NM11046

No ones discussing this?

 

I think it could be an ok thing, but it's done for all the wrong reasons (i.e., labor and manufacturing protectionism and anti-immigration), so it does not bode well for economic advancement in the UK or elsewhere.

 

Why can't we just pass an international commerce clause already??

I've got to read a bit and get up to speed on it before getting in the discussion here - I'm finding that there are some sharp folks on this board, so I don't want to come without an A game. Don't want to be the Trump of the Brexit discussion.

Here's how I see this issue. It's like so many other political issues in this country. Both sides are so full of BS that the real facts of the issues really will never be found or discussed.

 

First, you have two groups of people who, if you open up your mind:

 

a) Rural people who grew up hunting and shooting and they have never been around gun violence or anyone who they would think would be threatening with a gun. These people look at their gun ownership and flat out don't understand why someone would even think about taking them away and they look at the constitution and say.."Hey....you CAN"T take them away".

 

b) Mostly urban people who have NOT grown up around guns, have no clue how to handle them and honestly....are clueless as to why anyone would ever want anything to do with them due to the fact in their city they see every night on the news gun violence and death.

Personal opinion here, yes, guns are the tools being used in the violence. However, my belief is that there are much deeper issues that needs to be addressed than if the guy has a gun in his hand. We need to be looking at everything that has happened up to the point where the guy went down on the street corner and bought a pistol to pack around and then ended up in a situation where he wants to use it.

 

There are major portions of both of these groups that absolutely refuse to even come close to learning about the other side and try to understand where they are coming from.

 

I will say two things coming from the side as a gun owner.

 

a) I personally think as a gun owner, I need to be part of the conversation as to finding a solution if there is any type of solution that involves the supply of the guns. I'm tired of the NRA and others just flat out blocking any idea of any solution coming from our side.

 

I DO want the CDC to study this with the idea of looking at not just guns (include them in the study but not just focus on them) but look at everything else around the situation in these communities where all this gun violence is happening. Sure, you can say it's poverty. However, we have had horrible poverty before in this country without people thinking they need to blow each other away with a gun. (Well, I guess minus the wild west era)

 

b) I am also (even more so) sick and tired of gun toting idiots prancing around acting like THEY are protecting me from some type of evil tyrannical government that is out to destroy our way of life and eat our children. What a load of BS. These people act like their IQ is about -10 and their actions actually work against trying to get people from the other side to understand their view on the issue.

 

Once again, one thing that I very seldom, if ever, hear mentioned in the political arena is that since 1985, violent crimes has decreased dramatically. If I were the CDC, I would start there and ask....why? Guns are still in our society just as much as in 1985. We have also just gone through a very very bad economic time. So.....why the drop? I think that would give us a very good idea of what the solution is to the rest of the violent crimes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry for the rant.

This is the sort of rant that I appreciate. Thank you. Very reasonable thoughts.

 

 

 

 

Just to be clear, Moiraine, you want the CDC to spend money to do studies that you now say has already been done by others. Is that correct?

 

As for the "No fly, no buy" idea, we could hire the disgraced former head of the IRS, Lois Lerner, to administrate it She would bebringing the same lack of ethics and political debauchery to her new job as she did to the IRS checking nonprofit status of conservative groups, right?

A little earlier in this thread, you suggested one or some of us are focusing on the minutiae of gun violence. However, you have yet to address the biggest elephant in the room, much like huskerfan2000 and much like pro gun supporters nationally. More than 6, 300 Americans have died due to gun violence this year. That number will likely more than double by the end of the year. Our gun violence rates - nationally - dwarf every single other developed country out there, countries who battle the same mental health problems we do.

 

So, for the second time, I'll ask a simple question - what is your solution to saving lives?

 

 

100% a lie, but don't let that stop you! AND if you want to live in those countries, move to them. The countries that have less than us also have less freedoms than us.

 

Please explain what freedoms Australia, England and others are missing that we have.

 

 

Are you serious with his question?

 

I am. What are the people of Australia held back from doing? What freedoms do we have that they don't?

