lo country

More evidence of the radicalization of the gun lobby. I (for the sake of my own right to own guns) hope that they don't end up so extremist that they are marginalized. The GOP seems to have fallen into this trap but that doesn't mean that otherwise sensible gun owners have to follow them into history. Really do not think it is radicalization. I think it is that some companies are now trying to send a message that they will not do business with states that infringe on the right to bear arms. I actually admire them for sacrificing the all mighty dollar in an attempt to make a statement. No different than Magpul pulling out of Colorado. Or banks refusing to do business (B of A) with companies dealing in firearms (McMillian IIRC and at least one more). Or Moleskine (paper company) not doing business for any firearms companies. Just because a business entity takes a "conservative" approach does not mean it is any more "radical" than the banks or other companies. Texas and Mississippi are now courting companies to move there that are engaged in the firearms trade. I also think that it is quickly becoming such a polarizing issue that people won't have a choice but to choose sides. Pro-gun or anti-gun. No middle ground. One "extreme" or the other.

Long list of companies that believe in the 2nd amendment. They are refusing to sell firearms or parts to anyone in one in cities or states that are creating laws in contrast to the 2nd amendment. This includes LEO's and govt agencies. http://www.thepoliceloophole.com/

Unless I'm off on dates, those were all Callahan recruits. Meaning they came in after Barney was here the first time around in 2003. And those four years would be in large part by the players on the roster from the tail end of Solich's recruiting. I don't see any of the oline guys graduating this year getting drafted. What I do see is a lot of guys who have come in with star ratings, and then doing nothing, or transferring out. Really? Have you ever heard of Spencer Long? 1 guy in 5 years? That's the defense? 3 walk ons starting on the Nebraska O-Line, completely unacceptable. He quite probably ran off his best guy before last season started. This. Not to mention a converted DL walkon starting at center last year to a replace a multi year starter. Developed depth? No. as evidenced by having to start said DL convert at center. No program in contention for their conference or the MNC is going to have 3 walk-ons starting on the OL. Feel good story? Yes. Will this result in us getting where we want to be? No way.

Just something that gets lost in all the gun control banter. Jobs and the economy. This is but one of several companies facing the same dilemma. Magpul: Colorado, Magpul and the Second Amendment Need Your Help February 11th, 2013 While anti-gun legislation doesn’t seem to be gathering much steam on the national stage, it’s already taking hold like a cancer at the state level. This time it’s Colorado and our friends Magpul Industries have put out a call to those who support the Second Amendment to help in the legislative struggle for that state. They issued the following statement: In addition to the national battle to protect our firearms rights, many states are currently engaged in their own fights. Here in CO, a state with a strong heritage of firearm and other personal freedoms, we are facing some extreme challenges to firearms rights. We have been engaged in dialogue with legislators here presenting our arguments to stop legislation from even being introduced, but our efforts did not deter those of extreme views. After the NRAs visit last week, several anti-freedom bills were introduced by CO legislators, and a very aggressive timeline has been set forth in moving these bills forward. The bills include: HB 1229, Background checks for Gun Transfers–a measure to prohibit private sales between CO residents, and instead require a full FFL transfer, including a 4473. HB 1228, Payment for Background Checks for Gun Transfers– a measure that would require CO residents to pay for the back logged state-run CBI system (currently taking 3 times the federally mandated wait time for checks to occur) instead of using the free federal NICS checks. And finally, HB 1224, Prohibiting Large Capacity Ammunition Magazines–a measure that bans the possession, sale, or transfer of magazines over 10 round capacity. The measures and stipulations in this bill would deprive CO residents of the value of their private property by prohibiting the sale or transfer of all magazines over 10 rounds. This bill would also prohibit manufacture of magazines greater than 10 rounds for commercial sale out of the state, and place restrictions on the manufacture of military and law enforcement magazines that would cripple production. We’d like to ask all CO residents to please contact your state legislators and the members of the Judiciary Committee and urge them to kill these measures in committee, and to vote NO if they reach the floor. We also ask you to show your support for the 2nd Amendment at the Capitol on Tuesday, Feb 12, for the magazine ban committee hearing and Wednesday, Feb 13, for the hearing on the other measures. Due to the highly restrictive language in HB 1224, if passed, and we remained here, this measure would require us to cease PMAG production on July 1, 2013. In short, Magpul would be unable to remain in business as a CO company, and the over 200 jobs for direct employees and nearly 700 jobs at our subcontractors and suppliers would pick up and leave CO. Due to the structure of our operations, this would be entirely possible, hopefully without significant disruption to production. The legislators drafting these measures do so in spite of the fact that nothing they are proposing will do anything to even marginally improve public safety in CO, and in fact, will leave law-abiding CO residents less able to defend themselves, strip away rights and property from residents who have done nothing wrong, and send nearly 1000 jobs and millions in tax revenue out of the state. We like CO, we want to continue to operate in CO, but most of all, we want CO to remain FREE. Please help us in this fight, and let your voices be heard! We have included the contact information for the House Judiciary committee for your convenience: House Judiciary Committee Rep. Daniel Kagan, Chair: 303-866-2921, repkagan@gmail.com Rep. Pete Lee, Vice Chair: 303-866-2932, pete.lee.house@state.co.us Rep. John Buckner: 303-866-2944, john.buckner.house@state.co.us Rep. Lois Court: 303-866-2967, lois.court.house@state.co.us Rep. Bob Gardner, 303-866-2191, bob.gardner.house@state.co.us Rep. Polly Lawrence, 303-866-2935, polly.lawrence.house@state.co.us Rep. Mike McLachlan, 303-866-2914, mike.mclachlan.house@state.co.us Rep. Rep Carole Murray, 303-866-2948, murrayhouse45@gmail.com Rep. Brittany Pettersen, 303-866-2939, brittany.pettersen.house@state.co.us Rep. Joseph Salazar, 303-866-2918, joseph.salazar.house@state.co.us Rep. Jared Wright, 303-866-2583, jared.wright.house@state.co.us

