Devices found in SC school after student opens fire

[RamboLiberal]

Source: CNN

Bomb squads Tuesday dismantled an unspecified number of devices at a high school near Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, after a student opened fire at a school police officer, authorities said.

Officers neutralized devices found at Socastee High School, said Sgt. Robert Kegler of the Horry County Police Department. Kegler did not indicate the number or nature of the devices.

The school was evacuated during the incident. The devices were found several hours after the shooting, police said.

The unidentified male student was in the office of Officer Erik Karney about 2 p.m. and opened fire with a handgun, police told CNN affiliate WMBF. Kegler did not know what the two were discussing at the time.

Karney suffered minor injuries when the bullet struck a wall and shrapnel hit his face. The officer, who was later released from medical care, was able to detain the student, Kegler said.


Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/09/21/south.carolina.school.devices/index.html?hpt=T2

[xchrom]

1. Recommend

[nolabear]

2. My God. Our poor children.

[breadandwine]

3. It's all the fault of the STINKIN Democrats! That's why these things always happen during elections!

...

[TheMadMonk]

4. Ironic given it was a police officer under attack, but I would be far more comfortable...

...if the second ammendment was interpreted as an abstract right (carried into law) to defend against the unlawful intrusion of government, rather than simply carry around hunks of ironmongery.

Right now a right to carry that chunk of steel offers essentially zero legal defence against wrongful intrusion by government agents. They shoot you on a faulty no-knock warrant (or reading thereof) it's oops. You shoot them, they are about their lawful duty and YOU are screwed.

Gun nuts have become (and been) so fixated on the harware that they failed to notice the complete criminalisation of any likely or realistic application of the express intent of the second ammendment. When they invisiage standing tall for the nation against the govenment, if they do at all, it's in a world of anarchy where it's every man for himself and the very concept of a binding constitution becomes totally meaningless anyway.

[Chulanowa]

5. You'll find that the "gun nuts"...

Are usually the first oens to fall in line behind the police state, abuse by authorities, and killing of anyone someone in charge deems "a criminal." They already feel powerless - thus the infatuation with weaponry - so the idea of allying themselves with the armed and powerful is a natural fit.

[Gecko6400]

10. A couple of examples please.

[Chulanowa]

16. Republican voters

[melm00se]

6. while I don't fall into the "gun nut" category

there are already plenty of laws regarding the ownership of firearms:

- background checks
- waiting periods
- permits to purchase handguns
- training classes and deeper background checks for concealed carry
- limitations on where a gun can be carried
- proper storage
- penalties for leaving a gun where a child can get at it

the bottomline issue is that criminals will ignore and get around all of these laws/regulations so how, exactly, will slapping MORE laws and restrictions on firearms help with criminals obtaining guns?

taking this event as an example:
- the student was, more than likely, under the age of 18 so he couldn't legally buy a gun
- no discussion of the owner of the gun and why it wasn't secured properly (a requirement in many states)
- there are plenty of laws that cover the manufacturing of explosive devices but that didn't stop him
- the possession of a firearm in school zone is already limited and carries penalties

so tell me, again, how more laws/regulations/restrictions would help? Remember tho, you can't violate the Constitution and Supreme Court rulings.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

9. 'you can't violate ... Supreme Court rulings'. So the human sacrifices

must continue in the name of 'Second Amendment Rights'? 'Rights' that suddenly sprang into existence after Scalia and Dubya stole the Presidency and made 2 illegitimate USSC appointments?

[X_Digger]

11. 'Sprang into existence'??

"As we have seen, the first public expression of disenchantment with nonviolence arose around the question of "self-defense." In a sense this is a false issue, for the right to defend one's home and one's person when attacked has been guaranteed through the ages by common law." Martin Luther King, Jr., Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community? Chapter II, Black Power, Page 55, Harper & Row Publishers Inc., First Edition, 1967.

