FireChan

Both players have played extremely well this season, with the exception of the KC game. The real question is, who has been playing better? Gilmore sees #1 WR's more, but Darby has also seen his share of good WR's. So, who ya got?

Why don't we use a statistic that doesn't include suicide, huh?

It was still stupid.

They have no more picks. 2016 first went to the Raptors for Bargnani. They only have their 2017. They either need to sign Durant, or trade Melo.

How could you forget? IK may actually be the worst because he may see the field the most out of the worst list. If you behave, it won't.

In no particular order: Best: McCoy Watkins Incognito Hughes Darby Worst: Cyrus EJ Joe Johnson Boobie IK

Because he's starting this week.

That's not what I meant. You said, "- Signs with us with absolutely NO committment of being the starter......knows he is gonna have to work for it" No team was giving him that commitment.

No one was giving TT commitment to being the starter in the offseason.

No.

Define "most."

Teams sometimes do positive things and still lose. Just like teams can win and do some negative things. In case you were wondering.

Only if you have a time machine.

This is about math, not emotion. How did Brady do yesterday? lol, OC never change.

I grew to dislike EJ's chances when he never ever had a "great" game. He had games where he played well, but none where he was "on fire." TT has already done that. You need to be able to get hot or be a HoFer to be a Superbowl winning QB, IMO.

http://bills.buffalonews.com/2015/12/06/bills-dareus-keeps-playing-through-lifes-losses/ The Buffalo Bills defensive tackle trucks to the back corner of the fieldhouse at One Bills Drive and takes the seat on the bed of a golf cart, arms crossed. Begin a question with “Everybody close to you … ” and Dareus cuts in. “Falls off.” Once you peel back this outer layer of joy, there’s this chilling truth: Everybody close to Dareus dies. His father, his grandmother, his grandfather, his mother, his mentor, his brother, close friends. All gone. You’re damn right he’s dejected, depressed. “Every day. Still to this day. Still to this day. Every day.” So Marcell Dareus loathes the perception of Marcell Dareus.

I didn't say if it was "okay" with me, but it is allowed.

You may. Or you may not. But either way, they are still allowed.

Yes they are. Of course they are.

Do those countries share an unguardable border with a corrupt window-dressing government controlled by massive criminal enterprises? And yes, I am against restrictions on a lot of things.

Yeah, I figured you were going to attack those sources. No argument on the clickbait headlines but I think you're being too quick to dismiss the rest. Here's more reading if you're interested, just things to consider. Let me be clear. I did not attack them based on "click-bait" headlines. Click-bait would be "10 Gun Control arguments that will shock you with how brilliant they are" or some other claptrap. There's a very obvious bias in characterizing a supporter of the SA as an alcoholic. This is the second sentence of that article for shitsake. "While arguing with a gun nut ultimately proves to be an exercise in futility, Death and Taxes has pulled together some responses to shoot down your drunk uncle when he starts spouting bull **** on your Facebook page after our country’s next tragic shooting massacre." I'd say that's not conducive to reaching an amicable understanding, to say the least. Would you disagree? As for the rest of my critiques, they were purely content critiques. I find these sorts of articles to have too many buzz words and not enough substance. They are talking points, not any sort of useful, in-depth knowledge. I will read the rest that you linked and get back to you on them. The common gun-owner fantasy of battling "the government" in the streets with your weapons is pure delusion, but I don't think I'm going to convince you of that, sounds like a deeply held belief for you. This is a major leap. Earlier I said, "I also disagree that the government only fears citizens because they are armed. Why? Why else would a government fear its citizens when they have their own standing army? What can the public do?" You didn't answer that one. The reason I asked that question is because I feel it represents a concept that is important to understand. I don't think that I will ever be in a situation where I have to engage with US military in some sort of hostile takeover. However, the population of the US being armed incentivizes the government to not, for lack a better phrase, !@#$ with us. If a government does not fear its citizens, it eventually takes advantage of them. This is true throughout history. And even though I find a US Civil War of dystopian military vs. citizens unthinkable, many other unthinkable things have happened throughout history. It seems to me from everything I've read the data overwhelmingly supports gun regulation. You could say I'm only reading biased information, I could say you're only reading biased information. I'm the one venturing into enemy territory here, though, so why don't you tell me. What should I read instead? Where's the evidence that any attempts would be a waste of time and resources? History. Prohibition was the driving cause of much of the criminal activity in its time period. And folks still drank. Still found ways to acquire alcohol and fund vast criminal enterprises. The War on Drugs. Millions and billions spent on fighting drug use and trafficking in the US. And every single kid in my high school still knew who to ask to get any drug under the sun. (I know that's anecdotal, but I'm pressed for time, I can find sources if you're not satisfied.) Which is a beautiful lead-in to... I don't think I have the energy or interest to also debate marijuana with you. My general opinion on it is it seems like the wise move. States make money, eliminate a black market industry. I know Colorado has struggled a little with it because they have it as a cash only enterprise, but I also know it's made a lot of money for them in taxes. I haven't seen anything to suggest it somehow makes anything worse. Why, what's your angle and how is it relevant? Bingo! Marijuana use was rampant in the US while it was "illegal." A black market was propped up to sell it illegally. Do you think these concepts could be relevant to the gun industry?

