Neo

How 1776 of you! I respect your call for a return to the debate and compromise that gave birth to this nation. States rights, limited central government. PM me and I'll forward contact information for your local Tea Party chapter!

I dabble, good friend. Credibility is a long way off. I want to visit, to touch, to hear, to smell, to taste. BRB, googling Gorky.

Nikolai Gogol, Dead Souls, caps, barter, value. GoDD, Yuri, this thread. Synthesis.

Now I know why we see so many number 2 goalies. Break up the Sabres!

Interesting link. Richie Dunn and Tyler Myers have nearly identical point stats. Pass the chips ...

Should the Sabres pull this off, and claim the CHL crown, to whom shall we award the sHart Memorial Trophy? Now there's a poll. Is Andre Benoit an early favorite? FTR, I am admittedly wishy washy on the tank. I've found myself soundly in both the pro and anti tank ranks. More often than not, though, I find myself limp and crying imagining the sound of "And with the 9th over all pick, the Buffalo Sabres select ....".

If Marone's skin was as thick as Tank's, he'd still be coaching in Buffalo ... the kid is unperturbed. Post on, post on.

Favorite: Ray Best: Grigorenko

Dom. I'd include him in a greatest player at any position conversation. Trophies, awards, Gold Medals, Cups, highlight reals, carried a team for years, changed the position, you name it. Quirky bastard, too. Personal highlights: 72 save shutout in the playoffs (I attended; made Dave Hannan famous); stoning Lemiuex from the slot, alone, with time (Lemiuex looked to the rafters as the whistle blew).

"and where there's a Gil, there's a waaAAayyyy". Favorite. "the heroes of your youth are the heroes of your life ..." My vote for best would be different. I believe there's another thread for that, and I'll look .... My favorite honorables: Dudley, Spencer, Gare, Playfair, Ramsey, Luce/Ramsey, Crozier, May, Foligno Sr., McGuire, Howerchuck ... and last, but not least, Robbie Ray. A gracious thank you to Dudacek for the idea and effort.

Very cool. I am old enough to remember those games, and have been lurking here long enough to get the references! Great effort, 11. A gift to us, and I'm grateful.

I follow. A consideration, ceteris paribus.

I'll log in for this one. I'm in. I've got an ol' mule, her name is Sal .....

My mom flew, mid seventies, on a commercial flight with the Sabres. She said, amazed, "they all smoked". I remember going to a practice during the playoffs, 1975 ish, and talking to Brian Spencer in the parking lot. He brought us in to watch. The practice was closed during the playoffs. We were standing in the hallway watching the players arrive and go into the locker room. I heard a voice singing The Platters "Only You". The singer rounded the corner. It was Gil. He was with Larry Mickey and a third player I don't remember. Perreault and Mickey were smoking. I was shocked. What a day, though. Jerry Korab taunted Perreault throughout the practice. "Come on, Superstar." Everyone skated by Gary Bromley and jabbed him with sticks, poked at his skates, tugged his jersey, etc.

Enter, stage right. GMTM: "Good evening and welcome to Buffalo. Islanders, you pick first, again. (Snicker)" Exit, stage right.

The 2006 teams wins it all without a run of injuries that can be called extraordinary. In 1975, the better team won. I was at the 1975 final game. I lost my 8th grade "Perfect Attendance" certificate because I lined up all night for SRO seats.

"Some day a real rain will come and wash all the scum off the streets." The only band that matters (with props to Travis Bickle).

... funded by 4 units of tax sourced subsidies. I welcome the humanitarian debate, but am encumbered by the math of it all. If it's six units of demand with two units of labor, alone, the quality of life argument is strained. If it's six/two with subsidy, I'll want to know whose subsidy is being depleted. I'll support funded humanitarianism with an understanding of the source. Whatever unit of labor subsidizes the four reduces the subsizers' ability to fund their demand, dollar for dollar. Now, I know that if all goes well in twenty years the four will be creating their own wealth. That assumes all goes well. What evidence do we have that four out of four subsidized children will break out of the cycle of poverty and produce. Subsidizing our own citizens for fifty years has shown mixed results. I am not convinced that the US has a labor shortage when the unemployment rate, giving due to part timers who'd rather be full timers and recognize those who've stopped looking, exceeds 12%. (I invite fact checkers, here). I understand the two in your scenario would take low wage jobs that aren't attractive to most. That won't help the 12% currently rejecting those low wage jobs. Immigration policy, I believe, is best employed when the US looks for the skills and talent it needs and allows those individuals to become citizens. It's planned, studied and systematic. More, more! The current situation is less designed immigration and more humanitarian need. Here, here, but show me the money. I'm a good guy, but I pay my bills first.

Again, more care could be exercised when I choose my words. Would you allow "the Constitutionally muddy executive order that executes beyond the letter of the law or proscribes execution to the letter of the law"? I am thinking, for instance, of the executive order suspending or delaying the employer mandate in the ACA. I come, I read, I learn.

