Armed Moron Takes Hostages in Tennessee

[MrBenchley]

"A 26-year-old man with a history of mental problems held at least a dozen college students at gunpoint during a nine-hour standoff before a SWAT team stormed the school building and killed him.
Authorities said the gunman, Harold Kilpatrick Jr., had left a note at his sister's house before the standoff Wednesday saying he "wanted to kill some people and die today." "

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=6&u=/ap/20030918/ap_on_re_us/college_gunman

Thanks to the corrupt gun industry and the GOP, this guy could walk into any gun show in the state and buy guns without a background check.

[Wcross]

1. Morons dead

He was shot and killed by the police. One less moron on the streets.

[MrBenchley]

2. Yeah, but thanks to the corrupt gun industry

the morons that remain there will have no trouble at all getting guns without background checks...

[Wcross]

3. 200 million guns+

A gun doesn't have to be new in order to be used to kill. I wouldn't have a problem with background checks other than the fact that they wouldn't do anything to prevent morons from obtaining guns. If a gun would sell for 250 at a gun show with background check, somebody would be willing to sell it for 350 out of the trunk of a car.

[MrBenchley]

4. That's true...

gun shows don't sell only new guns without background checks...

"If a gun would sell for 250 at a gun show with background check, somebody would be willing to sell it for 350 out of the trunk of a car. "
Good thing the gun show will sell somebody guns to peddle out of their trunk, eh? If only Tennessee had something like a "one gun a month" law...but then that's another RKBA "victory"...criminals can get their hands on guns easily there.

[Wcross]

5. What a pantload!

Just another fantasy from the million mommy crowd!
Go peddle it to Rosie!

[MrBenchley]

6. Better yet...

I'll mention it aloud to Democrats...and let the RKBA crowd yowl in rage...

[Wcross]

7. Democrat = gun grabber?

You imply that people who don't agree with you are not democrats? Explain that to me. You have to be anti-gun to be a democrat? When did you start making the rules?

[MrBenchley]

9. Gee, cross, what does the party platform say?

Oh, that's right, according to one of youu "scholars" it's loaded with "anti-gun venom."

"Explain that to me. "
Gee, who is that publicly expousing the crap the RKBA crowd is trying to peddle down here in the gun dungeon? Why it's John AshKKKroft, Tom DeLay, Orrin Hatch, Ted Nugent, John Lott, etc., etc,. etc.....

Not just Republicans but the scummiest of the Republicans.....

[Wcross]

12. See the new topic

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=11017

The 2000 platform advocated strong gun control- we lost.

2002 update on position.

[MrBenchley]

19. Gee, cross....

Since when is McAuliffe's opinion the party platform?

"The 2000 platform advocated strong gun control- we lost."
And who says it was due to guns?? A bunch of Republicans and some asswipes from the NRA.

[Pert_UK]

8. Stunning logic there, Wcross........

"If we imposed background checks at gun shows it would stop morons buying guns there. The morons would go and get their guns illegally elsewhere. Therefore we should allow the morons to purchase handguns legally at gun shows."

If you follow your logic backwards, I'm almost certain that you'll end up with:

"If our licensed gun shops can't sell guns to convicted murdering psychos, convicted murdering psychos will just buy guns illegally elsewhere. Therefore, we might as well let gun shops sell guns to convicted murdering psychos."

Heaven forbid that we might actually do something to make it HARDER for inappropriate people to obtain guns via legal channels.

Having a law that says that "morons" can't buy guns but then NOT having a law saying that gun shows need to check whether their customer is a moron is tantamount to not having the law in the first place.

[Wcross]

10. In Tennessee-

All gun buyers who buy from dealers must have a background check.


All sales by licensed dealers are subject to a background check. I contend that the majority of crime guns are either stolen or purchased by people eligible to purchase, who then resell on the black market (for an inflated price).

I don't think you or MrBenchley have attended many gun shows in Tennessee. There are private sellers, but selling one or two guns. 99% of the firearms sales are by licensed dealers who do a background check.

Now did I say that this law should be changed? I contend that if a seller could make an extra 100 bucks by selling on the black market, why would they comply with the background check law? They don't have to sell at a gunshow, they can sell on the street.

