Guard Dog

People have been lamenting soccer's lack of success here but the MLS is very successful. In may not be breaking into "the big four" but the league is healthy, on TV, has great attendance and is playing at a high enough level to attract good players from Europe. The NFL is still the big dog in the yard when it comes to sports in the US and this whole take a knee stuff isn't going to change that.

To quote the late great Red Barber "Baseball is only dull to dull minds". But speaking for myself only I really don't follow the NFL much until after the World Series is over. College football is a whole different story though. There is a passion found in College ball the NFL has lost. If it ever even had it. I do wonder why Rugby isn't more popular here. I went to the Rugby Seven WC in Vegas a few years ago. That was a heck of a good time.

Point me to any statement made by NFL players that said so. There were no press conference, no speech after kneeling, no nothing from those players. And that's part of the problem, and that's why NFL approval rating fallen face first on the ground: http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/354365-poll-nfl-drops-as-favorite-us-sport Would be surprised they'd have to, given the context of the situation. Then again if people are moving to watch baseball, doubtful how intelligent they are in the first place... Come again?!

Redskins is probably over the line I guess. Personally I wouldn't be offended by it but whatever. Note Dame is the Fighting Irish, that does not offend me in the least. There a many teams with indian names that are handled pretty tactfully and tastefully. Florida State University is the Seminoles and the Seminole Tribe of Florida is a big supporter.

A deep irony gets lost here. NFL protests over racism, the VP leaves indignantly because the flag and the anthem gets dragged in the mud, all in the context of a game where the teams are literally called "Indians" and Yankees", two racist terms, if I ever saw any. How can these teams even be allowed to have such names when confederate generals get torn down and liberals are labelled "racists"? Yeah, I get it, those names is tradition by now and so forth, but that should go for freedom of speech and expressing different opinions, democratic rights, etc? What happened to the land of the free and Freedom with a capital F? Is the US now a country where a kneeling football player appals a vice president so much that he turns the back on you abhorrently? Is USA a nation so uncertain of its identity and history that it needs to tear down statues of old frigging generals? Over here in Europe, the very beauty of most of all the old and ancient architecture stems from dictators, tyrants and generals. Most of the art and buildings isn't demolished (except statues in former Communist countries, and obviously Third Reich paraphernalia after WWII). Actually Indria those are baseball teams. The playoffs are going on in the MLB. The joke was everyone is making such a big thing over the NFL protests and there was something better to watch on. But how is the Yankees a racist name? AFAIK it goes back to Dutch living in New York. As far as Indians, the name itself isn't really racist. The Chief Wahoo logo is a different story but from what I read that won't be around much longer.

No reading this: It's the story of the 1925 Serum run from Seward to Nome to combat a diphtheria outbreak. Today the Iditarod sled dog race is run every year to commemorate this event (partially).

Remember when you were a kid? When you found out professional wrestling isn't real? That it's all just a show? Just a made up drama that people got far too into because they thought it was a sport? The Trump administration is a lot like that. Only worse because Hulk Hogan, Ric Flair, and all the rest knew they were a farce from the get go. I think Trump is as fooled as everyone else that the show isn't real. As for the NFL protests, did anyone see that Indians/Yankees game that just wrapped up? That was a great game.

The Navy is not what it once was. It used to be sea shanties, keel-hauling and fighting pirates. Now it's this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSMxnpecSZM In actuality it's a pretty businesslike thing now. They don't screw around much from what I saw of them.

Morgan Freeman is still with us.

