Yzermandius19

False. I just don't believe in the kind of gun control you propose, so you want to paint me as supporting no gun control whatsoever. If you ever want to come up with a rational measure that isn't already in place, then I'd support your position, but you just have too much faith in your ability to do so and have written me off because I reject your worst ideas. You don't want to look in the mirror for reasons why that might be the case, and so instead think it must be something wrong with me or I'd agree with you.

Gun grabbers ignore constitutional rights when it's not convenient to take them into consideration, who knew? Has nothing to do with logic. You seem to assume gun control was done for logical reasons, yet nothing can be farther from the truth.

The second amendment doesn't state that the right of militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, it says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", and it says that for a very good reason.

The military uses all kinds of weapons that more lethal and not banned as well. The weapons banned in AWB has nothing to do with lethality, and everything to do with pandering to ignorant folks who know nothing about guns for votes.

Well I for one, am a degenerate gambler. God Bless MMA.

They don't have time to run away if they don't hear the gun shots, like during a concert, when they will blend in with the music. They would not have run away faster, they wouldn't have realized there was a shooter for minutes. Shooting blindly into the crowd alerted them much quicker than under other circumstances, this is a fact. The Dayton shooter could have killed more people with a non-banned weapon, could have killed more people if stopped to aim and reload, instead of firing blindly into the crowd. Nothing about the AR-15 he used turned him into a great killing machine that he couldn't have been with any perfectly legal hunting rifle. Your assumptions are based on ignorance of how guns actually work, and what actually maximizes a shooter using a weapon to kill a large amount of people in a short period of time. Shooting the most bullets the quickest, isn't the most effective strategy, not even close, yet you tunnel vision on making that strategy less effective, when it's already an ineffective strategy to begin with if you are actually looking to actually reduce gun deaths. You are fearmongering out of ignorance of inanimate object you want to ban, your gun control proposals will not save any lives, they will just make you feel better because you advocate something be done, even though you aren't informed enough to realize that the course of action you propose is counter-productive, while acting like anyone who opposes your counter-productive plan doesn't care about saving lives.

That's if you're using a semi-auto with a bump stock, like the Vegas shooter. He minimized the death toll by shooting blindly into the crowd, instead of slowly picking off people one by one with no one noticing there was a shooter for minutes. Firing faster did not result in less deaths there, it saved lives when people realized there was a shooter a whole lot quicker than if the shooter knew what he was doing. You should be thanking the bump stock, not maligning it. Slow is smooth, smooth is fast. Firing a "machine gun" wildly ain't maximizing no death tolls in mass shootings, just the opposite. The shooter is a helluva lot more important than the tool, and you are banning the tools that they these mass shooters use ineffectively while not banning the tools that they'd be more likely to use effectively, by just being forced to slow down to use those weapons. The AWB doesn't save lives, if anything, it will result in more deaths, not less.

Wrong, if you don't reload, then you are wasting bullets and missing the target due to recoil. You kill less people. The most notable shootings could have had much higher death tools if the shooters knew how to shoot, and didn't think shooting the most bullets the fastest kills the most people, because it doesn't.

How would banning those clips save any lives? It wouldn't. Shooters reloading and taking their time instead of spraying and praying ain't going to save any lives, it will increase the death toll. 25% semi-automatic rifles used, which were the main targets of the AWB. You want to ban the guns that get the most publicity, instead of actually addressing the actual problems.

No it's a battle of stats versus anecdotes, and your anecdotes lose. The ones with the biggest casualties weren't the biggest casualties because the weapons they were using was so dangerous. Spraying the crowd with a bump stock does not maximize deaths. If they had used guns that weren't banned in the AWB and taken their time instead wasting ammo and missing targets just to fire more bullets in rapid succession, those shooters could have killed more people, the AWB would not have saved any lives in the Vegas Shooting, it might have actually upped the death toll if it made the shooter use better weapons in a more efficient way. The AWB did not ban all the dangerous guns, and plenty that weren't banned are more dangerous than guns that were banned.

Most mass shootings do not involve weapons that were banned in the AWB, the vast majority of them are committed with handguns, which were not banned. The rise in mass shootings has nothing to do with the AWB no longer being in effect.

Wrong. Clinton's approval rating went up after Republicans impeached him. The AWB was a fail, mass shootings did not go up because it was repealed either, most mass shootings don't involve assault rifles anyway, most involve hand guns, which aren't covered by the AWB.

Pretty sure we both called that buyout when they signed him, everyone with a brain saw that coming.

Next year, Girard is going to be in the top pair, so at least for a year, he'll be in the core with Makar. Once Byram overtakes him, he'll slide into the 3D role.

Well he might not be in the core if Newhook works his way in there, but until then he'll be in there, and right now Byram ain't here, so he's going to be getting top pairing minutes until Byram is ready for that. Plus no one on the team is locked in for the next eight years except him.

Yeah Gentlemen Joe strikes again. It's especially key because the Avs need someone in Core 7 to take a discount, and Girard just took one. At worst he's going to be a rock solid LHD 3D, playing behind Byram and Makar, even if he's near his ceiling right now, and there seems to be plenty of room for growth, so not really buying that.

Thoughts on the Sam Girard contract?

Indeed but he's way down the list of Wild players who that is true about, that's how much of a dumpster fire they are, just tear the whole thing down already and start the rebuild. Now when they trade Zucker they won't just get a bag of pucks for him, couldn't have fired Fenton fast enough, really big mistake there.

The only one's reinterpreting Trump's words are the side shouting racism from the rooftops, everyone else's reading comprehension is just fine.

3 years of UFA, worth the gamble, could be a real cheap deal in a few years. He might not have cracked 30 points in a season yet, but the upside is obvious. If Girard has plateaued already, then that's going to be a bit pricey, but I doubt that is what will happen.

Not a chance.

Girard signs a 7-year extension, $5 million AAV.

Much of the rest of world are pro-Democrat partisan hacks, whose media run hit pieces on Trump 24/7. Who cares what they think?

Losing a game he did not play is irrelevant. Popular vote, who cares?