Forum Replies Created

Viewing 9 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • jeebz116
      Participant
      Post count: 768

      I can't believe grown @$$ men are arguing over some words the wife of a player said on an internet site. Let alone a supposedly reputable newspaper writing a story about it. Do we need to make a new forum for people who are easily triggered that way we can shelter them from mean words?You guys (censored)ing about this are probably the same people who say millennials are weak because of safe places and trigger words. You little girls just want to whine about something.Plus, I still haven't seen where she has been wrong about anything. Tannehill sucks and people help there own. Now grow up and don't let little words hurt you.

      +1 all day. Peach brother.

    • jeebz116
      Participant
      Post count: 768

      she only has a voice because reports love stuff like this. I don’t follow her on twitter because I don’t like her.The only reason we even know about shit she says is because reporters make stories about it and there's enough people with nothing better to do than to worry about what Miko is typing on twitter, lol.Seriously who gives a shit what one nfl football player's wife is typing on twitter. Quit falling into the traps of the media.

    • jeebz116
      Participant
      Post count: 768

      Realistically, the offense is going to have to carry this team through the early part of the season.  The defense is young and is installing a new scheme.  They will experience growing pains.  How they are playing after Halloween will be a good barometer to measure themAs for playoff contenders, the picture is blurred right now.  This team's fate will be clear by Thanksgiving.

      I actually think just the opposite will occur with the defense. I think they will be able to utilize the element of surprise in their favor. They will be using multiple looks and scheme wise, they'll be unpredictable until teams get some film on us.Mike Smith is a great teacher and he's already designed some looks that have confused Jameis in practice. He's focusing on keeping things simple for us so we can attack.Plus recent history has shown that new schemes can be taught quick and be successful (see the Jets and first 5 games of falcons from last year) despite what Lovie says.

    • jeebz116
      Participant
      Post count: 768

      Ok, my original point was in reference to what skipper said, that the founding fathers were rolling over in their graves because they only meant the 2A for muskets. That is verifiably and patently false.The case you referenced in Heller was actually to decide whether or not an individual unconnected with service in a militia could lawfully posses and use that rifle, to which SCOTUS  correctly ruled that individuals do have that right referencing several cases, some dating all the way back to the founding days.Now, in the US vs Miller it is discussed that the type of gun allowed may be limited, in which in 1939 the Supreme Court reviewed a federal statute prohibiting the interstate transportation of unregistered short-barreled shotguns. The Court's opinion, however, is ambiguous about the Amendment's meaning and scope, and does not limit the right to keep and bear arms for militia purposes. The crucial passage says:"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a [short-barreled] shotgun at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense."There's also numerous numerous quotes from Washington, Adams, Jefferson and many others that state that individual citizens had the right to bear arms and that it applied to more than just muskets for hunting.WThat's my whole point. The 2A is for more than muskets and military personnel. It is for a free society to be able to defend itself and have the last say against a tyrannical govt. That's why it was the 2nd ammendment, not just some arbitrary blurb about hunting with muskets.

      Arbitrary? The US Constitution was created in 1787, ratified in 1788, the second amendment passed in 1791. Typical fire arms were muskets and flint lock pistols. An AR-15 of today can fire 45 rounds in a minute and travel 5 to 10 times further. Guns today inflict far more carnage then anything the framers of our constitution could imagine. The Civil war was from 1861 to 1865 some 75 years after. I ask what Civil war movie or documentary have you watched where they are firing assault style weapons at each other? I certainly don't remember seeing anything but single shot revolvers, muskets and of course the cannon. Just watched the most recent movie "State of Jones" no machine guns in that one. How about some realism here.

      Skipper, I already listed 4 guns in post 23 on the first page of this thread that shot multiple rounds in succession including a machine gun that all were widely known about during the revolutionary war.Second of all, are you seriously referencing a documentary about the civil war, lol? That's ballsy to actually state that in writing without doing a little research first. You're making yourself look like an idiot. All you have to do is Google "Gatling guns in the civil war."I understand that there are people who don't like the 2A because guns are loud and scary and dangerous - although I have several guns and none of them have ever gone out and killed anyone. I understand that some people prefer not to take on the responsibility and duty of defending themselves and instead would rather surrender that responsibility to the govt.If that is your argument then fine, just say that, but in no way was the 2A written for us to only have muskets for hunting. It was expressly written to give the power to the people to fight off a tyrannical govt if need be.Do you really think that after the Rev War, Dec of Ind, Bill of Rights, etc they were going to give the power to possess and bear arms only for the guns that existed for one particular moment in time? Do you really think these guys who wrote the constitution never envisioned technology improving whatsoever in weapons? Conversation during 2A being written:GW: All citizens should have the right to possess and bear arms.TJ: Well, what if guns get like way bigger and scarier than they are today?GW: Well, I hadn't thought of that....C'mon man that's ridiculous to even fathom.In fact you can find many writings in the Federalist Papers that showed how they did anticipate technological advancements because they had seem them occur throughout history and also within their own time.

