Nobody knows for sure what the 2nd amendment means for sure. There's been countless debates about it. I'd give your post a lot more credibility if you weren't attempting to pass off your opinions as facts.

Also, something tells me you don't even know what the 2nd amendment says in it's entirety. You just know the little bit that is important to you forming your opinions. If in fact you have studied it in it's entirety to form your opinions, keep in mind that you're in the minority to a huge degree.

The joke was that the government redacted 12 lines of his post. ;)

18 Million here, 18 Million there, sooner or later you're talking about real money.

And from what I read, it seems like they're going to pack all sorts of useless crap into that website that there's no use for. This is just another case of a $300 hammer on a massive scale. To be more specific, there's points where it mentions SMS messaging, Flickr, Myspace, etc, etc. Just a bunch of junk that there's no need for in this sort of project which I consider to be very important that it be done right and be done efficiently.

Why is it to much to ask for government to spend our money responsibly? Instead of having to support the war to be patriotic, why shouldn't we have to take a bigger interest in government to be a Patriot? I imagine some politicians would take a bigger interest in doing their jobs better for us, instead of their campaign funds?

You didn't think about it hard enough. A theft in which no one is harmed:

I steal recipe for Coca-Cola by copying, the source still remains. I then go on to delete the recipe. This isn't un-stealing it. But in no way is the Coca-Cola company harmed.

That work for ya?

F'ing hilarious! If only the mods got that. You got your bar code? Where's your bar code?!?!

These things aren't for you to worry about. Just be happy that you're safe and keep quiet. Good boy!

The first two are from Canada, I have a feeling a lot of things are better in Canada, but I don't live there. Let's talk about the state of things in the US. The third link is from Connecticut, but it's just a report comparing two sets of recommendations. Neither are rules or regulations that are in effect. I guess Connecticut is actually looking at implementing some, which is good news. "You asked us to compare the guidelines for Taser use recommended by the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) with those recommended by the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF). "

Some people just can't be reasoned with, no matter what anyone says and how much evidence is provided, their mind is made up, and can never be changed. Which made me wonder if I should either bother responding, but since it's not your mind that will be changed, maybe someone else's will.

Due to the nature of its legal work, the ACLU is often involved in litigation against governmental bodies. The bulk of the ACLU's cases involve the First Amendment, Equal Protection, due process, and the right to privacy. It has also taken positions on other issues such as religious liberty, drug decriminalization, separation of church and state, freedom of speech, abolition of capital punishment, access to contraception and abortion, civil rights for gays, affirmative action (which is the only thing I don't agree with), the rights of defendants and suspects against unconstitutional police practices, privacy issues, immigrants rights, and gun control.

I can see how you, most certainly being a republican, would have a problem with this organization. Being a democrat that is governed by reason, not religion, I consider this to be a very heroic organization. Someone has to be defending the constitution while people like George W. Bush call it "Just a damn piece of paper". I consider anyone who's an enemy of the ACLU to be an enemy of our country's Constitution which I consider to be the most important document to our freedom. And anyone who's an enemy of the Constitution is an enemy of our country.

Silly me for thinking he could've just grabbed her and pulled her away. But then again, I'm just a big ol' dummy.

When you're being attacked in public, it's generally a good idea to get out your side of the story, lest people only have one side to go off of. I'd like nothing more than for it not to be true, but we'll never really know until there's been a real investigation, which I've asked representatives, senators, and the governor to initiate. Doesn't it trouble you that it might be true, and the police department is just hoping that it'll go away?

"What you've seen" doesn't matter. The fact is, there needs to be rules and regulations on when tasers can be employed in a situation. Giving someone free reign to use anything whenever they like is going to lead to disaster, and it has. People have noticed, and they want it to stop. It's just far too dangerous to be used without fear of the consequences, and that requires knowing what the consequences are.

They're big boys and girls, I'm sure they can handle a little name calling. I know it's a tough job, I'm just asking that they do it with a little more regard for public safety.

You didn't see the episode, the cop said "This guy's got tape over his taillight, we're going to use that as probable cause for a stop." Then he pulls a U-Turn, and only then does he see the license plate. I think it's ridiculous.

Once they confirmed he was the home owner, they should've left. Not given him "COOL DOWN TIME", god you sound stupid saying that. You want to use our tax dollars as a time-out? How about they just tase him for being a dick, that would've shown him, and it's a lot cheaper! Win-Win!

Cops have leniency when it comes to ticketing and whether or not to arrest you for the smaller offenses. When you're caught speeding, they can give you a warning, or ticket you for the full speed, or anywhere in between. Or they can go even further if they want to "throw the book at you". They can go over your car with a fine-tooth comb. Issuing improper equipment tickets all the way to searching your car and in the case they don't find anything, they can interpret a whole lot of things as resisting an officer. So a traffic ticket can end in a warning or an arrest. I say they have even more latitude than judges do.

