tvc184

Vet meds are just like that for humans in that many of them are prescription only and not over the counter. Many animal meds are also the same as people meds. 

  You hit the nail on the head. The people have multiple usually violent convictions but instead of locking them up, we want to hug them and try and sweet talk them into not committing crimes.    The gun laws are already there. They should be in jail and not out killing other people but you need to ask the politicians and prosecutors on why they are still out when they have committed a violent crime. That is why we sometimes refer our cases to the federal system when they will accept one in order to get a mandatory sentence in actual prison. 

  Yes, I am familiar with how fast they can fired and it is slower than a handgun. I have an AK, an SKS, an 2 AR15's, a few other rifles and I am not sure how many handguns but for sure I have four that I regularly carry. Full auto might be faster but it is extremely inaccurate. I have yet to see any spree killing with a full auto used. It is true that rifles are made for warfare but that is because most warfare isn't at 20 feet which coincidentally is where most shootings including spree killings take place.   The rifles have the huge advantage of range. We have yet to have a rampage or spree killing at 200 yards. They are up close and personal like the head shots at Sandy Hook where a small .22 pistol would likely have done the same damage.     All of which is why I made my post and you apparently ignored it in order to say how fast a AK can fire. 

  Completely repeal the Second Amendment and confiscate all gun or be prepared to respond to it once it happens. Even the confiscation won't stop it as it doesn't take many guns to get through for it to happen.    Just recently a kid with a knife stabbed several people. One of the biggest terror attacks on a school was at Beslan when fire bombs killed more than 160 mostly children. Until we ban gasoline and any other assorted every day items, we cannot stop someone from mass killings. In fact the deadly school killing in the USA was not a shooting but a bombing and not in recent history but way back in 1927 in Bath, Michigan.    You cannot stop a person dedicated at carnage. 

  I am not trying to be silly but that is a popular misconception repeated time and time again.    Rifles like an AK or AR have a huge advantage over handguns and that is range. Someone that is good with an AR can kill you at a quarter of a mile and that is with open sights. Their fault lies in them being very large as compared to handguns, weigh a good bit more and the ammo/magazines are generally huge and they are more difficult to reload. It is almost impossible to conceal such a weapon.    Almost all of the shootings with these so called "assault" rifles are at extremely close range of a few feet away, not up to hundreds of feet. In early 1991 I was giving a talk to the Lions Club or Optimist or one of the other service organizations. During my short talk I was questioned about "assault" rifles and shooting the San Ysidro McDonald's shooting (21 murdered) was brought up. I told them that the rifle in that situation was not a better weapon and someone in the future was going to wreak more havoc with a handgun. You could carry 100 rounds or more in handgun magazines in a single front pocket of some jeans. It was only a matter of time and a good person can reload in slightly over a second. The media created fear of rifles in mass shootings was for the most part unfounded in my opinion. They are certainly deadly but at a few feet, unnecessary and many times a hindrance to the shooter.    A few weeks later we had the Luby's shooting in Killeen. He shot 43 people and killed 23 in what was at the time the most deadly spree killing in US history while only armed with 9mm pistols. I kind of wanted to go back to the service club and say, "I told you so".    That was later trumped by the VA Tech shootings when 32 people were killed.... again with handguns only and one of them was the tiny .22 round which is more thought of as a tiny and low power practice round and maybe squirrel hunting, an animal which weighs generally less than a pound.    Those were the two most deadly shootings in US history without the need for the dreaded assault rifle as the shooters were not killing people 100-400 yards away. But wait, we move on to Sandy Hook that was the second most people killed  26 people (replacing Luby's) at the school with a rifle but all at almost point blank range. That means a handgun would have been just as deadly if not more so with the usually shorter reloading time.    Until we start having mass murders at 100 yards or more, the idea of rifles being the more serious culprit seem to be misplaced seeing that 2 of the 3 deadliest shootings have been with handguns and the 3rd could have just as well been so.    That fact is that very few people are ever killed with AK or AR style rifles in an average year in the USA. From the federal government CDC stats, of the 11,000 or so firearm homicides a year, the average of the years since the Clinton assault weapon ban expired in 2004 is 48 murders per year from "assault weapons". That means that if you took away these dreaded and scary looking weapons, it would have no bearing on 99.6% of firearms murders. And even that is assuming that the less than 0.4% that did happen with an assault weapon, they shooter simply could not have opted for a less scary weapon to commit the same crime.    Simply repeating the mantra that assault weapons are the problem simply is not true and the statistics including those from the federal government back that up.    But they sure are scary looking.............. 

  What gun laws will stop spree killings?   I will just use TX law as an example. Kill any two people and it is a death penalty case. Kill any child under 10 years old and it is a death penalty case.   It is a felony l for a person already convicted of a felony to purchase or possess a firearm anyway.    Those laws are already here. A felon cannot even possess a firearm or I think under federal law, even the ammo without a firearm. To kill a single child in an elementary school is a likely death sentence.    With it already being a felony to buy or possess firearms or ammo and likely getting the death sentence either by court or a self inflicted wound after a person has inflicted enough damage, what law will prevent such as attack? 

  Going to stick with that lie?

  I agree. Maybe three officers per campus so that it is covered. That comes to about $1,000 per day per campus. I think BISD has 26 campuses to $26,000 per day or about half a million dollars a month. I think BISD could spring for another $4-$5 million each year for extra cops. 

