ArtzDarkroom Loc: Near Disneyland-Orange County, California

Somebody in California had an armory in his home, the law took his weapons. Just how many guns must a person own before we think he... usually men, is crazy?

Roe vs. Wade is on the horizon heading toward a conservative majority Supreme Court. If Trump is lucky, RBG will give up her seat, for him to fill. If the GOP is for smaller less intrusive government... no that was in the past. But if they were, why do they insist on controlling what happens in the womb?

I'm bored with Campaign news. Can we restrict it to 6 weeks? Isn't that how it's done in civilized countries?

EyeSawYou

The GOP intent is not to control women or the womb, just another widely publicized lie.

ArtzDarkroom Loc: Near Disneyland-Orange County, California

You maybe correct, but isn't that at least one of the results?

Steven Seward Loc: Cleveland, Ohio

Good point.


Protecting babies from horrendous k*****g methods like ripping their arms and legs off and crushing their skulls is not being "intrusive." Honestly Artz, do you think that when the government protects adults from murder, it is being "intrusive." Why should Liberals insist on controlling adults from beating others to death with a baseball bat? Isn't that being "intrusive?


I think you've got this one backwards. It is the civilized countries that let people have political campaigns as they see fit. It is places like North Korea where political speech is restricted by the government. I am all with you on the annoyance of political talk and ads, but we live in such a free place with so many choices that we can just turn that stuff off and listen to wh**ever we want. Apparently more than half of the population does so, because they don't v**e nor are aware of what's going on.

Rose42

Used to be nobody cared how many guns anyone had because only one can be used at a time and none get up, walk away and shoot on their own. Californians have become p-$$ie$.



On the flip side, democrats claim to be for the people yet they champion k*****g children before they're born and all for institutionalized child abuse by promoting L***Q nonsense.



I'm all for restricting it to 6 weeks. Our process is ridiculously long.

Texcaster Loc: Queensland

That's a parliament. You v**e for the party. The party can change leaders at will.

The last decade in Australia saw both parties chop and change leaders so often, one could keep up.

yhtomit Loc: Port Land. Oregon

Unlimited...it’s how an individual uses them.
3 individuals are involved in that womb. One can’t defend themself. Just say no to tyranny.
Yes bored.

EyeSawYou

Not the result at all, the result is protecting the defenseless innocent human lives in the womb which should be by nature the most sacred and safest place for a baby.

gorgehiker Loc: Lexington, Ky

Nearly one in four women in the United States will have an a******n by age 45 — obviously not all of them share the same political views.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/05/22/a******n-law-republican-and-conservative-women-dont-all-agree/3749202002/

The debate about a******n is portrayed as Republican vs Democrat. The t***h is that a silent majority of women in the Republican Party don't want Roe vs Wade to be overturned.

Steven Seward Loc: Cleveland, Ohio

The last time I looked at opinion polls on a******n, I found out that approximately 1/3 of Republican were pro-a******n and 1/3 of Democrats were pro-life. This means that the party lines on this issue are not so clear-cut.

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

I am curious as to why the reference to a person having an armory in his house. Does quantity of firearms mean someone is crazy? You may not know that firearms rise in value, depending on the firearm, as much as some of the best stocks or gold and silver. If the person had illegal firearms, displayed some type of insanity and so on then I could understand the police taking the firearms. But your post states just the quantity of firearms. So what???

My brother and I have had until recently, close to 300 firearms between us. We are both peace officers having a combined number of years in law enforcement and corrections, as well as the USMC, of well over75 years. Never been arrested, never threatend anyone and enjoy collecting firearms because of their relevance in American history. So what??? Apparently you who may not be into firearms have a problem with that.

Please try to get real. If law abiding citizens own firearms, and that would be millions upon millions of Americans then there is really no problem to you or anyone else. Why can't you Left Wingers get that through your heads instead of being constantly afraid of nothing?

Dennis

Steven Seward Loc: Cleveland, Ohio

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

It just seemed one more Liberal having a problem with firearms but having no idea of what any problem is. Just the anti gun thought process.

Dennis

Steven Seward Loc: Cleveland, Ohio

You brought up an elemental point that hadn't occurred to me, but is sensible. It reminds me of an event that took place in Cleveland a few years ago.

A couple fled from police in an automobile that led to a long chase through many suburbs and ended when the driver tried to run over officers and the police k**led them with a hail of over one-hundred bullets. There was a big public outcry about excessive force because the police fired over one-hundred bullets. Nobody stopped to think that there is no difference in k*****g a suspect with one bullet or one-hundred. In fact, I thought that if a k*****g was justified, then one-hundred bullets was a much more thorough procedure than using one, because it is more likely to do the intended job. The officers were all exonerated, though one had to defend himself in court because of political pressure.

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

Quite true. Many times there are a number of officers on the scene of a violent person. If that person pulls a firearm or in some way presents a threat to officers the public tends to think that only one officer should be the one pulling the trigger. But in real life these things usually happen in a fraction of a second. Who has time to decide who may be the selected officer pulling the trigger? Each officer shooting at the subject/suspect may or may not have any idea that other officers are even shooting at all.

In gunfights there is a common group of actions that take place mentally that are common. One is that visual acuity is enhanced of the subject you are shooting at. Other visual aspects drop far behind. Hearing is the same. Generally speaking when shooting a handgun, especially something with high velocity such as the common .357 Magnum revolver the noise, muzzle blast, is painful to the shooter. But in an actual gunfight the noise is hardly noticeable. I have read many accounts of actual gunfights and most people involved state that time seems to go into slow motion, with the opponent being in sharp view and other senses falling beside the wayside. Officers involved may have no idea what other officers are doing until afterward. Each officer is looking out for his own safety and when he sees a deadly threat, will respond to that threat.

I know the general public expects officers to know everything about the entire shooting but mentally speaking it is often impossible. Officers are taught to try to count their rounds fired to know when to reload. But that is not always possible when you are fighting for your life.

Dennis