The Weekend Debate

A new thread to keep loading speeds down. I have been putting out lots of stuff to chat about, but maybe too fast, so I will slow down.   Enjoy the weekend everyone!


  1. Enjoy the weekend! 🙂

  2. Dishonoring the Corps;
    Marines in inaugural parade… had bolts removed… from their rifles
    Written By: Bob – Feb• 09•13 ( see photo below)

    Dishonored and disarmed: Bolts are clearly missing from these Marine rifles during President Obama’s inauguration parade. This is an unmistakable insult to the honor of the Marine Corps.
    David Codrea has revealed that President Obama has so little regard for the United States Marines risking their lives under his command life that they were forced to dismantle their already empty parade rifles for his second inauguration parade. This is nothing less than a slap in the face of the Corps:
    “Didn’t know the Marines had to take the bolts out of their rifles for the Inaugural,” an email forwarded to Gun Rights Examiner from a United States Marine Corps source observed.
    “Wonder if someone can explain why [they] would be marching in the inaugural parade with no bolts in their rifles!”
    The email linked to a YouTube video of the 57th Presidential Inaugural Parade, embedded in this column, featuring Bravo Company Marines from the Marine Barracks Washington. Sure enough, the observation in the email is confirmed by watching the video, with screen shots provided in the photo and slide show accompanying this article.
    This prompted an internet search to see if others had also noticed, and the Blur-Brain blog had.
    “The bolts have been removed from the rifles rendering them unable to fire a round,” the post stated. “Apparently Obama’s Secret Service doesn’t trust the USMC.
    Simply searching each guy to make sure he didn’t have a live round hidden on him wasn’t enough, they had to make sure the guns were inoperable.
    Obama doesn’t trust the very men who put their lives on the line to serve their country. I guess it shouldn’t be that much of a shock. Untrustworthy people find it very difficult to believe that other men have honor.

    • If you were him, wouldn’t you do the same?

    • Do you even read the comments of the articles you post? Probably best you do……you might learn something.

      • Bob, Attacking the poster will not get you anywhere here. If you don’t want to discuss the issue that is presented in the article, then don’t. Comments of a certain article mean nothing, just opinion. We all would like you input on any of the many subjects, but attacking the posters here because you do not agree with their opinion is ignorant. We all have different opinions. By sharing them, we can all learn. Don’t be so blissful! 🙂

        • Some simple research into the subject would have shown this has been SOP for decades.

          Its not opinion its fact! Look into things before posting them, its an easy thing to do.

          So instead of “OBAMAS DISHONORING THE MARINE CORPS!!!!!!!!!!!” it becomes “Oh, they have been doing this for years”.

          Again this is a problem with this site. Blindly posting articles without looking into them just to fuel anti Obama rhetoric turns off a lot of people.

          • OK Bob, Let’s see a link to your claimed SOP. When I was in, we carried unloaded guns, but fully operational. Most vat’s know this. So, if this is SOP, please provide some proof to your claim. After all, it is really hard to believe the authors of the articles posted, why should your word hold any better claims to truth?

          • Do you know what guns they were carrying? Doubt it. Bring forth some facts Bob.

            • *sigh*


              The garand was the only rifle with its bolt removed. From looking at various forums this is standard for ceremonial marches. Outrage can be averted, NEXT!

              • Sigh

                From your link ” We are still investigating to see if there was an actual order from the White House or the Secret Service regarding the rifles used in the parade.

                Now for some reality Bob. M-1’s used for ceremonial purposes can only shoot ‘BLANKS”. The ends of the barrels ensure that it is that way. While I can see Obama being quite nervous that someone may have an M-1 that is fully functional, removing the bolts is rather stupid.

                From your link “We have talked to several retired members from different branches of the service who told us that it is not customary for weapons to be loaded during a parade. Under normal circumstances, the firing pins are removed from weapons unless they are taken into battle or used on the firing range.”

                This is quite correct. Weapons are never loaded for ceremonial purposes, this is simple common sense.

                “The first group had M1 Garands with bolts removed and bayonets fixed.”

                Again correct. But why remove bolts from guns that are always unloaded for ceremony (or have the firing pins removed) ?

                The two marines in the color guard are shouldering the Springfield 1903 bolt action rifle with the bolt handle clearly visible.

                Again, no firing pins are likely in the guns, as customary.

                The third group had M-16 rifles with the ammunition magazines removed in order for the weapons to be shouldered.

                That’s bullshit because M-16’s can be shouldered with magazines in them. I would bet the M-16 didn’t have the bolt carrier groups in the weapons either.

                Opinion based on the evidence. Obama is a Communist Coward Lying Bastard.

                Try a better link Bob, That one was pathetic as far as your cause, 😆

              • In addition, Your link said ” “We have talked to several retired members from different branches of the service…..” Really, Who are they and are they expert sources? WOW, great source you provided for us. Is that the best you can do?

              • Do some critical thinking gman. Why would there be bolts on some of the guns and not others? Engage your brain.

                Go to the flickr site for the inauguration. There is only one other unit with bolts removed from their guns and they are the military cadets. All other units have bolts including the other marine corp units. So again engage your brain what i sthe logical conclusion to this?

                Obama is a Communist Coward Lying Bastard.

                Actually I might be asking too much here.

              • Bob, with all due respect, as a USAF weapons technician for 12 years, I inspected and ensured that all weapons used in ceremonies, including parades and funerals, were operational and safe. While the discussion is only about the M-1’s, which clearly had the bolts removed, it was completely unnecessary to do so.

                So, with your vast amount of knowledge of weapons, please explain why the bolts were removed? It is NOT a normal military action. Please explain.

                Obama is just what I said, as are most if not all politicians, but he’s the Prez, so he get’s the names 🙂

              • You had best ask the marine corp. Again why did every other unit have bolts in their rifles. Surely if Obama had ordered bolts to be removed he would have ordered it for everyone right? That would make sense. Your argument makes no sense since you can clearly see bolts in other units rifles.

                This is the critical thinking thing I was talking about.

              • Actually Bob, you are not thinking very critically. You can not tell at all if the M-16’s had the bolts or not. They simply did not have magazines. As far as the 1903 Springfields, the one’s the USAF used in ceremonies had the bolts welded and the barrels filled. THey were strictly for looks and could never fire anything.

                So, please share your expertise in these areas, we would all love to hear about it 😉

              • OH, the M-16’s have covers over the ejection ports, that are always closed in ceremony. That is the ONLY way one can see the bolt carrier groups withing the weapon. Am I done schooling you yet?

              • Let me break this argument down for you.

                Premise – Obama is scared that a marine is going to shoot him.

                Solution – He orders the marines to remove the bolts from their rifles.

