I meant to post "Unmonitored equipment" towards the end of my post, but autocorrect screwed it up.

I don't know the laws that govern speed detection devices in Ohio, but in Georgia(where I live), speed detection devices are tightly controlled, when used by the State, or any political subdivisions(cities and counties, or non-sovereign entities). In fact, all traffic violations are tightly controlled, as to whom may enforce them. I have a feeling that there are more than a few states that handle the situation in similar fashion.

Only law enforcement may "arrest"(arrests included signed traffic summons, which is why the summons has posted "in lieu of arrest" at the signature) on personally viewed traffic violations. That means that if the violations isn't personally view by sworn, active law enforcement(can be on or off duty), then no "arrest" can be made. In other words, any random person, or non-Georgia law enforcement citizen, can't view a violation(most of which are misdemeanor crimes, in Georgia, which is dumb), report said violation(s), and have law enforcement act. Such violation reports don't even provide "reasonable, articulable suspicion(RAS).

As far as speed detection equipment, the equipment must, and I do mean must, be calibrated each day. With radar, two tuning forks are used, each fork representing a specific speed, the number specified by unremovable mark on the tuning fork(if I remember correctly, the speeds were 60-something MPH and 44, or 40-something MPH, or miles per hour). The operator, who had to be a certified peace officer(through Georgia POST, or Peace Officers Standards and Training Council), and hold a certification on operating speed detection equipment(usually a week, or five days, long; speed detection equipment can be purchased and operated by anyone, but if one wishes to do so as law enforcement, then certifications are a requirement), activated each fork in front of each antenna, then held both in he same path(to check moving radar capabilities). I can't remember the requirements on laser and other technologies, as I didn't use the at the agency I worked at, and quit doing road enforcement when I took a different position elsewhere.

Seeing as I doubt these cameras were checked for proper functionality daily, if that is a requirement under Ohio law(how could Ohio bring cases, when the "arresting" officer can't verify the basic functionality of the equipment he or she is using?), that is one of many problems with that equipment. Hell, even speedometers on law enforcement vehicles are calibrated twice a month, or more, as the speedometers are also used in speed detection, and it is a very simplistic piece of equipment, relatively speaking.

For those that aren't aware, I was in law enforcement and I have used speed detection devices. I wouldn't trust the readings from I monitored equipment, run by corporations seeking profit.

No, nonprofit hospitals in the US have every right to maintain a technical "profit", or maintain their accounting "in the black"(as opposed to "in the red", like the US and most state governments). The positive income is held for expansion and/or improvement plans(i.e. remodeling of current structures, expanding the building(s), building new offices, and doing whatever else to improve service to those the nonprofit offers service to. To say that nonprofits can't maintain positive cash flow, while also saving that positive income for future profits is disingenuous, and bordering, no, it is an outright lie. Save the demonization for those that deserve it.

I will admit that CEO for nonprofit hospitals, among other areas, has been sharply increasing, while all other areas, save for specialize medical doctors and the like(even their pay hasn't increased that much, relatively speaking), has continued to stagnate, or slightly revert compared to inflation. Regardless, the hospitals have to compete, and in order to do so, the salaries have to be able to compete with similar positions in other nonprofits and for-profit organizations. If you are truly blind to that reality, you should reconsider whether or not you are capable of maintaining the discussion at hand.

I fail to see how government shortfalls have anything to do with a private nonprofit hospital. Government isn't the only entity that exists as a nonprofit. While the main goal of a nonprofit organization isn't to achieve or maintain a technical "profit", it is the goal of a nonprofit to offer benefits at an effective price point, while maintaining capital to continue operating and realizing new funding to expand operations. The new funding is, practically, a profit, if the organization is run efficiently.

Many family members of mine have worked, or currently work at a nonprofit hospital in Georgia. While I believe its CEO is paid quite a lot of money, given the area, I understand that the hospital pays him the salary to compete and maintain his employment contract. Seeing as the hospital continually run deep "in the black", or a technical "profit"(costs are less than revenue generated), I see no reason to argue against the hospital's decisions.

Perhaps there is a dislike of people being extremely successful?

No, the United States of America is a democratic republic(started as a republic, but the 17th Amendment, including how states, which are sovereign entities and thus equal to the national government, hold referendums and such). We elect representatives, who hold authority to make governmental decisions on out behalf. It is a generally held, but false belief that the US is a democracy; democracies are a farce, at best(read Federalist number 10).

Authority and power are derived from the citizens of the US, but we allow our representatives make decisions that aren't strictly forbidden in the US Constitution, and to a lesser extent, federal/state laws(the US Constitution is the ultimate legal document in the entire US system of governments).

