![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|||
The article you cite is likely written from a press release rather than any real information gathering attempt. The state is in a severe financial mess. Why should not this new program get set aside as a money saving step? Should it be saved in lieu of state troopers.
When state budgets get cut, every agency has a reason why theirs is just too important to cut and that if cut, dire circumstances will befall on all of us. This article is cut from the same mold.
Repairing a budget issue is a balancing act and those that feel the pinch generate stories like this one.
Eric
subroc
Article [I.]
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Article [II.]
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
But do you want to take away from law enforcement and put citizens at a greater risk? Why don't we just cut out all funding for the TSA so people won't have to go through all the hassels of security checks just to get on an airplane---- that would save alot of money after all we did not need the TSA before 2001.In fact, why don't we take military spending back to what we spent in 2000----oops we cannot do that either because of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq
![]()
put citizens at greater risk?????? seriously Roger? I don't need the government to take responsibility for MY protection......hell, they can't even spend my money right......I certainly don't expect them to protect me appropriately.......
concealed carry permit regards...........
SHR Presque Isle Jaeger Schwab JH (driving the bus)
To paraphrase our illustrious POTUS "we're all going to have to make some sacrifices".
Not giving LE the latest technology is not the same as 'taking away".
It will keep "the citizen's risk" at it's current level, not increase it to a "greater" one.
They will still be able to do business the way they do now.
No one is proposing to go back to Broderick Crawford in "Highway Patrol", Jack Webb in "Dragnet", etc.
Last edited by BrianW; 03-29-2011 at 08:09 AM. Reason: added "do"
"It's not that government is inherently stupid, although that's a debatable question."
Rand Paul CPAC speech 2011
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it. Thomas Jefferson to Archibald Stuart, 1791
________________________________________
Proud partner of (HR) WR SR Brian's 44Magnum Monster
co-owned by HR Rianne's 2nd Chance Hurricane Rebel
subroc
Article [I.]
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Article [II.]
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.