TheGreatBuzz

So I'm guessing no one wanted to cough up a second round pick?

Correct. And there are a lot of wealthy idiots here also. My point was don't write off all crazy extremists as "stupid segments of society". I can use Tim McVey as an example if you'd prefer.

Just a reminder that the "stupid segments of society" in relation to extremist Islam figured out a way to fly jets into the Pentagon and twin towers. Never underestimate the power of stupid people with convictions.

I'm still not seeing anything about Chip to Cleveland. Anymore to this?

I figured this thread would be going again with word about the upcoming executive order expected in the next few days. What are people's thoughts?

Actually I would prefer it just because of a physical comfort standpoint. But I also know that there will be some people who insist on carrying a big chrome .50 cal Desert Eagle. Those are the ones that MattFancy is really talking about.

^^^ that sounds reasonable enough.

Please don't take this as me condoning the actions of some officers because I sure don't. But others have pointed out what they did wrong so I'm not going to go more into that. But why don't more people bring up the concerning lack of respect for authority of some people?

I don't get the people that think Jay will be gone during the season, especially this early in the season. I don't think our GM is that stupid. He is going to give Jay the rope and see what he has done with it come January. I also think the only way Jay gets replaced during the next offseason is if Scott finds a QB he can get that he thinks can be our QB of the future. He won't sell the farm for one he isn't sure on. And he will consider bringing Jay back with a "gap filler" QB if he doesn't see one he can get for a good price this off season. He will build talent at other positions this off season and wait on a QB he likes. Our head coach replacement will be at the same time that Scott gets the QB he believes in. And Scott won't rush it.

Wintemute is obviously pro gun control so his "opinions" are useless.

Bad etiquette on your part. You forgot the smiley. I'm still curious how they are deciding if it's easy, moderate, etc.

WTF are you talking about?

False Florida is listed as easy and has a background check.

I am just guessing but maybe the difference between "easy" and "moderate" isn't in the classes or paperwork but what is actually disqualifying during the background check and how deep they look?!? Anyone have any knowledge on that?

I'm interested as to what their criteria for difficulty is. I'm in florida and mine was kind of a pain in the butt (at least compared to what I've heard described in other states). It was supposed to be expedited (due to being active duty) but it took about 7 weeks from the time I started it until I received it. I had to drive to a place about 1.5 hours away. Did a bunch of crap and filled out a bunch of forms. It wasn't cheap either. Instead of driving I could have mailed it all in myself but I still would have had to run around to get different requirements done and things notarized. My wife wants to get hers (also in Florida) and is a civilian. She will have to do all the same things but hers won't be expedited so will take even longer. She also requires a gun safety class. That's part of the requirement for a CCW in Florida. I just didn't have to take it because I'm military. The gun safety class is a few days long and not cheap either.

I'm good with it as long as BOTH studies are carried out in a bipartisan manner. Otherwise, results of studies into BOTH SUBJECTS should be dismissed because they are obviously just meant to push an agenda. I need to put down the crack pipe if I think it is possible for todays society to study something and come up with a result without pushing some kind of predetermined agenda though.

Amazing how the NRA is all powerful like this and I didn't know. They must me a mix the the Freemasons and the Illuminati.

I don't think ANYONE was arguing that a gun owner should be using their weapon, much less discharging it, to stop a shoplifter. To try to imply otherwise is a intentional misrepresentation and just another example of why nothing will ever get done. Both sides are equally guilty of twisting words to meet their agenda.

Just out of curiosity, is there studies that show the same rise in violence for when a state passed an open carry law? I see we just keep talking about CCW.

As obtuse as slateman is being using the Oklahoma city reference, you are being equally obtuse using this retort. His point is obviously that people kill people, not guns kill people. His point is that we need to focus on the human action and not try to ban the tool. Now i'm not saying I agree or disagree, I'm just saying that your style of arguing is no better then his. And this is one of the reasons why there can be no meaningful progress ever made. It's amazing how many people complain about our politicians and proceed to act just like they do.

Well TWA you are welcome to come up with your own give and take suggestions. Just try to keep them honest from a both sides view. Something that reasonable people could actually agree on. I have a feeling you will have trouble with that though. Or you can stick so hard to your views and feeling you aren't getting enough that nothing will actually be able to get done. But then you can sit back and complain about how nothing gets done.

Well you didn't come out and say what side you are on but I'm going to just assume.The storage thing has been stated as something people want but can't really have much teeth unless people leave their guns out around someone mentally unstable AND they do something with them. Pretty low chance of that when you look at the numbers. Compare that to late term abortions aren't banned everywhere. Only mostly. So that would be your win. Two pretty small things in the grand scheme of things. But one side saves some unborn lives and the other gets some feel good gun control. Personhood after first trimester is a pretty big step that I don't think either side is ready to budge on. Training vs counseling. You think an 8 hour counseling is necessary or gun safety can be taught in 30 minutes? I think they are reasonable with the times I suggested. Not really sure what you meant by the bullet availability comment. For the record I'm pro gun and pro choice. I think that puts me in a pretty good spot to negotiate from. EDIT: I would also make a part of the required gun safety a review of current gun laws. That way you know when you can shoot someone without getting in trouble, when and where you can carry, etc. Laws,change and it's not often well publicized.

I disagree. From what I have seen, most people don't buy much at gun shows. A lot of it is looking at dealers to see what they offer. Also being able to put hands on an item to see if you like it. Than you start shopping around. Those that do buy will just have to pick up the weapon a few days later. Down here, you don't really get good prices at the shows, except for the private party sales. And more of those are done online anyways. I agree. And this is where I point out that the ones screaming about how they want something would rather scream than do a little give and take to get what they want. It's depressing really and says a lot about where we are at as a society. And notice I'm not only blaming one side for doing this. Now that's bipartisan

If the police come and find that it wasn't being stored in accordance with the rules, yes. This is probably the part with the least teeth to it out of the whole thing. It's more for those mass shooters who stole the guns from their parents and the parents hadn't done anything to secure them. Not a part that I am particularly in love with but part of negotiation. It is something that I have seen some say they would like, a requirement that guns be secured. This is pretty much me also. Though I usually carry if we go to the movies also. I can probably count the number of times I have carried on my hands. I want it to protect myself and my family. If someone were to start terrorizing the place I were in but not coming directly for me, I would probably hide and only use my weapon if I needed to protect myself/family. Everyone else is on their own. It's not my job to play John Wayne and protect everyone. That's what the police are for. I just want it in case they don't get there in time to protect me.

I don't know anyone that carries more than one gun away from their home but I guess a person could do it. I would file that under "not getting 100% of what we want" part of the negotiation. It gets people part of what they want. The In The Home part of the rule could maybe use a little tweeking. I'm just trying to come up with a middle ground for the people who want to be able to defend their home vs the people who think guns need to be locked up. The bigger part is that you'd be responsible if your gun fell into the wrong hands and something bad was done with it. What do you mean by "steal the one gun you allow out or more?"