Filed under: Domestic Policy, Law, News, Uncategorized | Tags: Guns for the Police, Sorting out the Day's News, The Firearms Debate
Let’s see. If I understand the current hysteria over guns and bullets, assault weapons, scary looking attachments like scopes and magazines of assorted sizes and how many bullets a magazine may contain, the liberal argument is that only the police need guns. And in the meantime, a former police officer has issued a manifesto to kill police officers in the Los Angeles area.
Christopher Jordan Dorner, an ex-LAPD police officer is the main suspect in three separate murders. A vehicle that matched the description of Dorner’s truck was driving down the road, but was delivering newspapers. Two older women were delivering papers when police officers opened fire. One woman was shot in the back, the other in the hand. Both are expected to survive.
Another person was shot while driving a pickup truck after Torrance police arrived at the scene. Reports of his injuries weren’t clear, but he is considered in good condition—except for being shot by police officers.
Perhaps they should rethink that idea that only the police need guns.
At the bottom of the piece under “RECOMMENDED STORIES’
—Convicted Ohio man apologizes to family of slain daughter-in-law strangled, put in septic tank.
—Pennsylvania mistrial declared when man’s prosthetic eye pops out on witness stand.
Recommended?
2 Comments so far
Leave a comment
American Elephants 
And what do you think would have happened to the paper-delivery women if they had fired back? Think that the police officers would have treated them nicely? Methinks, had the ladies managed to get to their guns before the police wounded them, they would have invited a hailstorm of bullets even worse than they received.
As for Fox News recommending a story about a trial in Pennsylvania that was declared a mistrial when a man’s prosthetic eye popped out on the witness stand … well, consider the source!
LikeLike
Comment by Subsidy Eye February 11, 2013 @ 9:02 amYeah, I considered the source… what’s your point?
“Perhaps they should rethink that idea that only the police need guns.”
Perhaps you should think just a tiny bit more before you reply. The idea is some people think that only the police should have guns, because they have “training” and can “be responsible” with them in a way that us ordinary yokels can’t.
Or, as the story suggests, maybe not. Police personnel are human, too, and are just as capable of nervousness, overreaction, and error as anyone else.
This was not a suggestion that the ladies in truck should have tried to fire back, and you’re really reaching to try and make that case.
LikeLike
Comment by Lon Mead February 11, 2013 @ 4:18 pm