One required surgery. They are in stable condition.

The shooter is dead or did you miss the bit about suicide. I'm glad the officers are stable. I hate to see anyone get shot but if you've got to shoot someone and you're the criminal/offending party, shooting yourself is the best option for everyone.

Our thoughts and prayers for the injured officers, their families and friends.

Hoping for a quick and full recovery.

The guy most likely did not kill himself, rather the Police were "getting some payback" and made it look like a suicide. Although illegal, this is standard operating procedure for any police. The rule is that if you kill a cop, or shoot/wound a cop, you are going down, sooner rather than later.

Benson,

Your comment is nothing but pure bs. Standard procedure? You obviously just hate cops.

Go choke on your hatred somewhere else.

Well this answer to this post was put on #41 of the Hit Parade - But Japan chops itself to pieces to the tune of 32,000+ per year -And they don't have guns~!~! They do it with Samurai swords, Ninja swords, hatchets or whatever cutlery they can acquire- ALL of which are prohibited, but they still accomplish it~!~!

Likwise for those Latino bozos down South with Machetes which is commonly referred to in the Emergency Rooms as ' Collins Disease' - aftwer the Manufacurer's name Collins -

Ya wanna handle that Chum-~??~!~?~!

It stated that the 3 officers were in stable condition and the shooter killed himself.

@b-895713, This is a web page...easily editable and updatable. The original story, when the first post was made, had only information regarding the three cops being shot, and virtually nothing about the shooter. They have since added all the info regarding the barricade, and the suspect committing suicide.

Anybody planning on moving to Florida soon?

Was the dead guy a Vine poster - I've heard several of you say you will fight the government if they come after you? Only difference is the Vine posters think there will be 100,000,000 citizens fighting with them...lol.

My old room-mate quit the Sheriffs department because of these kinds of calls - he called it babysitting the public.

Thanks, everyone. When the article originally posted around 5P yesterday, there was very little information except that three officers were shot. Hoping that all three recover quickly and glad that the shooter is gone but definitely in agreement that if you're going to shoot yourself, just do it and leave innocents out of it.

Benson - this is most definitely not true. The swat team had a clear shot of this monster white supremist abusive sicko two and half years ago. I'm sorry that he wasn't taken out. One of the officers was my husband's cousin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_POPLAWSKI

The guy most likely did not kill himself

Are you an idiot??? The house was surrounded when the suspect went inside???

How the Hell would the police be able to shoot him, ever hear of forensics??

Imbecile.

DaSarge:

Your contention that the Japanese cut each other up with swords to the tune of 32,000 deaths per year is utterly false. Even Fox News wouldn't stoop to such a blatant lie.

Any poster can put the lie to your post by simply going to a search block and type in, "homicides in Japan". I used the Second Amendment Project for my source. That's hardly an anti-gun site.

It is very unbecoming for someone to use a moniker that implies military service and then proceed to demonstrate a complete disregard for the truth. In fact, it's not merely unbecoming, it's disgusting.

Committed suicide? Yeah right. I'm putting my money on death by cop. It's their MO when a civilian hurts/kills one of their own.

I sincerly hope so Idiot.

This always has existed but we are going to experience a dramatic increase as the inept government struggles to accept that our jobs are gone to China and they are not coming back no matter who you tax or how much you tax, there is no way to tax enough to replace the manufacturing side of the GNP, we have tried it and it was a failure even as a temporary fix.

Guns tracked from U.S to Mexico.

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0525gunssouth0525.html

Surprised Sheriff Joe and Jan Brewer aren't doing the selling, right up Jan's alley.

Gee if Obama would not give the guns to them Mexicans maybe there would not be so many deaths or if the people of Mexico could protect themselves and not be sitting ducks those numbers might be a lot different eh...

You wouldn't be anti-gun/anti-US Constitution-no-matter-what, now would you? BTW: What source are you counting on that proves the guns in Mexico come from us? I mean, besides the Mexican president, who blames his entire country's ills on us.

Bottom line is, no matter how much you whine and try to blame everything on legal gun ownership, if you WERE somehow able to get an unconstitutional national law banning firearms passed in this country, your problems would have just begun...millions of gun owners simply won't turn in their firearms when told to do so by the "authorities". You think you've got problems with the TeaBaggers? Imagine that if even half of the currently legal gun owners refused to turn in their weapons...now how many more armed "criminals" did you just create? Based solely on YOUR fears of firearms, and unwillingness/inability to fight back against those that truly deserve your ire - the criminals that really don't care what your laws say, and so won't be turning in THEIR firearms, either.

LettyLane-1334471...Yes, before last year there was a terrible shortage of guns and crazy people everywhere were unable to perform mahem because guns were just not available to nuts before Obama got into office, right ?

Okay, liberal, now let's talk about abortions. Over 1,000,000 babies are murdered by abortions each year.

I love the use of "liberal", "babies" and "murder". You do realize your statement is conclusive proof we can't have a reasoned discussion on the issue because:

(1) you've stigmatized and stereotyped me (in your mind) as a "liberal";

(2) you've assumed up front that the fetus is a "baby" and

(3) you've assumed up front that the act of abortion is a "murder".

I'm sure you consider yourself "pro life" as well.

If you dismiss people who don't agree with you by using stigmatizing steretypes like that, you'll never be able to nuderstand the other side of an issue. If you define issues using loaded terms like that, with initial assumptions like that, you'll never be able to use your god given logic to meaningfully analyze anything for yourself. And, as a result, you'll keep being spoon fed by conservative radio and puppets with double-digit IQs like Perry and Palin.

Good luck, "conservative".

Well, his wife was right. He had guns and was scary.

If you have a gun and are scary...Sell it for charity and calm down.

One Eye... Your making a mistake by comparing the murder rates in America to Great Britain. It's a tactic that a lot of morons use. Here's the problem.

Great Britain has a population of 61.838 million people.
California ALONE has a population of 36.961 million people, or over half of GB.
The US in total has a population of 307.006 million people.

When you look at murder rates for ALL of Europe (a much fairer number) your results are not nearly as dramatic. We're still about double, but hey, we're a lot crazier than them-what Europeans!

http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/IHS-rates-05012009.pdf

Please note that this document is only about per-capita murder rates, and doesn't reflect overall violent crime. Great Britain actually has something like 130% more assaults than the US... go figure.

Fetus??? How I love how people rationalizing the murder of BABIES. You are so wrong!

One eye- Controlling guns has NOTHING to do with the Patriot Act or any of the other things you're spouting off about. And controlling guns would NOT have stopped these cops from getting shot.

Guns Don't kill people, people kill people. And they would find a way to do it with or without guns.

One-Eyed Undertaker

"Guns. 10,000 murders a year in the United States, 80+% with guns. 5x higher murder rate than Great Britain because of guns (notably, entire difference attributable to our guns). Mexican violence resulting in 30,000+ deaths a year made possible with our guns. Police officers unsafe responding to domestic"

the USA population is 312 million, Great Britain has 62 million people , lets see 5 times 62 is 310 so the murder rate by guns in the USA is lower per cap. in then in Great Britain. and how many Mexicans are sneaking into Great Britain?

and as far the the Cops go ,what about the homeless guy in CA. that was beat and tasered to death by cops? he did not have a gun.

You look up above at #1.6and #41 and try to tell about that ~!~!~!

When ALL the guns are controlled, the only ones that will have them are the Criminals/outlaws, as it takes someone to pick it up to use it, otherwise it will lay there for all time and do NOTHING~!~!

Seems though Sheeple can't get that down pat in their mind that they roost on constantly~!~!

One-eyed Undertaker: I totally agree with your "i - ix" list...and the right of women to decide all issues involving their bodies...including the right to safe abortions...and I'm still keeping my guns.

Hunh?!? Did you just read that right? Somebody who doesn't fit your preconceived notion of what a gun owner is? Somebody who actually is an individual, with individual ideas that doesn't fit your tidy little "you people" label? See, I can actually agree with things you say...just leave my guns alone. Distrust the government? Nope...I trust it just fine...because I've got my US Constitution and my firearms to ensure my safety; from the government, if needed, and from random elements of this society, as needed. And I repeat: any attempt to circumvent the US Constitution and the 2nd Amendment will not be meekly accepted by many, many of the legal gun-owning citizens of this country, and will be viewed for what it is: the very proof that the Founding Fathers were right in making sure that the people have the right, the means, and the tools needed to withstand another attempt to enforce a totalitarian government upon us. Old King George couldn't do it...and neither will you. It's not fear - its just a determination to be free, and a rejection of the idea that it is the government's job to protect us from every thing we may fear.

I don't need a cop - I've got me.

I'm not going to cater to your fears of gun violence, nor be held responsible by the actions of those who use a firearms inappropriately. Debate is fine, but just remember: the 2nd Amendment IS NOT open for negotiation.

So, put that in your little label-gun and see what it prints off.

Great Britain outlawed guns in 1997 and in the next decade violent crime rose 80%. Their violent crime rate is much higher than the US, it's the highest in Europe and it's even higher than South Africa. Violent crime has dropped dramatically here over the last 20 years as more and more states legalized carrying a gun.

Over 90% of the guns in Mexico come from other countries, not the US.

There's close to 2 million instances every year where people defend themselves with guns. There's always going to be some nut jobs out there doing things like what happened, but banning guns is not the answer.

You're blowing a futile horn.

"if you WERE somehow able to get a...law banning firearms passed in this country, your problems would have just begun...millions of gun owners simply won't turn in their firearms when told to do so by the "authorities""

he makes a good point. if this happened Tim McVeigh's ghost and his entire army would probably wreak havoc. not something Id especially want to see

This article was about a lunatic who shot 3 cops and offed himself. The cops are OK and we will save a bunch of money in court costs and supporting this lunatic in prison for many years to come. See, happy ending, right?

As far as the rest of the crap brought up, criminals will find a way to have a gun, so why can't a law abiding citizen have a chance to protect him or herself! People hunt, that takes a gun the majority of the time.

Mexico? Guns? Murders? Well, if this country weren't so addicted to drugs, that problem wouldn't exist, there would be no drug cartels etc...

Abortions? (how did that get into this conversation?) Well, just like a gun, it's a personal choice. I don't think anyone should be the "moral police" on any of the above issues.

But if we all get to pick and choose things we don't want others to do, I'd like to start with taking driving privileges away from ignorant morons out on the road daily. Be careful, you may be one of them, how would you like the gov't getting involved in that?

Oh, and the color purple, I'm not fond of it, can we outlaw it so I don't have to look at it?

My point is, we are all not happy with everything, instead of getting into others business, learn to be happy and live your own life to the fullest.

OneEyedUndertaker is having some neocons for lunch and it smells wonderful!

Mental health patient strikes again....

Just because there are a few nutballs in this country does not mean we should have to lose the right to sustain a "well armed militia".

Pencils!! One-eyed Undertaker forgot the reason he has one eye! I bet they confiscated all the pencils and pens after that unfortunate accident.

Guns are leaving the U.S. are being sold through straw men sold in Mexico . I would say if the issue was pushed enough the war on drugs would be no comparison to the war they could have on weapons that is being sold around the world.If they were really interested in solving It's very rarely that you see someone busted with a stockpile of weapons that has been sold. The individuals that sell these weapons make the drug cartels income look like a middle class income now.

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0525gunssouth0525.html

And what is funny is the fact that the high-crime areas for guns, it is illegal to have one. Washington D.C, and Mexico are both good examples.

We can look at Switzerland, where everyone is required to have a firearm, and see hardly a gun crime anywhere.

btw, the word 'Fetus' means 'Unborn Child' oooops.

3 Lake county Indiana Cops busted for buying Guns and laser sights that are for cops only and posting them on the Internet for sales. using paper work from their dept. to do so, under reported their yaxs by $30,000.00 Ea, this just happen two days ago.

HAMMOND | The three Lake County sheriff's officers who were indicted Thursday on federal corruption charges entered not guilty pleas Friday and walked out of the federal courthouse after signing a $20,000 appearance bond.

Dressed in suits and ties, Edward L. Kabella, 42, Joseph R. Kumstar, 40, and Ronald D. Slusser, 47, were processed and fingerprinted in the morning. The Crown Point men are accused of using federal firearms licenses and Lake County Sheriff's Department documents to buy guns and laser sights intended for law enforcement use only - and then selling them online for thousands of dollars. They also underestimated their incomes by about $390,000 combined on their tax returns.

The three pleaded not guilty to all six counts of the indictments as a formality. Earlier this week they entered into plea agreements with the government, and change of plea hearings are scheduled for 1 p.m. Tuesday for Slusser, 1:30 p.m. for Kumstar and 2 p.m. for Kabella in Senior Judge James Moody's courtroom.

At Friday's hearing, Assistant U.S. Attorney Philip Benson said the men face a maximum sentence of five years in prison and $250,000 in fines for conspiring to provide false information to federally licensed firearms dealers about the intended use of the more than 70 automatic machine guns they purchased in the scheme.

Read more: #ixzz1YtYhyKI7

The only problem with your theory in Mexico the only people obtaining guns in large quantities is the cartels as in other countries the rulers obtain the best weapons and the citizens get the pea shooters.

