17 minutes ago, TorontoEagle said:

What 'freedoms' don't we have? 

We consider Americans our friends, and the world's longest undefended border supports most Americans likely feel the same way. 

Sure, I guess you could turn your guns on your biggest trade partner, but that would create an international incident, considering the many other friends we have around the world. They may not be able to stop an aggressive American invasion, but it's such a ridiculous scenario it's not even worth discussing. 

We aren't a perfect country by any measure, and I'm open to discuss anything you'd like about Canada.

Thank you for not pointing out that we are 0-2 for trying to take Canada and arguably you won the border dispute as well (although we did hoodwink The Notch from you).

7 minutes ago, Blazehound said:

Do the Eagles have a realistic shot at trading for Wilson from a cap perspective next season?

2 minutes ago, Bacarty2 said:

ahhh yes. Lumberjacks fighting and a small militia  really set us back *eyeroll*

You know we actually burned down the White House right? Technically it was British North America, but still our ancestors. There was a treaty signed in 1818 that basically ended all hostilities between us, and since then, we've grown together as countries. Are you so insecure you can't handle criticism from your longest friend? Sad. 

10 minutes ago, Blazehound said:

Do the Eagles have a realistic shot at trading for Wilson from a cap perspective next season?

Wilson has a no trade clause, wants a say in the roster and supposedly has a list of teams to which he would accept a trade, which the Eagles was not one of those teams.  Regardless of crippling cap implications, why would a 33 year old QB want to come to a team that is probably at least two drafts away from contending if they hang on to their draft choice?   With the trade capital necessary to achieve a trade, the Eagles would probably be three or four drafts away.  With Geno Smith as the back up, why would Seattle want to trade Wilson.  Frankly, I think it would be negligence on the part of the Eagles hierarchy to make such a deal and probably similar for Seattle to do so as well 

1 hour ago, TorontoEagle said:

But times have changed. There isn't colonization anymore, and the threat of a foreign army invading is basically nil. Again, with the standing army the US has, nobody is invading the States. If the government decides to use the army (which, I'm pretty sure the army is sworn to protect the constitution, not the government in power) then citizens won't match the firepower. They just won't and can't. 

I don't want to take guns away from hunters or anything of the sort. I think if you're concerned with self-defense, a handgun is just fine. You should have to get licensed, and there should be strict laws about how/when/where you can actually use the gun. Every other civilized nation has figured out methods of some gun control, because allowing it to go unchecked results in the mass shootings we've seen become commonplace in the States. The unfettered access to guns, combined with insanely poor mental health supports, equals big problems. 

What common person needs the assault rifles, with bump stocks? What use do you have for that at all? Hunters/farmers/rural folk using rifles, shotguns etc is fine, but those too should be licensed.

It is about defending agonist tyranny from government not killing Bambi. The last line says shall not be infringed. 1700 speak for we don't have to justify bleep/don't f with it. 

Anyone wants that changed go get 2/3 and 3/4 of states. Until then people can suck it.

 

34 minutes ago, RememberTheKoy said:

 

You act like the Eagles had a large number of drives in the 4th quarter of the Chiefs game.  They had 3 drives and scored touchdowns on 2 of them.  The first of those 2 TDs made it a 5 point game with just under 13 minutes left in the game.  We lost a shootout game against one of the all time great QBs/offenses.  It happens but it isn't like the Eagles went down 5 scores in that game and then only scored points after that. They kept pace with them for most of that game. 

 

As for the 49ers game I have no clue what you continue to talk about with your claim that the Eagles only scored 3 points with 5 minutes or less in the game.  The Eagles only scored once in the 4th quarter of that game.  It was a TD with 4:02 left in the game.  They also converted the 2 point conversion after that TD to make it a 6 point game with 4 minutes left.  The defense wasn't able to get a stop and the Eagles offense didn't touch the ball again after that TD. 

What are you even talking about? The entire point is about Hurts and his garbage time 4th quarter performances. Which he had in the Chiefs game. You're moving the goal posts so much, I don't care if they kept pace for most of the game. The point is there was 4th quarter garbage time that Hurts took advantage of when they were down 19 with 2:30 to go. 

Here, I'll break down the 49ers game nice and easy for you. 

That's the beginning of the last drive. They scored 3 points all game up until less than 5 minutes left in the game, which I have been saying forever. It's not a hard concept to grasp. 

2 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

What are you even talking about? The entire point is about Hurts and his garbage time 4th quarter performances. Which he had in the Chiefs game. You're moving the goal posts so much, I don't care if they kept pace for most of the game. The point is there was 4th quarter garbage time that Hurts took advantage of when they were down 19 with 2:30 to go. 

Here, I'll break down the 49ers game nice and easy for you. 

That's the beginning of the last drive. They scored 3 points all game up until less than 5 minutes left in the game, which I have been saying forever. It's not a hard concept to grasp. 

2 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

What are you even talking about? The entire point is about Hurts and his garbage time 4th quarter performances. Which he had in the Chiefs game. You're moving the goal posts so much, I don't care if they kept pace for most of the game. The point is there was 4th quarter garbage time that Hurts took advantage of when they were down 19 with 2:30 to go. 

Here, I'll break down the 49ers game nice and easy for you. 

That's the beginning of the last drive. They scored 3 points all game up until less than 5 minutes left in the game, which I have been saying forever. It's not a hard concept to grasp. 

 

 

You're so ignorant it's like you didn't even watch these games.  The Chiefs game isn't a game where Hurts and the Eagles offense didn't do anything until the 4th quarter. Same for the 49ers game. 

49ere game the Eagles should have had 6 points in the first but they had a field goal blocked.  Next drive they went 94 yards down the field but then Sirianni had the ultimate play calling meltdown when the Eagles had 7 plays at the goalline but only called one run which was a sweep to the right out of shotgun and then it was all capped off by the terrible pandering 4th down Philly Special call. They call one run up the gut there in those 7 plays and it's a TD.  The only quarter where they weren't able to do anything on offense was the 3rd quarter. 

2 minutes ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

•  

Kyle Hamilton and DeMarvin Leal are almost always the first two guys I take in those mock drafts.  I'd be very happy if those are the Eagles first two selections.

CB will be a pressing need as well, but I need to watch more of Stingley before I decide if he'd be worth a premium first round pick coming off injury.  His play wasn't stellar after his breakout freshman season, either.

1 hour ago, TorontoEagle said:

I've never bought a gun anywhere. No interest and no need for it. I have shot guns numerous times, here at friends rural properties or at the shooting ranges in Vegas. I'll say, hell yeah it's fun to shoot those things. 

Believe me, I'm all for tougher drunk driving laws as well. It doesn't absolve the mass shootings that occur at an alarming rate in the States. But I don't recall any drunk driver killing 20 6 and 7 year old kids who were just enjoying a day at school. That nothing changed after Sandy Hook broke all faith I had in America in changing anything about the 2A. 

Tougher drinking laws bro? Nah, nobody "needs" alcohol. And plenty of drunk drivers have wiped out whole families "enjoying their day" out on the road. In fact just recently a young promising w.r. killed an innocent woman. 

Just because some people "have no interest" in guns doesn't make one any worse than the other. I have a lot of guns and have never hurt anyone with one. I have an a/r and I enjoy shooting it. I go through a background check every time I buy a gun. Don't give me that there isn't enough controls on guns. Only thing I would be willing to give in to is that included in the background check is a way to search history for mental illness. 

1 minute ago, RememberTheKoy said:

 

 

You're so ignorant it's like you didn't even watch these games.  The Chiefs game isn't a game where Hurts and the Eagles offense didn't do anything until the 4th quarter. Same for the 49ers game. 

49ere game the Eagles should have had 6 points in the first but they had a field goal blocked.  Next drive they went 94 yards down the field but then Sirianni had the ultimate play calling meltdown when the Eagles had 7 plays at the goalline but only called one run which was a sweep to the right out of shotgun and then it was all capped off by the terrible pandering 4th down Philly Special call. They call one run up the gut there in those 7 plays and it's a TD.  The only quarter where they weren't able to do anything on offense was the 3rd quarter. 

You are a complete idiot that doesn't even know what the point is.

4 minutes ago, Bacarty2 said:

Actually it does. The Chiefs were in Prevent defense the majority(if not all the 2nd half) 

Of the 30 minute 2nd half the Eagles were within 1 score for about 6 minutes lol. 

