I think the rules of engagement for US Police and US military should reverse — the local police (who shoot first if they even “feel” in danger) should be held to the standard that they may not use deadly force unless they can confirm with certainty that they are being assaulted with a weapon, and if – after the fact – it is determined that they were not being attacked, they should be prosecuted. On the other hand, we cannot fight politically correct wars. Soldiers in the theater of battle should have very little restrictions.
As members of the executive branch of government, police should not be able to deprive a person of life or liberty without due process. The completely subjective “I felt threatened” is not due process. Due process must be objective. It can’t be “i thought he was reaching for a weapon” or even “I thought that was a weapon, and it turned out to be a cell phone.” It has to be “he had a weapon and fired at me, and at that point, use of deadly force was justified.” When they put on a uniform they represent the government, and so police should have severe rules of engagement that must be followed and verified before use of deadly force is authorized.
The constitution was written to protect us, the people, from them — the greatest force for evil the world has ever known — government. It restricts govenment and the actions government can take. The only good regulation is one that limits government. We need more regulation on government.
 October 29, 2015 at 9:49am
Cruz easily won the night… Rubio had an excellent night, as did Fiorina. Jeb Bush is done for. Christie had a good night because he abandoned his big government schtick and used the words “smaller government” a couple of times (though is anyone fooled?). Huckabee was decent, though he seems old and preachy. Carson was on par… but I don’t think he did anything that set the world on fire for him… he’ll probably plateau (though he had a good night, just wasn’t memorable). The biggest story was how irrelevant Trump seemed tonight. You’d think in a night that was supposedly focused on economic issues, Trump would be the the king, so for me he was the biggest loser (if you don’t count CNBC) of the night. Kasich talks too much about Ohio, which on the one had seems good until you realize that he’s put all his eggs in that one basket… a basket which was slapped pretty hard by trump who dismissed all of his success as “you got lucky because of fracking striking it rich in your state.” In that one line, Trump destroyed Kasich’s entire candidacy. Lucky for Kasich, there wasn’t much left to destroy.
 October 16, 2015 at 3:11pm
When I read the headline, but before I read the article, I thought — ok, what are the two entities the democrats blame for everything? I answered myself – Republicans and the American people… and then I started to read the article and the answer was: “dishonest Republicans and a confused public” … yep… sounds pretty much like standard DNC party line.
 October 15, 2015 at 4:31pm
Good stuff, Matt. I like to think of homosexuality the same as any other sexual sin — adultery for example. You wouldn’t say “the church has to be more accepting of my open, continuing adultery!” Even though I may be sexually oriented towards many sexual partners who are not my wife, God calls me to conform my sexual behavior to His standard of behavior, and that means not giving in to my sexual urges to commit adultery.
So you DON'T support Kim Davis?
Hypothetical = "Hi. I'm Jeffrey Dahmer, god has forgiven me"
What in your mind is the difference?
I don't forgive him.
 October 13, 2015 at 11:44am
Not surprised by this “big government solution” by RINO Jeb Bush.
Repeal and replace with 1 or 2 page law that says insurance companies cannot deny you for pre-existing conditions and that you can shop for insurance across state lines.
 October 12, 2015 at 10:28am
Regarding medical health, there MUST be protections in any mental health law that protects the individual’s right to due process. A judge in a hearing should be the only one who can remove that sacred right.
I agree wholeheartedly with the last two … however.. I think one easy way of implementing this would be to make ANY entity which prohibits guns legally liable for any violent attacks that happen within their premises. By restricting guns, aren’t businesses and schools essentially asserting themselves over an individual’s right to self defense and taking that responsibility upon themselves? So, let the law reflect that and make anyone who prohibits guns legally responsible and liable for anything bad that happens to people where they are not allowed to protect themselves.
How fast would you see the “guns prohibited” signs come down when insurance companies require it because they don’t want to be financially liable for gun crimes.
I said that after this last school shooting! Why is the school not accountable for it because they gave a false impression that they would take necessary measures to make sure it is a gun free zone. It gives people a false feeling of security.
