No Tom, I am not going to go through hours of tape on a different subject because you refuse to review a few minutes of tape on this. If Jeff or somebody else is interested in an explanation for how the officer behaved in either tape, I'll explain it them.
What does this subject have to do with Fast and Furious? Did this officer have something to do with that, and thereby, by some odd mechanism, your speculations about your predictions about his behavior have more weight? Or prove you actually had paid attention to the tape and not based your...
Just as long as your "informed" speculation about what this officer would have done in a counter-factual history scenario, one that had to be suddenly dreamed up (for whatever reason), is acknowledged as based on only watching a few minutes tape of the officer, and not on any personal knowledge...
That's just you guys speculating about what he would and would not have done. We are all entitled to our speculations.
Looks like Tom has reviewed the tape and discovered I was right about the way things actually went down in the first tape.
He still acted unprofessional in that first tape...
It may have been on another thread. But yes, the second tape, of another supposedly horrible example of that officers work.
I do not recall any death threats for following his orders in that one. Nor in the first, for that matter.
I kept trying to tell you there was no debate here, that we were talking about two different things.
I re-entered this to explain why that officer in the second tapes behavior seems outrageous to you and EL, but is actually not that bad too. It also has to do with how different the world he...
Which is the topic I was talking about in the original comment. The whole original comment, that is.
There is a natural difference between what country people believe the laws should be and what people living in the inner city believe they should be because of their very different situations.
You just listed restrictions on what laws they can and can not have in post 214.
The guy in the tape though, I believe he may be referring to the looser laws in neighboring states, or perhaps the gun-show loophole. Difficult to be sure, although one could probably review his public record for...
The world they live in, and it's not an abstract bit of case law for them. It's where the Pentagon sends their docs to learn how to treat gunshot wounds. Pretty rare night when they don't have at least a couple, or at least a body that can be studied for effects.
I've been aware that we are talking about two different things, and am not one bit surprised by your inability to accept that.
You have been talking about the Chicago gun Supreme Court case for months, and ask why some folks are not allowed to tailor gun laws?
To my statement of "Some folks just can't figure out why they are not allowed to tailor those laws for their specific situation." you have said "Untrue".
You really believe that is untrue? What do you believe their thinking is when they applauded the COP's statement?
You still don't get it. I am not saying it is bad or good, and they do not need two reasons to feel the way they do.
Having a conversation with you about guns is like trying to have a conversation with the TR guy in "Arsenic and Old Lace"
You continually confuse comments with advocacy. You expect people living in Chicago to have the same opinions as you do, and now are saying I am avoiding the subject because I am uninterested in defending their opinions.
BTW, I doubt anybody in Chicago is interested in explaining their opinion...