Oh I tried so hard to not get into the gun debate. OOOPS. Here we go: First- That kid that DIDNT get eaten by that cougar was saved in part to the fact that his father SHOT A GUN. The kid had a knife that made it think twice, BUT I would rather not have to worry about getting that close to a wild vicious animal to protect myself.

2)How many anti gun nuts live in a rural area? Not many I bet. I had a bear show up right outside my mothers yard this summer, and there are small children out there all the time. She lives 2 miles from me. I would rather shoot the damn thing than have it get ahold of me for getting in between me and my kids.

3) Now its the US' fault that the cartels have these guns, like if we stopped, it would make their traffic stop. Come on, wishfull thinking. Not gonna happen.

4)I guess I wont starve when the economy crashes again. I can make sure I have meat on the table. Can you?

5)The home invasion rate in my very well armed state is 0. A big fat NADA. No one wants to rob someone who can kill them before they get in the door. And I will.

6)Have you ever seen a criminal who is a GREAT shot? NOPE. They dont go get the training, thats why they shoot with their hand sideways. Worst possible way if you want to hit your target.

7)Criminal who have guns dont have the balls to scrap with someone. Case point: Someone pulled a rifle on my man beast once. Trying to make himself look big. He didnt feel so big when he started talking @!$%# with a gun pointed at him. The dude ran off. Get it yet?

how many hunters take A-47 deer hunting?

correction AK-47

Playswithknives. Ha! I agree.

.............

WMG, I'm not sure how to respond. You opened up with a statement about absolute population differences (whichc is irrelevant), but then you mention per capita and cited a stat (which is the correct comparison). Those are conflicting ideas.

Regardless, I think comparing all of Europe is disingenuous if we're trying to understand the contribution of guns to the american murder rate. (i) We're talking about guns. Other countries in Europe permit individual gun ownership. (ii) Our country is the offspring of Great Britain and our culture most closely resembles theirs. (iii) Further to (ii), "Europe" includes the eastern block, which is "second world", heavily armed and more violent than Western Europe.

............

Cherry, you obviously have no understanding of the difference between absolute numbers and percentages. Percentages (and, similarly, occurance per capita) allow us to compare relative occurrence in populations/samples of differing size.

For example, if I said there's a place with a 100 people where 1 person got murdered and a place with 1000 people where 10 people got murdered, which place is safer (in terms of odds of being murdered)? The answer is obviously that, despite the size difference, both are equally "safe".

This is why we use incidence per capita to compare various statistics of countries.

The benchmark for measuring murder rates is murders per 100,000 people per year.

The US has 5 murders per 100,000 people per year. The UK has 1.28. Here's a source for you to chew on that compares all countries. Note that we're way up the list in terms of "most murders".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

................

Robert:

My comparison to the Partiot Act, etc. was in response to someone saying they needed guns because of "mistrustung the government". I was pointing out that they (and most pro gun crazies) are hypocrites because in many analogous situations, the same people likely completely trust the government and support increased government involvement in our daily lives. It's called reasoning by analogy.

To your statement:

"And controlling guns would NOT have stopped these cops from getting shot. Guns don't kill people, people kill people."

Firstly, controlling guns would absolutely have prevented the cops from getting shot. If you donn't have a gun, you can't shoot someone.

Secondly, I agree people in the end pull the trigger..."people kill people". But, the gun is designed and sold for the purpose of being an efficient, impersonal means of killing someone. If you take away guns...the efficient, impersonal, easy means of killing people...then it's much harder. The result is evident when you compare US murder rates to Great Britain...5X less murders.

Also, just noting in terms logical consistency, the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument also justifies nuclear proliferation. "Nukes don't kill people, people kill people."

............

Pirate. You seem like a reasonable person. It sounds like you have a logical stance that you've given some thought. If there weren't so many other hateful comments, I'd like to debate the issue with you. I absolutely don't define anyone in terms of "conservative" or "liberal". It's steretyping in terms of black and white and prevents hearing what other's truly think.

I think you misuderstood my response. I called John a "conservative" because he obviously self-identifies as one and views things in unreasoned black and white terms. He began his comment by berating me as a "liberal".

............

Papa. I understand that once the genie (gun ownership) is out of the bottle, it's hard to put it back in again. I agree that there's no way we could make anyone turn in their guns. But, I disagree that those facts prevent us from doing the things that need to be done with respect to the sale of new weapons.

For example, it's ridiculous that we allow people to purchase assault rifles in unlimited quantities. Putting stricter limits on the sale of assault rifles has nothing to do with the average joe that has a hunting rifle in his closet (of which, I'm one...together with a 9mm in my night stand).

........

J70141. Now you're thinking. So, rather than calling the fetus a "child" and assuming it has the same rights as a 5 year old, by using the term "fetus" you acknowledge that this is something different than "a child" generally...this is the key distinction...it's "unborn".

Now that you've opened this up, we can have a legit debat about the "unborn" child. Is it a "person". Can it be "murdered"? Does it have full Constitutional rights? Does it have some limited subset of Constitutional rights? Does the mother's right to control her own body trump its right to grow inside it? May the woman, whose body it is growing in, choose not to be pregnant and to abort the fetus? Etc. Etc. Etc.

..............

Mark. You raise an interesting point. I'm absolutely for as much freedom as possible and self-identify generally as a Libertarian. I don't think the government should have any say with respect to speech...or religion for example.

Should a courthouse be able to put the ten commandments out front? Absolutely not.

Should the government be able to detain individuals without a trial? Absolutely not.

Should the government be able to read emails and wire tap without satisfying the Constitutional warrant requirement? Aboslutely not.

Weapons, however, can be distinguished from the above. Even the most staunch Libertarian (take Ron Paul for example), will admit we need a government for certain things.

Those "things" are things we couldn't do without collective action. Things that, if everyone did together, would be undeniably beneficial for the group, but that people won't do without being forced. For example, we need someone to set and enforce criminal laws that apply to everyone...as a result we need a legislature to make the laws, a court to interpret them and a police force to enforce them. We need someone with the ability to require a draft because, in times of real war, individuals are disincentivized from volunteering for the military if they think someone else will put their own life in danger to protect them. These are called collective action problems and result from the game theory that comes into play when you're dealing with a group. Water rights are another good example.

We also need a clearly defined concept of what things are off limits for the government to touch, even if there's a reason we might otherwise need them to step in to fix a problem. The Constitution and Bill of Rights provide the list as off limits items for the American government.

Having said this, I think the legitimate argument here is not whether there is a "problem". If you're being honest, I think you must admit that the presence of guns in thepopulation increases the likelihood that individuals will commit murder...because the use of a gun makes it easy, quick and impersonal. Addionally, a collecitve action problem exists because, like you pointed out, there are many guns in circulation, and, knowing that, who would give up their own.

