David13

I certainly see the similarity to Donald Trump. Nigel Farage does seem extremely well informed and rather good at arguing for his position. And directly in line with my own thinking. And his stand on immigration appears to coincide with Trump and me. So he's all right in my book. dc

I was visiting in the Manti 6th ward this week and I raised my hand to sustain everyone that they mentioned. My intention is to move into this ward, then it would be my ward, if that makes a difference. Now they said the same as sometimes others say, "those who may or who can sustain" ... What they mean by that? Am I authorized, or what? I've only been in the church a little over a year and the first week the missionaries said you can raise your hand, go ahead. So I guess they authorized me. However, I don't know if that authority is good out of town or not. I will act as if it is. dc

My memory is not that good. I just thought maybe you were insane. Have I read any of your posts before? Maybe I have, I don't know. I think it would help if you were to use an animal avatar. That way I could remember you as the elephant or the burro or something. (I like burros) I don't know if that would help me remember your posts tho'. dc

How do you know it was a cat burglar. Oh, you read minds now, huh? How do you know it wasn't a child abductor/rapist/murdered? dc

Dirty Harry? That's sort of a corny allegation to make.. No one here said anything about being Dirty Harry and looking for reasons to play. They said something about defending a homeowner and her children. And that was after an absurd post apologizing and whining about what happened to a criminal. This idea that a criminal has rights to commit his crimes is all part of the agenda we see today polluting the world. Just like celebrating perversion in the streets, or abortion. dc

There is no duty to retreat OUT OF YOUR HOME. The duty to retreat is INTO YOUR HOME, where there i such a duty. Insanity for sure that people don't realize that there IS NO RIGHT FOR THE CRIMINAL TO COME INTO YOUR HOME AND COMMIT A CRIME. Why do these people want to bend over backwards apologizing for evil behavior. They need to restudy what CTR means. It doesn't mean make excuses for criminal behavior. dc

No gun killed him. His own stupidity and evil nature did. Good shoot. dc

Anatess2 I know. Why should it take a genius to figure that out. dc

How about telling me I should grow up because I don't agree with your politically correct point of view?. How about calling me hostile because I don't agree wtih the witch hunt. That was uncalled for. I understand you have posted an excuse. dc

Ok. Excuse accepted. dc

But hostility to the truth and personal attacks from you are ok?. Why would you think that? Why would you want anyone to laud the Judge if he found guilt based on no evidence?. That's pure hostility to the truth in the name of what?. Political correctness? And you sure don't seem to like your point of view being challenged, do you? dc

I'm very passionate myself for the truth, but he termed my passion as 'hostile'. And he does seem very hostile to the truth.. The truth was, there was no evidence.. That's what the Judge said, in effect. He takes objection to our appreciation of that. He would have us laud the Judge were he to find guilt based on no evidence. I can't understand why he would do such a thing.. But now he mentions emotional turmoil as an excuse.. Ok. dc

Your posts seem a lot more hostile than anything I posted. And biased. Not objective. It's good to praise a Judge who can see thru' all the lies of modern day racism and witch hunt prosecutions. And who can state clearly and unequivocally that there is no evidence when there is no evidence. If the Judge says that, it means exactly that. And then to he said Not Guilty, rather than let me convict based on "political correctness". I am qualified to tell you what it means when a Judge says something. I have a license to interpret what they say. And when a Judge who is in a position to be influenced by his skin color in favor of guilt says what he said about the case, it is rather clear that the case was what you would expect based on what you admit you know. That is, that there is a racial element to this. That it is a "get whitey" or "get the police" witch hunt. Or both. Apparently you think it was something else. And you don't seem to be able to grasp a rather simple concept that was set forth by Mirkwood. That the one you want to be responsible should be the responsible one and not the nearest 'whitey' or policeman. The one responsible is the one who set in motion the criminal activity that caused the death. Period. It doesn't surprise me that you miss the essence of it. Many people do that today, particularly the family who offer all kinds of ridiculous excuses for the criminal behavior that gets someone (the perp) killed. It's generally based on a concept (I guess) that there is a "right" to commit crimes and that then no one, police or citizen with a gun has a right or responsibility to use deadly force to stop them. That the population must let them commit crimes. That ain't the way it works. dc

You mean if he had gone along with the racist witch hunt and found guilt based on nothing but racism? You mean if he had invented some evidence, like the hokey prosecutor did? Yeah, there probably wouldn't be any laurels thrown then, no. Is it difficult to understand that? dc

Speculation connected to more regulation. Do you have to have a license or training to have a child? Yet you can do far more harm over generations if you don't do it right. I'd be in favor of that. Training for everyone. Then I'm on board. dc

Speculation connected to more regulation. Do you have to have a license or training to have a child? Yet you can do far more harm over generations if you don't do it right. dc

No, it's an entirely different thing. dc

Yeah, but so what. One in the hands of a "highly trained" and capable individual who exercises their capability can also be taken by the bad guy if he gets the drop on the guy, can't it? But it's better to die having a fighting chance and taking it, rather than just as dead weight, just as a sitting duck. And good for you not being left out of the weapons class. I think women need just as many guns and experience with them as any man, if they so choose. I have certainly known enough women who struck me, from experience as a lot more capable as a partner in survival than a whole lot of men I have known. dc

So then the conclusion is, less gun control not more, so that if anyone wants to try they can take that chance rather than like 49 did, die like lemmings. It's better to try and fail, rather than have no chance to try and die. dc

I didn't say nor mean "everyone" there should have or could have or would have been carrying. And it doesn't negate my point. I'm just saying "someone" or two or 3. How many out of more than 100 would it take? Only one. dc And, we are spiritual beings, but also human. And you might full well be surprised how many people, having lived a mild mannered life, can, and do fight like wild animals when they are faced with a mortal or fatal challenge to their existence. dc

I didn't say nor mean "everyone" there should have or could have or would have been carrying. And it doesn't negate my point. I'm just saying "someone" or two or 3. How many out of more than 100 would it take? Only one. dc

We hear again in the "gun control debate" that old adage, "if it saves one life, then it's worth it. But it never does. In fact it means more people will be killed. An example is the Orlando situation. The guy kills 49 people and shoots 100 and nobody has a gun with which to stop him? Thus more have died simply because there wasn't a gun there that could stop him. There supposedly was one armed security guard but he couldn't do it. If there were more guns there, someone could have. In fact, that's what ultimately did stop him. A gun that the police had to bring hours later after so many were killed. So the bottom line is "gun control" or limiting honest citizens from having a gun TAKES lives, not saves them dc

We hear again in the "gun control debate" that old adage, "if it saves one life, then it's worth it. But it never does. In fact it means more people will be killed. An example is the Orlando situation. The guy kills 49 people and shoots 100 and nobody has a gun with which to stop him? Thus more have died simply because there wasn't a gun there that could stop him. There supposedly was one armed security guard but he couldn't do it. If there were more guns there, someone could have. In fact, that's what ultimately did stop him. A gun that the police had to bring hours later after so many were killed. So the bottom line is "gun control" or limiting honest citizens from having a gun TAKES lives, not saves them dc

x

Apparently he wrote a book about his alcohol abuse and his charge/conviction would be of record on the background check, which would cause him to be denied. Lautenberg amendment I believe it is. But as you may understand his political bent is that it's quite acceptable to lie about it all and that people will then believe it, that he was denied by some great conspiracy, rather than the fact that he is a drunken wife beater. They say he admits in the book that he will probably be drinking again. dc