[melm00se]

12. no you can't trample settled case

law...anymore than you can trample these decisions

http://www.streetlaw.org/en/landmark.aspx

while you are at it: want to trample Roe v. Wade? if you want to count numbers, the case can be made that approximately 1.3 million/year lives have been ended via abortion compared to the approximately 30,000/year via firearms. A "right" that "sprang into existence" under a highly questionable Supreme Court decision in 1973 that "created" a right that did not exist.

let's just kick the rights of women to the curb because a group of nuts think that number is too high.

::sarcasm::

[TheMadMonk]

14. Because the laws are inconsistent from state to state.

While I am not familiar with 50 states worth of gun laws, I am pretty damned sure that there are mutiple states in which one or more of those safeguards you mention are non-existant, and that few if any of them are universal. Which given the free movement between states means that if they can be avoided in one state they can be avoided in all.

You are right criminals will ignore the law, but that doesn't mean that ownership of firearms still shouldn't be an earned privilege, rather than an assumed right that can only be withdrawn AFTER a person demonstrates their untrustworthiness.

Smart crims will know to run a file down the muzzle, and replace a firing pin after using a weapon in a crime, but that wouldn't prevent ballistic fingerprinting of firearms before sale from catching dumb ones. Factory to furnace tracking severely puts a crimp in the size of any blackmarket, and also makes it possible to give careless (ex)owners the slapping they deserve.

But absent a universal/national framework no amount of regulation and legislation will make a whit of real difference. If there's a hole you can drive a fleet if hijacked trucks through (and US gun regulations are riddled with such holes), it's all for naught.

And when it comes right down to it, the founding and development of the United States is built upon the concept of mistrust of one's fellow man. And that the further the remove from The Individual the greater the degree of mistrust.

Americans are their own worst bloody enemies. As individuals you identify with other like minded individuals and organises along those lines. However, when it comes to aligning diverse organisations, it's rarely along common positive ground, but more likely in order to supress a common perceived enemy, or secure unfair advantage.

Another less than admirable trait that pervades US culture is an aversion to seeing others benefit at what they perceive as their personal expense. Welfare, universal healthcare, unemployment relief. The big end of town could not get away with a fraction of their abuses if it wasn't so damned easy to convince one American that another American is freeloading off their labour or otherwise taking unfair advantage.

The only advantage you allow to go largely unquestioned is financial.

[melm00se]

17. but the fact is

but that doesn't mean that ownership of firearms still shouldn't be an earned privilege, rather than an assumed right that can only be withdrawn AFTER a person demonstrates their untrustworthiness.

the fact is that it is Constitutionally established and Supreme Court adjudicated that it is a right subject to reasonable restrictions and those restrictions are delegated to the states to create and enforce.

Illinois and the District of Columbia's handgun regulations were both deemed unreasonable by the Court and justly struck down, that is now settled case law. it will require a significant event to overturn this (twice) established precedent.

The problem with guns is that most people, generally out of ignorance, are scared of them (my wife was) and that fear is an easy lever that can be used to chip away at the rights of the People. (Don't believe me? Look at the Patriot Act!) Specifically, on firearms, the "Assault Weapons Ban" was a prime example of using fear to pass restrictive legislation.

look at the restrictions:

- Folding or telescoping stock (I was just discussing this specific feature with a guy. His rifle has one as it allows his son to use it as well as the father, plus it allows him to continue to use the same rifle as he grows...so, in essence, this feature allows him to buy 1 weapon instead of several over the years as his child grows)
- Pistol grip (not sure why this was important feature. I personally despise them as I am nowhere near as accurate with one than a standard grip)
- Bayonet mount (not sure how many crimes were committed at the point of a bayonet, if any)
- Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one (a flash suppressor, if anything, does not suppress the flash from an observer, it just redirects the flash out of the operators line of sight...not a really big issue unless you are firing a truly automatic weapon)
- Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades) (again, how many crimes were committed by folks wielding grenade launchers...which, BTW, grenades are already illegal in all states. See the National Firearms Act).

the restrictions go on and on for various classes of weapons but the end result was: scary looking weapons were banned but the non-scary looking ones who fired the same rounds (and were probably far more accurate, thus in skilled hands more deadly, than the banned equivalents) were legal. For example: the AR-15 (it looks like an M-16 and having an effective range of ~500m) chambering a 5.56mm round was "illegal" but (and I own one of the these) the Savage Edge, chambering a .223 round (effectively the same round) which has an effective range of more than 800m was perfectly legal. so what was the purpose of the exercise?

many folks looked at the Assault Weapons Ban as nothing more than a baby step towards a complete ban leveraging the reverse of my argument: "no one really missed the few weapons we banned so let's go a bit further. Seeing some weapons with a 5.56mm cartridge are already illegal, these other rifles using the same round different name (.223) need to go as well."

