was even insinuated that Cutler could be available. It's not nearly as simple as "GIVE THEM WHATEVER THEY WANT FOR CUTLER!" And the sad thing is that if the Bears don't get him, it's going to be automatically assumed that they dropped the ball. It will really depend on what package ends up getting Cutler. If it looks like something the Bears could have reasonably matched or beat, we'll be hearing about this for years to come. "Crede woulda had that!" will become "Cutler woulda completed that!"

I remember Brian hitting a double to score what seemed like a meaningless run late in the season, but the Sox ended up winning by 1 at the end. Clearly, this means BA is a fantastic player. What's "sample size" mean? edit: just for reference, it was the September 10th game against the Blue Jays, and Brian got a PH RBI subbing for none other than Jerry Owens.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Apr 2, 2009 -> 09:27 AM) Wise is not competent defensively, that's the other rub on this whole situation. More competent than Pods, but I was alluding to Wise falling on his ass and BA taking over on more of a full-time basis. I don't see Ozzie letting that happen with Pods out there.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Apr 2, 2009 -> 09:09 AM) It is ridiculous, but not as ridiculous as the current situation. I've disliked Pods as much as anyone, and probably longer than everyone here, but Dewayne Wise? Look at his baseball card. IMO, Pods is not better than Wise at all. At least there's still hope of a competent defensive person playing the position right now.

Last night wasn't very good, and my god, there had to have been 30 minutes of commercials. I'm never watching this show without DVR again.

This is such a ridiculously bad idea. He had a hard enough time playing LF.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Apr 1, 2009 -> 04:12 PM) I do because it shows the lack of respect that these people have. In the "picture" case, it was a different term and a different circumstance all together. When you have foreign dignataries giving us a pen set made from the same wood as the Resolute and ours gives DVD's, I'm sorry, it's a total lack of respect for the history of your office. "it's always different"

I'd like Jackson a lot more if it wasn't for that whole Trail of Tears thing.