Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

stevenaa

Members
  • Content Count

    4,439
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About stevenaa

  • Rank
    The Bruiser
  • Birthday 07/24/1968

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • Yahoo
    steven_andress@yahoo.com

Profile Information

  • Birthdate
    07/24/1968
  • Washington Football Team Fan Since
    1975
  • Favorite Washington Football Team Player
    too hard to pick
  • Location
    Texas
  • Zip Code
    76028
  • Interests
    Boatbuilding, Woodworking, Playing with my kids
  • Occupation
    IT professional

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I can remember my dad coming home from a business trip telling me he sat next to the guy on the plane that was to be the next Head Coach. Joe Gibbs. :)
  2. Rivera is not going to accept anyone on his staff he doesn't want. He didn't come here to let Snyder press him into keeping KOC right out the gate. Rivera didn't need to come here. He chose to come here, and he set the terms without a doubt. A coach of his caliber would accept nothing less.
  3. If it's contractual, he needs to shut up and finish his current deal. I don't see underperforming players giving money back. Why should a player who out performs his contract be able to renegotiate. Though I don't think he's outperformed it. I certainly wouldn't give him any kind of expensive extension. I don't understand the angle related to the handling of his growth. Who the hell would trust a football teams medical staff with that. They're sports doctors. At the absolute minimum, you go get an opinion elsewhere. In either case, i'm a fan of the team not any individual play
  4. 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. 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. 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. You need to recheck your very recent history to know this is absolutely not true.
  8. 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. 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
  10. 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 othe
  11. 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
  12. 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 Right
  13. 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
  14. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The people were the militia. Note that it doesn't say until such time as a militia is unnecessary, or until such time that food can be provided through mass production and hunting is no longer a necessity. The framers understood a well armed populace was the best guarantee against physical government abuse. "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the
×
×
  • Create New...