Where to begin.. The first article says nothing about how the "NRA perverted the Second Amendment" other than that it did. Then it mentioned "gun-sense" regulations without any attempt to explain how they would curtail the episodes of gun violence they referenced. So, no. The second article is titled "How to argue with your NRA-loving drunk uncle." Awesome. Even you can see the bias there, no? Easy to believe you (the general you, not you specifically) are 100% in the right when you demonize somebody as an alcoholic. They make the classic arguments, again with no insight as to what the "tighter regulations" they want, actually are. Keep this in mind, because this is a sticking point with me. The third says that the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the individual's right to bear arms in 2008. No link to the NRA was discussed, besides just mentioning it in the article. So, bad examples. Now let's get into your post. Here's a key disagreement — you call it timeless and gun-control advocates like myself think it is entirely outdated. Obviously the Founding Fathers were not talking about modern guns when they wrote it, so how could it be timeless? They were talking about state militias, not individuals owning handguns or automatic weapons. Incidentally, it was the NRA who perverted its original meaning for their own gain. They were talking about the weapons both they and the governments at the time, had. Why that concept would not extend into the 21st century is beyond me. A state militia is filled with the population who bring their own guns. Hard to do that with guns being banned or "very controlled." Furthermore, as you so graciously cited for me above, the interpretation of the Supreme Court is the law of the land. The USSC has interpreted that the Second Amendment guarantees the right for an individual to keep and bear arms, and that it shall not be infringed. That's an interpretation that I share. I also disagree that the government only fears citizens because they are armed. Why? Why else would a government fear its citizens when they have their own standing army? What can the public do? For us, corruption comes in the way of lobbyists. The NRA, as you say, hold a lot influence because they have, well, a lot of money. That directly impedes our representatives working toward solutions. Okay, but we still don't know what those solutions are. This was the sticking point from earlier. None of your articles even come close to discussing solutions. They instead either attack/defend from attacks from the other side. There's no room for discussion or thoughtfulness in any of your articles. Just the same platitudes we've all heard a million times. We have no idea how effective the imagined solutions could be, and there are mountains of evidence to suggest they'd be a gigantic waste of time and resources. And again, the NRA does not hold a monopoly on corruption. I agree that citizens are responsible for protection. I think identifying the NRA as a negative influence on our government is a responsible move that citizens could make in the interest of our own protection. This is a conclusion you've reached through your own opinions, so I won't address it. Let me know if I missed anything you'd like me to respond to. And a question for you. What is your opinion on marijuana legalization and your rationale behind it? Be thorough.

BF4E with the assist!

I'm just going to pretend that you didn't say this, for your sake. I am torn on this topic. Somethings the NRA does, I hate. I hate how they twist every conversation about gun violence into "mental health," exclusively. It's detrimental and causes road blocks towards any real progress. I am also skeptical about any interest group that wields massive influence in political matters, as I believe that corruption is the norm in most of our government. However, the NRA is also the last bastion of defense for protecting the Second Amendment. Without their influence, I fear there would already be bans in place for many, if not all, firearms, and that is something I cannot abide. This country was founded with the ideals put in writing in the Second Amendment, and I believe that those ideals are timeless. I believe that protection is a responsibility of every citizen, whether from internal or external threats. I believe that a government only serves the interests of its citizens because it fears its citizens, and disarming the population eliminates that fear. So, I'll say, the same. It's not ideal, but I don't see an easy-fix. Give me another.

I pity anybody who has had the misfortune to read this abortion of a thread.