JB CNN vid "Bleeding Orange" | Syracusefan.com

JB CNN vid "Bleeding Orange"

Thanks for posting. A nice piece. Had no idea about the funeral home upbringing.
 
SoBeCuse said:
Thanks for posting. A nice piece. Had no idea about the funeral home upbringing.
Expand...
I knew about that, but didn't know he was so passionate about the gun issue that he was going to say something about it if they had won the NC last year. Jacked up my admiration of him.
 
Cuseregular said:
I knew about that, but didn't know he was so passionate about the gun issue that he was going to say something about it if they had won the NC last year. Jacked up my admiration of him.
Expand...

ahh man, I'm on the fence about that. I realize that that would be one heck of a stage for him to get out, and speak his mind about an issue, and the whole country would hear it, but he is the head coach at SU. He could have his own presser to talk about it, and it would be heard.

I just feel like it would take away from the moment.. It would go from SU wins the NC, to SU Coach rants about gun control at NC presser...
 
I for one was hoping to hear JB talk more about "assault weapons," which of course, is a meaningless, non-existent term.
 
Its funny because guns don't do anything by themselves. Its people always has been always will be. The implementation, ease of access and ease of use has certainly changed overtime but the issue has and always will be people. I'm not against certain controls just the notion that by doing so we in some way are solving a problem. Agree with cusetroop I don't want to hear coaches start giving their social r political views on things after championship wins unless its removed from the event and set up for that purpose. I hated when Costas did it at a fball halftime show. Agree or disagree with the POV I just want it separate from my sports is all.

Stepping down now and going back to sports on that note. :eek:
 
jordoo said:
Its funny because guns don't do anything by themselves. Its people always has been always will be. The implementation, ease of access and ease of use has certainly changed overtime but the issue has and always will be people. I'm not against certain controls just the notion that by doing so we in some way are solving a problem. Agree with cusetroop I don't want to hear coaches start giving their social r political views on things after championship wins unless its removed from the event and set up for that purpose. I hated when Costas did it at a fball halftime show. Agree or disagree with the POV I just want it separate from my sports is all.

Stepping down now and going back to sports on that note. :eek:
Expand...


Well, empirical evidence would indicate that much tighter controls on access to guns can have an effect on the level of violence in a country. Just look at Australia.

The problem, however, is that local police forces are all jacked up about arming themselves like the military, and kicking down the doors of relatively low-risk people in the middle of the night to make their arrests to justify their jobs and the weapons in their possession. Law enforcement is mostly comprised of guys with little who were bullies in high school and never outgrew it.
 
IthacaMatt said:
Well, empirical evidence would indicate that much tighter controls on access to guns can have an effect on the level of violence in a country. Just look at Australia.

The problem, however, is that local police forces are all jacked up about arming themselves like the military, and kicking down the doors of relatively low-risk people in the middle of the night to make their arrests to justify their jobs and the weapons in their possession. Law enforcement is mostly comprised of guys with little who were bullies in high school and never outgrew it.
Expand...

I'm not saying it cannot help with limiting the damage done by violence and also these random shooter events. I'm merely pointing out that it doesn't do anything to solve the core social, economical and personal issues at play that cause these things. Just like your police force issue that you mentioned. Regretably people are always being people and that is the biggest issue although other times people being people is beautifull so there you have it. I hate mixing this with my sports talk though so I'll refrain from further comment here.
 
I'm probably in close agreement with Boeheim on his stance on guns, I'm just not sure why his opinion should count for more than someone else who may disagree with him.
 
jordoo said:
Its funny because guns don't do anything by themselves. Its people always has been always will be. The implementation, ease of access and ease of use has certainly changed overtime but the issue has and always will be people. I'm not against certain controls just the notion that by doing so we in some way are solving a problem. Agree with cusetroop I don't want to hear coaches start giving their social r political views on things after championship wins unless its removed from the event and set up for that purpose. I hated when Costas did it at a fball halftime show. Agree or disagree with the POV I just want it separate from my sports is all.

Stepping down now and going back to sports on that note. :eek:
Expand...
The only people that restrictive gun laws apply to are people who obey the law. People who are bent on killing someone or many persons with guns, will get them. If I am correct, we already have laws against assaulting people or killing people with guns. If laws were what would prevent these things from happening, we are covered.
 