 

 

Just to be clear, Moiraine, you want the CDC to spend money to do studies that you now say has already been done by others. Is that correct?

 

As for the "No fly, no buy" idea, we could hire the disgraced former head of the IRS, Lois Lerner, to administrate it She would bebringing the same lack of ethics and political debauchery to her new job as she did to the IRS checking nonprofit status of conservative groups, right?

A little earlier in this thread, you suggested one or some of us are focusing on the minutiae of gun violence. However, you have yet to address the biggest elephant in the room, much like huskerfan2000 and much like pro gun supporters nationally. More than 6, 300 Americans have died due to gun violence this year. That number will likely more than double by the end of the year. Our gun violence rates - nationally - dwarf every single other developed country out there, countries who battle the same mental health problems we do.

 

So, for the second time, I'll ask a simple question - what is your solution to saving lives?

 

 

100% a lie, but don't let that stop you! AND if you want to live in those countries, move to them. The countries that have less than us also have less freedoms than us.

 

Please explain what freedoms Australia, England and others are missing that we have.

Is agree if it wasn't a high rated program decked. If he picks ucla because of her and they don't work out, he's still at a solid school. I want him here but I'm starting to think we are losing him. Throw this girl a track scholarship!!!!!

I am pretty sure she's just a Freshman (maybe just finished Freshman year) so there are a few years between their college scholarships.

 

 

What a wonderful, important human being. This is an interview absolutely everyone should see. While I do understand many on the left have their hearts in the right place. It's absolutely imperative that people understand these are the types that are being undermined when pushing this erroneous belief that Islamism and jihadism have nothing to do with Islam. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkerd1Cgl1M

I obviously can only speak for myself, but I'm guessing I cover a few folks when I say, nobody is arguing that Jihadism has nothing to do with Islam, but that NOT EVERY Muslim (Islamic??) is radical and dangerous. In fact the majority of Islamists are peaceful people.

The bold is a problem in confusion over terminology. I'll try to clarify that a little to the best of my knowledge.Muslims - These are the "good guys" who believe in our secular ideas of freedom of speech and freedom of religion. These are the Maajid Nawaz and the Malala Yousafzais of the world. The optimist in me says they make up somewhere between 75-80% of the Muslim population.Islamists (Islamism) - These are radicals by any reasonable definition. They don't believe in freedom of speech or freedom of religion. They believe Sharia Law should be the law of the land and push for it in political, non-violent ways. They believe things like people who leave Islam should be killed. Not necessarily bad people, they just have really bad ideas. Let's say this is about 20% of the Muslim population. For instance, you can look at poll result after poll result and easily conclude 1/3 of British Muslims are Islamists. When you look at poll results in the Muslim world my confidence in the 20% estimate becomes shaky. For instance, 86% of people in Egypt and 82% of people in Jordan think apostates should be killed, according to Pew polls. This is to say nothing of the eye-opening numbers in Afghanistan, Pakistan, ect. 20% is a fair but conservative estimate.

It's important to note these are still Muslims. They're not perverting the religion in any way, they're simply more devout in their belief of the religion. They take it more literally. Saying they're perverting the religion is not helpful to the discussion.

This is sort of the key group of the discussion. I hate to use this term, but this is the group that's not politically correct to talk about. Because if we criticize their bad ideas in any way that makes us bigots somehow. Liberals by and large will tolerate Islamists' illiberal principles because "they have their own culture don't you know". We're supposed to hold them to a lower standard for some bizzare reason. Ironically this is simply the bigotry of low expectations.

This is a huge problem. Particularly in Great Britain right now, it's a huge problem. Islamists are rapidly gaining influence.Jihadists - Everyone can agree these are the "bad guys". They believe all the same things as Islamists but express it with actual violence. Again, saying they're perverting the religion is not helpful to the discussion. Although I understand President Obama's reasoning behind wanting to do that. It's just extremely short-sighted and harmful.

I would say they most definitely make up less than 5% of the Muslim population but probably more than the 1% people seem to pull out of thin air. 1-2% of 1.6 billion is still a staggering number.

