For the love of the game

Might actually watch that game this year now!

Do they do math differently up in Boston?

Tracy McGrady came from Polk I believe.

Never said anything about them being part of the Magics future, just that they were not crappy like you said and their contracts are not bad either by NBA starter standards. Regarding BBD, I must be insane. His contract is not bad and he good trade bait. I do feel Nelson could retire a Magic man and would have no problem with that.

It was funny because you replied to a email from yesterday in regards to yesterdays game in which AA did not play.

Sorry for doubting you. If you would have provided your credentials in your opening thread it would have never happened. I will never do it again I promise! BTW, are you a Lakers Fan? Or a pissed off Celtics Fan?

Maybe so, but Nick does not try to dribble too much when he gets the ball in the paint like howard did/does. Also, the Lakers are not going to him as much as he got to the ball in Orlando and his TO's are basically the same.

BBD, Nelson and AA are not crappy players IMO. AA is stuggling currently and his play pisses me off sometimes, but still not a crappy player. I do not think any of their contacts are bad either. Nelson age and history make his a little risky, but still not bad. BBD love him or hate him is a starting caliber PF and can take minutes and center. 6 mil per year for a solid SG is not bad eitther. Turk, well, ok, um...

Vooch has to be far away the most impressive, following by Nelson and Reddick. Turk, has to be the most disappointing. AA for sure as of late. I do not know who else to place her since the rookies are rookies. BBD at least plays all out.

Question, The NRA tells the ATF they cannot maintain the inventory and that they are only allowed to inspect gun shop inventories for proper handling once a year, correct? If thats the case then it points back to our politicians and the fact that they really do not want to change anything with regardings to firearms. A minimum of random inspections twice a year should be the norm. With regards to the number of ATF agents, they arepretty under funded. Even if there were 100,000 agents, I would still say the would not have enough given the broad scope of the agency. There are currently 129,000, license gun dealers between shores, pawn shops, and collectors (who are licensed to sell and buy guns), 1200 gun manufacturers, 42,000 liquer stores etc. That number does not include the import and export number for both firearms, and alcohol and tobacco and explosive manufacturers and sellers, which I failed to look up. Also from what I read the FBI helps out in this area as well, though I am sure to a very small degree. To get back on the gun market, while there are I am sure a few bad apples out of that number of gun dealers, the majority of illegally obtained guns would still come from black markets (including guns brought accross the mexican boarder) and the stolen type. But I agree, more inspections would at least help the issue. Now to you last point. There are 4.3 million or so NRA members and 80 million gun owners in the USA, which basically equals .5 % of gun owners (not all of which share all the views of the NRA). While there influence I am sure stretches outside of there members say to 10%, its still a small portion. I for one have never followed the NRA other than knowing who they are and reading an article from time to time that mentions or is about the group. Lastly, whatever there purpose is (good or bad), does it not come back to defending the right to bare arms? Even if they are defending that right so the gun manufacturers can make money are they not defending the right for private guns owners in the process? If the right to bare arms goes away, the gun manufactures dry up a lot (still there because of wars etc). Back to the other item I do not agree with you with on. How would a gun registry help prevent gun violence in your opinion?

With all the recent violence going on (not all gun related) at schools, movie theatres, malls, clubs etc, I thought I would start a thread on gun control. As this can be a emotionally charged subject, I sought permission and was given the ok to start this. Lets keep it civil as possible please. As a father of a daugher in kindergarten the recent shooting at Sandy Hook really hit home. With that and the fact that I have a baby on the way, that pushed me from leaning to getting a gun and a conceal carry permit to getting a gun and taking/ awaiting my permit. I did so to at least have a chance to protect my growing family from the evil of the world. I feel that something needs to be done. I do not think banning assault riffles is the key and neither is banning high capacity clip. My personal feeling is that the answer lies somewhere it the background check area and the mental illness area. That raises the whole slipperly slop agruement which it a good point as well. Lets discuss and again, please keep it civil.

I will have to look into the above. I simply do not have enough knowledge on the subject and in my brief google search I only found what appears to be left leaning to far left leaning opinions. I made this point before, but if the politicians on both side of the aisle would stand on some personal conviction and get some intestinal fortitude the NRA, and any and all lobby groups for that matter, would have far less power. I am sure its tough to turn money and other gifts down, but the system is broken in that regards.

Do you have a link? Are we talking biometric? That scares me because the biometric safes have a history of not working all the time because they do not recognize the finger print.