                Problems with this argument – As confirmed by yourself the Garands are not able to fire live rounds, bolt or no bolt.

                No evidence has been shown that this was actually ordered by Obama.

                All other rifles shown to be ready to shoot (even though they would be disabled as is SOP).

                The question again arises why would Obama order the bolts removed from an already disabled gun but allow the other units to show guns that look operational? (again yes they would be disabled)

                If he is doing it for appearance sake he would have asked the guys with the Springfields to saw off the bolt and the guys with the M-16s to have the cover open to see assembly missing. That is logical if that was his plan.

                Then we get a cursory glance at some forums, this one for example:


                Lets pick out some of the posts shall we:

                “Not new at all, it happened under G.W. Bush, Clinton, G.H. Bush, and Reagan, and probably earlier. The Secret Service probably wishes they could disarm the cops as well… ”

                “Yup, did the same thing when W. came to Division review at Bragg.”

                “Did honor guard duty back in the 70s for Nixon in Hawaii same thing no bolts.”

                “Clinton came to Lejeune while I was stationed there and not one single weapon was allowed out of the armories. Not for he Cpl of the guard or the officer of the day. All barracks had to have their blinds open. I don’t hink the MPs were allowed to carry either.”

                “FDR’s security detail did the same thing in North Africa when he visited troops. Nothing new.”

                “Not new at all. I’ve heard this was standard practice for a long time.”

                “It’s already been pointed out by several other posters, but I will still share my view. This is SOP now, and has been for a while. I was involved with the months of planning that went into the inauguration.

                I’m not willing to say anything on here to hurt my security clearance, but rest assured, the reason has nothing to do with the President not trusting the military. The reason is simple. Different agencies are in charge of security that day. The .mil that you see are there to be part of the pageant. There are also units you don’t see who are armed and tasked to be QRF/ search and rescue for events like that.”

                “SOP is SOP”

                When right wing forums wave the brown flag you know your argument is not holding much water.

                So in conclusion for things such as this, it is SOP for the guns to be disabled. Whether the bolts are also removed as well seems to be dependant on what the SS decides to do for the occasion.

                Again, no evidence has been shown that Obama ordered this to happen, in fact all the evidence shows that Obama would not have known about it.

                Maybe your outrage would be best directed at the Marine Corp and the SS instead of Obama.

                Of course having been in the military for 12 years I would have expected you to know this 😉

                Gman the day I get schooled by you is the day you admit that Obama is a reasonable guy who does not get it right all the time but is at least trying to do his job……..

              • Look through these photos have all the guns had their bolts removed?

                Inauguration Day at U.S. Capitol
              • Happy Sunday Bob 🙂 I do hope you and yours are healthy and happy 🙂

                Re: pictures: As an AF vet, the rifles with the very shiny bolts and barrels have the bolts, but, if my memory serves me correctly, these particular guns can not be shot because they can no longer hold a firing pin. These would be ceremonial only.

                The Navy weapons had the bolts in, but I’m not sure of how their weapons are treated for ceremony.

                M-16’s, there is no way to tell in the pics. I can only speak of the 1913 Springfields from experience, as I have above.

                As a note, I did not post this story above, T-Ray did. I just made a short remark about Obama, who I don’t agree with and really don’t like. But, he isn’t the only person in the District of Criminals I don’t like, so he shouldn’t be lonely. Like Dubya, he is not a liked man.

                With that in mind, if I were him I would have done the same, as was my original comment. I didn’t consider the issue a major one worthy of a lengthy debate over military ceremony weapons and their configurations during parade. I’m guessing you took issue with your boy getting blamed for something ( that obviously only the Marines could answer).

                It’s all good 🙂 Maybe we can debate a more important issue in the future. Why don’t you pick a subject and we can go at it as time permits. (Obama is not a normal guy, he is a socialist, with socialist ideals. Not my kind of person to be in the White House)

                Your call Bob. Have a great day today 🙂

              • “I’m guessing you took issue with your boy ”

                No I take issue with BS and a lot of the articles that get posted here are sprayed with it.

                Obama is in no way shape or form “my boy”, I just dont think his mother was a jackal and born under a full moon.

            • Going to the bottom 🙂

  3. I was wondering how many false or simply unbelievable statements were spoken in the SOTU address. Just saw FaceBook is getting tax exemptions worth millions. Nothing illegal, just a rich company that actively supported the winner of the last election getting their back scratched. No reason Obama would expect those rich people to pay their fair share, like they could fund Obama’s pre-school program themselves……

    WASHINGTON, Feb. 12 (UPI) — The following is President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address delivered Tuesday at the U.S. Capitol:

    Thank you. Please, everybody, have a seat.

    Mr. Speaker, Mr. Vice President, members of Congress, fellow Americans, 51 years ago, John F. Kennedy declared to this chamber that “the Constitution makes us not rivals for power, but partners for progress.”


    “It is my task,” he said, “to report the state of the union. To improve it is the task of us all.”

    Tonight, thanks to the grit and determination of the American people, there is much progress to report. After a decade of grinding war, our brave men and women in uniform are coming home.


    After years of grueling recession, our businesses have created over 6 million new jobs. We buy more American cars than we have in five years and less foreign oil than we have in 20.


    Our housing market is healing, our stock market is rebounding, and consumers, patients and homeowners enjoy stronger protections than ever before.


    OBAMA: So, together, we have cleared away the rubble of crisis, and we can say with renewed confidence that the state of our union is stronger.


    But — but we gather here knowing that there are millions of Americans whose hard work and dedication have not yet been rewarded. Our economy is adding jobs, but too many people still can’t find full- time employment.

    Corporate profits have skyrocketed to all-time highs, but for more than a decade, wages and incomes have barely budged.

    It is our generation’s task, then, to reignite the true engine of America’s economic growth: a rising, thriving middle class.


    It is — it is our unfinished task to restore the basic bargain that built this country, the idea that if you work hard and meet your responsibilities, you can get ahead, no matter where you come from, no matter what you look like or who you love.

    It is our unfinished task to make sure that this government works on behalf of the many, and not just the few, that it encourages free enterprise, rewards individual initiative, and opens the doors of opportunity to every child across this great nation.

  4. Just A Citizen says:


    Native American references. Following is a pretty good general summary and includes 150 maps of various Tribal ranges. I can’t find my other books. Probably still boxed up in the garage. My “library” exceeds the available space in my purgatory home.

    “The Historical Atlas of Native Americans”, Dr. Ian Barnes.

    I got mine from Barnes and Noble

    Another good source are books on individuals or events. They usually include background information that gives you a more detailed picture of what happened in that area.

    A good example is: “Empire of the Summer Moon. Quanah Parker and the Rise and Fall of the Comanches, the Most Powerful Indian Tribe in American History”, S.C. Gywnne.

