tvc184

Loretta Lynch perhaps? President Obama? "I pledge allegiance to XXXX!!" Loretta Lynch: "We have redacted the word ISIS so where we have blanks in the transcript, it is the word ISIS that we don't want you to see". Now the president's press secretary just now is blaming it completely on the DOJ.... AKA, headed up by Loretta Lynch. I see, so it's the cop's fault. The police (FBI) decided that the people that know the word ISIS was used, have made the decision not to release it? Right..... and I just took possession of the Golden Gate Bridge and am willing to release it for a reasonable offer.

This is almost comical. I heard Loretta Lynch say that they are deleting the pledge so that we can't hear him make the pledge that she is saying that he made and it gives him a voice to claim his allegiance. Huh? They have already told us that he pledged allegiance to ISIS. We already have seen Representative James Clyburn from SC publicly claim that this was nothing but a gun issue and had nothing at all to do with terrorism. So who are they protecting, the public or Democratic congressmen who have publicly made stupid statement?

The police are only minutes away when seconds count.

What I have seen is that tolerance, like complaints of the good ol' boy system, only applies to the other guy. No one likes the good ol' boy system........ until he is the good ol' boy. Everyone wants tolerance.... from the other side. The Dems seem to play this to the max. It is not that their beliefs are any different in those areas. They however try to claim the high moral ground but live by the mantra, "Don't do as I do, do as I say".

Reagan said "machine gun". Machine guns are already banned unless you have been through a federal investigation and have a federal stamp that must be on you when you possess the machine gun.

I think that survival plan is the........ "I hope this well planned attack ends and he runs out of bullets before he gets to me".

Anyone could have stopped this. A weapon would make it easier. It comes from people being sheep. They will cower on the floor simply waiting to die while watching people next to them killed but too afraid to defend themselves. If only half a dozen people out of more than 100 had rushed him, even if waiting for him to reload, this would have saved dozens of lives. Again, a gun or even a knife would have made it easier. Anytime a single person holds more than 100 at bay, it is only because they allow it. The federal government and others (and we are teaching it locally) is run, hide, fight. If you are cornered or in a position where escape is not possible and you will likely be found, you fight. You fight with any weapon that you can get your hands on even like a fire extinguisher. Spray it in his eyes or use the canister as a club. A gun, again, simply makes it easier. Anyone that says a person with a gun could not have stopped is either lying for a political argument or has absolutely no clue what he is talking about. An example is flight United 93 that went down in PA. Once they realized what was happening and that this was not simply a hostage/hijacking situation, they attacked the bad guys and took the plane over. Obviously it forced the jet to the ground but they were able to keep the armed bad guys from their intent. They also likely saved the lives of many other people (just like attacking in Orlando would have done) who were on the ground. People are alive today because some passengers on United 93 did not cower and simply await their death. Had this been an active shooter or had there been enough time to regain control of the plane, they would have been successful and even less lives lost. You want another example? Less than a year ago three US citizens along with a couple of Europeans attacked a Muslim terrorist on a train when the guy pulled a rifle and started shooting. These guys refused to be victims and refused to allow the carnage to even start. They attacked and ended the terror attack. How? They refused to sit and wait for their turn to die. Even the British citizen that helped said that you either sit and wait for your turn to die or you stand up and charge. And yes, if I am caught in an active shooter situation, I will attack. Hopefully there will be more people willing to save their own lives and if so, the chances of success are extremely high. Simply waiting to be shot in the back of the head doesn't seem like much of an option to me. If I was armed (and I always am), he'd better take me out first because if his attention is on any other person, it will end right then.

1. Handouts. 2. See #1. That is where most urban areas are concentrated.

Great, you quoted from an opinion article from consortiumnews? I could quote all kinds of opinion articles on anyone. Any original thoughts or simply copy and paste a slanted opinion?

Correct, no one has to attack us. They do what they want around the world, including here, as they have no fear. Russia is pushing influence everywhere with no fear of a renewed cold war as we have a president that is a coward. You don't have to beat up the bully but you'd better make him believe that he will pay the price if he gets out of line. There is almost no country in the world that thinks Obama will lead this nation into any war no matter how much needed or just. Teddy Roosevelt said "Speak softly but carry a big stick". Obama's policy is "Apologize and give away the stick".

I think a lot of that will change with the next administration, even if it is Hillary. It won't be as much with her as it will with Trump but the Whiner In Chief will be gone and the next president will give less credibility to the slugs that feel empowered to come out from under their rocks. The slugs and thugs have always been there. Mostly they have stayed in the shadows but this "most transparent" presidency has given them a voice that they did not have previously and I think that they will lose some of that voice in a few months. I doubt that even Hillary will go on a world apology tour.

