OCinBuffalo

17 is too low. I don't even have to look at the other teams. This one anyone can do blind. As has been said, it's a preseason power ranking. The whole point is: it's ALL on paper. For everybody. If we want to haul out 12 years of history...then lets do that, and in doing so identify a pattern: Bill Belechik doesn't know how to maintain/draft a winning Defense. What? Heresy! BS. That's a perfectly reasonable conclusion to draw...if we talk about history. Why are they not "sub-mediocre"...based on last year? Oh, they added some people? That makes them "young and interesting"? And not...inexperienced, unproven, and likely to bust(see their last 5 drafts....since we are talking about what we've "seen" recently)? Recent history of Pats drafting D....is the diametric opposite of an "upswing". We added a few peple too. But...that's on paper and we are basing this on recent history, right? Well, then by that logic the Pats D is horrible and all their draft picks are already auto-busts. I don't mind power rankings, but please, let's at least try to apply consistent thinnking when we are doing them.

Now...I'm going. Stub hubbed 50yd/5th row, for half of face. Luck is with me today...the guy dropped the price $5 while I was ordering. I should buy a lotto ticket. I want to see the WRs, Moats/Morrison, and TJ play today. Qbs will be interesting too. But what makes losing the rest of today worth it? I will see that D line up close, and maybe even a tear or two? snot bubbles? from RG3. Of course I will post pics.

Again, as always, there's nothing "courageous" about going out of your way to be a douche....to people that have nothing to do with the issue at hand, especially a teen age girl. It's one thing if he had been funny, or a wiseass, or anything other than a hateful pr_ck. But...cue somebody on the left calling him "courageous" in 5...4...3... Also, as always, if you are that insecure in your position on an issue, that this is kind of behavior that you choose....you are weak, your position is weak, or both.

"I think this is invasion of my privacy and every other woman's privacy. It's like — 'Here, this is where all the women are,'" one woman told the Journal Sentinel. Um, horseshit. In fact, it's 50/50 you WISH more men knew where you were. Moreover, this is a helpful app. Knowing who/where the female proles are is useful information in many different scenarios. Mostly, so we can avoid them like the plague. There's little that's more annoying than putting up with a drunk, MSNBC-fed, female liberal who doesn't stand a chance in a political discussion when she's sober. Gotta hate it when you encounter the personification of Reagan's "there's just so much that they know, that isn't so" quote. Living here has increased my acumen in seeing the signs, and escaping. Full Disclosure: However, I will admit that there are nights where I purposely seek them out...just to antagonize. But, if we want a one-night thing, with this app in hand, it would make it easier to put on an effective "corporations are just not the answer to so many of our problems, and that makes me 'insightful', don't you agree?" game, head out to the bars that have the highest concentration of blue flags around them, and.... Edit: How could I forget? Escape by telling them at some point the following week that you just can't be thinking about your own personal happiness when there are so many homeless without internet access. Hey, if the were dumb enough to confuse idiocy with insight the first time around....why wouldn't they buy the 2nd bit?

Who the F are these pollsters...and why do they think they can get over by skewing the data? Or, if we know there's a 7 point Democrat respondent bias in the sample, why can't they weight that bias out? Example: adjust Democrat responses down by 5 points(not 7, account for any non-Obama voting Dems). I mean really, do they think we didn't take statistics in college? There's got to be some way to consistently apply a weight to the raw data, when you KNOW you have an unbalanced sample. I understand that you may end up skewing it the other way, but....that's why you do the weight...properly.

Mario Williams Vs. Wayne Hunter. Cromartie is 2nd best WR Jets offense can't run ball 3 sets of 5(sorta) words that leave: Tim Tebow Vs. Mark Sanchez way.....way.....in the rearview mirror. I'm not looking past anybody. On the contrary, I'm looking right at them, and, instead of dead people, I see Wayne Hunter. The question is: why doesn't the media? The first thing I thought of when we got Mario Williams, was Wayne Hunter, then Matt Light retiring and Vollmer's bad back = Hurt Vollmer or 2nd year player at RT, and then Dolphin Rookie. Objectively now, that...is their response to Mario?