    • jeebz116
      Participant
      Post count: 768

      Ok, my original point was in reference to what skipper said, that the founding fathers were rolling over in their graves because they only meant the 2A for muskets. That is verifiably and patently false.The case you referenced in Heller was actually to decide whether or not an individual unconnected with service in a militia could lawfully posses and use that rifle, to which SCOTUS  correctly ruled that individuals do have that right referencing several cases, some dating all the way back to the founding days.Now, in the US vs Miller it is discussed that the type of gun allowed may be limited, in which in 1939 the Supreme Court reviewed a federal statute prohibiting the interstate transportation of unregistered short-barreled shotguns. The Court's opinion, however, is ambiguous about the Amendment's meaning and scope, and does not limit the right to keep and bear arms for militia purposes. The crucial passage says:"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a [short-barreled] shotgun at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense."There's also numerous numerous quotes from Washington, Adams, Jefferson and many others that state that individual citizens had the right to bear arms and that it applied to more than just muskets for hunting.That's my whole point. The 2A is for more than muskets and military personnel. It is for a free society to be able to defend itself and have the last say against a tyrannical govt. That's why it was the 2nd ammendment, not just some arbitrary blurb about hunting with muskets.

    • jeebz116
      Participant
      Post count: 768

      Crownless, I appreciate your retorts and fully intend to reply. I’m at work right now and working from my phone, and want to make a full and accurate reply, but I also could see this conversation getting lengthy and am willing to “Cove” it under a new thread if you’re interested.Otherwise, I'll make one last reply against your most recent post in this thread by the end of the day and leave it at that if you don't wish to continue it any further.

    • jeebz116
      Participant
      Post count: 768

      Hey crownless, thanks for proving my point. You literally offered zero facts or evidence other than some vague reference to the Supreme Court. If your argument is that you’ll just go with the popular opinion, that’s fine.I'm not going to argue, the facts are all readily available on Google. It's up to you all to educate yourselves. You can either offer an educated opinion, sling jokes or be quiet and go do some research.And if you disagree with the folks who wrote the constitution, that seems to be popular these days as well, that's fine, but I'm going to deal in the raw evidence.

    • jeebz116
      Participant
      Post count: 768

      Oh, and another thing. The vast majority of the NRA’s funding is by private citizens, so when they go out and lobby for our 2A rights, it’s because private citizens are asking them to.

    • jeebz116
      Participant
      Post count: 768

      I am sure most don't care, I do. I totaly understand that the NRA funnels millions of dollars to Republicans and they are bought polititions. It's why we can't have common sense gun control. Not talking about doing away with a persons right to own a gun, what gun they have should be up for debate. Our second amendment was written when there was muskets, our forefathers who wrote our constitution would be rolling in their graves over what is going on now.

      Skip, I can't let you get away with this. It's just that there were already many machine guns, gatling guns, canons and other semi semi automatic style guns already in use and many more being invented at the time the framers wrote the 2nd ammendment.There's the Belton Flintlocks invented in the revolutionary war that could fire about 20 rounds in 5 seconds with 1 trigger pull. The Girandoni Air Rifle which had a 22 round magazine that could be fired within 30 seconds. These were also invented during the revolutionary war and Thomas Jefferson used these to outfit Lewis and Clark.The Puckle Gun was a gatling gun invented 60 years before the revolutionary war.The Pepper Box revolvers had models that held over 20 rounds and those were invented in the 1500's.Not only were our fore father's aware of these guns, but they were fans of them! You have to realize, these guys who wrote the constitution were the action hero's of their day, they just finished fighting off a tyrannical govt.The more you did into the federalist papers and the historical context of the second amendment, the more you realize that the 2A not only included all weapons including artillery, it was written for all citizens, and it also took into account technological advancements.Do you really think the founding fathers never witnessed any tech advancement in weaponry in their own time and couldn't envision weapons becoming more advanced in the future?

    • jeebz116
      Participant
      Post count: 768

      I am certain that Pewter Report is in the market of gaining sponsors. How is alienting the liberal potential sponsors a good move?

      Trying to appease everyone is a recipe for disaster. Most successful businesses are the ones who have stuck to their principles regardless of what others think. Your integrity is worth far more than a couple extra sponsors.

Viewing 9 reply threads