Methinks Boehner is referring to the Chief Executive "faithfully executing the laws of the United States", a Constitutional imperative, and not to the Chief Executive inacting executive orders, at best a Constitutional question mark. Who knows, though, no one in Washington seems to be above any inconsistancy or hypocrasy. Further, he didn't call me for advice before speaking. Imagine that ...

The legislative process was designed to allow for obstruction. It was contemplated and designed by the founding fathers to be inefficient. Starts, fits, and stalls were seen as necessary to slow legislation while public opinion congealed over time and while representatives from multiple parties serving two, four and six year terms came and went. The tension allows for the trajectory of consensus over the life of a nation. It looks herky jerky when viewed session to session, election to election. It's sustainably cumbersome and immune to whim.

Thoughtful. I enjoy your posts.

I think you're making my point because I wasn't clear. Armed citizens may not prevail. There's no guaranty. My point is that governments grow and take rights. Armed citizens are in the game to a greater extent than unarmed citizens. You can subjugate armed citizens. It's more difficult than subjugating the unarmed. And yes, armed citizens can, themselves, become tyrannical. I will think about the Syrians. I would not call Ukranian rebels armed citizens in the context we're discussing. Afghans aren't free because of armed and conflicted tribes and because of a fundamental inexperience with liberty as much as because of anything else. One more thing. The absence of a culture of freedom plays a great role in the countries you mentioned. There are, of course, many factors.

As you all have figured out, I'm a huge second amendment (any amendment!) guy. I also believe governments inexorably grow and an armed citizenry is a deterrent to growth at the expense of rights. I'd argue history is on my side in terms of my ability to offer evidence. That said, I certainly recognize limitations and common sense for safety. Waiting periods? Of course. Locks and cases, sure! Concealed weapons courses that are more than fairground factories designed to spit out certificates, yes sir. Background checks, have at it. Registration with the government, no way. I think, as someone said, the resistance to limitations by some falls under the slippery slope theory. Incrementalism is a tactic. A real debate? Where are your limits after acknowledging the natural and individual right, endowed by your creator and memorialized in your Constitution, to bear arms? That'd be fun. Full disclosure. I came to this issue late in life because of my interest in the Constitution. I put myself through the rigor of training and testing as an exercise. My view? Concealed carry permits aren't difficult to obtain and should be. Arrgghhhh, ye moldy deck swabs. Bring me my grog and shot! (I am fond of Yuri's posts).

For your consideration .... I offer several of many original dialogues and notes from the framers, the judiciary, and the legal community of the time .... First, notes from the US Senate and its Judiciary Committee as it considered the House language (what we know as today's second amendment): "The Senate in the process indicated its intent that the right be an individual one, for private purposes, by rejecting an amendment which would have limited the keeping and bearing of arms to bearing for the common defense." Another trio that I found informative because of the language chosen: "A militia are, in fact, the people themselves and are, for the most part, employed at home and in their private concerns." Richard Henry Lee, signer of the Declaration of Independence and and a framer of the second amendment, in congress. "The militia is composed of free citizens." Samuel Adams, signer of the Declaration of Independence, but not in congress at the time the amendment was drafted. "Who are the militia? They are the whole people." George Mason, delegate to the Constitutional Convention, "Father of the Bill of Rights." So, I will amend my prior post. You can assert whatever you like about the second amendment. You cannot, however, speak to the intent of the drafter and the framers, nor to their intent, with evidence. I selected these excerpts after thumbing through this 70 page book. I have others, but this one's convenient. If i'm not persuasive, again I would encourage you to read more. These aren't meant to be the strongest evidence I could find. Together, they are the first I found. For the record ... I'm no 'gun guy', per se. I am, however, a constitutional guy not willing to ignore its inconveniences nor misrepresent its intent. Above all, I am committed to the rights of individuals. Addendum: Interesting State Constitution excerpts, many written in the same general time frame, or shortly after, the US Constitution came together. What does this suggest about the intent of our leaders, drafters, and framers? You'll see several states falling under more than one excerpt. Language has been adopted and amended. I haven't done this chronologically. Some language appeared a century and a half AFTER our second amendment. "The right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." Kentucky, Missouri, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Vermont, Washington, Wyoming. "The right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Georgia. "Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms in defense of himself and the State." Alabama, Connecticut, Florida, Indiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Vermont. "The people have the right to bear arms for their security and defense." Idaho, Kansas and Utah. "The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto called legally summoned, shall be called in to question." Colorado, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana. Other states, while silent on arms, referenced the right to defend and protect, without limitation. There's more. The passages on an individual's responsibility to arm himself are also interesting and go well beyond the right to arm. We live in a nation, under a constitution, whose founders clearly intended each of us to have the right to arm himself. They held this view in a society comprised of local and state governments, and citizens, inclined in the same direction. There was no intent controversy. Lastly - http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm