27 dead in Newtown school shooting

[bonehead]

Mommy took him shooting, we do not know that he stole the guns, she could have bought them straw man. Mommy trained him to be a killer and was his first victim.

We already have laws against straw man buying. If this was the case what good did that law do?

[USSWisconsin]

If he had to murder his own mother the odds are pretty good that he did not have her permission to use said weapon. Furthermore, if he murders his own mother he clearly was not going to follow any other law that would have saved his other victims.

He shot her while she slept in her bed - I believe he could have taken the guns without doing that (we'll never know - its all speculation) - it just shows how fucked up he was. Too bad no one but him was armed at the school - he need a bullet in the brain - real bad, maybe 7 bullets from the top down - .50 or bigger.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_H...chool_shooting

[DPrime]

I'm not sure how I feel about him killing his mother.

On one hand, it's increasingly looking like the one good thing he did do, because it's starting to appear that she was some kind of crazy ##### herself.

On the other, I wish we could hold SOMEONE responsible for this - if not him (the coward), then at least his stupid, irresponsible mother.

Hase the Westboro Baptists made good on their announcement to "thank God for his judgment" yet? I have to admit, a very substantial part of me really, really wants to see someone take out their anger on them, at least. :)

[bonehead]

Just going to ignore the name-calling. We're better than that.



And yet, still regulated. To a very, very large degree.



I didn't forget. I've addressed that in several posts.

I haven't had the chance to read DC vs. Heller yet, but certainly there's an argument to be made as to what constitutes an "arm" for the purposes of that right. And remember, the context of that sentence is important, as citanon pointed out earlier:







Interesting... so the harder it is to obtain, the less often they're used in crimes? Imagine that... :)



The "slippery slope" is a red herring, and pure fantasy and fear mongering for the most part. This is still a democracy. Hunters and sportsmen need not worry.



And that "large" portion is much, much, much smaller than the combined forces of the NRA, hunters and sportsmen in America. Always has been - I don't see that changing.

All anyone is arguing about is military-style weaponry. Talking about a total ban is just changing the subject.



If laws had made it more difficult for his crazy gun-nut mom to own these, he would never have had access.

It's not like he stole these from a National Guard unit.

There should be checks and balances in place to prevent people like his mother from owning these. She was clearly irresponsible. What's wrong with having to PROVE you're responsible enough to own dangerous weapons?

Remember prohibition and the failure that was? We have very strict laws against meth, heroin, marijuana, cocaine etc yet you and I can hit the street and score some in 30 minutes or less. Guns are just as prevalent so there really is no ban that is going to have an effect on access.

So DPrime what weapons are not dangerous? That is your slippery slope. Once you open a precedence to one type of firearm all gun ownership is on the table.

Why would hunters and sportsman need not worry? Many actually do hunt with military style weapons. Personally I hunt with an SAR3 and a DS arms SA58. What makes those weapons good on the battlefield also makes them great hunting weapons. Even so the constitution and the second amendment is not about hunting it is about the citizens and their ability to defend themselves against all enemies both foreign and domestic including our own government if the need arises. That is why the second amendment has the words.." the right of the people to keep and bear arms..." and that has been backed up in court.


"And that "large" portion is much, much, much smaller than the combined forces of the NRA, hunters and sportsmen in America. Always has been - I don't see that changing."

Demographics say otherwise. This country now has more population in urban areas which are much more likely to ban guns and vote for representatives that will do so. However, the number of "sportsman" is declining. Haven't you noticed that out right gun bans are in places like Chicago, D.C. ect. Ever hear of a gun ban in the middle of wyoming? The bottom line is that you are fully underestimating the number of people and their will to disarm this country.

[USSWisconsin]

I'm not sure how I feel about him killing his mother.

On one hand, it's increasingly looking like the one good thing he did do, because it's starting to appear that she was some kind of crazy ##### herself.

On the other, I wish we could hold SOMEONE responsible for this - if not him (the coward), then at least his stupid, irresponsible mother.

Hase the Westboro Baptists made good on their announcement to "thank God for his judgment" yet? I have to admit, a very substantial part of me really, really wants to see someone take out their anger on them, at least. :)

A Biker group has promised to pummel the WB (Satan) Cult if they try to picket the victim's funerals - I would be ready to do it myself if they showed up at a kid's funeral. If they go to the demon wad's mother's and the demon wad's funerals - I don't really care.

[Genosaurer]

One quick note to people who were comparing rates of gun homicide in the US to Canada and Australia - both those countries have a nearly 10x lower population density. Obviously not the only factor, but I don't think you can exclusively blame violent history for the difference in rates.

[USSWisconsin]

Remember prohibition and the failure that was? We have very strict laws against meth, heroin, marijuana, cocaine etc yet you and I can hit the street and score some in 30 minutes or less. Guns are just as prevalent so there really is no ban that is going to have an effect on access.

So DPrime what weapons are not dangerous? That is your slippery slope. Once you open a precedence to one type of firearm all gun ownership is on the table.

