"Gunner" wrote in message
...

I miss Mary. Imagine my disappointment when I found out she really was
John...

Ed Huntress

but "she" was good in debate.

Gunner

The hell she was. After describing those armed guys as "students," she
neglected to mention that they were also police officers -- one of them
currently employed. That he had a bulletproof vest and handcuffs in his
car
should have attracted her curiosity about that fact. g


They Were students. And if one is not currently employed..he is not a
policeman. Correct?

Oh, for Christ's sake, Gunner. A "student," with a bulletproof vest and
handcuffs in his car?

Lott's editorial was about the role of "armed citizens" in stopping a crime.
He neglected to mention that the "armed citizens" were a currently employed
cop equipped with vest and 'cuffs, and another cop who was studying law.

Do you really want to go through that again? Lott gave up on it himself.


Sloppy or just didn't present facts that really were not germane to
the story? Were either student there for the express purpose of
responding to the criminals action? No. Were either of them on duty
and in uniform at the time? No. Would it have made any difference if
either of them had been gay interior decorators? No.

Then the story is that we need more off-duty and former cops. He said
nothing about cops. That's because, if he had, anyone with a lick of sense
would have realized that the story wasn't what he said it was.

If that doesn't sink into your head, then you don't understand why Lott saw
fit to write an editorial about it in the first place...and why he neglected
to say anything about bulletproof vests, handcuffs, or cops.

--
Ed Huntress
(remove "3" from email address for email reply)