matthewcline

Quote

Quote

Quote

However, it does re-enforce the difference between a mad-man shooting in an area where everyone is armed and an area where no one is armed.

How far did he get?

Three officers wounded, two with only minor injuries. Shooter quickly killed by return fire. Quite a difference from the high body counts of mass shooters in no-gun zones...

Would have been NO injuries if madman had not been able to access the gun in the first place.

So don't arrest him and take him to jail? just let him be?
(I jest, I know that is not what you meant)

It appears to be a bit of a lapse in procedure, allowing the Criminal a chance to try and fight his way to a life on the run. He failed in the end.

Matt

Quote

Quote

Quote

Navy - age 16 -5'11"
Jefferson 1966 6'1"
San Quentin 6'0"
Georgia D License 6'1"

That is just what I could lay my hands on. As a young boy he had not matured to his full height.

I cannot read the markings on the Canon file, but he had on shoes - do we know what he was wearing in other measuements.

As far as I know Duane's height was always 6'1" and then of course when he started to shrink in his 60's as I have and with the way diaylisis and the meds the took - they ate away at the bones and he shrunk a lot in the those last yrs.

Dialysis plays hell with the calcium and the bones.

Still that where it will do U the most good.

well that sounds like I'm probably correct about the Canon photo, typically you have a one inch shoe heel
Duane was pretty young in the Navy pic from what I recall, puts him over the Cooper limit but within the
guidelines. DL can be anything close, they never check, they just ask how tall are you. he was young
during his service years, still growing.

I was looking at the pic today and that is when the lines caught my eye, seemed he was over the 6 foot mark.

so to best sum it up Duane was 6-1 to 6-2

Duane's height was never listed as 6'2" on anything. It was always 6 ft or 6 ft 1 in. PERIOD.

You two are saying the same thing.

Matt

That may be tough, as Harry has said he wont' present anything from he House he didn't first approve of.

But at least we have acknowledged the House did pass and send a Bill to the Senate.

They are still two ASSHATS.

Matt

Isn't that Tax already paid, but "misdirected" ?

Matt

Quote

Quote

Quote

We could start by requiring a NICS check for all transfers, including between private individuals.

Those laws should be made at the state level as they already are in many states.

If a state wants to make that a law, I have no problems with that. Sale of private property between private individuals should not (in my opinion) be overseen by any branch of the government, but should a state decide that they should make a law regarding said transfers, that is of the powers "reserved to the states or the people."

33 states do not have such a law. Which makes the other 17 effectively useless since a disqualified person just goes out of state.

Which is why it needs to be federal.

There is a Federal Law against that though.

You can't get the CCW with a Felony Record.

Matt

Seems to run unopposed at times as well.

Matt

Quote

Quote

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/12/27/repeal-of-the-second-amendment-would-not-abolish-any-right/comment-page-1/

Matt

I think he's using the same argument, and making the same mistake as Dmcoco.

"The Second Amendment declares that it shall not be infringed: but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National [Federal] Government…”"

He's saying that the right still exists without the amendment, but that without the amendment the right can be infringed. A right that can be infringed is just an abstract notion that's no good to anyone.

You don't think he is saying that the Constitution and Bill of rights only Confirm our Rights, not Confer them? Meaning they are still our rights, paper or not.

Matt

Quote

Quote

Just placed my order for 18 AR-10s . . .

5 Weeks, and they are here!

6 of us got together and pooled our money and got the bulk purchase price.

Nothing like making some money off dead children.

Sadly, the Brady Campaign, CSGV, NRA, and many others have been doing this since the hour after CT.

It is a pot-kettle thing.

Matt

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/12/27/repeal-of-the-second-amendment-would-not-abolish-any-right/comment-page-1/

Matt

Quote

Quote

Since I am a law abiding citizen, I would give up my guns because your imperial leader decided so. So I would be a sitting duck for home invasions.

Why wouldn't I just wait till you leave and break in then? That way if you have guns around the house, I can steal those too!

I hope Kallend reads this, he won't believe any one else writing it.

Matt

"Grandfathered" typically means a law won't have an impact on current ownership.

If you already own the weapons, you will be allowed to keep them, after the law has passed. Unless of course they disqualify you by any one of the new regulations. You could be perfectly law abiding today, but not tomorrow.

Matt

Why do you find it a constant need to insult people here?

The answer was Both, and it was explained as to why.

Let me recap: It places gun and none gun owners at risk as it did some of the leg work for Robbers/Home invaders. They Now know which homes have a "low threat" to their criminal activity. Making none gun owners now at a higher personal risk.

They, also, know which homes to case longer, pattern and rob (when the gun owning home owner is not present) and try and steal the usual items, and of course now firearms from, to use in more criminal activity.

Plus, the posting of the list was clearly an act of intimidation by the paper, sure they tried to water it down in their statement, but that is what it is.