Nice!

Yes and no. The offense was mostly underclassmen and the defense ... didn't play as well as we all would have liked. This tweet caught my eye as well. It doesn't say to me "look how much Pelini got out of the class." It more or less tell me we lacked talent and/or players that played well. And that's not to take away from their college careers, but is still worth noting. Someone up above said they hoped he'd get a 4.4. I seriously doubt it. He was listed as having a 4.6 out of high school, and he doesn't look to be much faster than that. When I first read the bold, I thought it was a slight against Bo. Reading it again, it appears to say how lucky we were to win 10 games this year with our lack of talent and that Bo actually made chicken salad out of chicken crap.

Let's see, no experience depth on DL, LB's or safety. Should make for an interesting off season. I hope that this and Heard and other "depth issues" makes Bo and Co realize that getting experience for the guys you have is much better than hoping to "get better guys"........... Bo and Co will really get the chance with this incredibly young D to show they can really develop guys. If guys don't want to be here then leave. Best of luck. For me personally, I don't really buy into the "he saw the guys were better" crap though. He has his reasons and I am sure we will never really know the truth.

Bama is a well disciplined team that plays a "basic" scheme that is based on sound fundamental football. They tackle well in space. They line up correctly and they do not get stupid penalties nor turn the ball over. The staff develops the kids and gets the most out of them. They are not afraid to throw true fresh in the mix. Even with less talent, a sound team that tackles, doesn't get penalties or turn the ball over will do very well. I am a huge Husker fan, but Bo and Co have a lot of work to do to get to the next level.

And this guy has only won 3 MNC's in 4 years. What does he know about coaching.................................................

Common denominator, IMO, is the staff really hasn't shown developing experienced depth, developing players and rotating guys out with the starters is their strong suit. In the skill positions at least, the starter will start until they graduate. This needs to change. If we have game changers at certain positions (even if true fresh) the staff needs to find a way to get the talent on the field. To use an old adage, one is none, two is one and three is too many......................... We lose a kid who averages 7 yrds per touch is going to hurt. People say Cross isn't an every down back, no break away speed etc....... Now, IMO, the fastest guy we have leaves and no one really seems to care? There is talk of the "great guys we have in the wings". These guys haven't played a down and folks think that they will be better than Heard? The same kid who busted his a$$ to get here and now just walks away? The same kid who last season played when he was injured per the staff (IIRC had Rex not gone down Heard would have had surgery?)

(underline added by me) I know my plan (to my knowledge) isn't dependent on the number of people on it. I have a family plan with a set monthly payment and annual deductible. Looks like a lot of folks will just pay the fine.

I will admit that this article is confusing and from a "conservative site", but damn, 20k for the Bronze (cheapest plan). Who the hell can afford that plan? Sure doesn't seem like this is affordable care. Maybe I am missing something. Someone smarter, feel free to explain in common terms. http://cnsnews.com/n...be-20000-family If I am reading correctly, the fine is $2400? I like the fact that they show a family of 5 making 120K What about the whole "middle class" that make a whole lot less than that? If the average income is 26K, how does this family pay 20k for insurance? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/20/us-incomes-falling-as-optimism-reaches-10-year-low_n_1022118.html

IIRC, i the Heard thread, it was mentioned about programs starting to use 2 backs to limit the beatings as the average NFL RB career is less than 3 years. Guys from dual RB's seem to go higher as they are not beat down as much. I have said numerous times, look at Bama, UGA, Wisky etc..... There is no excuse to have our premier guy (starter) getting over 85% (guess) of the snaps when your back up (Heard) was averaging like 7.0 yrds per carry. That is flat out stupid and incompetence.

