Larry Warner

It's a interesting topic and it walks a fine line. I've comments justifying the action because they were doing their job trying to keep the public safe.

I can't buy the line of thinking that you are keeping the public safe by shooting at the innocent public. A very good friend of mine is a Secret Service agent. They done qualify for their job until they can shoot two rounds per trigger squeeze accurately out of a fully auto MP5. This is because they are trained that they are responsible for every single round that leaves a barrell of their weapon, and that they will be held accountable if they ever hit an innocent. These cops are acting unprofessional because this guy is going on a killing rampage for other cops and their loved ones. You can't let blind vengance enter your brain as a police officer. You are there to protect the innocent, not shoot the innocent. I have never squeezed off a round at an unclear target, and if they do, they should pay the consequences just like me.

I'm in the thinking if you try to intentionally harm innocent Americans with terrorist activities with a group like AL-quita then you lose your rights as a US citizen IMO.

Not that I like it, but according to our Constitution, you don't lose your rights. If one piece of the document doesn't hold weight, the whole document doesn't hold weight. Do you really want our executive power to choose who will and will not be assasinated using military technology when it comes to U.S. citizens?

So let me ask you a question, what do you feel about what happened this week in California?

 

Two women delivering newspapers in a blue Toyota Tacoma truck in Torrance, California were shot in manhunt for ex-cop. Police shot up the newspaper delivery truck with out checking to make sure this was the man they wanted putting 40+ bullets into the vehicle that didn't even match the make of the truck they were looking for.

 

2 women delivering newspapers in a Toyota Tacoma in Torrance, CA were shot in manhunt for ex-cop. Police put 40 bullets into the | Peace . Gold . Liberty

The police who comitted this crime should be prosecuted as such. They are looking for a cop killer, so apparently they let their emotions take over their professionalism. They should be prosecuted the same way that I would be for comitting the same act.

Come on, you know that POTUS isn't ordering drone strikes on American citizens intentionally. You act as if a drone strike would be ordered under minimal circumstances. This is just another way for the right to stir up fear...

If you think this is ok in any way shape or form, I simply don't know what to say. If he does it just once, what is to keep it from happening the next time for a different reason. This so goes against the right of due process it isn't even funny.

When the GOP was in the White House, everyone wanted to kill the terrorist, take the fight to them. Now, it's capture and question. You can't have it both ways, or maybe it's because Obama is ordering the stikes. If he wasn't actually doing something about it, the people on the right would say, "Oh, we knew he would be weak on foreign policy and keeping American safe".

That is an extremely ridiculous point of view. I would be outraged at any president using military weapon on U.S. citizens on U.S. soil. BTW, I guarantee democrats would have been calling for impeachment if Bush would have enacted this policy, and I would have been with them.

I don't believe anyone is losing any freedoms. They'll simply be paying an increased tax. To lose the freedom, a Constitutional Amendment would be required to repeal the 2nd. That's not even proposed.

Taking the ability away from people to buy ammo due to an increased tax on the product is limiting the use of their firearms, and limiting the ability to protect themselves. I think you are missing the point that to be good with a weapon, just like anything else, you have to practice. Otherwise, if you ever have to use it in a violent situation, you will not be as well prepared to do so.

You don't mind my hard earned money being spent on the military. I don't mind paying more taxes for that hypothetical gun and ammo I will never buy. At least I have a choice of whether I pay that tax or not. I choose to pay the extra taxes on alcohol. I don't on guns and ammo. It's not a blanket tax. It's only if you choose to buy the product.

Do you not benefit from your hard earned money being spent on the military?

I wonder if these Sherriff's employ investigative or analytical assistance from the FBI, and plan on continuing to do so? Had a school shooting in your county? Don't count on Federal support!!! Oh, and that federal funding you were counting on for school resource officers just had to be diverted!

Yet thankfully the first people that these local sheriffs answer to are the local people voting them into office. BTW, none of those things will be diverted. If they uphold what they have said, you simply won't see any cases in their counties where they have made arrest concerning new gun control laws. Of course, I really don't believe anything is going to get out of Congress nationally, and I know for a fact that our state is not going to pass increased legislation.

