oldmanfan

McDole, Dunaway, Sestak, Day. Remember them all

Love defense. And miss it a lot.

Prospects don't matter. Performance once you're in the league does. So the premise of the thread is kind of wacky.

Unfortunately this issue brings out absolutist positions when what is needed are people to have rational discussions where compromise can be reached. Points I would make: 1. The second amendment should never be repealed. People should have the right to bear arms. But if as learned a scholar as Justice Scalia, who in the Heller decision indicates that the specific type of arm you can bear can be regulated, perhaps we should heed his wisdom and discuss. I am not a gun owner, and as such do not understand the nuances of different types of weapons, magazines, etc. But as I have said elsewhere on the site, it is a question of math. As Senator Rubio said the other night, if you have a weapon that can shoot a lot more bullets in a given time as another, then that weapon has the capacity to create more harm than one where magazine size is restricted. Thus, while a weapons ban or limitation on magazine size would not have prevented the nut case from walking into that school, it would have likely limited the damage. So if only 16 people rather than 17 had been killed, that matters. 2. We can all agree that mentally ill individuals should not be allowed to own a gun. I think everyone can likely agree that there should be more resources put towards identifying the mentally ill and getting them help sooner. But that would require more funding, and my understanding is that funding for such treatments have been cut in the federal budget. So if that is a serious thought, the funding has to follow. We should also allow families and law enforcement more leeway to have a mentally ill family member or individual be retained for treatment for a specific time, even against there will, to help not only those he o=could harm but also the individual in question. 3. The focus has of course been on schools this week, and how to make schools safer. I would welcome more armed individuals on campus. I would want to recruit ex-military for that purpose myself. My daughter's school has 4 police on campus, and I'd be happy to see more. But not teachers. If some student got nuts and overwhelmed a teach, they could get the weapon. If a teacher lost it then they're in a classroom with a weapon. I'm also all for locking down access; my daughter's school has too many doors open at times. But we need to remember it's not just schools, but churches and movie theaters and other places of assembly like in Vegas that have been affected. So are we prepared to offer enhanced security at so many of these type sites across the country? the logistics would be difficult. 4. I am an advocate for strong enforcement of existing law, and I'd add a few. If you use an illegally purchased weapon in a crime, life sentence, mandatory. Use one in a crime and shoot someone, death penalty. Mandatory. draconian punishment for such crimes. 5. Background checks. I have a hard time finding a reason why a mandatory background check for any individual purchasing a weapon should be argued against. Make it a sufficient length of time where it' allows a depth of check, and make sure that there is a central registry that is accessible and easy to use such that no one slips through the cracks. Make all gun purchases through licensed gun sellers, and eliminate private sales. If you have a gun you want to sell, sell it through a licensed dealer. That to me would make background checks more effective. Many have talked about rights, on both sides of the argument. But it's important to recognize that there are different rights that are held dear on both sides. Our declaration says we are endowed by the Creator with inalienable rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Life is first. The Bill or Rights also provides certain rights, but those were written by men, and as such as not truly God-given , as they can be changed as we have seen through the constitutional amendment process. My bottom line would be to have universal and meaningful background checks, stronger mental health intervention, and reasonable laws on gun regulation to limit the types of weapons and ammunition that can be purchased. Not eliminating the second amendment, but placing upon it certain qualifications as suggested by Justice Scalia. Regarding that last point, while not a gun owner I have talked to numerous folks who are, and they all have agreed that some restrictions would not take away their right, and they would still be able to own the guns of their choice for sport, or for protection. I recognize that last point is going to stir up objection, but let's at least have a dialog. We have to stop shouting past each other, and start talking to each other. There are about I'd say 70-90% of folks in the country that have similar thoughts as mine. At some point that sizeable majority needs to lead the conversation and the discussion. Right now it's the 10-20% of the extremes of the argument.

Actually I did earlier. Steps in all area should be taken including mental health. Kids this disturbed should be reported and families should be able to have them admitted to mental health facilities even against their will. Just as one example.

You get guns. No one is saying you don't. I'm not. But please explain why the type of weapons that can fire large numbers of rounds are necessary. I'm willing to listen. Explain vs. just rant.

Let's have a reasonable conversation about this, because that is what is missing in this entire issue. I will state again: I believe in the Second Amendment and support the Haller decision by the Supreme Court. You have the right to bear arms, as we all do. But as Judge Scalia pointed out in his decision, that does not mean you have the right to bear any arm you want to bear. You cannot own a bazooka, correct? My math makes sense. If you have a weapon that can shoot ten times more ammunition than a weapon that does not, that weapon can do more damage. That really is just basic math. Is there not room for all to come to an agreement that, for example, the bump stocks used in Las Vegas should be eliminated? Or that magazines that carry more than a certain amount of bullets be regulated? I am all for other measures supported I suspect by you,, such as enhanced police at schools. But if we as a society are ever going to going events like we saw last week to a halt, everyone needs to come to a compromise somewhere in the middle. I am not a gun grabber. I don't own one myself, but support your right to own one. But explain to me how your life would be affected if there were restrictions placed of the type of guns used in the vast majority of the types of incidents we saw last week.

row, if you want to make 17 baskets, do you have a better chance of you take 400 shots or 17? Simple question. Simple answer.