Capt. Tuttle said:
The only people that restrictive gun laws apply to are people who obey the law. People who are bent on killing someone or many persons with guns, will get them. If I am correct, we already have laws against assaulting people or killing people with guns. If laws were what would prevent these things from happening, we are covered.
Expand...

Very true but this is my last comment on it. Must get back to enjoying bball during the tourney.
 
OrangeYaGladi said:
Assault weapons, as a term, means nothing. It is typically used by statist, left-wing types who haven't the slightest clue about guns or gun control policy. An assault rifle is a thing, an assault weapon is not.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/362889/quick-note-weaponry-and-language-charles-c-w-cooke
Expand...


Well, it only "means nothing" if you ignore that it was a defined term in the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 - you know, a law. That definition is:

In general, the AWB defined any firearm with a detachable magazine and at least two of certain other characteristics as an assault weapon.

For rifles, those characteristics included:
  • Telescoping stock
  • Pistol grip
  • Bayonet mount
  • Grenade launcher
  • Flash suppressor
For shotguns:
  • Telescoping stock
  • Pistol grip
  • A capacity to hold more than five rounds
For handguns:
  • Threaded barrels made to attach a barrel extender, handgrip or flash suppressor
  • A barrel shroud that can be used as a handhold
  • Weight of at least 50 oz. when unloaded
Nineteen models of firearms were specifically named in the legislation as assault weapons, while other models were included under the umbrella of the law’s definition of assault weapons.
 
Capt. Tuttle said:
The only people that restrictive gun laws apply to are people who obey the law. People who are bent on killing someone or many persons with guns, will get them. If I am correct, we already have laws against assaulting people or killing people with guns. If laws were what would prevent these things from happening, we are covered.
Expand...


You know, if people go to jail for possession of these things, then it works in the long run. Like I said, look at Australia. They had one of these mass murder shootings with automatic or semi-automatic weapons, and then they said "no more". They had an amnesty. People turned in their guns. And the number of homocides from guns declined very sharply. Australia has the same "wild west" / taming the hostile natives type of history that the US has. They have the same general personality type - pugnacious, don't tread on me. And it worked.
 
CuseTroop said:
ahh man, I'm on the fence about that. I realize that that would be one heck of a stage for him to get out, and speak his mind about an issue, and the whole country would hear it, but he is the head coach at SU. He could have his own presser to talk about it, and it would be heard.

I just feel like it would take away from the moment.. It would go from SU wins the NC, to SU Coach rants about gun control at NC presser...
Expand...
what's cool for him is that he really doesn't care about being PC or anything else perception wise and if he can use his fame or bully pulpit for or to attempt positive societal change he is going to do it. Think that's great and is another reason I now hope we go all the way. One things for sure it would garner debate at all levels from all corners and sides attracting maximum coverage. Love to see it happen.

I don't want to get into the nitty gritty of the discussion here but clearly something need be done with all these shootings lately. Think there's a middle ground between the crowd thinking "they're going after our guns" and the "ban anything that's not a hunting rifle" group, toward a common sense approach for limiting the most destructive weapons, ammo and clips that seem to be used in the mass shootings. Bravo to JB I say, take advantage of your clout and podium to try and make a real difference at the end of your career.
 
Capt. Tuttle said:
The only people that restrictive gun laws apply to are people who obey the law. People who are bent on killing someone or many persons with guns, will get them. If I am correct, we already have laws against assaulting people or killing people with guns. If laws were what would prevent these things from happening, we are covered.
Expand...

Well, there are limits to your logic. There's a pretty good reason why bazookas, 50-caliber machine guns, and stinger missiles are illegal. It's sort like Ayn Rand's Objectivism. It sure sounds and looks good on paper but nobody wants to see any grandmas dying of starvation.
 
Cuseregular said:
what's cool for him is that he really doesn't care about being PC or anything else perception wise and if he can use his fame or bully pulpit for or to attempt positive societal change he is going to do it. Think that's great and is another reason I now hope we go all the way. One things for sure it would garner debate at all levels from all corners and sides attracting maximum coverage. Love to see it happen.