Yeah, the previous poster would be wise to read Warren v D.C., Castle Rock v. Gonzales, and DeShaney v Winnebago County(just to start, DeShaney and Gonzales really applies more to the events in Connecticut, though Warren does cover failures to act, or act "quickly"). Law enforcement, nor any government actor/agency has any duty to protect any individual, or respond to any calls for assistance,

I "own" 417 select-fire/full-automatic capable firearms( call them assault...firearms, if you must, as not all are rifles, such as the wo Glock 18s), but I refuse to use the term "assault rifle" or "assault weapon"(in my state(Georgia), an assault is a term that describes a threat, not a physical interaction, so those two terms have always seemed dumb). I am a 07/02 FFL/SOT(federal firearm licensed manufacturer that has paid his 02 Special Occupational Tax; don't dare call it "class 3", as that is a bullshit term, too. I manufacturer Title II firearms, which included suppressors, short barrel rifles/shotguns, and "machine guns". Title I covers most all others, such as semi-automatic handguns and rifles), so my ownership of all "post samples"(select-fire firearm made after 19 May 1986, which is a stupid provision) ends when I stop sending checks towards the BATFE(well, sort of towards that agency) for $500 a year($1,000, if I exceed $500,000 a year in sales).

After that, I have to destroy my post samples, sell them to another FFL/SOT(which almost always requires a demonstration letter, save for special dispensations, which can be rare), or give them away to a law enforcement agency/qualified(export authorized, save for our own) military organization. It is thoughts like that which make me dislike our national government.

No, it is our job to defend ourselves and defend our rights. Government has no responsibility to respond to any calls of assistance from you, no matter how many movies and TV shows lie to you. Read the abundant case law to clear this up.

You are dismissing a lot of history and many instances of current events in making your point(which fails). There are many examples of less forces taking greater one, and many examples of the opposite. There is no guaranteed outcome in the meeting any two forces, no matter how well one side prepared.

Also, a firearm is a force equalizer. When you add in training(self or professional, both working about as well), a firearm will fend off even the most well experienced criminal, or criminal government. I guess your argument appears more valid, to you, by rehashing the falsities(mostly, as you spread a little truth you really drive your point) you posted.

No, that would be an authority or power, not a right. An individual has rights, government and its actors have authority. This is not a difficult concept to grasp.

Humans are living beings, and living beings have rights. Government exists because the citizenry allows it. We citizens grant that existence through an allocation of authority. While we do so, no government has the right to exist; the existence of any government is perpetuated through the continual authorization of the populace it have goverance over.

Anyone that believes a government has any rights doesn't understand the definition of the word, in the given context.

The definitions of all the words in any legal document only matter at the time of the writing of said legal document. That is why we keep track of the various dialects, and the "proper" form of various languages. That way, should a difference of opinion occur, the difference can be cleared in court(should that be needed).

Still, a militia doesn't exist solely to defend the wishes of those in power, but the state(any state or the US Government, which are the only two forms of sovereignty in the United States and both of which derive power from the same source) and the people(us, not the disconnected entity "The People"). The militia is comprised of all "able bodied" males, of a certain age(normally 16 to 18, through 60, or older, if needed and depending) and is to act to ensure the security of the citizenry, should the manpower of the official, uniformed forced fail to meet expectations, and/or to act in defense of the citizenry against any corrupt or tyrannical government within one or many states, or the Union of our states.

If our potential militia members aren't "well regulated", as is currently the case, then we, as citizens and as a larger body, have failed to meet our own expectations. All militia members have been and currently would be required to arm themselves. Even the US Government, the most well armed government that exists, couldn't equip a half of the US militia body, nor should it be expected to. Hence part of the reason the Second Amendment exists.

I have heard and read that some believe that some people that altered the intended meaning over the last few decades, to rationalize citizen access to firearms, but that pure bullshit. There have been many people that have discussed the meaning of that amendment for about as long as it has existed, and many have discussed how it applies to individuals, not a collective. Of course, if one read this, or any other portion of the US Constitution, and reads it rationally, it would be understood as it is supposed to be.

One must also be aware that, in the United States and the various states, government has no rights, only limited authority. As such, with the U.S. Constitution's "Bill of Rights", amendments that reinforce an individual's rights(again, remember that the Bill of Rights didn't create any rights; it only served to protect rights that already existed. The Founders understood, rightly, that no government has the power or authority to give anyone rights. Our rights exists naturally, and many of us have lost sight of this important fact.) will refer to them as "a right" or "rights". Government authority will be referred to as "authority" or "power(s)"(though there could be variation on the exact term, depending).

I don't want to read any comment about a "living constitution", as to attempt to have other believe the interpretation is open to change, whenever it suits a group. That isn't how the US Constitution works. It is a "living document", in that it can be altered, per the terms set out in the document(support of two-thirds of Congress for the amendment, then three-fourths of the state legislatures or the special state conventions, as decided by the US Congress, must agree or disagree for the amendment to come into effect). 10,000, or so, amendments have been proposed and we have 27. Otherwise, the US Constitution doesn't change and the mean of any portion of the US Constitution doesn't change(that would require an amendment, see 18th and 21st Amendments).

Government has no rights. It most certainly doesn't have any right to know what I own or possess, until said government obtains a warrant. That is why we have the Fourth Amendment. So, until some asshole obtains a warrant, you best believe I will never register my property, nor seek a license to exercise any of my rights.

There are no known threats. The FBI has laughed off the bullshit claims by the idiots that posted people's information. The newspaper is looking to demonize people exercising their rights. Fuck them.

