Sheriff, Chief Disagree on Assault Weapons Ban (MD)

[FatSlob]

http://www.herald-mail.com/?module=displaystory&story_id=85114&format=html

Click the link for the full article. An excerpt is below.

Wednesday July 28, 2004
Sheriff, chief disagree on assault weapons ban
by BRIAN SHAPPELL

[e-mail]

As the gun control debate still rages and the expiration of a 1994 ban on assault rifles with certain attachments is pending, two of the top cops in Washington County shared differing views on the issue.

Washington County Sheriff Charles Mades does not want the Bush administration to renew any part of the ban in September.

However, Hagerstown Police Department Chief Arthur Smith said he believes any kind of federal gun restrictions should include the guns prevalent at crime scenes involving drug and gang activity.

[goju]

1. So, what is your position?

[FatSlob]

2. The stupid little law should stay just the way it is.

It is set to expire in September, and I think it should stay that way.

[goju]

4. I have to agree

Until they can show that this law has reduced crime in some way, I dont see the purpose of it.

I dont have any so called assault weapons but I can see the slippery slope on the horizon.

[thomas82]

51. Agreed

Folding stocks and bayonets lugs do not cause more deaths. You will never convince the chiefs as alot of them have their heads up the politicians AS*! They cant help it as some of them have to kiss AS*! to keep their job.
Tom

[Romulus]

3. hmmm,

However, Hagerstown Police Department Chief Arthur Smith said he believes any kind of federal gun restrictions should include the guns prevalent at crime scenes involving drug and gang activity.

If I remember right, the most prevalent "crime gun" was a S&W .38 revolver.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf

Table 2

"Possession of firearms by State and Federal prison inmates,
by whether the firearm was single shot, conventional semiautomatic, or
military-style semiautomatic or fully automatic, 1997"

Type of firear used -
"Single shot": majority
Regular semi-auto: close second
"military-style" semi-auto: distant third

edited to add:
Does that mean this guy wants a ban on revolvers & derringers?

[MrBenchley]

5. Guess we'll treated to the solitary "opinion" of every county mountie

who can be found to parrot NRA rhetoric (or even more pathetically, the ones who want the AWB strengthened), in a vain attempt to persuade us that law enforcement personnel don't overwhelmingly support John Kerry's, John Edwards' and Bill Clinton's call to have the AWB renewed.

[RoeBear]

7. Huh?

(or even more pathetically, the ones who want the AWB strengthened),

[library_max]

6. Police chiefs, police unions, and police officers across the country

support the AWB, but we found one podunk sheriff who disagrees. Well, that's fair and balanced, I suppose.

[WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot]

8. From what I have seen here in Texas

Sheriffs tend to be less political than police chiefs. Sure sheriffs have to get elected, but where I have lived for 30-odd years, I can only ever recall 2 sheriffs, and the newest one was elected 10 years ago. Both Sheriffs have been pretty mean, old codgers that you just don't see on television hardly at all, while the police cheif's face is on the tube at least once a week over something.

Maybe sheriffs can say what they think more than a police cheif who has to say what he/she thinks everyone wants to hear.

[library_max]

9. Except that it's not sheriffs, plural. It's sheriff, singular.

One sheriff from nowhere in particular. Big freakin' deal.

[EconGeek]

10. Politicos support it, cops don't.

Its the people who feel political pressure who support the AWB.

The cops on the street know its silly, because they almost never see criminals with AWs.

[library_max]

11. How come all the big police unions support AWB then?

How come every actual cop in this forum also supports it?

[CO Liberal]

12. Because The Cops Know Something Many Pro-Gunners Refuse to Admit

That the ban is worthwhile, and deserves to be renewed.

Period.

[slackmaster]

14. You folks keep saying that but have yet to present any real data

Argumsnts in favor of the AWB invariably boil down to a he-said/she-said type discussion where the only thing that matters is WHO said this or that.

Got facts?

[library_max]

16. What you're asking for

is a comparison between the number of gun deaths involving the kinds of weapons detailed in the AWB during the duration of the ban, and the number of gun deaths involving those same types of weapons in an alternate universe in which there was no AWB during that same time period.

Amazingly enough, we don't have those figures. The demand for definitive proof is a standard right-wing tactic for obstructing progressive reforms, e.g. measures against global warming.

