Right on, Tom. Loved this column. Poor judgement on Lopez' part, but even worse judgement on the male officer's part. Having worked for TPD in the past, it is definitely a boys' club. I'm reminded of what Mike Rapp of KLPX used to say years ago: "Don't ever let your boyfriend take photos or videos of you, because I guarantee it'll come back to bite you." Women who think their boyfriends or ex boyfriends aren't going to show their "private" photos around are naive. I've had guy friends show me photos of exes....think twice, ladies....
I think a suspension would have been more in order. Wonder what discipline (if any) the male officer received?
I believe the TPD acted not because the pictures were sent or made public but rather that they were sent to a lower ranking officer. That ("d" phrase description is right on) officer could have used them to blackmail Officer Lopez.
It seems to me that what Officer Lopez did was mildly stupid but, on it's face, hardly the stuff of demotion. The lower-ranking officer's action seems evil.
You talk to the girls on your team about dating? And you tell them that most guys are pigs? Maybe you should stick to sports topics. Perhaps you overestimate the benefits of the wisdom you impart to impressionable young women. Is the "D" word used in discussions of feminine hygiene "Danehy"?
If you really want to look into BASIS and unfair practices, look into the fact that they are recipients of the AZCSIP (Charter Starter) Grant that is awarded via the AZ Dept. of Ed year after year. This grant is supposed to give preference to schools who serve inner city, low income, at risk youth. BASIS doesn't serve a single kid in this catagory...so why do they KEEP getting this grant (we're talking millions of dollars here) to open more schools?
There are a lot of people with something wrong with them in this country. Well said CW!3, and so true.
Nice bunch of posts, and I apprec the First Amend Rights to do so, including - by the by - YOURS. Here's my 2 cents: Go after the 2nd Amend if you wish, it's been tried since it hit the books. I believe, as others do, this prez is clooser than most at taking it down. IF he does, alot of us believe he'll go after the 1st Amend next...then, possibly the 5th. And then, my friend, as Pastor Neighbauer once said, who will stand up for you? jUST SAYIN'
Sorry to break your heart, but by your standards there are alot of people with " something wrong with them" in this country. Perhaps Canada would be more to your liking.
No CW13, I'm NOT saying that if you disagree with me, there's something wrong with you. I AM saying that if your reaction to the slaughter of 20 first graders and their 6 innocent teachers/educators is: "Don't take my guns" there is definitely something wrong with you. That's what I'm saying.
No one "heckled" the tragic father. Watch the video, and don't buy the written bias which came from the reporter - as Danehy obviously has. Watch the video.
Get real, gun lovers!
The reason you love guns so much is that they might solve your problems with impotency.
grandma8, please tell me how the former "Assault Weapons Ban" was "successful". Please cite to stats that prove it reduced crime. Or that crime rose after it expired.
And if you want a plan, please propose one.
South Jersey Doc, you are confused on the purpose of the Constitution. It is not a list of things the people may do. It sets out the limitations and responsibilities of the government, delegates certain, limited powers to the government, and explicitly lists and protects some Rights of the people, but specifically does not limit those Rights merely to the ones listed.
The Right to revolt against oppression is inherent in being human. And it's not a crime... if you win. How do you think this nation came into existence? It need not be listed in the Constitution, but the additional writings of the founders made clear that it was one of several purposes of the Second Amendment.
"These gun guys don't employ so much talking points as babbling points."
Ah, so knowledge and experience on a subject now equate to "babbling points"? I think it more accurate to say that ignorance and irrationality count as such, so I'll explain yours.
"They're not for hunting or target shooting"
Bull, I use my AR for both of those things. Hundreds of thousands, likely millions are used for the same activities. They are, in fact, one of the most popular rifle platforms for the rather misnomered "high power" target competitions. (In that category, "high power" means anything over a .22 rim-fire. The most common AR caliber is one of the weakest centerfire rifle rounds.)
"there's no way that they're for personal protection"
Bull again. That's exactly what many of them are also for. (Hey it's a very versatile weapon, deal with it.) Relatively low power, but enough to do the job, less likely than most rifle rounds to over-penetrate. A modular weapon system that can be easily configured for a variety of different-sized people with adjustable stocks and grips. Easy to handle, see prior adjustability, and relatively short over-all length. Low-recoil, so easy to fire for smaller/weaker/older people.
"They have one purpose and that is to kill a whole lot of human beings in a really short period of time."
Bull #3. If that's true, why do police and government agents need them? Why do 99.999999% of them never get used in crimes? How do explain any other semi-auto firearm?
I'd go on, but the destruction of your first four points pretty much takes the ground out from under all the rest of your wildly erroneous assertions. If you feel up to the discussion, I'll happily detail the errors you have made in your other claims as well. Let me know...
Guns are the most irrational fetish in America today. Very little actual logic goes into any discussion on this subject. Only abortion and saving animals have more irrational discussions.
cempiremtn states something that if you saw the tape happens to be a fact and gets 11 dislikes. It's simple Isadoro, they're called liberals. You'll get used it. Actually they're kind of amusing.
So, Lisa Andrews writes in to say she thinks people should know the constitution, and she gets 3 dislikes. Still trying to figure that one out.
"Traditional" hunting is the way your grandfather did it. He did it with a shotgun and/or a rifle. Native Americans, before the round eyes arrived, hunted Buffalo barefooted, without weapons. They stampeded them towards a cliff and the buffalo fell to their death. They then developed the bow and shot birds out of the sky. They acquired horses from the spanish intruders and learned to shoot prey from horseback. They acquired guns from european intruders and started killing everything within 20/20 eyesight. Traditional hunting in America today is usually based on great-grandad's scoped war surplus bolt action rifle, able to hit a grazing deer at a quarter of a mile away. Imagine using an AK-47 to hunt deer with (google it). Just spray thirty rounds out in front of you and collect your meat. Sure, there is collateral damage, squirrels, rabbits and any other varmint that had the bad luck to be in front of you when you opened fire. But you get your buck. It's the American way. Hunters are just as addicted to their modern weapons as non-hunters. They all have to be strictly regulated and controlled. It's the only way we can all be safe.
Why do we generally (I cannot speak for every state), NOT allow hunters to shoot game with automatic or semi automatic weapons with large magazine clips? Do we value animal life greater than human life? Is it because hunters don't want the meat slaughtered? Is it a safety issue?
What you mean Saleslady is that if someone disagrees with you there's something wrong with them.
I heard a great line the other day: 'If your first response to the shootings at Newtown is "Don't take my guns"', there is something wrong with you. I stand by that.
Tucson Weekly |
3280 E. Hemisphere Loop, Suite 180, Tucson AZ 85706 |
P.O. Box 27087, Tucson AZ 85726-7087 |
(520) 294-1200 |
Powered by Foundation