tvc184

Running scared over gun control? The last meaningful gun control was under Bill Clinton with the assault weapon ban in 1994. That bit of legislation caused an 108 total swing in the House. The Dems had a huge 82 vote lead in the House and the AWB changed that to a 26 vote loss. It also led to the Senate going for the Republicans in a 16 vote swing (with only 1/3 of senators up for election). This huge statement from the voters allowed the Republicans to completely control Congress for the first time since 1953. A 42 year complete or partial control of Congress by the Dems ended with the new weapons law. Add to that Obama's landmark legislation, Obamacare. The Dems went in holding both houses, riding in on Obama's coattails. Just like Clinton's legislation, it cost the Dems big time with them going from a 77 vote lead to a 49 vote loss. It was a net swing of 126 votes even exceeding the 108 swing from the AWB. Every time the Dems come up with these kinds of schemes against the wishes of the people, they get slammed back down. Gun sales and have exploded under Obama and some gun manufacturers have had their stocks soar with him in office. The saying is that people vote with their pocketbooks and I think it is certainly true in this case. In 2006 S&W stock was as low as $3.84 a share. It now sits at $23.45 or more than a 600% gain. Anytime the Dems bring up a huge change in public policy, they take a beating. The GOP isn't running scared and I imagine they wants gun control to be a major issue in the upcoming campaign. These polls that show people want background checks are almost meaningless because they don't ask real questions but just a blanket, do you want checks or felons with guns. Heck, most of the Republicans would vote for the idea. It isn't background checks however but gun registration that is the ultimate goal and that is what rubs people wrong. The Dems want every gun by to go through an FFL or in other words, registered. Every time a person advocating gun control is asked if any current suggested reform would have stopped any of the big shootings in the news, the answer is always the same...... no. So why even have it? I saw Obama on the tube this week when he drug out the tired old mantra, "If it saves one child". The only problem with the talks of gun control is not the Republicans running scared but it causes a run on ammo every time and it gets scarce and more expensive. After Sandy Hook a $700 AR-15 jumped to about $3,500. Speaking of Sandy Hook, the next election was in 2014 and that caused the Republicans to gain even more seats in the House (+16) and took over the Senate with the net swing of 18 senators. Yeah, running scared..................

I need to go back and look at the video but when he was directly asked if he invited the NRA to be there his response was something like, well... we have asked them several times. It sounded like he was not referring to being at that specific CNN event but is claiming to wanting to debate them but they will not. Obama then followed up with some kind of gibberish that he would debate them but then through out the caveat that he would only allow "facts" to be brought up. I guess he will determine what the "facts" are not simply not answer or will ignore any question that he doesn't approve of as his facts. I understand that he doesn't like guns and can speak his peace but the whole, the NRA won't debate me is nonsense. I think several people in the NRA would love to debate him in a truly open forum.

It sure seems like it. I guess they are mind readers. I went back and viewed the video and compared it to the (what appears to be) a single sentence out of the affidavit. I don't see the crime.

I may be ironic but it is surely not strange. It is the person with the knowledge and/or access that is involved in such crimes. How many bank employees have ever been convicted of embezzlement? Look at the Beaumont PD lieutenant a few years ago convicted and sent away for many years for selling cocaine from the police evidence locker. Perhaps it could be another person with access to public funds or knowledge such as a school district employee. I remember not so long ago a Beaumont dentist was indicted for drugs and using his doctor's access for personal use. People in such places are in the position to see the opportunity that no others have and some unfortunately succumb to that temptation. If it more unfortunately when it is a public employee. I would also think that it is very much in the minority of employees in all situations and definitely when it comes to officers. You will note that the police arrested him and are filing charges. I and others have said it before but no one hates a bad cop more than a good cop.

I don't see it. I would think it would be easy to beat in court.

It is occupational knowledge. I don't know much about being an operator at a chemical plant or bank loans (other than being rejected). I will say this, knowing what actual laws say is not so important to most people as most can figure out what most laws are such as assaults, theft, property damage, drug possession, etc. I honestly don't expect people to know the exact details of such laws in our state, much less that of other states. Your question above is such an example. It is a great question out of common knowledge. Even being directly involved in laws and enforcing them I don't expect most people to know about bail. Heck, most officers don't know as it has no bearing on how they do the job. That is a job for judges and to be contested by lawyers. What sometimes has me wondering is the total lack of knowledge of procedure or rights even in general terms that is severely lacking. People often spit out the idea of "my rights" when in truth they have no clue what those rights mean. I (and others on here) could probably list a lot of legal issues and court rulings that would have people baffled or stunned.

Typically bail is denied in very limited circumstances on capital crimes. I believe the idea that you may be put to death adds to the risk of flight. Looks at the SC Penal Code, this does not appear to be a death penalty case.