So..........

(1) The need for government action with respect to guns is obvious. Arguing otherwise is disingenuous.

(2) The real question is "Despite the fact that guns cause a problem in our society and present a collective action problem, should the government have the power to take action to address the issue.?" That's the crux of the debate. That's also the question that the second amendment purports to answer.

So, "What is the answer the second amendment provides?" And, "If the second amendment really does say individuals can own literally all the "arms" they want should we change it? (Note: that this broad word "arms" literally includes all weapons...F-22s, nuclear warheads, cannons, all types of guns, tanks, ships, etc.)

Long story short: I think there's an obvious problem (pistol and assault rifle ownership leading to super high murder rate). I think it's a collective action problem (as you pointed out, the incentives are wrong for people to fix it without government involvement). And, I think that the second amendment answers the question in a manner differently than the Supreme Court decided in Heller. I don't think there's an individual right to bear "arms" (broad word) unconnected to membership in a "militia". I don't think the founding father's were saying you can stockpile AR-15s in your Manhattan loft.

Moreover, if the Constitution really does say individuals have a right to bear "arms" (broad word), then I think we should change it. There's 300 million people in this country now, and the fact that they can all buy unlimited numbers of guns results in us having a third world murder rate.

Undertaker...One point you seem to overlook with the 2nd Amendment is its historical basis. It was in direct response to the government (Britain) outlawing any firearms that could be used to match the firepower of the government's army. They legally restricted Americans to outdated weapons for use for hunting. Fast forward to the present: the same intent is there in the 2nd amendment: to provide the common citizenship with the means - in the individual sense - to defend one's life, and also in the common - for all citizens - to defend the populace from a tyrannical government. So pistols for individual protection {ever try to farm in snake country while carrying a rifle or shotgun?} and firearms (yes, even 'fully-automated') weapons to defend in case the government gets out of control. {Note: the nuclear/chemical weapons you referred to are NOT firearms} Libya is a good, recent example: they were totally out-gunned, until foreign powers decided to assist them by supplying them with more modern weaponry. If the population is restricted to a single-shot shotgun, while the government has AK47s, etc., then the government has no real reason to fear or respect its populace. That is the history of the 2nd Amendment, and the intent of the 'Founding Fathers', behind it. It was a lesson hard-learned in American bloodshed. The fear of gangsters in the 30s, such as Machine Gun Kelly and the Barker clan drove people into allowing the feds to circumvent that intent by way of outlawing (for most practical purposes) the ownership by the common people of fully-automated firearms. The current fear of the newest bogeyman - "The Terrorists" has led to even more restrictions on gun ownership, as well as any means to defend yourself at all while on board an airplane. And the most obvious result of all this? The government no longer fears or respects us. As proof, I offer just one of the most obvious: TSA. Look at what happens to almost anyone that dares enter their sphere of influence/power --> Do you think that they really have any respect for us? Or that they (and the government behind them) fears our righteous wrath at being treated this way? Neither do the "gangstas". When, in fact, THEY should be fearing US, not the other way around.

{Note: the nuclear/chemical weapons you referred to are NOT firearms}

The 2nd Amendment says "arms". It does not say "firearms". Arms is defined as "weapons and ammunition; armaments". A nuclear weapon is withn the plain meaning of "arms". The word "arms" is much broader than the word "firearms".

Moreover, if the point is really to have a "well armed militia" to stand up to the government, then shouldn't the militia be armed with something more than just guns? Tanks perhaps? Ships? It's ridiculous for oyu people to claim that firearms are going to stand up tot he American military if the government becomes "tyrannical". That justification ("we need guns to defeat the US government") doesn't even pass the laugh test.

If, as you say, the 2nd amendment is truly designed to allow individuals to stand up to a tyrannical government, do you really think merely allowing them to have pistols and rifles is sufficient? Pretty rag-tag militia. I mean, look what our military did to the Iraqui military. By your definition/applicaiton, if we're really going to individually arm ourselves to stand up to the US government, we're going to need nuclear subs, F-22s, etc. parked in our back yards waiting for deployment if the government gets out of hand.

You can't have it both ways. One or the other. Either that clause in the Bill of RIghts means we all get "arms" for our personal use in order to form a hypothetical well armed militia to defeat the US military or it doesn't. And, no matter what your answer is, if it includes an individual right to bear "arms", it certainly doesn't limit the "arms" we can possess to "firearms".

Moreover, think about this. The government can take your guns any time it wants. I assume you have no problem with the government taking a felon's "right" to bear arms. Right? If the government was truly tyrannical enough that you'd want to have "a well-armed militia" to oppose it, do you not think they would have already deemed you to be a "felon" and taken your arms (think about all the communist witch hunts in the 20th century deeming people felons).

And, I hate to keep rambling, but htink about what we do to people who actually do what that amendment literally say...i.e., stockpile arms on some farm in Texas or the midwest and forming a militia. We call them crazy and send the government in to dispossess them of their arms. Most of them usually end up dying in the process.

It's jsut such a bogus argument "we need the right to form a milita", I'm not even sure how you folks say it with a straight face.

The brass tacks are these. We have 300 million people in the US. Our murder rate is a third world murder rate (5x higher than the UK) because we allow literally anybody to walk in off the street and buy as many assault rifles as they want. We make it so easy, people from other countries come here and pay average Joes to buy a bunch of assault rifles to ship across the border (see straw buyers and Mexico cartel war).

Our current policy is illogical, it very clearly harms our country and we need to change it.

Look at the historical context of the Constitution and the Amendment, and it'll be easier to understand. they had cannons...and the intent was not to include that, although leaving open the possibility, I suppose. However, with just firearms...and bows, actually, since they were an effective and silent short-range weapon...we managed to "liberate" enough heavier firepower to kick old George's butt. They didn't address nuclear weapons or aircraft, since they didn't exist. And actually, if a citizen wishes to have a mortar, what's the problem? As long as they don't use it illegally, or endanger others, why can't they have one stored away? {In fact, in these parts, I know of at least two}.

As for felons: If they've successfully completed their sentences and are no longer on parole, ALL their rights are restored and they are once again full-fledged members of society...otherwise the entire idea of rehabilitation is a sham. If they can vote, they're citizens. You take their taxes, expect them to reintegrate into society, hold jobs...all rights except for one? The most important one, as it ensures the ability to resist the elimination of all the others. The ENTIRE Constitution applies to ALL citizens, or none. The laws denying felons the right to own weapons (and actually, it only applies to those convicted of violence or drug laws) are actually meant to help the government disarm the populace: anyone sitting in their own home with a gram of meth (about a sugar packet's worth) or smoking some home-grown pot are, if caught, felons and the first thing they go after is their right to own a firearm. Really? A half-ounce of a plant that grows wild in nature can mean you can no longer go hunting, shoot a snake that's near your kid's swing set or defend your home? To me, there's only one reasoning for that. Notice that these gun laws were enhanced and expanded in direct relation to the "war on drugs".