Gup, you actually touched upon something I had written in my original notes. A caveat to the fourth and final piece was that if a business wanted to be a gun free zone, they would be required to get an insurance policy up to a certain amount so that they would be covered in the event of a shooting. Ultimately, I decided against this caveat as it runs contrary to the whole idea of rights not being infringed upon.
 October 10, 2015 at 4:15pm
The gunfight at the OK corral happened between outlaw, lawless Cowboys and the Tombstone law enforcement. Tombstone was a gun free zone! Tombstone had laws prohibiting the bearing of arms within the city limits. In fact, that is what precipitated the altercation. The day before, Doc Holiday had hauled one of the gang in to the courthouse for carrying a gun in town, and the judge fined the outlaw $25.
Funny how the outlaws didn’t stop carrying their guns in a gun free zone, and how it took law enforcement (good guys with guns) to stop the outlaws.
And who said you couldn't have a gun in town to begin with?
Ya, you guys would of been the outlaw cowboys! Demanding open carry wherever, whenever the hell you felt like it! Lol. ....this is hilarious
 October 8, 2015 at 2:34pm
There are not billions of people in our nation… only about 320 million.
Furthermore, if you remove the top 5 gun crime cities: Chicago, Baltimore, Oakland, St Louis, Washington DC (all of which are heavily democratic and have steep, steep gun laws) then the US gun homicide rade would be in about average. The problem is when guns are restricted.
Tragedies like this could be prevented in two ways (if you value freedom): First, we need to return to Biblically oriented moral standards. This isn’t going to happen anytime soon as many pastors (such as the author of this article) have compromised those standards. The other way is to allow people to have weapons and defend themselves, thereby preventing and dissuading crime.
The alternative of gun control is demonstrated time and time again to raise violent crime.
so many people don't know the facts and they just want to restrict everything!!!
they can all BLOW IT OUT THEIR ARSE!
Actually the US isn't even ranked in the top five including the cities you mention. Snopes did an interesting take on it, while debunking the claim of the cities having the effect, they inadvertently make the case that the US isn't even in the top five countries for gun violence
I’m scared of those who hate guns more than they value life.
Vapid, Jarrid, Most of us can hold more than one thought in our head at once. We can be appropriately saddened (devastated if that makes you feel better) by the evil and violence demonstrated in Oregon, while also being fully aware that we are about to face, yet again, the mindless screeching of those bent on taking away our right to bear arms to defend ourselves.
I don't love plastic and metal more than I love people. I don't know anyone who does. What a stupid accusation. I and others do love our right to defend ourselves and our families, though, Something wrong with that?
So you enjoy shooting and you own guns, huh? Have you turned them all in now? If not, what is your point in writing this article? To make yourself feel that you are better than everyone else?
The 30k gun deaths include 19k suicides by gun. 11k gun deaths are homicides. I looked up these stats the other day.
I looked thru a bunch of stats (from 2010). Assuming 30 to 40% of each state population owns a gun:
California 37mil people - 1300+ gun homicides, 1400 suicides by gun
Texas 25mil people - 900 gun homicides, 1700 suicides by gun
Florida 19.5mil people - 750 gun homicides, 1400 suicides by gun
New York ~19mil people - 500 gun homicides, 459 suicides by gun
Need to find how many of these deaths are from self defense vs crime. There are a lot of people committing suicide. People bundle these deaths in w/ the crime when mentioning stats. There are 850,000+ gang members in this country according to the FBI. In major cites (Chicago, LA, etc) half of homicides come from them. Why not roll the national guard thru these cities and eradicate the vermin?
Finland: 5+million people – 195 gun deaths. 179 suicides, 14 homicides.
100+ non gun related homicides. 2.4 million guns owned.
Australia: 22mil - 232 gun deaths 171 suicides, 39 homicides
over 200 non gun homicides and 2400 suicides. 3 million guns
UK: 62mil - 165 gun deaths 109 suicides, 33 homicides
700 non gun related homicides and 5600 suicides. 4 million guns.
Its a factor of population and sheer number of guns. Politicians try to make it about the laws helping/hurting these death counts. If Australia had 100x more guns like the US, they'd probably have 100x more gun deaths (23k) similar to the US.