But I digress: the fact of the matter is that the RKBA is a right of the individual. Don't like it? Change the Constitution, don't try an end run with illegal legislation. Unfortunately (for your side) and fortunately (for my side) currently the anti-gun side does not have anywhere near the votes/support to repeal the 2nd amendment.

[TheMadMonk]

21. I am not scared of guns, I am scared of the idiots who get their hands on them.

Open/concealed carry (which I pressume means of a weapon held ready for immediate discharge in any place and circumstance not expressly forbidden) if not severely resticted (generally I would interpret this to mean demonstrable need, particularly in the case of open carry) is ultimately an invitation to disaster. Personalities guarantee it, and no amount of punishment after the fact can restore life.

For the most part I could not give a stuff for definitions of what is and isn't in firearms. What I care for is that competence of each and every bloody opperator is sufficient to assure another individual's safety whilst they are about their own lawful business. That he be made to demonstrate that competence before being allowed unsupervised access. That there are recognised degrees of competence and need that should be adressed. ie squirrel gun vs. Nitro Express.

That reasonable resriction be placed upon circumstatial competence, which might temporarily disqualify an idividual from holding firearms in his close possession. ie. under the influence, in inflamatory circumstances such as domestic conflict, or a diagnosed mental condition linked to harmful behaviour.

And finally that having demonstrated competence, submit to the same level of basic oversight and safety restriction as the driver of a motor vehicle or operator of any other potentially lethal device in a public environment.

A system that does better than forbid the unfit after the bloody fact. And strangely enough a system that doesn't put a single barrier in the way of possession, except those an individual places there by his own action, inaction and innate qualities.


Ultimately the Second Ammendment, as it is interpreted and defended today is meaningless. And yet its essence remains undaunted by the most draconian of feared regulations. I do not need a gun to be dangerous. I simply need to decide to be dangerous and apply a high IQ, a good general knowledge and the materials at hand to McGyvering my way into the revolution.

[melm00se]

31. CCW and what it is and ins't

Open/concealed carry (which I pressume means of a weapon held ready for immediate discharge in any place and circumstance not expressly forbidden) if not severely resticted (generally I would interpret this to mean demonstrable need, particularly in the case of open carry) is ultimately an invitation to disaster. Personalities guarantee it, and no amount of punishment after the fact can restore life.

Concealed carry and open carry are 2 different things.

Open carry is carrying a weapon that is easily viewed by an outside observer. the open carry statutes vary from state to state (see here for details by state: http://www.opencarry.org/opencarry.html) but in my state (NC) you don't need any special permits to open carry (I personally have never done so).

Concealed carry is just that: an outside observer cannot easily discern that you are carrying a weapon. In NC the requirements are as follows:

Requirements:
The sheriff shall issue a permit within 90 days after receipt of a complete application to an applicant who:
• is a citizen of the U.S. and has been a resident of the State for at least 30 days immediately prior to filing the application;
• is at least 21;
• does not suffer from a physical or mental infirmity that prevents the safe handling of a handgun;
• has successfully completed an approved firearms safety and training course which involves the actual firing of handguns and instruction in the law governing the carrying of a concealed handgun and the use of deadly force;
• is not ineligible under federal or state law to possess, receive, or own a firearm;
• is not currently or has not been adjudicated or administratively determined to be lacking mental capacity or mentally ill;
• has not been discharged from the armed forces under conditions other than honorable;
• is or has not been adjudicated guilty or judgment continued or suspended sentence for a violent misdemeanor;
• has not had judgment continued for or free on bond or personal recognizance pending trial, appeal, or sentencing for a disqualifying criminal offense;
• has not been convicted of an impaired driving offense within three years prior to the date on which the application is submitted.