A view from some of our military elite per Professional Soldier. A long read, but good perspective. his letter was originally published earlier today onProfessionalSoldiers.com, a forum for members of the US Army Special Forces. According to PS.com, “1100 Green Berets Signed this Letter. We have a list of all their names and unlike any MSM outlets we can confirm that over 1100 Green Berets did sign. The list includes Special Forces Major Generals & Special Forces Command Sergeants Major down to the lowest ranking “Green Beret”. The letter stands for itself. Read it and send it everywhere.” We are current or former Army Reserve, National Guard, and active duty US Army Special Forces soldiers (Green Berets). We have all taken an oath to “…support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same.…” The Constitution of the United States is without a doubt the single greatest document in the history of mankind, codifying the fundamental principle of governmental power and authority being derived from and granted through the consent of the governed. Our Constitution established a system of governance that preserves, protects, and holds sacrosanct the individual rights and primacy of the governed as well as providing for the explicit protection of the governed from governmental tyranny and/or oppression. We have witnessed the insidious and iniquitous effects of tyranny and oppression on people all over the world. We and our forebears have embodied and personified our organizational motto, De Oppresso Liber [To Free the Oppressed], for more than a half century as we have fought, shed blood, and died in the pursuit of freedom for the oppressed. Like you, we are also loving and caring fathers and grandfathers. Like you, we have been stunned, horrified, and angered by the tragedies of Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, Fort Hood, and Sandy Hook; and like you, we are searching for solutions to the problem of gun-related crimes in our society. Many of us are educators in our second careers and have a special interest to find a solution to this problem. However, unlike much of the current vox populi reactions to this tragedy, we offer a different perspective. First, we need to set the record straight on a few things. The current debate is over so-called “assault weapons” and high capacity magazines. The terms “assault weapon” and “assault rifle” are often confused. According to Bruce H. Kobayashi and Joseph E. Olson, writing in the Stanford Law and Policy Review, “Prior to 1989, the term ‘assault weapon’ did not exist in the lexicon of firearms. It is a political term [underline added for emphasis], developed by anti-gun publicists to expand the category of assault rifles.” The M4A1 carbine is a U.S. military service rifle – it is an assault rifle. The AR-15 is not an assault rifle. The “AR” in its name does not stand for “Assault Rifle” – it is the designation from the first two letters of the manufacturer’s name – ArmaLite Corporation. The AR-15 is designed so that it cosmetically looks like the M4A1 carbine assault rifle, but it is impossible to configure the AR-15 to be a fully automatic assault rifle. It is a single shot semi-automatic rifle that can fire between 45 and 60 rounds per minute depending on the skill of the operator. The M4A1 can fire up to 950 rounds per minute. In 1986, the federal government banned the import or manufacture of new fully automatic firearms for sale to civilians. Therefore, the sale of assault rifles are already banned or heavily restricted! The second part of the current debate is over “high capacity magazines” capable of holding more than 10 rounds in the magazine. As experts in military weapons of all types, it is our considered opinion that reducing magazine capacity from 30 rounds to 10 rounds will only require an additional 6 -8 seconds to change two empty 10 round magazines with full magazines. Would an increase of 6 –8 seconds make any real difference to the outcome in a mass shooting incident? In our opinion it would not. Outlawing such “high capacity magazines” would, however, outlaw a class of firearms that are “in common use”. As such this would be in contravention to the opinion expressed by the U.S. Supreme Court recent decisions. Moreover, when the Federal Assault Weapons Ban became law in 1994, manufacturers began retooling to produce firearms and magazines that were compliant. One of those ban-compliant firearms was the Hi-Point 995, which was sold with ten-round magazines. In 1999, five years into the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, the Columbine High School massacre occurred. One of the perpetrators, Eric Harris, was armed with a Hi-Point 995. Undeterred by the ten-round capacity of his magazines, Harris simply brought more of them: thirteen magazines would be found in the massacre’s aftermath. Harris fired 96 rounds before killing himself. Now that we have those facts straight, in our opinion, it is too easy to conclude that the problem is guns and that the solution to the problem is more and stricter gun control laws. For politicians, it is politically expedient to take that position and pass more gun control laws and then claim to constituents that they have done the right thing in the interest of protecting our children. Who can argue with that? Of course we all want to find a solution. But, is the problem really guns? Would increasing gun regulation solve the problem? Did we outlaw cars to combat drunk driving? What can we learn from experiences with this issue elsewhere? We cite the experience in Great Britain. Despite the absence of a “gun culture”, Great Britain, with one-fifth the population of the U.S., has experienced mass shootings that are eerily similar to those we have experienced in recent years. In 1987 a lone gunman killed 18 people in Hungerford. What followed was the Firearms Act of 1988 making registration mandatory and banning semi-automatic guns and pump-action shotguns. Despite this ban, on March 13, 1996 a disturbed 43-year old former scout leader, Thomas Hamilton, murdered 16 school children aged five and six and a teacher at a primary school in Dunblane, Scotland. Within a year and a half the Firearms Act was amended to ban all private ownership of hand guns. After both shootings there were amnesty periods resulting in the surrender of thousands of firearms and ammunition. Despite having the toughest gun control laws in the world, gun related crimes increased in 2003 by 35% over the previous year with firearms used in 9,974 recorded crimes in the preceding 12 months. Gun related homicides were up 32% over the same period. Overall, gun related crime had increased 65% since the Dunblane massacre and implementation of the toughest gun control laws in the developed world. In contrast, in 2009 (5 years after the Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired) total firearm related homicides in the U.S. declined by 9% from the 2005 high (Source: “FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Master File, Table 310, Murder Victims – Circumstances and Weapons Used or Cause of Death: 2000-2009”). Are there unintended consequences to stricter gun control laws and the politically expedient path that we have started down? In a recent op-ed piece in the San Francisco Chronicle, Brett Joshpe stated that “Gun advocates will be hard-pressed to explain why the average American citizen needs an assault weapon with a high-capacity magazine other than for recreational purposes.”We agree with Kevin D. Williamson (National Review Online, December 28, 2012): “The problem with this argument is that there is no legitimate exception to the Second Amendment right that excludes military-style weapons, because military-style weapons are precisely what the Second Amendment guarantees our right to keep and bear.” “The purpose of the Second Amendment is to secure our ability to oppose enemies foreign and domestic, a guarantee against disorder and tyranny. Consider the words of Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story”: ‘The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.’ The Second Amendment has been ruled to specifically extend to firearms “in common use” by the military by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in U.S. v Miller (1939). In Printz v U.S. (1997) Justice Thomas wrote: “In Miller we determined that the Second Amendment did not guarantee a citizen’s right to possess a sawed-off shot gun because that weapon had not been shown to be “ordinary military equipment” that could “could contribute to the common defense”. A citizen’s right to keep and bear arms for personal defense unconnected with service in a militia has been reaffirmed in the U.S. Supreme Court decision (District of Columbia, et al. v Heller, 2008). The Court Justice Scalia wrote in the majority opinion: “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.“. Justice Scalia went on to define a militia as “… comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense ….” “The Anti-Federalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.” he explained. On September 13, 1994, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban went into effect. A Washington Post editorial published two days later was candid about the ban’s real purpose:“[N]o one should have any illusions about what was accomplished [by the ban]. Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. The provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it turns out to be, as hoped, a stepping stone to broader gun control.” In a challenge to the authority of the Federal government to require State and Local Law Enforcement to enforce Federal Law (Printz v United States) the U.S. Supreme Court rendered a decision in 1997. For the majority opinion Justice Scalia wrote: “…. this Court never has sanctioned explicitly a federal command to the States to promulgate and enforce laws and regulations When we were at last confronted squarely with a federal statute that unambiguously required the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program, our decision should have come as no surprise….. It is an essential attribute of the States’ retained sovereignty that they remain independent and autonomous within their proper sphere of authority.” So why should non-gun owners, a majority of Americans, care about maintaining the 2nd Amendment right for citizens to bear arms of any kind? The answer is “The Battle of Athens, TN”. The Cantrell family had controlled the economy and politics of McMinn County, Tennessee since the 1930s. Paul Cantrell had been Sheriff from 1936 -1940 and in 1942 was elected to the State Senate. His chief deputy, Paul Mansfield, was subsequently elected to two terms as Sheriff. In 1946 returning WWII veterans put up a popular candidate for Sheriff. On August 1 Sheriff Mansfield and 200 “deputies” stormed the post office polling place to take control of the ballot boxes wounding an objecting observer in the process. The veterans bearing military style weapons, laid siege to the Sheriff’s office demanding return of the ballot boxes for public counting of the votes as prescribed in Tennessee law. After exchange of gun fire and blowing open the locked doors, the veterans secured the ballot boxes thereby protecting the integrity of the election. And this is precisely why all Americans should be concerned about protecting all of our right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment! Throughout history, disarming the populace has always preceded tyrants’ accession of power. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao all disarmed their citizens prior to installing their murderous regimes. At the beginning of our own nation’s revolution, one of the first moves made by the British government was an attempt to disarm our citizens. When our Founding Fathers ensured that the 2nd Amendment was made a part of our Constitution, they were not just wasting ink. They were acting to ensure our present security was never forcibly endangered by tyrants, foreign or domestic. If there is a staggering legal precedent to protect our 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms and if stricter gun control laws are not likely to reduce gun related crime, why are we having this debate? Other than making us and our elected representatives feel better because we think that we are doing something to protect our children, these actions will have no effect and will only provide us with a false sense of security. So, what do we believe will be effective? First, it is important that we recognize that this is not a gun control problem; it is a complex sociological problem. No single course of action will solve the problem. Therefore, it is our recommendation that a series of diverse steps be undertaken, the implementation of which will require patience and diligence to realize an effect. These are as follows: 1. First and foremost we support our Second Amendment right in that “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”. 2. We support State and Local School Boards in their efforts to establish security protocols in whatever manner and form that they deem necessary and adequate. One of the great strengths of our Republic is that State and Local governments can be creative in solving problems. Things that work can be shared. Our point is that no one knows what will work and there is no one single solution, so let’s allow the State and Local governments with the input of the citizens to make the decisions. Most recently the Cleburne Independent School District will become the first district in North Texas to consider allowing some teachers to carry concealed guns. We do not opine as to the appropriateness of this decision, but we do support their right to make this decision for themselves. 3. We recommend that Assisted Outpatient Treatment (AOT) laws be passed in every State. AOT is formerly known as Involuntary Outpatient Commitment (IOC) and allows the courts to order certain individuals with mental disorders to comply with treatment while living in the community. In each of the mass shooting incidents the perpetrator was mentally unstable. We also believe that people who have been adjudicated as incompetent should be simultaneously examined to determine whether they should be allowed the right to retain/purchase firearms. 4. We support the return of firearm safety programs to schools along the lines of the successful “Eddie the Eagle” program, which can be taught in schools by Peace Officers or other trained professionals. 5. Recent social psychology research clearly indicates that there is a direct relationship between gratuitously violent movies/video games and desensitization to real violence and increased aggressive behavior particularly in children and young adults (See Nicholas L. Carnagey, et al. 2007. “The effect of video game violence on physiological desensitization to real-life violence” and the references therein. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 43:489-496). Therefore, we strongly recommend that gratuitous violence in movies and video games be discouraged. War and war-like behavior should not be glorified. Hollywood and video game producers are exploiting something they know nothing about. General Sherman famously said “War is Hell!” Leave war to the Professionals. War is not a game and should not be “sold” as entertainment to our children. 6. We support repeal of the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. This may sound counter-intuitive, but it obviously isn’t working. It is our opinion that “Gun-Free Zones” anywhere are too tempting of an environment for the mentally disturbed individual to inflict their brand of horror with little fear of interference. While governmental and non-governmental organizations, businesses, and individuals should be free to implement a Gun-Free Zone if they so choose, they should also assume Tort liability for that decision. 7. We believe that border states should take responsibility for implementation of border control laws to prevent illegal shipments of firearms and drugs. Drugs have been illegal in this country for a long, long time yet the Federal Government manages to seize only an estimated 10% of this contraband at our borders. Given this dismal performance record that is misguided and inept (“Fast and Furious”), we believe that border States will be far more competent at this mission. 8. This is our country, these are our rights. We believe that it is time that we take personal responsibility for our choices and actions rather than abdicate that responsibility to someone else under the illusion that we have done something that will make us all safer. We have a responsibility to stand by our principles and act in accordance with them. Our children are watching and they will follow the example we set. The undersigned Quiet Professionals hereby humbly stand ever present, ever ready, and ever vigilant.

