Acantha

No, the Constitution does not include the right to bare arms so that it could create a militia. It says that because a strong militia is necessary, the government cannot restrict the right to bare arms. You might not see a difference there, but I certainly do. I didn't include it because it doesn't apply to any point on the discussion of the fact that the amendment restricts the right of the government to infringe on the right to bare arms. The reason is meaningless. If there is something about the amendment that no longer makes sense, that's fine...change it. As to your second point, which is another incredibly nonsensical quote that is unleashed at these times, I have a few easy responses: 1. Obviously weapons have changed. Weapons also changed throughout history prior to the Bill of Rights being written, and in fact during the lifetimes of those involved in the writing process. To think that they didn't understand that weapons would continue to change is insulting and ignorant. 2. The Bill of Rights does not spell out what "arms" are, so why would any interpretation do so? 3. As previously stated, the idea behind ensuring the second amendment was included in the Bill of Rights was because the founders wanted to ensure Americans had a way of fighting back. If their enemies have access to enhanced weapons, does it make sense that they wanted their countrymen to defend themselves with inferior weapons? Do you believe that Thomas Jefferson wanted the equivalent of American fighting British muskets with short swords? And even though I think I'm making a pretty clear point, I'll clarify. I honestly don't care about debating whether Americans should have access to every type of armament. I only care that IF the federal government decides to limit arms in any way, they do so through the legal means spelled out in the Constitution. If Americans decide it's time to change things, that is our right as a nation. It is not the right of the Congress, President, or Supreme Court to decide that on their own. So instead of continually discussing the meaning behind each word in the constitution and bogging down the discussion in pointlessness, I have a question that goes out to you and all others like you. Why shouldn't Congress make changes through the clearly defined amendment process?

One of the biggest crocks of bull **** ever put forth. The meaning of the words in the constitution were exact and meant for a very specific reason. Do people really truly believe that the leaders of our nation drafted a new form of government and intended for all of the rules to be interpreted any way anyone wanted? The Constitution is a living document because of the built in ability to amend it! Changing the meaning of it any time a new political force gets into office makes the entire thing meaningless. People act like we have no way of knowing what the creators of our government intended, but that's untrue. If there was anything that they were good at back then, it was writing things down. Long letters and articles from almost everyone involved in the process of creating our government are out there. There were those that wanted powerful government and those that wanted no government at any level, the end result was in the middle. Read the preamble to the Bill of Rights (it's in my signature for easy viewing). The idea is very clear. Despite the fact that the entire point of the Constitution was to spell out exactly what the different parts of the federal government were authorized to do (meaning anything else was outside their right), the Bill of Rights was put into place to further stress the restrictions that were put on them. The gun debate is a great example how both sides get it wrong. Here's issues from both sides of the argument: 1. The argument for gun rights: Even staunch supporters of the second amendment seem to get it wrong. The second amendment does not give Americans the right to have guns; that right was considered obvious and inherent. The second amendment specifically forbids the federal government from infringing on that right. There is no amount of interpretation that can change that. 2. The constitution is a FEDERAL DOCUMENT. I highly disagree with NRA fights that take state laws to federal court. There is nothing at all in the constitution that limits a state from limiting the availability of guns to it's citizens. If the majority of that state want stricter laws, and their state constitution allows for that, it is within their rights to do so. The people of that state are responsible for trying to get the laws changed to meet their ideals. They can either fight to get laws changed from within the system, or move to a state that already shares their beliefs. The choice is theirs. The entire point of the amendment process is that it is supposed to be very difficult to make changes to our FEDERAL system of government. The whims of the current political power or the current swaying of public opinion is NOT a reason to fundamentally change things. If Congress wants a federal law changed, it needs to make that case to each state and hope that it's argument holds enough water to make it happen. Otherwise, it's up to the states to take care of their people.

Yes.

This is exactly anti-second amendment. I don't understand why people who are anti-gun try to dance around the issue. If you feel strongly about limiting who can have guns, the argument should be to amend the constitution. Make it a national discussion and try to get it changed. Don't hide behind an overwhelming false "interpretation" of the second amendment.