“top 5 gun crime cities: Chicago, Baltimore, Oakland, St Louis, Washington DC (all of which are heavily democratic and have steep, steep gun laws)”
We get to carry here in MO.
Return to morals and a belief in God and fellow man, by way of disbanding the Public School system that has ruined generations.
REMOVE GUN FREE ZONES!!
Get the mentally ill off of the streets.
Take the PC and lawsuit garbage out of the equation stopping the police and prosecutes from doing their jobs.
REMOVE THE ILLEGALS, ESPECIALLY THE HARDCORE GANGS ALLOWED HERE TO RUN UNABATED!
Reverse the democrat’s policies in cities that are destroying the people there.
Reverse the entitlements killing incentive to be honorable, hardworking people. Let the churches and charities, private organizations, help the poor.
Remove the propagandist press from indoctrinating people against their country and helping to create a me! me! selfish society.
Heavier felony times with closed loop holes allowing for ridiculous paroles
Remove the gyms, drugs, and gang business allowed in our prisons, which let these criminals continue unabated, all the while turning them into even more dangerous, musclebound monsters.
ENFORCE THE DEATH PENALTY AND CUT THIS APPEALS PROCESS FOR YEARS AND YEARS CRAP!
These are just a few of the ACTUAL solutions to this asinine problem. Time to face reality, Pastor. You can blame guns all you want. This country is founded on freedom to bear arms and it SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
What bothers me the most, is the fact that this Pastor seemingly misunderstands the immediate reaction he sees, is because of the anti-gun rhetoric that has constantly pounded innocent gun owners for decades, whom of which, would have no part in criminal activity, other than to protect themselves. That's bothersome, perhaps more so than his stance against those that would fight to protect their 2nd Amendment right.
People have the right to stand and protect their livelihood. It's not about the guns, it's about self preservation. The right to live. Especially opposed to living under tyranny.
History has shown that those who have no chance of protecting themselves, are destine to be enslaved by tyranny. We can go down the list of names that subjugated millions under their rule, because nobody had a chance to oppose them on their level.
Need names? I'll oblige....
You have countries that think they had it all figured out, like Austrailia and the UK, confiscate everyone'
s firearms...only to find that criminals picked up other weapons.
Did we soon forget the coffee shop in Sydney, Australia that was held up by one lone terrorist?
How about the infantry man in the UK, that was beheaded in the streets of London in broad daylight?
Those societies, this is their reality. it will be ours as well.
I don’t think this guy who wrote the article has a clue what he’s even talking about. He said “If the first thought that crosses your mind after a mass shooting” is that you have the right to bear arms, that you need to have a “heart check”.
To me, it’s the exact opposite. If you see a bunch of college kids massacred by a gunman, your first thought should be “Somebody grab a gun and stop him.”
What kind of heartless bastard sees a mass shooting and thinks “Well, it’s not my place to try to stop somebody like that. It’s not my place to protect the innocent. Let somebody else do it.”? Seriously, WHO DOES THAT?
If not you, then who? If not now, then when?
If you care about people’s lives, then PROTECT THEM WITH YOUR OWN. Get a gun. Use it to defend the defenseless. Use it to protect others, and yourself. Anything less than this is cowardice and evil. All that is required for evil to flourish is that good men do nothing.
It also astonishes me that he went to all these "stats" but ignored the fact that if you remove all the gun violence committed by non-white people, our gun violence rates drop down to be on par with places like Australia and Europe and Canada.
 August 12, 2015 at 2:15pm
From what I understand Michigan has a preemption clause in their gun law which says that no local municipality, city, or local unit of government (which a school and school board qualifies as) may make any laws or policy’s which are more stringent than State Law concerning guns. This is why it is illegal for schools to prohibit the open carry of guns.
