stevenaa

Members
  • Content count

    4,431
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About stevenaa

  • Rank
    The Bruiser
  • Birthday 07/24/1968

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • Redskins Fan Since
    1975
  • Favorite Redskin
    too hard to pick
  • Location
    Texas
  • Interests
    Boatbuilding, Woodworking, Playing with my kids
  • Occupation
    IT professional
  1. Per Boston Globe, Aaron Hernandez commits suicide

    The only person responsible for Aarons actions is Aaron. People with similar backgrounds do grow out of it and make something of the chances they get.
  2. Kirk is not going anywhere. He won't consider any deal from the team until after he's tagged. Why? Because it gives him more leverage. This is all about nothing but financial dickering. There is no upside to the team coming to a long term deal yet, and there's no benefit to Kirk doing that. It's just part of the business process where both sides are trying to get the deal they want. In the end, what ever he's paid may seem over the top this year, average next year and a bargain the year after. The caps going up significantly. Just because the team doesn't just give in and give Kirk what he's asking for right away, doesn't mean they aren't sold on him, anymore then any of this means he doesn't want to be here. Here's a hint. A team does not ever tag a guy 2 years in a row with the franchise tag if they don't think he's a franchise player. That would be hugely financially irresponsible . So if you don't think that Kirk is a franchise QB, suck it up because the evidence suggests the team does.
  3. Kirk Cousins 2017 contract discussion/prediction

    Fans put way too much concern into contract numbers. No matter what the contract looks like, it will quickly slide down in the ranks of QB money. The Cap will go up. No matter what he gets, it will be too much for some. But frankly, that's more a statement on other concerns about Kirk, and not really about the money. Where we are right now is with a QB who has a need to be wanted, playing in a big game that will decide if we go into the playoff, playing with a contract albatross on his back to go along with all the normal pressure of the position. I fully believe that is the cause of his slow start this season. Pressing too much due to the contract situation. I believe had they just signed him, we'd already be a playoff lock. Scott failed in this regard IMO. I'm concerned he'll press too much this Sunday. Just pay the guy. No matter what, it will ultimately have a 3 year out. For once in the last two decades, let's have some stability. He's good enough to win Superbowls with a decent defense and a consistent running game. A failure to win won't be on Kirk. It will be poor coaching or talent acquisition.
  4. Random Thought Thread

    Holy crap. I started this thread 10 years ago. Where does the time go. I still want to move to Florida so I can enjoy the water. Fishing, skiing and the beach. Or at least some beach somewhere. Somewhere where it is perpetually 5 O'clock!!
  5. The Gun Control Debate Thread - Say hello to my little thread

    I don't think its murder, but I don't want to necessarily encourage vigilantism. It worked out ok in this case assuming the facts are accurate. But it could have been a disaster if the AK had been fired indiscriminately.
  6. The Gun Control Debate Thread - Say hello to my little thread

    No problem with that whatsoever. Don't want to get yourself shot, don't go into a waffle house with an AK and rob people. If my wife was expected to show up I'd be freaked as well. As I've said repeatedly. Nothing is going to stop crazy. At least 30 dead. Horrifying. The human race is becoming so desensitized to violence. We have to make ourselves better than this. Truck attacker kills dozens in Nice http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/truck-plows-into-crowd-in-nice-france-many-dead-paper/ar-BBulpVJ?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=iehp
  7. The Gun Control Debate Thread - Say hello to my little thread

    You need to recheck your very recent history to know this is absolutely not true.
  8. The Gun Control Debate Thread - Say hello to my little thread

    I'm fine with that. I think restricting hunting rifles to internal magazines of 3-5 bullets is fine. Background checks should be required. 30 day waiting period for cool down and time to do background checks is fine. None of that infringes on my ownership rights. We place limits on our constitutional rights all the time. There's room for compromise IMO.
  9. The Gun Control Debate Thread - Say hello to my little thread

    Ah, except in the very post you clearly didn't fully read, and several others I've posted lately I've stated clearly I support more restrictions and regulations. And it's awful convenient of you to lay the blame for all our social ills at the feet of the gun rights folks. America is not those places and frankly we have very unique social issues that those countries have no familiarity with. My post made it clear I'm for more regulation and restrictions. I fully agree with you there. But I won't ever support restrictions that prevent law abiding citizens from purchasing a firearm within a reasonable period of time. 30 days is more than enough time to do a completely thorough background check. But any substantive effort to actually correct the problem of violence needs to include working on our social condition.
  10. The Gun Control Debate Thread - Say hello to my little thread

