1. the car
2. the ice box
3. the bikini

Posted by dino27 on 6/22/2016 2:15:00 PM (view original):
a great stat if it was possible to create would be a runs lost and runs saved for fielding..if it could be added to or subtracted from the RC # that could really help define a player statisticly.

This already exists... It's basically exactly how WAR is calculated - add defensive runs saved to offensive runs created, add a positional adjustment, and then divide by the statistical "runs/win" number (~10).

For metrics measuring only what you're looking for, Defensive Runs Saved (DRS) and Ultimate Zone Rating (UZR) are by far the most common... Neither is hard to find.

If you really did know all of this and were trying to make a point/joke, then that would be great...

Posted by bheid408 on 6/14/2016 10:29:00 PM (view original):
Regardless of whether any mass murder like in Orlando was done with or without an assault rifle, still no reason for the public to have access to them.
We the people have the right to bear arms, but Congress has the authority to regulate what TYPE of arms we can bear.

Based on what?

I've never been opposed to assault weapon bans. They just make sense. Nobody's arguing with that. However, if you want to read the Constitution in any kind of strict sense, you are 100% wrong. The Constitution explicitly states that powers not granted to the Federal Government (including Congress) are reserved to the states and the people; that is, anything that Congress is not explicitly given power to do, it can not do. There is nothing in the Constitution that I see that would explicitly allow Congress "the authority to regulate what TYPE of arms we can bear." Thus, based on any strict interpretation of the original Constitution, Congress absolutely does not have that authority.

If you want to make this argument, you have to appeal to logic, not the Constitution.

Posted by uncleal on 6/25/2016 10:50:00 AM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/24/2016 5:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bheid408 on 6/14/2016 10:29:00 PM (view original):
Regardless of whether any mass murder like in Orlando was done with or without an assault rifle, still no reason for the public to have access to them.
We the people have the right to bear arms, but Congress has the authority to regulate what TYPE of arms we can bear.

Based on what?

I've never been opposed to assault weapon bans. They just make sense. Nobody's arguing with that. However, if you want to read the Constitution in any kind of strict sense, you are 100% wrong. The Constitution explicitly states that powers not granted to the Federal Government (including Congress) are reserved to the states and the people; that is, anything that Congress is not explicitly given power to do, it can not do. There is nothing in the Constitution that I see that would explicitly allow Congress "the authority to regulate what TYPE of arms we can bear." Thus, based on any strict interpretation of the original Constitution, Congress absolutely does not have that authority.

If you want to make this argument, you have to appeal to logic, not the Constitution.

The Constitution is, of course, a living document. The 10th Amendment actually says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." If the people demand a national standard this feels very explicitly allowed, if we're going to go that route. Especially if we consider the 9th and consider "our right to not be shot by some lunatic with a gun", or perhaps even more simple our right to "life" as mentioned in the Declaration (which is admittedly not a document that is meaningful legally, but it explains a lot of intent.)

State laws banning guns are ineffective. Gun nuts like to point out "Chicago" as proof gun laws don't work -- what they miss is that Indiana is right next door where laws are much more lax and I would expect a great deal of guns to flow. A national standard would help.

I would say your interpretation is incredibly sketchy. It seems pretty obvious that rights reserved to the people are reserved directly to the people, not reserved to the people to be decided for them via their elected federal officials. Given that it's explicitly stating that the Federal government can't touch things it isn't granted power over, I don't see how you can think it suggests the opposite. Also, most of the stuff that either party wants to pass is not something "the people demand." "The people" seem pretty undecided on most things related to gun control aside from background checks. Given that virtually everyone wants background checks I'm not sure why Congress can't at least get that done...

I've seen a relief pitcher who pitched big innings get it for a positive. Not a ton, though.

Posted by dino27 on 6/28/2016 12:43:00 PM (view original):
for star of the game i dont believe i have ever seen a defensive star singled out........or stolen bases as basis........im not sure if i have ever seen runs scored as basis...never saw a relief pitcher as star....peanuts lowery came in as a reliever and was shelled and was player of the game.

This happened in one of my games today