    This book includes a good historical summary of the American’s settling in East Texas and the Commanches’ conquering of the indigenous people of that region.

    By the way, the Commanche had something akin to our Govt in that they had rules that if violated could get you “executed”. Where as other tribes would have expelled the person for life.

  5. Just went on another site-decided to post something in response and found out that they have an edit button for your post. You can actually go back in and correct your own post -it was very cool. Can we do that here?

  6. Just A Citizen says:

    A little humor with your insult??

    My Apology to Paul Krugman
    By Mark Thornton
    Friday, February 15th, 2013

    From time to time I have been critical of Professor Paul Krugman, the Nobel Laurette from Princeton University and the New York Times. Recently I criticized his use of the babysitter model of the economy. However, Robert Blumen brought to my attention that I had unfairly criticized Krugman in my paper on the deflation phobia, Apoplithorismosphobia. I wrote: “Krugman falls into the gibber-jabber of sophomoric circular reasoning” and then quoted Krugman:

    “If you think about this a bit, the story gets even worse. After all, prices are falling because the economy is depressed; now we’ve just learned that the economy is depressed because prices are falling. That sets the stage for the return of another monster we haven’t seen since the 1930’s, a “deflationary spiral,’’ in which falling prices and a slumping economy feed on each other, plunging the economy into the abyss. It’s pretty scary stuff, not just for Japan but for the rest of us. If Japan slides into the abyss, that will have a direct adverse effect on our economy dwarfing anything the terrorists did.” (Krugman 2002d)

    Robert Blumen correctly points out that Krugman is discussing a circular process, but he is not using “circular reasoning.” Krugman is actually using reasoning based on a positive feedback cycle. His analysis is still wrong, but for my mistake I fully apologize to Professor Krugman.

    In fact he is so wrong that I also wish to apologize to sophomores everywhere. Their errors on economics exams are to be expected and are not harmful. Krugman’s errors cannot be forgiven and are truly dangerous.

  7. ‘Times,’ ‘WaPo’ Launch Racially-Coded Attack Against Ted Cruz

    by John Nolte 16 Feb 2013, 9:11 AM PDT 84 post a comment
    Apparently, the “Washington Post” and “New York Times” don’t like the idea of a non-white U.S. Senator acting all uppity. It’s fine for the lily-white Elizabeth Warren to immediately come out guns blazing, but over the past couple of days both news outlets ripped into in Texas Senator Ted Cruz for not knowing his place.

    As we all know, the base of the Democratic Party is made up of union workers, who see Hispanics as a threat to their jobs, and rich, white, coastal liberals whose only contact with the Latino community is on grass-mowing day. And so, in what can only be interpreted as a racially-coded dog-whistle attack designed to appeal to the worst instincts of the Democratic base, the “Post” and “Times” have come together hoping to put an Hispanic back “in his place.”

    New York Times:

    In just two months, Mr. Cruz, 42, has made his presence felt in an institution where new arrivals are usually not heard from for months, if not years. Besides suggesting that Mr. Hagel might have received compensation from foreign enemies, he has tangled with the mayor of Chicago, challenged the Senate’s third-ranking Democrat on national television, voted against virtually everything before him — including the confirmation of John Kerry as secretary of state — and raised the hackles of colleagues from both parties.

    Washington Post:

    The traditional stance for a freshman senator is to hold back a bit. Being reticent and deferential are not qualities that come naturally to those who manage to win Senate seats, but most new senators choose, as much as it clashes with their instincts, to tamp down.

    Not Cruz.

    Anyone remember Hillary Clinton or Chuck Schumer as freshman senate wallflowers? Anyone remember the “Times” and “Post” coordinating to shut those two white senators up?

    Yeah, me neither.

    What we have here are two predominantly white news outlets made uncomfortable by someone who doesn’t look like them acting all uppity. I had hoped we were past such things, but apparently not.

    Hey, these are the media’s rules, not mine.

    Pay close attention to that last line or you might greatly misinterpret this article.

  8. Your tax dollars at work! 🙄

    Economic growth is in the negative, unemployment is on the rise, Walmart’s forecasting a disastrous February for retail sales, poverty’s up, gas prices are up, the cost of health care premiums are up, middle class incomes are falling, consumer confidence is at a two year low, our deficit is unsustainable, and Barack Obama has just signed up for private golf lessons with two of the top teachers in the country.

    You might want to go back and read that last part again.

    Safely re-elected and with no concerns whatsoever that the media will take issue with his elitist behavior (hell, the media won’t even make an issue of the economy), what would certainly be the kind of optics the media would bludgeon a Republican with will likely go unnoticed, because the narrative’s been set that Obama can do no wrong.

    The only other possibility is that the media will tell us that Obama hiring the number-one golf teacher in the world represents Obama “creating a job.”

    The President’s golfing weekend at The Floridian GC in Palm City, Fla., will include more than golf on a Tom Fazio course or an afternoon of ball beating at the Harmon School of Golf on campus. The Harmons, Butch and son Claude III, are flying in to work with President Obama[.]

    This would be perfectly fine were it not for the fact that Obama knows he can oversee a faltering economy, where millions are suffering, and still get all brazenly one-percentary, knowing the media will give him a complete and total pass.

    Romney wasn’t even president, and the media beat him senseless for his wife Ann wearing a nice blouse.

    Anyway, enjoy yourself, Mr. President. According to “Golf Digest,” Harmon’s hourly rate is $1,000 an hour. So it sounds like you’re, uhm, “doing fine.” And don’t feel bad for those of us in the 99%. We’re also “doing fine.” We might be all out of hope, but we still have a little change and those food stamps.

    • WASHINGTON (AP) — Congress’ latest crack at a new assault weapons ban would protect more than 2,200 specific firearms, including a semi-automatic rifle that is nearly identical to one of the guns used in the bloodiest shootout in FBI history.

      One model of that firearm, the Ruger .223 caliber Mini-14, is on the proposed list to be banned, while a different model of the same gun is on a list of exempted firearms in legislation the Senate is considering. The gun that would be protected from the ban has fixed physical features and can’t be folded to be more compact. Yet the two firearms are equally deadly.

      “What a joke,” said former FBI agent John Hanlon, who survived the 1986 shootout in Miami. He was shot in the head, hand, groin and hip with a Ruger Mini-14 that had a folding stock. Two FBI agents died and five others were wounded.

      Hanlon recalled lying on the street as brass bullet casings showered on him. He thought the shooter had an automatic weapon.

      Both models of the Ruger Mini-14 specified in the proposed bill can take detachable magazines that hold dozens of rounds of ammunition. “I can’t imagine what the difference is,” Hanlon said.

