LA Grant

No, it doesn't indicate that. The only thing it really indicates is that they probably won't re-sign EJ Gaines, or draft a CB on day one. But even then, who knows? I agree, tho; my preference is to use both 1st Rd picks on the interior lines. My broad assessment of the team would be, in order from best to worst: "We can stop the pass. We can almost run. We can almost stop the run. We can't really pass." Theoretically, improved OL and DL gets you to: "We can stop the pass. We can run. We can stop the run. We can almost pass." Then, whether through personnel or scheme changes, if the QB/WR situation can be even a little more consistent than last year, I think a lucky 9-win team can become a solid 11-win team.

Well, no, then I did understand, because I just showed you that I saw what you were doing. I simply saved us the time of you drawing out the actual point you were making. Your other point: that also suitably describes yourself and the entirety of PPP.

It's a bit unclear what you're asking. At first I read this with emphasis on "only" which didn't make any sense, because that's the position you're arguing for, the inconsistent one: "Restrictions for 1A are necessary, but restrictions for 2A are not." But I think I see the question you're going for, with emphasis on "inconvenienced," right? Suggesting that, if I'm saying that all Amendments can be restricted, then I'm also saying the specific restrictions should be the same for all Amendments? The answer is that the laws should be nuanced, obviously. So is your actual point that you think that the current gun laws are suitably nuanced, and that the blame is only on individual bad actors, therefore the existing gun laws need no change? Maybe I'm misunderstanding the question? If so, please indulge.

Was he? I honestly don't really remember him that well from his time there, he was just another guy to me. Paid more attention to him the last few years when Indy would play primetime and thought he was well respected. But I could be misremembering or something. My thought was, I like the idea of an older veteran CB with Tre, rather than Tre & a rookie CB, or an overpaid Gaines. Either way I think the only concern with Vontae is the same as EJ, the injuries. Edit: Also, Incognito was a cancer in Miami who ended up being a good leader here (it seems). A totally different situation, just thought of the Dolphins connection.

My guess is a CB in Rd 3 or 4.

In terms of play it may be a wash as Vonate's getting older & both have injury concerns. Arguably the leadership element makes a sizable difference, as well.

Wow! Great pick up and great deal. Hopefully that safely crosses off CB in Rd 1.

Bolded is correct. Specific bans don't work, for a variety of reasons. Chicago bears that out. But the argument that Chicago has more gun violence because of ban laws is not true. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/glanton/ct-met-gun-control-chicago-dahleen-glanton-20171003-story.html https://www.npr.org/2017/10/05/555580598/fact-check-is-chicago-proof-that-gun-laws-don-t-work The correct answer is universal background checks & registration across the board to weed out more of the wrong people.

Thank you for illustrating. The tactic you're employing is "shoot the messenger." See how this works? Even with nothing to go on, you're already scrambling for any way to discredit my argument. If you were actually curious, you'd have realized I already answered you about "why now." So, alright, I'm not answering any more of your notifications. Obviously the only explanation must be that I'm a deep state crisis actor, paid by the Soros & Hillary slush fund for oppressing lawful gun owners. Or whatever you think it is. It couldn't be the obvious answer right in front of your face. Conclude what you want, I guess. Whatever you need to avoid the issue of gun control.

Your question is not on the topic of gun violence. Your question is about my posting history. You're assuming that because I'm posting on PPP after Parkland but not after Vegas, that I only care about one and not the other. This is a logical fallacy based on the mistaken idea that I must have some ulterior motive. It's a pointless diversion. Sorry dude. Not playing your game anymore.

It's not on topic, nor am I "afraid," ffs. I'm saying, again, that your questioning is off-topic, and pointing out that what you're doing is derailing the thread to focus on my posting history instead of restricting arms. A distraction tactic. If you have a question about guns, which is the topic, then by all means... shoot.

The topic is gun laws. The topic is lawful gun owners taking responsibility by agreeing to laws that may inconvenience the 'good guys' to take preventive measures against the 'bad guys.' If you want to "figure me out," that is a separate issue and you're free to PM me, I guess.