Required Documents:
Application completed under oath on a form provided by the sheriff
Full set of fingerprints administered by the sheriff
An original certificate of completion of an approved safety course
A release that authorized and requires disclosure to the sheriff of any records concerning the mental health of capacity of the applicant


So it is not a matter of just sticking a gun in your waistband and away you go. Please note that NC is a "shall issue" state meaning that unless you don't meet the above requirements the sheriff is obligated to issue you a permit (this was in response to Jim Crow laws when sheriffs wouldn't issue CCW permits to minorities)

What I care for is that competence of each and every bloody operator is sufficient to assure another individual's safety whilst they are about their own lawful business. That he be made to demonstrate that competence before being allowed unsupervised access. That there are recognized degrees of competence and need that should be addressed. ie squirrel gun vs. Nitro Express.

Actually your opinion is not that far off from the NRAs stance on firearm ownership which is why the NRA has a certification/training process for gun owners: http://www.nrahq.org/education/index.asp. (I am planning on becoming an NRA certified pistol instructor over the next 12 months). Ditto for every firearms manufacturer (all of my firearms manuals have several pages dedicated to firearm safety).

The problem is is that if you leave it completely up to a government bureaucrat to apply subjective measurements you end up with bias and discrimination creeping into the mix. This is why 38 states are "shall issue" states and the balance are not. Please note, however, that "shall issue" does not automatically equate to complete and unfettered access to a firearm. You still must pass the basic criteria spelled out in the Brady Bill as well as any local reasonable restrictions on ownership.

Are people going to make mistakes and accidents will happen? of course, using your comment submit to the same level of basic oversight and safety restriction as the driver of a motor vehicle or operator of any other potentially lethal device in a public environment., even with all the oversight and safety restrictions in place, accidents still happen (an estimated 3 million + every year), folks are still killed (33,808 in 2009) and injured (can't find an exact number for this).

so, ultimately, what you want is, for the most part, already in place.

[Pavulon]

34. Obviously you are unfamiliar with the law...

CCW in MOST states requires a 50 state NCIC check. You will be disqualified in NC if you have a DWI or a simple assault charge. It is ILLEGAL to carry under the influence.

To get the permit you must demonstrate competence. You fire shots at a target, you load, unload, and fire under supervision.

Now competence becomes a poll tax for the anti folks real quick. In the NE it is used to disqualify you (if you dont just bribe your way in).

So basic compotence makes sense to me, but some poon will soon say it is not enough. More training, more money.

So having been through two SSBI checks, one to work in Idaho Falls with things more dangerous than a pistol, having military training on the M9, having an IPSC B rating, having a multimillion umbrella policy (for wife's job), is that enough. Where is the line?

Or do you mean "operator" literally, that is generally a person forwarding phone calls or someone who fell under JSOC at some point? So a Ranger Tab or BUDS pass gets a person a sidearm?

[24601]

30. Yes, I remember reading about the "Bill of earned privileges" that

made up the first ten amendments to the Constitution. My favorite is the First, "Congress shall make no law abridging the speaking privileges of those who actually have earned it. If you don't think, look and speak like me (or the way the regime wants) you haven't earned it and shall remain silent."

Nice revisionist history.

[pipoman]

7. What other rights do you wish

were interpreted as an "abstract right"? You may be worried about "unlawful intrusion of government", I, OTOH, keep a defensive gun in case of the unlawful intrusion of a criminal(S), which is far more likely IMHO.

[TheMadMonk]

18. I don't personally worry about much at all. I was merely pointing out...

...that the intent of the 2nd Amendment had absolutely nothing to do with personal ownership rights, and everything to do with a right to defend oneself in the event that other rights (as defined elsewhere) are abrogated (or abrogation is attempted) by ANY enemy foreign or domestic. And I would probably interpret that rather tightly. While other avenues of redress remain reasonably available, the 2nd doesn't (or shouldn't) permit resistance with deadly force.

