ColoradoEagle

That's what I would guess. His speech last year when he was announced as a captain was a bit awkward and stilted. Nothing wrong with that. Some guys just aren't public speakers.

Edited the original post. PM me your emails and I will send invites.

I'm thinking Yahoo and free. Thoughts?

League is setup. Draft: 9/8 (Tuesday) 8:30 PM Max Teams: 14 (Will make another division if enough sign up) Playoffs: 8 teams for the moment. Will adjust based on signups. Rules: Mostly standard with a couple changes. What you need to do: PM me your e-mail and I will send you an invite. Thanks!

I think they (incorrectly) assumed that getting Texas A&M into the SEC made Texas 'SEC Country' and all of the sudden people around here would give a damn about Alabama. Reality check.

Did it? I'll have to check my statement from last year, but I thought the amount was the same. Withdraw question if true.

Why are 5 game season tickets as expensive as 6 game season tickets?

I debate with anyone my viewpoint and try to understand theirs. There's a difference between shutting down discussion with someone who's on the other side of an issue, and being expected to respond cordially to name calling.

4-8. Wins over SMU, UTSA, and Portland State. Fluke win over Iowa.

No idea what 5.5m buys, and I know there are certain limitations since the AD doesn't own it, but I would: Add ticket boothsRedo the lightingBuild in a team storeConvert almost all of the 'press area' back to seatingUpdate the bathrooms with automatic equipmentFind a new food vendor, because good GodProduce some full size banners to drape down the outside of the building with either players or logosGet some gameday organizers who know how to make the environment not the most bland place on Earth

SMU keeps it within two touchdowns of the #4 preseason ranked team, and possibly most explosive offense in college football? SMU grads are smoking some different kinda stuff.

Long lost image from the last time FFR was confronted with a gun:

I know, but what I'm saying is there's a big difference between someone not sharing the same view as you on gun control, and your governor disagreeing with who you are as a person.

For most people, the issue with Abbott wasn't that he's Republican, it was his views on equality. I say most, because I'm sure there is some percentage of people who are incapable of political discourse with opposing viewpoints at any level.

Lost what argument?

Well, the FBI doesn't release statistics like this until the end of the year, so that subreddit is as good as any for information unless you think they're straight up lying. The irony is not lost on me, though, that you're the one questioning the legitimacy of something on the internet. It's not a bit, is it?

That's good, but two years old. Here's what's happening today. We’re now averaging more than one mass shooting per day in 2015 http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/08/26/were-now-averaging-more-than-one-mass-shooting-per-day-in-2015/ http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2015/08/graphics-americas-guns?fsrc=scn/fb/te/bl/ed/AmericasGuns

I never said it was, but the argument of guns being a necessary evil to protect us from a tyrannical government is pretty dumb in this day and age. No, I've given my opinion on why guns being legal and easy to obtain is bad with numbers that reference how many gun deaths there are in this country versus other major countries. I don't fault someone for being on the other side of the issue, but the founding fathers' intent, "anything can be used to kill!" argument, and being able to fight off the government are all dumb. I mean, really dumb. "I like guns!" is a far more intelligent argument than any of those three.

haha, you're so full of yourself. Never once did I say more gun control or especially banning things is likely to happen. We decided as a country after Sandy Hook that not even that was enough to get rid of our beloved guns. If that didn't cause anything to happen, nothing ever will. That said, the argument of, "someone will always find a way to kill!" is idiotic. You could literally kill someone with a spoon Alan Rickman style. The difference is that guns allow people to kill multiple, MANY people at once with very little opportunity for the people on the other end of the weapon to defend themselves. It allows for instant kills at a distance. I can see a case for shotguns and hunting rifles. My dad loved to hunt pheasants with his shotgun. Any of the other types of guns, and the only actual excuse for having it is, like in the video above, "but I like guns!"

haha, right. Because the US Military can't take down a group of rednecks with guns. The function of the Supreme Court is to interpret existing law. There's nothing to stop Congress from modifying or repealing the second amendment. And your historical point isn't a point, because it assumes that the intent of the founding fathers lives within a vacuum. They could not foresee what would happen almost 250 years later with the advancements in gun technology and violence it causes. The argument that they would've kept the law as-is after the amount of gun deaths we've seen is pretty fantastical.

Which is why this weekend is the Fort Worth Gun Show, and next weekend is the Fort Worth Hammer Show... Owning a gun is nothing like owning a hammer, by gun owners' own admission. It's a subculture, and that's why they're so adamant about keeping their guns. It's a large part of who they are more than anything else. Until someone can make a better argument for the benefits of gun ownership vs. the obvious detriment than "b-b-b-but the founding fathers!" a lot of people won't be convinced. There's a huge difference between a wildly inaccurate musket with 30 seconds between shots and a semi-automatic handgun.

#1 Yes, and it's not close.

I would, but there's not a chance in hell. I'd also go for a compromise of shotguns and hunting rifles only, but there's also not a chance in hell of that.