Neo

I don't think importance of an armed citizenry is measured by its ability to defeat a standing army in a battle or a war. The importance of an armed citizenry lies in the inability of the superior military to subjugate it. See Afghanistan, Iraq. Armed citizens are always in the game, seeking freedom as they define it. After Pearl Harbor, when the Pacific belonged solely to the Japanese, it was suggested that an invasion of the US mainland by Japan would be the logical next step as that nation looked to consolidate its gains and secure the Pacific as its own. Although there's debate with regard to Yamamoto's quote (it doesn't appear in writing, but instead was recorded by one of MacArthur's staff), the Commander in Chief of the Japanese Navy is said to have said "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." Did he say it? I don't know. As to "sorry, ain't happening", I'd take 330 million armed anybodies over any standing military if the battle is to control, dominate and strip of rights. Annihilate? Perhaps. The framers liked those odds and took that risk. The second amendment doesn't guaranty a military victory. It guaranties your right to fight. Have you read Barton yet?

I believe you've made this mistake before. Like all rights in the Bill of Rights, the right to bear arms is an individual right. If you'd like to understand this better, I would recommend David Barton's The Second Amendment. Its a quick, but through, read of the dialogue among the those who debated and drafted the amendment. You'll learn much about intent. Further, it goes into concurrently discussed state constitutions, many of which considered armed citizens important enough to contemplate requiring gun ownership. Interesting stuff. You may wish the 2nd amendment said something different. You may believe the world would be better if the 2nd amendment said something different. You may not assert that the 2nd amendment says something different.

I live in Tampa and drive to Buffalo twice a year to visit family. Not picking one or two will be like getting north to Charlotte and realizing I forgot my wallet. We're half way there ....

Do Pronger and Vinny go into the Hall of Fame as Sabres?

You make me think!

Are you glad that it opens the door to valid (sincere) religious objections and disappointed that it opens the door to invalid (insincere) objections? I'm trying to learn where you draw the line. For me, any insincere objection based on religious grounds would be something I'd want a court to see through and reject. Simultaneously, I hope the court would protect the rights of any sincere objection based on religion. Navigating sincerity is tough, I know. That's life. I think the Hobby Lobby objection was sincere. They're providing almost everything. Their objection was narrow. I don't know anyone who questions their sincerity, agree or disagree.

The concept of how a society treats its women and its poor, as a basis for how it's judged, resonates with me. See Victor Hugo. Awesome. We agree. Where I'm not sure we agree, because I've admittedly not read all 184 pages of this topic, is what Hobby Lobby says about the treatment of women and the poor. Maybe we do, maybe we don't. The religious argument Hobby Lobby advanced is shared by many women and many poor. The medical benefit would be received by many women and poor. I see women and poor on both sides of an argument over a religious right reserved by individuals.

Much obliged.

I'm here to be educated. Is the distinction that the Hobby Lobby "4" allow for conception, but aren't technically abortifacients? I'm not a physician.

About following mandates: The answer to your rhetorical question is "yes", most obviously. That's exactly what the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are about. We may agree or disagree on any particular issue, but the Constitution (with its Amendments) is designed to prevent mandates of the majority (called laws) from trespassing on certain constitutionally protected rights. In the Hobby Lobby case, it's the free exercise of religion by a "firm" that's essentially a person(s). Again, we may agree or disagree on a particular employee benefit, but I hope you understand the role of the Constitution and mandates. About vasectomies: Hobby Lobby did not raise this as an issue. It's the one birth control medical cost that accrues to men. Frankly, I don't know if Hobby Lobby's plan covers vasectomies or not. However, assuming vasectomies are covered, I see nothing but gender consistency despite the shrill cries of "war on women ". Hobby Lobby WILL pay for 14 of 18 birth control choices made by women. It sought relief from paying for 4 methods which prevent or abort pregnancy after conception. Whether the owners believe in contraception or not, they do provide it as a medical benefit to both men and women. On religion: I respect that you believe there's "no room for it". I disagree. My Constitution protects my right to practice my religion and your right not to. Sound good? On denying benefits: Any employer can choose the benefits it wants to provide. If a law requires certain benefits, and if the law passes muster in court challenges of its Constitutionality, then certain benefits have to be provided. This was not the case regarding the 4 excluded contraceptive methods. Hobby Lobby: Narrowly decided ruling on 4 of 18 birth control methods and a firm's responsibility to pay for them when the firm's owners have legitimate religious reservations. Birth control is denied to no one. I don't confuse "they won't buy it for me" with "it's been denied to me". My boss doesn't provide me with food and shelter. It's not denied to me.

For my 400th post, I shall declare: I dig that. I noticed the phrase in PA's sentence referring not to a group of guys, but an era. LGR, perfect encapsulation.

I agree with you 100%.

I've always viewed the LaFontaine trade as a good trade, but not a great trade. Fun fact. LaFontaine scored 385 points as a Sabre, and 447 total NHL points, after the trade to Buffalo. Turgeon scored 1,004 NHL Points after the trade to the NYI. LaFontaine is iconic. He was expensive. Oops, just saw PA's comment. Same sentiment.

Awesome .... I watched his press conference, today. I have this sensation that I'm watching a savant. He was put on earth to be a hockey GM. I'm not convinced he could order wine at dinner or pick up dry cleaning. He is, however, at peace and in control, traveling a path he sees clearly. Like many extraordinary talents, he is frustrated because others seem to be slow on the uptake. He almost seems confused that no one sees what he sees. I find myself more fearful that he'll get bored than I am that he'll fail. I know, we'll all know more in three years. I described him in the magical terms that I've learned are ultimately revealed to be incomplete. I get it. Man, what a first impression ...

In the OPs defense, not that he needs it, I understand the question when asked today. The fact that it's a different question over time is true, but not relevant to me today. Let's ask again then, as well. Obviously, the Reinhart pick is the most meaningful. I like it very much. But, in the spirit of initial impressions, I voted Lemieux. I expected less "thrill" at 31, and got more. The video of Brendan, and the separate video of Claude, are awesome. Reinhart, expectation met. Lemieux, expectation exceeded.

"... assuming Demko would be there."

Butch Goring ....

Ed Staniowski ...

Can I say I'm down with this?

December 2, 1981. I was 20 and a junior at UB. I had a job delivering packaged goods with a retail store near the Main Street campus. I heard a radio story explaining that Gare, Schoenfeld and Smith were traded to Detroit. It was emotional for all fans. For me, it separated my time as a boy, cheering my heros, from my time as an adult, following my team. The passion is unchanged, but the magic of youth disappeared. I grew up with Schoney and Gare. The finals, 50 goal seasons, and fights in the Zamboni corridor went away. Hockey became a sport and a business to me. Important, yes, but painted with the realism brush that touches one thing after another as boys become men. I still love Christmas, but smile when I remember leaving coco and carrots for a jolly old man and reindeer.

Pacioretty .. Holding the stick in game seven, with a lead, in the offensive zone .... the kinda thing you look back on ....

He misses Corsi.

"He can take his'n and beat your'n and take your'n and beat his'n." Bum Phillips

I've confessed before. I'm no scout. I saw much (all?) of the USA WJC tournament. I absolutely loved Fasching. He became my favorite non-Sabre to watch. Big body, great hands, head and heart. Seemed pretty quick, especially for a big man. He skates. I'd say he was a man among boys, but at the WJC, that description isn't as powerful as it would be if he appeared that way in the NHL. Steep price. I suspect he's been on TM's radar for some time. As others have said, I appreciate Murray's strength of conviction. He must have been aware of the risks - inconsistency - and moved anyway.

I was unaware they found the press release sufficient.