[MrBenchley]

14. But in Tennessee

lots of people selling guns at gun shows pretend to be "private collectors" and sell without conducting background checks at all.....

And the corrupt gun industry likes it just that way....

"It would be better if Tennessee joined the 16 states that have enacted mandatory safe storage programs, also known as child access prevention (CAP) laws. Such laws make adult gun owners criminally liable if a child obtains and uses an improperly stored firearm. Tennessee also could require registration of guns sold by private individuals at gun shows, now the nation's largest source of undocumented gun sales. Chattanooga could ban from municipally owned buildings gun shows that do not require background checks on private gun transfers. And the police department also could stop reselling its used handguns to dealers, as many cities have done to stop the documented flow of weapons that have been shown to turn up in the commission of crimes."

http://www.timesfreepress.com/2000/aug/22aug00/webgunlocks.html

[Wcross]

13. Forgot to add pert

"If we imposed background checks at gun shows it would stop morons buying guns there. The morons would go and get their guns illegally elsewhere. Therefore we should allow the morons to purchase handguns legally at gun shows."

Nice ASSumption on your part, reading that much into it. Requiring background checks for all firearms purchases would be impossible unless we register all firearms.

Tell us pert, what has happened in England and Australia after the registration process? Perhaps you can tell us about the Sullivan law in N.Y.C.? Why are the Canadiens NOT complying with the registration scheme?Confiscation of course. You can't confiscate until you have the names,address and type of gun owned can you?

I will never register any of my firearms. That is not acceptable to me. You people are advocating making my now current legal behavior a crime, making me a criminal. Do you understand why gun owners might be passionate about defending the right to keep and bears arms now?

Don't ask me to trust you people, your history speaks volumes.

[MrBenchley]

15. Want the answer?

"Tell us pert, what has happened in England and Australia after the registration process?"
Gun deaths and gun crimes in each nation declined to fewer than the number in Fort worth Texas alone....

[Wcross]

17. Murder rate was lower before the confiscation

That was one of your pantloads wasn't it?

wasn't the murder rate lower before the ban?

Lets see some data to prove your statement.Gun deaths and gun crimes in each nation declined to fewer than the number in Fort worth Texas alone....

[MrBenchley]

20. Gee cross....

Suggest you go to the UK gun crime thread...you'll find there were fewer gun crimes last year in all of the UK than there were in Ft., Worth...

[MrBenchley]

21. Gee cross....

Suggest you go to the UK gun crime thread...you'll find there were fewer gun crimes last year in all of the UK than there were in Ft., Worth...

[Pert_UK]

18. Laws change........you have to live with it.

"You people are advocating making my now current legal behavior a crime, making me a criminal."

Laws do change, I'm afraid. For example, the UK had no speed restrictions on motorways (freeways) for years, until it became clear that too many people were dying in high-speed accidents. THE HORROR, a freedom inhibited by an interfering government! And you never used to need a licence for flying a remote-controlled plane......but once people realised that the controllers were interfering with radio broadcasts then you had to obtain a licence to show competence and register your potentially disruptive equipment.........And it used to be legal for men to marry 14 year old girls, but that changed a while back.....or smoke opium......

Laws change to suit the circumstances of the evolving nation....BUT WAIT! Let's take a step back!

"You people are advocating making my now current legal behavior a crime, making me a criminal." - that's not even true! You keep banging on about being a responsible, legal gun owner and yet you wouldn't even be prepared to register yourself and your weapons with the people who enforce laws. This seems to be purely based on a paranoid worry that your guns will be taken away if people know which guns you have and where you live.

You even concede that some legal gun owners will buy a gun, go through the relevant background checks, and then sell it illegally for a profit to someone banned from owning a weapon.....You also concede that registering guns & owners is the only way to stop that....

And yet you, as a responsible gun owner, refuse to even consider a scheme to register legal gun owners and their weapons.....

Personally, I'm not sure whether registration would work and I don't know if I favour it. What I do know is that it seems both selfish, paranoid and irresponsible to reject a measure solely based on your own fear that a gun register's hidden agenda is to deprive you of your guns.

"Tell us pert, what has happened in England and Australia after the registration process?" - well, I don't know about Australia, but I do know about England.