Why would hunters and sportsman need not worry? Many actually do hunt with military style weapons. Personally I hunt with an SAR3 and a DS arms SA58. What makes those weapons good on the battlefield also makes them great hunting weapons. Even so the constitution and the second amendment is not about hunting it is about the citizens and their ability to defend themselves against all enemies both foreign and domestic including our own government if the need arises. That is why the second amendment has the words.." the right of the people to keep and bear arms..." and that has been backed up in court.


"And that "large" portion is much, much, much smaller than the combined forces of the NRA, hunters and sportsmen in America. Always has been - I don't see that changing."

Demographics say otherwise. This country now has more population in urban areas which are much more likely to ban guns and vote for representatives that will do so. However, the number of "sportsman" is declining. Haven't you noticed that out right gun bans are in places like Chicago, D.C. ect. Ever hear of a gun ban in the middle of wyoming? The bottom line is that you are fully underestimating the number of people and their will to disarm this country.

How much do we spend on this marijuana prohibition - and how many otherwise honest people have been locked up and had thier lives ruined because of this foolish prohibition that started over a nylon rope company's lobbying to prevent competition from hemp rope? I don't imagine any drug is harmless - but I do know marijuana is no worse than alcohol. IMO, It is criminal to deny it to medical patients who could use it to be more comfortable - as a medicine. I could care less if someone uses it recreationally under the same terms as alcohol can be used today (it should not be given to minors and not used when driving is involved). If someone wants to be too stoned to function - its a mental health issue, they'll screw up their life - they will do that anyway. If someone is sick from chemo or aids and a stupid law makes them a criminal for seeking some relief - isn't that special... We'd just Hate to have duPont loose a big rope sale. (it turns out that nylon and hemp rope are so different, that one doesn't replace the other anyway - manila rope can replace hemp, nylon stretches too much for many applications - its best for towing lines.

I know its a big business arresting pot users and seizing their assets - orgainized crime is a big business too (should we protect it as well?).

[Versus]

This is how it was done in the olden days
http://cdn.edu-search.com/uploads/cocainedrops.jpg

May the evil Serb propose a different theory on this?

[Genosaurer]

IMO, It is criminal to deny it to medical patients who could use it to be more comfortable - as a medicine.

Let's be honest here. The entire 'medical marijuana' exception is a wedge issue the pro-legalization crowd have seized on because it makes for better sound bytes to try and sway the uninformed. Synthetic THC pills (under the name dronabinol/Marinol) are already available by prescription as a Schedule III drug (ie. for people who have legitimate medical issues that THC can actually be demonstrated to treat).

IMO, It is criminal to deny it to medical patients who could use it to be more comfortable - as a medicine. I could care less if someone uses it recreationally under the same terms as alcohol can be used today (it should not be given to minors and not used when driving is involved).

As far as I know, there is no rapid test for marijuana intoxication like a breathalyzer for alcohol intoxication - and all the tests we do have (hair, urine) will flag if it was used within the last few days. How would you enforce a law against driving while high? This is actually the only real issue I personally have with legalization. (Well, that and the fundamental dishonesty on both sides of the debate.)

[DPrime]

Remember prohibition and the failure that was? We have very strict laws against meth, heroin, marijuana, cocaine etc yet you and I can hit the street and score some in 30 minutes or less. Guns are just as prevalent so there really is no ban that is going to have an effect on access.

Well, I don't think it's a completely fair comparison, but I see your point - yes, in some cases, criminals will always have access to guns.

But again, I'm not arguing it's a 100% effective solution. Heck, I'm not even arguing for a ban. Just regulations.

Why would hunters and sportsman need not worry? Many actually do hunt with military style weapons.

Where's the sport in that?

Even so the constitution and the second amendment is not about hunting it is about the citizens and their ability to defend themselves against all enemies both foreign and domestic including our own government if the need arises. That is why the second amendment has the words.." the right of the people to keep and bear arms..." and that has been backed up in court.

Because of the need for a well regulated militia.

Key words: regulated; militia. Not even a well-armed militia. Well REGULATED. And specifically for the purpose of a militia, not some crazy wacko loner who builds bomb shelters and is worried about Dec 20th and/or the zombie apocalypse.

And where exactly is the part about taking on your own government? Isn't that treason?

Demographics say otherwise. This country now has more population in urban areas which are much more likely to ban guns and vote for representatives that will do so. However, the number of "sportsman" is declining. Haven't you noticed that out right gun bans are in places like Chicago, D.C. ect. Ever hear of a gun ban in the middle of wyoming? The bottom line is that you are fully underestimating the number of people and their will to disarm this country.

Money and interest groups say otherwise.

A Biker group has promised to pummel the WB (Satan) Cult if they try to picket the victim's funerals - I would be ready to do it myself if they showed up at a kid's funeral. If they go to the demon wad's mother's and the demon wad's funerals - I don't really care.

Why doesn't one of these wackos open fire on people like that? What a friggin' coward...

Sorry I was reading the wiki article on the shooting and am starting to get angry again...

[DPrime]

As far as I know, there is no rapid test for marijuana intoxication like a breathalyzer for alcohol intoxication - and all the tests we do have (hair, urine) will flag if it was used within the last few days. How would you enforce a law against driving while high?

Common sense?

