HereComesTheReignAgain

You cannot take away all the guns in existence in the U.S. even if you passed a law prohibiting gun ownership. Britian tried to eliminate gun ownership in America long ago and it didn't work out too well. Unless you can assure me that no criminal will ever get their hands on a gun, you cannot take away my right to protect myself against that criminal. That includes pricing guns out of the market with idiotic requirements like "smart bullets". One other point on the new bullet technology. If it is too expensive to practice markmanship and shooting skills, how many more misses and mistakes will this "improvement" cause. You cannot just pick up a handgun and hit everything you aim at without practice and training. I spend a lot of time at the range improving my skills unlike the common street thug who hits every bystander within 50 feet.

Keep telling yourself that! Criminals are not allowed to own guns or use them when committing crimes. Surprisingly, the criminals often don't obey that law. How does limiting/prohibiting law abiding citizens from owning a gun make anyone safer? (other than criminals). Enforce the current laws, and there is no reason to create more restrictions and bans. I don't think there are many pro-gun advocates that are opposed to harsher penalties for crimes involving guns. (again, other than criminals). Just look at D.C., Chicago, NY City., or San Francisco as an example of what the "gun control" politicians would like. They have banned virtually all handgun ownership. Try concealing a shotgun when walking home down a dark street! Gun control means hitting what you are aiming at right?

This has got to be one of the dumbest ideas I have seen in a while! There is a reason low tech revolvers and calibers haven't changed for years....They work when you pull the trigger. The most popular current style of handgun was created in the early 1900's with few changes since then. Your car is much more likely to kill an innocent person than my guns. Thank god I have enough rounds to take out a few hundred bad guys in case the gun control crowd gets their way. Can you say grandfather policy. I don't understand the concept of total dependence on a stranger for safety and protection. Anyone who suppports this idea should be forced to put a sign on their house and car declaring that they do not own any evil old guns. Can you imagine the outcry if anti-gun advocates had to give up the security they enjoy because criminals do not know who owns guns and who is defenseless. Put your money where your mouth is and let the world know that you will not be able to fight back when confronted with a knife, bat, gun, etc. Hypocrisy runs deep with this issue. Chucky Shumer has a carry permit and carries a gun to all his events yet fights to take away your right to protect yourself. He is evidently more important that you and your family. Hillary Clinton enjoys armed protection at all times and has secret service living on her property (tax payer funded of course) yet is one of the countries biggest anti-gun advocates.

Damn right it fits my agenda to slam a paper that consistently endangers Americans by printing stories detailing U.S. efforts to stop terrorism. I'm sure those other papers are garbage too. Most media has hit rock bottom. By the way, Republicans and Democrats both knew about this program and approved it. This should not be a partisan issue, all Americans should support legal efforts to stop our enemies from attacking us. But hey, if you would rather turn the Times into a victim of the mean Bush Administration, go ahead.

The Times cares more about it's liberal agenda than the lives and well being of Americans. It is an act of treason to leak this classified information and the person who leaked should face the death penalty...no matter what party they belong to. It is unfortunate that the likely victims of the next terrorist attack will be good Americans and not the staff of the Times. It would be great irony if the Times building was blown up by a terrorist that was being tracked by phone or bank records until the Times articles tipped them off. The again why would they bomb their allies.

Allowing those who get into the country illegally to stay amounts to uncontrolled immigration.

I must have missed all the Irish flags in the crowd. I can understand and sympathize with some of the Illegal immigrants that come to this country for a better life. That does not mean we can allow uncontrolled immigration. Our country could not economically support the huge flow of immigrants that would love to come here. What ends any sympathy and understanding is the utterly outrageous nerve of somebody who is not a citizen of this country to demand changes in U.S. law. Again not all illegal immigrants feel it is their right to be here, some just appreciate the fact that they are here and understand that if they are caught or commit another crime, they will be sent back. By the way, how is an illegal immigrant a law abiding person?

I'm sure those "other people" fought for their land and lost. You may not win the battle, but at least have the courage to defend your country or land. If they did not fight to protect their land, they deserved to lose it. I feel that America is worth fighting for, perhaps you do not. If you think this is simply an issue of peacefull peasants working in the fields, take a look at the millions of illegals protesting in the streets demanding that we change our laws to accomodate them. The majority of the flags at the protests were not American, they were Mexican. Millions of foreign citizens making demands to the American government while planting their flag....sounds innocent enough to me.