      President Barack Obama has called for restoring a ban on military-style assault weapons and limiting the size of ammunition magazines.

      A bill introduced last month by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. would ban 157 specific firearms designed for military and law enforcement use and exempt others made for hunting purposes. It also would ban ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

      Yet there are firearms that would be protected under Feinstein’s proposal that can take large capacity magazines like the ones used in mass shootings that enable a gunman to fire dozens of rounds of ammunition without reloading.

      Feinstein said in a written response to questions from The Associated Press that the list of more than 2,200 exempted firearms was designed to “make crystal clear” that the bill would not affect hunting and sporting weapons.

      The December shooting at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., that left 26 students and educators dead forced Washington to focus on curbing gun violence, a risky political move not tried in decades.

      The gun industry, which is fighting any sort of ban, says gun ownership in the U.S. is the highest it’s ever been, with more than 100 million firearms owners.

      Obama and Vice President Joseph Biden have traveled around the country in an effort to gain support for new laws. Feinstein’s proposal is the only sweeping piece of legislation designed to ban assault weapons currently being considered.

      But some gun experts say the lists of banned and exempted firearms show a lack of understanding and expertise of guns.

      “There’s no logic to it,” said Greg Danas, president of a Massachusetts-based expert witness business and firearms ballistic laboratory. “What kind of effect is it going to have?”

  9. During Obama’s SOTUA, he had this big thing that gun control deserves a vote. In this article :

    It’s said ““The experience of gun ownership is different in urban areas than it is in rural areas,” Obama said. “But these proposals deserve a vote in Congress. They deserve a vote.

    What deserves a vote? The 2nd Amendment is quite clear, and the States constitutions are even more clear on the subject.

    So, the rural areas have lots of guns and conceal carry, and very little crime, while the urban areas, with the most gun control, have the most crime.

    So, what do we need a vote on?

    • Bob, help me out here. 🙂

      • The US has the most lax gun laws in the first world and by far the highest murder rate in comparison to other first world countries. Compared to Western Europe you are 4 times more likely to get murdered in the US.

        What I will agree though is that there is nothing that can be done now. With the amount of guns in the US that would be impossible. You made your bed a long time ago and you are now reaping the consequences.

        • While I don’t see an argument between us, it should be noted that most of the worst crime areas (and most murders) are in cities with the strictest gun laws. It is also proven that most murders happen to criminals, by criminals, in these areas.

          By comparison, where I live is free of gun crimes for the most part. If one occurs, it’s usually by a non-resident. Conceal carry is normal, with most people who can legally do so, carry.

          In retrospect, England is now the most violent country in the EU. The citizens cannot protect themselves, so the criminals are in charge. 🙂

          Here is our fundamental difference in thinking; you think we are reaping the consequences where as I think we are reaping the benefits. 😉

          • “In retrospect, England is now the most violent country in the EU. The citizens cannot protect themselves, so the criminals are in charge.”

            Complete BS, criminals are in charge, really?

            Haha a near third world murder rate, I think our thoughts on what is beneficial or not is different. Unless we live in opposite land where high murder rates are good I suppose.

        • Dr. Kates and Dr. Mauser demonstrate that other developed nations such as Norway, Finland, Germany, France and Denmark maintain high rates of gun ownership, yet possess murder rates lower than other developed nations in which gun ownership is much more restricted.

          For example, handguns are outlawed in Luxembourg, and gun ownership extremely rare, yet its murder rate is nine times greater than in Germany, which has one of the highest gun ownership rates in Europe. As another example, Hungary’s murder rate is nearly three times higher than nearby Austria’s, but Austria’s gun ownership rate is over eight times higher than Hungary’s. “Norway,” they note, “has far and away Western Europe’s highest household gun ownership rate (32%), but also its lowest murder rate. The Netherlands,” in contrast, “has the lowest gun ownership rate in Western Europe (1.9%) … yet the Dutch gun murder rate is higher than the Norwegian.”

          Dr. Kates and Dr. Mauser proceed to dispel the mainstream misconception that lower rates of violence in Europe are somehow attributable to gun control laws. Instead, they reveal, “murder in Europe was at an all-time low before the gun controls were introduced.” As the authors note, “strict controls did not stem the general trend of ever-growing violent crime throughout the post-WWII industrialized world.”

          Citing England, for instance, they reveal that “when it had no firearms restrictions [in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries], England had little violent crime.” By the late 1990s, however, “England moved from stringent controls to a complete ban on all handguns and many types of long guns.” As a result, “by the year 2000, violent crime had so increased that England and Wales had Europe’s highest violent crime rate, far surpassing even the United States.” In America, on the other hand, “despite constant and substantially increasing gun ownership, the United States saw progressive and dramatic reductions in criminal violence in the 1990s.”

          Critically, Dr. Kates and Dr. Mauser note that “the fall in the American crime rate is even more impressive when compared with the rest of the world,” where 18 of the 25 countries surveyed by the British Home Office suffered violent crime increases during that same period.

          Furthermore, the authors highlight the important point that while the American gun murder rate often exceeds that in other nations, the overall per capita murder rate in other nations (including other means such as strangling, stabbing, beating, etc.) is oftentimes much higher than in America.

          • Ugh, this is why we tread the same ground and get no where.

            Violent crimes get measured in different ways country to country. In the UK a verbal threat with absolutely no follow up is classed as a violent crime. The vast majority of violent crimes do not end up with someone getting physically assaulted. When I hear things such as ” far surpassing even the United States” I have to roll my eyes. Violent crimes can be categorised in many different ways but murder has a universal definition that is easy to track. Are you honestly trying to tell me that a country with 4 times the murder rate is a less violent place than the UK? Please explain how this would make sense?

            “Furthermore, the authors highlight the important point that while the American gun murder rate often exceeds that in other nations, the overall per capita murder rate in other nations (including other means such as strangling, stabbing, beating, etc.) is oftentimes much higher than in America.”


            Code brown, we got a code brown here.

            Yes maybe third world countries, first world countries have have 4 times less murders no matter how they get killed.

            Some countries in the EU have strict gun laws, some are a bit more lax. All of them are far more strict and regulated than what you see in the US.

