skinny21

Yeah, its my best attempt at trying to appease both sides. Nothing will be perfect, but this at least nullifies (or attempts to) the "good guy with a gun argument", the "someone may need a gun quickly for self defense", the idea that "they're coming for our guns", etc. I feel like if we can get many of those arguments out of the way, it makes the conversation marginally easier. An attempt at a middle ground that would probably piss off both extremes... which means we'd be on the right path, lol.Edit: sorry, should have lumped this in with my previous post.

Dunno about the regulations really. Something that would at least moderately appease the gun control crowd - primarily aimed at trying to prevent mass shootings and criminals getting (at least certain) guns... some kind of fairly extensive background check and psychological eval. Obviously the tricky part is 1) deciding how to work the evaluations, 2) how to pay for them and 3) getting congress and the general population to agree. What I like about this idea is that it still allows ease of access, doesn't outright ban any guns, doesn't mess with concealed carry (and open carry) laws, doesn't affect ammo sales. On the other hand, in theory anyway, it works towards limiting the people with (hopefully fairly specific) mental issues from getting the type of guns typically used in mass shootings. Obviously it would have to include a lot more details, but that's the gist of it. Does that make sense? What do you think would be a logical step, regulation-wise, to trying to prevent those with anger, hate or resentment issues being able to get their hands on a gun that can fire a significant amount of bullets in a short time (and taking it out on innocents)?

Still think separating (currently legal) firearms into two categories makes sense. Extremely relaxed regulation for guns that don't hold clips, stringent regulation (and registration) for those that do. No (currently legal) guns are banned. Someone who feels they need one suddenly for self defense (or sport) can get one quickly. Of course, it would still run contrary to the interests of gun show sellers, but that can be worked around to some degree.

They'd definitely take the Texans - people abroad are fascinated by us. As to the 25 mark, some studies have shown that people's brains (believe it was males in particular) have a portion of the brain that doesn't develop until around that age. If I recall, that portion is what tempers risk. It's a big reason for a push to change incarceration laws for offenders under 25.

I like that they're talking about finding recourse to getting off a watch list too - shows they (or some) are looking at both sides of the issue. Really hope the GOP steps up on this one.

I'd be happy to lump all handguns, however, I could see someone arguing "what if someone suddenly feels the need for protection. Why should they have to wait?" Or some such. Also, and maybe more importantly, it may undermine the idea of how you're dividing the 2 types of guns. Don't see a need to have a check for every purchase, you're right. Hesitant to set a timeframe for the waiting period (yet) - I think the professionals would need to decide how long it would reasonably take to conduct a thorough background check. Good catch with the 2nd edit. Yes. Yeah, I mean it's such a divisive topic and although I personally may want more, I can understand the need to compromise. Do I think certain people are right to think they may need semi-autos in case the government oversteps its bounds (in a big way)? No, but I also don't want to alienate those people either... because I guess you never know. And alienating a segment of the gun owning population will make the conversation that much more difficult. Nothing seems a bit strong of a word there. It won't do nearly enough, I'm sure, but it's a compromise that I hope could make some small difference. Don't know what to say regarding both mental health and buying sprees. Maybe there's something that could make a difference though. Really, it's about looking to the future - if a law like that passed, it would make it that much more difficult for a person (down the road) to get ticked off and a few days later be armed with a semi-auto in a crowded area. I'm loathe to get into specifics like that though... both sides get into the "yeah, but what if..." that undermines any move forward. As to the guns already out there, I don't know that either. Maybe they're grandfathered in but have to abide by the new law if they're sold? Tough to regulate that I'm sure, but it could be incentivized in some way I think. I'll also add that the loopholes need to be closed as best as possible, selling multiple guns at the same time to one buyer needs to be looked at, the 1% of dealers that's always brought up need to be heavily examined, studies have to be allowed, and agencies (like the ATF) need to have fewer restrictions*. * like being able to do their paperwork online, for example. My knowledge is insufficient to say much more than that though. Bottom line is the idea of compromising. No one's gonna be thrilled with this type of legislation, but I'd hope both sides would agree that it's better than nothing. Better yet, I don't think either side really 'loses' in this scenario.

Curious what both sides (although it's really too nuanced to say there are only two sides) would say to something like this: Revolvers, bolt action rifles and shotgun purchases are easy to buy (no need to register it, short waiting periods or whatever), while semi-autos - both pistols and rifles - are tougher to buy (longer wait periods, mental health check, more extensive background checks, get you on a national list or whatever). Thoughts?

Gotta imagine every potential candidate has made a mistake at some point.

I agree with your premise, but part of the reason the ILBs aren't contributing is that Compton stepped up. Well, that and Hayward went to IR. Also think you're a bit harsh on Clark - most of the big plays have been because the young guys aren't covering their zone. But yeah, Clark has not been much of a difference maker (apart from a few key stops). Here's hoping Long and Moses step up in the offseason, though I hope the FO doesn't sit on their hands due to said 'hope'. You can probably add Rambo to the WTH file.

Think I've heard enough expounding by Costas on the subject. Just one of the many reasons I miss the good old days, where media didn't broadcast (no pun intended) their bias.

My guess is that many view Morris as a product of the system.

Lol! I sure hope you meant that the way I took it... 'cause that's awesome

Maybe this ain't the thread for it, but whose injuries had more of an impact in 2012, 'Skins or Cowpersons?

Haha, I knew I should have put a wink or something there!

I'm not in shell-shock about the Bears game or anything, but I'm a bit worried that our two (seemingly) biggest weaknesses make for bad matchups within our division. I expect this team to struggle as the young guys gel and get experience, but I certainly don't want to get swept in the division. Don't get me wrong, I love the direction of the team (youth, speed, depth and competition), I just really don't want to get swept. Here's hoping things come together for the o-line and secondary. At least we'll have some time before the division games.

Some factors that make me question if Davis gets re-signed along with some counter points to show some objectivity): Griffin didn't use his TE much at Baylor. By itself, this point doesn't have much merit because we run a different offense. I'm assuming Griffin didn't have a pass-catching TE of Davis' caliber either. Added to my next points however, I think this does have merit. Davis has had a quiet camp. It's only practice, and the team has apparently spent a bunch of time on the spread concepts that Griffin is accustomed to from Baylor. Which goes back to the first point. Davis had a quiet first preseason game. I know, I know, it's just one game. Davis' blocking is suspect He's likely to command a hefty contract. The TE blocking is quite important to our run scheme. Thanks to LL for posting the Gibbs videos. Having Paul means we already have a guy at TE that should create similar mismatches that Davis provides, but is a much more willing/adept blocker. Too early to tell, and his drops last week didn't help his case. There aren't many positions on the team that badly need reinforcing, so focusing on a talented, better blocking TE is possible in next years draft. RT is an obvious need.. assuming one of our guys doesn't step up big-time. Obviously, if the Paul experiment fails, Davis improves his blocking, or there is no such TE (draft or FA) then I think Davis definitely gets re-signed. I also think I can see why the team hasn't cut Cooley yet.

Ditto! PM would be great!