Deleted by me.

Oh my - after saying "what?" Outloud as I read through the last few parts of this thread I am laughing my head off.

So...is this like it's OK for a black guy to call himself a N***r but not for a white guy to do the same?

Wow, I must have taken a wrong turn at Alburquerque - how does this comment relate in any way to what's being discussed?

What a wonderful, important human being. This is an interview absolutely everyone should see. While I do understand many on the left have their hearts in the right place. It's absolutely imperative that people understand these are the types that are being undermined when pushing this erroneous belief that Islamism and jihadism have nothing to do with Islam.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkerd1Cgl1M

 

 

 

 

http://www.thedailysheeple.com/why-more-gun-control-wont-prevent-mass-shootings_122013

 

Charles C. W. Cooke of National Review Online, in his Gun Control Dishonesty article, cited a list of massacres that have occurred in recent years. Here are 12 that happened prior to 2013. Pay close attention to how the weapons used were attained:

• In December of last year, Jacob Tyler Roberts stole a Stag Arms AR-15 semiautomatic rifle and killed two people in Portland, Oregon.
• In September of 2012, Andrew John Engeldinger went on a shooting rampage in Minneapolis after he had been fired. Engeldinger used a Glock 19 handgun that he had bought legally from a licensed dealer. He passed the background check that is mandatory for all commercial sales.
• In August last year, Wade Michael Page killed six members of a Sikh Temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin. Page was an Army veteran, and because his discharge was “general” not “dishonorable” he was legally allowed to buy firearms. This he did, buying the handgun that he used in the shooting at a gun shop in West Allis, Wisconsin, and passing the background checks without a hitch.
• In July, James Holmes killed 12 people at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado. Over a period of time, Holmes legally purchased two Glock 22 pistols, a Remington 870, and Smith & Wesson M&P15 semi-automatic rifle. All the weapons were purchased from licensed dealers, and Holmes passed background checks on each occasion.
• In May of 2012, Ian Lee Stawicki murdered five people at the Café Racer Espresso in Seattle, Washington. Stawicki legally purchased two .45-caliber handguns for his spree, before which he had legally purchased four other firearms. Stawicki not only passed background checks on all six occasions, but he had a concealed-carry permit too.
• In April 2012, Jake England and Alvin Watts killed three black men in Tulsa, Oklahoma, in an apparently racially motivated attack. The guns they used were legally owned.
• In April of 2012, One L. Goh walked into Oikos University [in Oakland, Calfornia] and murdered seven people. Goh used a .45-caliber semi-automatic handgun and four 10-round magazines, all of which he had purchased legally from a licensed dealer. He passed a background check and abided by California’s ten-day waiting period.
• In February 2012, Thomas “TK” Lane used a .22 caliber handgun to shoot three people dead at Chardon High School in Ohio. Authorities reported that Lane had stolen the .22-caliber handgun from his uncle, who had purchased it legally.
• In October 2011, Scott Evans Dekraai killed eight people in Seal Beach, California. Dekraai used a 9mm Springfield pistol, a .45-caliber Heckler & Koch pistol, and a .44 Magnum Smith & Wesson revolver. All the guns were legally purchased. Just over a year earlier, Dekraai had been under a restraining order that had barred him from possessing firearms. This had expired at the time of the shooting.
• In September of 2011, Eduardo Sencion shot 5 people dead in an International House of Pancakes in Nevada. The rifle Sencion used was not only banned in America, but the company that made it was prohibited from selling or moving its products into the United States. Indeed, nobody knows how Sencion got hold of the weapon. Reports are unclear, but some suggest that the perpetrator illegally converted the weapon from semi-automatic to fully automatic.
• In November of this year, Paul Ciancia murdered a TSA agent at LAX. Ciancia used a .223-caliber Smith & Wesson M&P-15 rifle that he had modified and which was therefore illegal in the state; he brought with him five 30-round magazines, which have been illegal in California since 2000; and he walked happily into an airport, which is by definition a gun-free zone. Authorities told the Huffington Post that Ciancia acquired his guns legally: “He didn’t buy them on the street. He didn’t buy them on the Internet. He bought them from a licensed gun dealer.
• In September, Aaron Alexis killed 12 people at the Navy Yard in Washington D.C. Alexis had patronized a licensed dealer in Virginia and bought a Remington 870 shotgun that is so common that it is even legal in England. He had passed a background check. To commit his crime, he went onto a locked-down, “gun-free” military base, in a city in which carrying firearms is flatly prohibited.

