Directions would be nice, I don't know where the landmarks in the article are located.
The webpage has no map or directions either ...
So, where is it?
THIS is the kind of reporting I expect from the TFP. Informative, inspiring and most importantly ... full of soul!
I know the bad has to be reported as well as the good. Sensationalizing the bad however is in poor taste and feeds it making it much worse.
What the writer is deliberately omitting is the fact that Matthews obtained his arsenal by robbing a pawn shop in Colorado. the deliberate obfuscation of facts and its use to misdirect their readers to support their pathetic agenda totally belies their creditability.
The fact still remains that criminals will obtain weapons using any means possible, including by force.
Tit for tat ...
Why does the anti-gun crowd want more laws and restrictions instead of enforcing what we already have?
We can't afford to enforce and also have the budget to fund the ones we already have on the books?
Why are anti-gunners also anti-death penalty?
That warped logic makes as much sense as the tripe written above.
I visit several water/wastewater plants as part of my profession. The picture is they are trying to hold an aging infrastructure together with a shoestring budget. Daily, supervisors balance costs versus laying off valuable employees. Repairs are made on a reactionary mode with obsolete parts getting harder to find.
It is not as simple as just replacing one subsystem and planning to do the rest in parts as each subsystem is heavily dependent on each other.
The longer we wait to invest capital into this aging infrastructure, the more expensive it will be to maintain due to unscheduled maintainence, overtime, lack of reliability and diminishing quality.
What is sad is people think nothing of spending over a dollar for a bottle of water. Some of that bottle water is regular tap water, you can taste the chlorine.
The big white elephant in the middle of the living room that no Democrat, Libertarian or Republican wants to discuss is the lack of mental health resources and its respective funding.
Mental health issues do not win election campaigns or create emotionally passioned articles that sell newspapers.
Every case of a high profile shooting that has occured in the last several decades has been committed by an acknowleged mentally disturbed individual. It has been documented time and again how the mentally disturbed individual "fell into the cracks" of our system.
The issue is not gun ownership or concealed weapons carry. The issue is what are we going to do to recognize these individuals and see they have the proper care they need.
The law already states you cannot own a firearm if you are mentally disturbed. We do not need more laws. We need to enforce the ones we have and provide the resources to deal with the people that need help.
Funny how labeling everyone that owns firearms as a gun nut achieves the emotionally passioned paranoia needed to create a totally baseless sensationalistic issue.
The real issue here is not firearms.
The real issue is mental health care and its availability.
How many times has his parents sought help?
Who is doing stories on this topic?
Banning fireams is a much better story?
The man was a total nutjob, everyone around him knew it and no one could do anything about it because we don't have the resources.
The recent Chicago home invasions that were thwarted by gun owners were never prosecuted by the DA. Shootings occur every night even though guns are banned. The only people that respect the law are unarmed at the mercy of lawbreakers.
Combine this with SCOTUS rulings that police are under no obligation to prevent crime or protect potential victims and one can see that there is something wrong with the legal landscape.
All it will take is one case where a homeowner is prosecuted for violating these stringent laws and it goes in front of a jury that sees things for what they really are. The pendulum has spent too much time in the gun control arena and reaction is coming ... inexorably.
Gun control was once a firm and sturdy political plank, now it is now ridden with fear, uncertainty and doubt. Even our president who hails from that region will not touch this issue. He is responsible for one of the greatest surges in firearm, ammunition and reloading supply sales creating shortages that exist even today.
Why is this so?
Read the papers ... watch the media. Isn't it tragic that the fourth estate creating and participating in the antigun hysteria are actually the ones perpetuating this dichotomy on their fifth estate audience? The daily shootings, murders, robberies ... if it does not bleed, it does not lead.
Journalism as we knew it is evolving into what they feared the most ... what the first amendment is supposed to prevent. It is now about control, not truth, not facts ... sensationlism and propaganda for money, power and the obfuscation of reality.
What will our descendents think when they use this material to understand where they came from?
I am thankful that we now have the internet and many other resources which are now at our disposal to guide us into determining what is truth and what is not. I can use what I have between my ears and behind my eyes to exercise the free will that our Constitution valued.
Vote with your dollars ... go only to gas stations that advertise ethanol free gas.
Even if you have to travel several miles to do it.
Having been through a divorce that was headed into the lawyers bank accounts, I just turned my back, accepted the losses and moved on.
It hurt. I can live with myself and have since regained more than what I lost. The most important was being happy again ... priceless.
The more you hang on to something, the more it owns you.
How many murder-suicides could be averted if only divorce was perceived as a cause for celebration instead of a contentious battle where everyone loses except for the lawyers?
Law abiding citizens do not make the news or sell newspapers.
Guns in BARS sells papers and inflames the passions of the idiots.
Spewing tripe and pronouncing half truths as fact under the protection of the FIRST Amendment does create an atmosphere of credibility ... doesn't it?
If the author actually read the bill and understood it, the epiphany that this bill actually restricts even more permit holders from going to more places armed with even less complicated posting laws might just give him an aneurysm.