[slackmaster]

19. I'll accept any kind of proof of effectiveness you can provide

It doesn't have to be a body count, if you can think of another way to justify the banning of bayonet lugs, folding stocks, threaded muzzles, pistol grips, and detachable magazines that hold over 10 rounds.

Amazingly enough, we don't have those figures. The demand for definitive proof is a standard right-wing tactic for obstructing progressive reforms, e.g. measures against global warming.

Apples and oranges, max. Body counts are available. Global warming is a much more complex issue. It's not my fault that "we" don't have the figures. Are we afraid that if we dig deeply enough we might discover that the figures don't support our claim?

BTW - Did you know that I believe human activity has exacerbated global warming, and that I support efforts to reduce emissions of greenhouse gasses?

Claiming that a demand for proof is unreasonable and obstructive, and saying that your opponent is behaving like a member of an undersirable group, are both standard tactics of people who are promoting an agenda that isn't supported by logic or reason.

[library_max]

22. You "believe"? Snort, snort! But where is your PROOF???

Body counts are available, but there's obviously no way to compare body counts with the ban to body counts during the same time period without the ban. We don't have access to alternative universes. There's no place to "dig."

Therefore it is not "Apples and oranges". Global warming has exactly the same problem - there's no way to go back over the same time period both with and without restrictions on greenhouse gases and see what difference it makes. And that's why, since the "proof" you demand is theoretically impossible, the demand for it is unreasonable and obstructive.

[slackmaster]

26. Burden of proof is on YOUR SIDE

If all of your horses and all of your men can't come up with a real reason for the AWB you're just going to have to let it go.

We can't go restricting people's freedom without justification.

[library_max]

30. Name me a law - any law - that has met your "burden of proof."

And then show me the proof.

Or are you saying that there shouldn't be any laws at all, that everyone should just be able to do whatever the hell they like?

[slackmaster]

33. Mandatory seat belts, mandatory crash helmets for bikers

Decades of injury and fatality statistics for vehicle accidents show clearly that people who wear seat belts while driving or riding in a car are less likely to be injured or killed in a collision.

I threw in the crash helmets as another obvious one at no extra charge.

I'm not going to bother looking up the actual stats because it's so easy for you to look them up yourself.

Please don't pretend to disupute the findings.

[library_max]

35. So these are examples of laws you support?

There is a fundamental difference, which should be obvious, regarding evidence for seat belts and motorcycle helmets and for assault weapons. Seat belts and motorcycle helmets are designed to protect the individual. The AWB is designed to protect society at large from the individual.

The difference has profound implications for research design. It is relatively easy to use people who do and don't use seat belts and motorcycle helmets as your control and experimental groups. Then you can compare the statistics.

What statistics are you going to compare on the AWB? Since it is intended to protect society at large, you can take the statistics for society at large and compare them with - what?

This is a hugely obvious case of apples and oranges.

[slackmaster]

37. I not only support them but obey them religiously

It is relatively easy to use people who do and don't use seat belts and motorcycle helmets as your control and experimental groups. Then you can compare the statistics.

I'd like to see you try to get that one past the Human Subjects Committee at any accredited institution of higher learning. All of the research on effectiveness of seat belts was done using available accident data.

What statistics are you going to compare on the AWB?

At some point someone started collecting data about seat belt usage from accident scenes. I believe insurance companies took the lead initially, and the NTSB got in on it back in the 1960s when the evidence was becoming clear that people who used seat belts fared better than those who did not.

Regarding assault weapons, a good start would be for the FBI to change the way it records crime stats so that "assault weapons" are distinguished from other types of firearms. Right now all they record is pistol, rifle, or shotgun as they have since they started collecting data.

You can blame the authors of the AWB for failing to incorporate a monitoring system into the law. Without such a system the 10-year sunset means the end of the AWB. Kind of looks like the authors walked away from it. I think they were more concerned with politics than with public safety.

[library_max]

40. Are you deliberately trying not to understand my posts?

The "available accident data" was able to distinguish between seat belt users and non seat belt users, and between motorcycle helmet users and non motorcycle helmet users. There's no way to do anything comparable with AWB, because the law is intended to protect the public at large and not identifiable individuals.

Regarding the authors of the AWB failing to incorporate a monitoring system into the law, I repeat: pro-gun Republicans have been in control of Congress for the last ten years. So how are pro-controllers going to get a control-friendly provision into the law? The link MrBenchley provided in post #28 sheds further light on this matter.