I don't want to get into the nitty gritty of the discussion here but clearly something need be done with all these shootings lately. Think there's a middle ground between the crowd thinking "they're going after our guns" and the "ban anything that's not a hunting rifle" group, toward a common sense approach for limiting the most destructive weapons, ammo and clips that seem to be used in the mass shootings. Bravo to JB I say, take advantage of your clout and podium to try and make a real difference at the end of your career.
Expand...

I agree with just about everything here... I just remember the backlash from Costas deal, and wouldn't want that overshadowing what the team would have accomplished. I agree that JB should be able to use his fame to speak about an important issue, I just think it would be better done on a talk show, or something. The presser should be used to talk about his group of young men.
 
CuseTroop said:
I agree with just about everything here... I just remember the backlash from Costas deal, and wouldn't want that overshadowing what the team would have accomplished. I agree that JB should be able to use his fame to speak about an important issue, I just think it would be better done on a talk show, or something. The presser should be used to talk about his group of young men.
Expand...
that's just it there wouldn't be any backlash from anyone that mattered to him as I'd imagine the university and it's officials would be ok with it. And any back lash would just act to garner more and more attention as it's debated. Hear you on the possible perception away from what the kids and him accomplished but I think he so good these days could accomplish both without slighting the former. Wouldn't it be great is we could see this play out as that would mean another FF and NC!!:D
 
Cuseregular said:
that's just it there wouldn't be any backlash from anyone that mattered to him as I'd imagine the university and it's officials would be ok with it. And any back lash would just act to garner more and more attention as it's debated. Hear you on the possible perception away from what the kids and him accomplished but I think he so good these days could accomplish both without slighting the former. Wouldn't it be great is we could see this play out as that would mean another FF and NC!!:D
Expand...


Right on, brotha!
 
IthacaMatt said:
Well, it only "means nothing" if you ignore that it was a defined term in the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 - you know, a law. That definition is:

In general, the AWB defined any firearm with a detachable magazine and at least two of certain other characteristics as an assault weapon.

For rifles, those characteristics included:
  • Telescoping stock
  • Pistol grip
  • Bayonet mount
  • Grenade launcher
  • Flash suppressor
For shotguns:
  • Telescoping stock
  • Pistol grip
  • A capacity to hold more than five rounds
For handguns:
  • Threaded barrels made to attach a barrel extender, handgrip or flash suppressor
  • A barrel shroud that can be used as a handhold
  • Weight of at least 50 oz. when unloaded
Nineteen models of firearms were specifically named in the legislation as assault weapons, while other models were included under the umbrella of the law’s definition of assault weapons.
Expand...
A good example of the problem with relying on arbitrarily defined terms by the US Congress:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...le-now-legal-new-york-state-charles-c-w-cooke
 
IthacaMatt said:
Well, it only "means nothing" if you ignore that it was a defined term in the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 - you know, a law. That definition is:

In general, the AWB defined any firearm with a detachable magazine and at least two of certain other characteristics as an assault weapon.
Nineteen models of firearms were specifically named in the legislation as assault weapons, while other models were included under the umbrella of the law’s definition of assault weapons.
Expand...

OK, so previously it had no definition, so "politicians" defined the term? Like nothing can go wrong with that... And now NY has now reduced that number of "additional characteristics" to one to make it an AW.

Most of those characteristics are cosmetic. Let's face it - the guns look menacing and scary to people. So let's ban them on looks. The number of shootings perpetrated by bad guys using as-defined-by-career-BS-artists AWs is miniscule. But crime's not the issue. The issue is control.

Besides...AW have no legitimate use for shooting deer (oh, wait, the Constitution has nothing to do with hunting?)

And, of course, they have no legitimate use for self-defense
WHEN ‘ASSAULT WEAPONS’ SAVED KOREATOWN
 
Capt. Tuttle said:
The only people that restrictive gun laws apply to are people who obey the law. People who are bent on killing someone or many persons with guns, will get them. If I am correct, we already have laws against assaulting people or killing people with guns. If laws were what would prevent these things from happening, we are covered.
Expand...


And the only people that laws against murder apply to are would-be murderers. That's just circular logic. We should have no laws because you can't legislate away human behavior .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
167,724
Messages
4,723,233
Members
5,917
Latest member
FbBarbie

Share this page

Online statistics

Members online
284
Guests online
2,210
Total visitors
2,494
Totals may include hidden visitors.


Top Bottom