The irony is that the newspaper, looking to demonize people exercising their rights, is looking to armed guards to protect them. The irony is extremely thick.

So you are in favor of violating an explicitly stated amendment(the Second Amendment explicitly protects citizens' rights to arms equal to our military, considering the portions "A well regulated militia..."(the word regulated meaning equally or well equipped, as used during the inception and passing of the Second Amendment) and "...the right of the people..."(while "The People" and "the people" both refer to the citizenry, from whence the authority of the various government is derived from, "The People" is termed to discuss the wider authority(our governments); "the people" directly refer to the citizenry). The whole "...shall not be infringed." part would cause any bans to be severe violations of the Second Amendment) to the US Constitution, for a protection that isn't explicitly stated but decided through case law? While both protections are important, and I support both, I fail to see how anyone, of any intelligence, would advocate violating the highest and most important document in the United States.

There were close to 100 million firearm owners in the United States that have not used their firearms to commit any crimes, nor knowingly commit any crimes, of any kind, either recently, nor at any time in the past. So, considering the odds, legal firearm owners are the most law abiding citizens that exists. Those are the people that should have arms, considering the reason our rights were protected(The Second Amendment protected an already existing right; that Amendment didn't create any new right.).

What gun show "loop hole"? Oh, you mean the part of the federal firearm laws that states that non-Federal Firearm Licensees(FFL) individuals that sell to other individuals are not required to fill out an ATF Form 4473(this is the form filled out on all purchased from FFL dealers/manufacturers, generally), or run a background check through NICS(National Instant Criminal Background Check System) on the purchaser? Well, that isn't a "loop hole", nor does it have anything to do with gun shows.

Access to the NICS is restricted to FFL dealer/exporter/importer/manufacturers/other. Giving access to anyone that wants to sell firearms to other individuals, outside of a commercial setting, would create a nightmare, as well as put more controls on what is already a rather tightly controlled activity. I wouldn't want to put all that extra strain on the FBI, indivuduals(tens of millions of which are firearm carriers/owners, none of which committed any crimes that day, and are the most law abiding and respectful group of people on the planet), or FFL holders.

There is no law, or groups of laws that will change the real problem: Evil human behavior. The moment everyone starts to realize that bad events happen all the time, and that we do not have the power to avoid such events, the easier(though slightly, and without consolation) life will become. Less restrictions, especially on those that have already passed multiple background checks and might have some of the best training(though, training should never be mandatory on the exercising of any of our rights), is the only viable option to offer up any solution that might have any measurable results. Even that doesn't guarantee the result we hope for.

Feel free to post any of te convoluted data you wish, which you believe "proves" your point. Allow me to save you some time and tell you that none of the data, most of which is bullshit, proves anything. Also, save the tired clichés, on both sides of the argument. Using cliches makes the user, especially the ones that use cliches multiple time in a single post, look infantile, uneducated, and desperate. I would also refrain from stating(well, lying, actually) that you are "pro-gun"("rabidly", or not), then set about expounding thoughts that are "rabidly" "anti-gun".

I don't give a shit about statistics, or any other data on this particular subject. Providing firearms, or access to firearms, doesn't guarantee any result. Regardless, it is stupid to use that, or any other excuse to not give the individual access to whatever options he or she wishes to effect an efficient and reasonable self-defense. It is offensive to the highest order to try and claim that "gun-free zones" have any positive impact on anyone's safety, aside from, maybe, authorized government actors and criminals.

Everyone that died at Sandy Hook might have still died if all adults at that school were armed, but those people lacked any viable option to defend themselves and the students. I would rather that people make their own choice on what firearm(s) to carry, as well as when and where to carry, than to see the choice taken away from them. Giving people a chance a surviving such a horrible event is infinitely better than proving easy targets for evil, vile, and disgusting assholes seeking to harm and/or kill.

Do you not understand(obviously, you don't) that Social Security Disability(SSD or SSDI) is funded by, and only paid to, those that have worked and paired into that system? Do you not understand that the amount received each month is based off of how much you paid into the system? You need to actually learn about the topics you attempt to discuss, prior to making yourself appear unintelligent.

I am on disability myself. I previously worked in law enforcement, where I was hurt while working, and I cannot walk without a cane. I also live in an immense amount of pain. On good days, I am hovering around a seven, on a one(least, or no pain) to ten(intolerable, excruciating pain, the worst possible pain) scale, and on bad days, I cannot come down from ten. Today is a good day. I tend to have far more bad days.

Just because I worked in government does not make me more deserving of receiving benefits from one of the programs I paid into. There are a lot of people that need to be receiving SSD benefits, and there are many gaming the system. That is the failure of government, not our receiving benefits from a program we gave a lot of money to.

The people who only qualify for Medicaid(free, Mdicare is not free), Supplimental Income(free, for those not meeting a minimum, which is $678 a month), and other non-paid programs, are the problem. I understand that people fall on hard times, but far too many people "game" the system, and take advantage of money and programs they shouldn't have access to. If you want to target your angst somewhere, target it there.

I worked hard, and paid into the Social Security program by age 26 that most people will not have paid until age 45 to 50. So, spare me the uneducated angst over a topic you obviously have no business discussing.