Why do you think, fool? Because I'm not superhuman, because debating with NRA folks is rarely honest & never fun, because there have been a lot of shootings and I don't have an endless capacity for this BS. If I'd started this thread after Vegas, you'd be asking "well, why didn't you come to PPP for the previous shooting?" as a way to discredit the argument. On and on and on. You want to make this about me. It isn't.

Yeah, as I've said before, I'm not playing this game. Again — we've been through this crap, these tactics are tired. You're not asking me seriously, you're searching for any reason to discredit the argument. This isn't about me, as convenient as that would be for you. Just... wow.

Who's being disingenuous? If that's your position, that position would also logically oppose the Supreme Court's ruling on child porn, which would absolutely qualify as an infringement on 1A. You don't oppose those infringements, because they don't serve your Constitutionalist/fundamentalist argument. If you're arguing for any psycho to own any gun because any restriction violates 2A, you're also arguing for any psycho to own any media because any restriction violates 1A. If that's your view, fine. That is at least a consistent position. I obviously disagree with it, but you don't get it both ways. Well, obviously I'm being paid handsomely by George Soros to be a crisis actor.

Clearly the only explanation is it must be a conspiracy from the DEEP STATE and/or Hillary.

Infringed =/= inconvenienced. The idea that restrictions violate the Constitution has been debunked, as we've already agreed restrictions are necessary to the 1st Amendment. You can deal with taking a test to buy a gun. Plain and simple. There's no valid argument against it, except "they're not my kids, not my victims, not my responsibility" and/or "i personally didnt shoot anyone so why should i have to be inconvenienced." Do we have any proof JMC isn't actually Trump?

I'd say it would be more accurate that Tasker bluffs. Everything about him is a bluff, as we've seen throughout this ridiculous thread.

Lol. So we're arguing about the theoeretical rules of an an alternate universe? I thought you were telling me why gun restrictions could not be in our world, where the Document has already been interpreted and changed without Amendments, not some fantasy world where everything works the way it's "supposed to." In that world, I'm sure there are no mass shootings -- the rest of us don't have the luxury of living in your world! ^ This.

If the Bill of Rights are immutable, then the restrictions on 1A shouldn't exist, right? Not without an additional amendment, which is the only way they could have the authority. So, congrats to the pedos for their destructive hobby being legalized in this alternate universe. Or, the Bill of Rights sometimes require necessary restrictions from other measures that are not additional amendments. In which case, 2A is fair game. Or, perhaps the Amendments are not equal? Some restrictions are okay for 1A, but none are okay for 2A?

If the First Amendment should only be applied to protecting political speech in modern law, why shouldn't the Second Amendment only be applied to weapons that matched the Founders intent? If we're going by their intent within the context it was written, then your argument is that the Second Amendment only protects for muskets or other 1700s-era Arms. You're making all sorts of assertions about their intent now, whereas previously your position had been to adhere to the letter of the law above all else. If that's the case, why is it so absurd to assume that the Founders meant "Arms" when they wrote "Arms"? Why didn't they mean missiles or WMDs? The Second Amendment didn't account for modern weaponry, yet modern weaponry exploits loose laws because of Second Amendment absolutists & corporate lobbying. This is why restrictions on Amendments are sometimes necessary. EDIT: You keep dropping these things that reveal where you're getting your arguments, btw. Before it was the Wayne LaPierre plagiarism, now it's the multiple "Saul Alinsky" references which you seem to think is some clever insult because you've picked it up from second or third-hand from Newt Gingrich, apparently, either from Glenn or Rush or InfoWars. Try. Using. Your. Own. Brain. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970204624204577177272926154002 https://newrepublic.com/article/100030/gingrich-alinsky-saul-newt-catholic-carolina For anyone who wants the broad overview of what Tasker's attempting with "Alinsky" & where it comes from: https://www.vox.com/2014/10/6/6829675/saul-alinsky-explain-obama-hillary-clinton-rodham-organizing (The next step is for Tasker to claim, as with the LaPierre quote, that he's actually been using Alinsky as a reference/talking point waaaay before the rest of the Right did. I'm sure he liked it "before it was cool" because libertarians are the hipsters of the right.) Delusions on top of delusions.