Does your economics degree consider factors such as the AMA depressing the number of available doctors, or the fact that innovation might be depressed because of Big Pharma spending all its money promoting stiffeners and other vanity drugs rather than solving real problems?

The one thing you can do as a government that supports free market competition is break up monopolies or oligopolies, which the AMA could clearly fall under. Big Pharma is spending money promoting these drugs because they are filling a huge demand for these drugs.

Do we really want to live in a hyper-restrictive society such as Singapore? Is that where all this fear-mongering is headed?

I certainly don't want it heading that way Jim. However, I do find that a large portion of our society who claim to be forward thinkers would love to make us a hyper-restrictive society, as long as they get to pick and choose what is being restricted.

How do you possibly explain the crime rate in places like Western Europe which hasn't executed a criminal during peacetime for several decades? I purposely used Western Europe to exclude Eastern Europe while they were under the cloud of communism. Communist countries used capital punishment as a way of instilling intimidation and fear of the goverment on the entire populace (not just criminals) just as much as punishment for crimes so I isolated them out for my example.

 

Speaking of intimidation and fear, Singapore and Middle Eastern countries also use severe punishment as a way to keep the populace in line. That would also keep crime low when citizens are always on the look out for big brother so that constant looming fear would naturally keep crime rates low.

I think you are confusing crime rate with murder rate. Western Europe's crime rate doesn't compare with a place like Singapore. Like you just admitted to, that type of punishment works if your goal is to reduce crime. Now you are wanting to bring things in like individual rights to the equation.

Technology is advancing so fast that it will create the conflict. Can we ask taxpayers to provide the elderly with a never ending supply of artificial hearts, lungs, joints, etc regardless of the cost? Under the current system, we say yes. Can that continue as the technology keeps getting better. All I am saying and I think all that Krugman is saying, is that the time is coming when we will need to confront the issue. Let me give you an example. If your ten year old child needed very expensive life saving treatment, most of us would sell everything we have and beg borrow or steal whatever we needed to get them the treatment. Would you do the same for a 90 year old parent? 100 years old? Would you do the same to try to save yourself? Would you leave your spouse penniless? Right now Medicare pays for whatever treatment the elderly, I consultation with their doctors and families, need. When the technology was limited, the cost to society as a whole was also limited. The day is coming when the technology will be such that we will have to decide how much healthcare people will receive at public expense.

Perhaps that is why healthcare should have been kept private, or if the government wants to get involved, set price ceilings on some of these products and services. Wait a minute, my economics degree tells me a price ceiling might lower innovation in the medical field and lower the amount of qualified individuals willing to train in this field. Maybe we should just go back to the market, where healcare providers would start to charge less for their services if their wasn't an inflated, protected, insurance industry that filters money their direction. What do you know, they would have to make healthcare affordable to stay in business.

I bet the change in gun crime would but so small you wouldn't even notice a difference. The vast majority of criminals live in the here and now and don't consider the longer term consequences of their actions.

 

An old mobster was interviewed in prison about his time active with the mafia decades ago. He was asked back in his active days if he thought he would end up in prison. The bluntness of his reply was unreal. He said almost no one makes it to old age in the mafia, they all knew they would either be killed in wars between families or would be sentenced to jail like he is now. But they didn't care, that was in the future and they didn't worry about it, they only cared about today. I could only shake my head but that is the prevailing view and most likely the prevailing view for those in violent crime outside the mafia.

How do you then possibly explain the crime rate of places like Singapore who have some of the harshest punishments for criminals in the world, and the lowest crime rates in the world. Your logic doesn't make sense when you look at the total picture. As long as you are involved in a society where the mainstream population isn't involved in mass famine, stiffer punishments tend to lead to lower crime rates.

Did no one on here play with toy guns when they were kids? We used to play war or cowboys and indians on the playground almost daily.

These guys go out of their way to sound like Charleston in 1860. The good news is that it won't take 600,000 deaths to show them how wrong they are. If Congress passes a law and the SC upholds it, they will fold like pup tents in a hurricane.

I, in all honesty, don't know about that. If they knew that locally upholding gun confiscations or arresting people for newly introduced gun legislation would cost them their elected positions, I could see them turning the other cheek. There have been many laws historically not upheld by local politicians. You are talking about two extremely conservative counties where such action could lose them a large amount of votes. On the other hand, the Campbell County Sheriff does little more than serve papers. The Boone County Sheriff, however, has over 100 officers working for him.