I understood it.

.... edited by Hillary Clinton.

Again, I have no problem if you go in the service that you can make your own decisions. Why give a person that is immature and you can't even force to go to the military the claim that "because of the military" they the benefit. Make it an earned privilege. I don't get the GI Bill because my brother went to Viet Nam and served for 26 years and my father went to Korea and earned a Bronze Star for valor. They earned it, I did not.

I never understood this belief. While everyone that is 18 is "old enough" to serve, the truth is that most will not serve and many will even leave the country if forced to serve as we saw the last time we had a draft. There are exemptions in the laws for people that serve in the military and if this is one of those exemptions then so be it. If a person is actively serving in the military or has done at least two years active and gotten an honorable discharge, let them make the decision. In fact I am all for illegal aliens getting the same exemption. The Dream Act was that if they went to college or joined the military they could become legal. To heck with college as anyone would do that just to get in the country. If you put on the uniform of the US military and do your time, potentially on the front line, you have earned your ticket.

....... and I think in some states down to about 15 without parental consent.

The most liberal state in the national is taking away people's "rights"?

1. Everybody is not guilty at the original plea on felonies. 2. There is little reason to plea guilty later unless there is a plea bargain.

That is true.... and Christ was named after Christmas.

Not much surprises me anymore when it comes to knowledge. The outright stupidity of people graduating or who should have graduated from high school is stunning. I work with people that are in the 21-30 year old range and sometimes talk about something (as an example) like maybe "The First Gulf War" with Iraq after they invaded Kuwait. Some have no clue what I am talking about. This was something that likely happened in their lifetime, possibly that a parent was involved in..... and they have never heard of it. I have spoken about current events in our daily meeting and again, no clue. Forget it if you talk about something like Viet Nam, Korea, the Civil War, the JFK or RFK assassinations, Neil Armstrong on the Moon, etc.

It is according to who a person supported going in. I have seen articles and news talking heads that have said that the winners was Cruz/Trump/Christie/Paul/Rubio. The others were relegated to the losers bracket. Cruz did okay but could have done better. I think his "win" might have been simply holding his own. Christie actually made some great points without being abusive. I think he said that he was "a federal prosecutor" too many times. Yep, we know that now Chris. Try answering without saying, ".... and I know that because I was a federal....". Christie "might" pick up a couple of percentage points out of this performance but he is so low that it won't likely matter but time will tell. I think of the second tier candidates on the big state last night (Christie, Fiorina, Kasich, Bush and Carson), Christie likely came out on top enough to stay in for a little longer. Rubio was hot and cold and may pick up a couple of points from the lower tier. Trump was just Trump. The carnival act was in full swing and I don't see his support dropping from last night's performance. The guy makes almost no sense at all and never has a plan other than "trust me" but he is such an entertainment that he still have some (I have no idea why) support. Paul was on point on his Constitutional defense but he also always appears angry and he (like his father) is still seen by many as a kook. He carries his libertarian views a bit too far to be mainstream. All in all, I am not sure that anyone really moves up or down although I can see either Cruz or Rubio or both picking up some steam.

You do realize that all debates from any party are exactly the same. No matter who gets the nomination, it will be exactly the same on the stage with Hillary and it will be slinging both way. When people are in a system to pick a person that the voter thinks is "better", the only way to get the vote/win is to go after the other person. It is not a talent contest where you play a piano and I play a trumpet and someone votes on who is the best. You win by saying, "The other guy can't get it done because..............". The only way you can solve anything is to win and the only way to win is to go after the other guy(s).

They are making a strong move to abolish free thought.

Get away from ball ammo and the military can keep the AR15 platform another 20 years. The police carry far superior rounds than the military.

I agree. I just wanted to point out that Sharpton (like always) is patting himself on the back and pretty much stating that he can be thanked for the verdict.

I noticed this from the article. "If an all-white jury in Oklahoma City would convict a policeman of this amount of grievances, of charges, then it gives us hope that our marching and continued organizing is not in vain," Sharpton said. It sounds like Sharpton believes that this all white jury convicted the ex officer not because of the evidence but because he is has always organized marches. I would bet that neither Sharpton nor anyone else was in the juror's minds and they were dealing with nothing other than the evidence at hand. Sharpton has found a way to again blow his own horn with no evidence of anything. I also find it interesting that he believes marching gained this conviction when in truth, race was probably not an issue with the jury. They looked at the evidence and it pointed to proof beyond a reasonable doubt. No prompting from the studio audience was needed. Imagine that Al.... a group of all white people in the south came to a logical conclusion "based on evidence" with no need to go any further. Now if we could just get him to go by the same standard..............