GaryPinC

There's no doubt a certain percent of players are going to try and hide a concussion, especially mild. But these days there are standardized protocols, mandatory checks for obvious blows to the head and baseline control testing players much match if it is suspected they sustained a concussion. You make it sound like there's a large amount of players hiding their concussions and I truly doubt that. All of sports are far more cautious and proactive about it then even 10 years ago.

The story says the families were neighbors. I guess the mailman delivered to the wrong mailbox that day. Just disgusting and I don't know anyone involved but it makes sense that Malone would try like hell to avoid all involvement in this because he did commit a crime.

No worries, work and life certainly get in the way of me contributing on here more frequently. Safe travels.

You'll have to forgive me, I'm not following your train of thought. The second amendment allows us the right to protect ourselves, our families and homes, and our country against any foreign invader. Most importantly, it gives us the means to overthrow our government if enough of us feel it strongly necessary. If someone is wrongly jailed or denied their liberty, I wouldn't consider that a direct relationship to the second amendment. Please explain? WRT guns, I did not say there were no guns involved in the coup process. My words: "but fail to realize it did not involve their guns in any way" refer to the gun rights we enjoy across this great country. The coup did not compromise our basic gun rights in any way.

Maybe, but more importantly they've all been brainwashed to believe any gun regulation (safety training cert, background checks, etc) is an infringement on their right to own a gun and will inevitably lead to the government coming to take them. They fail to realize every other constitutional freedom we enjoy comes with regulation and responsibility. It's essential in a country of nearly 400 million. They believe in the recent coup attempt but fail to realize it did not involve their guns in any way. They fail to realize in 2008 DC vs Heller, the SCOTUS formally recognized the right of the individual to own guns for self protection, particularly handguns as the popular choice. They fail to realize that SCOTUS recognized the right for reasonable regulation but even at the local level the citizen's right to own a gun must not be denied. So,the left cannot ban hand guns, only exotic weapons. But neither side wants to acknowledge this as they would have to change their extreme narratives.

Among the least surprising news ever. Hope they learn from this to improve their "suicide watch" ?/sarc

Considering separation of powers, and the fact that SCOTUS had ruled the 2nd amendment to be an individual right, I doubt the feds do much regulating of state national guards, considering the feds have banned automatic weapons and assault rifles at various times, plus prohibit felons from owning guns, I'd say it's both guns and people they can regulate.

But they can be regulated as necessary. As interpreted by the SCOTUS, allowed under article 3 of the Constitution.

Nope, all your attempts to characterize my argument are completely off point and irrelevant. The SCOTUS, the final legal authority on interpreting the Constitution, has ruled that the individual has the right to keep and bear arms and that governments have the right to regulate them and already do. No matter what you think, this IS the legally correct interpretation of the 2nd amendment until that amendment is revoked/changed or a future supreme Court strikes it down. Which just isn't going to happen. Here's an easy link summarizing federal regulation efforts of guns:https://m.dw.com/en/8-facts-about-gun-control-in-the-us/a-40816418 Obviously there's many more state and local laws. I rejoiced in 2008 with DC vs Heller because SCOTUS finally stepped up and shot down the left's "only for militia" argument and set a legal precedent every lower court must follow. Requiring training for licensing to buy a gun is not unconstitutional as per the SCOTUS decisions (Heller, McDonald vs Chicago) making your argument 100% wrong.

Really? Supreme Court decision DC vs Heller, upholding the 2nd amendment. Page 2: "2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56." This of the majority opinion supporting the second amendment. A nice way to show that you are 100% wrong.

No. Anti gunners' words carry more weight when no one takes any common sense steps to improve the situation.

The people who want total gun bans will push for that regardless. As will the pro-NRA paranoids fight any regulation. How about most of us in the middle stop letting them inhibit the common sense responsibilities which should have been instituted long ago?

http://www.pbs.org/pov/dreamdeceivers/ Yep, I remember watching this documentary with my dad back in 92 on PBS. The tone was typical "heavy metal bad", "kids today....", but they guy dug into the situation enough it became plainly obvious the two young men were pretty screwed up from their family life.

Right on, with freedom comes responsibility. Except when you want to buy/own a gun, then we fight responsibility tooth and nail. I say this as someone who owns and uses 5 guns.

Francisco Lindor, Indians shortstop

You're dead on about every single thing you've said about Peterman. I hope at some point you laugh at the stupidity of human stubbornness in the face of reality rather than getting annoyed by it.

Any lawyers here able to provide perspective? Looking very basically at the US code, specifically 1503 and 1505 of Title 18, to be guilty of attempted obstruction, the alleged offender would have to attempt to interfere directly or with someone directly involved with the investigation or the justice/trial process. I suppose in 1505, if Trump were to influence/order his staff to make efforts to interfere, Trump could be found guilty via Congress's 1996 clarification of "corruptly". It seems to me, it would have to be proven that Trump was serious in his efforts, the target would have to follow through with an obstruction attempt or suffer a job loss/punishment if they disobeyed Trump? Just hoping for some real world perspective on how "attempted obstruction" is determined to be a crime if the attempt is indirect. https://www.justice.gov/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1725-protection-government-processes-obstruction-pending-proceeding-18

Then why hasn't he charged them? They're not Trump and if convicted would set up impeachment or future indictment of Trump.

Nope, he never said that. Stop attempting to quote people, you are terrible at it. “If we had had confidence that the president CLEARLY did not commit a crime, we would have said so,” Mueller added. “We did not however make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime.” via Forbes and CNBC just to name a few. This is a far more nuanced statement than your feeble attempt to polarize the quote.

Oooh, so Row believe the world too many people but moving every to texas will kill enough and solve problem. Comfortable. He so smart.

Ooooooh yeah, so difficult to understand eh?

If you enjoy living like canned sardines. But I for one could not.

It'll be an interesting test as this franchise has consistently shown the ability to draft strong CBs over the years and IMO tends to rely on that over signing our current #1 to top dollar, as with Gilmore.

Best thing about Yeldon talking is to confirm the front office isn't blind to the fact that McCoy may have lost a step.

Personally, I felt Shady lost a half step last year beyond the O-line issues. I do believe he'll still be effective this year but get less touches. You know for a player of his (past)caliber they're not going to let him play out his last year if they believe in his future. So if they extend him before the season that will say everything and we'll have something to complain about either way!