Dynasty League Football Forum

rock-hammerson wrote:

ninotoreS wrote:Apparently we live in a country where he can do something like that but have no problems keeping his permit. 'Murica, F- yeah!

These are the reason I think we need stricter gun laws. For all the Republicans out there, that doesn't mean taking everyone's guns away. Still a sad day. Guy in my league went to school with him I believe. He drafted him pretty early as a rookie.

I love the argument that Jim Jefferies gives on behalf of gun control. A 15-minute standup routine, hilarious, and makes a ton of sense.

Parts 1 and 2. If you have the time, just take a quick look. Hilarious.

rock-hammerson wrote:

ninotoreS wrote:Apparently we live in a country where he can do something like that but have no problems keeping his permit. 'Murica, F- yeah!

These are the reason I think we need stricter gun laws. For all the Republicans out there, that doesn't mean taking everyone's guns away. Still a sad day. Guy in my league went to school with him I believe. He drafted him pretty early as a rookie.

As a fellow Dem, I'm curious to what "stricter laws" would of prevented this? He's a man that's willing to go to his girlfriends house and shoot into it, so are you thinking had they taken his permit away he wouldn't of had these guns? I don't buy that at all.

This really isn't about stricter gun control to me personally. This was about lack of gun safety. Which i think is the biggest problem out there. When your're careless with a gun, accidents happen. This just happened to be a big one.

Cleats wrote:This really isn't about stricter gun control to me personally. This was about lack of gun safety. Which i think is the biggest problem out there. When your're careless with a gun, accidents happen. This just happened to be a big one.

Thank you!

Stricter gun laws will do NOTHING to prevent incidents like this just like they will not prevent crime. All they will do is impede the law-abiding citizen and criminal activity will increase. In every single case where there are fewer gun laws, there is the ability to conceal and carry (or open carry), etc. crime is lower. This is irrefutable and those arguing for stricter laws over issues such as this are just ignorant of facts.

Cleats wrote:

rock-hammerson wrote:

ninotoreS wrote:Apparently we live in a country where he can do something like that but have no problems keeping his permit. 'Murica, F- yeah!

These are the reason I think we need stricter gun laws. For all the Republicans out there, that doesn't mean taking everyone's guns away. Still a sad day. Guy in my league went to school with him I believe. He drafted him pretty early as a rookie.

As a fellow Dem, I'm curious to what "stricter laws" would of prevented this? He's a man that's willing to go to his girlfriends house and shoot into it, so are you thinking had they taken his permit away he wouldn't of had these guns? I don't buy that at all.

This really isn't about stricter gun control to me personally. This was about lack of gun safety. Which i think is the biggest problem out there. When your're careless with a gun, accidents happen. This just happened to be a big one.

If they took his permit away maybe he would have been less likely to be carrying it in public? Whether or not that would have prevented him from shooting himself at home would be a different story. Generally speaking, things that you know can get you in trouble you're less likely to do.

skip wrote:

Cleats wrote:This really isn't about stricter gun control to me personally. This was about lack of gun safety. Which i think is the biggest problem out there. When your're careless with a gun, accidents happen. This just happened to be a big one.

Thank you!

Stricter gun laws will do NOTHING to prevent incidents like this just like they will not prevent crime. All they will do is impede the law-abiding citizen and criminal activity will increase. In every single case where there are fewer gun laws, there is the ability to conceal and carry (or open carry), etc. crime is lower. This is irrefutable and those arguing for stricter laws over issues such as this are just ignorant of facts.

Stricter gun laws shouldn't really affect law abiding citizens? Again, this is not about taking guns away.

rock-hammerson wrote:

These are the reason I think we need stricter gun laws. For all the Republicans out there, that doesn't mean taking everyone's guns away. Still a sad day. Guy in my league went to school with him I believe. He drafted him pretty early as a rookie.[/quote]

As a fellow Dem, I'm curious to what "stricter laws" would of prevented this? He's a man that's willing to go to his girlfriends house and shoot into it, so are you thinking had they taken his permit away he wouldn't of had these guns? I don't buy that at all.