We agree on more things than I would have ever thought possible. I am not in favor of a national gun registry or the extended mags. I just do not think a registry of all the guns helps and what if it gets in the wrongs hands? Extended mags, maybe, but only over a certain number. I do not even know what the largest extention is is, but most hand guns I have seen only extend maybe 2 or 3 rounds. Can you expound on the laws and regulations the NRA has put on the ATF? I dont have enough knowledge on armor piercing bullets to say yes or no on it.

Well, background checks might help. Better training could as well. If we are focusing solely on registering a person as having the right to own a gun (not how many they have), I would be in favor of that I think. So maybe you have to go through training and pass and examine (and not just a true false like I had for the CCP class). I mean we have to have a license to drive, right? That requires testing to get your license. Real estate brokers have to demonstrate knowledge and ethics to keep their license. Hell, to practice cutting hair for a living you need a license don't you. Maybe every 5 years this would be required?

Fair enough. Anyone who has committed a crime using a gun should not be able to own a gun. Someone with the lack of common sense or mental capacity to know how to handle it, keep it safe from little hands or big hands for that matter, should not be allowed to own a gun. The gray area for me is those with some form of mental illness. They should have the right to protection to and who determines if they are not fit to own. I do not really have a clue on this one. Maybe they have to have a history of violence. Some illnesses, autism I believe is one, has aggressive behavior sometimes associated with it. Is that reason enough? Background checks and training would help in the area of who can own a gun. The real issue is keeping guns out of the hands of the bad guys.

I do not know how it would actually work. I thought I had said as much in earlier posts, but I could be wrong. How do the rebel forces in Africa continue fighting? I do know enough about tyranny to know I do not want to live under a that type of government. Even in the USA we live in now where half they have there hands around the necks of half the population, we are have more to be thankful than most of the world (if not all). The whole idea sounds crazy and the amount of success would depend on the amount of people for the cause. Now you are apparently not for this. Why? What would you do? Just accept it and watch our freedoms go the way of the dodo bird. After saying all this and knowing this is all hypothetical, maybe even wildly so, I am not sure of the level I would participate though I would not sit back. My first goal would be to protect my family as best I could (thats not me climbing on a high horse either, just being a dad and husband). I am sure most feel this way. I understand you do not know much about guns or gun laws, but I am sure you have at least a general knowledge of people. That said, would a criminal submit to a law that states he can only have 7 rounds in his gun? Would a criminal register his gun? See I feel he would not, thus this is why I am against it (in addition to not wanting the government not to know how many I have etc). I see no benifit to any of that. Making it at least a bit harder to get a gun, focusing more on rehabing (decriminalizing illegal drug use would take some stress off the system), common sense on gun owners and more training, and while I believe you stated you appose stricker penalties, I would even say that for repeat offenders.

There, there are two types of people responding to this thread thus far. Those willing to answer a questions and propose ideas and those that tend to do neither and instead call people crazy, make them sound stupid or point to the speck in their eye (so to speak) by pointing out miswordings in their posts that point them as complete @sses. You used the very same wording I used about when I asked you to suggest something that might work, yet are free to try to further paint people as crazy with more question. Bert, called HighAngle Dad crazy for believing in the original meaning of the 2nd ammendment. He has at clarrified to a degree though he is still basically calling anyone believing in that now crazy. DoM, got to love him for his in your face use of stats, to my knowledge has not brought forth a single proposal either. I really do not know what I would do for the ortho two questions. Since it is purely hypothetcal, its hard to say. One would have to run and hide first or at least hide their weapons. Word of mouth would be the only way to communicate. An attack would have to be planned and forces joint. I guess at first one might go for the guys trying to take the guns, but would have to work up to the leaders. Seceding might be an option, but my guess is the tyranical government would oppose this. More than likely an all out civil war would take shape. See I do not have all the answers, thats why this threat was started because I agree something needs to be done. Heck I was not even a gun owner until a few months ago. Can you please answer my question questions in my last post now? No one has cared to explain how banning certain guns would solve the problem either, just that its worth a try.

I'll bite, though my answer to the first question is already on record. 1. In this hypothetical event, my guess would be at the time the government tried to take our weapons. 2. I am not versed enough in tyranical take overs to answer these questions. 3. I am not versed enough in tyranical take overs to answer these questions either. Since I have answered the first question, what would you do if this hypothetical event was to happen tomorrow? Just sit back and accept everything? What about when government comes knocking on your door because you said something against our great government on TrueBlueNation? Or you get arrested because you gave your friend camping gear and canned goods even though you knew he was fighting against the tyranical government?

Just a point on Vuch. He does not turn the ball over near the amount Howard does. While Howard is a beast on D (at least was, don't think he is nearly as good this year), Vuch has a better offensive game in terms of having a jumper and making free throws. Howards PPG was higher his 2nd year compared to Vuch, but I think that was largely due to overpowering dunks, which Vuch does not have. Plus and this is big IMO, he appears to have a more serious approach to the game.

See thats why I wanted you to explain what you meant. In my reply to DoM, I mentioned context. I still think you are basically calling people that believe in the original meaning crazy, but thats cool. To me, doing absolutely nothing if our government turned on us because people would die makes little sense, so I could call you crazy because you would just accept it and let the goverment take away your rights. Again, this is a big what if and I do not see it happening any time soon, likely not in my lifetime. Question though, how would registering our guns help slow gun violence?

First, and with all due respect, you are not Bert. While you could be right, would be nice to hear it from him. Funny thing is that he now has an out for his comment, by just repeating you. Context is important and combined with his post above the one in question, I can personally see it both ways, as you explained it and as I explained. Context is also important in your next point. See you cut our the part where I said the right to bear arms gives use the ability to defend the rest of our freedoms. See I have not studied enough about how tyrants come to power and I know that it could/would be pretty one sided. I still believe the threat of bloodshed it what prevents this (the only way to really find out were to be in a USA with our guns taken away). Call me crazy all you want, but I do not think that would in the least prevent people from fighting for what they believe in, because they do not want to be ruled over. I know this is all what ifs, but say this was to happen, would you truly be ok with living in a tyanical government. Some or all the progress that has been made could be wiped out or pushed back 200 years. Interesting third point. will look into that with some more time later today maybe. Have trouble think of other things Americans have that are registered (outside of a car). I do not want my guns registered for two reasons, 1, it gives thieves a blue print of who has guns (if the registry was published like in NY) and 2, if the goverment did decide to take our guns it gives them a list of were to go, thus a head start/ bigger advantage to the advantage they already have in military size. In my opinion, the registry would only keep track of legally owned guns and would some one from stealing said guns, which is one way guns are obtained be the bad guys. This actually goes to the point above. Peoples cars are registered right? Does that prevent them from being stollen and used in crimes? IMO, common sense comes into to play there as well. You would not leave your car in a dark alley or parking lot overnight unless of course you were sol. You would not leave the keys in car or the windows rolled down. Certain common sense measures apply to guns as well (as I have mentioned previously I believe). Registering ones guns keeps the honest people in check.

which is different that being a bust.

Bert, while you might not have said the words, you did state that the 2nd admendment to "stop the tyanical government" does not make sense now. As that was the orginal intent of that amendment, are you not saying the 2nd amendment does not apply? If not, ok, but it could be read that way. Also, I would argue that without the 2nd amendment, how do you defend the other portions of the constitution? Say a tyrantical goverment does take over, does freedom of speech go away? What about freedom of religion? Right to a speedy trial, right to a trial by jury for civil cases? What about the limits on congress, powers of congress, limits to terms of them and the president? If you did not mean the 2nd part thata fine, I really would like to know how you think people that believe in the purpose of the 2nd amendment is to defend against a tyranical takeover are crazy though (without another form of ocean front property in Arizona comment). See most people understand that going up against the government should guns be banned etc, would be hard and lots would die, but they would be fighting for freedom. Oh and one more thing that as me rethinking the gun registration idea. Right now, as another poster has stated, the government has not idea who has a gun or how many, what type they have or even where the guns are at. If we are forced to register our guns, what is really to stop the goverment from one day just deciding to remove the threat by taking the guns or removing the guns putting the person in prison for being a threat to the county. or some other bs. I am not saying this will happen, just a though that it could. History is full of it. With that I am now in favor of strick background checks to buy a gun and perhap repeat checks maybe every 5 years and more training. I made the comment that the CCP class I took at the fairgrounds was a joke. It did not make you demonstrate any real knowledge outside of knowing what a gun and a bullet is. And the questions on the "test" could have been answered by anyone pulled off the street with no real knowledge of a gun. I am still not in favor of any ban on types of guns or round in a magizine.

Its the threat of bloodshed thats keeps the government at bay,, IMO. I made this point earlier, but what makes you think that the people who spent years and their adult lives fighting for freedom would not try to defend the 2nd ammendment? Again, not saying this could happen any time soon Edit: some not all would fight