StrangeSox

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 09:55 AM) The only defense needed is it is my right per the constitution to own a gun. You don't like guns and want to restrict that or outright take it away. If I want to legally by a Glock 19, I can do so. I should not have to prove to you, or anyone else, WHY I NEED it. I want it. I went thru background checks, waiting periods, have no criminal record, I got my gun. More paperwork than it took to vote. You want all these restriction on a right. Take away this one, and the next one becomes easier. Talking bad about the government? Well, we need to put a stop to that! You see it in dictatorships all the time, and even now in the UN where Russia, China and others want to seize control over what is on the internet as they are tired of their people seeing truth out there. That's descriptively true, but not if we're actually trying to have a discussion on the validity of that right and of the Supreme Court decisions granting you that right. We've fixed rather egregious mistakes in the Constitution in the past and can do so again. I believe that you should have to prove why you need a deadly weapon. Possibly the 2nd amendment limits what restrictions we can now impose, but future court rulings or an amendment could change that, so it's useless to point to that as a shield. Is every other government that has stricter gun laws than the US just like Russia or China? Or are many of them, like Israel for example, rather like the US? Does our possession of guns really protect infringements on our 1st amendment rights? Why hasn't it stopped the assaults on our 4th and 5th amendment rights?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 09:54 AM) So you're admitting that your new requirements would have done nothing. Good! Glad we agree. If nobody could have purchased handguns or assault rifles*, or if the process was sufficiently restricted, Nancy Lanza likely would not have owned these weapons. Her son would not have been able to take them, shoot her in the head multiple times, and then proceed to a nearby elementary school, where he then shot and killed 26 more people, 20 of whom where children. *I realize that this isn't a well-defined category

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 09:48 AM) And you still would have the right to vote... why are you guys so interested in restricting the right to vote? is that causing you demonstrable harm?

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 09:50 AM) You are aware that the current shooter did not acquire his guns legally, aren't you? So no matter what rules you had in place, he would have still got them. There ARE background checks, which stopped him from actually purchasing one himself. Unless we had rules that wouldn't have allowed his mother, whom he took the guns from and then shot to death, to own those guns. She was a law-abiding citizen.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 09:47 AM) sem·i·au·to·mat·ic [ sèmmee àwtə máttik ] 1. reloading automatically: automatically ejecting a spent shell from a weapon's chamber and replacing it with another round each time the weapon is fired 2. partially automated: operated partly automatically and partly manually 3. semiautomatic weapon: a weapon that is semiautomatic. One trigger pull, one shot NOT a machine gun. NOT an automatic weapon. MOST handguns and rifles sold are semi-automatic. Identifying guns with that phrase is meant only to instill fear or cause confusion with people that don't know the difference. Identify guns with that phrase is an accurate description. They are semi-automatic, and they generally have rates of fire that exceed non-automatic weapons.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 09:46 AM) The justification is because it is my right and I want it. Who are you to decide that for me? Maybe you should need to justify that cheeseburger you want to order for lunch when they decide to regulate what you eat next. I'm somebody living in a democracy who can take part in the discussion to craft policies for social good. I believe that the current liberalized gun laws in this country are demonstrably harmful and should be changed. I don't feel the need to placate your desire to own a handgun if it comes at the expense of the current saturation of weapons we have in this country. There are plenty of weapons we as a society tell you you cannot have.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 09:25 AM) None of that would prevent mass shootings so I don't see the point. You're going to allow people to own a gun, but if they own too many, what? Have police on constant surveillance? You want someone with mental disorders from guns? How's that going to stop a mentally unstable 20 year old taking his mom's guns? Require guns to be securely stored and locked. Severely restrict or ban handguns such that no one has easy access to them. Restrict rifles based on the rate of fire. Introduce magazine size limits. Require a license-with-justification, not shall-issue permits.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 09:27 AM) That could also be turned back around the other way... How come people who want regulations and rules for one amendment, don't want any for another? It works both ways. because one is doing demonstrable harm to our society and is questionably an individual right in the first place?

I think this is the perfect response to the absurdity of the "Arm the teachers!" bulls***:

Hate speech is protected speech. Even speech advocating violence is protected speech as long as it's not a call for immediate, specific violence.

lost by about .15 points. Detroit D was a bad play.

Detroit d not looking so hot right now

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 16, 2012 -> 03:52 PM) No gun dealer is directly shooting kids either. It was a terrible comparison. Drugs kill something like 10X's as many people as firearms, and they are illegal. It was a horrible pick. A whole lot of drug-related violence doubles up as gun violence.

QUOTE (Jake @ Dec 16, 2012 -> 02:57 PM) If I'm Lovie, I can't believe my livelihood is going to be changed by this f***ing referee crew your livelihood is going to be changed by your second-half collapse.

I don't know how you call Jeffery for all of those ticky-tack PI's and then let that go against him. Absurd.

so much for starting wilson

absolute bulls*** on these calls

sam shields pulls the jersey, no call.

are you f***ing kidding me?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 16, 2012 -> 02:44 PM) I've said this one a few dozen times. A few penalties need to be reviewable. Late hits, personal fouls, pass interference. maybe anything over 10 yards

wow another bulls*** call

maybe we can draft an OL this year???

terrible O_PI call there

Sigh. The Bears just aren't that good of a football team, especially with the injuries. Maybe they'll sneak in with the wildcard but they won't be going anywhere.

where was bush?