This really isn't about stricter gun control to me personally. This was about lack of gun safety. Which i think is the biggest problem out there. When your're careless with a gun, accidents happen. This just happened to be a big one.[/quote]
If they took his permit away maybe he would have been less likely to be carrying it in public? Whether or not that would have prevented him from shooting himself at home would be a different story. Generally speaking, things that you know can get you in trouble you're less likely to do.[/quote]


I respect your answer, but disagree. This guy already shot his gun into his GF''s home. Which, i'm pretty sure is illegal, no? If someone is wiling to do that i highly doubt a simple permit or lack thereof will keep them from carrying gun's. Especially for "reasons" many do.

I'm not going to go much farther into this because this is the wrong place, i just hate to see fellow Dem's jump to gun control at the sight of anything involving guns. It's about the person behind the gun, whether careless, stupid or evil. It's never been about the gun.

Why weren't his registered guns taken away after his previous incident? Sure, don't take guns away from law abiding citizens but take them away from assclowns like this!

rock-hammerson wrote:Stricter gun laws shouldn't really affect law abiding citizens? Again, this is not about taking guns away.

I am curious exactly what gun laws you would want to impose to prevent this aside from taking guns away? And I think you need to pay more attention to the laws that are getting passed because that is EXACTLY their intent (taking them away). The entire purpose of the 2nd Amendment if for the citizens of this nation to protect themselves against corrupt government yet you want to allow that very government to control gun ownership of the people...that is illogical.

There is no law you can pass regarding guns to control safety/stupidity...

skip wrote:

rock-hammerson wrote:Stricter gun laws shouldn't really affect law abiding citizens? Again, this is not about taking guns away.

I am curious exactly what gun laws you would want to impose to prevent this aside from taking guns away? And I think you need to pay more attention to the laws that are getting passed because that is EXACTLY their intent (taking them away). The entire purpose of the 2nd Amendment if for the citizens of this nation to protect themselves against corrupt government yet you want to allow that very government to control gun ownership of the people...that is illogical.

There is no law you can pass regarding guns to control safety/stupidity...

It's true that I'm no politician and don't follow these issues like crazy, I'm mainly speaking in favor of common sense. With this specific issue why wasnt his permit removed and then his gun? Just like if you try and ram your car into someone you'd get your license removed in most cases. Just a weird situation. I don't see anything wrong with seeing guns more as a privilege then a right. Call me crazy if you want!

rock-hammerson wrote:With this specific issue why wasn't his permit removed and then his gun?

This is an aspect of this topic that I can partly agree with. I do view ownership as a right...but that said, I also believe that it is a right than can be lost based on one's actions.

skip wrote:

rock-hammerson wrote:With this specific issue why wasn't his permit removed and then his gun?

This is an aspect of this topic that I can partly agree with. I do view ownership as a right...but that said, I also believe that it is a right than can be lost based on one's actions.

This is probably my main point. I can't argue for or against guns because it's like the unstoppable force meets the immovable object.

Eight7Seven wrote: In unsure if you're really adamant about the frequency of false allegations or more likely you were being glib about a serious topic.

i would Never joke about sexual assault.
the statistics are clear. the vast majority of sexual assaults go unreported. in part because the majority of those that are go uncharged. meanwhile the media will NOT be kind to the accuser, like every media outlet rn going out of their way to mention her profession in the agholor case.

if a woman comes forward with these allegations the odds are INCREDIBLY slim they aren't true. so you're best served giving her the benefit of the doubt, and then admiring her bravery.

@FantasySeer wrote:

Eight7Seven wrote: In unsure if you're really adamant about the frequency of false allegations or more likely you were being glib about a serious topic.

i would Never joke about sexual assault.
the statistics are clear. the vast majority of sexual assaults go unreported. in part because the majority of those that are go uncharged. meanwhile the media will NOT be kind to the accuser, like every media outlet rn going out of their way to mention her profession in the agholor case.

if a woman comes forward with these allegations the odds are INCREDIBLY slim they aren't true. so you're best served giving her the benefit of the doubt, and then admiring her bravery.

Strippers walk a different line of business however. It deals specifically with a sexual nature, things unfortunately aren't always so black and white in a strip club. ( Not saying this did or did not happen. Just posting what I have read.) Per NJ.com.