Your personal reason for maintaining a firearm is in fact not a constitutionally guaranteed right, as you are quite probably fully aware. The only time you come close to being guaranteed the right to use deadly force as a citizen is in direct defence of life. And I would not deny you this right even though I do very strongly believe that a clumsily wielded pickhandle is far safer (and universally effective) option for home defense, than a firearm in any but the best trained hands. However, the right to defend oneself with deadly force against merely criminal activity (at it's worst extreme, getting away with shooting a kid in the back of the head, simply because he has your PS3 tucked under his arm) is granted entirely on a state by state basis. AND that with the political will, federal law could be enacted to forbid the use of deadly force in the defence of personal property.

Perhaps holistic, would be a better choice of words than abstract. Certainly a shift away from the idea that guns should be automatically considered a first line of defence and an automatically consigned right that has to be forfeited on an individual basis.

[pipoman]

19. Funny how since liberalization

of defense rights and firearms laws crime in the US has been plummeting, what possible justification could you have for declaring self defense only vaguely constitutional?

[TheMadMonk]

23. How dare you demand that a child forfeit his life simply because he has...

...something of yours.

Self defence is defence of the self. Not defence of a cheap (or even expensive) peice of tat that you happen lay ownership to.

It is exatly that marvelous American attitude that the values property over people that creates institutional poverty, gives you insurance that is all take and almost no give.

By exactly your entirely self serving interpretation of the consitution, Atena, Blue Cross, or what the fuck ever, has a perfectly valid constitutional right to protect their property at the expense of your life.

[X_Digger]

24. How dare you demand that a person put his life on the line to ascertain..

.. whether the home invader pointing a gun, knife, or baseball bat at him in the middle of the night is actually serious about inflicting grievous bodily harm or death on the home owner before responding with deadly force?

The home invader solicits compliance on the threat of violence- who are you to not take him at his word?

[TheMadMonk]

26. A PS3 under his arm on the way out the door IS NOT a baseball bat...

...raised above your baby's crib.

Check my previous posts before weighing in. I DO in fact most graciously grant you the right to defend yourself and others when under direct threat of injury or death.

You simply have in my eyes no right to decide that the value of your property ALONE exceeds the value of another's life. I'll point it out again. Exactly that sort of mindset gives you insurers who won't pay out when they should and creditors who will casually ruin you financially over as little as a few cents of debt. It gives you polluters and negligent employers. It gives you a government that destabilises nations and prosecutes wars for profit and openly and unappologetically promotes the monied elite over the penniless poor.

And it gives you a populace that collectively believes: the poor are all worthless welfare queens; that dark skin equates with laziness and criminality; that a cafe au lait complexion qualifies a person for only drug dealing and the most menial of labour; that supporting one's fellow man in a time of great need is a socialist obscenity, but unfairly profiting off him is a virtue if you can get away with it.

Every man for himself, and the devil take the hindmost. America and much of her history summed up in a single rather unpleasant aphorism.

[X_Digger]

33. Who claimed such? That's a straw man of your own making. n/t

[Pavulon]

36. The dude who crawled in my window when I was living near NC State

was white. He sat there and just looked at the barking dog at 2am (or some early as fuck hour) and then looked at me. I had a flashlight and handgun pointed at him. He did not look like a student drunk or stoned. I was a student (hungover ad fuck back from BCT less than 10 days before).

He followed instructions and got the fuck out of the house. He kinda looked like he was going to try to go over to the door and let himself out. I told him to go out the way he came in and he did.

No one got shot. HOWEVER, I am NOT going to fight some meth/cracked out fucker. If he went for his waist line or bum rushed he would have complicated my day greatly. What I DID not know was that NC law allowed me to shoot him dead just for being in the middle of breaking in. Still would not have shot him, even though it was quite legal.

Had a talk with my roommate about locking windows after that.

