EvilMonkey

QUOTE (Brian @ Jun 9, 2014 -> 09:26 PM) Agree. The student handbook I found online doesn't specify that they are banned (although it does specify water balloon slingshots?), but it references a Washington State regulation about weapons where it says that mace and pepper spray may be considered weapons, depending on the circumstances. pretty vague.

I know it isn't the newest game here, but anyone play CoD: Ghosts on xbox live? I recently got it and like playing the extinction game, but finding 3 others online that either know what they are doing, or care, is pretty hard. I'm not one of these guys that can jump, do a 360 and shoot someone around the corner in one shot in the head, but I am OK.

QUOTE (Brian @ Jun 9, 2014 -> 05:42 AM) And he didn't even need his own gun to do it. Beast! Good thing he violated the school's No Weapons policy, eh?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 9, 2014 -> 09:38 AM) This is pretty common on local news stations as well. If you just watched those broadcasts, it'd seem like we've got the worst crime rates ever across the entire nation. If it bleeds, it leads...

You do realize that all this s*** happened before CNN and the immediate news hysteria...

Alexei

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jun 6, 2014 -> 03:51 PM) I see Putin insulted Hillary. Interesting. Yeah, let's hear all the feminazis yell about his war on women. He dissed her big time.

Abreu

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 3, 2014 -> 09:47 AM) Those crazy NRA assholes issued a statement on this: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/06/02/n...-chipotle-beef/ Open Carry Texas has become to gun owners what the Westboro Baptist Church is to Christians.

Abreu

Alexei

No, Brian, because HE is not held accountable for it. And yes, he wandered off after a guard shift.

QUOTE (Tex @ Jun 2, 2014 -> 08:11 PM) Should it be policy to decide whether we attempt to bring back prisoners of war or not based on comments and suspicions? Should we have a trial without the soldier present and say meh, keep him? Or should we bring the soldier back and prosecute him if there is sufficient evidence? The decision seems pretty easy to me. I hope every President would do the same thing. Put the full force and commitment of the US in bringing home every US prisoner being held by hostile nations. If one or more are later prosecuted for crimes, at least they are in the hands of the US and not the enemy. I don't have a problem with them bringing him back. I have a problem with rules being treated as mere suggestions, as usual by this president.

His squad mates think of him as a deserter. They mince no words about it. And others as well. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/02...gdahls-conduct/ http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/controversy-...ory?id=23961090

Alexei

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 2, 2014 -> 03:02 PM) You think this guy is the only American to get roughed up in a Mexican prison? Sadly, I am pretty sure he is not unique in that aspect.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 2, 2014 -> 02:53 PM) The fact that one of these was a situation where the U.S. was actually in combat and the other wasn't? The fact that the guy broke the law in Mexico whereas this person was an actual combatant? The fact that the U.S. military generally seems to have a tradition of "not leaving men behind" in areas where they are in active combat? The fact that the man may have 'left', and not been 'left behind'? The fact that EVERY allegation of prisoner abuse here is treated with kid gloves, a US citizen claims abuse there, everyone shrugs?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 2, 2014 -> 01:31 PM) Seriously? What part of that don't you get? He treats rules as suggestions and brings back a pow who may not have been so much a prisoner as a convert or sympathizer. And when asked for help by family members for a veteran in a Mexico jail, nothing. http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/30/us/mexico-us...ined/index.html

And yet an American veteran still remains in a Mexican prison being tortured, with no action or response from the American government than to give him access to a 'list' of lawyers that 'might' be able to help. Considering all the ass-kissing the Feds to to Mexico, you would think that one phone call would do it.

QUOTE (greg775 @ May 30, 2014 -> 04:23 PM) Just out of curiosity. Does Hillary even have a reason to run except that people say it's "her turn?" And she "deserves the office?" Does she have any vision? Does she have any burning desire to lead? Does she have any big-time goals she hopes to accomplish for our once-great land? Not that I've seen. I see this as a coronation of Hillary. Like she simply deserves this office for being Hillary. Never heard anything like this before. She is a career politician. Run or die.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 30, 2014 -> 04:46 PM) Can we at least all agree that the dudes (and it's pretty much always dudes) who make a big show of carrying long guns into public places are weird and creepy? Yes, the OC guys do more harm than good and are a bunch of publicity seeking idiots. It wold be one thing if they arranged ahead of time to be places, notified the police and were polite about it. But they are not. They aggressively try to push their cause and do nothing to dispel stereotypes.

Dayan V.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 30, 2014 -> 12:47 PM) Neither the parents nor the police actually had the right to do anything about him having a gun. The parents literally couldn't have known since he was an adult, and I'll admit I don't know if the police who went to his door would even know that information. Given how our gun laws are written by people paranoid that the government is coming to take their guns, I wouldn't be surprised at all if the police who went to his address had no idea he was armed. As I noted though, there is now a proposed law in Cali that would have covered this case, allowing a family member or acquaintance to request a "firearms restraining order" for a person who is believed to be at risk. Of course, then we'd have the problem of it being impossible for the family to know that they needed to do so because there's no published information on who is stockpiling weapons, but in this case, that proposed law would have had the potential to stop it. California has a handgun registry and you need to take a safety class to own a gun. If they didn't know it was because they were too lazy to look it up and/or someone there doesn't have their databases coordinated to that information like that would be readily available to law enforcement officials when they are called to a home of a potentially dangerous person. edit They already are confiscating gun, btw. From people that shouldn't have them, but hey, they used a registry to find them. What is to prevent them from going after people just because they have them in the future? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/19/c..._n_3117238.html

Gordon B

QUOTE (Reddy @ May 29, 2014 -> 09:54 PM) stricter mental health requirements. he'd been in therapy since 8 years old and had recently quit going against his parents' wishes. red flag. simple as that. So then someone in the CA system screwed up by not flagging him enough to prevent him from getting a gun and passing a CA background check. It seems you already had the rules in place to stop him, if they were followed.