I just looked at the FBI files on types of weapons used, I looked at TX in 2010 (since I had that saved and didn't have to run another search). In 2010 rifles of all types (not just the dreaded AR-15 and AK-47 types) resulted in 34 murders. Personal weapons of hands/feet/fists/etc resulted in 109 murders. Hmmmm..... hands and feet killed 3 times as many people as rifles. I have no clue but I would bet that if we broke that down into "assault" rifles, it would be something like 3 - 109. Knives were responsible for 202 murders. Yeah, banning "assault" rifles will solve our problems. Not much murder without those.

I was reading a comment on Facebook about this situation. A guy said that if a person trying to help the situation by taking out the bad guy and had an AR 15, he would have blasted away with it in a wild shootout trying to kill the bad guy and would have maybe killed another hundred innocent people. Such is the rationale of the idiots. I guess it is like, I want to kill the bad guy so I'm going to shoot all over the room and take out a bunch of innocents. Maybe somewhere in my spraying around I will get the bad guy if I'm lucky. Therefore his conclusion was that no one other than the police could have stopped this situation. A firearm in self-defense would never work without it being just as deadly to innocent people as the bad guy. Ooookay......

A rifle ban is generally nonsense to stopping these incidents. Way back in 1991 I was speaking as a police officer at one of the service groups like maybe the Lion's Club at their monthly lunch and meeting. At the end of my 10 minute presentation I asked for any questions (and there is always questions for the police). The only question that I took (as it took up all of my time) was from a guy that wanted to know about banning certain long guns. He specifically brought up a couple of incidents with rifles or shotguns and one that I remember was the San Ysidro, CA McDonald's. In that case a guy used a handgun but also an Uzi sub machine gun (although I think it was a semi-auto version) and a shotgun. At the time it was the deadliest shooting in US history. The guy's idea way back more than 30 years ago was that we need to get rid of those evil long guns. I did not expect the question but I did have an answer. I told then that for most such shootings, the long guns were "scary" looking but were a joke for speed. At those ranges of up close and personal, a handgun might be much deadlier. The reason is that with a handgun you could carry magazines with almost 20 rounds and they could be reloaded much faster by an untrained person. In that meeting I predicted that some day a guy with a handgun only would slaughter a lot of people with something like a Glock where a person could carry 15 or 20 magazines in his blue jean pockets and reload in about two seconds. That is 400 rounds of ammo in his pockets. Some of the response was something like.... "Really??". About a month so later, we had the Killeen Luby's shooting. In that case a guy with only handguns (one was the 9mm Glock) killed 23 innocent people and wounded 27 more. At that moment in time it was the deadliest shooting in US history. Hmmm... called that one? Also, this shooting took a couple of minutes, not three hours as the recent Orlando shooting. That was the deadliest until Virginia Tech where 33 were killed. His weapons? A Glock and a .22 pistol. Hmmm.... the two deadliest shootings in US history were from handguns and in very short time frames. In VT the campus police were on scene and the shooter had to do his dirty work quickly. Handguns allow a person to carry a lot of ammo that is much easier to handle, much quicker to reload and much easier to conceal until the shooting starts. Of course we have since had Sandy Hook which famously was with an AR-15. Here is the deal though, that same incident would have been just as deadly with a handgun and maybe deadlier. Why? To carry that many rifle rounds it takes relatively huge magazines that are much harder to carry and use. They weigh much more. In Sandy Hook he shot children at point blank range. To think that a 9mm pistol would be less deadly to the head or heart is ridiculous. Like I said with reloading (less than 3 seconds unpracticed and a good person can do it in roughly a 1 second), it might be deadlier. In fact that renders the magazine capacity as an equally stupid crime deterrent. For example, if we cut magazines to the typical 10 rounds (as non high capacity), here is how much it would slow a person down. At short ranges I can get off about 15 rounds on target in maybe 8 seconds. Take two seconds to reload another 15 round magazine and 8 more seconds to empty the handgun again and I have expended 30 rounds on target in 18 seconds. If I had to reload twice by using 10 round magazines to hamper me, it would take about 20 seconds to shoot the same 30 rounds on target with the same number of rounds. WOOHOO!!, the lower capacity magazine made me take 2 more seconds to complete my crime. Great stuff huh? The long guns have a huge advantage. They can reach out and touch someone. An AR-15 might be able to kill reasonably well at 200-300 yards. That is a HUGE advantage over a handgun which might have an effective range for most people of 15-25 yards. In these shooting incidents however, the shootings aren't happening at 300 yards. They are happening feet away. Stand in the middle of a room with a pistol and unless the room is more than 50 yards wide (mighty big room), everyone that you see is in a fairly easy kill range. So while these big scary rifles are being used as the evil in order to justify gun control, to think that it will stop anything at all is silly. Of course most people right now including most of the left wing liberal Democrats are saying, "We aren't against handguns (which is an outright lie) and only the evil AR-15 style weapons". That is merely a scare tactic to swing public opinion. Anyone that doesn't say that the same guy in Orlando couldn't have killed 50 people in less time than the incident took with any of several handguns used for home self defense is either a liar or has very little knowledge of firearms. Like Killeen and VT showed us, we can have huge numbers of victims in only a couple of minutes with handguns that you can buy over the counter at Academy. And a single guy in the nightclub in Orlando coming from behind the shooter could have ended this horrific crime in seconds at a huge saving in innocent lives. Of course the club was likely a gun free zone. See how well that worked out...............