Quite apart from the question of what exactly should be done or not done about guns, what do you mean exactly? Are you saying any limitation on individual freedoms is bad? America is not a land of absolute individual freedoms, no country is, and its (rightly) celebrated commitment to freedom of speech too is (rightly) restricted in many ways. Considering minimal restrictions on guns partly to protect other freedoms isn't singling guns out for special treatment, it's treating guns in line with everything else from hate speech to brawling in the streets. We can certainly dispute what should count as 'minimal' for guns, but you can't argue that any advocacy for gun control is 'anti-freedom', for example. I don't think that gets us anywhere, same as telling gun owners they're de facto murderers doesn't get us anywhere. And/or are you saying guns specifically help protect Americans from governments taking away our rights or abusing their power? I.e. a scenario where the rest of the world gets conquered by Kim Jong Un clones, America alone will resist because its citizenry have guns. I accept that that's one possibility, but it's quite a distant possibility compared to the present reality that this country just keeps killing its own citizens again and again and again every year all the time in massive numbers that would be much more difficult to achieve proportionate to forms of gun control. If you want to argue that the safety of America's basic freedoms is so under threat that it is worth killing [insert number here] of citizens each year, OK - I may not agree, but it would be a rational argument, one which presents a costs and benefits assessment. Is that where you are going with it? Oh don't get me wrong. I would not recommend or support absolute unrestricted behavior in all things. We do all have to live together and to do that there must be some ground rules. Although they should be few, clear, and limited only to protecting the individual from the excesses of other individuals. Like Drunk Driving for example. Even on the subject of firearms there are and should be what the SCOTUS has called several times "reasonable" restrictions. For example Concealed Carry Permits. The right to own a firearm might be sacrosanct (even with some limitations) but that does not necessarily extend to carrying a firearm in public, open or concealed. So each individual state has taken that up and decided for themselves how it will be handled. Some like Connecticut & Illinois are a hard no on legal concealed carry. Some states like Wyoming it's just implied and no permit is needed. I think this is the way to go. And I disagree with the Trump administration on forcing CC Permit reciprocity nationwide. Some states already have it, some don't. It's up to the State governments (and their voters) to decide what is best for each state. My permit is issued in Tennessee. Indiana has a different set of rules so if I wanted to carry there I have to apply for a permit there and follow their rules. With the exception of most of the North East & Illinois you can legally carry unloaded firearms that are not stored with the ammunition (pistol under the seat, ammo in the trunk or something like that) pretty much anywhere. Owning a firearm means accepting certain responsibilities. Carrying one means accepting even more. First among those is learning what the law is wherever you are going and following it. Whether the law is too restrictive is a matter for the voters of the state. In other words if you don't like it, don't go there. You will never see me living in New York. Scalia wrote in DC v. Heller "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons." ​I agree with that. However, outside of that prohibition on ownership or even legal carry (unloaded/disassembled/etc.) is where we go from reasonable to tyranny. In Heller ​the heart of the issue is the city of Washington DC would not allow handgun ownership. Period. All other firearms must be kept locked or disassembled. THAT is NOT reasonable. The Court agreed: "The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition – in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute – would fail constitutional muster." It's worth noting that in 2008 the city of Washington DC had a population of 508k give or take. Making it the 11th largest city in the US that year. But it had the 2nd most homicides, 3rd in property crime, and 5th assaults. The only people who did not have guns were the law abiding citizens. It's also worth noting that since 2008 (the year the handgun ban was struck down) violent crime has dropped 20% (as of 2015). Now I am not saying that is necessarily all because of Heller (post hoc ergo propter hoc) but it would definitely be a factor. Now, on your second point. Right now, the government of the United States does not represent a clear threat to the safety and liberty of the citizens of the United States. Although they do come close sometimes as 213374U pointed out in a few examples. But those are issues that have legislative and sometimes judicial remedies. Armed resistance and insurrection are the last, last, and final means of defense. I seriously doubt that will ever be required. But by no means should we ever give up that capability. As I posted before an armed population is the only guarantee of the continuation of liberty. The guarantee that it will not be lost without bloodshed, or taken without cost. A citizen without the ultimate tools to defend their lives and liberty enjoys both only at the sufferance of the people who have the means to take them. Whether the ones who have the means are the government or criminals it makes no difference. There is an old saying "An armed man is a citizen. A disarmed man is a subject."

I must admit I am always amused by a notion most gun control advocates entertain. That it's ok for the government to take away our right to bear arms because we don't really need to worry about the government taking our rights.

