DaVinci

The cop screwed up. Went to the wrong address. Never announced he was the police (according to reports). Can't blame him for taking the shot. The guy screwed up by not staying inside and calling the police. If I were to step outside, I would not make an announcement. If the bad guy was out there he would know you are coming. Still the cop screwed up more IMO. Wrong address not making himself known..ect.

Bill, very well said. A few notes: We already have laws against doing harm. A gun also allows someone smaller a chance against a larger attacker. No gun ban will prevent a criminal from getting a weapon, bans will only prevent "honest" people from getting and using guns. Guns also make a great defense from attack. Dumb people do dumb things. These same dumb people drive on the road, jump tiny canopies and pull low. I could support mandatory gun safety courses to buy a gun. In the sixth grade my entire class went to a range and shot BB guns and bows. It was required to take the safety classes, but your parents could request that you not be allowed to shoot if they liked. I volunteered at that range for a few years after I came back from Military duty. I would support mandatory gun safety classes in school...Right along with sex ed and a whole bunch of other things. Flat out well said. But some people think that banning weapons will suddenly make them safe. We already have laws that prohibit criminals from owning guns. We already have laws about storage of guns and sales of guns. We already have laws about reckless use of guns. As any ban does. Like I said...I agree with your thoughts.

You are the one crying about how the first lady gets a bigger jet...I didn't see you crying when it was Mrs Clinton getting the bigger plane. You want Hypocrisy? Look in a mirror. I don't want ANY speaker to get a plane bigger than they need. YOU are OK with it since it is a Dem.

This I love: "Why can't we do just one thing for minimum wage workers, no strings attached, no giveaways for the powerful?" asked Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., a leading sponsor of the bill. Congress has voted to give themselves pay raises over the last nine years totaling over $30,000. Thats more than $15 an hour for a 40-hour week, 52 weeks a year.

Done it before, but I'll do it again. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2484653#2484653 The last President to kill a raise in min wage was CLINTON. The Issue was on the floor and the two sides could not agree. Congress voted 282-143 to increase the Federal Minimum wage a dollar. HR3846, which later became HR3081. Republicans wanted the increase to take three years, Democrats wanted it done in two. Republicans said OK, two but wanted tax cuts to help small business absorb the extra cost, Democrats called it a deal breaker. Clinton said he would VETO any bill that had tax cuts in it, so both bills died in Congress. So they could have rasied Min wage under Clinton, but refused. Also notice who would support a min wage increase with some provisions? "I strongly encourage the House to support this combined minimum wage increase and small business tax relief," Bush said in a statement following the Senate vote. Also the Senate voted 94-3 to support min wage increases WITH tax breaks...Are there only 3 Repubs in the Senate?

So you just assume I lied? Nice. So your personal stories about bad cops = ALL cops bad. My personal story about Unions = me being a liar. You do that ALL the time. Anyway it was not ignored, it has been answered several times. But since you dont like the answer you just ignore it. See you are saying that VOTING would be bad, but just filling out a card would be good. Others (including me) have said that just filling out a card will encourage people to make choices without really thinking about it, and the Unions will use scare tacticts. I fail to see how you could object to a vote. All of your fears could be applied to people who fill out the cards as well. You NEVER use any scientific methods. You use personal events ALL the time...Want proof? "My professional interactions with cops, which have spanned years, are more convincing to me than a flowery story where 1 union guy strongarmed you. " Clearly not much about economics. Unions do not create jobs, business do. Without companies you do not have jobs. Companies can exist without Unions, Unions cannot exist without companies.

Then maybe your posts should not start with calling anyone that disagrees with you as a Heston wannabe.

You mean like when the other side blindly calls everyone that supports the 2nd as a Heston wanabe?

And your responses show your double standards.

You have made that claim before that all cops are crooks. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2541389#2541389 "Cops are inherent liars" http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2590251#2590251 "Yes, and I am on a quest to find him. I have sailed the seven seas, climbed the tallest mointain and yet have failed to find the honest cop. I know he's out there, perhaps hiding in the haystack, yet I swaer I will find that one honest cop. " I see so now you call me a liar.. Total BS, I like getting my paychecks. The COMPANY, not a union made them possible.