Well, I'd say that the cop's job was to maintain a safe situation, if he had to make that arrest, then so be it. I've gotten a ticket for asking an officer if I could go around an accident in the middle of a street in the past, so I know that there's a lot of times when cops go to far, just out of spite. FYI: I wasn't creating a dangerous situation at that road block, and he could've just said no and I would've turned around, I didn't give him a hard time.

"Created, produced, and primarily written by author and former police reporter David Simon". It wasn't sold to a studio and turned into a piece of garbage like so many other shows are, maybe that's why it's so damned good, which you'd know, except I bet you never bothered to watch the whole thing.

Wow, you're some religious or crime and punishment nut, aren't you? "The Wire has frequently been described by critics as the greatest television series of all time."[3][4][5][6][7][8] That's six citations, each one progressively telling me that either you just have really bad taste, never really watched it, or are just too stupid to understand it. I have no idea which.

I'll end with this. No one thing qualifies me to talk about anything. I've tried to keep an open mind throughout my life, I learn new things whenever possible, and if that includes something that I disagree with, I do research to better form an opinion. I suggest you do the same. I haven't seen you make one strong argument yet. The ACLU or NAACP defending a burglar? I did my best to find it and couldn't. You mind proving that actually happened? I'd love to see it. You seem to make opinions without any real evidence to back them up. Has it ever occurred to you that you don't have to believe in everything the GOP does? You're allowed to stray from their party line and be your own person?

Wow that's infuriating. I can't believe that the city/state is allowed to discriminate against people like this and for the courts to be okay with it... They can legally discriminate just as long as they discriminate against enough people. Absolutely unbelievable.

I wish some brilliant attorney would take this to the supreme court for him pro-bono so that there would be precedence and nobody else would try this sort of thing. I gotta say, at least someone reported it. Friggin' America...

I'm sure they're trained. But can you show me any laws or regulations saying when you can and when you can't tase someone? I bet not...

Also, we're not talking about when a cop's only options are to tase or shoot. We're talking about when many more options are available and the taser is what is used. You have to be living under a rock to not realize that this happens every...single...day!

Let's get real, okay?

Your post is moronic. The first part of the post you show your prejudices and then go on to ask that we keep an open mind about what police officers go through.

Think what you want about the ACLU and the NAACP, but the fact is, they're trying to fight for people's rights that so often get trampled. It's good that they fought for less lethal equipment for law enforcement. Now I'm sure the police are wondering what they ever did without them.

Problem is, now the police are abusing them. They didn't give those weapons to police so they could go around tasing anybody that wasn't complying with their orders, do you agree?

Any sort of weapon should only be used as the last resort. The old lady who was being unruly on the side of the road could have easily been restrained and handcuffed, but instead, she was tased. Another incident that got me mad as hell was an incident in Southern Illinois at a state home for orphaned children. The cops went in and tased three minors, threatened one with sodomy, held a 17 year-old girl up against a wall by her neck while the cop asked if she wanted to live or die. Now I concede that as there's no video of this incident there's no way of knowing if that's the truth or not, but as the police department only responded with, "the officers acted appropriately", that's the only side I have to go by. Another problem with the case is, it wasn't until a year later that the news went national and then only because a civil lawsuit was filed. And then, only because as it was a state home, the administrators were obligated to do so on behalf of the boys and girl who were assaulted.

Your attempted insinuation that only those "hopped up on cocaine" are susceptible to fatal consequences from tasers is laughable. A countless number of situations, circumstances, and medical conditions could put someone at risk of fatal injury from high voltage electric shock. All police officers have to keep this in mind when they are considering employing such means to subdue a suspect.

Please, please don't get me wrong. If a suspect is attempting to attack and officer or someone else, I have absolutely no problem with tasers being used! In fact, in some cases, with the kind of evil criminals that are out on their streets, I wish sometimes that there was no less lethal solution to be utilized and we could avoid the trouble of a trial with a trip to the morgue. (I'm not condoning murder, just a shortcut to justice.)

On to the second part of your post, the part where you actually show that you're intelligent and capable of compassion, or at least would like others to have compassion for you, if you are as I suspect, a police officer.

I am very appreciative of those good police who approach their jobs with humility and respect for others. I understand the risks they incur to protect the rest of us. I'm not sure that the 'vast majority', as you say, approach their jobs in this manner. I wish they did. I think that the police who treat people with respect, until they lose that right, will most times receive the same in return. If you are a police officer as I suspect, do you really have a problem finding people who appreciate what you do? I really can't imagine that being true. Unless you're out there throwing the book at everyone while being disrespectful. Why don't you try and think about how you'd act if someone acted toward you the same way you act toward them?