Cooke also referenced two pre-2011 shootings – and last year’s school massacre – that prompted people to “do something”:

Jared Loughner, who shot Representative Gabby Giffords and murdered six other people, bought his 9mm Glock pistol legally. Seung-Hui Cho, the Virginia Tech student who was responsible for the most deadly shooting spree in American history, bought a .22 caliber Walther P22 semi-automatic pistol and a 9mm Glock 19 semiautomatic pistol from licensed dealers, and passed background checks on both occasions. And, of course, the guns used at Newtown were legally purchased by the perpetrator’s mother and then stolen by her son.

All of these shootings have something in common: none of the weapons used were purchased through an unregulated private sale or at a gun show. Yet, anti-gun activists and some legislators believe (or do they?) that more strict background checks will miraculously prevent additional gun-related tragedies.

Well, this must leave only about 4 options;

1) Background checks don't work well enough so weapon bans it is. I mean after all, there is a problem.

2) Background checks and methods need to be greatly improved. I mean after all, there is a problem.

3) Something has to change and it involves the people who acquire weapons and/or the weapons they do acquire. Even if there are other societal forces at the root cause of gun violence, everyone realizes those forces will never be sufficiently corrected. I mean after all, there is a problem and there is no way we as a country will actually fix television and video game violence and there really is no way that family unit problems will get fixed by our government.

4) Problem, what problem? Leave everything just as it is and continue enjoying the nightly news.

If it's not one of those 4, what is it?

Answer me this..

 

Has a gun ever killed someone else by itself (without any intervention)? Once we get that established we can then move to the next step, which is figuring out who is the problem.

 

EDIT: I love your option 3 by the way!

I seriously doubt a gun has ever killed anyone all on its own. Maybe if you count accidentally dropping one and it going off or if you count allowing young children to access them but, no, for the way you intended the question, a gun hasn't killed anyone on it's own. However, certain types of guns surely have accounted for elevated casualty numbers in many situations. For the sake of argument, let's say 8 dead instead of only 5, just to pull a couple numbers out of thin air.

 

I don't think you actually read my option #3 very closely. I'm not going to argue that societal problems don't greatly contribute to the problem. And I also won't argue that fixing those societal and family unit problems wouldn't greatly help. BUT, if you think solving those issues is the key and only option, then you really don't want the problem fixed because that is called living in an unrealistic and unachievable utopia. We can't simply sit back and do nothing and hope the problem gets better and blame some unsolvabe issues for the reasons the problem exists. Even you have to acknowledge that there is little to nothing a free country can do or implement that will solve those types of problems. So, assuming you realize there is a problem, what are your realistic and possible solutions? It's not realistic to just stop trying and simply blame other unsolvable issues.

 

I was not talking about accidental shootings/killings, because that is once again human intervention!

 

I read you option 3 and I understood what you were saying and I disagree. Fixing society it would make more of a difference than throwing out more gun control and hoping that works. The bold kinds of gives away the agenda... which you admit societal issues play a factor, but yet you are leading back to more gun control. One thing you don't say is if you think there should be a combination of changes, or just more gun control. I am reading this to mean you want just more gun control.. I could be wrong though

 

What you don't want to realize is you will never stop someone from killing another person, or multiple persons. You just won't, because this isn't a gun issue it is a human issue! and before another poster jumps in, no I am not advocating doing nothing. i advocate for reducing the level or violence in movies, music.. Oh and the biggest one, abortion.