As for the "straw buyers", etc. - its not the firearms, its the people breaking the law. It's also certain govt. agencies being involved in it, that creates that problem. Restricting the rights of all in response to the actions of a few is unjust.

Pirate, where do you come up with this?

As for felons: If they've successfully completed their sentences and are no longer on parole, ALL their rights are restored and they are once again full-fledged members of society...

Really? NOPE. You have to get a pardon after a certain number of years of no criminal activity. Nice try. Then, and only then, can you get your rights back.

The laws denying felons the right to own weapons (and actually, it only applies to those convicted of violence or drug laws)

Wrong again. Any felony conviction loses your rights. ANY. That is FEDERAL law. And then after a certain number of years after release you can get them back if you write your governor and he feels nice enough to issue a pardon.

I do agree with the right to have a gun, but get all your facts straight. Not just one. And not one states law. The federal law trumps state law.

Funny, but when I tried to buy a gun through a gun shop, the official response I received from the feds was that due to one - and only the one - of several convictions I've got, that was grounds for refusal to buy a firearm was a robbery in Illinois. And if I was to get the Ill. gov't to clarify that, indeed, a charge of robbery (as opposed to armed robbery) does not involve a firearm, I would be permitted to own a firearm. There are only specific crimes that disallow you to own firearms, according to the FBI response I got...'Sedition/rebellion, violent crimes involving firearms, drugs, kidnapping, and any other felony that was enhanced due to the use or presence of a firearm during the commission thereof'. I believe that a felony domestic violence qualifies, now. The point I'm making, though, is even more-so if you're right - that once a felon has completed his sentence, he gets back ALL his rights - including the right to vote (a benchmark right of citizenship), EXCEPT for the right to keep and bear arms...although the 2nd Amendment specifically says that that right shall not be infringed. My contention is that the federal laws doing so are unconstitutional...and I am not bound to obey unconstitutional laws. So, I don't.

There is no such thing in this country (as opposed to, say, apartheid), as partial or limited citizenship. Either you're a citizen, or you're not. Felons still under the authority of a judgement (incarcerated, parole or probation), are not citizens. Those known colloquially as 'ex-felon' are restored to citizenship.

But then, with the passing and implementation of the so-called "Patriot Act", not many freedoms are left intact, anyways.

I found this in thirty seconds.

http://david-j-shestokas.suite101.com/gun-ownership-by-convicted-felons-a71729

This pretty much sums up EXACTLY what I said, and I married to a non violent felon. I am also the sister to one, and I know quite a few of them.

OH, and ANY domestic, misdemeanor or not, can make you unable to carry a firearm.

And if I was to get the Ill. gov't to clarify that, indeed, a charge of robbery (as opposed to armed robbery) does not involve a firearm, I would be permitted to own a firearm. There are only specific crimes that disallow you to own firearms, according to the FBI response I got...'Sedition/rebellion, violent crimes involving firearms, drugs, kidnapping, and any other felony that was enhanced due to the use or presence of a firearm during the commission thereof'. I believe that a felony domestic violence qualifies, now.

No, you would not. Until you get a pardon or the sentance is expunged, you CANNOT own ANY kind of fire arm. Felons lose ALL voting and hunting rights until it is pardoned. I am also in the process of getting my husband a pardon. So this, I know. And I can pull up site after site that will say the EXACT same thing. You dont get your voting rights back until you get a pardon, either.

Good luck with whatever it is that you think you know. You dont have any idea what you are talking about.

I don't have the right to vote? Funny, I remember voting in the last national elections. And hunting rights? No, its just the right to use a firearm...I can, and do, use a bow and/or crossbow. I also still pay taxes. If I'm not a citizen, I guess I'll just stop doing that...can I use you as a reference when they come a-knockin'?

and if you read your link closely, you will see that it is dependent, NOT on a pardon, but on the individual state restoring the rights, which, in this state (Idaho) is automatic, and progressive...after (I believe it is) 5 years, all have been restored...except for the firearms. And thus, the 2nd Amendment rights should be, also. In my case, I refer to the US Constitution, and ignore the laws that are in place that aren't constitutionally sound.

Oh, and if you look at my other posting, you'll see that I base that information on what was sent to me by the FBI office in response to an attempt to obtain a firearm...which may, or may not, have been accurate information sent to me.

I fully understand the risks involved in my choosing to follow the Constitution and you should understand that just because the feds make a law, doesn't make it constitutionally valid. I see no room for their legal wiggling around the simple phrase "shall NOT be infringed." I'm a citizen, and telling me I can't have a gun for any reason, is infringing upon my right to keep and bear arms.

1) Never said you werent a citizen.

2) I will submit on the hunting part, I meant specifically the hunting WITH a firearm.

3) I will also submit on the state to state, I researched a little more, and I found one or two things that I didnt know.

4) The whole basis for argument was, now after I reread this thread again, the fact of

As for felons: If they've successfully completed their sentences and are no longer on parole, ALL their rights are restored and they are once again full-fledged members of society.

IS state by state, but not nationally accepted. Every state has their own laws pertaining, as I found out today. I DID think it was the national norm, have since educated myself. Here, you are not allowed to do any, first felony or not, until you have recieved a pardon. If you recieve one. Gun rights are able to be restored if you are given a pardon.

Yeah, I, too, had been misinformed on it not applying to all states...we both learned something from your post - that's really cool! Thanks! I still say its all crap, though, on two levels: it flies in the face of the entire concept of rehabilitation; its just punishment, that lasts way beyond the sentence...which leaves little or no inducement to reintegrate into society. And it also doesn't adhere to the 2nd Amendment. An ex-felon can't be deported, can legally own property, must pay taxes...so, in fact, s/he is a citizen, just with major denial of certain basic constitutional rights, by some quasi-legal maneuvering. No where in the US Constitution (that I'm aware of) does it set forth the authority to withdraw a person's citizenship based on conviction of a crime. If its not specifically granted the power to do so, then it does not have the power to do so. That goes all the way down the line to the ultimate authority of the land...the common citizen.

I get the anger part on your end, I do. I also see it from the other side. Its like this- If it is bad enough that you are going to prison for a certain amount of time (the crime), then after, and part of rehabilitation, you need to prove that you are being upstanding a DID learn your lesson. If you did, you will do the right things to get these rights back (expungement, pardon, whatever the state says) as part of the process. Those who did not learn the lesson will attain these things the wrong way, thus proving they have not been rehabilitated.