In the modern era, guns & owners have always had to be registered - we had strict licensing and purchasing laws, and laws about gun transfers. If you bought and registered a gun and then couldn't account for it, you were in big trouble (WOW! REPRESSION!). Many years subsequent to gun registration legislation a series of massacres involving legal weapons led to the people and the government wanting to ban the ownership of handguns. Unbelievably, we were actually able to take practical measures and effectively enforce a law because we knew who had which guns.

It's not an inevitable conclusion of a gun register that gun confiscation follows. It enables it if that is what the government decides is necessary to address a problem. Gun ownership is endemic and such a part of life in the US that total confiscation will never happen.......I just can't believe that intelligent people here are saying that it would be a bad thing if someone kept a note of who owned a .22 for personal protection and who had a garage full of weapons for purposes unknown.

[Wcross]

22. History Pert

"This seems to be purely based on a paranoid worry that your guns will be taken away if people know which guns you have and where you live."

Uh- isn't that what happened in England, Australia, and NYC? What me worry? You bet.

[Pert_UK]

23. So what you're saying is......

that you're a law-abiding, responsible gun owner and member of society, except for when society inacts laws that you don't like, in which case you're free to ignore them?

Sorry, I'm not being deliberately confrontational on this, I just can't see another way of putting it.

I accept that you can't have confiscation without registration, but that doesn't entail that registration leads to confiscation. It's like saying, "In order to make an omelette you need to have eggs. I've got some eggs, therefore I'm making an omelette." It's not necessarily true - there are a million other reasons for me to have eggs, and in this case I'm baking meringues.....

The UK never had a culture which encouraged or permitted wide-spread ownership of guns, whereas the US has. The UK tolerated gun ownership and actually did quite well in shooting as a competitive sport, but when the risks became unacceptable then we withdrew the privilege of ownership. Guns are such an ingrained part of US life that this couldn't happen. However, registration WOULD enable the tracking of guns and make it a shitload harder for people to buy 86 guns from a pawn shop and sell them to crooks.

I just find it hard to stomach that the attitude seems to be, "I don't care about the impact on the rest of society. I'm against gun registration because it could possibly lead to my guns being confiscated."

Why do you feel that you are able to ignore a putative law aimed squarely at preventing the misselling of guns to criminals?

[Wcross]

24. Rights vs privilege

"The UK tolerated gun ownership and actually did quite well in shooting as a competitive sport, but when the risks became unacceptable then we withdrew the privilege of ownership."

In the United States, firearms ownership is a right.

[DoNotRefill]

25. Gee....

didn't British troops once try to seize privately owned weapons from Americans? That's why it's a right here... We killed the sons of bitches that tried to take "our privileges" away.

[Pert_UK]

26. Yes and we're coming to get them again.........

Stunning logic.

So following your mental processes, the British should still be carrying swords around in case the Romans try to invade again?

The British, hundreds of years ago, tried to prevent American independence, therefore I should be able to own a gun.

Well....I'm convinced.

[DoNotRefill]

31. I think if you were trying to retake the colonies...

you'd be well served to have lots and lots of guns. Of course, now you Brits prefer to play Poodle to our Pitbull, so I doubt you'd try to take back what was once yours.

I'm not saying that YOU should be able to own a gun, since you're English. I'm saying that we realized that the best way to resist whiny little bitches like King George was to meet them or their troops with assault weapons and blow big-assed holes in them. Gun ownership is part of our birthright as Americans.

[MrBenchley]

29. Learn some damn history, refill

What the British marched to Concord in April, 1775 to try to seize was the patriots' COLLECTIVE armory...

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/ndlpedu/features/timeline/amrev/shots/shots.html

[DoNotRefill]

30. That's odd....

nowhere in your link does it say "collective armory"....and it DOES say that the individual minutemen had taken most of the guns and powder away.

I have a "stockpile" of weapons and ammo. That doesn't mean I own a collective armory.

[MrBenchley]

33. Sure thing, refilll....

They all had individual guns and just happened to stack them up in a bvuilding in Concord and leave them there....

Guess that sort of deep thought is how Mary Rosh gets to seem like a scientist...

[DoNotRefill]

36. I keep some guns in a communal lockup....

at one of my gun clubs, as do many other members. That doesn't mean they are not my individually owned weapons.