[slackmaster]

43. I have a problem with laws that have no accountability built in

There's no way to do anything comparable with AWB, because the law is intended to protect the public at large and not identifiable individuals.

I don't see how the intent of a law necessarily prevents it from being monitorable. Let's face reality here - There are a lot of problems with the way the AWB was written. Lack of accountability, easy of "circumvention" by those Evil Gun Manufacturers, etc. But without compromise there never would have been one in the first place.

Regarding the authors of the AWB failing to incorporate a monitoring system into the law, I repeat: pro-gun Republicans have been in control of Congress for the last ten years. So how are pro-controllers going to get a control-friendly provision into the law?...

May I suggest the first step would be to change the makeup of government? Maybe we need to make ourselves appeal to a broader range of voters, and not be so exclusionary. I think the extremist voices within our party who associate those who support gun rights with racists should be the first to be put into their proper perspective - Their voices deserve to be heard but not to dictate policy.

[library_max]

50. You have a problem with gun control laws, period.

The rest is sophistry.

[DavidMS]

53. Sounds like an argument from the "Frozen Republic"

I picked up a copy a few years ago and it explained fundametal structural problems with the federal goverment.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0151000859/102-3318834-6504918?v=glance

Reviews can be found on amazon.com

[CO Liberal]

23. Do You????

Or are you just another pro-gunner who can't wait to get his hands on a new toy???? :shrug:

[slackmaster]

27. I'm wondering why you think I shouldn't be allowed to configure my AR-15

The way Eugene Stoner designed it.

No problem really. I'll be able to do just that in a matter of weeks.

[thomas82]

52. really

So can you explain why me having a collapsible stock on my AR15 causes the Cops to shake in fear and beg for the AWB to be renewed? You have to admit its a stupid law. The only part I could see the cops caring about is the ban on large cap magazines. but please I would like your opinion.
Thanks,
Tom

[slackmaster]

13. Police chiefs and unions supported the Volstead Act - whoops

On edit: library_max is correct. There were no police unions at the time.

Police chiefs were among the most vocal advocates of temperence and alcohol prohibition back in 1918. They're also always lobbying for greater police powers to search people and seize property.

Have they ever come out AGAINST any restriction on the behavior of ordinary citizens? I doubt it since police are often exempt from restrictive laws that involve weapons.

They are entitled to their opinions just like everyone else.

[library_max]

15. That's interesting.

Considering that there was no such thing as a police union in 1918. Police were still suing for the right to unionize in the 30s and 40s.

Under the circumstances, I guess it'd be pretty futile to ask you for anything to support your contention here.

On edit: Well, how about something to support your contention about the police chiefs, then?

[slackmaster]

18. Zing!

You got me on the unions.

I apologize for being misinformed.

[Romulus]

17. don't forget

"law enforcement" is all gung-ho about the PATRIOT ACT.

And expanding it to cover domestic, non-terra, crimes :eyes:

[library_max]

20. And your support for this contention is . . . ?

Or is this Just Make Shit Up Day?

[slackmaster]

21. That's how I remember it as well

Max,

You AWB supporters have known about the sunset clause all along. Surely you must have anticipated that you'd have to come up with some kind of proof that continuing it would be in the public interest at this point. Or did you indulge in some kind of progressive fallacy and assume that everybody would automatically be on board with you in this enlightened age?

Where were the ban's champions in Congress up until about six months ago when the Brady Center, VPC, MMM et al suddenly announced that the ban was about to expire unless somebody did something to preserve it?

What have you people been doing for the last 10 years?

[library_max]

24. Oh well, if two RKBAers have such a convenient recollection,

it MUST be true! :eyes:

Slack, you're still talking about proof that is not even theoretically available. It is not possible to turn the United States of America into a laboratory with a control group and an experimental group. It is not possible to write down the gun death figures for the last ten years and then turn back time, remove the AWB, and then rerun the same ten years to see if there are more gun deaths.

"Us people" haven't been controlling Congress for the last ten years, and we don't control it now. Pro-gun Republicans control Congress now. Surely you've heard of them.

[slackmaster]

25. What is your presonal recollection of the AWB debate in 1994?

I remember a series of negotiations that ended in a compromise as do most legislative actions in our adversarial system when it's working properly. One of the compromises was the 10-year sunset clause, without which the AWB never would have passed.

Slack, you're still talking about proof that is not even theoretically available. It is not possible to turn the United States of America into a laboratory with a control group and an experimental group. It is not possible to write down the gun death figures for the last ten years and then turn back time, remove the AWB, and then rerun the same ten years to see if there are more gun deaths.

We can't turn the history of the Earth back billions of years to observe evolution directly either, but it's considered to be the best explanation for the present state of life by all biologists except a few who seem to be acting in response to their religious views rather than the available evidence. I'm sure you are aware that there are other methods of statistical analysis that can be employed when direct experimentation is not possible.

"Us people" haven't been controlling Congress for the last ten years, and we don't control it now. Pro-gun Republicans control Congress now. Surely you've heard of them.

You're dodging the issue. Congress doesn't control crime statistics, and individual members have a lot of freedom to do research that taps into the wealth of information that gets collected. Non-government entities like the gun control organizations have been asleep at the wheel too.

You AWB enthusiasts have nobody to blame for the demise of the AWB but yourselves.

[MrBenchley]

28. My personal recollection

is that the scum of the earth fought it tooth and nail...and with most of the same lies they use now.

"Congress doesn't control crime statistics"
Sure they do....

"One of the reasons why the necessary information is lacking is that the gun lobby doesn't like that kind of research and has often been very effective in fighting against it. Under NRA pressure, for instance, the CDC was forced to discontinue a firearms injury data-gathering program in 1996."

http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/features/reader/0%2C2061%2C567328%2C00.html

[library_max]

32. Regarding recollections,

I understood that you were responding to the string, specifically Romulus's assertion that LEOs support the Patriot Act. If that's not what you were talking about, why reply where you did?

Anyway, regarding proof, it's interesting that you should bring up evolution. Because that's another area where the right wing (the Christian Right in this case) demands "proof" that is impossible to produce. I agree that the people who refuse to see the truth of evolution are wearing ideological blinders, but I think that about a lot of right-wingers who are determined not to see the truth about progressive issues. They tend to be the ones demanding "proof."

You talk about statistical analysis, but statistical analysis is meaningless without a valid comparison, and there is none.

[slackmaster]

34. No, I was talking only about the AWB

Anyway, regarding proof, it's interesting that you should bring up evolution. Because that's another area where the right wing (the Christian Right in this case) demands "proof" that is impossible to produce.

No, you still aren't getting it.

If the AWB really did do what it was supposed to, the proof would be evident from crime stastics. I do not accept your contention that it would be impossible to produce.

You talk about statistical analysis, but statistical analysis is meaningless without a valid comparison, and there is none.

Once again there are ways of establishing proof through statistical analysis without performing a controlled experiment. The fact that 25% of children in Harlem suffer from asthma passes statistical tests to show that it is not just a coincidence. Something is causing those kids to get sick. That's called a "cluster" in epidemiology. The existence of the cluster is not in doubt. The challenge is to figure out the cause.

[library_max]

36. So there is no support for Bowline's contention. Okay.

If you could give an example of what would (if it existed) constitute proof that the AWB is effective, that might be helpful. Simply insisting that such proof could exist but doesn't isn't logical and rational.

Your example of the kids in Harlem is another case in point. No matter what you do, you'll never be able to "prove" that any identifiable factor caused those kids to get sick, because you can't isolate factors - no control. It's been pointed out over and over that the US has more murders per capita than developed nations with strict gun control - there's your "cluster." But the answer is always that some other factor is responsible - again, we can't isolate factors, because there's no control.

[slackmaster]

38. Crime reporting is not done in a consistent manner across the country

If police tracked crime committed with "assault weapons" as a distinct subset of violent crime that would be a start.

They've had 10 whole years to do it. Now all we hear are excuses (The evil Gun Industry gutted the ban), appeals to emotion (My kid was shot), appeals to popularity (70% of the population and 799 chiefs of police...), ipse dixits (The ban should be renewed and strengthened because I said so), etc.

[library_max]

41. Seat belts and motorcycle helmets notwithstanding,

it's a rare law or government program that has to wait for "proof" before it is enacted. What was the proof for the civil rights act? What was the proof for welfare reform? What was the proof for welfare in the first place? What was the proof for the space program? What will be the proof for universal health care?

Laws get passed because people want them and believe in them. I'm sorry if that offends you. There's a name for it, let me think . . . oh, yeah, democracy.

Right now, there are enough gun nuts and the politics are tight enough between the two parties that your side has some breathing room. Don't expect it to last forever. And don't expect to block the eventual tide in favor of gun controls with demands for "proof."

