Coach Tuesday

You cut off the rest of my post on purpose - where I talked about the state. Enforcement of private contracts means ENFORCEMENT OF CONTRACT LAWS BY A STATE. Moron. And in any event, all of this came up because Tasker the Megalomaniac said that "freedom" is what pulled humans out of the mud. That doesn't even make any sense - humans have been free since they started walking upright. If anything, it was the opposite - sacrificing/abandoning certain freedoms to the collective, for the common good - that pulled humans out of the mud.

http://www.theonion.com/article/nra-says-mass-shootings-just-unfortunate-price-pro-57094 What are you babbling about? Private contract enforcement has existed for far longer than that. You don't think contract-enforcing democracies existed before the 16th century?

It's not about practicing contract law (whatever that means - it sounds like practicing safe non-sex), it's about the state enforcing private agreements so that commerce can happen and people can accumulate property without having to worry that someone with a bigger gun is going to come along and take it from them. As to the car accident analogy - it would make sense if there were an amendment that said, "Congress shall make no law restricting the speed of vehicles." So then we'd have "car enthusiasts" driving 200 mph wherever and whenever they wanted, routinely running over small children but the response would be "Hey, that's just the price of freedom! We need to protect the right of drivers to drive however fast they want, even though it leads to tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths each year, because FREEDOM. Stop POLITICIZING the TRAGEDY!"

Your political views are cracked, dude. Freedom didn't pull the human species out of the mud. Collective contract enforcement did, actually (commerce with the state having the monopoly of force). And freedom wasn't "given" to us by the state - it is the natural state of things. The Framers' view was that freedom should be the default state of play, and the purpose of the Constitution is to set limits on what the state can do to impinge on our natural freedoms. No, basically not.

It's not a class action. It would have to be individual lawsuits, although they could have multiple/consolidated plaintiffs. I didn't miss your point about car accidents by the way - it's just so silly I haven't bothered to respond to it. Should there be ANY limits on private weaponry ownership? Should your neighbor have the right, if he wants to, to string claymore mines around the perimeter of his yard, and mount an anti-aircraft gun on his roof?

It's actually not. And you really believe that AUTOMATIC weapons (which aren't even legal now) in the hands of ordinary citizens help foster a free and stable society?

Principles

Tasker, I'm aware of the restriction on automatic weapons. But it's pretty damn easy to convert semis into automatic. Is that a good thing? Will you answer that question? Levi was honest about it - he thinks it's a good thing because "it's cool" and he "feels like it." One lunatic in this thread actually thinks it helps keep us stable and free. What's your response? If you think those are good reasons, fine - thanks for your honesty. I happen to disagree, strongly.

I understand that's your interpretation of the Second Amendment. I'm not talking about the Second Amendment - I'm talking about whether there is ANY GOOD REASON for automatic military-grade weapons in the hands of ordinary citizens. Putting aside whether it's legal or not - is it a good thing to have? I should move out of the country if I don't like the idea of my kids getting shot with automatic military-grade weapons?

Let's give it a few more weeks, Bill...

You think automatic weapons in the hands of ordinary citizens are necessary to maintain a free and stable society? If you believe that, you're insane.

There is no good reason why citizens of a free and stable society should be able to own military-grade weaponry capable of being made automatic. None.

No reason? Really? The greatest coach of all time and great players?

The Pats will get their defense fixed, and then that will be the story of the season - how they overcame their early defensive woes on their way to another division title etc. I almost think they enjoy setting up challenges to overcome, theyve gotten bored with just beating everyones a$$ every year. Ugh theyre totally in my head. I hate them so much.

Falcons shouldve run it right up the gut for an easy conversion and probably a TD. Inexcusable.

The Bengals almost always play us tough - until we crap the bed in the fourth.

Yes - I got it, and enjoyed it, and am quite surprised Kelly fell for it for a bit at least. Hes slipping.

Hes trolling you.

Seriously. Hes a more efficient passer this year and is winning games without any receivers or a running game.

Not too different from many of Russel Wilsons games.

Powell back next week.

And Hau$chka.

Our kicker is amazing

The issue of excessive force is different than the issue of racial profiling. You can have excessive force without racial profiling. I realize Bennett made it about race but in many of these cases the real grievance ought to be excessive force. There is almost never a good reason for a cop to tell a pinned suspect hell blow his head off, regardless of the race of the suspect. If that happened, which we still dont know.

Go back and finish high school and then you can re-join the discussion.