• Blog Entries

    • By TK in ES Coverage
         0
      In today's Divisional Debacle, the Defense under Greg Manusky in the first half, gave up 207 yards of offense (105 rushing/102 passing) and two touchdowns.  That said, they did manage a single INT on which the Offense actually managed to score a touchdown off of. They allowed 12 of 16 passes to be completed . 
       
      In the second half it was 107 yards given up (58 rushing//49 passing) a field goal and a touchdown. They traded their first half pick for a second half sack. However, Dallas completed all five of their pass attempts. 
       
      Don't read that thinking "Well it seems like they tightened up some in the 2nd half."  They didn't. They simply had about half the plays in the second half. 30 plays in the First and 18 in the Second.
       
      So far in two Divisional matchups, the Defense has faltered in the Second half. They start out like a house of fire for the first few drives until their opponents gradually make adjustments. This Defensive coaching staff fails make any adjustments, whether in game or at the very least at Halftime. They've given up over 30 points per game for a total of 63 points given up in two games. While the Bears are up next, the Pats await and they've put up over 70 points in two games. Yeah. Ok. They did shut out the Dolphins today which is looking like the NFL version of ... ahem... shooting fish in a barrel. 
       
      The frustrating thing is Manusky is the DC that the Front Office actively looked to replace during the off season without firing him. When you know they're looking to replace you, most people would make a concentrated effort to show an improvement. Yet Manusky's Defense still keeps acting like it's starring in Groundhog Day.
       
      In his post game presser, when asked directly about if any coaching changes would be made, Gruden said "No, I think after two games – you’re talking about playing two very good offensive football teams and two of the best offensive lines in pro football we just played back-to-back. That’s no excuse whatsoever, but I don’t think we need to hit the panic button yet. We just have to continue to focus on what we can do better to win. Get Jonathan [Allen] in here, get a couple of our corners back in here and let’s go back and strap it up against Chicago [Bears] next week and see what happens.” 
       
      Here's another frustrating thing. The defensive communication was an issue last season as well. Wasn't this supposed to have been worked on during OTA's and Training Camp? It's understandable that the rookies would still be on a learning curve, but NFL vets like Collins and DRC you'd think they would have down by the start of the season. 
       
      Gruden said they're a very talented group on Defense but that they weren't reaching them. When questioned as to why the coaching staff that has been in place for several years, wasn't reaching them, he defended the comment as them being a young defense. “We have some moving parts now. Landon Collins is a veteran guy but this is his first year, [Montez] Sweat’s in his first year, [Cole] Holcomb, it’s his first year, [Jon] Bostic is in his first year. We’re playing Dominique [Rodgers-Cromartie] at corner and this is Jimmy Moreland’s first year, so it’s not like we are the most experienced group. We feel like were very talented, but we`re still fighting through somethings. There are a lot of things to look forward to, without a doubt, but we do have to play better and strap it up and get back to work."

       
       
       
Dont Taze Me Bro

The Gun Control Debate Thread - Say hello to my little thread

Recommended Posts

45 minutes ago, Larry said:

Their definition of "semiautomatic assault weapon", continued

 

I read that part as to be aimed at the "AR style pistols".  I'm cool with banning those.  But the handgun description at the beginning sure sounds like all semi-auto pistols.

48 minutes ago, Larry said:

And I note that their definition of a barrel shroud states that a slide that covers the entire top of the pistol doesn't coun

Not sure where you are getting that but the part I quoted would apply to rifles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I read that part as to be aimed at the "AR style pistols".  I'm cool with banning those.  But the handgun description at the beginning sure sounds like all semi-auto pistols.

 

 

Yes, at the beginning, they define what a semi automatic pistol is. Then they say that a semi automatic pistol that also meets these other criteria is a semiautomatic assault weapon. But only the latter are banned. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Larry said:

 

Yes, at the beginning, they define what a semi automatic pistol is. Then they say that a semi automatic pistol that also meets these other criteria is a semiautomatic assault weapon. But only the latter are banned. 

Gotcha.  I must have misunderstood that part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@TheGreatBuzz where do you go to read all the specifics of the bill?  

 

Edit:  I found it.

 

Since the last ban expired back in 2004, was one able to take their grandfathered semi-automatic rifles to ranges to target shoot?  Or would under this new ban, be required to keep them locked in a safe or with trigger locks?

 

 

Edited by Dont Taze Me Bro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Reading more details of this S.66 bill, her changes would include some semi-automatic handguns based on their unloaded weight (more than 50 oz or 3.15 lbs).  That's ****ing ridiculous, imo.   

 

So, that would include say all regular size Desert Eagles (.50ae, .44 and .357 mag) because they are all over 4 LBs.   But I can buy a Desert Eagle .50ae revolver........or other semi-automatics that weigh less.  This senator that wrote this doesn't know her head from her ass.

 

Weight of the firearm shouldn't be included, imo.  

 

 

Edited by Dont Taze Me Bro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/16/2019 at 12:55 PM, China said:

Another "controlled" gun making students safer:

 

First Graders Picked Up Gun Intended to Protect Ohio School

 

Two first graders found and removed a gun from an unlocked case that was brought to an Ohio school as part of a concealed-carry program to protect the school from gun violence, The Columbus Dispatch reports. The students at Highland Elementary, near the town of Sparta, reportedly picked up the weapon when a school official authorized by the district to carry it went to use a restroom. The school didn’t report the incident, which occurred in March—it only became public after the county sheriff found out about it through a resident’s Facebook post, which inspired community debates about whether school staff should be armed.

 

Click on the link for the full article

I assume the follow-up is the 1st Graders were expelled???? (Ok zero tolerance versus common sense is a different subject).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

As much as I want this to stop, I can't help but have this feeling that the pendulum swung in one direction as a result of Obama and about to swing all the way in the opposite direction after Trump.  

 

That in general was in regards to everything, not just guns, but specific to guns the longer the Republicans refuse to meet in the middle on guns the less chance there will be a moderate approach to this when they are out of power.  There's a lot the country as a whole already agrees on, but if this doesn't get worked out by the time Dems take back over, the Liberal wing may end up making changes going further and leaving the otherside outside just like they are being left out now.

 

 You can make these guns illegal all you want, you have to be very careful how you go about trying to get them off the street, by force is going to backfire, why I support grandfathering certain weapons as long as you can't sell the guns or ammo anymore.

Edited by Renegade7
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

Reading more details of this S.66 bill, her changes would include some semi-automatic handguns based on their unloaded weight (more than 50 oz or 3.15 lbs).  That's ****ing ridiculous, imo.   

 

So, that would include say all regular size Desert Eagles (.50ae, .44 and .357 mag) because they are all over 4 LBs.   But I can buy a Desert Eagle .50ae revolver........or other semi-automatics that weigh less.  This senator that wrote this doesn't know her head from her ass.

 

Weight of the firearm shouldn't be included, imo.  

 

 

 

Unfortunately this is what happens when the gun community doesn’t take charge. 

 

We’ve had years where we could have stood up and proposed something meaningful that was inline with what we think is right. We’ve done nothing. 

 

So when we finally get a bill it’s going to be full of stuff we don’t like for one reason or another (including that it won’t actually do anything)

 

and its what we deserve. Be a leader or a follower. The gun community chose to be neither so we’ll be relegated to follower. 

 

(As soon as the dems can actually pass something)

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting.....

 

Quote

Democrats in the House Judiciary Committee approved a universal background check bill, but rejected an amendment to alert authorities when certain buyers fail a background check — even if the buyer isn’t a legal citizen.

Republican Rep. Greg Steube introduced the amendment to H.R. 8, the Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019, that would require notification to specific law enforcement agencies when an individual fails a background check, and would require Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to be notified upon the failed background check of an illegal immigrant, Fox News reported.

 

Rest of article at link below:

 

https://americanmilitarynews.com/2019/02/democrats-reject-gop-effort-to-alert-ice-when-illegals-fail-gun-background-checks/?fbclid=IwAR1Cmq0DuZUR11_ijKugzoPqd7Stf3pZnBlvCCn74GYeu46FQYaidKpliXw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got it.  Reads to me like the democrats started a bill about mandatory background checks.  Republicans countered that with, "well hey, if an illegal fails a background check then ICE should know."

 

So now, republicans can claim that democrats care more about illegals than they do about white people  citizens.  Nevermind the fact that illegal immigrants aren't shooting up people in large numbers or anything.  Let's just shift the commentary to how democrats want to protect illegals.  Who cares that the bill will already notify "specific law enforcement agencies when an individual fails a background check", the democrats didn't say "lets deport illegals if they fail a background check".

 

Shameful of republicans and shameful of both of you if you're falling for this BS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what specific agencies will they notify w/o the amendment?

 

shameful is dismissing the deaths as not mass shootings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, twa said:

what specific agencies will they notify w/o the amendment?

 

shameful is dismissing the deaths as not mass shootings.

 

The specific ones.

 

Show me some none Steve Miller numbers on illegal immigrant murders.  I'll give you a hint, there aren't any because it isn't being studied.  There are private studies but no official numbers.  I can tell you that the private studies suggest that illegal immigrants commit crimes at a lower rate than citizens.  Not that it makes their crime OK in the least.  But trying to shift a universal background check bill to something that focuses on illegal immigrants is shameful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Actually, I can certainly see the reasoning that if an illegal is trying to buy a gun, then maybe you should let ICE know.  

 

Although I could also see the notion that illegals should have the right to defend themselves, with a gun, too.  That maybe society is better if the illegals do not become a demographic that's safe for people to prey on.  

 

(Now, as a more practical matter?  We all now that not one single Republican will vote for the bill, with or without the amendment.  It's likely that enough Dems will vote against it that it doesn't pass, with or without.  The real reason the amendment was proposed was 1) In the hopes that it gets rejected, then it can be used as a talking point,.  and 2) if it gets included, then it might cause a few D votes to become "no", and kill the bill that the R's don't want passed, in the first place.)  

 

Edited by Larry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hr-8 will criminalize many routine actions by people like me and notifying ICE is a bridge too far?

 

There would be no SHIFT if the Dems did not object to a reasonable reporting requirement requested.

 

We could then focus on the bill's other flaws.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s the same as adding a rider that authorities would be notified if you had any outstanding parking tickets, or didn’t pay your child support, or any number of other unrelated crimes.  That’s the point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Springfield said:

It’s the same as adding a rider that authorities would be notified if you had any outstanding parking tickets, or didn’t pay your child support, or any number of other unrelated crimes.  That’s the point.

 

I don't think it the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, twa said:

hr-8 will criminalize many routine actions by people like me and notifying ICE is a bridge too far?

 

By "criminalize many routine actions", you mean "selling guns without a background check"?

 

You know.  Exactly what the bill is designed to do.  

 

You know.  Excatly like every other law has done, for the entire history of civilization.  It makes things illegal.  

 

But then, who said talking points have to make sense?  

 

24 minutes ago, twa said:

There would be no SHIFT if the Dems did not object to a reasonable reporting requirement requested.

 

"If only nobody objected to the amendment which my side attempted precisely because it was partisan, then there wouldn't have been an argument.  (Until we found something that we could do that they would object to.)"  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

By "criminalize many routine actions", you mean "selling guns without a background check"?

 

You know.  Exactly what the bill is designed to do.  

 

 

you obviously have not read the bill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.