            • Well Bob, you know I sometimes just make things up…not this time
              Going back over the same ground, the US has always been more violent that the UK, cultural differences. Same for Canada & Australia. What is interesting is the trends in violence. In the UK, home invasions, simple robbery & property crimes are predominant?
              Violent crime & ALL crime is trending lower in the USA, at historic lows. How were the riots, was it last year or the year before? Historic buildings burned by angry mob of young men.
              Millions of pounds worth of damage. Police unable to stop, settled for containing. Gee, that’s how they fight wildfires over here.(and in LA)

              “The US has the most lax gun laws in the first world” and “by far the highest murder rate in comparison to other first world countries.”
              You might want to check a couple things here, first, the US has over 20,000 gun laws. Make a case for that being “lax”. Our VP (what an idiot) said recently we cannot enforce all the laws on the books. Think about this, many gun laws are not enforced because they are too much work. Our instant background check system identifies thousands of felons and illegal aliens that attempt to purchase a firearm and nothing is done except they are denied the purchase.
              Next, be careful on murder rates vs gun deaths. Your fellow countryman, Piers Morgan will only talk about gun crime and refuse to discuss violent crime. He tends to report gun crime as if it is all of violent crime.

              Planning an article for tomorrow that touches on some of this, hope you will drop us a line.
              Hows your global warming been this season? I know Russia & China have been slammed but have not seen anything on the isles…
              Code brown? Doesn’t translate. Ya’ll talk kinda funny sometimes…..Makes me think you mean somethin’ ’bout that color….brown, brown, OH, you mean Bulldoookey! An’ I thought we was being all polight & friendly here
              PS, spent the afternoon shooting a rifle. No police. No permits. My son “assisted”(13) in scoring. Nine shots before scope was dialed in at 50 yrds. Will repeat at 100yrds sometime soon…..

              • Hahahahahahhahahhahahahahaha the UK more violent than SA!!!!!!!

                Have you been to SA LOI? I spent a month in Joberg……

                You are 31 times more likely to be murdered in SA than you are in the UK. The daily mail is useful for one thing only and thats toilet paper.

                For the 4th time. Countries do not all count violent crime the same.

  10. Call her the Secretary of Late Night.

    Hillary Clinton was photographed chugging a beer and dancing into the wee hours of the night while in Colombia for the Summit of the Americas over the weekend.

    (Photo won’t copy, gonna have to learn PhotoShop someday)

    Although Clinton didn’t exactly pull a Secret Service prostitution scandal, it is still surprising to see her let loose. She was seen without her signature headband, and doing some sort of dance move at La Havana with about a dozen companions.

    According to a local newspaper, Clinton and crew arrived at the bar a little before 1 a.m., and stayed for about 30 minutes.

    Read more:

  11. 1. Guns have only two enemies rust and politicians.
    2. It’s always better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
    3. Cops carry guns to protect themselves, not you.
    4. Never let someone or something that threatens you get inside arms length.
    5. Never say, “I’ve got a gun.” If you need to use deadly force, the first sound they hear should be the safety clicking off.
    6. The average response time of a 911 call is 23 minutes; the response time of a .357 is 1400 feet per second.
    7. The most important rule in a gunfight is: Always win – cheat if necessary.
    8. Make your attacker advance through a wall of bullets . . . You may get killed with your own gun, but he’ll have to beat you to death with it, because it’ll be empty.
    9. If you’re in a gunfight:
    – If you’re not shooting, you should be loading.
    – If you’re not loading, you should be moving.
    – If you’re not moving, you’re dead.
    10. In a life and death situation, do something . . . It may be wrong, but do something!
    11. If you carry a gun, people call you paranoid. Nonsense! If you have a gun, what do you have to be paranoid about?
    12. You can say ‘stop’ or ‘alto’ or any other word, but a large bore muzzle pointed at someone’s head is pretty much a universal language.
    13. You cannot save the planet, but you may be able to save yourself and your family.

    Read more:

    Sometimes it’s nice to have a reminder 🙂

  12. Hi Bob…haven’t heard from you in a long time. I am staying out of the debate in bolts….both of you are wrong to an extent and both are correct to an extent.

    However, I will take you to task on the “gun violence” in the United States as compared to the rest of the “first world” as you put it. First you must separate the term “homicide” from your references and then determine what homicide refers to. You will have to isolate the homicide from guns, knives, poisons, and any other weapons used, then apply the numbers. One example that I can give you right now is Brazil and this is not an isolated case. All firearms in Brazil are required to be registered with the state. The minimum age for ownership is 25. It is generally illegal to carry a gun outside a residence. Brazil has a far more restrictive gun law than the United States and has 1/3 less in total population…..or about 100 millions fewer people but the rate of gun deaths there is FOUR time higher than the United States. That is the first one that comes to mind. There are many others in this same category but what I have found is in how the statistics are manipulated to skew the results of whichever political side you fall on.

    The other thing that I wish to point out is Europe is one of the most conquered regions in the world since time began….and mostly because of State supported controls where government was in charge. The one exception is Switzerland, which I suggest that everybody take a look at their gun ownership.

    We need to stop the bickering about the weapons. I believe in the axiom that guns do not kill people……people kill people. Deal with that, first. All this focus on guns while automobiles kill more than guns do. Why not eliminate automobiles? Why don’t we take the amount of multiple deaths and add all of them together by category. For example, I think I will research airplane crashes and compare them to school massacres and see what the death total is. My only point that I am trying to make, is if you want to eliminate all of the “mechanics” of multiple deaths….then be all encompassing.

    Now, let me add my two cents worth of who uses “live weapons” in ceremonial issues. I have been in charge of many a ceremonial issue and I am to this very day, called upon to preside over or be part of ceremonial issues due to my rank and my experience. All color guards and honor guards at funerals, funeral processions, and presentations utilize fully functional, unloaded weapons…except firing squads which are loaded with blanks. The Mardi Gras parade in New Orleans, which featured drill teams from various military schools and Us Armed Services all marched with fully functional and unloaded weaponry. The M1 tanks and Bradley Carriers than roll down the streets in parade fashion are all fully functional but unloaded. The Rodeo parade and Veterans Day parades in Fort Worth and Houston, Texas are always participated in with drill teams and US service organizations (Marines, Army, Air Force, etc) all utilize fully functional weaponry but unloaded. THE ONLY EXCEPTION are high school ROTC units that are required to have “closed bolts” and closed means welded. I have personally commanded various ceremonial units all of which have fully functional weaponry BUT we are also responsible to ensure that all are unloaded and all weaponry is only issued at the time of ceremony. This includes all mechanized weaponry as well….it would be my responsibility to ensure than all are unloaded and all breeches are personally inspected.

    The ONE and ONLY exception that I am aware of as I have read the guidelines are Presidential issues. This has been in place since before World War II. No Presidential function has armed military personnel in it….EXCEPT specifically identified security forces. This is to mean that all weaponry is “defused” and this means mechanical weaponry as well.

    The exception to this is when the CIC visits a military base and a parade is on his honor, all weaponry is live and fully functional.

    I hope this helps.

    • “.both of you are wrong to an extent”

      Explain, especially after this:

      “The ONE and ONLY exception that I am aware of as I have read the guidelines are Presidential issues. This has been in place since before World War II. No Presidential function has armed military personnel in it….EXCEPT specifically identified security forces. This is to mean that all weaponry is “defused” and this means mechanical weaponry as well.”