1. There were exactly zero executive orders. I'm sure you've read otherwise and heard otherwise . . . but those sources are wrong. Executive actions are not executive orders. It's an important distinction. 2. Total ban? WTF? You must be talking about a different Obama than the current president of the United States. Where has he said anything close to that? Eh? You've said that repeatedly and you must have a lower standard for amazement than myself. The 2d Amendment doesn't only protect guns for hunting. Anyone who claims that is wrong. Now who exactly in this current debate is claiming that? Quotes would be appreciated. Here is a quote in which he infers his support of "hunting". The president said he has a profound respect for the traditions of hunting that date back for generations. He said that moving forward on the topic means understanding that the realities of guns in urban areas are very different from the realities of guns in rural areas. He said it's understandable that people are protective of their family traditions when it comes to hunting so “gun-control advocates also need to do “a little more listening than they do sometimes” in the debate. This appears to be a common argument with those who support a ban. They say they support hunting. And then use the question "why do you need an AR-15 to hunt? Or a 30 round magazine? These arguments show a propensity to try and convince people they are not infringing on the 2nd Amendment because they support my right to hunt. To even try to equate hunting and the meaning of the 2nd Amendment is ridiculous. It wasn't enacted so I could hunt. Read more: http://www.foxnews.c.../#ixzz2JSbnN1CO

The SC has specifically said that regulation =/= infringement . . . Quick question. Other than his 23 point executive order (passed IMO to completely by pass any opposition) what has Obama done to show that he is open to compromise or that he would accept anything less than a ban? My initial point being that there hasn't even been a chance for dialogue and already he is complaining that the Republicans are not getting with he program. IMO, I hope they don't. As Rawhide stated so bluntly above, the Constitution has no room for compromise. It also amazes me that those in favor of the ban try to equate their support of "hunting and sportsmen" to be in favor of the 2nd amendment. A ban on what? What exactly do you think Obama wants to ban (please provide supporting links)? See the Feinstein language above. I think that pretty much sums up his thoughts as well. To think he wants less is naive.

This. Add to the areas of concern: safety in 2013. Center this year, DE, etc... I will be so bold as to say this staff has done a horrible job developing depth. If you are starter you play and if you are not you come in when the starter gets injured. Folks are kidding themselves thinking we are developing the back ups. Quite a few teams have used two RB's to great success this year. Bama, UGA and Wisky to name, but 3. Hell Wisky used 3 against us and all 3 got more than 100 yrds. Previously mentioned was the fact that although we played 4 guys this year at RB. The carries were not even close to be equal. Rex went out and they rode AA all year with little relief from Head who avg 7 yards per touch.

Let's see Bama has used dual back for several years and won 3 MNC's in 4 years. Wisky uses tandem backs as does UGA. If we recruit multiple kids, we need to start using multiple kids. That, IMO, would alleviate kids going else where. This staff fails to try and give more than the #1 guy a shot at playing time until the #1 guy gets hurt......... I admire Heard for working so hard to get here, switching to DB and back and THEN playing last year even though initial reports were he was done for the season with injury, but still played IIRC. Best of luck to him.

The SC has specifically said that regulation =/= infringement . . . Quick question. Other than his 23 point executive order (passed IMO to completely by pass any opposition) what has Obama done to show that he is open to compromise or that he would accept anything less than a ban? My initial point being that there hasn't even been a chance for dialogue and already he is complaining that the Republicans are not getting with he program. IMO, I hope they don't. As Rawhide stated so bluntly above, the Constitution has no room for compromise. It also amazes me that those in favor of the ban try to equate their support of "hunting and sportsmen" to be in favor of the 2nd amendment.

Excellent answer. I wish I had thought of it!