If you really want to know..... There are a couple of ways to run an accident scene. It depends on city/county ordinances and police department policy. Generally there are two distinct ways to handle accident scenes. For most cities the police simply ask you for a wrecker preference. If you have one and that wrecker is permitted by the city to pick up at accident scenes in the city, that is your wrecker. But..... what if the person does not know a wrecker, the person is not able to give one (unconscious) or the traffic congestion is so bad like on a busy highway that the police need to clear the roadway immediately? It is that is the issue then there are those two distinct ways to handle accident scenes. The first way by many cities (and I think all in Jefferson County) is to call for a non-preference wrecker. Usually a city will enact an ordinance regulating accident scenes. Part of that ordinance will be that wrecker rotation list where each permitted wrecker gets equal turns to pick up at accident scenes. The first time the police call, wrecker A will get the tow. The next time it will be wrecker B, then C and so on. When the list is completed, it will start over in rotation. That way there is no favoritism by the city/police and everyone gets the same number of calls. The benefit for the city is controlling who can pick up, what standards they have to meet, have some sort of price control to protect citizens and to keep wreckers from racing to a wreck scene. The one draw back is that it might take that wrecker almost half an hour to get there since there is no need to race to the scene. Of course the accident scene may be there that long anyway and in that case it is a moot point. If it is a minor fender bender and the cop is finished with the accident in 15 minutes (rarely), then he might be stuck waiting for 10 minutes for the rotation wrecker. The other main way is usually done by DPS and the sheriff department who generally work outside of the city limits. They run the "first on scene" or time call method. Basically whoever shows up at the scene can get the tow. The troopers or deputies normally put out a call for wreckers on the radio and the wrecker drivers listen on the scanner. The trooper or deputy might put a 10 or 15 minute clock on it. I think that they may even have the dispatcher call the time when it is over. When the time ends, however many wreckers that have made it to the scene will toss a chip or business card in the hat. One (or more if needed) will be drawn and the winner gets the tow. That is why on the weekend you will see several wreckers parked at a central location. They hang out together and all drive to the scene together and racing is not an issue. That also applies to an arrest scene or any time a wrecker is needed.. So when you see a bunch of wreckers at a DWI arrest or accident scene, they are all tossing their card in the hat and hope to be drawn. That winner will get the tow and the rest will go stage somewhere and wait for the next call. I know that in the city, when we call for "first on scene" due to a bad traffic jam and an increased risk of further accidents, we really mean first on scene. The moment we see a wrecker pulling up, that wrecker gets the tow. When you are see all those wreckers for one or two cars, you are most of the time outside of the city limits. If you wanted to know.............

First, the O'Reilly piece says that the Second Amendment clearly says that the government has the right to regulate militias. That is clearly bogus. I would like someone to point out where it says that. Secondly, so what? It appears that the OP believes some kind of huge meaning because a generally conservative commentator believes that some weapons should be banned. Woohoo....!! For every O'Reilly out there, I wonder how many gun totin', union member, Democrat votin', rednecks out there who would never vote Republican, are the ones with the bumper stickers that say, "From my cold dead hands!".