      Which was exactly my argument above. Who is in charge of Obamas security? Would Obama specifically single out a Marine Corp unit and order them to take the bolts out?

      Wow, you manage to beat Brazil, a country rife with corruption, drugs, slums and death. Congrats I suppose? Brazil is certainly not a first world country.

      “and mostly because of State supported controls where government was in charge.”

      Explain. Europe fighting each other is nothing new, been going on for a while to be honest.

      Switzerland has strict control, they used to let them take ammo home for their service rifles but that was stopped some time ago. If it was not in Germanys best interest to keep Switzerland operating you would have seen panzers rolling through, guns or no guns.

      I really dont care about gun control in the States, I am out of there now. You guys can keep killing each other, it really does not effect me. You can wring your hands and talk about banning cars etc but nothing will change, nothing will be put forward, you will keep having gun massacres on a regular basis. So there really is no point discussing it.

      • Are you back in England Bob? I would like to hear about things across the pond, not necessarily political stuff.

        You are probably right, we will have many more murders in this country. As long as we have “no gun zones” and cities that invite criminals with heavy handed gun laws, nothing will change. However, in the Conspiracy theory world this may all change soon if the economy collapses like many economists are predicting. This would surely put the National Guard in the most dangerous cities. What the outcome will be, nobody knows.

        I agree that it is very hard to get any accurate statistics on murder rates and other violence in many nations. As D13 said, many times the stats are skewed to fit the political position, so it is almost impossible to debate the subject, lacking accurate statistics.

        • Bob, this is an interesting video. What do you think of the message?

          • People want to idolise him because of the repressive police policies in the States. He fought the police and they want to stand behind him no matter how crazy he was. Questions need to be asked why he gained such support from people.
            Is it the because of the victims of the war on drugs?
            Is it because of the increasing levels of militarisation in the police forces? Some of your podunk countys are driving around in APCs and old Sheriff Joe trucks around a decommissioned self propelled gun for his “War Against Drugs”.

            There is a level of distrust from a lot of people in the States towards the police forces. Something I have not really encountered in the UK.

            I am sure some of the support for Dorner was people just trying to be ironic, but some of it seemed to be genuine.

            • There’s a lot that could be discussed on this issue. The police state and all the excessive use of force seen on the internet has much to do with it. Maybe it’s a black man who fought back against the LAPD, who many, especially blacks, think they are corrupt.

              There is a huge disconnect in the big cities when it comes to the high crime areas and cops. Cops are the enemy. But cops can’t fix the crime problem, no more than they can in England. Sad times ahead for many unfortunately 😦

        • Having states with strict gun laws is quite pointless when people can just drive to the next state and buy guns there instead that are more lax. Its a point that is always raised and it always seemed silly to me.

      • Yes sir….not all Presidential visits are the function of the SS…..errr…..the Secret Service.

        • I’m going to agree with Bob to some extent here, I do not think Obama had anything to do with who carried a functional or loaded firearm. SS or Chief of Staff, somebody else’s job.
          Also not hard to believe it’s been routine for many presidents unless anyone thinks no soldier ever thought of capping LBJ, Nixon or Carter to name a few.

  13. Here are some simple questions for a self test concerning the media. I’ll post the link later.

    1. Do you believe the claim that law enforcement did not set the fires, that burned the cabin Chris Dorner was in?

    2. Do you believe these ammo purchases (1.6 billion rounds the DHS has bought) are being done solely to SAVE taxpayers money, as the media has been reporting?

    3. Do you agree with Ken James that guns have no role as a defensive weapon, even for cops? That guns are only offensive weapons used to intimidate and show power?

    4. Do you believe the official story on building 7? (The 9-11 attacks)

    • Bottom Line says:

      1. Do you believe the claim that law enforcement did not set the fires, that burned the cabin Chris Dorner was in?

      It’s hard to say. I wasn’t there. I haven’t researched the details, and I cannot dismiss that he may have done it himself as to not be taken alive. It would seem a rather sufferable means of suicide though. If it was suicide, why didn’t he just blow his brains out?

      2. Do you believe these ammo purchases (1.6 billion rounds the DHS has bought) are being done solely to SAVE taxpayers money, as the media has been reporting?

      I don’t care about the money so much as I do about the stocking up. What concerns me even more is the IRS stocking up. Why?

      3. Do you agree with Ken James that guns have no role as a defensive weapon, even for cops? That guns are only offensive weapons used to intimidate and show power?


      4. Do you believe the official story on building 7? (The 9-11 attacks)


  14. Bob says:
    February 17, 2013 at 10:58 am • Edit

    “I’m guessing you took issue with your boy ”

    No I take issue with BS and a lot of the articles that get posted here are sprayed with it.

    Obama is in no way shape or form “my boy”, I just dont think his mother was a jackal and born under a full moon.

    Re: Articles. Yes, I post all kinds of articles on all kinds of subjects. I don’t write them, but they can be used as a starting point for debate. I’m sure that we can remove the BS and get to the point of any article, with some effort. That is, after all, the point of this blog, to discuss and debate. While mostly on political issues, we have done so with some non-political subjects as well.

    The “my boy” comment was done in jest 🙂 I have no issue with his mother and haven’t heard the jackal story yet, new to me 🙂

    If you have some issue with the BS of some of the articles, bring it forward and let’s have a clean debate. Maybe we can prove what is BS and what is reality and both of us can find some common ground. I’m willing to use an open mind if you are 🙂

  15. Dear Wall Street Daily Nation,

    A few hundred lucky folks off the south coast of England hit the jackpot.

    They happened upon an ATM machine paying out double cash. Imagine!

    Over a two-hour period, roughly 200 people withdrew money before the cops showed up to pull the plug.

    The bank is allowing the people to keep the money.

    Nice people them English. 🙂

  16. @Anita, Another classic ripping of Liberals, 😆

  17. Wow, you manage to beat Brazil, a country rife with corruption, drugs, slums and death.

    Is there a country that isn’t? No slums in England? No drugs? No corruption? No death?

    The point is, it is not guns. Guns are a tool. That is all…..but you and I have to agree to disagree. Too bad Texas is not a Republic still but we are working on that. We do like our freedoms and individuality.

    Have a great day, sir.

    • Hehe I think you will find there is a large difference between the Favelas and a council estate in the UK. For starters we dont have para-military organisations go through our rough areas to “clean” them up for starters.

      Like I said no point in debating, things will stay exactly the same as they are. America will keep on having the worst murder rate in the first world.