[MrBenchley]

38. Peddle it to someone dumb enough to buy it

refill...

[RoeBear]

40. Huh, I thought he was...

...benchley.

[MrBenchley]

43. No, you need a full blown gun nut to have

someone THAT dumb. Try highroadrage.com--those morons will swallow any crap that feeds their fetish.

[RoeBear]

50. Do you get paid for directing...

...people over to that website? I'm sure they appreciate the link.
www.thehighroad.org

[Pert_UK]

27. "Rights vs privilege" my ass.

It strikes me that rather than attempting to address some of the problems associated with casual gun ownership, the pro-RKBA people often just regress back to this "rights" argument.

Personally, I think that it's a weak way out of the argument. Firstly, not everybody accepts that it is a "right" and secondly, even if it is a "right" then it is morally reprehensible to exercise a right without regard to the negative impact you're having.

I believe that people would engage in more constructive discussions and general gun behaviour would be more responsible, if this "right" were treated more like a privilege.

There's no merit or positive contribution to be gained by arrogantly exercising a right without regard to others.

[DoNotRefill]

32. That's easy for you to say...

since it's already a revoked privilege for you.

we'd rather keep our rights, thank you very much.

[Pert_UK]

34. But that's the point, isn't it.....

Not everybody agrees that it's a right.

Plus, as previously mentioned (and wonderfully ignored) there's nothing positive, moral, noble, intelligent, liberal or democratic about arrogantly exercising a right without regard to the effect it has on others.

I might also point out that it's pretty shocking that your sole defense seems to be a repetition of "It's a right so you can't take it away" rather than making any attempt to address my reasonable criticisms of that right.

Rights can be used well or badly and can have positive and negative effects - you don't seem to have any interest about this at all.

[DoNotRefill]

37. Heh...

"Not everybody agrees that it's a right."


And some people think the moon landings were faked. The Constitution says "the right of the people"....that sounds pretty much like a right, and people who argue otherwise are either illiterate or pushing an agenda.

[MrBenchley]

39. Yeah, but look which side the nutcases are on

"people who argue otherwise are either illiterate or pushing an agenda."
Like AshKKKroft, Wayne LaPierre, Mary Rosh, and Ted Nugent....

[DoNotRefill]

42. They may be loony, but...

they're not so stupid as to say "the right of the people" isn't a right of the people...They leave that to people like you, since it's too crazy even for them...

[MrBenchley]

44. You pimp for AshKKKroft and Nugent

and I'll stick with sane people...

[MrBenchley]

28. Not even close to true, cross

as the courts have shown again and again...

[Wcross]

35. Question for ya sport

Amendment 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.


Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


How can the second amendment be a collective right while the fourth is clearly an individual right? People is used in both cases.

[MrBenchley]

41. What a dumb question...

Why do you suppose the fourth makes a distinction between "people" and "persons"?

[Wcross]

49. Not suprised- it doesn't fit with your other ASSumptions.

'people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures'

Secure in their persons means that the people can not be searched without probable cause.

I think I will start a new thread asking just this question- it will be yet another opportunity for you to showcase your intelligence,

[LastDemInIdaho]

11. What would be different if President Gore was in the WH?

Who would you blame then?

[MrBenchley]

16. You tell us, dem....

It's a sure bet the RKBA crowd would still be spreading slander and lies....

[Spoonman]

45. Unarmed man attempts to take hostages at DU......

The battle of wits continues to rage at DU between an unarmed individual and an armed crowd.
The latest tactic by the unarmed has once again been completely refuted and placed upon the "shit-heap" with the rest of the misinformed load of hooey.
The only demands by the attempted bill of rights takeover artist, has been the elimination of gun ownership by all citizens.
The public has yet to give in to his demands stating; "he can't prove shit, so why listen to him."
Stay tuned to this channel for further updates.............

[MrBenchley]

46. Yup, spoon....

Clear to see that in a battle of wits you're completely unarmed.....

[DoNotRefill]

47. Wow...

this is turning into an elementary school playground...

[MrBenchley]

48. Yeah....guess the RKBA crowd has to descend

to the level at which it feels comfortable. It's not like it has any facts....