The absolutist argument is a dead end. See: 1st Amendment, various examples. Restrictions are sometimes necessary. Well said. -- How the Right see themselves: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/02/26/trump-says-he-would-have-confronted-florida-school-shooter-even-without-gun/372792002/ How the Right actually is:

It's also true that many of the people pushing against restrictions are also completely ignorant about guns. Not all gun owners oppose restrictions, and not all gun proponents own guns. But ok — what do you think people are missing? ("A brain.") Sure. But really— what should people understand that they don't to have the discussion? Not even just for my benefit but in your opinion what's the core of the issue that you think people are missing? If the ignorance is first-hand experience with guns, that's fair, or fair-ish. I've seen plenty among the left people who haven't spent any time with one or understanding them; the right doesn't have a total monopoly on ignorance. The right's ignorance is the flipside, though -- a fairy tale version of guns. I'm not a hunting or military hobbyist & I'm no expert. But I did grow up with guns around. I know plenty on the left, or just people who agree with restrictions, who also grew up with guns, or served overseas, or currently own and use guns now. Guns are fun. There's an immediate palpable power that comes from every action with it - holding, carrying, firing, hitting your target. It's a rush. I don't want to own a gun but I understand why people want to own guns. Or maybe I can't understand unless I've been a gun owner? I dunno, I wouldn't want me owning a gun, lol. Would you?? hahah Probably not. You think I'm insane so probably not. But that's my point — guns are too heavy a responsibility to be given out so lightly. I get that the AR-15 is popular for its versatility & mostly understand about the confusion with different classifications and why that's frustrating to gun owners who are hearing it incorrectly; I also agree that banning certain things is pointless, a stupid half-measure; the Democratic party is full of stupid half-measures and it's part of the reason they're not in power. People on the left need to stop saying "ban" because I think that, er, triggers people, but mostly because it's the wrong approach: there's no need to "ban" anything, just stronger regulation. The proposal of a fair & consistent universal background check system for all arms/weapons seems logical with two faults — 1) "isn't a box cutter a weapon?" etc., so you need to get into the weeds on classifying things which is tedious but isn't honestly that difficult; and 2) the collected works of the NRA/2A rhetoric. Is it a mandatory conscription/training like in Sweden? Whip the snowflakes into shape with a draft? Or what? I'm genuinely curious to hear practical solutions to mass shootings, or what helps the discussion. All I've heard from the right is "do nothing, there is no problem," or "teachers with guns? or more guards? uhh brb" — and from Democrats its "ban this kind of magazine or bullet or gun" workaround, which again, I don't like that solution, a weak half-measure. Universal background checks for firearm sales, going forward, seem to be the best solution I've heard. It's not perfect but it seems to be the best option. But, I dunno. (To be clear — I'm talking more broadly than about the specific quote you were responding to; extrapolating.) Agreed it was a failure and he should resign. The amount of warning signs and nothing was done. Completely maddening. If Parkland mass shooting was more unique instead of increasingly common, I might be content to just say this is an absurd failure in this one specific instance. But either way, it shouldn't have been that easy to get the gun. He should have been handled earlier, yes, and it in a utopian world wouldn't fall to the gun seller as a line of defense but we need more responsibility there. Regulate even a little bit, for God's sake. This kid would have not passed the test to work at Walmart. The 19 or however many red flags should have mattered in the sale. The most frustrating thing is definitely "not my responsibility." From this man especially, but also from too many others.

Nice to see the weak arguments previously dismantled on earlier pages in a Buzzfeed format but nonetheless, it's still not an argument, it's a list of excuses. 6 Excuses to Avoid. "We're treated bad. You're not nice enough. I don't like your tone." Grow up. The right is so endlessly contradictory. Trump wins on bullying but as soon as they take just a hint of their own medicine, it's always this kind of crybaby crap. Can't wait for the NYT piece on how actually mass shootings are good for factory workers so think of them. On and on and on with the BS. "Poor, sensitive Lawful Gun Owners. Why won't anyone consider what they want after a tragedy? After all, they're still alive — in a way, aren't Lawful Gun Owners the real victims here? We must appease these snowflakes at all costs, their ears are vewwy vewwy delicate." I think the only kind of gun control the gun-wing of the right will support is if we also go through the list of every NRA member who hasn't murdered anyone and pat them on the head and give 'em a treat. That might work except it's almost always a right-wing nutjob. Usually some loner obsessed with guns.

I like this plan.