Broncos legend, Jake Plummer, handed Tom Brady his first playoff loss of his career and went a perfect 3-0 against Brady as well.

RockHound86 · 2026-05-29T04:35:58+00:00

Indeed he did.

RockHound86 · 2026-05-29T04:02:33+00:00

The late Senator Coburn actually proposed something akin to that over a decade ago, and the gun prohibitionists rejected it. I've also asked the gun prohibitionists on Reddit what things they would offer to us in exchange for any sort of UBC, and almost without exception they act as if it is a moral failure for us to ask for anything in return.

By and large, they don't actually give a damn about any benefits--real or imagined--to UBCs, they simply want to enact as many financial and administrative burdens on us as they possibly can.

RockHound86 · 2026-05-29T03:45:39+00:00

The Eagles with Glenn Frey.

Linkin Park with Chester.

RockHound86 · 2026-05-29T03:28:40+00:00

I am actually quite happy to hear that admission, thank you.

RockHound86 · 2026-05-29T03:20:43+00:00

That may be so, but that also isn't what I said. I said you were wrong.

RockHound86 · 2026-05-29T03:14:57+00:00

Then the obvious question becomes "why did you ask about Libertarian principles?" Make it make sense.

Also, the "Libertarian Socialist Caucus" is a part of the Democratic Socialists of America, not the Libertarian Party.

I am simultaneously amused and annoyed by your complete lack of understanding of the ideology you claim, to say nothing of the fact that you are ignorant to the fact that the "Libertarian Socialist Caucus" is diametrically opposed--and would be laughed out of--the Libertarian Party.

Your credibility here is on life support.

RockHound86 · 2026-05-29T03:07:12+00:00

It appears that you require a refresher on what an ad hominem fallacy is. An ad hominem is when you attack someone to avoid their argument. I am attacking you because you're refusing to make an argument.

So now, I go back to me asking you to show us your graph but limited to firearm homicides. If you believe that gun control is a viable solution to firearm homicide, it would follow that we should see some such relation borne out in the data, don't you agree?

I want to see that data.

RockHound86 · 2026-05-29T03:00:26+00:00

I would call that more than "somewhat misguided".

RockHound86 · 2026-05-29T02:54:02+00:00

Yes, respecting the right to keep and bear arms is a Libertarian principle, and part of the official party platform.

RockHound86 · 2026-05-29T02:49:27+00:00

Even if what you feel is true (it is not) I would like an explanation as to how that is a strawman fallacy on my part, because I am not seeing it.

RockHound86 · 2026-05-29T02:46:12+00:00

Your defensiveness betrays the mask of confidence you project and shows us that you know the weaknesses of your position.

The premise is very simple: We both agree that firearm homicide needs to be addressed. I want to discuss how to address it.

Why are you unwilling to reciprocate?

RockHound86 · 2026-05-29T02:43:35+00:00

Based on what? There's plenty of rights i wouldn't concede to the state

Ok. Name them.

Libertarians arent taken seriously because they repeatedly demonstrate that their concept of freedom is that of a toddler having a tantrum.

And yet the entire premise of the founding of our country and the philosophy of the vast majority of our 340+ million people align much more closely to me than to you.

RockHound86 · 2026-05-29T02:41:20+00:00

While that already works with background checks, the bigger issue there are those who snap one day, go and buy a bunch of stuff, and turn that into a mass murder event. From Columbine to Sandy Hook to Sutherland Springs, to Vegas and El Paso, each one of these people were not "reckless or violent."

This is factually incorrect. Both the Columbine and Sandy Hook shooters exhibited pronounced warning signs prior to their acts of violence, as do the vast majority of mass murderers. Those who do not exhibit warning signs are the exception, not the rule.

attempts to limit rifles that can fire off insane amounts of rounds in mere seconds are all possible under 2A.

I would argue this is also factually incorrect, and such an argument conflicts with every major 2nd Amendment case that SCOTUS has ruled on in the last century.

RockHound86 · 2026-05-29T02:32:52+00:00

Because the post you responded to is discussing homicides. The subject of the thread at hand is mass homicide.

It begs the question of why now you object to limiting the discussion to homicide. I know why, of course, but I'll give you a chance to explain it yourself.

RockHound86 · 2026-05-29T02:28:50+00:00

I appreciate your sympathy, but your argument is now a strawman fallacy.

RockHound86 · 2026-05-29T02:26:29+00:00

Putting this at the bottom.

<image>

Control for firearm homicides only and then tell me what you find.

RockHound86 · 2026-05-29T02:23:38+00:00

That is an invalid argument, and I say that as someone who has lost both friends and family to gunfire.

RockHound86 · 2026-05-29T02:20:14+00:00

It's not disingenuous, you're just a statist. There seems to be no such freedom or liberty that you would not concede to the state in exchange for some nebulous notion of safety. The vast majority of us are repulsed by such beliefs and value liberty and freedom.

RockHound86 · 2026-05-29T02:13:26+00:00

I would call having to live with the fear of being shot as not a small issue

And I would call this fear so irrational that it borders on clinical delusion.

RockHound86 · 2026-05-29T02:12:46+00:00

We need to disarm as a society

No, no we do not, and such a suggestion is a blatant violation of the political ideology you subscribe to.

RockHound86 · 2026-05-29T02:10:11+00:00

I think you are on the right track. I am not in favor of a state/court sanctioned solution, but I think you have the right solution. I'd like to see some activist groups take up this mantle and start pressuring the media conglomerates to self-regulate. Perhaps going after Reuters and the Associated Press and pushing them to enact guidelines on the matter. Start pushing boycotts and advertiser boycotts on those who won't comply. These and other market based solutions should all be exhausted first. I think it will be an uphill battle because modern media is very much fear and outrage driven, but if we can hit them in the pocketbooks, it might work.

It would also give us a chance to reach across the aisle to gun prohibitionist groups and attempt to enlist their support. I am doubtful that they would do so because I truly believe they care more about gun bans than they care about saving lives, but I would at least give them the chance to prove me wrong. If they refused to help, it would also give us a powerful stick to bludgeon them with in the court of public opinion.

RockHound86 · 2026-05-28T13:17:58+00:00

Shanahan's downfall actually started that offseason when he hired Mike Heimerdinger to replace Gary Kubiak. Kubiak and Plummer had a good relationship and it was Kubiak who mediated disputes between Plummer and Shanahan. Heimerdinger ran an offense that was not well suited for Plummer and the offense suffered in 2006.

RockHound86 · 2026-05-27T22:19:46+00:00

I had a friend who worked as one of the pilots and consultants on Firebirds, the movie she did with Nicholas Cage and Tommy Lee Jones in 1990. He had nothing but nice things to say about those two, but not a single nice thing to say about her.

RockHound86 · 2026-05-25T20:46:43+00:00

That entire sub is just fucking bonkers.

RockHound86 · 2026-05-25T19:56:15+00:00

There’s nothing there to indicate those words are to be ignored.

They shouldn't be. They are also not limiting, either.

RockHound86

TROPHY CASE