What compromise has the GOP offered on guns? I'm not talking capitulation or 100% agreement . . . seriously. How have they offered to compromise in any way on guns? Well, all that has been offered to date is 23 executive orders which they have absolutely no say on (no chance to compromise, agree or disagree with) and currently the ban offers the following: Proposed Legislation – The Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 January 25th, 2013 Sen Feinstein (D-CA) didn’t pull any punches when she named the bill she introduced to the Senate yesterday. The Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 bill is a controversial piece of legislation that is sure to see opposition in the Senate including from members of her own party. Here’s some info on what she has in mind for America. Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 Mass shootings in Newtown, Aurora, and Tucson have demonstrated all too clearly the need to regulate military-style assault weapons and high capacity ammunition magazines. These weapons allow a gunman to fire a large number of rounds quickly and without having to reload. The legislation bans the sale, transfer, manufacturing and importation of: All semiautomatic rifles that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: pistol grip; forward grip; folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; barrel shroud; or threaded barrel. All semiautomatic pistols that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: threaded barrel; second pistol grip; barrel shroud; capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip; or semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm. All semiautomatic rifles and handguns that have a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds. All semiautomatic shotguns that have a folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; pistol grip; fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 5 rounds; ability to accept a detachable magazine; forward grip; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; or shotgun with a revolving cylinder. All ammunition feeding devices (magazines, strips, and drums) capable of accepting more than 10 rounds. 157 specifically-named firearms (listed at the end of this document). The legislation excludes the following weapons from the bill: Any weapon that is lawfully possessed at the date of the bill’s enactment; Any firearm manually operated by a bolt, pump, lever or slide action; Assault weapons used by military, law enforcement, and retired law enforcement; and Antique weapons. The legislation protects hunting and sporting firearms: The bill excludes 2,258 legitimate hunting and sporting rifles and shotguns by specific make and model. The legislation strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and state bans by: Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test. (The bill also makes the ban harder to evade by eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test.) Banning dangerous after-market modifications and work-arounds. Bump or slide fire stocks, which are modified stocks that enable semi-automatic weapons to fire at rates similar to fully automatic machine guns. So-called “bullet buttons” that allow the rapid replacement of ammunition magazines, frequently used as a work-around to prohibitions on detachable magazines. Thumbhole stocks, a type of stock that was created as a work-around to avoid prohibitions on pistol grips. Adding a ban on the importation of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines. Eliminating the 10-year sunset that allowed the original federal ban to expire. The legislation addresses the millions of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines currently in existence by: Requiring a background check on all sales or transfers of a grandfathered assault weapon. (This background check can be run through the FBI or, if a state chooses, initiated with a state agency, as with the existing background check system.) Prohibiting the sale or transfer of large-capacity ammunition feeding devices lawfully possessed on the date of enactment of the bill. Allowing states and localities to use federal Byrne JAG grant funds to conduct a voluntary buy-back program for grandfathered assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices. Imposing a safe storage requirement for grandfathered firearms, to keep them away from prohibited persons. Requiring that assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices manufactured after the date of the bill’s enactment be engraved with the serial number and date of manufacture of the weapon Assault Weapon Bans Have Been Proven to Be Effective The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban was effective at reducing crime and getting these military-style weapons off our streets. Since the ban expired, more than 350 people have been killed and more than 450 injured by these weapons. A Justice Department study of the assault weapons ban found that it was responsible for a 6.7% decrease in total gun murders, holding all other factors equal. Source: Jeffrey A. Roth & Christopher S. Koper, “Impact Evaluation of the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994,” (March 1997). The same study also found that “Assault weapons are disproportionately involved in murders with multiple victims, multiple wounds per victim, and police officers as victims.” The use of assault weapons in crime declined by more than two-thirds by about nine years after 1994 Assault Weapons Ban took effect. Source: Christopher S. Koper, “An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003” (June 2004), University of Pennsylvania, Report to the National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice. The percentage of firearms seized by police in Virginia that had high-capacity magazines dropped significantly during the ban. That figure has doubled since the ban expired. Source: David S. Fallis and James V. Grimaldi, “In Virginia, high-yield clip seizures rise,” Washington Post, at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/22/AR2011012204046.html When Maryland imposed a more stringent ban on assault pistols and high-capacity magazines in 1994, it led to a 55% drop in assault pistols recovered by the Baltimore Police Department. Source: Douglas S. Weil & Rebecca C. Knox, Letter to the Editor, The Maryland Ban on the Sale of Assault Pistols and High-Capacity Magazines: Estimating the Impact in Baltimore, 87 Am. J. of Public Health 2, Feb. 1997.. 37% of police departments reported seeing a noticeable increase in criminals’ use of assault weapons since the 1994 federal ban expired. Source: Police Executive Research Forum, Guns and Crime: Breaking New Ground by Focusing on the Local Impact (May 2010). List of Firearms Prohibited by Name Rifles: All AK types, including the following: AK, AK47, AK47S, AK–74, AKM, AKS, ARM, MAK90, MISR, NHM90, NHM91, Rock River Arms LAR–47, SA85, SA93, Vector Arms AK–47, VEPR, WASR–10, and WUM, IZHMASH Saiga AK, MAADI AK47 and ARM, Norinco 56S, 56S2, 84S, and 86S, Poly Technologies AK47 and AKS; All AR types, including the following: AR–10, AR–15, Armalite M15 22LR Carbine, Armalite M15–T, Barrett REC7, Beretta AR–70, Bushmaster ACR, Bushmaster Carbon 15, Bushmaster MOE series, Bushmaster XM15, Colt Match Target Rifles, DoubleStar AR rifles, DPMS Tactical Rifles, Heckler & Koch MR556, Olympic Arms, Remington R–15 rifles, Rock River Arms LAR–15, Sig Sauer SIG516 rifles, Smith & Wesson M&P15 Rifles, Stag Arms AR rifles, Sturm, Ruger & Co. SR556 rifles; Barrett M107A1; Barrett M82A1; Beretta CX4 Storm; Calico Liberty Series; CETME Sporter; Daewoo K–1, K–2, Max 1, Max 2, AR 100, and AR 110C; Fabrique Nationale/FN Herstal FAL, LAR, 22 FNC, 308 Match, L1A1 Sporter, PS90, SCAR, and FS2000; Feather Industries AT–9; Galil Model AR and Model ARM; Hi-Point Carbine; HK–91, HK–93, HK–94, HK–PSG–1 and HK USC; Kel-Tec Sub–2000, SU–16, and RFB; SIG AMT, SIG PE–57, Sig Sauer SG 550, and Sig Sauer SG 551; Springfield Armory SAR–48; Steyr AUG; Sturm, Ruger Mini-14 Tactical Rife M–14/20CF; All Thompson rifles, including the following: Thompson M1SB, Thompson T1100D, Thompson T150D, Thompson T1B, Thompson T1B100D, Thompson T1B50D, Thompson T1BSB, Thompson T1–C, Thompson T1D, Thompson T1SB, Thompson T5, Thompson T5100D, Thompson TM1, Thompson TM1C; UMAREX UZI Rifle; UZI Mini Carbine, UZI Model A Carbine, and UZI Model B Carbine; Valmet M62S, M71S, and M78; Vector Arms UZI Type; Weaver Arms Nighthawk; Wilkinson Arms Linda Carbine. Pistols: All AK–47 types, including the following: Centurion 39 AK pistol, Draco AK–47 pistol, HCR AK–47 pistol, IO Inc. Hellpup AK–47 pistol, Krinkov pistol, Mini Draco AK–47 pistol, Yugo Krebs Krink pistol; All AR–15 types, including the following: American Spirit AR–15 pistol, Bushmaster Carbon 15 pistol, DoubleStar Corporation AR pistol, DPMS AR–15 pistol, Olympic Arms AR–15 pistol, Rock River Arms LAR 15 pistol; Calico Liberty pistols; DSA SA58 PKP FAL pistol; Encom MP–9 and MP–45; Heckler & Koch model SP-89 pistol; Intratec AB–10, TEC–22 Scorpion, TEC–9, and TEC–DC9; Kel-Tec PLR 16 pistol; The following MAC types: MAC–10, MAC–11; Masterpiece Arms MPA A930 Mini Pistol, MPA460 Pistol, MPA Tactical Pistol, and MPA Mini Tactical Pistol; Military Armament Corp. Ingram M–11, Velocity Arms VMAC; Sig Sauer P556 pistol; Sites Spectre; All Thompson types, including the following: Thompson TA510D, Thompson TA5; All UZI types, including: Micro-UZI. Shotguns: Franchi LAW–12 and SPAS 12; All IZHMASH Saiga 12 types, including the following: IZHMASH Saiga 12, IZHMASH Saiga 12S, IZHMASH Saiga 12S EXP–01, IZHMASH Saiga 12K, IZHMASH Saiga 12K–030, IZHMASH Saiga 12K–040 Taktika; Streetsweeper; Striker 12. Belt-fed semiautomatic firearms: All belt-fed semiautomatic firearms including TNW M2HB. Seeing as how the bill was just introduced, seems a little early to start throwing out the "Republicans don't agree with anything, they are the party of no, blah, blah, blah.............. Also the comments were not made from the stand point of "working together", but from the stand point of I am right and those who disagree are wrong. Also I still like how the libs and those for the AWB and other issues (Hi-Cap mags, thumb hole loop etc) still try to throw out the 2nd Amendment was concerning "hunting" and not the actual defense of states ie each individual colony from the possible incursion by a central gov't. Even Obama, when talking about gun control specifically mentions he believes in our long standing tradition of hunting. HUNTING has not one f'in thing to do with the 2nd amendment, but the media and libs would like to make this argument to show they are all pro 2nd amendment.