Or toss a couple of homemade explosives, something very easy to do. This is the same old argument that will be rehashed time and again. There are many ways to kill lots of people congregated into small areas. If the USA is really having more difficulty with mass killings, maybe we should be looking into the reason random individuals are so willing to take the lives of others instead of the tool they use to do so. Since it's a much tougher question that doesn't fit the pop tart mentality, it will not be on anyone's radar. And I agree with those that say this guy should be killed quickly when he is found guilty.

Try to convince everyone that the last person to give testimony wins.

It's a corny name, but this story proves that the idea is necessary.

You aren't likely to keep a coordinator that is being offered a HC job, no matter the money. It happens, but it's pretty rare. The money will be helpful bringing in new talent, but just like the draft bringing in a new OC is a crap shoot. And in the meantime...sit on my thumbs? I'm just talking here about a possible eventuality, pretty much 98% of the offseason discussion.

Local thing here is huckleberry pancakes. Pretty darn good.

•Not surprisingly, the Seahawks lead the league in potential head coaches according to our poll, with three (Darrel Bevell, Tom Cable and Kris Richard). The Chargers, Patriots, Bears, Colts and Lions each boast two on the list. Ummm....and the Bills.

This was the one negative that went through my mind when the Bills hired Roman. If the best case scenario happens and he is able to turn this offense around with a purely defensive minded head coach and no real QB to speak of, he'll be gone. Of course that's not a reason to pass on a good coach, but we'll be back to the drawing board if he gets a head coaching job next year.

As far as I can tell, it sounds similar to Playon which has been doing it pretty well for a while.

The military agencies have big budgets for advertising and this falls under that. Blame the military for advertising the way they do, not the NFL.

I've been waiting to see what apple tv will offer. I don't currently have cable, but I plan on getting either apple or sling once football season starts. It'll be nice to only pay for the extra service for half the year while football is on. Off the bat I'd say sling is going to be the better deal, but we'll see once all of the apple details come out.

I've seen reports saying 10M.

While it's fun to make fun of Marrone and Hackett, this is really no different than the Bills claiming Simms. Glad to see Tuel still has some work.

Start to finish, that was one of the best news stories I've ever read.

Yeah, how dare someone waste one of the precious few new post allotments this board imposes. Now we're stuck talking about this when someone else could have started a much better thread. Guess we'll have to wait till tomorrow. Hope someone with more concern for the rest of is up early to start one of those better topics you speak of.

Probably won't bite on that high. I don't care where I sit, so I'll go cheapest route...but I think anything more than 50% markup and I'll enjoy the game with my family at home. I love getting to a game when I can, but it's really not worth that much when factoring in the negatives.

I'm hoping the after market prices aren't too outrageous. I only get back every few years for a game and this year I'll be visiting during week 2.

Ugh...really pathetic. Not sure what's worse, the idiot with the camera who couldn't decide to run or keep trying to take pictures or the half dozen people who are so out of shape they literally couldn't run for their lives (or even jog for more than 20 feet).

No doubt.

With such increases in delivery due to online shopping, those guys are BUSY. When I do happen to catch them delivering, they're usually jogging or speed walking back and forth to the truck. No time to spare! Now I live in the middle of nowhere about 3 miles off pavement....feel kind of bad for all the online shopping I do, but Amazon Prime is just too good of a deal.

Good pickup IMO. He's really the kind of player that's perfect for this type of situation. He has almost no chance of making the team, but we need a guy to throw the ball this week and who knows, there is that infinitesimal chance he surprises the world.

The "article" mentioned the possibility of upcoming rumors that may cause the Eagles issues in the future. There is nothing that in any way says there are actual rumors of this happening. But everyone sucks anyway. EDIT: After re-reading I take that back. The article does insinuate that, but they base it on the following quote from Florio: "Second, the next distraction for Kelly and the Eagles (and the Titans) will be the inevitable speculation — which already has begun in some league circles — that Kelly is destined to eventually become the coach of the Titans." So in other words, BS rumor mongering.