 

The abortion commentary, which you continue to bring up has absolutely NO place in this discussion.

http://freebeacon.com/columns/self-immolation-republican-party/

The kid is a house. And green - not a lot of bad habits and a ridiculous amount of upside potential. Imagine that frame with proper weight lifting and training - and he's only been playing for 2-3 years ... scary how much he'll likely improve as a Jr and Sr and then when he gets to Lincoln ... kudos to Parella for getting in on that early.

 

 

 

 

 

from one of our founding fathers..

https://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/laws-forbid-carrying-armsquotation

 

#morecontext #knowyourhistory

 

Love me some Jefferson. He was a man who looked at something from both sides and made rational comments. It becomes apparent that one's opinion can straddle an issue (nothing's black or white), but understanding both sides of an issue and LISTENING is a basic component of understanding and change.

 

His quote on the "change" of the constitution on the walls of his monument is one of my favorites. Thank you for sharing this.

 

 

funny thing about that.. he is attributed to saying that but yet never tried to do that very thing.. hmm weird!

 

Dude - don't you have somebody at home you can go pick apart and argue with?

 

 

This is what happens, people argue.. if that isn't your thing then maybe this isn't the place for you.

 

Also, you can argue with me but I can't give it back? Oh, I'm supposed to stop when you think I should?

 

lol

 

So no, you don't have anybody at home.

I don't come here to argue, I come to learn, to understand what others are thinking and why. I don't take the aggressive approach. I appreciate well thought out, fact based or responses - not defensive attacks. And conversations about the "whys".

You can continue all you want here just seems like your comments toward the folks here are aggressive and on the verge of disrespectful. If what you want is a dialogue then you should change your tactics, if what you want is a fight you're right, I'm not signed on for that.

 

 

 

from one of our founding fathers..

https://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/laws-forbid-carrying-armsquotation

 

#morecontext #knowyourhistory

 

Love me some Jefferson. He was a man who looked at something from both sides and made rational comments. It becomes apparent that one's opinion can straddle an issue (nothing's black or white), but understanding both sides of an issue and LISTENING is a basic component of understanding and change.

 

His quote on the "change" of the constitution on the walls of his monument is one of my favorites. Thank you for sharing this.

 

 

funny thing about that.. he is attributed to saying that but yet never tried to do that very thing.. hmm weird!

 

Dude - don't you have somebody at home you can go pick apart and argue with?

 

 

 

 

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2016/06/17/gun-store-owner-says-undercover-cbs-reporter-broke-federal-law-to-purchase-ar-15-353684

 

 

It is possible that a CBS reporter made an illegal gun purchase in order to do a story on buying firearms, at least that is the charge made by the gun store where the reporter bought her firearm.

Early this week CBS News’ Paula Reid purchased an AR-15 rifle at SpecDive Tactical in Alexandria, Virginia. She made the purchase for a “CBS This Morning” segment aired on Thursday morning. But now the gun store has filed a complaint with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives charging that Reid broke the law when she filled out the federally required paper work as she made the purchase.

As The Washington Free Beacon notes, during Reid’s report, she says, “The rifle we purchased was legally transferred to a federally licensed firearms dealer and weapons instructor in Virginia, just hours after we bought it.”

But this purchase, the gun store owner says, was not as legal as CBS claims. It is in essence a straw purchase because Reid said on her paper work that the rifle was for her own use. She basically lied on her legally required paperwork.

 

You can not lie on these forms, regardless of who you transfer the weapon to.

So the purchase was legal - the problem was that she then sold it. Regardless the point of the story was how easy it was to purchase such a weapon, and how (legal or illegal) it was to then pass it along. None of the current protocols in place slowed the process or stopped it.

 

 

You call lying on a federal form to purchase a firearm legal, really? and no, the problem was she lied on a federal form, where it is a felony to do so.

 

I don't know what her intent was - maybe once it was so easy to buy it they then decided to see how easy it was to take things a step further. Honestly I think you're getting caught up in a detail that's irrelevant (probably on purpose in order to get folks off on a tangent). The point was how easy it all is. The fact that she "lied" on the form and then sold it only proves even further that checks and balances aren't in place that work. If a good guy buys a gun and in a year decides to give it away or sell it there's no current way to verify who they're giving it to or what that person's about. The problem is the process.