Not starting another one, but you can get your gun rights back. Do it. I think, cant find the link I found yesterday. If you can, do it. How about that?

I've got neither the money nor the inclination to beg for a pardon from anybody. There's no anger on my part - I've done my crime, done my time, and got out. As I said: in this state, there's no need to get a pardon to get back all your rights, except the one. That's not constitutionally valid. And, even with a pardon, the feds don't recognize it for getting your 2nd Amendment rights back. I simply refuse to be bound by r or obey any unconstitutional law. I won't be getting the mandatory "healthcare" insurance, either.

Don't forget when commenting on our guns winding up in Mexico that our Govt. right now has the fast and furious scandal but it's not getting a lot of press time because it's Obama running things and the press still won't call him on anything. Eric Holder is blocking and evading all he can because our Govt. let guns be sold illegally to obvious straw purchasers. Look it up even the BATFE agents wouldn't deny it when under oath.

As for taking an AK-47 deer hunting why not the 7.62X39 round has good energy out to about 300 yards about the same as a standard lever action 30-30 that looks like the old west style "cowboy" rifle which has still probably killed more deer than any other caliber. It's also a very reliable firearm. Also since without a class A firearms license it's illegal to own one in full automatic, I have to assume your talking about a civilian semi-automatic version that fires one bullet each time the trigger is pulled. This makes it the same as any other semi-automatic hunting rifle it just looks more scary to those who know nothing about how it works. As for the large capacity magazine I'd only put 5 rounds in any way who wants to carry 25 extra rounds when hiking around in the hills, that weight adds up after a few hours.

Undertaker:

If, as you say, the 2nd amendment is truly designed to allow individuals to stand up to a tyrannical government, do you really think merely allowing them to have pistols and rifles is sufficient? Pretty rag-tag militia

Hmm... Seemed to work okay for the North Vietnamese. And hell, it's doing okay for the Taliban too. Guerrilla tactics require very little in the way of equipment and can bring even modern armies to a stand-still. Where there is a will, there is a way.

As for your comment about per-capita statistics, in your original post you don't state that you're looking at per-capita murder rates. When read, it appears you're looking at the total number of murders, NOT per-capita rates. This was what designed my initial response.

As to your suggestion that looking at all of Europe is improper, that's also absurd. We were founded in part by Great Britain, but the oldest colony in the continental US is Spanish (St Augustine, FLA). We are also a melting pot of the world's cultures, so saying that "we most closely resemble Great Britain" just doesn't fly.

Also, with respect to that comparison, there seems to be a cultural difference inherent in the lower per capita murder rates: even before Britain mandated restrictions on gun ownership, their murder rates were lower. So it is, in fact, a cultural difference, not a hardware issue.

I stand by my original statement that more informative comparison is to look at Europe, or at least the EU, in reference to the states. This will better account for regional differences (NY is nothing like LA, and London is not a counterpart to Rome) and provide a better picture overall. You can't just choose one region and say it applies to everyone. For example:

If you take the total populations of New Hampshire, vermont, maine, rhode island, massachussetts, Iowa, Idaho, Wyoming, West Virginia and New York, you get 37,279,427, or just a little higher than Great Britain's. Google the per capita murder rates of each state, do the math, and you end up with a total murder rate of 3.4 for this population (per 100,000, skewed most prominently by NY), which is not nearly the 5x rate that you quoted (GB has a murder rate of approx. 1.4, when each of its territories are included). It's a just a little over double.

There ARE regional differences, and they're important. If I picked nothing but the lowest per capita states in the US until I reached an equivalent population as GB (instead of picking them at random), I'm willing to bet the number would be even closer to parity.

In any case, I appreciate that you're thinking. Intelligence is an important, and lacking, commodity in the world these days. I simply think that your approach is flawed.

Guilty until proven innocent. Ever hear of mental illness? But maybe we should just murder/put to sleep all those who are ill or retarded. Or what if some cop laced his drink with PCP? Don't bother waiting to get the facts before you condemn someone. The stress of playing God doesnt seem to have bothered you too much. Could you solve all my problems, please.

Speaking of cops going after retards...

http://newsone.com/nation/newsonestaff1/man-with-down-syndrome-beat-by-police/

Linda the thing you need to realize is that good, decent people have 0 desire to be police, it just doesn't happen.

DanTheManofVegas,

Ah, you're another cop hater.

Decent people have 0 desire to be police huh? And just exactly how would you know? Your comment is nothing but a pathetic attempt to hate on law enforcement officers.

Just for your information genius, there are plenty of decent people who are police officers. Too bad you're too ignorant and or simply too hateful to understand that fact.

People like you are as clueless as you are pathetic.

Idaho Dragon

you are so wrong ,cops are getting out of hand , I have seen this 1st hand , two county cop picked the lock of my Apt. on a Sunday came in with guns out . my 10 year old girl was in her bedroom , and they were looking for someone else who had lived there before and owed the land lords rent. no warrant at all caught on the sec. cam in the act . were they ever shocked to find me with a 12ga aimed at there heads with 00 buck in it . next time I wont think twice.

cherrytom,

People like you sadden me no end. Because you had a bad incident with a couple of cops who blatantly violated their authority, you suddenly automatically think all cops are bad.

I have news for you genius. They aren't all bad. But don't let reality get in the way of your little hate trip.

I'm sorry that you and your daughter had to go through a situation like that. However, that doesn't give you the right to sit and badmouth ALL law enforcement officers.

Many of them have died putting themselves on the line for people they don't even know. You disgrace yourself and their memory by badmouthing ALL of them.

You might wanna think about that. You're the one that's wrong here.

lindabass - "he better be glad I am not a Lake City Cop...."

Relax dear, it's almost a certainty that the residents of Lake Cuty are ecstatic to know that also.

The guy is dead. He hasn't time to be glad. He's too busy acquiring ambient room temperature

Yes, there's some good cops...and some bad cops...and some cops just putting in their 20 for that retirement check.

The point is: you can't tell, ahead of time...so you can't depend on them when they're most likely to be needed. Nor can you trust them; as, by necessity, they adhere to the doctrine of protecting their own, no matter what.

In almost 52 years of life, I've got along with numerous cops...but I've never had anything useful come from them. Good thing I've never really needed to depend on them, ayuh?

And what would you do? Kill him after he had already killed himself...

Or what if some cop laced his drink with PCP? Don't bother waiting to get the facts before you condemn someone.

Don't bother to get the facts before you let you imagination run wild, either....

and the beat goes on

lindabass

This dude shot three cops...he gets what he gets....

he better be glad I am not a Lake City Cop....

Yeah, out of control, blood-lusting, repressed aggression having, morons with badges. Be happy your not a cop trying that approach around me.

look at all the dumb@@@ that live there.

