Police confirm one OSU employee dead, two taken to hospital after shooting

[sinkingfeeling]

Source: OSU Lantern

Two Ohio State employees are in the hospital and one dead after a shoot out occurred them around 3:30 a.m. by the Maintenance Building on Tuttle Park, police confirmed in a press release this morning.

The crime location is secure, with few traffic restrictions around the building. The suspect for the shooting is in custody already and OSU police are investigating the case.

No names have been released, as the family has not been notified of the shooting.

Campus will remain open today as normal.

Here is a video press release from Ohio State.



Read more: http://www.thelantern.com/campus/police-confirm-one-osu-employee-dead-two-taken-to-hospital-after-shooting-1.1260723

---

Apparently no students were involved.

[Doctor_J]

1. 3:30 AM sounds more like street crime than a shooting spree

so I guess this one "doesn't count" :eyes:

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rfranklin]

3. It seems you were first to use this incident as a soapbox...

and call people names...."gun bashers."

(Oh my, those poor little guns discriminated against by those big mean bashers!)

[Cirque du So-What]

5. Yeah, I thought that shit has been declared out-of-bounds

especially outside the containment vessel of the gungeon. Is there NO FUCKING RESPITE from the name-calling bullshit?

[slackmaster]

11. Actually, the rule of civility is enforced much more strictly in the Gungeon than it is in GD

Check back in after this thread gets moved there.

[rfranklin]

12. Still hasn't been moved...I'll check back with you...

soon.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[oneshooter]

4. Gun Free Zone = Target Rich Environment

Another fail of the No Defense Allowed Zone. The injured should be able to sue the school for failing to maintain proper security.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Zoeisright]

13. That is fucking stupid.

Do you have any reasoning abilities AT ALL? Do you know what logical reasoning IS?

Just plain dumb.

[villager]

15. speaking of using incidents as soapboxes...

Entirely predictable, however...

[Lorien]

26. Fear is all that you have, isn't it?

Live by the gun, die by the gun.

[Chulanowa]

30. Blame the victims!

...Because the perp has a gun and is scary!

[Blandocyte]

87. Gun free zone=no peeing section of pool

When the whole crazy country is allowed to own guns, a gun-free zone doesn't mean much. That's why we need a total ban on handguns. It will make them hard to get and drastically reduce the numbers of them. Let's get this rolling!

[X_Digger]

88. Good luck with that *snort*

http://www.gallup.com/poll/123596/In-U.S.-Record-Low-Support-Stricter-Gun-Laws.aspx


You'll notice there hasn't been majority support for such a proposition since oh, 1964.

[DrDan]

6. yet another needless death attributable to our obsession with guns

got a problem at work? turn to a gun.

[MercutioATC]

7. Right...because, before guns, nobody ever died.

We have almost no details. How are you attributing this incident to "our obsession with guns"?

[DrDan]

9. amazing how guns are never to blame for these daily deaths

the NRA has done a bang-up job (pun fully intended)

[proteus_lives]

10. I blame humans for their actions.

I don't think that the tools they used controlled them.

[Flaneur]

19. Humans with guns.

[Toasterlad]

32. Before Guns, It Was Much Harder To Kill Someone

Well over half the murders in this country are committed with guns. But I guess most of those people would still be dead, anyway, right? I mean, it's just as easy to kill someone from 20 yards away by pulling a trigger than to close with them and beat them with a board or stab at them with a knife. In both cases, the victim is equally defenseless, right?

[RaleighNCDUer]

33. No, no, you got that wrong.

Before gun-free zones nobody died.

[LanternWaste]

35. Or fewer died...

Or fewer died I would presume.

[RaleighNCDUer]

36. Actually, that presumtion would be dead wrong. nt

[LanternWaste]

37. More deaths prior to the advent of firearms?

More deaths prior to the advent of firearms? Ooo--kay.

[RaleighNCDUer]

38. Sorry, thought you were referring to my comment on gun-free zones.

Though, admittedly, Genghis Kahn, Atilla and the Roman Empire did pretty well without guns.