What scares me is when I watch the TV Show, Cops, I see injustices of all sorts, not necessarily of the illegal variety, possibly just unfair. If the officers feel comfortable doing things like that on the small screen, I have to assume what goes on off camera is that much worse. Also I assume they put only their best officers on the show, what are the bad ones doing?

For instance, using tinted windows as probable cause to stop and search a car. Or a tail light with translucent tape over an area that got broken out for probable cause to stop and search a car. Both stops lead to arrests and I can only hope that both cases got dropped over 4th amendment issues. That was just a single episode. This is starting to feel like a police state to me.

You mention the incident with Henry Louis Gates, considering you're asking us to have a better opinion of police, why would you bring that up? The man was attempting to get into his own home and somehow police show up and next thing you know, he's getting arrested on his own property. I don't care how belligerent he was being, he was doing nothing illegal and that officer should be taught a lesson. Hurting an officer's ego isn't cause for arrest, and we all know that that is Gates' only real offense here. But "because he thought he could get away with it"? With what? Being on his own property? Trying to enter his own house while being black? Why don't you put yourself in his position?

Working 12-14 hour shifts because they have to work their 'beat' then go do all their paperwork is maybe something you should take up with your union, don't you think? Can you not do some of your paperwork during any downtime you have during your shift?

They start their day wondering if it's going to be their last. I would think that would be all the more reason to treat people with respect as often as possible. Usually criminals aren't interested in incurring the wrath of a police force looking for justice for one of their own being killed, but as I mentioned earlier, when someone has their ego insulted, sometimes that can turn ugly. There's no reason for an officer to go around and piss everyone off that they come into contact with. Trowing the book at every single person is a fine way to accomplish this. Leniency coupled with a respectful attitude is a great way to avoid it.

If you have issues with how much you're paid, another issue best taken up with your union. Not taken out on the citizens you're charged to 'Serve & Protect'.

This whole thing reminds me of a scene from "The Wire", a TV Show created by a former Baltimore City reporter, who spent 13 years covering the Baltimore police, and a Baltimore City Police Homicide Detective, Ed Burns. It's not the most eloquent of language, but it's the best summary of how the relationship between the police and the citizens is so bad and how it effects our safety. It's from Season 3, Episode 10.

"You're a good man, Sergeant, you got good instincts, and as far as I can tell, you're a decent supervisor. But from where I sit, you ain't shit when it comes to policing. Don't take it personally, it ain't just you, it's all our young police. Whole generation of y'all. Now you think about it, You been here over a year now, you got nobody looking out for you, nobody willing to talk to you, that about sum it up? Now that's a problem. I didn't think I would ever get my head around it. But then a cop got shot for some bullshit. That's when I about reached my limit. Because this drug thing, this ain't police work. No. It ain't. I can send any fool with a badge and a gun up on them corners and jack a crew and grab vials. But policing? You call something a war and pretty soon everybody's going to be running around acting like warriors. They gonna be running around on a damn crusade, storming corners, slapping on cuffs, racking up body counts. And when you're at war, you need an enemy. And pretty soon, damn near every body on every corner is your fucking enemy. And soon the neighborhood that you're supposed to be policing, that's just occupied territory."

"You follow this?"

"I think so."

"Okay, the point I'm making is this... Soldiering and Policing, they ain't the same thing. And before we went and took the wrong turn and started up with these war games. The cop walked the beat, and he learned that post. And if there were things that happened up on that post, whether it be a rape, a robbery, a shooting, he had people out there helping him. Feeding him information. But every time I come to you, my drug Sergeant, for information, to find out what's going on out in those streets, all that came back was some bullshit. You had your stats, you had your arrests, you had your seizures, but don't none of that amount to shit when you're talking about protecting the neighborhood now, does it?"

"You know the worst thing about this so-called drug war, to my mind, it just -- ruined this job."

I hope any police reading this really takes some time to think about it. There's more than one way to police, and some are going to be a lot more effective than others. I'm not trying to tell you how to do your job, but David Simon and Ed Burns may be able to teach you a thing or two, and it may help you get through your days on the street... alive. Can't hurt, right?

Plus is repels demons and ghosts, evil spirits of all sorts! Double good! ;)

Ugh, Jesus. A cloud goes over the house, you grab some surplus energy from a few neighbors, and the earth keeps spinning. If all the houses were sufficiently solar, there would be no more Power company. Is that what you're afraid of?

Just because you're attached to something doesn't mean you're using it. If they use it, their meter spins, they pay for that. If they don't use it, it doesn't. Why can't it be just that simple without tacking on all of these redundant fees and charges?