It is not guns per se, it is the type of gun. The violence in Chicago generally does not result in the death of tens to dozens of people at a time. For the Chicago thing they need a ton more police there, and to crack down hard on drugs and thugs there.

Yes it is simple math. Let's say you are on a basketball court and you want to make 17 baskets. do you have a better chance of making them if you take 400 shots or 17? simple math. San Bernadino happened because those people had assault weapons with high capacity magazines. And they violated the law. Should we just abandon laws because you break them? I presume you are a gun rights advocate. I am too. You have the right to bear arms. It doesn't mean you have the right to bear any arm you want, and reasonable people should be able to conclude that a weapon that can shoot hundreds of rounds in a short time period doesn't need to be on the street. And if a criminal gets them anyway, like the San Bernadino? If they had lived, I would advocate for mandatory death penalities for anyone using such a weapon in a crime.

There is a middle ground here that the vast majority of Americans agree upon. You can honor the second amendment and the right to bear arms, while regulating the types of arms one can own. The Supreme Court recognized this in the Heller decision. It's the people on the fringe that are absurd. On one hand you have the nuts who are convinced that if you ban semi-automatic and automatic weapons it means Big Government will walk into your house and take over. And there's the nut cases who believe that all guns are horrible ad that they need to be banned from the earth even tough responsible gun owners do just fine. It is time for the rational 90% of folks to stand up and be heard. I plan to be more active in this area, because I'm sick of seeing these senseless shootings. Expand background checks and make them universal. Expand the abilities of families to have troubled individuals get mandated help, even if they are of legal age to refuse. More police at schools. Severe punishment for those making social media threats. Reinstate the ban on automatic weapons, and ban large magazines and these bump stocks that allow one to shoot hundreds of bullets. A And call out stupidity when you see it. I sent something to call out Rubio when he said gun laws would not have prevented the Florida tragedy. Bull. it's simple math. If you have a gun that can shoot hundreds of bullets in a set time, to do much more damage then if you have a gun that shoots maybe 10-12. It's math a second grader can do, and it's time to call out that kind of stupidity from politicians and others.

Good catch. I meant Bill. Thanks.

When it comes to Mel Kiper, I am a fan of Jim Tobin

Wonder why they couldn't just let him retire.

Seems pretty reasonable to me.

I hope the fan's opinions are not their first priority. But whomever will be their guy they'll have very weighty expectations placed on them. I just wonder if they factor that in in any way

Physical attributes aside, I would think one of the things the brain trust at OBD should be looking at is the psychology of whom they wind up getting for their QB. Whomever they pick either through FA or the draft is coming into a situation where there is a fan base starved for a winner, and who are even more starved for a QB that they can get behind and see as the hero to the team, and to the city. Those are pretty sizeable expectations, and I'm wondering what opinions are, of the options out there, which guys might be able to handle those kinds of pressures.

I agree it doesn't matter who we pick. Because the top 4 all have flaws and none of them are can't miss kind of guys. Be because historically around of high first round QBsvdon't pan out.50%

It's a slow time right now and while talking about the draft is about all we have to do, all the different mocks and experts and op-eds don't change the one basic reality going on. If Beane sees a guy he feels will be the answer at QB, he'll do what he needs to do to get in position to take him. If not he'll likely get a decent FA and build with all the picks. He has said on a number of occasions they need a QB. The question is whether he feels one of the guys is a can't miss type and only he knows that. Everything else is just pure conjecture.

All this stuff is just white noise

No one cares, first of all. Second, no one knows what they're thinking. These sites just guess to get hits.

Some of us older folks could educate you on some great players you're missing. Too bad your mind is so closed off, you could learn something.

It's a shame some of the younger folk never got to see the AFL Bills, or the OJ years. You missed seeing a number of great players.

Tom Sestak. Mike Stratton.

I think people need to get past this idea that you have to draft a QB in round 1. We have done so twice in the drought period, Manuel and Losman, and both picks were bad. Ultimately you have to rely on the ability of the scouts and front office personnel to make good judgments on these guys. So let's say they feel Darnold is a can't miss guy (I would disagree, but they do a helluva lot more work on this than I do). Beane should then use his draft pick capital to move up and do what it takes to get him. But let's say that after scouting they feel a guy like a Mike White has as good a potential as the supposed top 4 guys. Then they'd be foolish to waste picks in round 1 when you can get him in round 2. We can all sit here and debate what they should or should not do in the draft (and that's fun, until someone claims they alone have the answers), but remember the front office guys, scouts, etc. have invested a ton more time in evaluations, plus these guys do it for a living and have done so for years. And even given that, if you look at top QB picks over the years only about 50% of guys taken round 1 become long term starters, and an even smaller percentage become that kind of start player every team looks for. My personal view? It comes down to how you play poker, and I'm a conservative poker player. If I'm holding two pair, I'll go with that as opposed to trying to draw to an inside straight. My two pair would be a FA QB that you have watched and know that he has a given skill set that you can work with. Ideally for me it would be Cousins; I think he's poised to be a really top tier QB (more a three of a kind or a straight for a poker hand). But if his price is too high, or if he elects to sign elsewhere, then give me a Bridgewater or a Bradford or maybe a McCarron, and then draft a kid like a White and use the majority of your picks to build up our fronts on both sides of the ball. I'll ride with my two pair, because I win more than I lose doing so.