lostfan

I'm gonna go buy a TV now if I can.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 16, 2009 -> 11:24 AM) It annoys me how people use gun statistics. "Check out Tassaloosa Wyoming! Everyone has a gun and they haven't had a crime in 14 years!" Tassalloosa, town of 400. I mean, I'm saying what we have now is fine. I think violent felons give up their right to own a weapon to society, at least for a number of years. I think background checks and all that jazz are reasonable. But, until you can guarantee people their safety, you can't take away their means to protect themselves. No I agree with you I'm just saying that you probably get drowned in the "GUN GUN GUN" crowd on fans. I think Chicago's laws are a little over the top though.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 16, 2009 -> 11:19 AM) I don't think I'll ever own a gun, if I do it'll be for sport like a 10 or 12 gauge, but, I think cities should have the right to have stringent gun laws because of their higher population problems and I think there should be restrictions on who should get guns, like bearsox. I don't want him with a gun. That's the first time I can ever recall you saying anything that strongly in favor of gun control.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Jan 16, 2009 -> 10:31 AM) the problem is, technically, the 2nd amendment says I have the right to forify my house with machine gun turrents at every corner and have an AK-47 in the dinning room window if I so choose and you cant stop me. Of course, we DO stop people from doing that. If I was to use this logic (not saying that you subscribe to it) and apply it to the first amendment then I could say ANYTHING, inciting violence and all that fun stuff. The SCOTUS shot that down though.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 16, 2009 -> 09:49 AM) Empty argument. I did a few research articles on this in college. Looking at other first world countries like the US, there is a consistent theme where the removal of guns does not stop violence, and in fact often it increases. There are also plenty of single-country examples (i.e. Switzerland) where a well-armed public keeps crime rates lower. And in the US, communities that have high rates of gun ownership tend to have lower crime levels than those with lower rates of ownership. Its really very simple. When you restrict guns via laws in the US, you only end up taking guns out of the hands legal and law-abiding gun owners, who overwhelmingly are not the problem. The criminals, by nature, don't care about those laws and get the guns anyway. Correct. We have close to zero ability to restrict criminals' access to guns. Criminals will find a way regardless of the law, pretty much by definition. Therefore that particular argument is basically irrelevant.

QUOTE (LosMediasBlancas @ Jan 16, 2009 -> 02:56 AM) You guys are too uptight about the whole bathroom deal. It's a bathroom, people go there to pick their nose, piss and s***. My favorite is when guys give you that 'eww' look when you fart at the urinal. Where else am I supposed to go to tear ass? How is not enjoying the smell of someone taking a fresh dump considered being uptight?

Damn, Bulls just exploded all of a sudden.

QUOTE (knightni @ Jan 15, 2009 -> 09:41 PM) It is worded in the definite "shall not". However, people only read the latter part in their arguments. If you read the entire amendment, it was written because of an immediate need of a state militia for personal protection and as a protest against Britain's attempt to control Colonist individuality. This was prior to national concription, so it is outdated. The only parallel where you can make a valid comparison today, would be if gun ownership was predicated on mandatory militia representation, i.e. each state's National Guard or military reserve branch. Thus, gun owners should be prepared to be called upon for state military service as an agreement for owning weapons. I think in the majority opinion ruling in favor of individual rights they said something along the lines of what their intent was back then and went with writings from the time and whatnot (I read parts of it this past summer but it's hazy). The dissenting opinion basically said they created law out of thin air. But eh, that's what the Supreme Court is supposed to do, when the Constitution isn't clear.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jan 15, 2009 -> 09:27 PM) Just like there are reasonable restrictions of speech, there should be for guns. 'reasonable' is the problem word, because to anti gunnies, every restriction is reasonable, and to some pro gunnies, nothing is. Good summary imo

NO infringement? No. That would be chaos. Certain people shouldn't have guns for obvious reasons, for one.