 

Based on past comments, you seem to be very aligned to child safety. When 20/20 does a special when they converse with child molesters to get them to come to a hidden camera meet up and then confront them, one could also claim it's entrapment (or some other infringement). Perhaps it is, there's certainly probably lots of legal issues with it, but the newsworthy point is that they're exposing that what is currently done to police folks isn't working. Do you think the 20/20 reporters should be charged with a crime?

 

 

Yes you do, you just won't admit it. It is pretty clear what her intent was just by reading the article. She was trying to expose something but while doing that she lied, and committed a felony in the process.

 

That isn't the same thing at all. I believe in the 2nd amendment, which doesn't grant me any rights by the way, it up holds my rights. The 2nd amendment doesn't uphold your right to be a child molester.

 

If your worry is chasing reporters that lied on a form in order to show significant outages in the monitoring of the sales of guns in a news story, you're focused on the wrong thing. You should create a thread to debate that.

 

from one of our founding fathers..

https://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/laws-forbid-carrying-armsquotation

 

#morecontext #knowyourhistory

 

Love me some Jefferson. He was a man who looked at something from both sides and made rational comments. It becomes apparent that one's opinion can straddle an issue (nothing's black or white), but understanding both sides of an issue and LISTENING is a basic component of understanding and change.

His quote on the "change" of the constitution on the walls of his monument is one of my favorites. Thank you for sharing this.

 

 

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2016/06/17/gun-store-owner-says-undercover-cbs-reporter-broke-federal-law-to-purchase-ar-15-353684

 

 

It is possible that a CBS reporter made an illegal gun purchase in order to do a story on buying firearms, at least that is the charge made by the gun store where the reporter bought her firearm.

Early this week CBS News’ Paula Reid purchased an AR-15 rifle at SpecDive Tactical in Alexandria, Virginia. She made the purchase for a “CBS This Morning” segment aired on Thursday morning. But now the gun store has filed a complaint with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives charging that Reid broke the law when she filled out the federally required paper work as she made the purchase.

As The Washington Free Beacon notes, during Reid’s report, she says, “The rifle we purchased was legally transferred to a federally licensed firearms dealer and weapons instructor in Virginia, just hours after we bought it.”

But this purchase, the gun store owner says, was not as legal as CBS claims. It is in essence a straw purchase because Reid said on her paper work that the rifle was for her own use. She basically lied on her legally required paperwork.

 

You can not lie on these forms, regardless of who you transfer the weapon to.

So the purchase was legal - the problem was that she then sold it. Regardless the point of the story was how easy it was to purchase such a weapon, and how (legal or illegal) it was to then pass it along. None of the current protocols in place slowed the process or stopped it.

 

 

You call lying on a federal form to purchase a firearm legal, really? and no, the problem was she lied on a federal form, where it is a felony to do so.

 

I don't know what her intent was - maybe once it was so easy to buy it they then decided to see how easy it was to take things a step further. Honestly I think you're getting caught up in a detail that's irrelevant (probably on purpose in order to get folks off on a tangent). The point was how easy it all is. The fact that she "lied" on the form and then sold it only proves even further that checks and balances aren't in place that work. If a good guy buys a gun and in a year decides to give it away or sell it there's no current way to verify who they're giving it to or what that person's about. The problem is the process.

Based on past comments, you seem to be very aligned to child safety. When 20/20 does a special when they converse with child molesters to get them to come to a hidden camera meet up and then confront them, one could also claim it's entrapment (or some other infringement). Perhaps it is, there's certainly probably lots of legal issues with it, but the newsworthy point is that they're exposing that what is currently done to police folks isn't working. Do you think the 20/20 reporters should be charged with a crime?

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2016/06/17/gun-store-owner-says-undercover-cbs-reporter-broke-federal-law-to-purchase-ar-15-353684

 

 

It is possible that a CBS reporter made an illegal gun purchase in order to do a story on buying firearms, at least that is the charge made by the gun store where the reporter bought her firearm.