Well it IS the south... And don't hate me for saying that either as I'm a resident of South Florida. Yes, we are rednecks and we love it.

remington - when did you live here? We haven't had an officer involved shooting in over a decade. So how are they a trigger happy police force? I am sorry you feel they are "dum" especially since many of them have a college degree and many are not even Lake City natives. And by the way, law enforcement officers were not the ones shooting, that was a man who adused his family and decided instead of being served with an injunction for protection (restraining order) he would walk out his front door with a rifle and shoot three officers. He then went back into the house where at some point, he took his own life instead of facing the consequences of his own actions.

It's why many modern police forces have special training for their officers in dealing with domestic disputes...it's so emotionally charged, that things can get WAY out of hand, very easily.

Unfortunately, it IS the job of the police officers to put themselves in that situation: when a guy is upset (rightly or wrongly - it doesn't matter) with the judge and/or state's attorney, its not either that serves the injunction...and the first representative of that legal system to show up is a cop...

@ PrateFarmer #6.1 - I live in SW Florida, and just heard that the police laid off a man I know personally. He was the special interventionist for people "on the edge," and I know he possibly saved some lives. Really bone-headed to lay off a guy like that, and force officers into dangerous situations without him. I think it was a stupid decision on someone's part.

JoanM - Not so much 'stupid', as just way too uncaring. Deduct $10 from each officer's paycheck (yeah, that means the police chief's, too!!) and apply it to this guy's salary. If given the option, I know of at least 3 Florida cops that would've loved to have that guy (or woman) around to possibly help diffuse the situation, before they got shot. Do you think THEY would think that $10 out of their paycheck, well spent?

Actually, this sounds like the rant of an anti-gun advocate who is trying to stir up anger at those who choose to own firearms. Even uses way-off incorrect spelling and grammar, to reinforce your misguided belief that gun owners are illiterate, foaming-at-the-mouth, borderline nut cases.

Um, would that be like a 'reverse troll'?

It turns out this American did have a gun and did defend himself. I agree it was probably the right action.

If you read the story instead of trying to look for pictures, you would have noticed the guy took his own life.

Thanks Robert. I am very late to this party, but I swear these bozo's who make these idiotic statements, never even bother to read the damn article. Personally, and I Do NOT condone Police vigilantism, but if a dude is crazy enough to shoot a cop or three, then you, me, our childdren are not safe from said scumbag and no matter how this douche was killed(either by his own hand or that of law enforcement) I am glad he will never be able to hurt any one else ever again.

It's "they're", not "their". Just sayin'...

I believe it is also "saying" rather than "sayin"...... but hey, I'm just sayin.....

Actually, ex_skyshark, 3 Gold Bars said "sayin'" rather than "sayin," which is acceptable because he's emulating colloquial speech in writing. Nice try at being smart, though.

I'd say thanks for the grammer lesson, but I don't give a @!$%#. And I say "Sayin" because it sounds cooler to me.....

Now just where would you come up with all that? Since you know me so well...just how many times have I gone to prison? I've BEEN the criminal, boy genius...and no, I'd never fantasize of winning a quick-draw against ANY body...I don't believe in giving anybody that much chance, when they're trying to do me harm. There are no rules, in violence. It's not a game...

And two more things:

1) I'm not a gun-nut...I use them to hunt, but for protection, I much prefer my knives

2) That's not foaming-at-the-mouth...it's ice cream = butter pecan sundae, w/ sprinkles...want some?

I like knives, too. I have a lot of them. I use them to cook. Some of them are very sharp and very large. Nobody ever got hit with a stray knife. A lot of mine will go from the sternum to the spine, and still have enough blade to slice a pepperoni. And, they are so very much more quiet. Except for the screaming and gurgling noises, of course.

Pepperoni screams and gurgles?

Um, no thanks, I'll pass on that pizza, just the same.

Yeah, killing civilians first and asking questions later is always a brilliant strategy...

3GB If you carefully read the story you would note that the officers first actions were to secure the safety of civilians - setting up a perimeter before serving the injunction- the gunfire from the assailant started before he was even approached or addressed. You seem to be choosing to be ignorant of the circumstances. These officers are the ones who consistently have chosen the selfless act of running toward the sound of gunfire when everyone else, you and I included are probably running away.

I think you made his skull implode.

If you do read the story and if you lived in the area, which I do, you would notice that they were not responding to a domestic violence call, they were serving an injunction for protection against domestic violence. The man's wife filed a complaint and asked for protection from him. These officers were serving what most people think of as a restraining order. That is completely different than responding to a call. And the police did NOT kill or even shoot this man. He came out of the house, shot at and hit the three officers and then went back into his house where he then shot and killed himself at some point. Law enforcement did not enter the house until the tactical robot with a live video entered the house and transmitted a picture of the dead man. Then LE went into the house.

Yeah, killing civilians first and asking questions later is always a brilliant strategy...

Rotflmao! You're to funny.....

It is possible for someone to buy a gun when they are in their 20s, having passed background check. Then it is possible for that same person to become unstable and use that gun in a negative way. That is the price we pay, but it is worth it.

Of course at this point we do not know the circumstances surrounding the situation. Was the individual a legal gun owner (i.e. not a criminal)?

GED Teacher...I honestly hope you are not really a teacher. That would be Amendment...not Amendant.

That's what happens when you hang out with high-school dropouts all day. The stupidity is contagious.

You are naive. Good people have 0 desire to become police.

Gee, thanks Dan. I'm so glad I put my butt out there on the line for people who feel that way about me. Makes me feel all warm and tingly inside.

There are a few bad cops. There are a lot of great cops. I don't know if I was great, but I do know that I wasn't bad.

DV - Thanks for your service.

Dan "theman", you are full of it.

Dan,

There are many very good police officers out there that do believe in the "serve and protect". These men and women are willing to put their life on the line for people every day.

Yes, there are some bad ones out there too...in some areas it is more prevalent than others, but overall most are there to do a good job.

DV...Thank You.

Dan, we are all just people - human beings. All humans are subject to wrong doing, mistakes, corruption, etc. In other words, not perfect. You will find a few bad apples in everything, anywhere, anytime. I'm grateful for police officers who put their lives on the line every day, on and off duty. I hope that you are never in a position to feel grateful that they were around to help you but do hope that you take another look at what they do and why.

I can say that I choose to go into law enforcement to help. My time as a law enforcement officer was spent around more good people in the field than any other type.

Dan - no one is perfect, not even you. Are you a bad person and thus want to be in law enforcement and were turned down and this is used as your thought process? Yes, there are bad people in any field. We have bad doctors, bad teachers, bad secretaries, bad athletes, and the list goes on. To say all people in one field is bad is ignorant of the differences that all people have. bad is subjective and is normally the result of bad choices, not personality.

The Florida sun would make the rotting corpse smell like a hippy.

its crime management these days as opposed to crime prevention. and anyone that thinks sin is not the culprit to the death is simply blind and needs to consider there beleifs.

Wow, toolate. You win the most ignorant human award. Resolve themselves? The woman winds up in the hospital or dead? The kids see daddy beat mommy up? The woman kills the man in self defense, and the politician prosecuter charges her with murder?

Go back to mommy's basement and please, do the world a favor and don't procreate. Any man who hits a woman in anger should get an automatic 2 years in jail.

You don't seem to be counting the spouse (usually the wife) who gets the Hell beat out of her, or the kids who face the same in thing, your violence statistics. You are speaking with all the knowledge of a week old puppy. Go visit a battered womens shelter and your eyes will be opened.

The Police need to get involved because of People like you are unstable and need to be controlled to protect the public

toolate

Cops use to stay away from domestic disputes. Majority of the time they would solve themselves without violence. When the cops get involved something bad happens every time

Damn Right!!! was it worth it to get shot for getting in the middle of a God damn husband and wife argument? wouldn't you guys be a little more comfortableif you got shot trying to catch a real criminal? Well everybody got what they deserve, especially here in FL. this is a Police State. Where rarely cops do what they're suppose to do other than get in the middle of petty sh!t like this one.

And by the way they went to his house, his land, his property, thay got what they deserve, this is just like Ruby Ridge.

Pssst! You forgot your meds, again.

Oops. Double post.

Tell that to the woman who is getting beaten on a regular basis you moron.

toolate and Jhon Smith:

Obviously, the same person because there simply can't be two people THAT ignorant that actually read.

HAHA, those pesky ol' police stop you from beatin' your woman all the time, huuh? I mean, it's your right to beat your woman in your house, but those dadburn cops show up every time and take the fun outta' marriage, don't they big boy?

You have been nominated and have won this week's coveted VILLAGE IDIOT of the WEEK award. Wear it proudly, you deserved to win it.

Mr. Toolate: Beating a woman IS a crime, so the police had every right to be on this person's property. Domestic abuse is a serious issue and one of the most dangerous situations a policeman goes into. They were CALLED to respond, they didn't just "show up" ona whim. I think your brain has been fried to a pile of mush. Maybe you should lay of the crack pipe for a while. Let those brain cells rejeuvinate a bit before you try participating in an adult conversation. Every word you say sounds like a whiny child's rant. Go back to your XBox and let the big people have an intelligent discussion.

greenbeagle13: You're in violation of the CODE OF CONDUCT of the VINE, I'm not, neither is toolate, SO SHUT UP BEFORE YOU GET SUSPENDED OR BANNED.

Where in the heck do I get an "automatic shotgun"?

al de-3906122, go join "too late" in his mommy's basement. What does auto shotguns have to do with a man who beat his wife, shoots 3 cops and then does the world a favor and eliminates his own useless ass? Not even the NRA advocates automatic shotguns. Only the military has them, and very few.

Stop handgun sales at shows - definitely! Collectables and hunting equipment - why? Robbers and murderers seldom use rifles. Hard to hide.

Some idiot always has to go off topic and get political.

Haha you guys are killing me. What in the world makes you think the military has automatic shotgun's? I think you've seen too much television.

ex-skyshark,

I suggest you do a google search for the AA-12 automatic shotgun. It's a real weapon. Not sure if the military has them yet, but it DOES exist.

A word to the wise. Do some research before you mock others. It can help keep you from putting your foot in your mouth.

You can only buy Semi Automatic weapons in the USA. You need to get a CHL first then buy your weapons and Ammo. You need it for protection from Liberlas and President Obama. Liberals want us to disarm so they can control us and everything.

The Tea party is the way to go. They were formed to stop the Liberals from denying us our rights.

The Tea Party is here to control Liberal spending and preenting bankrupcy. Another benefit to obtaining a CHL ( Concealed Handgun License ) is that you can leagally carry a teaser in Floridain case you are too scarred to carry a handgun

Carl, the stupidity of your remark that the Tea Party was formed to support guns is confirmed by your pitiful spelling and rambling writing. Now put down your jug of corn likker and go to bed. Or just pass out. Whatever.

Arizona Tumbleweed. You can get an automatic shotgun in Russia as well as a full auto Glock. Seen it on youtube

Thank you Ron. I looked it up and was surprised. I'd never heard of one.

Cynic, I think that was Carl's attempt at sarcasm in reference to the original post. Al de, you're a tool. The Tea-Party are people who want smaller government, plain and simple. They advocate YOUR rights as well as mine. They certainly aren't the raging lunatics that liberal douchebags make them out to be.

Amen to that Al de!!!!

Cause he's Obama's buddy. That's why he's around to begin with.

So its ok for all these people to express their opinion that the suspect should die but MY opinion is wrong because its opposite? Thats a little hypocritical.

al de, I don't think High Crimes includes stupidity unless Uncle Joe got a kickback for wasting over $500 million tax payer buck. I wonder if he celebrated with a $16 muffin and $8 cup of Joe. But, the voters can remove stupid incompetent people from office.

They have been charged with murder and are in jail awaiting trial. Do you judge all people by the actions of a few losers?

Only people who choose to participate in corrupt organizations. There aren't any good among the Nazis either, yeah sometimes stereotyping is ok.

What organization would you suggest to help those who can't help themselves?

Kucinich or Bernie Sanders

Chris Christie. If he can fix up the freakin' sewer we call New Jersey, he can fix up anything.

My nephew is a cop. He served in Afghanistan as an explosives expert, putting his life on the line many times. He is not fat or lazy. He works his night shift as an officer and moves cattle during the day. He is honest and, after being abandoned by his mother at age 10, he worked for every thing he has. He raised his son alone until he found a beautiful loving new wife--his first was into drugs, which is why he is raising his son and did so for years without help from anyone. He does beautiful leather work for gifts and is devoted to his new daughter and son. There are bad apples in every barrel, but that doesn't make all apples bad. The men that abused that man were brutal and criminal. My nephew rarely has to get physical with anyone. His presence and ability to talk to people make it unnecessary. No, the police are not the #1 enemy of our country. Our store bought politicians are.

Well Dan. If we were a lawless Country I bet you would be cowered in some cave scared to death. There are most surely an over abundance of corrupt cops. But you are an idiot to take it to the extreme you have. Like I said without them you would be dead or living in total fear......... My money says you are a felon..x-con. Coward.

Just ignore people like Dan.

Their brains are too tiny to actually make them able to have a polite, rational discussion with. All they are interested in is spewing their hate for anything or anyone that they disagree with.

They are best left alone and ignored.