No doubt it will be done to thunderous applause. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/10/05/the-campus-anti-free-speech-movement-black-lives-matter-protesters-shut-down-aclu-speaker-at-william-mary/?utm_term=.92681c96e2bc

It didn't. None of them were armed, or had been disarmed. Small examples of how a government, even one as relatively enlightened and benevolent as ours, treats people who can't fight back. When all the guns are banned, all the words censored, all the history erased those who even remember how it once was will realize why the right to bear arms was 2nd on the list. Look at what happened in Nevada a few years ago. Bundy didn't pay his grazing fees. Did the government take him to court? Give him his due process? No, BLM & FBI showed up in body armor, automatic weapons, sniper rifles and armored vehicles. They pointed guns in the faces of unarmed people, tasered them, beat the living hell out of some and started seizing private property (the cows). When 10k armed people showed up the backed down, took it to court, and won there. The government is not our f-----g friend. It's an armed bully that sometimes forgets who it really is supposed to serve. Every time I hear a congressman say citizens don't need guns I order another 500 rounds.

Without the second how long do you expect the first, or fourth, or any of them to last? A generation? Less? There are a number of countries that have way harsher gun restrictions and still manage to have free speech and all the trappings of a modern democratic society. I support the 2nd Amendment, I think it is an important part of our culture, but I think it is a false sense of security against a real government attack on our freedom. I'd say our best protection against that is the fact that our military is unlikely to cooperate with a fascist regime that targets American civilians. Forget some fascist takeover. Yes, many, many, and more countries have freedom in some measure without a citizenry armed to the teeth. How many of those have an absolute guarantee it will stay that way? Not one. We do. Armed people will not be willingly rounded up and herded into camps. Armed people will not willing have their homes or freedoms illegally seized or their rights abrogated. A citizenry without the means to defend their rights and liberty with weapons enjoys them only at the sufferance of the people who do have them. The must live every day in the hope those people don't change their minds. Think it can't happen here in the US? It already has. Ask Gromnir. Ask them: Or them: Not recent enough? How about them: or them

Without the second how long do you expect the first, or fourth, or any of them to last? A generation? Less?

https://youtu.be/6aq6CdZXUgw

Really? He was lying about the Marlins financial condition to 1) Falsely accept revenue sharing from the other clubs 2) Keep the payroll artificially low and not run afoul of the players union and CBA 3) Pry taxpayer dollars from the city to build a stadium he could have easily contributed much more to. No one deserves that.

Maybe the cut his microphone in mid-sentence. That's usually where he goes.

The team Loria "led to glory" was assembled by Dave Dombrowski. It was the proceeds of the Great Fire Sale on '98. That was all done under Huizenga. When Loria took over the team in the devils bargain in '02 all the pieces were there. He blew it all up in the Great Fire Sale of '04 because all those good young players were hitting arbitration. He would go on to do it again four more times. He fired Dombrowski nearly the day after the World Series. What followed was 13 years of cynical cheapness, lies to MLB, the players, the fans, and the city of Miami. I am certain Jeff Loria is not the most despicable example of the human species. But he's certainly in the lower fifth of the population pool.

Well Pat Robertson has theories. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2017/10/03/yes-pat-robertson-blamed-the-vegas-shooting-on-disrespect-for-trump-and-the-national-anthem/?utm_term=.32d63e874cd8 That is as intellectually vacant as blaming the guns. Maybe even more.

Guns and politics are things we can control. It's natural to want to control the terrible things that happen. Even if we realize, we can't. There are some good points there. The problem is even the best mental health professionals in the world can't help someone who does not ask for help.

Great article from the Washington Post on gun control: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html?utm_term=.8ea673f4b288

Injured tortise saved by 3D printed prosthetic shell: http://www.mypalmbeachpost.com/news/local/new-acreage-tortoise-run-over-car-saved-printed-shell/wB1aS7zCgTsG91mSFNxl0J/

What percentage of all shootings are those? All violent crimes committed using a firearm where someone was shot in Washington DC in 2016. Given DC's near total prohibition on pistols I'm guessing the 18% committed by legal owners was shotguns, or something else other than pistol. 3% was unknown. Don't know what that means.