  I never saw the right to own vehicles or have a driver's license listed in the Constitution. Maybe I missed that part........... 

  How will you know? In fact, a teacher may be doing so now without your knowledge. 

    Graze in a field and go Baaaaaa!!!

  I think that most teachers would not carry simply because most teachers do not carry when away from school anyway. There are plenty of teachers that do carry concealed, in their cars or hunt and would gladly be able to carry at school. They might be in the minority but there are still many that would if given the choice. 

While that mistake may be true and background checks were instituted (no waiting period) under the Brady Law, it did not happen under Reagan but under Clinton almost 6 years after Reagan left office.

Again, I have no problems with a background check. It is none of the government's business on what I own however. And honestly, if a person decides to shoot up a school and kill children for which he will either recieve the death penalty, be killed by the police or will commit suicide, what gun law will stop his actions?

Really? I am soon to wrap up my 31st year as a police officer including most of Reagan's term in office. What is this registration you speak of that apparently existed at one time without my knowledge but does not exist today?

  Apparently you missed the point about confiscation.    Why should the government know what you own legally? Does your right to privacy allow the government to know what you own? Maybe our voting should be made public and no need for booths anymore. 

  As opposed to the Democrats doing the same thing in 2012 by lying about a response from a terror attack for an election which coincidentally would be the same reason? 

It is almost comical. We have 73,000 "less" people working than a month ago, yet the unemployment rate falls almost half a percent.    When hundreds of thousands of people simply give up looking, they call it a victory and jobs created. 

  They can successfully impeach him at any time they wish. I am sure they already have the votes. He will not be removed from office however but that is not even the issue.   Obama claimed in his first election that he would have the most transparent administration in history. That has shown to be a monumental lie. He claimed that he would not raise any taxes on the middle class, period. He said that it would not be disguised as a new fee or any other name to try to hide that fact that it was a new tax. That might be the biggest lie.    The issue on Benghazi is not to get him removed from office, it is to show what a scam he is and especially with his favorite (at the time) henchman, Hillary. It really doesn't matter what happened but the obvious cover up does. There was a concerted effort to lie to all Americans when knowing that they failed in either their response to a threatened terror attack or their claim that they had the terrorists on the run and they did it for an election.    Obama will not be removed from office and I don't think any reasonable person believes that. What they are hoping for it for the truth to finally come out (although most of it already has) to show what a disgrace and liar that Hillary is. 

  I don't understand the rationale of what she is being paid to do. It has nothing to do with it.    If a person does not want to carry a gun, great. I don't want that person to do so because if it is unwilling, it will be more dangerous than being without one. The idea of "I am not getting paid" however seems like a union stance of, "That's not my job". You know, where a guy asks another to hand him a hammer on a construction site but the guy near him is a pipe fitter and not a carpenter so he won't do it. Get the "someone that is in the "right" union to hand it to you.    A teacher does have the job of protecting students. When they have fire drills or meetings of what do when something does happen like a lock down or shelter in place, does the teacher get to opt out because, "My job is to teach"?    Again, if a person doesn't want a gun then that person should not carry one or be made to carry one. That should not stop someone else from doing so. Teachers or administrators that are armed have not changed their duties and become police officers, they just now have a way to respond in case something very bad does happen other than simply sitting in a classroom saying, "That is not what I am paid to do so I will sit here and die along side the rest of you". 

  I don't think people are really opposed to background checks. They are opposed to registration.    If they pass a law that says I have to get a background check even to buy from an individual and pay a $10 tax/fee to get it, great. I am all for that and so would most people. The government is using the background check as a back door means of registration. They don't want you to merely get checked but want you to list the gun that you are buying for their records. The fear of that is confiscation.    I don't have a constitutional right to a television yet I have several and the government is not having me document my serial numbers or keeping a record of how many I have. I can name any number of other items that come with serial number that I have no constitutional right to own yet the government does not care nor requires anything from me. I have the constitutional right to own firearms and yet the government wants to know how many and how they can track them by serial number. Name the logic in that.    It isn't the background checks that people are in fear of. Even the NRA is not against banning felons from possessing firearms. Background checks is a code phrase for registration. 

I think there is a big difference between not having a good image and something so blatant as Sterling's rant. 

  What PA does is to contract with PAPD for off duty officers and it would cost almost $800,000 to staff every campus (if there are 14) with a single officer for 40 weeks a year. This however is cheaper than having their own PD since they don't have to provide vehicles, insurance, matching social security and medicare taxes, etc.    Our officers work for $35 per hour off duty or roughly a salary of a person making almost $73,000 per year. There would be savings because they would not have to be there when school was no in session. 

  Yet the state in the last session created teacher police officers with full law enforcement powers on campus except for traffic. 

  I am not sure where the baiting comes into play but it is still likely murder, according to what the state law says where it happened.    The problem is with the words "reasonable" or "reasonably". Those words appear 52 times in TX Chapter 9 of the Penal Code that deals in self defense. TX is fairly open on the ability to use force or deadly force when needed and reasonable. How reasonable is it for a guy to say that he is in fear of his life, yet entices a person to come into his home? It seems a ludicrous claim of reasonable fear when you are essentially inviting the person in.