Cops can take a driver off the streets if he or she is showing signs of intoxication, even if they haven't been drinking... Their hands aren't exactly tied if they pull someone over who's clearly having some kind of panic attack, or is acting all schizophrenic, etc.

And no, I'm not familiar with specific procedures or even law, but I have to assume this is the case. At any rate, there must be some way we can figure out how to test for marijuana use...

[zraver]

We already have laws against straw man buying. If this was the case what good did that law do?

I used straw man loosely, the laws we have prevent A buying a gun for B when B cannot legally own said fire arm. There is no law to prevent A buying a gun for B when B is nuts and should not own a gun but has never been adjudicated a danger or convicted of a disqualifying offense.

Mom has a lot of blame here, nutsoid son and she teaches him to shoot and leaves firearms where he can access them? Buying him tactical gear didn't trip any weird shit o=meters in her head...

[zraver]

Where's the sport in that?

You don't understand guns.... a miltary style semi-auto .223 is a great varmint gun even a handy deer rifle in wooded terrain. Most laws limit carried rounds to 3 but the guns generally are very easy to maneuver around in brush, aim and shoot.

Because of the need for a well regulated militia.

Key words: regulated; militia.

Regulated- while often assumed to be the same as the word regulation ie the ability to forbid that is not the definition of the word. Regulated in the context US code and the militia means to be registered and having had elections.

See 26 USC § 851 - Definition of regulated investment company

The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions for the word "regulate," which were all in use during the Colonial period and one more definition dating from 1690 (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989). They are:

1) To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.

2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc.

3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation.

4) To put in good order.

[obsolete sense]

b. Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare-1.

1690 Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side.

In 1777, the Second Continental Congress adopted the Articles of Confederation, which contained a provision for raising a confederal militia that consent would be required from nine of the 13 States. Article VI of the Articles of Confederation states,

"...every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage."

Now who is the militia?

The Militia Act of 1792[17] clarified whom the militia consists of; " Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act."

Since expanded to include all men age 18-45 and subject to call up. Often referred to as the unorganized militia. (several states have organized militias) The national guard is not the militia.

Tench Coxe, a prominent American political economist of the day (1755–1824) who attended the earlier constitutional convention in Annapolis, explained (in the Pennsylvania Federal Gazette on June 18, 1789) the founders' definition of who the militia was intended to be and their inherent distrust of standing armies under the direct control of 'civil rulers' when he wrote:

The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ...the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.

[Gypsy]

My heart goes out to all those parents who have lost their little hopes of humanity in this tragedy. I hope you'll overcome this tragedy and prove once again what USA really stands for. May the Lord grant you strength! Amen!

Those little kids were chosen to be angels!

[DPrime]

You don't understand guns.... a miltary style semi-auto .223 is a great varmint gun even a handy deer rifle in wooded terrain. Most laws limit carried rounds to 3 but the guns generally are very easy to maneuver around in brush, aim and shoot.

I understand guns, at least from a military point of view. I'm no hunter, but if all you're saying is that a semi-auto assault rifle makes it easier to hunt... sure, I guess?

Regulated- while often assumed to be the same as the word regulation ie the ability to forbid that is not the definition of the word. Regulated in the context US code and the militia means to be registered and having had elections.

See 26 USC § 851 - Definition of regulated investment company

The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions for the word "regulate," which were all in use during the Colonial period and one more definition dating from 1690 (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989). They are:

1) To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.

2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc.

3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation.

4) To put in good order.

[obsolete sense]

b. Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare-1.

1690 Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side.

In 1777, the Second Continental Congress adopted the Articles of Confederation, which contained a provision for raising a confederal militia that consent would be required from nine of the 13 States. Article VI of the Articles of Confederation states,

"...every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage."

So... if I'm understanding you correctly, you're stating that the use of the word "regulated" in this sense is the obsolete definition, i.e. "properly disciplined".

Okay, gotcha... but two things still come to mind.

1. Should we then be talking about the word "arms" in the obsolete sense?
2. It's still for the purpose of a militia - right?

Now who is the militia?

The Militia Act of 1792[17] clarified whom the militia consists of; " Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act."

Since expanded to include all men age 18-45 and subject to call up. Often referred to as the unorganized militia. (several states have organized militias) The national guard is not the militia.

Okay, so according to a law enacted in 1792, everyone (well, everyone who's WHITE, apparently) from the age of 18-45 should be enrolled in the militia... which is obviously not the case.

But since that's just not happening, hey, you're 18-45 and not part of any organized (presumably authorized by the government) paramilitary group? Well, that's okay - you're part of the "unorganized militia" - wtf?

Tench Coxe, a prominent American political economist of the day (1755–1824) who attended the earlier constitutional convention in Annapolis, explained (in the Pennsylvania Federal Gazette on June 18, 1789) the founders' definition of who the militia was intended to be and their inherent distrust of standing armies under the direct control of 'civil rulers' when he wrote:

The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ...the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.

So Tench Coxe's interpretation - from 1789 - is the be all, end all explanation?

This is all very interesting, from a historical point of view. I am glad you brought this up, but really, if ever there was a clear example of how archaic this argument is... ;)