NITR0

You have a serious reading and comprehension problem. If you don't want to hear it.... you get lost. ..and since you are as ignorant in history as you are in everything else, Curly Bill was not Mexican nor Hispanic.

Nope, didn't hurt my pride at all. As I said prior, I don't llike morons like her or you bother me. But thanks anyways.

Other than friends or family? Sorry, no one in my family abuses children and to my knowledge, none of my friends do either. As for "Do you actually know of child abused?" That's really not an answerable question. What do you mean do I actually know of it? I know what it is and I know how it's legally defined. I have also visited law enforcement contacts that work in the Crimes against Children unit of the Sheriff's Office. I know what kind of cases they work and I have taught defense classes to women who've been the victims of spousal and child abuse. So yeah, I guess it's

...and as usual, you make absolutely no sense, whatsoever.

So, I guess all the WWII vets that died after this country was attacked on Dec. 7th. 1941 didn't die protecting this country? I guess the guys who died in pursuit of Poncho Villa, after he invaded the US, didn't die for this country? I guess Jim Bowie, Davy Crocket, Daniell Boone, and many, many other men didn't die trying to protect the Alamo, while trying to keep Santa Ana from continuing his invasion into the US? While all military deaths didn't involve directly protecting this country, your statement is ridiculous and a lie. The men & women of the military, no matter what

Don't forget demeaning the "Dead Heros" who've fought and died for this country that affords him the right to spew his bullcheeze.

1. Speculation. The story doesn't say who the informant was... 2. Again, speculation. And basing it on a trusted informant is not reckless. They typically don't just take any old criminal and give them an offer. Informants are usually trustees that work with the police several times and earn their trust. 3. Another speculation. You don't know that they didn't do surveillance. The typically don't send out informants to a location all by themselves. You can bet that there is going to be the white panel van sitting not too far from the location when the informant is on scene.

How are the cops reckless? The had what they believed to be a credible informant who was in the home that said there were no children present. They had credible information that stated the people in the home were armed and dangerous. What exactly would you have them do? How about the judge who granted the warrant? Should he/she charged too because they granted the warrant?

Yeah, there's nothing wrong with the homeowners/renters who were in the house who had the child in these conditions to begin with, huh? Yeah, let's blame the cops for the child's injuries and not the parents/guardians who put the child in that position. Let's not blame the parent/guardians of the child who were committing child abused and reckless endangerment. :fool: Do you liberals EVER believe in personal responsibility or blaming the person who's really at fault or do you always look for a scapegoat to blame it on?

No, IF is actually a word carried over from Middle English and has origins from English rule of the mid 15th century to the early 17th century during which time the monarchy was a very socialistic, liberal, and tyrannical government. And shortly thereafter in the 18th century, citizen's with firearms that were fet up with the liberal taxation and bullcheeze, revolted and started a country of their own.

These knuckleheads just can't seem to get it through their head that, yeah, it's their right to do what they are doing, but that doesn't make it smart. They are doing nothing but hurting the cause. All they are doing is showing their ass and helping the cause of the anti-gun crowd. The more they do this, the better press it is for the anti-gun groups. I know of no responsible firearm enthusiast or NRA member who supports what these morons are doing. I'm glad to see the NRA speak out against these boneheads and let people know that these knuckleheads, just like the crazed kil

Yeah. because high amounts of phosphor and mercury in the CFL's are so much better for the environment than the incandescent bulbs. CFL's are no better for the environment that incandescent and in most cases, they are worse. Sure, they save energey that is drawn from the power company, but the energy saved doesn't trump thigh deadly chemicals in them. You want to be environmentally friendly, then buy LED's and leave the rest alone. Of course, then there is always the effects on the human psyche that using non-incandescents have on someone. It's been proven that the effects on

Oh, I agree. Tannerite and miscellaneous items for targets are some of the most fun things there are to shoot. The point was that he was calling me negligent and just prior claimed that he was drunk and almost shot a Cabbage Patch doll that was lying on his bed. I'm still waiting for him to tell me how I am negligent.