[slackmaster]

44. Looks like a medly of fruits and vegetables to me

What was the proof for the civil rights act?

The undeniable fact that lots of people were (and still are) being denied the right to vote and other civil rights based on their skin color or lack of money.

What was the proof for welfare reform?

The undeniable fact that some people were abusing the system, and that the old system lacked incentives to get people on their own feet.

What was the proof for welfare in the first place?

The undeniable fact that some people need assistance.

What was the proof for the space program?

Because it's there.

What will be the proof for universal health care?

We'll see if that ever comes about.

Max, you're talking about social entitlement programs that have obvious effects on peoples' lives and I'm talking about some penal code sections that created a bunch of victimless crimes without any discernable benefit to the public. All of those things you mention have rather obvious means of accountability BTW. They have budgets and recordkeeping and it's not too hard to find out who in the public is benefitting from them and whether or not they are fulfilling their tasks efficiently.

And none of the items you mentioned restrict peoples' freedom in any way.

Apples and oranges and bananas and rutabagas and carrots...

[iverglas]

45. apples and oranges indeed

What was the proof for the civil rights act?
The undeniable fact that lots of people were (and still are) being denied the right to vote and other civil rights based on their skin color or lack of money.

What was the proof for welfare reform?
The undeniable fact that some people were abusing the system, and that the old system lacked incentives to get people on their own feet.

What was the proof for welfare in the first place?
The undeniable fact that some people need assistance.


What weirdness is this??

I thought that the proof we were seeking was of the EFFECTIVENESS of legislation? How is the fact that some people couldn't vote proof of the effectiveness of civil rights legislation to do what it was supposed to do? How is the fact that some people were abusing welfare proof that welfare reform legislation was effective to do what it was supposed to do? How is the fact that some people need assistance proof of the effectiveness of welfare legislation to do what it is supposed to do?

What sense does any of this make?

If welfare legislation is supposed to improve people's standard of living (say), don't we need to be looking at people's standard of living and determinining whether it is better than if there had been no welfare legislation, for instance?

And doesn't that bring us right to the doorway into library_max's alternate universe, through which we cannot pass? How in tarnation are we supposed to figure out what people's standard of living would have been IF there were no welfare??

The fact that space "is there" is not proof that the space program is a good use of public money, which would kinda be the actual question.

What will be the proof for universal health care?
We'll see if that ever comes about.

Eh?

The question is: What proof is required IN ORDER TO BRING IT ABOUT? That's what this discussion, as far as I could see, was actually about. What "proof", and of what, is required before legislation can be enacted (or before it can be retained, yes).

In point of fact, no proof is required, ever. What you're suggesting should be proved is the effect of something in the future (or the effect of the non-existence of something in the alternate universe in which it didn't exist). The future cannot be proved. Duh. And we can't get into the alternate universe.

Evidence of what has happened in the past, or in other places, in similar circumstances, can be useful. But there simply is no all other things being equal comparison for the future, because we don't know what those other things are going to *be* in the future. Any more, as library_max points out, than we know what they *would have been* in the past were it not for "x".


And none of the items you mentioned restrict peoples' freedom in any way.

Gee. Taxing me isn't restricting my freedom? I think it is.

[slackmaster]

46. I know you're not really arguing a GOP talking point here

Gee. Taxing me isn't restricting my freedom? I think it is.

Yeah, I suppose so. If you lived here you'd just have to suck it up like the rest of us. :D

What you're suggesting should be proved is the effect of something in the future...

Not at all. There is 10 years of data available from which the PAST and PRESENT effectiveness or lack thereof of the AWB (which is what we are really discussing here) should be gleanable.

But still nobody has volunteered to do anything of the kind.

Why do you suppose that is, iverglas?

[iverglas]

47. did this entire thread not happen?

Not at all. There is 10 years of data available from which the PAST and PRESENT effectiveness or lack thereof of the AWB (which is what we are really discussing here) should be gleanable.

The question is, and obviously is, and has to be:

EFFECTIVENESS AS COMPARED TO WHAT?

As compared to no assault weapons ban? How do you propose to measure this??

We went through this with the speed limit business. Why are you insisting on doing it again?

Accident rates (or injury rates, maybe) did not rise when the speed limit on US highways was raised (or so you tell me, and I'll believe).

Is this proof that reducing speed limits does not reduce accident rates??