But that is a different discussion. This is about personal weapons, not military campaigns.

[True_Blue]

70. Guns don't kill people

it's the bullets that kill people. Maybe we could just make it harder to get bullets.

[Botany]

8. That is less then 2 miles from my house

But I find even more disturbing is the rush to "protect our gun rights"
after one more senseless tragedy sickening and I own guns and hunt too.

Also the we all need to carry guns to protect ourselves from crime
argument wrong on so many fronts.

[movonne]

21. I think some of these gun nuts think that if there is too much of this

they might change the laws..

[cowman]

23. It's a Right

not a law. The only way to change it is through an amendment to the Constitution and then you would have to get 2/3 of the states to approve of it. Good luck with that. The fact is that the vast majority of americans support the 2nd amend. and have no desire to change it.

BTW, I own several guns and rifles and have had a CCW for years and I and the vast majority of gun owners are not NUTS. All you show us by calling us nuts is your ignorance and bigotry and bias.

Your post could have been written by the Brady Bunch or the VPC

[depakid]

27. You have zero understanding of what a right is

which makes your admonition to the above poster just laughable.

[cowman]

39. I know exactly

what the meaning of rights are such as your right to spout crap about me which is protected under the 1st amend. So Oh Great Knowledgeable One, impart your wisdom on what I said was wrong. I'll wait

[depakid]

56. No like most cowardly types who insist on carrying guns everywhere- you don't

Rights are subject both to interpretation and to regulation through which they balanced against state interests and against other rights.

Hence, it's not "your right" to take a gun whenever you want- nor even to own any particular gun that takes precedent.

[Pavulon]

57. Your right to get to this web site can be up in the air..

your government has stated it is willing to strip that right and let you surf like they do in china. The us constitution would make that more difficult here than it would be in OZ.

[depakid]

60. LOL- that'll be the day

And while we're at it- you might as well face facts:

What passes for "news" in America is already censored- and the out right false statements of fact and propaganda people get everyday (especially on radio in the majority of communities across the country) approaches a level of uniformity that one finds in totalitarian nations.

It's not like that in other western nations... where people don't like being lied to.

[Pavulon]

61. Hey 4chan /b is not my thing, but I can get there. You government

is busy trying to block access to just such places. I can get to whatever site I want to, you my friend, may soon find an appliance taking that from you.

[depakid]

62. Not going to happen- but you know what? Even if it did- we STILL get honest news and analysis

whereas your corporate media has created a culture of lies that's so widespread and accepted that people can't even agree on what the basic objective facts on any given issue are!

That along with the "freedom" to shoot family, friends, employers and coworkers- or anyone else you're in a dispute with- like this guy yesterday:

Police said a business deal gone bad was the apparent reason behind the shooting of a 66-year-old father and his 39-year-old son at a North Dallas high-rise Monday morning.

A man armed with a 45 caliber weapon opened fire, shooting Richard Smith and his son Chris after walking into the Smith Financial Group, Inc. office. The business is located on the third floor of the Four Forest building at 12222 Merit Drive near Central Expressway and Coit Road, authorities said.

The alleged shooter was identified as 60-year-old Robert Mustard, Jr., a Southern Methodist University graduate and disbarred lawyer. He was a long-time client of the elder Smith, his financial ad visor.

"This individual knew the victims," said Sr. Cpl. Kevin Janse, Dallas Police Department. "He was either disgruntled at them or had problems with them." According to Smith's family, Mustard walked into their office and said, 'You've taken all my money,' and opened fire.

http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/At-least-2-injured-suspect-shot-in-bank-shootout-86897272.html

[Pavulon]

66. "even if it did" wow...Who died in OZ yesterday? you get the point, i'll spare the google (nt)

[depakid]

67. You persist in lying- which is no surprise

since as I noted- that's become acceptable in your culture. Just has mass shootings have.