I do not believe that child molesters get a lesser sentence. That is a wild misconception that is said about a lot of crimes and is usually based on a single incident. First off, non-violent drug crimes generally get probation automatically on a first offense. That alone is not true for child molesters. Even more telling, many drug offenses are given pretrial diversion meaning that they do not even get probation. They are given a warning and kind of an unofficial probation like situation through the DA without ever going to court. If the person does not comply with the "diversion", the DA will then file a "real" criminal case and that will go to trial or a guilty plea. Probation from a guilty plea at the very least requires you to stand in front of a judge and proclaim your guilt in an open session of court. I have never seen that offered to a child molester. That is just on the face of it. There are many other factors that come into play such as, how much evidence is there in a molesting case? Many times there is very limited evidence. It "may" be enough to convict a person or a jury might not agree with it and let the guy go as not guilty because they believed the evidence was not beyond a reasonable doubt. Which is worse, a guilty plea admitting to the crime and facing years of probation (and any slip up will result in a felony conviction and prison) or a person walking free that may have been guilty? Other times there are factors such as the victim and/or parent does not want the child to testify in court. In our system you have the right to face your accuser. While video can be shown of a child being interviewed, in some cases the child can be compelled to testify unless the rules of trial have changed since I was in detectives. Some people simply do not want their 14 year old having to be grilled on the witness stand and are willing to accept a plea. So much is done behind the scenes that if a person is no involved in a particular case (and I did child victim crimes in detectives), they really have no clue as to the evidence or the chances of a guilty verdict. It is not like the DA is saying, "We will give this child rapist probation (like we are condoning it) but give this non-violent drug user several years in jail". For the level of offense, I find that drug abusers often get some of the most lenient sentences. I often see claims of these huge sentences for drug users and for the most part it is simply bogus. I have seen claims on local forums of simple marijuana possession cases jamming up our prison system. The truth is that unless you have a fairly significant amount of marijuana on you, it will always be a misdemeanor and a person cannot be sentenced to prison for a misdemeanor. You can be convicted 10 times for marijuana possession and still you will never be sentenced to these claimed "long sentences". The law simply does not allow that enhancement. Actually 3 misdemeanor thefts can be enhanced to a felony but 25 misdemeanor drug offenses are still a misdemeanor. I still here the claims like, "My friend was busted with a joint and got 10 years". That is pure nonsense. Maybe your friend was on probation for armed (aggravated) robbery and the joint got the probation revoked and the prison sentence imposed..... for the robbery. Drug sellers suffer a worse fate. If a person gets caught selling and gets probation and then violates probation and serves a short sentence and then gets convicted again (now for multiple felonies) and gets a longer sentence, people claim that is a single drug users that was non-violent. Even in that case the truth is that it was a seller that was convicted 3 or more times.

Movies are about as subjective as food. I like older movies not because they are old but because I have seen them, like them and can watch them again and again and still like them. Some of my current favorite movies that are on Netflix are Von Ryan's Express, Bridge On The River Kwai, Full Metal Jacket, Saints and Soldiers, Braveheart, The 300 Spartans (1962 version, not "300"), TAPS, The Wild Geese (awesome movie if you've never seen it with an all star cast), The Right Stuff, Forrest Gump, Young Mr. Lincoln, Jurassic Park III, Twelve O'Clock High and The Longest Day (maybe my favorite movie).

Do it in front of me and I might opt to simply write a citation. The other lawful options are jail or a warning b

Like profanity, it is always a good trump card. An example is when an argument gets heated and a person finally loses it and degrades to, "Well you are a &#@ *(#%^!!!". It is like the final, "OH YEAH??!!". It doesn't mean that race can never be an issue. It only in my opinion means that it is too easy to throw out. "You did/said this because I am a _______________ (fill in the blank with your race, sex, ethnicity, orientation). All other arguments are then expected to cease. I always liked, "You've never walked in my shoes". The person saying that does not want you to respond the same way. The argument appears to be, you have no idea what I am thinking and why but I know everything you are thinking and why.

Comparing apples and rocks? Some parents always have and always will not be bad parents. The problem is that even the best parent is not watching a child every single moment. It is like texting when people look at "just for a few seconds" and someone gets killed. Anyone that tells me that they have never taken their eyes off of their child for a few seconds while in the public is either a liar or delusional. With all that, I cannot imagine a zoo with a gorilla enclosure/cage where a child can get into it and apparently fairly easily and quickly. That has nothing to do with bad parenting.

One of my biggest rants is people driving in the left lane on the highway, blocking traffic. If I was big on writing citations, that would be my favorite. Get the heck out of the way.

The US Constitution perhaps. Less than 5% of this country are Asians. Should the 95+% of everyone else be able to vote them not being able to get jobs since they are in such a minority? The entire premise of the Constitution is rights of everyone equally and not the majority. The "majority" argument never works on such a rights question and it should not. A lot of people tend to cite constitutional rights until it goes against one of their beliefs..... then it is majority rules.

Do any locally have crosses on them?

If most Democratic leaders had their way, only the police would have guns. Handgun Inc., now called the Brady Campaign had as an original charter to remove "all" handguns from private ownership. They and their beliefs are openly supported by most Democrats. Yes I believe that the Democratic leadership wants to end the Second Amendment. Attacks on the Second Amendment and gun control came long before talk radio was even thought of. Using the dreaded NRA as an example, they were founded almost 150 years ago, shortly after the Civil War and have been in legislation actionand gun rights for more than 80 years. This is not a new fight and talk radio isn't the big mouthpiece for it. They are only a convenient excuse.