[pipoman]

25. How dare you put the value of the life of a home intruder

above the safety of my children in the perceived safety of their home. You are quite welcome to trust the good intentions of someone breaking into your home if you like, for the greater good and all that dog shit...help yourself. It is precisely my lawful right to protect my home and those in it with deadly force which keeps those who are desperate, yet smart, from knocking down your door with impunity. So yes, I will not wait for the response of a jury trial upon some human trash who is intent upon preying upon me or my family...I will not ask questions about their intent while crashing into my home...And I will not wait to see what their sad, sad reasons are for putting myself or my family at risk....You're asking me to take this risk without being here in my house yourself to insure no harm comes to me or my family is what is self serving. Do you leave your possessions in your yard for anyone to take? Do you lock your home, cars and business? Why would you do that? How selfish of you, those poor, poor thieves need to survive too...shame on you. Must I really post story after story after sad fucking story of worthless human slime breaking into people's homes or mugging people who comply completely only to be rewarded with a gunshot wound to the head? Must I post those stories? Here's one which happened just 3 miles from my home a few years ago...read it, then come back and tell me all about "entirely self serving"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wichita_Massacre

[TheMadMonk]

27. Your life and property are very different things.

I have NEVER abrogated you the right to defend the first. So don't put bloody words in my mouth.

I reitterate. LIFE AND PROPERTY ARE NOT THE SAME THING. Your example is meaningless. If a gun happens to be in a place to make a difference then that's a bonus.

My original example. A kid shot in the back of the head when he is clearly leaving is an entirely different kettle of fish that is purely the taking of life to secure property.

Talk to the gang bangers and they will give you your own logic back at you. They have to go armed because the other guy does.

[pipoman]

28. OFTLOF

you surely must be kidding. You can't be telling me that gang bangers carry guns because their victims are armed?

"LIFE AND PROPERTY ARE NOT THE SAME THING."

And at what point is the victim able to make the determination that a person breaking into their home intends to harm them? Must I trust the criminal only has the best intentions? Do I trust the criminal is fine with leaving an eye witness?

By putting unreasonable responsibility on an innocent person, particularly in their home, you put that person into a position of having to legally defend their reaction to a complete surprise attack. No, I like policy of siding with the innocent victims. I don't give a shit if someone who chooses to victimize people to take their stuff meets up with the reality of their stupid decision in the form of a bullet. There are laws in most states which prohibit a person from shooting someone who is committing a property crime if nobody is at risk. The minute they decide to break into am occupied dwelling they are endangering the inhabitants.

[TheMadMonk]

29. No because OTHER gang bangers go armed, and because they compete...

...for the same prey they often come into coflict. Cue pipes, pickhandles, chains, knives and guns.

Again I don't deny you the right of self defence and the use of deadly force in situations of appreciable/tangible threat. But when you use imaginary threat (might suddenly notice the witness behind them) to justify using deadly force for what amounts to simple asset recovery, you become no better than the insurance assessor denying a child treatment for cancer for solely financial reasons.

[pipoman]

32. Who makes this determination

of justification? I spent 20 years as a criminal defense investigator. Innocent people who are brought into situations of grand juries and defending actions taken in a split second often use vast amounts of money, their homes, children's college funds...that is if they can afford the very necessary legal council to buy the justice they deserve. I like the system that allows for no prosecution or grand jury if the scenario is apparent...someone with no connection to the intruder protecting their dwelling. You may like the idea of subjecting people who happen to be the unlucky prey of a predator, to a trial and 20/20 hindsight...me, not so much. And I am not talking about an intruder in a unoccupied out building or garage, most places would not excuse killing someone stealing a lawn mower..the minute they break into an occupied dwelling, they are exempt from presumption of merely trying to steal things and are elevated to being a serious threat to the inhabitants of the dwelling. This is the threshold most states require for a justifiable defensive shooting.

[Pavulon]

35. If a person passed the two German Shepherds and the Alarm

(plus the one yippy little bastard my wife has) to enter my home I assume they are not there to steal. Given the opportunity to not shoot them I will refrain, however the law is very clear here.

Bottom line DONT BREAK INTO PEOPLES HOMES or CARJACK them if you dont want to get shot. Very simple.