No, Palin didn't predict that it would be necessary, she said it was here and she ran against it. She continues to repeat it. It is not in the ACA. Never was.

But is there language established that could lead to a death panel in the future? Did she see that this would be the logical outcome?

Good just as long as he keeps on repairing computers with competence .

I am sure his business will continue to do well.

Kidwell has released a press statement, joining Helmig in Boone County, in refusing to uphold any laws or decrees that will violate the 2nd Amendment.

That's about what my .460 did. And I guess at that price and the hype, I expected more. So, the gun and I parted ways.

Through my experience shooting several of these type of very large caliber revolvers, this is about as good as their performance gets. They just don't obtain rifle like performance.

I had a Smith .460 I was going to deer hunt with. Love the ballistics, put a Leupold 4X scope on that thing, and I hated it. No matter what rest I tried to take, I couldn't keep the gun still enough to reliably shoot any great distance. 50yds, sure. 100, doubtful. >100, no chance at all.

 

How does your Colt do at longer distances? What caliber is it?

It is a .44 magnum with an eight inch barrell. The last time I shot it was a couple of months ago. I fired six shots from a log rest. I had a four inch group center mass at 75 yards with winchester factory ammo. Things get dicy out to 100yds, but it is deadly on almost any shot you could have at my farm.

My favorite that I own

Auto-Kimber 1911

Revolver Defense-Colt Python

Revolver Hunting-Colt Anaconda with Leupold 2x Scope

As far a the Glocks go, I own three. They are simply easy to operate and reliable. It is tough to get a better gun for the money.

Because they're not being honest with themselves.

I agree with that statement. I am anti abortion, pro death penalty, and pro consequences. I believe the innocent, such as unborn children, should be protected and the guilty should be punished. I have never been able to grasp how someone would want to spare a convicted killer, but murder an unborn child. It has always confused me.

He never bumped a police woman. It was a meter maid. That is not a cop. She received a low six figure sum as a settlement.

 

He never committed battery on Rachelle Washington. There was an accident at the house where she got hurt and she got a lawyer and began to do what she could to get money off of Moss as a result. He was never charged with battery and he never paid a dime to her.

 

 

He had failed drug tests. No marijuana arrests other than the roach found in his ashtray when he bumped the meter maid. He failed a drug test for marijuana at the combine and was placed in the NFL drug testing rotation where he was tested up to 10 times in a month. After his second year in the NFL he was released from the program.

 

Even Tony Dungy defended Moss mock-mooning the Packers fans. (non issue).

 

Ex-NFL players questioned his effort in the Super Bowl? Imagine that. Probably the same guys who said Callahan threw the Super Bowl when Tampa beat Oakland. I've seen a few 49ers games this season and he was on the field the same amount of time he usually is. I have a very very very hard time believing Harbaugh would have left him in the game if he was treating it like a Pro Bowl. How in the world can you tell his effort from your living room but Jim Harbaugh and no one else from the coaching staff can see it live at the game? Moss got the same amount of targets he normally gets every game as well. 2 receptions for 41 yards is usually what he gets per game.

 

Moss reportedly left the NFL for family reasons last season. I guess you know otherwise and know for a fact that he left because no one wanted him. That's breaking news a year ago. You missed your calling.

 

You say my argument is diminished to 'sophomoric cynicism' and your argument is riddled with unfounded statements that are nothing more than your opinion.

I think the bashing is coming from the fact that he doesn't like extending his body and arms as far as he can to get a ball when he is running an intermediate route across the middle. Otherwise, these people are questioning whether or not he will sacrifice his body to make a play, which is something I personally don't recall him doing very often throughout his career.

Is this legal??????

While I have said some border line things, I am not a racist. I do think there is racism on both sides of the fence. I think JJ is a racist, but that is what I think. If I think someone is being a racist I throw my 2 cents in and most of time say things I shouldn't on here which leaves the impression I am some big bad racist. Which is the farthest thing from the truth.

Be clear that I understand what you are saying. I just remember your comments being refered to as racist in previous post.