Matt

Well, we have made progress, there is a House Bill in the Senate, waiting.

Currently there are two passed bills, one from each house, the "Plan A" if you will from the house of Reps, the Senate has tabled it. The Senate Bill has been tabled by the House of Reps, as well. Again TWO ASSHATS. This is where we are supposed to see the two come together and do the reconciliation, instead, it is the three way cluster fuck of politics.

Of course the major issue is spending. It is nice to see the Senate start to acknowledge that as well.

In the end; We lose and the Senate "Leader" "Wins".

Matt

She did appear in a news conference with a NY Rep and confiscation was mentioned as being on the table.

Four, at least, administrations systematically ripping away Individual Rights, for their political gain.

Matt

I answered your question with out any "fluff", apparently you do not like that.

Of course, the question has been answered a few times with much more detail already.

Matt

http://news.yahoo.com/u-house-passes-fiscal-cliff-bill-aimed-pressuring-234744353--business.html

Apparently since it wasn't the "Plan B" failure, it wasn't news. It would appear, it is now in Harry's hands.

But to be honest, the Senate passes Bills all the time, out of sequence it would appear, and the House plays politics with them too. But right now, the ball is back in the Senate.

Matt

Both.

Matt

I do not know where the quote came from, as it is not credited.

The House has sent Bills, the Senate doesn't vote on them. TWO ASSHATS. Reid even went on TV blaming the House for the mess, Boehner issued a statement from Ohio, blaming back. TWO ASSHATS.

Why do you defend one and not the other? They are doing the same thing, playing Political Games, acting like children, and blaming each other for their lack of REAL Leadership.

Even NPR acknowledges that Reid "wins" when we go over the cliff, why? Because he can then propose to "lower" tax rates, by less than they went up of course, even CNN and FOX are parroting NPR! Woah!

Are the "two bills" in your quote, the already passed House Bill, and the yet to be passed Senate Bill, they would need to be amended and then re-voted on? You know that whole process.

Interesting, you point out Art 1 Sec 7, would it mean that Bills first passed in the Senate and then the House are not legal?

Matt

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Have you any criticism of the proposed efficacy of the announced plan?

How did that armed guard at Columbine work out?

The guard worked about as well as the assault rifle ban during that time did. Clebold and Harris used other weapons and got the same results.

So the ban worked, since the banned guns were not used.

The armed guard did not work, since the shooting still took place.

The Guard was not in the area, but did return and end the shooting, wasn't that what was posted earlier?

Matt

Quote

Thanks for displaying. Didn't know what a 30 round magazine looked like. So tired of journalists actions becoming the story when they are suppose to be reporting stories.

Ha ha! You called him a Journalist!
They don't report, they make stories.

Matt

Quote

You might want to brush up on the facts about the current POTUS.
Describing a Harvard trained lawyer, who was a professor of constitutional law, as being a person who "has to take off his shoes to count over ten" bespeaks a level of igorance unmatched for at least ten minutes in this forum.

The part that the right wing conservatards don't get is that, thanks to years of education on matters governmental, Obama plays long ball for keeps. He does not dick around much with short term trends and popular "opinions" of the conservatard press. Quite the opposite. He has and maintains focus on long term goals, and works to achieve them. The fact that rescumlicans grossly abused the Senate Rules on the filibuster and still could not stop some progress shows just how fucked up the rescumlicans have become. If it wasn't for the corporate owned media being 100% on the rescumlican side, the average citizen would realize just how badly they have been fucked over by the extremely wealthy, aka, the rescumlicans.

This long ball methodology is ever so challenging for the RWC pinheads as these concepts are far beyond what their pitiful little intellects can handle.

That is funny right there!

Matt

No, you haven't. You've told fables and hurt Jo, insulted many here (should be on a life time ban for it), been kicked off other web pages for your issues, lied, and have slandered a few innocent individuals, but never have proven any thing.

Matt

According to NBC after DC said; "No", they asked ATF, who said; "Yes".

A most he will pay a portion of the maximum fine.

Matt

Supposedly he did ask DC PD for permission to bring the magazine in and they denied him (reported by CNN and Fox again). That, may be the real cause for the "investigation" and may make my earlier prediction wrong. I guess I won't play the lottery after all.

Matt

Quote

Congrats, David Gregory, for demonstrating how these gun control laws really work.

He won't go to jail though. His, and the Station's, Lawyers will meet with the Prosecuting DA, explain it was meant as a prop (as it was) to prove a point, they will argue it was the 1st used to showcases the "flaws" of the 2nd, a press conference will happen, a "lesson learned" statement will be made, and then the Pro 2nd Amendment Folks will be attacked for the whole episode.

End result, nothing, other than more coverage for the man, and he becomes a hero among his fellow none-journalists.

Matt