"According to multiple sources who have requested anonymity due to the severity of the allegations, Agholor and a dancer agreed to go to a private room for an hour, but the dancer left shortly after the two entered the room.

The person with knowledge of the incident said Agholor had agreed to pay the woman $1,400 for their time in the private room, but the dancer left before the agreed upon time and Agholor paid her $800.

The person said the dancer wanted the full amount. The dancer left the bar, was picked up by a friend, and the person said she never informed management of the alleged rape.

According to the same source, multiple dancers have told management that Agholor did nothing wrong, including a dancer who was with another Eagles' player throughout the night."

I have no idea what happened. I'm not about to say it did or did not happen, but one of my questions would be, where was security? Why weren't they involved/around? Strange situation. Why and how would a situation like this even be possible?

Also: Obviously the media outlets are reporting her profession. They are not GOING OUT OF THEIR WAY to report her profession. It's an important piece of information to the story, and alleged accusation. He didn't go into a private room to try on a pair of new shoes. It would be poor journalism NOT to mention the circumstances and the profession of the person involved in this case.

MEuRaH wrote:

rock-hammerson wrote:

ninotoreS wrote:Apparently we live in a country where he can do something like that but have no problems keeping his permit. 'Murica, F- yeah!

These are the reason I think we need stricter gun laws. For all the Republicans out there, that doesn't mean taking everyone's guns away. Still a sad day. Guy in my league went to school with him I believe. He drafted him pretty early as a rookie.

I love the argument that Jim Jefferies gives on behalf of gun control. A 15-minute standup routine, hilarious, and makes a ton of sense.

Parts 1 and 2. If you have the time, just take a quick look. Hilarious.

Funny, but stupid...

Shoreline Steamers wrote:

Eight7Seven wrote:

hingle wrote:
And DGB is no saint either. I don't get the idea of feeling guilty because one of your fantasy players doesnt have the same morals as you. Its not like owning means you condone his actions, it just means he scores fantasy points.

I will attempt to reply to this because I'm one of many people who have issues owning players who've done horrible things. I play fantasy football because I find it extremely entertaining. I enjoy thinking about the game of football from a Fantasy perspective. I fell in love with dynasty because it allows me to be GM in my own small way, the same reason I loved Madden Franchise mode in my younger days.

I would be unable to enjoy my own team if I had to look at Vick or Roetlisberger on my roster. You can believe that profitting off of criminally terrible people doesn't mean you condone their actions and maybe you're right. You're taking a logical and detached approach towards the relation of a fantasy player to the human being away from the game.

I'm not personally able to separate emotionally from my team and it would detract from my experience to benefit from certain people.

Maybe it makes me a sucker, but I'm with you Eight7Seven. I don't act on accusation or rumor, but once somethings been proven I'm not very happy to sit on a player I think is a lowlife. It just makes it too hard for me to root for the individual on the field, and that takes away from my enjoyment of the game. I'd rather lose with players I like than win with players I don't. That's just me.

Also FantasySeer, I can't tell by the tone if you're being sarcastic or not, but the NFL thinks enough of these graft/blackmail type scenarios and the people that create them that they school the rookies in the symposium about avoiding them. The facts haven't come out in this case so we can't determine the merit of the assault claim, but I don't believe false accusations against athletes are that uncommon. Agree to disagree maybe.

I understand what you guys are saying and the spirit in which it is stated . For me however, I could care less, as many NFL players and celebrities that are worshipped literally are scum of the earth in real life . Others are despised and are pillars of society. They tell it like it is and have no interest in making $ off the field or cultivating a wholesome image they just go about their business and wish to be left alone.
Perhaps it is just me being jaded after sitting through all 5 episodes of OJ made in america this week but that should be a lesson in why you cannot believe much of what you hear in terms of celebrities reputations. They are coached up and have rough patches sanded down by the agents and publicists and the images are facades to protect marketing interests.
If you need to have boy scouts to have fun who is to say or judge your method but if you won 5 titles w/ the murderer would that night in L.A change your fun would you give the money back or would it matter if the wife had not got butchered but he only beat the hell out of her 10 or 20 times.
For my money, if the billion $ corporations employ them why shouldn't I roster them for my fake football team.