Ghostbusters. 

Lincoln gets it.

Continuing my comment: One who accepts the risk of death without the certainty of death has not an intent to “lay down their life.”  They do not intend to die or accept death.  They certainly do accept the risk of that happening, knowingly and willingly.  Those who then lose their lives do not give them away. That reality does not diminish their valor.  It substantiates it.  It is heroic.

My real complaint (act of curmudgeon-ness) is that we are told every time about every casualty that they gave their life... and that is lazy, imprecise, conventional wisdom - an intellectually sloppy out that allows the speaker to appear to be paying homage without actually having to think about what they say, what happened and what it means.  And that, I submit, diminshes the sacrifice.

You make my point.  Facing death – and losing – is heroic.  They “lay down life” but it is against their will despite their courage and resolve. To say they had life taken demarcates the magnitude of the loss.  The Spartans at Thermopylae, the Alamo defenders - “gave” their lives.  They faced circumstances wherein their deaths were inevitable and they chose to stand fast - an act of volition, a conscious decision to lay down one’s life. 

Don't hyperventilate over human responses.  No law enforcement officer would murder Dorner... or be upset Dorner ended up dead.  That is human, neither contradictory nor sinister.

The circumstances of his death were consequences of decisions he made - murder, gun fights, barricading himself, posing an extreme level of danger to those around him.  Now one may stick the word "alleged" in front of any of that litany of real offenses if it makes one feel more fair, but the reality is that police had ample reason, far beyond probable cause, to seek him out for arrest, and arresting him was their intention, not killing him.  Dorner's choices made it highly unlikely that he could be safely (safety of officers and public) arrested and in fact he prevented that from happening.  No officer sought to murder him - but no officer in his/her right mind would assume Dorner was not a threat, nor would allow Dorner much margin of opportunity to attack.  Surrender sought - but don't wait long with a Chris Dorner for him to do so if waiting gives them increased chance to attack -- there is no right of first shot among those confronted by police.

Conventional guilty pleasure fast food - Burger King's original Double Whopper.

Not so conventional but still fast and carrying its own guilt load - Quiznos' Prime Rib sub.

Wicked.  ;-)

Amen.  Worse, if possible, in this administration:

Obama Fires Top General Without Even a Phone Call
DANIEL HALPER   
President Barack Obama fired General James Mattis, the head of Central Command, without even calling the general to let him know he was being replaced.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-fires-top-general-without-even-phone-call_697744.html
Tom Ricks says Mattis was fired because:
Pentagon insiders say that he rubbed civilian officials the wrong way -- not because he went all "mad dog," which is his public image, and the view at the White House, but rather because he pushed the civilians so hard on considering the second- and third-order consequences of military action against Iran. Some of those questions apparently were uncomfortable. What do you do with Iran once the nuclear issue is resolved and it remains a foe? What do you do if Iran then develops conventional capabilities that could make it hazardous for U.S. Navy ships to operate in the Persian Gulf? He kept saying, "And then what?"
"National Security Advisor Tom Donilon in particular was irked by Mattis's insistence on being heard. I cringe when I hear about civilians shutting down strategic discussions. "

Brilliant dismemberment of the stream of wishful consciousness line of argument so prevalent in liberal thought circles - and yes, Bloomberg is a quintessential liberal politician.  Their wishes father their thoughts - alas substance seldom catches up.

Not really so - the American side spent years trying to develop and field a regular army with all the modern military capabilities, and did not succeed against the British except as they did, including artillery, cavalry, a Navy, regular French troops, the French Navy, and logistics to support it all.  Ebb and flow of American success in the Revolution could arguably be correlated with ebb and flow of proficiency in developing and supporting military power - not the untrained civilian pickup force, as alluring as that idea may be.

Oh I like you...  and the way you think!

Not surprisingly, most of this encroachment by government has occurred only within the last 75 years of our history – say, starting with FDR??  Used to be, almost every farm had dynamite on hand (to remove stumps, for example).  Veterans from WWII brought back German submachine guns as war trophies.  Not any more – most definitely not without government permission and oversight.  Some of that is harmless – some of it is inevitable.  None of it is un-intrusive if objectively recognized.  Much of it is an after-the-fact pander to "do" something in the wake of a tragedy that would not have been prevented by the something done in the first place.  And little is ever undone, once done by government.

Cost (a very real consideration) certainly weighs in.  If one trusts the American citizen, there is no reason to ban ownership of crew served weapons while recognizing that few will ever be able to afford one – or manage one in terms of maintenance, upkeep, and training.  For that reason, government bans on ownership of heavy weapons outside the small arms category doesn’t overly trouble me because it doesn’t matter, practically speaking.   But it is an avenue of increased government encroachment – all this regulation of stuff hazardous to public safety is largely government extending its control over its citizens – it’s a power grab.  Government decides that its citizens cannot be trusted to own a cannon without endangering the public, or dynamite, or a mercury thermometer, or a 100-watt incandescent light bulb – and it then bans private use and ownership of the hazard, taking upon itself the authority and implied wisdom to dictate proper ownership and approved uses. 

Continued....

To my mind, the defining difference is the concept of self-defense.  The individual citizen has the right to bear arms - clearly "small arms" to use the categorization that includes handguns, rifles and shotguns - but NOT cannons, bombs or tripod mounted machine guns.  Small arms are the weapons that sustain the individual right of self defense.  If necessary, individuals can band together to resist tyranny - as they can band together to form armies, governments and through such larger associations acquire and pay for weapons of sovereign offense and defense (cannons, ships, planes, bombs etc).  One bears small arms - one does not bear a cannon.  The language is clear - I think.  Government is tasked with the duty to provide for the common defense.  The Constitutional common defense requires a far different class and form of weaponry than does the individual right of self defense and its Constitutional right to bear arms.   The latter is limited by practicality and precedent to small arms only.

IMHO the 2nd Amendment was intended to recognize and preserve the right of self defense, individually and collectively.  To fret whether the founders anticipated modern weapons is as irrelevant to the 2nd Amendment as is fretting whether the founders anticipated television when they incorporated and enshrined freedom of speech in the 1st Amendment.  It is the inalienable right to defend self, others and community against violence and depredation that is enshrined.  The source of such depredation and violence (individuals, groups or government) is immaterial to the inalienable nature of the right.  The availability of effective firearms is the only way of insuring the continuing inviolability of the right of self defense and the continuing ability of the individual to protect and exercise that right.  Therefore, the Founding Fathers would welcome advancements in firearms design and development that enhanced the individual's ability to exercise the right of self defense.  Clearly, they anticipated that the right to bear arms is the right to bear the modern arms of the age existent.  Without sustaining the right of self defense, no other right is safe nor can it be assured except by the forbearance of others - other individuals, other institutional entities.

Actually, I neither think nor expect them to be held accountable.  My wish is far simpler - be honest enough to acknowledge having made a mistake.  Alas I do not think nor expect that will happen either.