Enjoy GoComics?

A Recent Favorite:

Recent Comments

  1. Wraithkin commented on Michael Ramirez 6 days ago

    You mean like Hillary not being indicted because she didn’t violate law. Oh, wait, she did. Mmhmmm..

    I understand your concern, and both you and Snarky are right in the regard that those who are bad apples aren’t expunged. However, let’s take a bit more of a 10,000-foot altitude look.

    Factor 1: The unions protect all officers, and terminating an officer for cause is exceptionally difficult. This means if they are a bad egg, getting rid of them is unusually daunting.

    Factor 2: The police, much like the fire fighters and military, is a trust-based occupation. If you can’t trust your brothers, then the entire matrix falls apart. Being a Marine myself, I know how crucial that is. If you have officers turning on each other because one is considered a bad apple (by who’s definition, dunno), then it sews the seeds of distrust and it causes systemic problems within the department.

    Factor 3: When organizations like BLM call for the murder of police officers because of the actions of a few, especially the few who are vindicated through empirical evidence (Ferguson, Baltimore, etc), it changes from making sure they are doing their jobs properly to a witch hunt. When someone is the subject of a witch hunt, they get defensive. And closing ranks is how a force gets defensive.

    Factor 4: The media has switched from reporting news to making news. Look at Ferguson… when the original thing started, before the evidence was considered, riots were already starting. People were calling for violence despite the call for patience. When scientific evidence supported that the officer was assaulted and was defending himself, and that the thug was actually the attacker, the riots only got worse. Individuals are smart, people are dumb. And the mob took over. The media, in turn, fed into this and put talking bobbleheads on the air that only fanned the flames. So in this 24/7 news cycle, people make decisions (thanks to the media) without knowing all the facts.

    So when Factor 3 is in play, when coupled with Factor 4, you’re right… they are going to be defensive and protect each other. And for that, I can’t really fault them for protecting themselves when people will look for any way to prosecute/persecute officers who are just doing their jobs.

  2. Wraithkin commented on Michael Ramirez 6 days ago

    Quite the broad brush you are using. I know a lot of officers, who are fantastic people, and who are great at their job. Perhaps it’s not the cops who are the problem, but those who are breaking the law? After all, why would an officer detain you if you haven’t broken a law? In every interaction I’ve had with officers, I have always been the party breaking the law (speeding, mostly).

    Here’s a concept: maybe it’s the thugs who are breaking the law are spreading like a virus, and the police are constantly under attack and need to be proactive instead of reactive. As the old saying goes, better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6. Maybe if the lowlife scum that are filling our streets and terrorist movements like BLM realized this, we would have fewer incidents altogether. After all, the easiest way to not get the attention of the police is to not break a law.

  3. Wraithkin commented on Dana Summers 13 days ago

    Easy solution: Stop patrolling the inner city communities and watch them tear themselves apart. And when they cry out asking for help, tell them to go pound sand. They wanted the police to leave them alone? Good, see how you like it without police protection.

  4. Wraithkin commented on Michael Ramirez 19 days ago

    The broom was a nice touch.

  5. Wraithkin commented on Mike Lester about 1 month ago

    The US economy has grown what meager amount it has despite the government, not because of it. Krugman is blind to that fact, and that’s why he’s a political hack.

  6. Wraithkin commented on Mike Lester about 1 month ago

    I wasn’t saying that. The argument was how great of a job he was doing killing terrorists, and I was refuting that argument by showing how many lives were taken by those terrorists, stating that he was doing a pretty poor job killing terrorists. I never said it was his job to protect Christians.

  7. Wraithkin commented on Mike Lester about 1 month ago

    It’s less than the number of Christians murdered by Islamic terrorists during his watch.

  8. Wraithkin commented on Mike Lester about 1 month ago

    How about the FBI (under direction from Obama, mind you… it’s part of the executive branch) do its job and actually prevent him getting a job with a contractor for the DHS, and prevent him from purchasing firearms in the first place? He was investigated multiple times for his pro-islam and pro-terror rants, and they still did nothing. How is that failure to execute the duties of the FBI the fault of the 2nd Amendment?

  9. Wraithkin commented on Michael Ramirez about 1 month ago

    So much for the “Most Transparent Administration.” Psh.

  10. Wraithkin commented on Mike Lester about 1 month ago

    I hate to break it to our head-in-the-sand liberals on this site, but our society (in fact, most modern societies) require a concept called voluntary compliance with the law. The police, government, military, et al are not large nor pervasive enough to monitor every moment of every day of every person in the country. Thus, normal society requires that people voluntarily obey laws of their own volition. Hence the term, voluntary compliance with the law.

    You know who doesn’t follow the law? A criminal. In fact, one of the synonyms for “criminal” is “lawbreaker.” So, riddle me this liberals: If they are breaking existing firearm laws — not to mention committing murder, how will passing new, more restrictive laws get them to comply with the law?

    Your desires are well-meaning, but completely impractical and will only service to harm the citizenry of this country. After all, if you ban the carbine-style rifles (because there is no such thing as an “assault weapon,” just like they cannot fire 700 rounds per minute), who will you be taking them away from? The criminals? Or those people who wish to protect themselves from the criminals? Because in a place I like to call the “real world,” the criminals will still not obey the law. They will still get their hands on them through various sources and channels.

    Also, wm, I couldn’t let this one pass by. EVERY firearm in existence is a weapon of war; From lever action to revolvers to AR-15-esque rifles… they have all seen war. Even ball muskets are weapons of war. Being a weapon of war simply means they have been battle tested and are reliable in the field. Stop perpetuating a strawman because you are similar to Kuntzman.