He's better than 90% of the other conservative talking heads though.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 15, 2009 -> 08:42 PM) It depends a lot on your definition of the word "literally". It does, and it sounds like a simple question, but it's not. I do agree with the recent SCOTUS ruling that said it was an individual right. Which I guess means "yes" which is what I voted? Or does it mean "no"? Am I retarded or something?

Actually now that I've voted I don't really understand the question and don't know what I've voted for.

Deng doesn't even seem like half the player he used to be.

I actually kinda like Glenn Beck, usually.

QUOTE (kyyle23 @ Jan 15, 2009 -> 05:45 PM) i couldnt disagree more. there were a lot of whispers that moose led a player revolt in 05 that got Orton benched for Rex because he wasnt getting the ball enough. And I watched him on the comcast bears show that he was on, that guy pointed more fingers than I could count, and with all of his drops he shouldnt have been pointing the finger at anyone else. He was supposed to be the leader, but I didnt see it. I know he was a big Rex backer, but really Orton sucked and that needed to happens so I had/have no qualms about it at all. I know Orton was a rookie then but that doesn't change the fact that he sucked really, really bad. Sure he pointed fingers and didn't really accept accountability for much of anything, but when it came time to prepare and be ready in the huddle etc. he's the only one I can ever recall really doing anything (and I'm mainly talking about '07). Maybe Kreutz was, but as far as position players it didn't look like Berrian, Clark, Olsen were, and you know it definitely in the hell wasn't Benson.

QUOTE (hawksfan61 @ Jan 15, 2009 -> 04:40 PM) I won't hang Moose on the team. A lot of guys look good with Steve Smith lining up on the other side of the field. Moose is a loudmouth who I don't think really wanted to be here. I don't think he ever really wanted to leave Carolina to be honest with you, but he saw that big contract and took the money and ran. He is kind of the Bears Ben Wallace, although with a far less destructive impact on the team than Ben had. Moose pointed some fingers and burned a bridge or two when he left no doubt, but I honestly saw him as the only real leadership presence on the offensive side of the ball. He just looked completely washed up in '07 though and he obviously wasn't.

QUOTE (DBAHO @ Jan 15, 2009 -> 04:22 PM) Obviously yes. Just saying that weather conditions aren't exactly ideal out there ATM. Luckily, everyone survived and that's the main thing. Sounds like the pilot did an excellent job. I just wanted to use that opportunity to make a dramatic understatement.

QUOTE (DBAHO @ Jan 15, 2009 -> 04:07 PM) Just crazy. I live right on the Hudson, in Jersey, and would probably have a good view from there if I was home at the moment. Apparently a flock of birds flew into the plane, and the pilot did the right thing in landing in the river. Not a good day to be there ATM though, considering the weather. I can probably put up with being cold and wet for a little while if it means not drowning and whatnot. I'd b**** later, of course.

QUOTE (G&T @ Jan 15, 2009 -> 03:59 PM) CNN is talking to a passenger. He said everyone is alive. Sounds like they all got out or are getting out. Great news if true.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 15, 2009 -> 03:54 PM) Considering what could have happened here this is as close to a 'water landing' as you can get. At least the thing didn't rip apart and sink within seconds. Just about... I mean they state that possibility about as gently as you can without sounding ridiculous.

Have you ever been on a flight, especially a transcontinental flight, and you hear them say "in the event of a water landing..." and thought about what a euphemism that was? What it really means is "uh, guys, in case the plane crashes into the ocean..."

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jan 15, 2009 -> 02:04 PM) Sandy Koufax? Power Lefty, only a couple of pitches, refined from thrower to pitcher in the pen? Johan Santana broke in that way too, no?

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Jan 15, 2009 -> 02:54 PM) Who was one of the bunch that allowed LEH to fail and gave BSC to JPM. QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 15, 2009 -> 03:04 PM) The problem is you won't be able to find someone with qualifications for this job that has clean hands in the financial collapse unless you go to some economics professor who predicted the whole thing. ^^

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 15, 2009 -> 02:36 PM) Do you work at a kindergarten class? You would think, right? Hopefully we move to a new building sooner rather than later.