According to you, NO. All other things are not equal -- there have been design improvements in cars that have counteracted the increase in accident rates that would otherwise have occurred. (And note that this says nothing about specific accidents/injuries, some of which plainly would have been prevented by a lower speed limit and were *not* prevented by design improvements -- or else the accident/injury rate would have continued to fall, not stayed the same; all you have is a gross similarity in an composite phenomenon at two points in time, but the phenomenon is composed of very different individual cases.)

We can say that the increase would otherwise have occurred, because we accept the evidence of a reduction in accident rates when speed limits were reduced as "proof" of the effectiveness of reducing speed limits for reducing accident rates, which means that re-raising the speed limit will result in a higher accident rate.

If the design improvements had occurred instead of the speed limits being reduced, what then? Would you have proof that reducing speed limits does *not* reduce accident rates??

What, exactly, are you proposing to compare the data that you have *TO* in order to determine effectiveness?

How are you going to design your methodology in order to rule out any factors that might have been counteracting the effects that an assault weapons ban would otherwise have had?

I'm not saying that this could not be done, although I can't imagine off-hand how it could be. But you're not even asking the right questions.

You don't "glean" proof of the effectiveness of something simply by looking at a universe in which several gazillion other things were happening and then ignoring all those other things and arbitrarily attributing the occurrence or non-occurrence of what you're looking for to "factor X". That, I'm afraid, just is not proof of anything.

[slackmaster]

48. What, then, would the right questions be???

You don't "glean" proof of the effectiveness of something simply by looking at a universe in which several gazillion other things were happening and then ignoring all those other things and arbitrarily attributing the occurrence or non-occurrence of what you're looking for to "factor X". That, I'm afraid, just is not proof of anything.

Nor do you determine the effectiveness of something by saying "799 possibly informed chiefs of police say so" or by saying "Because I said so" or by saying "70% of the people, of whom we don't even know how many actually understand the issue, say they want it that way".

:D

I'll make a little multiple prediction here: The federal assault weapons ban will expire on schedule, and beginning September 14 someone on the pro-control side on this forum will dutifully record every unlawful shooting that appears to have been committed with a weapon that would have been considered an AW during the ban. Pro-RKBA posters will dutifully nit-pick each story to point out that the weapon either did not fit the defunct definition of AW, or that it's virtual AWness had nothing to do with its use in that particular incident.

And the debate will go on and on and on.

[library_max]

49. You like calling your opinions facts, but they aren't facts.

Even when you and I agree in an opinion, that opinion doesn't magically become a fact. There is no "fact" that people need assistance, for example. That's an opinion - an opinion we share, but an opinion nevertheless.

Lots of people have argued that the Civil Rights Act and other civil rights measures have restricted their freedom - mostly their freedom to discriminate against people of color.

The point is that the proof you're demanding is theoretically impossible to obtain. You can talk about where one might start, but there's no way to finish the study. You can't control enough variables, and there's nothing to compare to the way you can compare accidents with and without seat belts.

And you're plenty smart enough and sophisticated enough about research to know that. You're just deliberately trying to set an impossible standard for legislation you personally dislike.

[Romulus]

29. here is but one example

http://www.npr.org/rundowns/segment.php?wfId=1844492

From NPR, no less


Partial transcript:

"MELISSA BLOCK, host:

President Bush visited Buffalo, New York, today, where he urged continued support of the Patriot Act. He told an audience of first responders that portions of the law should not be allowed to expire next year. Civil liberties groups say the president is exaggerating the role of this law in the war on terror in order to paint himself as the anti-terror president. NPR's Larry Abramson reports.

LARRY ABRAMSON reporting:

Buffalo has seen six local men from nearby Lackawanna plead guilty to supporting terrorism. That helped ensure a positive reception among 500 or so law enforcement and emergency personnel."


Just listen to the applause when he calls for an extension of the law . . . .

[library_max]

31. So in terms of actual LEOs, police chiefs, unions, etc.

going on the record in support of the Patriot Act, you've got nothing. Some people clapped when the President of the United States made a speech for them. Wow, that must mean they support the Patriot Act.

[Romulus]

39. if you refuse to listen

that's your problem, not mine . . .:shrug:

The fact is the crowd of 500 police & emergency personnel was tomb-silent until he stated that the PATRIOT ACT should be renewed.

[library_max]

42. So all you've got is some applause

for one speech by one bunch of cops, which you claim is due to their approval of the Patriot Act. If you really think that supports your original statement, that's just sad.