Let me draw a picture to define the circular reasoning, since this is apparently too difficult for the media in general to comprehend from mere prose: Let's do our reports from Jets Training Camp and talk about it 24/7 ↑ ↓ We need to get the "real story" We will find out why "people" keep talking about this Tebow Vs. Sanchez thing ↑ ↓ We have to talk about it, because "people" want to know The media is either: 1. too dumb to realize that they are the far and away #1 cause of the "hype" they are reporting on 2. too dumb to realize that the Jets are playing them....because the Jets are now the most media attention-needy franchise in all of professional sports(ex-officio, LA Lakers). The Giants do not help with this issue, but that's hardly cause for this level of TMZ behavior. This entire Tebow thing's a way to sell tickets, get attention, and distract everybody from the fact that their offense...sucks. Just lay it down: they suck. They can't/haven't done anything about the fact that on Sept. 9th, Wayne Hunter lines up against: Mario Williams Otah didn't pass the physical = back to Carolina. Mangold is one guy, and you need 2 to block Dareus...or Williams...or wait...who gets the double on this down? Lots of luck with that. Sorry dude, but all the Tebow, wildcat, Rex, media attention, in he world....will not save you from our D line. 3. too willing to go along with #2, because they have misread the national interest and support of this Tebow stuff worse than the misread on Obamacare. On Sept. 9th, who is going to care about Tebow besides Jets and Bills fans? Even if Sanchez does poorly, and Tebow starts, that can only mean: "Jets in Death Spiral" is the headline. Why will anyone care about a ~2-4 team 6 weeks into the season? Better, will the obvious fan-boys at ESPN want to keep talking...about how bad their team sucks? I submit that Hunter vs. Williams, or any other sound pass rusher on the left side, is a massively bigger issue...than Tebow et al will ever be. Cromartie just said "he's the 2nd best WR on the team". CHAOS! You have to go hunting, or know what you are looking for, to find that story...or the Hunter thing, or the Otah-FAIL. These are "the real stories"....but they are crowded out by Tebow? So, what happened to "getting the real story", or journalism in general? No. Instead, we get to see replays of Tebow at the goal line. Too bad they will rarely ever get to use that play...because Sanchez got sacked/picked 40-50 yards earlier, they can't run the ball, and they have no WRs that can get open anyway. The upside? There are a whole lot of Jet fans that are being set up for a giant FAIL...by this ESPN New York idiocy. Now, short of some violent outbursts in Jersey, that's going to be magically delicious for us.

I'm just looking forward to laughing at the posters who demanded that we auto-accept that as a great deal.... on a team...who has no offensive line, or "save RG3's ass" WRs, TEs...on and on. What's more funny? They demanded that we auto-accept the soundness of a deal...that involves the Redskins, and player personnel decisions. (Adam Archuleta says hi). The all-time best: the only way this deal makes any sense at all? RG3 MUST be a first ballot HOFer, that will be better than Montana, etc. Why? Because all of them but a few were acquired for a single draft pick. So really, we don't have to wait 10 years to find out they were wrong, we already know. Value is value, period. The value doesn't add up here. It never, ever will, even if RG3 is good. Good is not all-time great, and that's what 2 #1s and a high 2 absolutely require....especially given the new CBO. But really? Even that isn't enough. The definition of "draft value" has changed. Why? Because with each of these high picks, while paying "good" money", not great money you have way less risk, more money that can be used to sign/re-sign FAs, and more years of play for less money. Would you rather have 1 good/great player that you are underpaying, for 5 years ...or 3 of them? See? The RG3 deal is sheer idiocy....it's just that they don't understand the new CBO yet....or much about the concept of diversification. But, they are not alone. The "we should trade up" morons, like Jerry Jones, also don't understand that it costs you the ability to "underpay" good players for at least 4 years, if not 5. Bill Belechik also fell into this trap this year. Trading up 2x in the 1st...for what he got? Idiocy. This thinking is not just short-sighted, it's just plain wrong. You want to play the trade game? Use 4th round and below. Eventually this will be common knowledge.

