Rob's House

Courtesy of B-Man in another thread. http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/423112/white-house-lies-about-gun-violence-again-charles-c-w-cooke

I can't speak for everyone, but I've defended Incognito despite the fact that I didn't like him before the Martin thing ever happened, because I don't think he did what he was accused of. It's easy to look back with the benefit of hindsight and say he shouldn't have !@#$ed with Martin while he was struggling with his self-image, but it's pretty clear that Martin covered up his feelings about the "bullying" and played it off like it was a friendly back and forth. The rest of the team was surprised by the accusations too. They thought RI & JM were best friends. And the guys that were in that locker room and knew the situation a hell of a lot better than you, I, or Ted "Whitewash" Wells had RI's back. You don't have to think someone's a great guy to think he shouldn't be villified for something he didn't do. And some of the players in that locker room said the Wells report was misleading and that some of the situations he included, even if factually accurate in a literal sense, were mischaracterized.

I don't see anything wrong with what he did there.

****. He could have clocked that cameraman in the head with a tire iron before anyone knew he was a threat, then he's got two startled chicks in arms reach. He could take one out before she even processed what had happened, and if the third took off I'm sure he could have run her down. Not to say a gun wouldn't be easier, but it's not remotely clear that this could have been avoided by keeping a gun out of this guy's hands.

Notice how that bit always goes unaddressed?

As I said earlier, if you're going to pick a poster story for gun control pick one where the crime couldn't have been committed without the gun.

Why did you respond to that and not the previous question?

The main purpose of a gun isn't to murder people.

Maybe. Who knows. The point is that if you're looking for an example to illustrate a need for gun control this is an extremely poor one to use. This is opportunism at its worst.

So it's okay to exploit these incidents to "start a dialogue" on the issue, but it's only appropriate to represent one side of the debate? Can you walk me through that one?

Gug, you're a good dude, and a pretty smart guy when you want to be, but when you let your emotions get the better of you, you start talking in hyperbolic absolutes. Nobody's suggesting flooding the streets with guns is a good idea, but it is a net gain when responsible people learn how to properly use a gun and arm themselves. I believe that and I'm not a gun manufacturer.

Why is this the wrong time?

We haven't really defined the problem all that clearly enough to make any meaningful suggestions. We've established that sometimes innocent people are shot, but that's pretty vague. We haven't established how often it happens; who is doing it, under what circumstances, and with what frequency; how the guns are obtained; or how the gun death rates compare to other causes of death. We'd be in a much better position to come up with solutions if we knew what the problem was.

Remember when that mentally ill guy shot up a black church in SC? Oh wait, that was because of the confederate flag. Never mind.

With common sense gun laws. duh.

Huh? I never claimed he was mature or level headed. I just called bull **** on this "bullying" thing.

You mean the ones that were taken out of context by a media looking for a juicy story and blindly swallowed by a segment of the fan base thirsty for outrage?

Sometimes. I doubt it would have made much difference here.

If people are anti-gun then they're entitled to their opinion, but it irritates me when a situation like this is exploited to advance that agenda. It's not a scientific analysis. It's purely anecdotal and appeals to emotion rather than logic. Plus, anecdotally this isn't even a good example to use for that. Does anyone honestly believe this guy couldn't have killed all 3 of those people with a crobar or a machete, or by any of a hundred other methods? Sure, the gun makes it easier, but let's be real. It's intellectually dishonest and in poor taste to claim "common sense" gun laws would have saved those people.

Never let a tragedy go to waste.

I don't like the idea of giving the starting job to a guy that didn't earn it. I get it when you have a young guy with a lot of promise who was edged out by the veteran, but giving the young guy the nod because he's the future, but that's not what we have here. I'm not going to say EJ can't get better, but he's obviously not ready now. Perhaps he could become ready over the course of the season, but I can't see how annointing the 3rd best QB in the hope that he might eventually get it, and in effect sacrificing another season to the EJ project, is going to go over well in the locker room. Also, it's not like he was narrowly edged out by a good veteran QB. He's been beaten out pretty definitively by Matt Cassel & Tyrod Taylor. Yes, he has some nice traits, but there have been countless QBs that have failed despite great physical attributes. Plus, even if he's given the whole season, there's no guarantee that he puts it all together. In fact, the odds of him developing into a good QB really aren't all that high even if he does start. Sure, it's possible, but I've not seen or heard anything to suggest he's really starting to get it and is about to make the next step. I say let the best man play. If EJ's got what it takes he'll benefit from another year holding the clipboard, learning the offense, and practicing, and he should have no trouble winning the QB battle next year. And if he doesn't win it next year then it wasn't meant to be. I want my daughter to marry someone I can beat up.

Don't underestimate him.

I agree with most of your post, but I think this is an over statement. I know it's just opinion, but I think there are a lot of situations where it's perfectly understandable. The most frequent probably being a guy (or girl, but more often a guy) who's married with kids, has a functional home life, but a sex life that's run dry leaving him with needs that aren't being met. Getting some discreet side action may be better for everyone than getting a divorce and moving out.

I see both as separate and distinct acts. Whether anyone chooses to feel sorry for the AM subscribers is irrelevant. It doesn't change the fact that the hackers inserted themselves into a situation that was none of their business and as a result caused problems for a lot of people. I doubt any of the people who were exposed care about whether you or I feel sorry for them. But I think people who take it upon themselves to make life altering decisions for people they don't know, in circumstances they're not aware of, and without being asked by anyone involved, because they want to impose their subjective morality upon people against their will are highly eligible for, and well deserving of, a bullet in the head.

That's what they claim, but it's not the reality of it. They propose massive expansion of government power purportedly to combat climate change. But the proposed policies do virtually nothing to accomplish the stated goal, but do quite a lot to advance socialism and redistribution. I'm sure the true believers (useful idiots) have pure motives, but those advancing this from the top know what they're doing.