I still think that... You proving my point doesn't mean you made any sense. But thanks for playing.

You've proven my point. I rest my case.

I'm negligent, huh? Please elaborate. Please tell us how I am negligent. You are the one who posted fallacies about the bill that will become law on July 1. You are the one who admitted to leaving a firearm in your vehicle where anyone could break in and steal it. You are the one who admitted to coming home as 'drunk as you could possibly be' and almost shot a cabbage patch doll laying on your pillow. Yeah, I'm the negligent one..

You have never posted anything that has logic or reason. Every time you post, you leave those traits behind. And you have no idea of what I am good at.

First, Well good for me, what? Your sentence makes no sense in relation to my prior comments. Second, who said anything about open carry? I sure didn't. Third, the robbers would 'meat' serious rounds of ammo? What kind of ammo do you shoot? Ribeye, Filets, Salmon, Chicken...? Fourth, I don't believe I said anything at all about being concerned for your safety.

First, I would caution you against leaving a firearm in your vehicle, unless you have a vehicle mounted safe. That is one of the best and easiest ways to contribute to illegally obtained firearms being put in the hands of those intent on doing harm to others. Second, if you wish to carry a firearm outside your vehicle, just go get a permit. If you think that if you are in an establishment that is being robbed or that you are being robbed, and you will have time to run to your truck to get your firearm, you are badly mistaken. Also, if you did happen to get away from that type of situa

A church is a private organization on private property and you, nor any government official has any business or right to tell them that they can or cannot allow firearms in their establishment. If you go to a church where firearms are allowed, then you get on their board and convince the other board members to not allow firearms in the church or you leave and find another place of worship to attend. Just as I have the right to deny or allow someone access to my property while in possession of a firearm, the church should have the same right.

I am speaking of HB 60, which is the bill that governor signed last and takes precedence over any previous. As I said, realistically, absolutely nothing, for the average permit holder, has changed. Prior to the bill signing and taking effect on July 1, you could legally carry on your person while in your vehicle or in your vehicle, a weapon if you were there to pick up, drop off, or traverse through school grounds inside the vehicle. As long as you, carrying your weapon, remained inside the vehicle, you were legal. Nothing has changed. If you step out of the vehicle with the weapon, a

Typical left winged, over reaction, and uninformed bullcheeze. No, sorry, the law that goes in to effect on July 1st 2014 does not allow any one with a permit to go wandering around with a a firearm or any other weapon, on school grounds. Please try to read the bill and think for yourself for once. For the average holder of a weapons permit, NOTHING changes. You can still have a weapon in your vehicle, while on school grounds. You CANNOT step out of the vehicle with the weapon, permit or not. If you have a weapons permit and you carry in to the safe zone, you are guilty of a mi

Just like every other federal government program... it's a miserable failure and hurts this country more than it helps. The OP wants to know the intent of common core? It's to dumb down the up and coming citizen's and like many of the other things that go on in public schools these days, puts emphasis in relying on the government instead of being responsible for yourself. It's creating a society of wussified sheep.

Ok, so what if they can been seen as negative? So what? It's still not racist. So, the First Amendment doesn't apply to me if I have a negative comment to make? No, courts do not make de facto laws. In your example, if a state creates a law that the court deems un-Constitutional, that decision does not become law. It's already the law, protected by the Constitution. The state created a law that violated the main law of the land, the Constitution. The court ruled that the law the state created is not in keeping with the base law that already exists. And again, your wrong.

Oh brother. There was no negative stereotypes that I mentioned. I mentioned stereotypes. If a certain group of people like the smell of curry and their taxi's smell of it, what makes me mentioning it, negative? What makes me not liking that smell, a negative to that group? Absolutely nothing. And again, what you *think* you are referring too is not racism, it's bigotry. Racism in the thought that one race is superior over another. The fact that I don't like the smell of curry or incense is not racist nor is it bigoted. You must be one of those super sentative people that don