GaryPinC

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!

It was a ton of fun. The offense was breathtaking and the defense could make plays that took your breath away. Anyone that tries to make fun of them losing 4 in a row, I tell them it was a privilege to watch that team go to work during those years. The whole thing taught me that being a fan isn't just about winning a trophy, they were an amazing experience regardless.

For me, you can debate statistics and throwing styles all day, what comes down to a franchise quarterback is playing an effective, diverse enough throwing game to keep the defense guessing and having the sense when to take risks for a big play. Even in his best year, I didn't feel like Tyrod had the sense to do this with the game on the line and it never improved. Once he started losing accuracy on his long ball (2017) there were even less big plays from him and it really was going downhill before Cleveland condemned his potential as a starter last season. TT also wasn't good at throwing people open, but did get better at back shoulder throws and hitting people in stride in tight coverage in shorter throws. But he still seemed to shy away from tight coverage mid range. I have hope with Allen because he certainly is not afraid to stick a ball in to tight coverage and do it successfully. He showed me he will throw people open and I think he has that franchise QB sense when he needs to make a big play. He definitely needs to improve his decision making and accuracy for the short game and that'll help open up his long chances. He missed a lot of throws last year but also had impressive accuracy at times. I'm willing to believe his rawness accounted for the inconsistency. So I'm pretty optimistic, he shouldn't just be a long thrower, and I expect him to diversify this season. You can't be a one trick pony as a franchise QB. It's true many QB's can only change their game so much and my biggest worry about Allen coming in. But he has so much talent and desire to win I came away feeling he can make enough changes to be that guy. It'll be fun to watch this season. No excuses about the game winner to Clay vs the Dolphins, the ball hit Clay above the waist 3 yards in the endzone. He should have caught it.

Wow. Your reading comprehension is truly awful. I've got no problem and always do donate to both those groups.

An offshoot of the tipping craze that I just hate is the grocery, pet store etc. asking if you want to donate to some charity when you go to pay. My kids looked at me funny at first for saying "no" but 1. I don't know how much of my dollars are actually ending up at that charity and 2. I choose when and where I donate, not at some big business' request.

Really, that's what you know was going on here? You're an idiot.