Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Delhommey

In a nutshell...

28 posts in this topic

With a D president they would. They shut up and followed orders when Bush was war criming it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, you're saying we should outlaw religion, because dystopic history = Inquisition/Salem Witch Trials/Nazism (to a lesser extent on Nazism).

American history says we've always been able to own guns...we still have that right. But we don't have a "well regulated militia". And even if we did, the government has the military. No amount of fire power in your gun case is going to protect from tanks and explosive ordinances.

I am all for the right to own guns, but I agree that regulating what types and how powerful those weapons are is the right move and I think it's the reasonable position.

We the population are the militia, as I've said, we are the largest standing army in the world, by far.

The 2a does not dictate the firearms I may own, just that I may posses them. The colonist were better armed than the british, wish you could change that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

311 long gun crimes in 2011, how many of those were even semi auto rifles? F#ck the facts... Fear runs rampant in your mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We the population are the militia, as I've said, we are the largest standing army in the world, by far.

The 2a does not dictate the firearms I may own, just that I may posses them. The colonist were better armed than the british, wish you could change that?

They made that before they even IMAGINED high-caliber, automatic weapons. It also doesn't dictate that the government cannot enforce regulations on WHAT you can own. It is constitutional to regulate. Sorry, that's the fact of the matter, and it's correct.

Also, it doesn't say the people are the militia. A militia can form, but it can and will be regulated. In other words, they'll tell you how powerful you will get...and that includes your weapons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They had better rifles than the british... I think the founders would allow us semi automatic rifles against drones and a1 abrahams...

The second was not written for hunting or sporting, its there to stop a tyrannical gov. It has happend in the past and I will not rule against it happening sometime in our or our grandchildrens lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They had better rifles than the british... I think the founders would allow us semi automatic rifles against drones and a1 abrahams...

The second was not written for hunting or sporting, its there to stop a tyrannical gov. It has happend in the past and I will not rule against it happening sometime in our or our grandchildrens lives.

A tyrannical government > any amount of civilians with weapons. That argument is weak. Again, we should be allowed to maintain our right to bear arms, but I see NO problem with the government doing it's job and regulating guns in order to MAYBE fix this issue of gun-related deaths among the civilian population.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tell the millions of dead jews, chinese and russians that.

I, a law abiding citizen shall keep the firearms I own legally now. I understand you can't, or wont realize the Gv can turn against us at some point, that is your foolish opinion don't push that on me..

.001 of guns commit the crimes, the 20,000 gun laws aren't stopping the criminals now, what makes you think 50 more will change things?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tell the millions of dead jews, chinese and russians that.

I, a law abiding citizen shall keep the firearms I own legally now. I understand you can't, or wont realize the Gv can turn against us at some point, that is your foolish opinion don't push that on me..

.001 of guns commit the crimes, the 20,000 gun laws aren't stopping the criminals now, what makes you think 50 more will change things?

I agree, you can and should have your firearms. I know the government CAN turn against us, but that is just a POSSIBILITY. The REALITY of it (as Jon Stewart pointed out pretty effectively) is that RIGHT NOW we have ACTUAL issues involving guns that need to be addressed to help a REAL problem. Doing nothing is accepting that Sandy Hook and Aurora, Colorado are just gonna happen, so be it. No, we need to try SOMETHING. There is no magical fix to completely solve this issue, never will be, but we NEED to try something here. Don't agree? Try telling that to a mother of a Sandy Hook victim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure how I repped you. Anyways,", the right of the

people to keep and bear Arms, shall not

be infringed."

I will keep my ar and other semi autos, the second does not limit my magazine size nor firearm.

We cannot stop crazy people from doing unthinkable things and you will not stop law abiding citizenship from owning semi autos. 90% of gun crime is commited with handguns, yet you wish to take the most popular (ar-15) semi auto rifle from law abiding citizens. I have never commited a crime and have one speeding and one seatbelt ticket from years ago, yet you wish to take my and countless others rifles or magazines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



  • Posts

    • Mitchell would be a mistake IMO. He's too short to play with Walker. It would be the NBA's smallest backcourt. 
    • Look at this from Greg's viewpoint: 1. We did not draft or bring in a TE (many of us, including me, thought the team might bring in a young TE) Greg knows we have few options at this point. 2. Greg is about to retire (2-3 years) and his stock will never be higher.  He has led the team in receiving for a few years. 3. He knows there is cap room.  Gettlemen wants to carry  that over to re-sign 3 hog mollies for 2018; Olsen wants it now.) I think the Panthers lack of movement at TE has Olsen in a great negotiating position. Now let's take a look at the Panther's position: His quote about business and productivity could backfire on him. Businesses sign contracts for future services.  People sign them every day and honor them.  I may sign a long-term contract for less than I am worth, but in turn, I get security.  If you think you are worth more, don't sign.  I think the problem is the transparency over salaries.  If you know what Jacob Tamme made last year because his agent worked out a great deal, you can use that to negotiate a new deal for Olsen if you compare the numbers.  However, Tamme may have underperformed his deal, and it is erroneous to assume the performance of others based on their contracts is fair market value.  What they offer and what you take is fair market value. If Olsen wants a deal based on his productivity, remove his guaranteed money and make it incentive based. Take away the guarantees and make it possible for him to earn $10m--or $2m, depending on his productivity.  I am sure that he wants the security of the current deal and the Panthers to assume all risk.   Do you think the Raiders did not think that Jamarcus Russell's deal should equal productivity?  It is a gamble for both sides--a 4-5 year contract is security.  Guaranteed money you take for a promise to perform at your highest level for the length of the contract.  Olsen is not giving money back if he has a bad year, I assure you.  Contracts are not rewards, they only concern themselves with the now and the future. So where you ranked last year and the year before that---that simply means the Panthers made a wise investment in Greg Olsen.  I mean, if I invest in Cisco stock, buying it at $40 per share because it is expected to rise to $50 per share and it ends the year at $60, Cisco does not come to me and say, "We should have charged you more when you bought our shares--can we have an additional $8 per share?" THAT is business . Olsen should blame himself if he signed a lower deal than he is worth.  If he did not believe he was worth more then, why should the Panthers pay more now?  The Panthers paid him fair market value and he accepted the offer. I think it is bad practice to start paying people who outperform their contracts