I admit it...

[Eli]

...every time I see Chuck review a Pixar movie I'm tempted to give Oleg twenty bucks to describe the movie while baked.

I smell a podcast!

[Quality Start Machine]

...every time I see Chuck review a Pixar movie I'm tempted to give Oleg twenty bucks to describe the movie while baked.

I smell a podcast!

Podcasts smell like Oleg's apartment...all weed and dog farts.

[Wheezer]

... For that matter, the only way I can tell that the Lesser Sacrament is wearing off at this point is when the interminable, hospitalization-worthy earworm of the fucking Lester Fisher theme song* starts to not have me gazing over the third-floor railing.

* See O'Kea's, Shitty's.

[Tonker]

... For that matter, the only way I can tell that the Lesser Sacrament is wearing off at this point is when the interminable, hospitalization-worthy earworm of the fucking Lester Fisher theme song* starts to not have me gazing over the third-floor railing.

* See O'Kea's, Shitty's.

Nope.  No fucking idea.

[World's #1 Astros Fan]

... For that matter, the only way I can tell that the Lesser Sacrament is wearing off at this point is when the interminable, hospitalization-worthy earworm of the fucking Lester Fisher theme song* starts to not have me gazing over the third-floor railing.

* See O'Kea's, Shitty's.

Nope.  No fucking idea.

Something about getting high, then coming down from it & catching vertigo somehow, I think.

[SKO]

...In a fit of rage last night I nearly bumped the "Gutless Fucking Assholes" thread, but no. Not for this team. Never for this team.

If I could find that goddamn thread I'd have bumped it today. Fucking hell

[WTB...A RING FFS!!]

We need to change the title of the runs thread to "Score 4 Fucking Runs Thread".

[SKO]

......I engaged one of Fork's facebook friends in an argument. My shame is eternal.

[Quality Start Machine]

......I engaged one of Fork's facebook friends in an argument. My shame is eternal.

They were the last group of people on the internet left.

[SKO]

......I engaged one of Fork's facebook friends in an argument. My shame is eternal.

They were the last group of people on the internet left.

Nah, that would be Morph's facebook, and even I wouldn't touch that with a ten foot pole.

[CBStew]

After the police shootings in Louisiana and Minnesota I was going to argue for disarming the police.  Then came the shooting of the police in Dallas.  Now I think we must disarm the whole country.   

[Chuck to Chuck]

After the police shootings in Louisiana and Minnesota I was going to argue for disarming the police.  Then came the shooting of the police in Dallas.  Now I think we must disarm the whole country.   

We can't do that. The constitution gives us the right to keep and bear arms so as to protect the private citizen from the government.

Then again, the second amendment was written when the armed forces and the civilian citizenry had access to the same types of armaments: Muskets, swords and horses.

Today, the armed forces have tanks, body armor, rapid fire high-capacity firearms. In these modern times, it's pretty hard to say the second amendment gives citizens the capacity to protect themselves from an overzealous government (unless we allow private ownership of tanks).  So, that rational is out the window.

Since no one I have heard is saying the "right to bear arms" is total and absolute (if it is, I want my own personal tactical nuke), there is agreement that arms can be restricted.  Now, we're just haggling over price.

[CT III]

After the police shootings in Louisiana and Minnesota I was going to argue for disarming the police.  Then came the shooting of the police in Dallas.  Now I think we must disarm the whole country.   

We can't do that. The constitution gives us the right to keep and bear arms so as to protect the private citizen from the government.

Then again, the second amendment was written when the armed forces and the civilian citizenry had access to the same types of armaments: Muskets, swords and horses.

Today, the armed forces have tanks, body armor, rapid fire high-capacity firearms. In these modern times, it's pretty hard to say the second amendment gives citizens the capacity to protect themselves from an overzealous government (unless we allow private ownership of tanks).  So, that rational is out the window.

Since no one I have heard is saying the "right to bear arms" is total and absolute (if it is, I want my own personal tactical nuke), there is agreement that arms can be restricted.  Now, we're just haggling over price.

They were also quite literally the same people.

[Quality Start Machine]

After the police shootings in Louisiana and Minnesota I was going to argue for disarming the police.  Then came the shooting of the police in Dallas.  Now I think we must disarm the whole country.   

We can't do that. The constitution gives us the right to keep and bear arms so as to protect the private citizen from the government.

Then again, the second amendment was written when the armed forces and the civilian citizenry had access to the same types of armaments: Muskets, swords and horses.

Today, the armed forces have tanks, body armor, rapid fire high-capacity firearms. In these modern times, it's pretty hard to say the second amendment gives citizens the capacity to protect themselves from an overzealous government (unless we allow private ownership of tanks).  So, that rational is out the window.

Since no one I have heard is saying the "right to bear arms" is total and absolute (if it is, I want my own personal tactical nuke), there is agreement that arms can be restricted.  Now, we're just haggling over price.

First, the whole "protection from the government" thing has been greatly misconstrued over time. The logic in the 18th Century was that this was a preferable solution to having a standing army - American Redcoats, if you will. So the idea was rather than have that, every white man could have their own weapon to be part of a militia when we needed to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government - make no mistake, when "tyranny" is mentioned in the Federalist Papers, it means "England". So in reality, the 2nd Amendment was rendered moot the second the US began keeping a standing army.

Secondly, if you still want to believe the idea was that the citizenry could take arms against the US government, get a quick refresher on the Whisky Rebellion. President Washington (who may have been one of the Founders, I need to look it up), quelled the rebellion with...a well-regulated militia.

Finally, we've established that the right to bear arms is neither total nor absolute - the Firearms Act of 1934 was upheld by the Supreme Court in Miller v United States. Any gun control legislation that could ever get passed (yeah, right), would have Miller as a precedent.

[CBStew]

After the police shootings in Louisiana and Minnesota I was going to argue for disarming the police.  Then came the shooting of the police in Dallas.  Now I think we must disarm the whole country.   

We can't do that. The constitution gives us the right to keep and bear arms so as to protect the private citizen from the government.

Then again, the second amendment was written when the armed forces and the civilian citizenry had access to the same types of armaments: Muskets, swords and horses.

Today, the armed forces have tanks, body armor, rapid fire high-capacity firearms. In these modern times, it's pretty hard to say the second amendment gives citizens the capacity to protect themselves from an overzealous government (unless we allow private ownership of tanks).  So, that rational is out the window.

Since no one I have heard is saying the "right to bear arms" is total and absolute (if it is, I want my own personal tactical nuke), there is agreement that arms can be restricted.  Now, we're just haggling over price.

First, the whole "protection from the government" thing has been greatly misconstrued over time. The logic in the 18th Century was that this was a preferable solution to having a standing army - American Redcoats, if you will. So the idea was rather than have that, every white man could have their own weapon to be part of a militia when we needed to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government - make no mistake, when "tyranny" is mentioned in the Federalist Papers, it means "England". So in reality, the 2nd Amendment was rendered moot the second the US began keeping a standing army.

Secondly, if you still want to believe the idea was that the citizenry could take arms against the US government, get a quick refresher on the Whisky Rebellion. President Washington (who may have been one of the Founders, I need to look it up), quelled the rebellion with...a well-regulated militia.

Finally, we've established that the right to bear arms is neither total nor absolute - the Firearms Act of 1934 was upheld by the Supreme Court in Miller v United States. Any gun control legislation that could ever get passed (yeah, right), would have Miller as a precedent.

In the meantime we are killing each other at an alarming rate.