 August 12, 2015 at 10:56am
Good for them! It’s great to see more people openly carrying. What a fantastic thing for the country and for liberty. I makes everyone around them SOOOOO much safer! (which is why cops openly carry their weapons)
In a country with 350 million guns, we have 8,000 homicides per year with guns. We have 250 million cars, and 35,000 fatal car accidents per year. We have less than 1 million doctors and 200,000 deaths by medical malpractice and medical accidents per year. Does the school lock down and call police whenever someone drives their car into the parking lot? Would they call the police when they saw a doctor in a white coat approaching the building?
The administrators lack all common sense. IT IS BIGOTED AND DISCRIMINATORY TO ASSUME THAT EVERYONE WITH A GUN IS VIOLENT OR A BAD GUY!! The same document which protects all men as created equal (our founding documents — the declaration of independence and the constitution) specifically identifies gun owners as a protected class.
It is very easy to tell if someone is a good guy with a gun or a bad guy with a gun. Good guys have their weapons in a holster or slung pointing strait up or down. Bad guys are waiving or pointing or generally have the gun in their hands. It’s so simple a young child can tell the difference. But school administrators check common sense at the door.
You can train a dog to tell the difference. I guess that school administrators are not as smart as dog?
Thank you for pointing out the differences between a " bad guy" and a " good guy". I didn't know it was that simple.
Do the " bad guys" understand the difference and will they always act accordingly ?
Stupid stupid stupid...
Maybe the answer is to reduce the number of guns out there, as well as the number of people who are allowed to have them...that seems to work very well in Canada.
Don't forget those Docs in White coats have aborted over 50million children.
 June 10, 2015 at 4:32pm
Home birth is actually safer and better than hospital birth. In the industrialized world, the USA has the WORST maternal and infant mortality rate!! How can that be? Doctors PUSH expensive and unnecessary interventions which ultimately cascade putting mom and baby’s life in danger. For example, the C-section rate for the rest of the world (according to the WHO) is 10%. In home births, that number is 5%. At American hospitals, that number is 40%. What this means is that there are millions of women having UNNECESSARY major surgery which comes with risks and dangers. Meanwhile, a traditional, hospital birth costs about $15,000, while a C-Section can be anywhere from $50,000 to $150,000 depending on complications. A typical home birth with a trained, certified midwife averages about $4,000.
Hospitals typically have women give birth on their backs… this compresses the pelvis and actually makes it much more difficult (and much more painful) to give birth. Why do they do this? Because it’s convenient for the doctor that way. In fact, the vast majority of any person’s experience at a hospital is not based on what’s best for the patient… but rather what’s best for the doctors, nurses, or hospitals.
Check out the documentary by Riki Lake called “The Business of Being Born.” It is a microcosm for everything that is wrong with the medical and insurance establishment. It demonstrates plainly the principles behind why health care costs are so high.
 May 27, 2015 at 3:13pm
Sadly, I think we will see the gay pride, the abortion supporters, and the anti-second amendment supporters using this tactic soon to block the free speech of pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, and pro-second amendment rallies. This probably did more harm than good.
@Gup20, I was just thinking....if I were a Westboro protestor, I'd use a taller stake on my sign so that it would be above the sheet holding people.....I guess it would work the same for those who attempt to block pro-life signs.
May 27, 2015 at 3:07pm
The constitution doesn’t say “freedom from speech” it says “freedom of speech.” Just like it doesn’t say freedom FROM religion, it says freedom OF religion.
What you are advocating is very dangerous. It means we are free FROM speech we don’t like.
It’s like saying “a person can’t post their thoughts on a blog because we disagree with them… they can type them on their computer, but not post them online where people can read them.”
May 27, 2015 at 3:05pm
No… countering their insanity with speech of your own is a form of speech… what they did was prohibit the speech of WBC — like book burning or banning.
May 27, 2015 at 2:56pm
That is incorrect. They actually DID stop them from expressing their speech. The constitutional way would have been to counter the WBC lunatics with counter-protesters with signs of support for the police officer and family or signs that were anti-WBC. By covering up WBC signs they actually engaged not in free speech, but in speech prohibition. Covering the signs is like burning books or jailing dissenters. It is preventing the speech you don’t like rather than countering it with your own speech.
The counter protesters acted in the PROGRESSIVE way of countering speech, which is to stifle the speech they don’t like.
[-1] May 27, 2015 at 2:52pm
The correct course of action is to counter speech you don’t like with speech of your own… not to infringe upon or prohibit a group from speaking whose speech you don’t like. That’s the progressive way of countering free speech they don’t like.
May 27, 2015 at 2:51pm
There is no “right to grief” or “right to grieve.” The right to free speech is delineated by the constitution and therefore takes precedence over all other non-articulated rights. I agree their signs are offensive and disgusting… however… it’s not for us (or the government) to decide what speech we like or don’t like. All speech is protected. To allow one group to prevent another group from exercising their first amendment rights damages the first amendment for all of us.
Could gay pride people show up and do this at a traditional marriage rally at a state capitol? Could WBC show up and cover people who stand in support of the military? We can’t throw out our principles (standing up for free speech) when we disagree with the speech… we have to be consistent.
[-1] May 27, 2015 at 2:44pm
@stopspending, the counter protest group didn’t engage in speech… they engaged in prohibiting the free speech of the WBC. That’s never ok. It would have been acceptable if they engaged in counter-speech, but they didn’t. They engaged in preventing the speech of someone else.
As much as I hate to say it, the counter-protesters violated the WBC’s free speech rights.
May 27, 2015 at 12:44pm
I agree with you. The evil Wesboro lunatics do have the right to free speech which was infringed by the good-willed and well intentioned counter-protesters. However, how would these like it if counter-protesters blocked their signs at an abortion clinic protest or how would they like it if the government put up sheets to block people whenever the government decided it didn’t like what the protesters had to say?
Who are we to decide which speech we like and allow that to be seen and which speech we don’t like and disallow that from being seen. If we allow it here, we have to allow it everywhere. What happens when Christians lovingly protest gay marriage in support of traditional marriage and the gay mafia sets up with sheets to block people from seeing the protesters?
Honestly, it seems like the people here are being inconsistent.
I think you answered your own question - the gov was not involved in either of these free speech events. Both sides are entitled to free speech and both sides exerted that right.
@stopspending, the counter protest group didn't engage in speech... they engaged in prohibiting the free speech of the WBC. That's never ok. It would have been acceptable if they engaged in counter-speech, but they didn't. They engaged in preventing the speech of someone else.
As much as I hate to say it, the counter-protesters violated the WBC's free speech rights.
[-2] May 27, 2015 at 12:29pm
I completely and entirely disagree with most of what Westboro Baptist does, and this protest is sickening. However, I believe that the actions of those with the sheets is egregiously wrong. You counter free speech with counter-speech of your own. To hinder, prohibit, or block the free speech – especially that of people you disagree with – is wrong.
Let them have their say – as wrong and sick as it is. It infringes on their free speech rights to block them. You don’t stand up for what’s right by doing what’s wrong. You stand up for what’s right by doing the hard thing. You say “I don’t support your beliefs (in fact I think it’s sick and wrong), but I support your right to express them.”
What happens when counter protesters decide to do this to abortion protesters? What happens when the government sets up free speech zones and then blocks anyone from seeing the protesters in those zones?
Westboro Baptist are certainly not Christ followers and are not behaving in a Christ-like fashion. They are a heretical cult group. That doesn’t mean, however, that we can take away their rights of free speech because we don’t like what they have to say. It just means we have to do a better job of countering their lunacy with the truth. Speak out against them with our own free speech… don’t block their free speech.
you would feel differently if it were your loved one who died and these a - HOLES were protesting along your funeral route. Secondly, blocking these morons is a form of free speech. The first amendment protects against GOVERNMENT action not action by fellow citizens.
They are not keeping the WBC from exercising their free speech - they are only protecting others from having to be a part of that "free speech", especially during a difficult time. Nothing physical was done to stop them from their free speech. If it is done to free speech you agree with, gather more people, make sure your speech is seen. WBC is so small they should not be allowed to overtake the sane voices of others.
It seems the citizens had a message of their own.
While you make somewhat of a point, people should be allowed to grieve in peace.
As my old civics teacher told us: "Your freedom ends where my nose begins."