Correct link. http://www.foxnews.c...ld-listen-more/ Not agreeing 100% with Obama is called failing to compromise. Your 23 point executive decision was a "victory". He is asking for capitulation, not compromise. There is a difference. The quote about "understanding hunting traditions" show how out of touch he is with gun control. The 2nd amendment wasn't to guarantee my right to hunt.........The media is trying to get this out that the 2nd is all about "hunting" not having the right to defend oneself. Excerpt: Obama also said he can get 50 percent of public support for many of his upcoming initiatives, but “I can't get enough votes out of the House of Representatives to actually get something passed. … I think there is still shock on the part of some in the party that I won re-election.” The president said he has a profound respect for the traditions of hunting that date back for generations. He said that moving forward on the topic means understanding that the realities of guns in urban areas are very different from the realities of guns in rural areas. He said it's understandable that people are protective of their family traditions when it comes to hunting so “gun-control advocates also need to do “a little more listening than they do sometimes” in the debate.

Wrong link

I agree. Not only with the fumbles, but with that kick in the balls type play. ie the hail mary against USC, the roughing punter Michicken, Miller's run this year, the 1st Wisky TD in the B1G and the AA fumble against UGA. It just seems that when we get knocked down, we do not get up. The come from behind losses are great, but it seems that we got behind from little plays, not big plays and we were able to recover and win. Need to find a way to minimize TO's and then not go mental when we have one.

That is some great detail right there. Another statistic that I saw earlier in the season was that 45% of the points scored against us were from our fumbles. ALMOST have the points we gave up were a direct result of fumbling. Bottom line, no way you beat quality opponents leading the nation in fumbles. No way we win any championships (conference or MNC) until we solve the issue. A HUGE problem faced by this staff is how do you fix the problem, when the individual fumble leader on the team, and nation, for the past 3 years is our starting QB. If it was a WR, TE or RB, sit him for a series and tell them you fumble you sit. Unfortunately, we can't do that IMO with our starting QB. Really hard to try and "fix" the problem during a game. Has to be the #1 priority in the off season.