Trash talking right wing media lies claim 3 police officers

Instead of pointing blame at everyone else put the blame where it belongs, on the shooter. He chose to do this himself. He should have been shot in the head on the spot. Instead he will have a trial costing lots of $$$. He is a no good piece of crap and has no place in society. He should be executed immediately upon being found guilty.

Devil505 wrote:The way some would look at it is that the cops would have just been saving the taxpayers a ton of money, their blood would have been HOT not cold.... & they would have been probably saving other lives in the future.

Just curious Dev, but how many times did you do us this favor in the line of duty? Were they stacked like cordwood?

coaledsweat wrote:

Devil505 wrote:The way some would look at it is that the cops would have just been saving the taxpayers a ton of money, their blood would have been HOT not cold.... & they would have been probably saving other lives in the future.

Just curious Dev, but how many times did you do us this favor in the line of duty? Were they stacked like cordwood?

I already answered that question coaled....Not Once!
(luckily, I was never in a situation that warranted it)

The murderer should be brought before the judge only for sentencing because there is no doubt what he did regardless of why he did it.He should receive a death sentence and immediately carried out. But we all know what will happen is the liberals will feel sorry for him because he'll probably be found temporarily insane get rehabilitation and released because he's back on his meds or just get life in prison. Either way the new socialist government will tax us to take care of him. I just wonder if the liberal media will keep us informed or it'll faaaaaaallllllllll off like it never happened.



Bill S.

That a$$ should have been shot on sight for sure. I believe in the saying live by the sword, die by the sword. I am deeply sad for the officers, families, friends, and for the city. It is a shame that this is going to be a political chip for the government to use against the common man. Do not let the bad apples spoil the barrel.

danzig wrote:It is a shame that this is going to be a political chip for the government to use against the common man. Do not let the bad apples spoil the barrel.

Trust me, regardless of the deliberate scare tactics of the NRA (to ramp up the profits of their client...The Firearms Industry)...Gun owners in this country are a very powerful......"Single Issue" block of voters & no one's guns or ammo WILL EVER be confiscated or your 2nd amendment rights ever be revoked.
If however, you believe that NO regulation of firearms is the proper way for any civilized group of people to avoid making rules to live together, then you need to buy an island in the South Pacific, announce your sovereignty to the world & make your own rules.
(who knows.......maybe you'd even get financial aid from the U.S.!)


(& please spare me the NRA clip from Tuscaloosa (or wherever) showing that a local sheriff took a gun from a drunk once in 1924...or some other such nonsense!)

Devil505 wrote: no one's guns or ammo WILL EVER be confiscated or your 2nd amendment rights ever be revoked.
If however, you believe that NO regulation of firearms is the proper way for any civilized group of people to avoid making rules to live together,

Which part of "shall not be infringed" didn't you understand when you took an oath to "preserve, protect, and defend"?

An armed society is a polite society......

jpete wrote:Which part of "shall not be infringed" didn't you understand when you took an oath to "preserve, protect, and defend"?

Silly question.. "shall not be infringed".....is a strictly subjective phrase open to the interpretation of the decision maker. What YOU may consider "Infringement" others view as reasonable & even necessary for a society to be orderly & functionable.

Devil505 wrote:[...Gun owners in this country are a very powerful......"Single Issue" block of voters & no one's guns or ammo WILL EVER be confiscated or your 2nd amendment rights ever be revoked.

If however, you believe that NO regulation of firearms is the proper way for any civilized group of people to avoid making rules to live together, then you need to buy an island in the South Pacific, announce your sovereignty to the world & make your own rules...

What a convenient argument for your side, Devil: Regulate the arms into uselessness.

Sounds good on the surface but the effect is the exactly same as the revocation of the second amendment.

Fact is: a true repeal of the second amendment under constitutional amendment procedure would fail miserably because the people wouldn't allow it.

The whole point of the fear expressed in the news is that there is fear, based on past regulatory acts of left wing moonbats in power. Because the moonbats cannot win a full frontal assault on the second amendment, that they will use the end around or "termite" approach in order to strip the populace of their ultimate check and balance. It is an undemocratic and evil plan to render the population defenseless against a powerful government in which they have a vested interest.


As for your battlefield justice, it spits in the face of the law. It's disgraceful. We have both the "rule of law" as established by the constitution and the second amendment as a check and balance to your kind of thinking.

My sense of rage makes me want to see the idiot gunman dead too, but I'd rather have him roughed up a bit by the officers involved and alive for trial. A fair trial proves that the system works. Your method is mobacracy. It is the antithesis of our constitutional foundation.

Devil505 wrote:

jpete wrote:Which part of "shall not be infringed" didn't you understand when you took an oath to "preserve, protect, and defend"?

Silly question.. "shall not be infringed".....is a strictly subjective phrase open to the interpretation of the decision maker. What YOU may consider "Infringement" others view as reasonable & even necessary for a society to be orderly & functionable.

Your statement is equivocation in its most definitive form.

mikeandgerry wrote:Your method is mobacracy. It is the antithesis of our constitutional foundation.

thank god we have level headed citizens like you in this country!

mikeandgerry wrote:Your statement is equivocation in its most definitive form.

Thank you. (I try to be definitive)

Devil505 wrote:

mikeandgerry wrote:Your method is mobacracy. It is the antithesis of our constitutional foundation.

thank god we have level headed citizens like you in this country!

mikeandgerry wrote:Your statement is equivocation in its most definitive form.

Thank you. (I try to be definitive)

Damn. You are wearing your thick skin today, Dev.

mikeandgerry wrote:Damn. You are wearing your thick skin today, Dev.

Yeah....The other skins are at the dry cleaners today!

Devil505 wrote:

jpete wrote:Which part of "shall not be infringed" didn't you understand when you took an oath to "preserve, protect, and defend"?

Silly question.. "shall not be infringed".....is a strictly subjective phrase open to the interpretation of the decision maker. What YOU may consider "Infringement" others view as reasonable & even necessary for a society to be orderly & functionable.

Do you really live in a world where things only mean what you want them to mean when you want them to mean it? What are you going to do when Obama gets his carbon tax? He's not making coal illegal, he's just making it too expensive to use. Will you understand then?

Devil505 wrote:

mikeandgerry wrote:Damn. You are wearing your thick skin today, Dev.

Yeah....The other skins are at the dry cleaners today!

Are you still wearing both faces?