tvc184

The police are doing what I suspect they did in Baltimore and that is to not be proactive. When you have no backing, you don't go out of your way. I think the police will respond correctly to all calls given but between those times, hiding in alleys, looking for street dope deals, checking doors and night, stopping cars with a headlight out to see if the driver or passenger has warrants, etc., will be a thing of the past. Timothy McVeigh was stopped by a state trooper for a license plate violate and the largest terror attack in the country at that time was solved. Good luck today. An overwhelming percentage of officers do the right thing. If they make a mistake then that is exactly what it was, a mistake. There is very little intentional abuse of rights but it does exist. According to FBI stats the police make about 35,000 arrest each day. That is 35,000 not only confrontations but where a person's liberty, potentially for life in some situations, it taken away in handcuffs and being placed in a cell. That is not nearly all contacts or confrontations. That is just the most serious. When you are doing a quarter of a million arrests per week, there will always be chances to point out issues. Even most of those are legal but they sure don't look good on camera. It is hard to hit someone, throw the person on the ground or shoot someone and make it look nice. If only 1 tenth of one percent of arrests are questioned, that is over 1,000 per month. You can see where the huge numbers make it easy to find viral videos. If an appalling 1% of arrests came into question, that is over 10,000 per month. With those fairly large numbers we will always see officer doing the wrong thing and they should be punished. Let one cop in 500 do something wrong not every day but in a year and the entire profession is slammed. If the Chicago cops are backing off and not being aggressive, I understand completely.

In the summer of 1991 I gave a talk at the monthly meeting of the Lion's Club. At the end of the 10 minutes presentation I took questions. None were about the DWI that I spoke about but they wanted to know about the then rage in the media, "assault weapons". In particular was the San Ysidro, CA McDonald't shooting from a few years earlier where one of the weapons was an Uzi. It last over an hour and killed 20 in what was up to that time the deadliest single shooter incident in USA history. I wasn't expecting the question but offered my opinion. With the high capacity handgun of today, with the ammo being much lighter and easier to carry (I could probably carry several hundred rounds loaded into magazines in my blue jeans pockets), it wouldn't be long before someone with a handgun does more damage as up close they are much faster, much easier to conceal and way more ammo can be carried with a lot less weight and effort. Try to carry 200 rounds on AR magazines and then try the same with a Glock 9mm. Unfortunately I didn't have long to wait. A couple of months later a guy in Killeen, TX crashed his truck through a window at Luby's and killed 23 patrons. The CA incident lasted over an hour with the shotgun and Uzi. The Luby's shooting lasted about 12 minutes. At the range almost every mass shooting happens, a handgun is plenty powerful and much faster and easier to use. In Columbine they used handguns. In VA Tech he used even small .22 handguns. In Luby's it was handguns. In fact with children huddled up in New Town, CT, a handgun would have been much faster with much more ammo carried. As sick as he was it is probably better that he used an AR rather than a couple of handguns. We might have lost more children. I don't care what their lately preferred weapon is but as long as the incidents are up close and personal like shoot or nightclub shootings, there is no real advantage to a rifle and in some circumstances it is a more poor choice. I would like to see any evidence that banning rifles would end any of the mass shootings that are happening.

That was one of 10 and it doesn't mention half a mile away. Oh yeah, that was for effect......

Teachers are there all the time at no additional cost. Did you know that TX allows teachers to carry weapons in school and TX even has a school/marshal program where it licenses teachers as law enforcement officers while on school grounds? Both situations require the district allowing it but both are in place at no additional cost.

And all this time I thought that he was in the trunk of a car nearby and had drilled a hole in the trunk which is why they weren't caught sooner. You sure that you aren't making this stuff up? Sat on high ground?

Anything that goes blattttt-ta-tat-tat-tat is probably a machine gun and illegal already. Even most SWAT teams do not carry them. I though the DC sniper shot from a block or so away and sometimes from across the street. Where are you getting your information that he was shooting from about half a mile away? Also, he was taking well place single shots and not spraying ammo. In fact that could have been accomplished with almost any rifle. The AR was a weapon of convenience, not necessity. I think you are just making this stuff up as you go.

When you show a couple of videos of the people that actually try to enact those laws, what better video could we show? This wasn't some rant by a right wing zealot but the actual lawmakers showing that they are for banning what they have no clue about and make outright bogus claims. Better videos?