 

Chiefs weren't in Prevent defense, they just have the worst defense in the NFL. 

1 minute ago, LeanMeanGM said:

You are a complete idiot that doesn't even know what the point is.

 

You're trying to claim that Hurts and the Eagles offense only put up garbage time production in the Chiefs and 49ers game when that isn't the case. 

The only games this season where that occurred was the Cowboys and Raiders game and to an extent the final TD drive for the Eagles in the Chiefs game. 

 

 

1 minute ago, Alphagrand said:

Kyle Hamilton and DeMarvin Leal are almost always the first two guys I take in those mock drafts.  I'd be very happy if those are the Eagles first two selections.

CB will be a pressing need as well, but I need to watch more of Stingley before I decide if he'd be worth a premium first round pick coming off injury.  His play wasn't stellar after his breakout freshman season, either.

Exactly what I’ve said about Stingley, no one can deny how good he was as a freshman, but since then he’s just been ok, plus he’s missed a bunch of games. Elam is really good in coverage as well, but Booth or Gardner are the physical dudes I’d want. 

2 minutes ago, greend said:

Tougher drinking laws bro? Nah, nobody "needs" alcohol. And plenty of drunk drivers have wiped out whole families "enjoying their day" out on the road. In fact just recently a young promising w.r. killed an innocent woman. 

Just because some people "have no interest" in guns doesn't make one any worse than the other. I have a lot of guns and have never hurt anyone with one. I have an a/r and I enjoy shooting it. I go through a background check every time I buy a gun. Don't give me that there isn't enough controls on guns. Only thing I would be willing to give in to is that included in the background check is a way to search history for mental illness. 

I mean, prohibition of alcohol has been tried, and it failed spectacularly. We know what will happen if we try that. 

And you are a responsible gun owner. But I think it's a pretty well known fact that obtaining a gun in America is ridiculously easy? Like, go to a gun show and there's no background checks at all, is my understanding? 

Just now, TorontoEagle said:

I mean, prohibition of alcohol has been tried, and it failed spectacularly. We know what will happen if we try that. 

And you are a responsible gun owner. But I think it's a pretty well known fact that obtaining a gun in America is ridiculously easy? Like, go to a gun show and there's no background checks at all, is my understanding? 

Maybe so I have never bought one there. That said I would agree if that is the case that particular thing needs tightened up. But again much tougher to buy a gun than it is to get booze (even if you are an alcoholic) and drive down the road. Therefore since we don't "need" booze, get rid of it, I mean that's your argument on my ar I don't "need" it, right? 

11 minutes ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

• 
  3.
  Kyle Hamilton

  S Notre Dame
   
• 
  9.
  DeMarvin Leal

  DT Texas A&M
   
• 
  29.
  Carson Strong

  QB Nevada
  
• 
  43.
  Kingsley Enagbare

  EDGE South Carolina
   
• 
  49.
  Lecitus Smith

  OG Virginia Tech
  
• 
  54.
  Christian Harris

  LB Alabama
  
• 
  61.
  Brenton Cox

  EDGE Florida
  
• 
  72.
  Owen Pappoe

  LB Auburn
   
• 
  78.
  Isaiah Likely

  TE Coastal Carolina
  
• 
  148.
  Tyler Goodson

  RB Iowa
   
• 
  174.
  Zakoby McClain

  LB Auburn
   
• 
  187.
  Wanya Morris

  OT Oklahoma

If Harris is there at 54, I’ll invade Canada with Bacarty, and have some Molson’s with Sara Mcglothlin. 

24 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

It is about defending agonist tyranny from government not killing Bambi. The last line says shall not be infringed. 1700 speak for we don't have to justify bleep/don't f with it. 

Anyone wants that changed go get 2/3 and 3/4 of states. Until then people can suck it.

I think too many gun enthusiast watch too many re runs of red dawn.

If a tyrannical government wants to try and control a people through force does one really think an AR -15 is going to do much against a tank or a drone armed with missles.

If the sentence" shall not infringe " included all firearms then the government couldn't keep me from owning an automatic weapon or a bazooka, yet those are both illegal.

Crafting common sense gun laws isn't infringing on anyone's rights to own a gun, banning AR-15 which are military grade assualts rifles designed to kill people which plenty of military vets have said don't belong in the hands of citizens isn't infringing on anyone's rights 

Banning bump stocks isn't Infringing on gun rights the same way making automatic weapons illegal isn't.