      • Bob, both of our countries have their problems. We have the highest murder rate in the developed world. Looking at the statistics, gangs and drugs seem to be the predominate factors. So while we have lots of dead gangbangers and druggies, it seems England has it’s issues too.

        • In keeping with my constant attempt to get back to the basics, the Lowest Common Denominator for any problem, there are two things to keep in mind regarding gun violence in this country.

          1. It has been steadily decreasing for the past 20 years and accidental deaths have been decreasing for the last 60.

          2. If you removed all illegal aliens, from the equation, how far further would it have fallen? Taking that forward a notch. Without the illegals, and the gangs that they both spawn and enrich how many more crimes would not have happened?

          While it is almost impossible to stop a Tim McVeigh or dedicated nut cases like Columbine or Sandy Hook, they are aberrations as unpredictable as the meteor over Russia, the illegal alien connection, that is right there for anybody to see and do something about.

          • Very good point SK. I would bet that the homicide rate, if attributed to these gangs, would be huge. Just curious, if the illegal immigrant gangs, the black gangs, the latino gangs and the other minority gangs all had the homicides that were a result of their actions, then subtract from the overall homicide rate, what would the homicide rate be ?

            • See, to me it is the business about assimilation. The current immigration fiasco allows these people to remain outside the society as a whole. There is neither the time nor inclination on the part of the greater society to allow them to integrate. Now, this is not any deliberate attempt to disenfranchise them. The Progressive movement of 100 years ago was all for forced integration ie: the Indian Schools that the BIA encouraged. The “new” progressives have done a 180 and encourage the maintenance of a separate culture. History will prove them as stupid as their forebears.

              Nowhere does anyone in charge bother asking either the new immigrants nor the old residents (the children of earlier immigration) whether they think these things are good ideas. The Bureaucracies created over the past 70 years have a life of their own and trump the legislature and the constitution.

            • You dont think the majority of murders in other countries is from gangs as well?

        • Bottom Line says:


          Drugs don’t kill people any more than guns do.


          • Vaccinations and other so called life saving drugs do too! Not to mention the abortion pill. Better get yer facts straight BL. 😉

            • Bottom Line says:

              When was the last time you saw a gun stand up and shoot someone, or a bag of cocaine jump off of a table into someone’s nose, or a pill jump into someone’s mouth, etc, etc…?

              Why do gang bangers shoot people? Because of drugs? …or because they cannot agree on a peaceful means of resolve with regard to conflicts of their enterprise?

              All human action is ultimately individual. It is about choice, …not guns, not drugs, not etc etc.

              Get rid of the guns and drugs and they’ll fight over territory of where to sell electronics or shoes or whatever

              Get rid of everything, and they’ll fight over illegal factory territory.

              Just sayin’

  18. Bottom Line says:

    Actual Gun/Violent Crime Statistics – (U.S.A. vs U.K.)

    • Just a bit of research on his side and that would have been a convincing video. The US and UK count violent crime differently. In the UK we count all forms of assault and report it, the US is far more selective in its stats. Again the US has a 4 times higher murder rate, are we really trying to say its a less violent place than the UK? Does that make sense to people here?

      Looks look at some stats:

      Total homicide, England & Wales, 2011-2012 = 550
      Population of England & Wales, 2012 = 56,100,000
      Population density England & Wales = 371
      Homicides per 100,000 England & Wales, 2011-2012 = 0.98

      Total homicides per 100,000, USA, 2011 = 12,664
      Population USA, 2011 = 311,800,000
      Population density, USA = 33.7/ square km (11 times lower than England and Wales)
      Total homicides per 100,000, USA, 2011 = 4.06 (4.1 times higher than England & Wales)

      Gun homicides per 100,000, 2011, UK= 0.04
      Gun homicides per 100,000, USA, 2011 = 2.75 (68.75 times higher than England & Wales)

      • Bob, One would think we do have more homicides with guns than the UK, we have major gang problems and lots of guns.

        But, the UK has a huge problem with crime, non the less. I don’t really care if gang bangers and drug dealers off themselves, as long as their war don’t come into our part of the country. We will also not become victims of any violent crimes, be it rape, robbery, car jacking, home invasions, etc.

        You can cherry pick your stats all you want. But why do you bother?

        • You will find I use the only stat that is tracked the same between our two countries and that is murder.

        • British Rape Rates
          This is a spreadsheet of crimes detected in England/Wales 2010/2011. There were 54,982 sexual offenses reported, but this web site belonging to a UK rape crisis group indicates that the British Crime Survey indicates about 80,000 rapes per year. (As in United States, there are many rapes not reported to the police, which show up in surveys of victims.) The current United Kingdom population is 56.1 million. That would mean about about 142 rapes/100,000 population.

          Table 1 of Uniform Crime Reports for 2011 shows the United States has a reported to police rape rate of 42.8/100,000 rapes. The 2010 National Crime Victimization Survey shows 188,380 rapes in the U.S.; the U.S. population in 2010 was 308 million. That gives 61.16 rapes per 100,000 population, our about 43% of the British Crime Survey victimization rate.

          I certainly will not claim the United Kingdom has more than twice the rape rate because American women are allowed to own guns while British women for practical purposes are not, but it does make you wonder, doesn’t it?

          UPDATE: A reader says that the British Crime Survey figure that RapeCrisis uses is, not contrary to their claim, a count of rapes, but all sexual assaults (which would include unwanted touching of a sexual nature). I don’t find that claim implausible, because groups that call themselves whateverCrisis are not generally terribly objective, but RapeCrisis make a clear distinction between sexual assaults in general and rape in particular:

          Around 400,000 women are sexually assaulted and 80,000 women are raped each year (British Crime Survey).

      • Bottom Line says:


        I think the point he was making is about how statistics are presented as well as how they are calculated, …using the UK for comparison. Statistical outcomes/calculations can vary a great deal.

        Note how he starts out citing the media and special interest groups as they have an ulterior motive that often influences the way they present their statistics.

        Another important point he made was to suggest that the majority of violent crime comes from small areas, be it from poorer neighborhoods (not all of them of course), while the rest of the world is relatively peaceful.

        I’m not trying to get into a pissing contest about which country is the more/less violent, only trying to contribute information to the conversation. I couldn’t care less about nationalism anymore. People are people.

        • No he tries to come off as raising an alarm against the MSM for not reporting facts but he does not understand the very statistics he is using.

  19. This is a great question. Those mentioned in the following link. Would it be self defense to shoot them on the spot?

    Shouldn’t Al Gore be arrested for attempted fraud? I can’t believe this waste of human life was almost President, but he’s a Liberal, the followers are mostly brainwashed.

    • I got a nosebleed reading that article, I need to lie down, my head hurts. Gman do yourself and everyone here a favour and unsubscribe from that guys blog.

      • Why, for passing on information that the useless MSM won’t?