What is your address, I'd love to come over with a bunch of my friends and hang out in your yard. I'll assume this is ok with you since you have no problem with people illegally crossing the border on other peoples property. If you try to make me leave I can just sue you for harrassment just like many of the illegals are doing to the evil land owners on the border. I'll probably place some water tanks in your yard too so nobody gets thirsty while trespassing.

I stand corrected!

They can keep their moral victories, while the Republicans continue with real victories. Nothing will lead to quicker loss of credibility than accepting close losses as wins.

If Steve has one of the most desirable jobs on the planet and is paid a kings ransom, than he damn well better show up for the voluntary sessions or someone else will and take his great job. I don't know what you do for a living, but people in my company go the extra mile if they want to be the best and make the most. If you choose to do only the required things, you will not be looked up to as a leader and will not get promoted. Nobody is saying you have to show up for voluntary stuff, just don't expect to be a leader or respected as much as the workers who do show up.

It is not even so much that he missed OTAs. He should know that saying things that come across as complaining will alienate some of the fans. He is supposed to be an intelligent guy, start acting like one. I think we all need to tone down what we say about our jobs at some point to avoid pissing off the customers or owners. I will still buy my season tickets and cheer like crazy for the team, but not for vincent. His jersey will not be on my Christmas list. And don't tell me I don't even know they guy, I know enough to dislike him based on his statements and actions.

Gee thanks for explaining that people don't want to watch the average guy play football. Nowhere in my post did I say I could play at a professional level. If you are lucky enough to have the physical skills to make more in a year than your fans do in 15 years, I would probably appreciate it and avoid sounding like I am somehow overworked.

Last I knew, playing football was voluntary. I would guarentee 95% of the men in this counrty would gladly go through what football players do in exchange for a million dollars. I for one will not feel sympathy for Troy having to work almost year round now!

Oh, I thought it was football player speak for "I'm a greedy, selfish bastard that has never had to work a real job." My mistake.

Really Troy...I'm still waiting for my offseason. Oh that's right I have to work year round so I can afford to go see idiots like you complain about too little time off! Does anyone else hate Troy Vincent? This guy seems to get a free pass because somebody started the rumor that he is a really great guy. He complains about having to work to much and injures young players to prove a point.

I'm all for that. As long as it's posthumously!

Lawyers are the good samaritans worst enemy. It is nice to see Florida and Jeb Bush passing laws protecting the good citizens who are willing to stand up to criminals. You don't have to turn your back and run from a gun wielding thug, you can draw and fire. New york would rather criminalize the citizens trying to protect themselves....after all, the criminal might have had a rough childhood or been forced by society to turn to crime.

I'm not talking about two guys fighting, I'm talking about a situation where there is somebody who is an unwilling participant in a crime. If three guys are beating one guy or if a woman is being assaulted by a man. It is usually not hard to tell the difference between two drunks fighting and somebody who needs your help. But if you want to use your example as an excuse to not get involved go ahead.

Two sattelite NFL channel hosts were commenting on how great Saban is and that he made a great move hiring the former Bills head coach as offensive coordinator. Their reasoning was that he really knows the division opponents. Correct me if I am missing something, but don't 2 out of 3 division opponents have totally different coaching staffs with different schemes? The only team that may resemble the last few years is New England and Malarkey didn't exactly have them figured out! I'm sure these guys were not impressed with Malarkey when he was calling the plays for Buffalo! Oh well, I guess we need to deal with the Saban love fest until the Dolphins start losing again.

As long as you don't get upset if people walk by as you are being beaten or killed, I guess that is a fine attitude. Evil thrives when good people do nothing.

I must be stepping into some sarcastic trap because you can't possibly think that forcing two people to live together is more realistic than forced sterilization due to child neglect. You had me going for a while though. A lot of women agreed to "obey" in their vows too, does that mean my wife has to do whatever I say under penalty of law? That would certainly make for a happier house for me! I hope for your sake that this is in fact a dry attempt at humor and not your twisted views.

I'd like some data on the "wide support" you claim. Would people without kids be allowed to divorce? Who decides what the "right reasons" are? We can't listen to the majority that feel gay marriages are wrong, but you and your "wide support" can tell me what the "right reasons" for marriage are? If you are really concerned about the children, why don't we sterilize anyone that has a child but needs public assistance to survive. If you can't afford a kid, don't have em. If you can't stop having kids we will help you stop. If you are a drug addict...sterilized. Repeat criminal...sterilized. Only good parents should reproduce.