Hell just look to the last time this bill came up. It was the SAME bill but the Dems voted it down refusing to allow for tax breaks for small business. NOW they are willingt o talk about it. Why when it was a Repub congress it was bad, but now the SAME bill is OK?

You did the same exact thing. The second amendment allows the ownership of guns. I would make the same comment about anyone wanting to ban free speech. They are trying to do exactly that. Maybe you should do some research before you make a strong stand? Those two sentances contradict each other. Why not? That is a prime example of the problem. People would not hunt with AK's. But there is nothing wrong with a person owning one and shooting it for fun. Before you say that having guns leads to death...Think about skydiving in the same light. Where do you draw the line in protecting everyone? Simple facts are that a very small portion of deaths are do to real accidents. And we ALREADY have laws to prevent those. Ban guns and the only people that will be hurt are law abiding citizens. Criminals don't care. A guy that plans on commiting a murder will still do it, but this time with a knife or club.

But you WANT to ban guns. You seem to think that guns cause crime...They don't. Getting rid of guns does not make you safe from gun crime..Reference the link about 3 in England being shot by a machine gun. And Criminals do not give a shit about laws so banning guns will do nothing to them at all. Enforce the current laws, don't pass more that will only hurt people who are trying to follow the law.

By being hypocritical and making attacks.

Nice try at an attack. The second allows the ownership of guns. Wanting to ban guns is going against the second. You would get all pissed if it was any other Amendment, but not the second. As for critical thinking, maybe you can explain how one bullet can both be strong enough to kill through armor, but not strong enough to kill without the target wearing armor?

Ever been recruited by the Teamsters? I have. They tell as many lies or more that you accuse the "fatcats" of telling. I had a Union guy tell me that signing a card was no big deal and that all it did was register me to be contacted to get more information. The card was asking to force a vote to Unionize. It was written right on the card, but many folks just signed the thing. When I tried to point out what the card said and asked people to READ it before they signed it the Union guy pushed me and made threats. Why be afraid of someone making an INFORMED choice? Unions use intimidation and force to make people join. This would just make it easier. If all it took was signing a card more people would do it before even thinking about the action. A Vote requires both sides to put forth their platforms. Also the company is still doing fine unlike the threats given to me by the Union guy. BOTH sides lie. I just dislike the Unions version more than the company owners...I have never had an executive threaten to hit me if I didn't shut up.

So have Dems. That bill would have passed in 97 if the Dems had agreed on a few things. They voted it down back then, and as recent as the last Congress. NOW they will agree on a few things since they are in power. They could have done that back in 97. Doing now what they could have done then is playing politics. Trying to make this congress look good for doing something they could have done years ago but refused since it would have made the Repubs look good.

Total crap logic. You think the guy that shot him bought the handgun in a store and went through a background check? Reread the article. They want to get rid of centerfire rifles....Pretty much all rifles except 22's. Here is where you totally missed the point of the 2nd. It is not just to protect us from criminals, but to protect us from our own Government. Absolute power corupts and the founding fathers were smart enough to know that. Then you would crap on the Constitution. Since it is a right in the US Constitution. You may want a "nanny state", but I don't. Plus more critical thinking homework for you. How can a gun be powerful enough to shoot through armor, but only wound an animal?

Yes I did. You have the double standard here. You claim to hate waste but not if it is from your party, or it is not big enough. You mean like when you claim to hate waste but not on this topic but try to make me look stupid for not liking this watse either while you accept it? You mean that kind of waste, double standard and character attack?

You know about Mexican laws? Or have you never been? So should they be punished? Or should people only be held to laws they agree with?

He broke a law. He should not be above the law. The lady that threw the ice also broke the law. There should not be a question of did they break a law. Now the level of punishment should depend on the level of the crime. But they are in fact BOTH guilty of breaking the law and that should not be ignored.

I responded to a question from you. I answered your question, it is not my fault you choose to ignore the answer.

Ah, so you drinking with judges makes you know more about law than a lawyer. Guess we should just drop law school and start handing out mixers at the Court house. Got it

Oh no a VOTE!!!!!!

He broke a law. No matter how good the intentions, he broke a law and should be held accountable.