        • Gman, its about being rational here. Global warming exists no matter if you believe its man made or not. I have heard lots of ways people are proposing to combat it. These include creating a giant ship that sucks in CO2, a gigantic filter they would launch into space to put in front of the sun and a series of giant air conditioners. Oh and your example of course, each one of them more crackpot than the last.

          These theories have the same chance of happening as monkeys spontaneously flying out of your ass. Not worth the bandwidth to talk about.

          • “Global warming exists” Oh Boy! If it were such a real thing, why is it such a Liberal issue? The so called facts have already been debunked. The scientists who have claimed this have their heads hanging in shame. The polar bears are just fine, the oceans are not rising and the world is not ending if we don’t pay carbon taxes. If it were “real” they wouldn’t have had to change the name so many times. After all, it’s now called climate change here. Why is that? If it were so real, the name would still be the same.

            Would you like to buy the Brooklyn Bridge, I’ll sell it to you cheap and you can collect tolls the rest of your life 🙂

            • sorry gman, there are two groups of scientists. One saying global warming is not caused by man the other saying it is. The latter group numbers in the thousands. Global trending shows a slow rise in temperature over the last century. Again I would rather read studies from climate scientists instead of taking my knowledge from a guy using “Liberals want to block out the sun!” as a headline for an article.

  20. LA Times Questions LAPD over Burning House

    by William Bigelow 17 Feb 2013, 11:25 AM PDT 23 post a comment
    The Los Angeles Times, ever eager to implicate the LAPD in anything it can get its hands on, is now questioning whether the use of a strong tear gas that can cause a fire was the right tactic for the LAPD when they cornered alleged murderer and cop-killer Christian Dorner.

    Never mind that night was about to fall and Dorner, hiding in a cabin near Big Bear Lake, had not given any evidence that he would surrender, even after numerous loudspeaker calls for him to give up. Never mind that there was a possibility that the former LAPD cop might have night goggles, and could have murdered more police officers if he escaped. Never mind that he was still in the cabin despite previous tear gas attempts to drive him out. Never mind that a demolition vehicle tore down most of the walls, thus leaving the interior exposed. Never mind that Dorner was still firing at officers, as one officer said, “Any time they moved, this guy was shooting.”

    Just minutes after the more powerful tear gas was used, the cabin was on fire.

    The Times was happy to print that Samuel Walker, emeritus professor of criminal justice at the University of Nebraska Omaha, criticized the LAPD: “It’s true, he was firing at them. But he was cornered. He was trapped. At that point, there was no rush in the sense that he was barricaded. The standard rules on barricade situations are that you can wait the person out.To use a known incendiary device raises some very serious questions in my mind.”

    In the interest of appearing balanced, The Times quoted former LAPD officer David Klinger, who is a use-of-force expert at the University of Missouri at St. Louis:

    What difference does it make if one of the officers puts a … round in his head, drives the armored vehicle over his body when they are knocking the building down, or he dies in a conflagration? If he is trying to surrender you can’t do any of those things … But if he is actively trying to murder people, there’s no doubt that deadly force is appropriate and it doesn’t matter what method is used to deliver it.

    And Geoffery Alpert, an expert on police tactics at the University of South Carolina, agreed, “I don’t understand what the big deal is. This man had already shot two officers and was suspected of murdering other people. He wasn’t responding in a rational manner. The actions you take have to remove the threat and if it requires extreme measures, then so be it.”

    But leave it to the Times to even bother making an issue of it.

    Here’s more info. G-you still think they are guilty of murder-I don’t.
    The man was in a building with the walls knocked down, tear gas had already been used, pleas to give himself had been refused, and he was still firing at and trying to kill people.

    • V.H. The LAPD had nothing to do with the burning building or anything else with the cabin where Dorner was eventually eliminated. The location was not in LAPD jurisdiction. The walls were not knocked down, where did you hear that? Bad article actually, they (the media) should know better.

      • I know it wasn’t the LAPD’s jurisdiction-that is a point -not an answer to the question. And I have read several times that they knocked down some of the walls. Have no reason to believe this isn’t true-unless you have some additional information.

        • I have not heard of the wall knocking down thing. I watched most of it while it happened, they didn’t have wall knocking down machines on site. Not to mention, if they could knock down the walls, the roof would fall in, which was never reported. Do you have a link on the wall issue?.. Frankly, the radio recordings mention nothing of wall being knocked in, and if so, why burn it down? Or up, if the walls were down already.

          • OH, I say this with a 🙂

            • 🙂 I don’t have a problem with being proved wrong, I don’t enjoy it 🙂 but you have to prove it first-if I did I wouldn’t come on here to talk.

              But there are numerous articles that talk about them knocking down some of the walls. Just do a search. But I can’t prove it-beyond it being reported.

              • I see your point. I have not heard anything about walls being knocked down, but have no doubt that this has been reported. I am often amazed at what gets reported by the media (see the Sandy Hook fiasco, as it was reported, not the CT stuff).

                Back to the question, was Dorner murdered? Guess we should ask the cops he was hunting for that answer! 😉

              • She got you this time G. I have also read of them knocking walls down. Here’s one story, but HuffPo has one too.

              • Anita, I must laugh at this from your article link. “Dorner was equipped with an arsenal of weapons, including assault rifles with flash suppressors that masked the sound of gunfire and the location it was coming from as he fired ”

                Yep, the reporter in this article is qualified……for what I don’t know, because he don’t know shit about guns.

                Then this ” they eventually used heavy machinery to peel back walls and windows to see if they could see Dorner”

                Ya might want to go find a piece a heavy machinery that can “peel back walls and windows to see if the could see Dorner” That’s the dumbest damn thing I ever heard. Then again, that’s CBS. And like you said Sweety, HuffPo too! Real great sources, don’t ya think 😆

              • Notice all the heavy equipment in the picture. Man, those thing are big!

              • What’s that old saying -I ain’t got no dog in this fight-I’d just like to get to the truth. And I must question just how long people who are being shot at have to wait before they decide the only answer is to stop the shooter. It’s easy to say-he was trapped -wait him out-but this man was not being rational-and if their waiting allowed another person to be killed when it was clear nothing was gonna make this man give his self up-I for one would be questioning why the cops allowed it to happen.

              • Don’t knowwhat to tell you. Maybe you’ll take USA Today at their word?, Sweetie.

              • Heavy equipment would leave heavy equipment tracks. See any?

    • Don’t worry V.H. According to Bob, we all post lots of bad articles. That don’t say much for the media, now does it?

  21. Down here Ladies 🙂 It’s no big deal at this point what happened. Dorner is dead and the cops will not be questioned. I think that we can all agree on that! Yes?

%d bloggers like this: