For the love of the game

I am not really in this thread to convince anyone of any belief I have. Really just a question since I did not really know what that is. So the modified stuck allows for the bump firing?

Yeah, but I am looking for a combo of speed and gas mileage to help me determine my purchase. Do you know if all all AR 15's have this bump trigger? Emory said they do not. But, and I mean no disrespect, he has previously admiitted to knowing little about guns, so I am wondering it that is really correct.

What would be the gas mileage on one of those? Might be nice for family vacations!

Does anyone know if the gun used at Sandy Hook had this bump trigger discussed in the posts above? Do all AR-15's have bump triggers? All I have heard is that the gun was legally owned by the mother.

Vuch is balling again

I second that.

You have a good point. And if the penalties are nearly as strick, whatever. Systems not perfect anyway. Really, just pissed since I read an article that the Holmes defense team is likely to use insanity and its hard to prove he is sane. Maybe its that I sometime believe and eye for an eye fits, I don't know.

I said swifter not stiffer and maybe it won't.

My point might not work, not saying it will, just an idea.

No, its not. I will use Holmes again as an example. He had plans of the attack and was busted red handed. If he has no past mental history but was seeing a pysch for depression, wheres the insanity? If he was a law abiding citizin up to that point, its now temp insanity. No cause he had plans, he did not just snap. Put him on trial give him say 2 appeals and be done with it. If the case is not as cut and dry, then allow more by all means. Not every case fits this and I am not saying that.

Its part of what I think is a bigger issue of delay tactics. Getting strick to limit this along with repeated appeals for people on death row could help. I understand the process is intended to get truly inocent people freed and in some cases it works. I dont know but maybe swifter punishment would make something think twice?

Absolutely nothing if you are insane. Just think there needs to be tougher restrictions on the plea Through out history it has been uses little with an even lower success rate. I had an artcicle which I thought was showing an increase in usage of this defense in the US when in fact it was the UK. It is apparently on the rise her as well. However it is still hardly ever successfull so I just feel it is perhaps a stall tactic when the defense has no real case. In some cases I feel it is a cop out. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-31162502.html There is also case going on now in which an Ohio teen is pleading it for a school shooting last winter. From what I read he showed no prior signs of being insane. James Holmes, if he pleads insanity, could get up because the prosicution has to prove he is sane withou the use of their own experts. He might have had a screw lose, but his attack was plan from what I am reading and he even mailed details of the attack he was plan to the pyche he was seeing on campus. Plus he rigged his apartment to explose to kill more people. He was seeing a psych but that does not mean you are insane, issues yes.

Just a thought, but what about doing away with this claiming insanity stuff for these creeps pulling these mass shootings off and do not kill themselves before being cought?

If I felt that banning assault riffles or rounds in a clip would stop this stupid violence I would be all for it. However the criminal would not abide by it. Even if the goverment tried to round them up, there would still be a black market for them.

Article on what is going to be proposed on drudgereport.com. On my phone, cannot figure out how to post a link if anyone wants to post it.

LA gave up 106 to a team struggling to to score points

I dont think it will either, as it would have to begin with laws being passed to ban guns, which i just do not see happening this time around. I was just pointing out that while it would be onesided, just dont think it would be as one sided. I am not a vet so i really can not speak on behalf of them. But the ones I know are sort of pissed off with the government, so if they tried to to take away their guns some would fight back because they believe in and fought for freedom.

You have an interesting arguement there. If a civil war was to break out, there would be severe bloodshed due to the technology our military has. However, I am sure there would be some current military, vets, scientists, airplane pilots, police, fireman, doctors etc that would join the good fight to keep us free. They would bring with them knowledge of their fields and weapons. I heard someone with knowledge on the subject of drones stated that they can be hijacked (it was in regards to a local county getting two drones). Scientist could take out the satellites. Not saying it completety possible. But, rebels all around the word fight for there cause against armys far greater than their group. I know Freedom don't come free is widely used, but its also true. Not sure I buy it that our goverment would never turn on us militarily. History is full of examples of such. Just because we are free they wouldn't?

If funny because they have the record they have despite being a loaded team. Looking at how they cannot stop anyone and have a coach that is not exactly known for great defensive, I am now believing they will not make the playoffs.

This is were a little common sense on the part of each individual gun owner goes a long way. I have a 11 year old niece that has some kind of condition were she literally feals no pain (sounds unreal and I really did not believe it until she was in a car that was in a serious accident, broken mutiple bones and hit her head so hard she had a softball size knot yet did not cry or show any signs of pain). One time she threw a baseball at my daughters head from 3 ft away, not because she mean but because she has a warped or no idea at all what pain is, what causes pain etc. She should in no way be around a gun and when she is at my dads house they double check that all guns are locked up etc. Now we do not know enough about the home setting or the storage of the gun. I have heard everything from the guy lived there to he broken into the house on the morning this happened to he did not live there but was staying over the night before. Did she have the guns in a safe. Did the guy have a history of violent behavior? I have not heard that he had, but assuming he had and was just staying the night, I sure hope the guns were locked up in a big safe inside a locked room. I somehow doubt she took every precaution, and if every precaution was taken who is to say it would have turn out diffrent.

Ed, the only problem I have with your response is the circle of friends/ neighbor portion. I feel it is a way too far reaching. If my neighbor was mentally ill with a history of violence or even had a voilent past period, that would be more the reason to own a gun. If I had a friend with the same past, same would apply. Only one of my neighbors now I have a gun in the first place and only my closest friends know I have one, so my neighbor or friend with a violent past of any kind would never know I had a gun. If the government managed to pass a law like this, would it not be easier next time something horrible happens to try to push the "you cannot have a gun because you have a convicted fellon living down the block from you"?. Just seems too far reaching.

I do not think it is obvious they are going to use those 13 draft picks over the next 5 years. If I were Rob, I would use some of those picks (i did not know they even had that many) to obtain some more young players in the short turn to develope and to get better picks by packaging picks and players. Idealy one of those players will turn into a star or at least show signs of a star, but if not make a big signing after next year. Doing the opposite what the previous GM did with salaries is key as well

Interesting point on Dwights medical charts, but maybe we should give him until next year for a full recovery to see what happens. As for your second point, did you not just basically equal out your point by saying not Baby or maybe not Ryno.

Now if we could, move back to the gun control debate: I have heard three proposals on this topic I believe that have been discussed. Banning "assault rifles" and limiting the number of rounds a gun can have in it? Stricker back ground checks including some kind of mental health screening? And I believe, though I cannot find the post, that someone felt banning guns was the solution. I will also add in ending in some way or places gun free zones. Anyone care to debate the pros and cons of each? Add in any other ideas?

I did not say you owed me an opology. I was however defending myself and/or the hypothetical you in that you cannot claim ones priorities are out of wack (I forgot the exact wording) just because of one belief. You do not know enough about me or the hypothetical you. I did acknowledge your point and argued that those things (slavery, womens rights, etc) were either the accepted norm or in some cases, the law. That did not make any of them right and in time, those norms and laws were over turned. Progress has been made in those areas. In my most offensive post on this thread I pointed out that single parent homes are a big issue in how people treat each other. This is a broad statement not aimed at you or anyone one else in particular. My mistake in that thread was that I focused primarly on homes with only moms, so my wording was off. I did however see my error and apologized. I also agree TV shows have done some white washing as Brooks posted. Of course there were issues. We could agrue this all day long. What I see all the time today is worse than what I saw all the time 5 years ago and 10 years ago. Thats my perspective and it does not mean my priotities are out of wack.