In VA Tech shooting, the deadliest in US history until the Orlando night club shooting recently, the shooter killed 32 people with a 9mm and a .22 which we know is about the smallest and weakest handgun available. In Orlando, along with the AR-like rifle he had a Glock which apparently you are okay with as you have stated so. Columbine that seems to have started the "active shooter" incidents, they used 9mm handguns and a hunting shotgun. In fact for most of these incidents, not only were common and fairly low powered handguns used, they tend to be a must deadlier threat at close range. Of course that will not matter as those small handguns aren't seen as that much evil as are "assault" rifles.

What makes an AR so much more deadly in a mass shooting than a pistol? I anxiously await your response. Explain to me why banning them will end most of these shootings.

They can impeach Trump on January 30 for all I care. You and likely others fail to realize that Trump is not popular with Republicans. He outlasted a field of 17 candidates but almost never got more than 35% support and usually less than that nationwide. As the last man standing, he was seen an anti-Hillary. If Trump gets impeached, I hope it is early. Pence will become the president, get the to name the new vice president (probably a Cruz, Kasich or Rubio) and have a much better chance of being elected in 2020. Yeah, impeach him and see how that works out for you.

More fun video from the left. The "ghost gun" that takes a 30 caliber clip (whatever that is) and then fires 30 rounds in half a second. That comes out to 60 rounds a second. I've got to get me one of those guns are at least have somebody show me one. I would hate to pay for the ammo though at that rate.....

And if you view the video above, you will get this.....

This is one of my favorite videos and shows the insane rants of "evil" guns. Among other things banned is "barrel shrouds" on guns which makes them an "assault" weapon. It is like bayonet lugs. I have been a police officer for 33 years, have worked on over 100 homicides and I have yet to see anyone get bayoneted. In fact I have yet to see a bayonet mounted on a weapon even if just for looks. Yet, if a weapon has a place to put a bayonet on a barrel, it is super deadly and can kill mass quantities of people. Of course those that come up with such rules have no idea what they are talking about and merely look at a photo of a gun and figure out what features they can visually see in order to find a reason to ban it.

Ok. The SCOTUS disagrees with you.

Since voter ID is apparently the change in topic, in 2008 the SCOTUS upheld Indiana's voter ID law which is much more restrictive than TX. In the IN law a person without an ID had to vote and then show up in front of a panel within 10 days with an ID or sign an affidavit of not being able to afford one. TX gives them out for free.

You do realize that what you quoted was not a SCOUTS decision and was a Circuit court. The SCOTUS has already upheld a voter ID law on a 6-3 vote. New cases will get back to the Court, (maybe the one from TX) and the new SCOTUS with a Trump nominee might very well (likely) keep the previous ruling in place.

And I am not sure how the discussion got off on the tangent of voter ID when this topic is about gun control.

No, they didn't.

No, rights are a big issue with me. On a couple of posts I have clearly brought up other rights that we could trim a bit and be a lot safer. Apparently you only lock in on the guns. If you can figure a way to stop mass shootings (and rifle bans will not do it), please enlighten us.

It is yet another reason to complain. In TX a voter ID is free and if you cannot get one for free, you can still cast a ballot. Why is that restrictive? The simplest answer is that it isn't. The SCOTUS already upheld voter ID by a 6-3 vote.

Who knows, maybe in your zest to make your case, you overstate your beliefs. The time we start opting for safety over personal rights is when that ball rolling down the hill starts picking up speed. How many murders have gone free because the police violated their rights, even if unintentionally? Let's simply do away with those rights and that will not happen.

When you say that you are willing to take safety over a right, that is too extremely.

Well, it is only suppression in those pesky southern states. Up north is it perfectly acceptable.

You are dealing out Kool Aid by the gallon. If you confiscated (not merely banned future sales) of AR-15, AK-47 or similar guns tomorrow, you will do absolutely nothing to even slow mass shootings. When I said you have no clue, I meant exactly that. Your knowledge of guns seems weak at best although you did spell Glock correctly.

This might be your best yet. As long as it helps people, to heck with rights. I can guarantee that many more violent crimes will be prevented and solved if the police can stop anyone without reasonable suspicion. If we just trim a little fat off of the 4th Amendment, many less people will be murdered. And while we are on trimming fat, if we can get rid of that pesky freedom of speech issue in the 1st Amendment, we would have less arguments and therefore less violence. Heck, we can go all through this Constitution thing and makes us all a lot safer. I am not making that up and firmly believe that if we give up certain rights, we will definitely have a safer place to live. I am not ready to give up those rights, the men that wrote and debated over the Constitution were fully aware of what may lurk ahead. You are the very reason that they wrote and passed the Bill of RIghts shortly after ratifying the Constitution itself.