People like Donte Whitner..... ....are what makes trolling worth the trouble.

Dane Cook, comedian = another modern day version of The Emporer's New Clothes. People were more concerned with looking cool on MySpace...rather than actually determining if Cook was any good first. Then, when they all showed up at the show....because it was the cool thing to do....and realized just how bad he sucked...they had to laugh and stay anyway, because...he's their "friend".

Now, all of you DiE haters? Understand: at least he's trying to start threads about something else. He's just learning though.

Or...it's just another invite for you you show off your subtext interpretation abilities. You seriously don't get this? Seriously? You are rapidly approaching conner level inability to process abstract thought. But, yeah, your psycho-babble makes you look wise. EDIT: Posts like yours....are what makes this board a worthwhile endeavor...for me.

But, we wouldn't be voting in the Brit's election. So, if we were in fact in the wrong, and he did come over here and say it. Why does he care if we don't like it? Romney went to an ally, and told them the unpopular truth. He didn't bow, or phony it up in other ways. That's what the American President is supposed to do. We aren't here to patronize our allies("punch above their weight"). We are here to marshal these little countries into doing great things as a team, because we have created a good system/gameplan that they can believe in. I don't blame them for bitching when we don't. But, class requires that they do it privately, not trying to use that to blame us for their awful economies, distract their people from years of bad policies, or assuage their "little guy" insecurities. Why aren't we jumping for joy that we have a guy in Romney who might actually be able to get things done with other countries now, rather than just using our drones, and air assets from far away, going around spreading his persona...as though that solves problems all by itself, and being too weak to out-lead....France. Did I miss something, or has our relationship, with any country, gone in a positive direction(not negative/stayed the same)? That's because nobody takes Obama seriously, and they've said so in multiple leaks. Nobody takes Obama seriously because they see through his phony, patronize and coddle approach. He's fooling only himself with that. The worst is: I don't know if it is phony for Obama He might actually think all these little countries do "punch above their weight". Romney telling the truth....tells me he's ready to put us back on the right track = why the F should we ever even consider coddling Denmark? It's insincere and far more insulting than simply telling them to get into line and support NATO's policies. We know who they are, they know as well. Why pretend this isn't so? I'm not saying be disrespectful, just honest. If the truth is offensive to some, that's 100% their problem, not ours.

I shouldn't have to name names. It should be obvious. No need for comment.

Never allow a fan to rank his own division. Letting someone who actually claims to be a Jags fan...do anything related to the NFL? No. Bad. 1. AFC South is retarded. You could say the same thing about the Texans(lost more than they gained), as the Titans, and he did...referring to 4 players. 8 is nuts for them. Sure they win the division...but the AFC South is poised to = NFC West. Why does Jacksonville have a "manageable schedule"? They(and Philly) have more games against quality opponents, 8, than anybody Don't all the teams in this division have pretty much the same schedule? Even if they don't, why is Indy then so low, with their < Jags schedule? Titans have an even easier schedule. I know who plays QB for Indy, and he has an even shot to be the best in the division, right now. Who plays QB for the Jags? Titans? Is Schaub gtg? Whatever, too many contradictions with these rankings vs. reasons for me. 2. #1 might explain why the NFC North is because Jags fan knows his team plays them this year? Detroit is too low. I'll see your 20s rankings on D...and raise you Megatron. Nuff said. That's why the Bears make little sense where they are, if Detroit is where they are. Anybody remember the Bears O line from last pre-season? It was pathetic, and that was last year's defense. He talks about Cutler being hurt....and yet...nothing as to why...or what they didn't do about their line? This guy has an irrational hatred for the Vikings....or he just doesn't know anything about them. Or, he thinks the Jags will: lose to the Bears and Pack(overrate), beat the Vikes and Lions(underrate). 3. What the hell are the Saints doing at 17? Seriously. WTF. The Chiefs....are better than the Saints by 3 slots? How about the Chargers, Bears, Cowboys, Texans? The Saints beat 6 teams ranked ahead of them last year, some twice. 4. Cowboys at 5 is idiocy. Yeah...lets base rankings on "will be more lucky this year". "Dallas could easily have won 12 games last year?" So could the Bills. A lot of teams "could have". Ahead of the Giants. Really. This smells like "I used to be a Cowboys fan, but then the Jags came to town". Which...also explains the Saints at 17. I'm done with this. I could go on, but there's too many contradictions. I know it's the off-season, but there's never an excuse for this level of silliness

So really, I want to know what you think about Mitt Romney having a horse in the Olympics. It seems nobody cares about this story, but I do. Now I'm going to tell you why Obama is superior for not having a horse in the Olympics. But, so that you don't catch on to my douchebaggery, I'm going to throw in small, pointless criticisms of Obama here and there to make me look reasonable, such as: equestrian does create some jobs, and Obama shouldn't be critical of that. But, then, I'm going to go back and remind you that Romney is an out-of-touch rich guy. Of course, I'm not just going to come out and say that. Rather, I propose to do it via another cutesy question like "can somebody explain to me why having a horse is good political idea in a contentious race like this? Doesn't being unable to see that make Romney a little out of touch? If he's qualified to be President, can somebody explain to me why he doesn't know better?" Then, I'll say something self-effacing, "or am I a liberal douche". When I'm done writing this, I'll smile the little smile of the "most clever person on the board". Until I realize that OCinBuffalo is back from his travels, will be back to working from home for a while, I really ain't that clever, and therefore, my douchebaggery is now at an end.

I actually read this abortion. Every post. 1. BLIND...TRUST...YOU...UNMITIGATED MORONS! 2. Now instead of just "asian" you sound specifically, Hangover Asian. 3. You know a thread has gone very far afield indeed...when ...lybob doesn't make a single one of the top 5, "most ignorant of the topic at hand", "most unable to cope with facts that contradict his/her assertion", "most likely to feel, instead of think, research, or know", "most likely to not have bothered checking out another source on the story, before linking/posting about it" etc., poster lists. 4. How many people know that "wait a second, that sounds a little over the top, even though I normally agree with him, I bet this guy is just hacking it up here, and that there are exaggerations or non-truths in this, so I better take it with a grain of salt" feeling? How many people think Joe has ever had that feeling? 5. Given Joe's lack of BS filter, Finance business acuity, and general dopiness....how many here think I should sell Joe shares in a penny stock empty shell public company...for dollars instead of pennies...and then sell it...for a few more pennies per share than it was worth, because his investment drove the price up? How many think I can't do it....if I tell him it's a green company, that will only employ Americans, will directly compete with outsourced companies, be very aggressive in the market, and seek to dominate or acquire these competitors, but, will also allow employees extra vacation time if they get sick on vacation, and will have free non-dairy drinks for employees? How many think that's ALL I will have to tell him, to get his money?

Let's say that there's a difference between Presidential diplomacy.... ...and the kind you use to get that 2nd piece of pie... ...and leave it at that. For others: I wouldn't be surprised if Romney is looking to poke the Brits a little here, given the crap they've been writing about this election, Romney in general, and Romney's national security experience. Certainly you have no right to call anyone else a national security lightweight, when the major event you've been planning for the last 5 years: 1. Requires the national guard to be called in even before it starts, because you botched a terror investigation 2. Has half the promised and expected security personnel 3. Requires our customs and TSA people to be rushed in...because yours are so useless that they decided to go on strike...and you didn't have the sack to immediately fire them all on principal. They work in national security, their country is hosting the single biggest historical terror-attractor, and their response is to strike? Heads should literally roll. How selfish, stupid, and embarrassing. Yeah, if I'm Romney, I give em a poke. Don't think we'll be hearing much more about national security and Romney stories from a British press that is looking to start schit, now that these issues have been linked in. Don't know if he did this on purpose, but it's real genius if he did.

On the other hand, I refuse, and I have no doubt many will join me, in refusing to relieve BF2's butthurt. She will have to do that for herself. Or she could create a job, and pay someone to do if for her. But who are we kidding? She will call on her Congressman to hand out Preparation H for free, and invent the "right" to be free from butthurt. After all, it's a women's health issue.

