Johnny DangerFace

Yes be did

Yea I don't either. I get the slippery slope argument and the gray area arguments as well. But that's what the lawyers are for haha

a little off topic, but what's everyone's thoughts on assisted suicide/death? I brought it up to my girlfriend and she is as liberal as it gets but is extremely against it. I think its their right but ya know

I don't like the idea of the same logo. But matching alternate jerseys would be great

So we could try and sign them to new contracts. Like if the chance of signing Stewart to a new deal is more valuable than the potential return. That's the argument at least. It doesn't work if they aren't in the plans, but either could play roles.

Kirkland had a high potential in nhl 14 lol

hehe STL defense https://www.youtube....h?v=vXcQQAeeC6o

why change them when the supreme court can interpret them however they like :)

Yea i fully agree and I don't either, but it is a well-supported side of the argument so it is a fair one to take I suppose

Haha yea I think everyone enjoys this, it's fun to exercise the mind a little bit and think about stuff that I otherwise don't really consider

Sorry I didn't explain it well, my fault. What I was trying to say was the constitution is interpreted over time differently. So supreme case precedent like you said, is either contradicted or overruled by later supreme court rulings. Meaning they interpreted the constitution differently than their predecessors did. And I was just playing devils advocate :P

Screw those lawbreakers that were the founders of the constitution though, am I right? Those black fools breaking the law and the constitution, forget them too! Laws never change and the constitution is never re-interpreted....

That was too funny and I loved it

How is amnesty unconstitutional?

Yea nice of you to speak for everyone! I don't participate in this thread or root for the sabres to lose. But the topic is clearly meant for some fun and tank talk. Some people actually root for the sabres to lose and have fun, who cares

It's people making light and having fun at a ###### situation. They are literally calling losses wins, and wins losses for all teams. How serious can you take it?

He's one of a few (Fasching also) that are really easy to root for, and I hope (and honestly think) they will make it as NHLers.

His contract will slide if he doesn't play in 10 nhl games, and then after the 3 years he is an RFA

He will be able to play in rochester after the chl season is done edit: see above lol

We are voting tank out for everyone's sake

I love this so much

Also just fyi because I think its interesting too GCoE, in most states the three elements of negligence are (1) the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, (2) the defendant then breached that duty of care, and (3) the defendant's negligent conduct was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's harm. Breaking these down with guns (or cars, or anything with it getting stolen): The first one is tough because in what way does a gun owner owe a duty of care to some stranger. It's an issue of forseability. The person getting harmed would have to be foreseeable, or be a foreseeable victim. IN the stolen car case i mentioned, the courts talked about how another driver would be a foreseeable victim of a getting your car stolen off the lot with keys in the ignition. The second one is easier, as the breach of duty would be leaving that gun loaded in the hallway, or in an unlocked safe perhaps. The third one is the toughest. If you have your gun stolen, and then it is used, that is a tough chain of causation to prove on its own. Not to mention most courts will not accept it on the fact that an intervening criminal act (unless the act itself is foreseeable based on the negligence) usually cancels out proximate cause However, and this is what you wanted, a different claim is negligence per se. Which is when someone violates a safety statute, they are basically negligent. So make it a safety statute to have to have your gun locked up in a certain way, or have it unloaded, etc. And then it gets much more black and white

haha and let's all just argue theories! We don't need my ###### research for that. I think that's the main point of discussion and It's a really interesting one. I think guns should be held to a higher standard, but I don't want to type out all my reasons now lol

Yea no kidding Also just adding to what I posted earlier. Most cases with stolen cars have to deal with dealerships/mechanics and keys left in car (Where a car is stolen off their property, and then involved in an accident). It seems that this is a state-by-state issue. Some states, like the case I mentioned, seem to hold the dealer/mechanic negligent because (1) the crime of stealing the unlocked car with keys in it is foreseeable, (2) a stolen car getting into an accident is a likely result. Some states are not okay with that thought process lol I don't know about the situation you all mentioned with people just leaving cars unlocked or cars getting stolen and then involved in accidents. I'v never read a case on that, but will try to find something tomorrow. I'd imagine it would run into the same problems of causation and intervening criminal acts I'll look more as well because I'm interested in finding some. But it seemed the overwhelming cases I saw didn't find the gun owners liable, and there is decent theories why, (and these are all my opinions with just some basic research, I'm sure I can be proven wrong. I'm not trying to be an expert, just interested in both sides of this and don't mind researching a bit)

Yea, I am by no means an expert, I'm not even smart! It was jsut a basic hour of research on westlaw and lexis. This is a funny story as I actually know this case. A person left their car at the mechanic. The mechanic told them to leave their keys in the car, so they did. Overnight, someone stole the car, and hit killed and someone. It was a controversial decision, but they held the mechanic liable. Causation, and the 3rd party criminal act made this a controversial decision in either Arizona or New Mexico. I will say this though, I think this is an "exception case." I don't know for a fact, but I'd be willing to bet most states would not have the same ruling. I think your point is correct (or in theory should be correct), guns and cars aren't treated any different currently. But I'll take a peak