1 minute ago, BigEFly said:

We didn’t lose.  We accomplished our objective of decapitating Al Queda and getting Bin Laden.  The mistake we made was to then try and rehabilitate Afghanistan to our ideal.  (The Marshall plan worked in the industrialized nations we vanquished in WWII but rehabilitation in China, the Soviet bloc and especially in the third world countries of SE Asia and the island nations, not so much). That was Viet Nam style foolishness in Afghanistan but not a loss at warfare but rather a loss at nation building a tribal conglomeration that wasn’t seeking what we were selling.   Smart move to finally get out. Trump started that and campaigned against forever wars, Biden finished it. (Bipartisan as it gets).   Not perfect on the dismount but I have a friend who flew a copter off the embassy in Saigon who says that they did better than we did in Viet Nam.  (People forget the "boat people” and the refugees in Thailand that weren’t adults in the seventies.).  We didn’t lose, we finally got smart that continuing as an outsider to participate in a civil war is a fools errand.  Korea, Viet Nam, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan.  Some lessons are hard to learn. 

Bin laden was already dead...

We didn't really defeat Alqueda merely gave rise to Isis and whatever other terrorist group is now running amok.

Agreed America hasn't done a good job learning from their failed attempts at imperialism.

 

1 hour ago, 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 don't give a f what anyone thinks about tyrannical governments or why the Founders had that in mind. It wasn't likely a bunch of untrained guys would beat the strongest military force in the world at that time either. Common sense is a term used and defined by those who want to limit rights.  Again, If people want to change things go find 2/3 or 3/4. Until then people can suck it.

 

26 minutes ago, garingovt2000 said:

Which 1 Free Agent do you think we should target most in Free Agency?  No gun talk answers please

Jimmy G:

17 minutes ago, Bacarty2 said:

Plus I love this...

Afgan/Iraq held off America and took there countries over with untrained, quasi unarmed citizens and yet Americans citizens(millions of which have combat training) cant hold off our own military(that would be split in 2) 

 

So both standing governments in Iraq and Afghanistan lost to the US military.  Iraq did have an insurgency that killed American troops but it's not like the insurgency led to a return of the prior Iraqi government.  Iraq was a far more stable state and government.  They are still rebuilding but they have a Prime Minister who is leading a stable government that seems to be pushing for surrounding countries to resolve conflicts and limit insurgents/terrorists.  It's not at all comparable to Afghanistan and militarily the insurgency did not destabilize the government.  

Afghanistan wasn't a military defeat.  In fact, what was the Taliban does not exist.  The leadership was destroyed. The remnants of the officials and army was destroyed. There are 2 groups journalists are calling Taliban but they are really Haqquani Network and Isil-K.   What happened is we tried to nation build rather than follow the Powell doctrine and have an exit strategy from the outset.  We tried to install a government that was unpopular and unstable.   Haqquani and Isil are fighting amongst themselves for control.  What we are calling the Taliban taking power are the Haqqanis.  The hope would be that they will weaken each other to the point other political groups that are better can take control.  

7 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

I don't give a f what anyone thinks about tyrannical governments or why the Founders had that in mind. It wasn't likely a bunch of untrained guys would beat the strongest military force in the world at that time either. Common sense is a term used and defined by those who want to limit rights.  Again, If people want to change things go find 2/3 or 3/4. Until then people can suck it.

 

Maybe New Jersey that will just pass a law that would allow a neighbor to sue a neighbor for $10,000 if they own an AR-15.  

1 hour ago, Utebird said:

Yes kill people not tanks.

Like I said too many gun owners have this skewed view of defending their rights against a tyrannical government by hiding in the woods  and calling them selves wolverines.

The only reason to own an AR 15 is to shoot other people and in the case one is doing that against the US armed forces like I said your AR 15 isn't much help against a tank or a missle equipped drone.

If you want to own an AR 15 fine I challenge you to come up with an actual reason to own one, stop using the excuse that you need it to defend yourself from a tyrannical government it's an illogical argument.

