WhitewalkerInPhilly

Ugggghhh. Rosen was there for the taking.

Josh Rosen's sisters were cute too

Well, if he was partying with Irsay last night, there is a decent chance that there's vomit on his sweater already.

Whew. If Kiper and McShay are predicting it, it almost certainly won't come to pass. It's a mockery I tell you!

Music to my earholes.

That's a bold move Cotton, let's see if it pays off for them.

...what? The "dude" asked when people had previously taken his guns away. If you want to press a constitutional issue, that's a deeper question, but let us at least state for the record that with the current laws, a man who, upon multiple occasions, had shown violent aberrant behavior, had his guns returned to him I can did deep and debate the constituionality until I am blue in the face. We can circle on the role of government, and what force it can take and form all types of syllogisms But lets get down to brass tacks. No BS This is a man who a blind deaf and dumb moron could tell was dangerous. And with the laws, as they are, he was returned weapons of deadly force. Multiple times. And then, he went on a rampage. He bought his weapons legally. They were returned to him, legally. Everything was legal until he walked up and shot a whole bunch of people. If you think this is ok, I don't know how to debate with you, because you live in a fantasy world where that is ok. Nice snow job. You asked for evidence that the defendant had his weapons seized and returned to him. I have provided it. Not only are you ignoring that I have provided evidence that supports that the assailant had his weapons seized and returned to him, you change the subject to trying to attack my grammar. You try to seize upon one flaw to ignore the multitude of flaws in your argument. Shame. Shame on you.

the read the !@#$ing article

That...the dude was asking for my sources that the defendant had his guns revoked before the incident... That...I was asked for evidence to my claim and provided it?

Ahhh, my favorite subversive Ruskie. As you are clearly unfamiliar in the American Constituion and its amendments, you would not know that the there are limits. You are not allowed to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater. Free speech does not extend to telling an accomplice to murder someone. So, am I ok with banning certain weapons outside of a well regulated militia? Yes. If someone is a clear and present danger, is there an overwhelming public good to prevent immanent disaster? I am ok with it. But let's have some common sense **** here gentlemen. Or, maybe, or, if he is clearly an imminent risk, we, oh I don't know MAKE IT HARDER FOR HIM TO GET AN AR-15 And again, his lack of an extended magazine saved lives. So how are we even debating this part? Oh, right, you didn't because you have no leg to stand on.

WOW. Way to sidestep the issue. You 2nd amendment wonks love the "right to bear arms" part while ignoring the "well regulated militia" part. Let's compromise and say "You want these guns? You have to sign up for proper regulation and training, solely for the purpose of functioning in your militia unit" There, constitutional problem solved. Or do you just want to be a man baby?

https://www.npr.org/2018/04/23/605044996/why-the-waffle-house-shooting-suspect-had-access-to-guns-after-his-were-seized

Libcuck? Nice. Did you type that out while vaping and oiling your neckbeard? Except here's the part you are glossing over: a big reason that the government failed to save lives, is that with laws as written law enforcement had no ability to permanently take them away: https://www.npr.org/2018/04/23/605044996/why-the-waffle-house-shooting-suspect-had-access-to-guns-after-his-were-seized I think there's a reasonable debate to be had whether citizens should have some form of compulsory military training to act as a militia in case of invasion, but there's a lot of untrained people out there with guns and none of the training to use them safely. Assuming that everybody packing in that Waffle House would have made things safer is crazy. I have BEEN to my share of Waffle Houses, and no one makes good decisions in them.

He likes the old testament that much, he should be on the receiving end.

Oh look, a person who had his guns taken away multiple times for clear instability, but kept having them returned to him because there was no legal recourse to prevent him from reclaiming them. And oh look, he was stopped by an unarmed black man, who had the chance to wrestle it away because the shooter didn't have an expanded magazine. Clearly, we're going to see this man called a hero by the president and the evident value of limited magazine size should be screamed from the rooftops!

Mike Pence by stoning

No. No, no, no, nooooooo, nope, nuh uh, nope Does that answer the question?

You know, I can't complain too much. Yeah, the opening of the schedule is rough. 3 away games against 4 pretty good teams is not a great recipe. However, if we are starting a rookie, I would rather that we push through some of the harder games first so that he has the chance to gel by midseason and we can make a push. In the meanwhile, I don't think that we have another 3 week straight road trip, and I don't think we play anyone off a bye week.

Wow, we really do have Putin on here, giving advice!

I miss that man. Seeing him grind down so abruptly was tragic.

Jesus WEO... I think it's only fair to fine the QB if you are going to fine the defender, because I'm sick of the defenders getting constant blame. Come on, if a QB throws the ball low, and the WR dives for it, and the DB can't adjust in time, it is ludicrous to think that the DB should share all the blame. And yet, they routinely do.

He started more than one, and he stepped into a bunch. I know that isn't a huge space, and QBs often take a next step in the next year, but he has shown less than EJ, and people here wanted that man's head on a pike.

Excellent, now he will be able to throw it into the hands of a defender even faster.

I don't care who is best Day 1, I want the person who is best the rest of their career.

I've been living out of state for close to five years now. I kind of liked seeing them, but it's not as if I was going to events to get a look. The only time I would see any of them was when they could cut to the sidelines coming out of commercials. They are not vital to my enjoyment of the team. If not having them means we avoid more scandals, it's ok by me.