His Greatness

He's the Cavs' most talented offensive big. I don't know what their rotation is like, but with Varejao out, I think they could afford him a few minutes to prove his value. He's a natural scorer and a worthless defender, so he's essentially the anti-Varejao.

Best player in the NFL.

http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/2106599/BCD73b2CYAELdCX.jpg

girl's name girl's name

Anyone else see Pau get hit in the face by Dwight's mouthpiece?

My gut is San Fran, but I hope Tim Tebow and the Ravens can make it a good game.

http://boston.3432.voxcdn.com/files/2013/01/rides.jpg

I think new content only shows topics with new/unread posts, whereas active content would've shown the day's active topics.

That poor rock.

Board looks great Brandon. Happy Anniversary everybody. is there still an active content function?

You wouldn't have lost count if you went to high school!

Don't judge. Pay is good, and I get to have sex with tons of attractive people. Only downside is all the ass pain.

Topic.

It would have to be someone that was still alive/active, so I'd probably go with Radiohead, Kanye, and idk, maybe Nas.

I think they're saying it was Ray Lewis. EDIT: lol just saw Cobb's post. Great timing.

Wouldn't it be great if they did though? How quick would that dwindle their population.

Did you know that they laid off their cops. srs First of all, that very question is self-contradictory. Who are we making safer exactly by capping purchases on ammo? It's not that I don't want to make a sacrifice, but I question whether or not it's the right decision. It's just too easy to ban semi-automatic rifles and high capacity mags. Americans are reasonably upset and they want a solution. So they figure, let's take away the guns. Why not? It's worked before, right? (It hasn't.) The thing is, I think it's an underlying issue that lies much deeper than that. Of course, the head guys in charge don't want to even attempt at solving the problem, so they go with the cop out. And so now we Americans will have less firearms. Statistics will probably fluctuate, they might even drop a few numbers. But when that next thing happens—whatever it is—that gets us discussing guns again, they'll be touting a new solution that will probably be banning something else. Then everyone will be happy again for a while until more people die.

Why does it have to be any of those? People who enjoy shooting know that you could burn through hundreds of rounds in a matter of hours. Yeah, it's a lot, but not really an overly suspicious purchase. I kinda agree, but there should be some exceptions. Like, if you lived in Camden, why not let them incorporate a bulletproof vest in their daily outfit?

eh, honestly, 6,000 rounds isn't that much for a single purchase. Regardless, it's still a lot of bullets, but how do you define what is excessive? What are you referring to when you say "advanced ballistic gear"?

Brandon, just say that you agree AR-15s shouldn't be banned, I know you do.

My answer is not really, but we shouldn't take away any grandfathered ones.

What a pompous cunt. Who spends time justifying themselves during an apology?

wtf, no one is equipping mass murderers, we're (needlessly) unequipping honest citizens. Yes, we should do a better job screening, but there's no reason for another assault weapons ban that historically has made virtually no impact. BTW, there was already an assault weapons ban in Connecticut when that kook went off. So there.

http://liberty.com/content/teenager-uses-ar-15-defend-home-intruder This happened last week. Could he have thwarted the intruders with a Glock or any other handgun? Sure. But the fact is he picked up an AR-15. It wasn't out of malice, and he didn't have homicidal fantasies... he had to defend his sister. Maybe he felt more comfortable with the AR-15 and the superior range and precision it offered. Perhaps he felt that he needed more rounds to thwart the intruders, I don't know, but that family purchased that gun with self-defense (amongst other things) in mind, and it served its purpose. I don't need to drive to work, it's walking distance. I don't need to have a big screen TV, but I still bought it because I liked it. I don't need to be posting this at all, but I still am because I want to. So when you ask me why I need an AR-15, my answer is that I don't, but I also don't need it to be taken away. What happens when the "assault weapons" ban inevitably fails and does nothing? Do I really need to have more than one gun for self defense? Why not rubber bullets? etc. etc. There isn't a by the book number to how many shots you need to deter an x amount of intruders. It's impossible to gauge a highly intense situation like that and how any individual person will handle themselves. It's also nearly impossible that each shot accurately hits its target. Either way, I don't felt too strongly about this because I feel like it's such a non-issue. Any gun owner with a modicum of proficiency can/should reload effortlessly. Agreed on both counts.