 

 

Yup wasnt he sacked a record amount of times in more than 1 season?

It's fun to shoot, I can, and I know it pisses people like you off. I own one and I've never shot anyone with it so I guess that kills your theory. 

20 minutes ago, Bacarty2 said:

you kid can be mowed down by a car just as easy. your kid can be stabbed(as well as as his classmates) with a knife just as easy.

Let's not bring up how easy it is to make a home made bomb. 

Like I said, You dont want an AR, AK, etc, dont buy one. You dont want to had 3-400 horsepower to your car dont. You dont want your kid playing violent games, dont. But stop trying to take the rights away from other people 

Yet car ownership and operation is highly regulated no?

Speed limits, traffic laws, seatbelts, annual registration, licensure, recertification,  eye tests, written tests, driving tests ect...

Why not make common sense regulations for firearms to protect society much like we do to protect society from the dangers of automobile operation.

As for bombs while it may be easy I'm pretty sure it's also illegal to make a bomb, and if one wants to legally make one one needs to take the required steps to do so legally.

As for knives how many people can you kill with a knife in 30 seconds?

I'm not trying to take rights away from anyone, would you say the government saying you can't own an automatic weapon is in violation of your rights?

Then neither is making other common sense gun laws no?

 

 

Good grief, did all this gun talk start because of Ruggs?  

Saw an article on FB today about how the Colts would soon face the tough choice of whether or not to bench Wentz.  Statistically, he's much better this year, but he still has those few plays every game that make you want to throw something at your TV.  

The trouble is they are 3-5 and you can definitely see a path to the playoffs.   Easy games they have left are the Jags 2x, the Jets, and the Texans.  That gives them at least 7 wins.  Hard games are Raiders, Cardinals, Patriots, Buccaneers and BIlls.  If they can go 3-2 vs that group the Colts are in the playoffs. So: do you keep playing Wentz and go for the playoff berth or bench him and keep your pick?  I obviously want that pick, but I think if you've got a legit playoff shot you need to take it. 

1 minute ago, greend said:

It's fun to shoot, I can, and I know it pisses people like you off. I own one and I've never shot anyone with it so I guess that kills your theory. 

Your guns have shot less people than Alec Baldwins prop guns..    And he is anti 2A

1 minute ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

My current view.  
 

 

Piece of Trivia....  The Eagles started out as a backing band for Linda Ronstadt

3 minutes ago, greend said:

It's fun to shoot, I can, and I know it pisses people like you off. I own one and I've never shot anyone with it so I guess that kills your theory. 

It doesn't piss people off, I've shot many guns since I was a kid, my dad got me a BB gun when I was 8 then around 12 I shot my grandpa's bolt action 22 then through the years I've shot all sorts of hand guns rifles and shot guns.

Never an AR 15 though my brother in law has one and has offered to take me to the range with it.

Not sure where you're going with the you own one and have t killed anyone with it so it ends my theory, what theory was that???

7 minutes ago, EricAllenPick6 said:

Good grief, did all this gun talk start because of Ruggs?  

Saw an article on FB today about how the Colts would soon face the tough choice of whether or not to bench Wentz.  Statistically, he's much better this year, but he still has those few plays every game that make you want to throw something at your TV.  

The trouble is they are 3-5 and you can definitely see a path to the playoffs.   Easy games they have left are the Jags 2x, the Jets, and the Texans.  That gives them at least 7 wins.  Hard games are Raiders, Cardinals, Patriots, Buccaneers and BIlls.  If they can go 3-2 vs that group the Colts are in the playoffs. So: do you keep playing Wentz and go for the playoff berth or bench him and keep your pick?  I obviously want that pick, but I think if you've got a legit playoff shot you need to take it. 

I actually listen to an interview on WIP with Mike Garofolo and he talked about the entire situation. Was a good listen. He sounded pretty confident when he said if the Colts are not in position to make the playoffs they would bench him to save that pick. The next two games are absolutely huge for the Colts playoff chance and the Eagles getting that first round pick. If they lose either one of these games to the Jets or the Jaguars that’s a huge blow cause they are likely losing at bills and at Bucs after that. Which would mean they’d sit at 4-8. So hoping the colts take care of business tonight 

8 minutes ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

My current view.  
 

 

No Phillies talk here either. 

5 minutes ago, Ipiggles said:

Piece of Trivia....  The Eagles started out as a backing band for Linda Ronstadt

True.

5 minutes ago, Ipiggles said:

Piece of Trivia....  The Eagles started out as a backing band for Linda Ronstadt

Yup, also Boz Scaggs and Steve Miller went to school together, and Scaggs was Miller's original lead singer.

13 minutes ago, NCiggles said:

Maybe New Jersey that will just pass a law that would allow a neighbor to sue a neighbor for $10,000 if they own an AR-15.  

Would be interesting. We'll see how the Texas abortion thing goes.

8 minutes ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

I do applaud you for trying the change the subject though.  

I thought of a genius offensive strategy the Eagles should do, particularly at the goal line. Line up Mailata at RB and hand him the ball. Thoughts?

2 minutes ago, Alphagrand said:

Yup, also Boz Scaggs and Steve Miller went to school together, and Scaggs was Miller's original lead singer.

And Mick Fleetwood and John McVie started out as the rhythm section for John Mayall's Blue Band, which also had Peter Green and Eric Clapton, though not at the same time.

Must hold tongue...fooozball!

2 minutes ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

I actually listen to an interview on WIP with Mike Garofolo and he talked about the entire situation. Was a good listen. He sounded pretty confident when he said if the Colts are not in position to make the playoffs they would bench him to save that pick. The next two games are absolutely huge for the Colts making the playoffs in the Eagles getting that first round pick. If they lose either one of these games to the Jets or the Jaguars that’s a huge blow cause they are likely losing at bills and at Bucs after that. Which would mean they’d sit at 4-8. So hoping the colts take care of business tonight 

The Titans are also facing the Rams and Saints next.  Without Henry, they are not going to be the same kind of offense.  If the Colts are 5-5 and the Titans are 6-4, I don't see how they don't start Wentz in game 11. Even if the Colts lose and the Titans beat the Texans, I still think they would have to start him again in game 12.  

24 minutes ago, Wentz_Era said:

I'm trying to stay out of this as much as I can, but just so everyone is tracking...an AR is literally a ranch rifle that looks 'cool'.  The 5.56/223 round is designed to kill varmint.  Also most mass shootings are done with handguns...and that's enough.  /convo you're welcome.

Well most mass shootings sure, but the deadlier mass shootings aren’t involving hand guns. They didn’t injure over 500 in Vegas with a handgun. 
 

Rather obvious most mass shootings are gonna happen with the weapon easier to conceal. 

10 minutes ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

I actually listen to an interview on WIP with Mike Garofolo and he talked about the entire situation. Was a good listen. He sounded pretty confident when he said if the Colts are not in position to make the playoffs they would bench him to save that pick. The next two games are absolutely huge for the Colts playoff chance and the Eagles getting that first round pick. If they lose either one of these games to the Jets or the Jaguars that’s a huge blow cause they are likely losing at bills and at Bucs after that. Which would mean they’d sit at 4-8. So hoping the colts take care of business tonight 

I made that argument a day or two ago and was vilified for it. I bruise easily so I went in the corner and sucked my thumb.

I feel better now.

29 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

I don't give a f what anyone thinks about tyrannical governments or why the Founders had that in mind. It wasn't likely a bunch of untrained guys would beat the strongest military force in the world at that time either. Common sense is a term used and defined by those who want to limit rights.  Again, If people want to change things go find 2/3 or 3/4. Until then people can suck it.

 

Do you feel the government banning the use of automatic weapons by civilians is limiting rights?

If so why?

If not than why would regulating assault rifles be any different?