[TheMadMonk]

37. Bloody amazing. twenty-'level reflexive unthinking responses to a perceived gun grab.

Bugger all response or even acknowlegement of what was actually written.

I think between the lot of you, you've pretty much made the gungrabbers case for them. You're a bunch of children, screaming "MINE" at the top of your lungs and not bloody listening.

You care more for your guns than you do your nation. This is obvious in the very simple fact, that as a group, you are perfectly happy to get into bed with the Republican Party and by proxy support the total trashing of virtually every article of the Constitution and Bill of Rights EXCEPT the one that gives you shiny, noisy toys.

And you only care about that one insofar as it pertains to personal ownership. Your guns might make a difference if the US collapses into anarchy, they won't mean a thing if the Far Right ever does make a move for a total takeover, far too many of the guns you've been ausidiously protecting alongside your own, will be ushering in the New World Order and doing their bit to see their owners come out on top. And half your hunting buddies will cheerfully enumerate your personal arsenals when your names come up, because you always were a bit suss with your liberal, "fag loving" ideas.

I concur 100% with your right to defend yourself against unwarranted intrusion from all quarters, individual and the state. And watchs with absolute horror as your nation sits shitting itself while every single constitutional avenue of redress bar one gets tossed out the window.

The one that remains is meaningless. Any organised action by gun owners today will almost certainly take the country even further to the right.

[Pavulon]

38. One to many bad novels (or pints) my friend..

i shoot competitions so my guns matter this sunday. No one is overthrowing the government there. Its a simple right and an issue that people get all wound up about.

The anti people (anti abortion, anti gay rights, anti gun rights) are trying to take away people's personal choices.

I disagree with that view and see no reason gun law should be a divisive political issue. The Democratic party has made moves to drop the issue from the platform totally.

[pipoman]

39. And I marvel at how

quickly the residents of European Union states and your own were willing to give up your guns over the reflexive, knee jerk, anecdotal perception of nonexistent danger. How quickly people forget the relatively recent European trials which were only overcome by an armed populace. Gun prohibitionists often point to nations with "sensible" gun restrictions and proclaim 'if the US adopted these restrictions they could be more like...blah, blah..', when in fact the US has ALWAYS had higher rates of crime than the countries being compared, even when those countries had unrestricted gun laws. Furthermore the majority of the kneejerk nations have not enjoyed any reduction at all in actual violent crime since their enactment of gun prohibition. Violent crime here in the US and around the world is anchored in poverty, hopelessness, and even racial and religious integration all of which the US has more of than most European nations. I contend that the ludicrousness of gun control will be dragged out into the daylight as the pendulum of perception and freedom swings the other way. We are beginning to see it in Canada right now. There is a movement to vacate the gun registry. Granted it is starting on the right, but is resonating with the far more vast middle and will inevitably seep into the reality of the left. The fact that over the last 30 years in the US gun numbers have steadily increased every single year, yet crime rates have and continue to drop indicate that most of us who advocate for a liberal interpretation of our 2nd amendment are right when we say crime has nothing to do with gun ownership and gun prohibition only removes the ability of prospective crime victims to fight off their attackers.

[callous taoboy]

20. Wonder if the statistic still holds true

that a majority of armed, would-be crime stoppers end up having the gun taken away from them and then turned on them byt eh criminal. That was the majority of cases when I took criminal law classes in the late 80's.

[pipoman]

22. It's never been true

it was Brady propaganda silliness. It simply was never so.

[Supply Side Jesus]

8. I want to read that report...

kid opened fire and the cop detained him! must have been up close and person! good job you lucky bastard!

[gratuitous]

13. Not sure I see what the problem was here

The young man was clearly just acting in the best tradition of the United States, as carefully taught to him all his life. Might makes right. Whoever has the biggest or most weapons wins. And violence is the preferred method of settling disputes, or solving whatever problems ail you. And they arrested him?! They should be pinning a medal on his chest for being such a good American.

Free the Socastee High School 1!

[Roland99]

15. He's obviously a product of the lack of god and prayer in our public schools.