• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About stevenaa

  • Rank
    The Bruiser
  • Birthday 07/24/1968

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • Yahoo

Profile Information

  • Birthdate
  • Redskins Fan Since
  • Favorite Redskin
    too hard to pick
  • Location
  • Zip Code
  • 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 player. I don't care if he's here or not other than how that impacts the team. Which it obviously would given the lack of depth and the difficulty in finding talent at the position. Could be he's milking the medical angle as contract leverage.
  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
  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 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. 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. 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.
  12. He may still have been stupid enough to fight a duel today.
  13. 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 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.
  14. 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.
  15. "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 Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788 "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787 "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787 “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759 I'm a supporter the second amendment as read to guarantee individual rights to gun ownership, more specifically the limitation on government to restrict ownership. However, I'm not a card carrying NRA member who has no sense of understanding that things change over time. I'll never support any legislation that prevents my right to own a firearm except under some well defined, stringent exceptions: Commit a felony-lose the right Convicted of domestic violence, or while on trial for it- lose the right On a no fly list- lose the right. But we need processes to expediently correct mistakes in who is listed We need a way to restrict the mentally sick from gun ownership. See the Texas nut lady. Long history of mental health issues. tragic We need stiff penalties for children getting access to firearms. I'm fine with more thorough background checks and reasonable wait times. I'm fine with mandating that personal sales be recorded. I'm fine with requiring a licensing program for gun ownership. None of those infringe on my right to own a gun.