Douche? I dunno...but selective memory? Definitely. Let's begin: Precisely as the countless Obama surrogates did when Obama was getting elected. It's bad politics to criticize foreign policy while its happening. Obama had his thing hanging out of his shorts on the the Surge, and he didn't want to step on it. Given both, he wisely gave very little specifics. Ultimately, the economy crash was the best thing to happen to Obama, since it distracted from his multiple FAILS on foreign policy in the debates. So, Obama wasn't very specific until late in the race, until he was clearly going to win. I doubt Romney will be either, and will it be clear who is going to win? It's a tactical political decision, not a subject for character analysis. If you try to make it so, you will inadvertently bring up Obama's record on foreign policy prior to 2008. That would be a stupid choice for any Obama supporter...for reasons that should now be obvious. Hysterical. Especially the part of about the economy and the wars. When the Bush economy was doing well, in spite of the Bush Wars, because the Bush tax cuts worked as designed....liberals were shocked. That's why they lost seats in 2002. So was Europe. So, liberals started bitching about shared sacrifice, invoking WW2, and that it wasn't fair for the poor to be fighting in wars, while the rich benefited from such a strong economy. Now, that economy has taken, and stayed, in a down-turn, they want to blame the wars? I thought the evil was the lack of shared sacrifice? So what was a side effect has now become a cause? (Or, do you not have any shame at all, you argument of convenience mfers?) Despite the facts that the liberal savior recruited and deployed the very best liberal college professors who know the liberal economic/green, or should I say "socialist in environmentalist clothing" playbook better than anyone...they still failed miserably. That's because the playbook sucks. It's filled with Mike Mularkeyesque "shovel ready, non-Keynsian multiplier, throw money to Democrat machine bosses" trick plays, that just don't work. Don't use the age-old "first excuse of the communist" and tell us these professors simply didn't implement it right. IF these Harvard, Berkley professors don't know how to do "social justice/green jobs"...who the F does? Again, selective. What about the "reset button"? What about that...innovative..."listening" approach? Susan Rice is screaming at the Russians right now...perhaps she forgets the button was pressed? Oh, and what has happened? We started screaming at/threatening the Russians, NOT listening, and we got: results. That's because power and strength is what the UN knows...since most of them are there solely due the ruthless use of both. Please explain: Since when is Obama doing the exact opposite of his campaign promise...fulfilling it? Look, I didn't care about the Guantanamo thing much. But is it a useful example: Obama, and far too many liberals, are too affected to understand GITMO. They/he simply couldn't know that he couldn't close it. So, when he was promising that he would, he was sincere. I sorta give him credit for that. Of course, having an adult's understanding of the terror war, and war in general, would have been helpful. Once Obama got in office, I have given him credit here for developing an adult's understanding. He realized that bowing to Saudi kings was only useful for comedy. He wised up quick. The best thing that could have happened to Obama? The bowing, while at the same time getting the unearned Peace Prize, and being mocked for it, shook him out of it. He proceeded to avoid the Jimmy Carter completely. But...where's the "drone strike everybody, even Americans, without due process...so I DON'T have to put them in GITMO, and look like a complete ass" on your checklist? When I said "adult understanding" that's what I mean. I don't fault the guy for killing rather than capturing. Given the bed he's made, what else? So, he's killing them, rather than putting them in a place he hasn't closed. Dead or GITMO? I can't say which is better. He has taken the lesser? evil, owned it, and then drove it. The only bad part is we aren't getting the intel from the dead. We won't know the effect of that for years, if ever. Ultimately, if Obama had to do it over, I doubt he'd say a word about GITMO. Having GITMO, and being able to perp walk every single terrorist he could claim credit for catching into it would have been a lot better both for the country and for the Obama Campaign....I mean....Administration. But, he is doing the best he could with his newly found adult understanding. This is the single biggest reason why I think your concerns about Romney are unfounded: thus far Romney seems to know better than to get himself into things like Obama's GITMO trap. The same way I just avoided being called out on this later, in case Romney does step in it big. I used "thus far" and "seems". I bet Obama wishes he had said "thus far GITMO doesn't seem like a good solution to this problem" instead of his invective. Romney largely knows to do this, and is NOT bound by some cabal of affected idiots pushing him to destroy the military power of this country, and trying to subject us to one-world government...because they are writing the campaign checks. And, I doubt Romney will care much when the other cabal of paranoid idiots starts telling him to attack Iran....because they are writing the the checks(...in shekels). Instead, Romney will look for the ROI, and judge all plans on that, as any evil, Bain Capitalist would do.