Early this week CBS News’ Paula Reid purchased an AR-15 rifle at SpecDive Tactical in Alexandria, Virginia. She made the purchase for a “CBS This Morning” segment aired on Thursday morning. But now the gun store has filed a complaint with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives charging that Reid broke the law when she filled out the federally required paper work as she made the purchase.

As The Washington Free Beacon notes, during Reid’s report, she says, “The rifle we purchased was legally transferred to a federally licensed firearms dealer and weapons instructor in Virginia, just hours after we bought it.”

But this purchase, the gun store owner says, was not as legal as CBS claims. It is in essence a straw purchase because Reid said on her paper work that the rifle was for her own use. She basically lied on her legally required paperwork.

 

You can not lie on these forms, regardless of who you transfer the weapon to.

So the purchase was legal - the problem was that she then sold it. Regardless the point of the story was how easy it was to purchase such a weapon, and how (legal or illegal) it was to then pass it along. None of the current protocols in place slowed the process or stopped it.

You can't make this stuff up..

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/orlando-massacre-buying-ar-15-gun-easy-in-many-states/?ftag=YHF4eb9d17&yptr=yahoo

 

 

She purchases an AR15 then transfers it to a 3rd party. She lied on the 4473 form she had to fill out. Will she be prosecuted for falsifying information?

Nothing she did was illegal, and nothing she showed to by the gun shop was false to my knowledge. So this is totally ok. Her transfer of the weapon is also totally within the law as it's currently written. But we don't need to make any changes (sarcasm).

 

 

He will be there the same time as Tyjon though, so that is a plus.

Is it though? I'm trying to decide how one gets the attention we want them each to get when there are so many top tier recruits there at the same time. (honestly, not trolling) I'd rather have Coach Dub be able to love on Tyjon to the max without having Joseph watching in the background and vice versa.

 

Also, Key jr. is potentially coming out next weekend as well.

 

If Tyjon is seriously looking at us and strongly thinking about committing, KW could easily use that to his advantage with Lewis in that he could explain if he comes here, he has a great QB and those three WRs could play together as possibly the best WR group in the country at a place where the fans love them, pack the stands and game day is crazy.

 

I feel like we're a plan B for him and he's checking the box - we've got KJ, and think we've got JC silently and I'm betting we get TJ. I can't pretend to know how these kids think, but if it were me and I was evaluating programs, I'd want to go where: 1. Good history of offense or scheme being pass heavy (or offensive coordinator that thinks that way) 2. Good QB with pro skills 3. I'd have a position coach that I liked and respected and that I'd learn from 4. I have a chance of starting asap 5. Where I'd be surrounded by other decent WRs but not the absolute best - I'm all about me, and while I want to compete I want to be the star 6. Surrounded by strong OL and etc.

He will be there the same time as Tyjon though, so that is a plus.

Is it though? I'm trying to decide how one gets the attention we want them each to get when there are so many top tier recruits there at the same time. (honestly, not trolling) I'd rather have Coach Dub be able to love on Tyjon to the max without having Joseph watching in the background and vice versa.

Also, Key jr. is potentially coming out next weekend as well.

I'm not usually much into the silent commit thing but there seems to be a lot of smoke here....

I agree. I think Rahyme is too.

I'm surprised this hasn't been shared or referenced yet ... it perfectly summarizes my thoughts and also backs the rationale up with points and examples.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rR9IaXH1M0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9UFyNy-rw4

You really think Palin has faded, or that Trump will? He was made for TV. He'll be filling the airwaves with his bluster until he can't any longer.

Well if Christie keeps his job getting the blow hard McDonald's for lunch maybe he'll fade away quickly.

 

No existing law would have...

 

THAT

 

IS

 

THE

 

PROBLEM!

 

Now, yes or no?

 

 

Seriously, are you purposefully being obtuse? This thread is about gun control, about something needing to be done (as in new laws). What NEW law would prevent this from happening, prevent this guy from getting a gun?

 

NOTHING WOULD HAVE!

 

Dude - I feel like you're only reading about every other word that people type. And seriously, no need for all caps.