    No. What is threatening "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are a plethora of problems that lead people to do these sort of things. Gun violence is a symptom and no one really wants to make any attempt at addressing the underlying issues. They just want to strip the rights away from many millions of law abiding citizens. You can be assured that if there is no access to a gun for these nuts, they'll spend five minutes on the internet and then walk into a crowded environment and set off the bomb they just learned how to make. Or drive their car on a rampage a crowd, or any other method easily available to cause carnage and get the notoriety they crave. I think tighter restrictions and regulations are needed. Keep guns out the hands of potential terrorists, mentally ill, felons, anyone involved in a violent crime etc....... There are things that can and should be done. Once you start removing freedoms , where does it stop? Back to prohibition to stop drunk driving? I'm sure the families of loved ones killed by drunk drivers would be ok with those drivers never having access to alcohol. We should give the government unfettered access to our personal internet activity so they can catch anyone involved in activities deemed unacceptable.
  11. Probably so. Is there a disproportionate percentage of blacks perpetrating violent crimes that police have to deal with? I think part of the issue is entirely in lack of education. Inner city children, a disproportionate number of whom are black, are stuck in a continually perpetuating loop of ignorance through lack of education. This country withheld quality education from blacks for generations, and that's a tough thing to overcome. I'm a middle aged white dude from suburbia with a decent education, and I have to teach my kids what their teachers fail to teach them and they are in a "good" school district. I can't imagine how my children would do if I was unable to help them due to my own lack of education and they were in an inner city school system that is ill equipped. It breeds a circle of poverty and violent crime that is disproportionate to the race make up of the country. This results in the stereotype thrust on young black men. It breeds fear. It's so easy to stereo type people. You do so your self by labeling whites of being afraid of so much. Some are for sure, but the majority are not. But just like a majority of young black men in this country aren't thugs, so are a majority of whites not fear mongering racists. It's just unfortunate that the minority of our populace have such a loud presence due to their actions. Of course, true racism also has a role. No doubt some of these black men shot by police were shot by someone who simply hated them for the color of their skin. I don't know how you fix that stupid besides the obvious of making sure that those individuals are rooted out and convicted of their crimes. The challenge of course is in knowing the true motivation of the shooter. Did he/she really fear for their life. Was the victim really presenting a valid threat. Police need better training, procedures and accountability. We need leaders in this country who are not lifetime politicians, to stand up and together and find solutions. We need it soon.
  12. The Gun Control Debate Thread - Say hello to my little thread

    I don't think we should change the meaning of an amendment just because we've changed the meaning of a word it contains. While difficult, there are constitutionally correct ways to modify it, and that's how it should be done IMO. I do believe the amendment gives room for regulation, just not up to the point of preventing ownership to law abiding citizens. I've no problem with reasonable regulation. My right to be armed is not infringed by having to have a background check, or wait 2 weeks and so on. I don't support the NRA's insistence that there are no restrictions that are reasonable. Frankly I see that as the most likely cause of my loss of freedom as things get pushed to a breaking point where drastic measures are furthered that will infringe on my right to ownership. Something that could be avoided with reasonable compromise.
  13. The Gun Control Debate Thread - Say hello to my little thread

    He may still have been stupid enough to fight a duel today.
  14. The Gun Control Debate Thread - Say hello to my little thread

    Uh no. The principal authors of the Bill of rights clearly defined what militia meant at the time it was written. We can argue the semantics of what it means now, or what it was defined to mean in 1903, but that has nothing to do with the meaning at the time it was written, or the clear intent from the words of those involved in writing it. It was absolutely meant to provide an armed populace as a deterrent against the government. How can Masons own words be construed to mean anything else? How about Madison's words? He had a little something to do with the penning of the Bill of Rights. “[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” ― James Madison “The constitution shall never be construed...to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” ― Alexander Hamilton The words of the authors themselves make the intent and reason of the 2nd amendment crystal clear. Making it out to be anything other than what they themselves stated is revisionist.
  15. The Gun Control Debate Thread - Say hello to my little thread

    You all are quick to dismiss "the people". It does not limit "the People" to the group belonging to the militia. It is clear the intent is that the militia is "the people" As in "We, the people" There is no ambiguity in that statement. "the people" as a phrase is only used a couple times and each time in the context of individual rights. The amendment in no way implies that a militia of select people will be formed, and just those people will not have their right to arms infringed. Mason makes this quite clear, and as a key person to the Bill of Rights, I think I'll trust his opinion. "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788 This is from Mason draft: 17. That the People have a Right to keep and to bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe Defence of a free State; that Standing Armies in Time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided as far as the Circumstances and Protection of the Community will admit; and that in all Cases, the military should be under strict Subordination to, and governed by the Civil Power. You can read the Amendment in a vacuum and assign any meaning that fits your agenda. But the framers intention is quite clear. The People are to be armed as the best defense against governmental power. I do think the argument can be made regarding the training and discipline of said militia(The People) I think it's well within the governments right(arguably at the state level) to enforce training as a requirement of ownership and really that should be done to fulfill the spirit of the amendment IMO I find it interesting that the "trained to arms" qualifier was left out of the final amendment.