The problem for you here is timeline. The question we should ask is: WHEN should our "saddening"(really starting to hate this latest PR word) really begin? With George Soros, or the Kochs....or with the labor union money that has been flowing into elections, and in most cases supporting outright corruption, since the beginning of the last century? Or, should we go back further, and look at Tammany Hall? The original Democratic political money/corruption machine. Hell at least we got Thomas Nast out of the deal...the father of mass media political cartoons. Now, take a look at his work...objectively...and tell us about hateful political speech. For every Tammany Hall, we can find a Republican cabal as well. It's just that they didn't grab the headlines. We can also find a long list of "Dusky Sally" attacks since Jefferson's campaigns. So, today, we have our era guys doing the same thing that's been going on since forever. So I ask: When, not why, am I supposed to be "saddened"? The only thing I am "saddened" by is the lack of historical knowledge required to ignorantly espouse that the Koch brothers = New Coke. If we want to get all special interest money out of politics, than that must include unions as well. Otherwise, we are lying to ourselves. The Citizens United and original FAIL of McCain/Feingold in court is because they both are predicated on protecting some special interests and going after others. No. ALL special interests must be treated equally under the law. As of now, they are: there are no restrictions on anybody. Show me equal treatment, and I can get behind it. Play games and try to shut out some, while letting the unions run wild, and you can blow it out your ass.

I don't own any weapons. Last time I'm saying it. However, I have actually gained proficiency in them. So, unlike you, my position is based on truth, and not assumption. The only reason the bum thinks he can get anything from anybody with a knife...is people like you who allow it. That's they way it is, own it. Whenever you get done talking, this truth will remain, unaffected. I don't "feel" anything. That is the primary difference here: what I say is based on what I know(and have lived), not opine, or wish. Liberals do the "feeling". It's not always bad. But, when we are talking about something as important as weapons...there is no place for feelings. Perhaps you should go find out a few things...rather than feeling your way through them, or ignoring the experience of others for no other reason than you can't conceive of it. Perhaps you should go live in a place like Texas, where there is no doubt that people are armed to the teeth because they have to be, because there are very real people with very real automatic weapons who conduct business 100 yards away(easily within rifle range). But that's the fundamental problem here, isn't it? You want to base everyone's life...on what you feel, or what works for you. Re-read what you wrote above...it's there in black and white. If you have never personally experienced it, it doesn't exist for you, and you think it's OK to map your experience onto everybody else. Your use of the word "me" in the above tells us all we need to know. I have news: That's not how we do things in this country. Wise up. You live a ridiculous, naive existence. And yeah, other people are responsible for allowing it to exist. If you can't grow up, and realize that your cozy little life is not the only form of existence in this country, then at least...shut up. You are embarrassing yourself.

That's cause: "If you want something right, put the far left in charge of doing the opposite" is not only a tautology, it's an accurate predictor. The bigger the issue is for the far left, the more likely they are to the achieve diametric opposite of what they intend. not to mention a bunch of other, unintended consequences. Sooner or later, on any "hot button" issue, they will always, always, F themselves over. This is because: You can't base your ideology on contradictory premises, thus making the practical application of them doomed to be rife with hypocrisy, or flat out stupidity, and have it not be that way. In order to safeguard the ideal, they are routinely forced to sign up for stupid. For example, in order to safeguard the preeminence of government in all things ideal, they have to say what Obama said. The entire statement, not just the sound bite...is proof of this. Now, since the subsequet "explanation" and "clarifications" have made it worse, not better(see safeguarding the ideal), Obama is out trying to play it off as no big deal. It's the only thing left....and it too will FAIL. Hence, the intent was to justify increased taxes on business and "the rich" by citing use of government infrastructure. The opposite was achieved: the point that government infrastructure, in America, wouldn't exist without private enterprise was underscored. That government is wholly dependent on business is the final take away. Once again, the opposite is the outcome, because the far-left ideal/design is hopelessly broken.