While I'm a proponent of 2a and right for citizens to bare arms Im also a proponent of common sense gun laws that legally keep guns out of those who use them irresponsibly and laws that encourage responsible firearm ownership.

 

9 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

You are a complete idiot that doesn't even know what the point is.

I don't know, but I'm almost positive he blocked me for continually making him look like an idiot, lol.

3 minutes ago, RememberTheKoy said:

 

You're trying to claim that Hurts and the Eagles offense only put up garbage time production in the Chiefs and 49ers game when that isn't the case. 

The only games this season where that occurred was the Cowboys and Raiders game and to an extent the final TD drive for the Eagles in the Chiefs game. 

 

 

Well, they didn't produce at all against the 49ers- though play calling contributed and against one of the worst Ds in the league they didn't do squat.  

13 minutes ago, RememberTheKoy said:

 

You're trying to claim that Hurts and the Eagles offense only put up garbage time production in the Chiefs and 49ers game when that isn't the case. 

The only games this season where that occurred was the Cowboys and Raiders game and to an extent the final TD drive for the Eagles in the Chiefs game. 

 

 

WRONG. From the beginning, I've said there WAS garbage time in the Chiefs game. Being down 19 with 2:30 to go IS GARBAGE TIME. I never said they only put up points in garbage time. 

I then said its arguable the 49ers had garbage time because they did nothing all game besides 3 points. The score was 17-3 with less than 5 mins to go. Arguable meaning you could make the case it was or wasn't based on how you viewed the game. 

The whole point is Hurts being rated the third highest 4th quarter QB, and how it's mostly because of garbage time. 

9 minutes ago, TorontoEagle said:

I mean, prohibition of alcohol has been tried, and it failed spectacularly. We know what will happen if we try that. 

And you are a responsible gun owner. But I think it's a pretty well known fact that obtaining a gun in America is ridiculously easy? Like, go to a gun show and there's no background checks at all, is my understanding? 

Or just Craig's list and buy a gun out of the trunk of some rando.

When I was 16 one if my 16 year old  friends acquired an AK-47, I didn't ask where or how he got it, and while we had fun shooting garbage up in the desert I dont  think a 16 year should be able to get an Ak-47 on a whim.

So yeah it's ridiculously easy in America to get a gun.

Just now, Utebird said:

I think too many gun enthusiast watch too many re runs of red dawn.

If a tyrannical government wants to try and control a people through force does one really think an AR -15 is going to do much against a tank or a drone armed with missles.

If the sentence" shall not infringe " included all firearms then the government couldn't keep me from owning an automatic weapon or a bazooka, yet those are both illegal.

Crafting common sense gun laws isn't infringing on anyone's rights to own a gun, banning AR-15 which are military grade assualts rifles designed to kill people which plenty of military vets have said don't belong in the hands of citizens isn't infringing on anyone's rights 

Banning bump stocks isn't Infringing on gun rights the same way making automatic weapons illegal isn't.

While I'm a proponent of 2a and right for citizens to bare arms Im also a proponent of common sense gun laws that legally keep guns out of those who use them irresponsibly and laws that encourage responsible firearm ownership.

 

I use my ar responsibly. Why would you single that out? In one breath you say that having one wouldn't help against an army and in the other breath you try to say that they are "military grade" and designed to "kill people". 

 

I'll tell you the same thing I told afan who leveled this same argument yesterday. If we ever had to go up against some army to defend ourselves I would sure rather have my a/r than nothing.

 

Oh and for your info there are plenty of "military vets" that think we should own them and my son is one, as well as about everyone that lives around me, and one of them in here has been liking my posts

 

 

As it stands I'm tired of this conversation. Moving on 

Defense 

• 
  3.
  Kyle Hamilton

  S Notre Dame
   
• 
  8.
  Aidan Hutchinson

  EDGE Michigan
   
• 
  9.
  Derek Stingley Jr.

  CB LSU
   
• 
  45.
  Christian Harris

  LB Alabama
  
• 
  72.
  Brandon Smith

  LB Penn State
   
• 
  83.
  Jaquan Brisker

  S Penn State