Rockpile233

Thought of another one... Party Down was a great show that unfortunately only got a couple seasons.

Flat earth cultists are among the dumbest people you will encounter in life. Trying to debate these people is a fool’s errand. They are completely !@#$ed in the head.

Bored to Death

The only bad deal would be no deal, but I’m confident something will get done.

Well his cry for help was answered...

I typically limit my efforts to things that actually have a chance in hell of happening. You’re not going to stop everything. It makes sense to me to limit an emotional teenager (especially with the arrested development we see today) from purchasing a high powered rifle.

I think they qualified it with “certain types of rifles” or something like that. It would have to be carefully crafted, but I fail to see how this would INEVITABLY lead to any assault on the second amendment or taking guns from people. As others have stated, 21 is the age in many areas for handgun ownership. I grant this is only one part of the issue, but it IS a part despite what hardliners would have you believe.

Both Trump and Rubio supported increasing the age requirement yesterday. I’ll be interested to see if this gets any legs.

Would armed teachers really be a deterrent? How many of these school shooters are expecting to get out of the situation alive? It may end an attack earlier than otherwise, but I see many new issues that others have pointed out. I’m not against armed security or far stricter protocols for entering a school, but I would think you need to pay teachers more if they are all required to be strapped. I’m intrigued by Trump’s support of age restrictions. This is already fairly standard for handgun ownership and I imagine wouldn’t be too controversial.

By this train of thought you should be able to purchase a firearm at age 8. It keeps coming back back to a slippery slope argument.

Once again the conversation devolves into mayhem. I will ask again....how would federal legislation requiring a person be at least 21 to purchase a firearm infringe upon your rights?

Use all the confrontational language you want, but it adds little. I am not a “gun grabber”, nor do I believe the majority of people are and I don’t know why you brought up Chicago. You’re not going to solve violent crimes by banning guns, but maybe you stop an emotional teenager from shooting up a school if you make purchase age 21. How is advocating for age 21 grabbing guns?

To be fair...gun rights advocates often throw logic out the window with the incessant slippery slope arguments.

Age 21 for gun ownership seems like one of these “common sense reforms” a great deal of people would likely get behind. I don’t think anyone should see that as an assault on essential liberties. Teenagers are often emotional wrecks. It would be something at least...

I haven’t been on here in a while, position noted.

You are camp #1? Shocking...to no one lol. I would love for people to talk more about the underlying issues, which I agree are certainly contributing, but these are naturally harder to work out and only pursuing this avenue will of course lead to nothing actually being done. Maybe nothing needs to be...I don’t have all the answers. I definitely blame advancements in personal owned firearms to an extent. The common pathological issues have always existed even in the days of family values people talk about. The broken people did not have access to firearms that could unload the quantity of ammunition then as they do now. I brought up serial killing in jest, but that was in vogue among the crazies (which we can all agree there is a certain one upping type of thing with social media (formally print media)) I think most of those issues aren’t any different than they were 50 years ago. It’s the firearms that advanced and social media one upping probably took it from there. I’m rambling now, back to real work.

Soooooo are mass shootings a problem? You’re deflecting with a fallacious slippery slope argument. Should people with mental health issues have the right to purchase firearms? I never said an AR-15 is only a killing device. I said it was at best an adult toy for target shooting. I said I didn’t see many practical reasons for owning one apart from protection, which could also be accomplished with hand guns. And I stand by that your AR-15 isn’t protecting you from the military. You can be camp #1, I’ve acknowledged the logical consistency to that group and can at least respect that.

I’m interested in what the staunchly anti-gun regulation crowd would propose doing on a federal level to combat the regular mass shootings we experience here. I think most people acknowledge that there is something wrong, and thus a reasonable person would acknowledge that changing nothing is unlikely to stop the phenomenon from occurring. To me then you fall into a few camps: 1. “Mass shootings are a cost of doing business if you will, in a county that affords freedoms we hold dear. While unfortunate occurrences, mass shootings do not offset the benefit of the second amendment and thus must be endured.” While I don’t agree with this mindset, I respect it because it’s at least consistent. 2. Mass shootings ARE an issue that should be addressed federally, but guns aren’t the problem. It’s those difficult to quantify “underlying issues” that we need to address. (Loss of family values, war on religion, mental health etc.) Okkkkkk. I would argue that there is some merit to this, but nobody I speak to in person ever has an idea to do anything different. I would argue that many people typically can agree that someone with documented mental health issues shouldn’t have access to firearms, but this becomes an opportunity to posture politically and no one actually does anything. 3. “Mass shootings ARE an issue and increased federal regulation on guns should be considered” I would say this is probably the majority opinion these days from people I am surrounded by (small sample obviously for the smart asses) Ideas have been floated, but are constantly confused by slippery slope counter arguments and declarations that there is a war on the second amendment. At least this camp seems to acknowledge that we should TRY SOMETHING even if it’s small. 4. “Guns kill and should be outlawed for personal ownership.” These people are crazy, unrealistic, self absorbed, idiots. Unfortunately people try to group #3 in with them to drag reasonable conversations into absurdity. So if you think mass shootings are an issue that needs work, come up with something. Easy to bash everyone’s ideas without having an alternative. And if if you think your hoard of rifles and ammunition is going to protect you from a tyrannical government...please pass that good stuff my way. A former friend of mine with this opinion is already online spreading Florida is a false flag conspiracy stories. You are a special sort of crazy and nobody is going to push you off your opinion. I think camps 2 and 3 could have reasonable conversations if this pathetic generation of politicians would go away.

I don’t own any guns, but I’ve never had any problem with people who consider that right a big part of their personal identity. I just don’t understand why we can’t limit personal ownership to rifles that aren’t capable of (x) amount of rounds per minute. (I’m no expert you would obviously need to carefully craft this) I don’t see any practical need in having a rifle that can unload that many rounds per minute apart from personal enjoyment. I have a lot of close friends who are Motorheads and we don’t let them drive as fast as they want for their personal enjoyment. If you already own one you’re grandfathered in. Don’t worry the second amendment isn’t under assault. I don’t really understand why conversations like this send people into a frenzy. Seems like a reasonable train of thought. A crazy would have have trouble killing 17 with a handgun under most circumstances. People want to point at mass shootings as a relatively recent phenomenon (and reference loss of family values, religion, parenting as the causes) yet don’t want to look at technological advances of personally owned firearms making that type of carnage even possible. #makeserialkillinginvougeagain

I'm going with the Bengals. As mentioned, division games are never a sure thing no matter what the records are going in. Also, the Jets have played everyone tough this year. The Bengals are a bad team. The Bills should have had that one. If we lose out on a tiebreaker at 9-7 though, I will still think it was a pleasant surprise of a season for a new regime holding a wealth of draft picks.

Tonight will be almost exclusively skycam. Personally, I don't care for that angle. I can understand how some fans would appreciate it, but I just can't get onboard.

Taylor's gutless play Sunday and refusal to take chances down a million points was the end of the TT era. Decent player, but good riddance. We need more from the position.

One of the most disappointing games I can remember.

I'm freaking out.

Well at least Buffalo gets Arizona tomorrow, though I doubt many of us will be watching...