Police DO use those weapons today, right now. It's not 1965 there liberal. They use them, because sane, not Crazy, but evil criminals can get their hands on them. The rootest of root causes for that? World Socialism. That's right: the Russians and Chinese built and sold....or in many instances dumped, for political reasons...so many AKs that most world markets are completely saturated. So what's left? Criminal markets. The Russians have to keep making money somehow, and weapons is their #1, so the flow of these weapons continues. This is reality, and if you don't stop denying her, she's going to keep kicking you in the balls. Logic is useless if it applied by the untrained, ignorant, or woefully naive. Now, are you going to admit that you know less than nothing about the international arms situation, and the effect that it WAS having on our crime, and the effect that STOPPING gun-control has had in reversing those numbers and driving crime down, and that your naive argument, is merely predicated on the elementary knowledge of the difference between a semi- and automatic weapon, and not on the ALL the facts? Since it is true that criminals can get their hands on full-auto weapons(and remember there is a never ending torrent of them coming from your socialist pals)....it is only logical that we allow citizens to at least get their hands on semi-auto ones. But that logic relies on not having a middle school mentality, and being aware of all the relevant detail on this issue. The people like me make the criminal think twice....but the people like you give the criminal the idea in the first place. Hey, why would I expect a liberal to do anything other than to get punked? I bet you're proud of allowing crime to pay...because it was only $8. That F'er comes at me with a knife? He ends up dead/subdued, or, I end up dead. I refuse to live any other way. And, $8 is nothing....what happens when it's your wife? Your kid? Then what? You just going to trade them so that the trouble for you goes away? Please, by all means, give us more of your logic on this one, and let's see you extend it to include all scenarios. (Love it when they prove once again, how simplistic and dopey-ass linear their thinking is. I wonder what kind of Christmas gifts these people buy.) The only common sense here: we need to go after the people, and either fix them, treat them, or imprison them, whatever due process dictates. We waste our time when we talk about tools, especially when we have the "socialist paradise" flooding the world market with automatic weapons that can be used by 10 year olds(one of the specs for the AK). But, if you really want to do something in gun control? Go to Russia and China and force them to stop making millions of these weapons....FOR PROFIT! Until you do, the rest of us will have to respond to the root cause problem they are creating.

You miss the point. The right way of saying it: who want's to take their chances with crazy? Crazy is the problem here. And I think we can both agree that neither of us wants to take our chances with Crazy. Tactics(guns, bombs, axes, forcing people to listen to Sean Penn)...are irrelevant if Crazy is at the wheel. We can't ban things that sane people use properly, because they can also be used by Crazy. That is illogical, it's just plain stupid and un-American. Crazy is what creates the problem. Take the Crazy out of the equation, and there is no problem. So why should we concern ourselves with anything other than Crazy? No. The root cause of the problem is Crazy, and the job is to find and fix Crazy, before Crazy puts itself in position to do harm. You could replace Crazy with Drug, and arrive at the same conclusion. Should we ban guns....because Drug has gotten their hands on one? No. We need to find Drug, never turn our back on them, never take our chances with them, and fix them....so that we can turn them back into functioning person again. Consider: every liberal you will meet demands that we treat Drug, rather than putting them in prison. Why? Because they see that treatment of Drug is the only solution to the problem of Drug being Drug. Yet, when we point out that Crazy must be seen the same way....they FAIL...and want to start blaming guns. But really...is it any surprise that Liberal can't recognize and support it's own logic when applied properly elsewhere? After all, isn't that Liberal being Liberal? The solution to Liberal is the same for Crazy and Drug. Treatment.