Yet another of the 999 reasons the US is a failing nation, and headed inexorably toward third world status. Enjoy the ride!

[cowman]

69. 'wow

he called gun owners like you and me liars. If that's the best he can come up with no wonder him and his gun grabbing buddies are getting their ass kicked on the gun control debate.

Well I guess I'll just have to go ponder his comments and try to figure out what we lied about.:sarcasm: :rofl:

[cowman]

63. No1

I am not a coward, you know jack shit about me, let me tell you something about myself, I served in the U.S. Navy as a Seabee and did a tour in Vietnam, I've been a Firefighter/Paramedic for 35 years, been married to the same woman for 32 years, raised a daughter who is now a police officer, so where to the fuck do you get off calling me a coward, I suspect you are the coward. #2 the state of NV says I can carry a gun wherever I go and I choose to exercise my RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. It sounds to me that you have no grasp on the 2nd amend debate that your side has lost and lost bigtime, too bad so sad. Now if you dont like the 2nd amend, which you make quite clear, then change it with a constitutional amend, let me know when you have the votes. Fact is that gun control is a dead issue and more states are trusting their citizens to carry guns for self defense which in your warped sense is somehow dangerous. How is my carrying a gun a threat to you?

I hve to go for now, my little female sparrow is demanding my attention and she is insistant

[Botany]

29. The more guns "out there" = more gun deaths.

Did you ever wonder why in our history the first thing a sheriff or marshal would do when
he wanted to clean up a town out west was to ban the carrying of firearms? Look if you need
to carry a gun for work that is one thing but to just carry a gun for the sake of carrying a gun
is stupid.

BTW I hunt and own guns .... I also lost a dear friend to gun violence too.

Other countries w/ stricter gun laws have much much lower murder rates. Fact

The odds are better then 20 to 1 if a gun is fired in anger it will be used against the owner of the gun
or somebody the gun owner knows.

BTW read the whole 2nd amendment.

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.

It takes about a well regulated militia being part of the responsibility of owning a gun. Go to a gun store or gun show and just look @ some
of the mouth breathing ya-hoos buying guns and bullets ..... granted there are some upright decent gun owners but the proliferation of
guns in America take a deadly toll on an almost ever day.

**************

Christopher Bryan Sp eight, the 39-year-old man who allegedly shot and killed eight men and women yesterday in Appomattox, Virginia, is at least the 12th person licensed to carry a concealed handgun reported to have committed a mass shooting since May 2007.

According to the Associated Press, Appomattox County court records show a concealed weapons permit was issued to a Christopher Bryan Speight three times between 1999 and last year.

The 11 prior mass shootings are detailed on the VPC's web site, Concealed Carry Killers, an on-line resource, updated monthly, that tallies from news reports of killings by concealed handgun permit holders. Not including yesterday's shooting, Concealed Carry Killers reports that since May 2007 concealed handgun permit holders have killed at least 117 people, including nine law enforcement officers.

Prior to yesterday's shooting, concealed handgun permit holders had claimed 43 innocent lives in 11 mass shootings since May 2007 (in addition, in six of the incidents, the shooter killed himself). Yesterday's shooting brings the total number of innocent victims reportedly killed by concealed handgun permit holders in mass shootings during this period to 51.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-sugarmann/virginia-mass-shooting-mo_b_429841.html

[X_Digger]

40. Actually, these events are decreasing in the face of increasing gun ownership..

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/2009prelimsem/index.html

Since peaking around 1993-4, crime has been in decline for all major indices of measures of violent crime- murder, aggravated assault, kidnapping, rape, property crime, etc.

At the same time, gun ownership has been on a slight upward trend with a recent spike around 2006 (post katrina), and then again in 2008 and 2009.

As the same time, accidental shootings are down.

[Botany]

45. States With Higher Levels of Gun Ownership Have Higher Homicide Rates

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/2007-releases/press01112007.html

Harvard School of Public Health

Press Releases
2007 Releases
States With Higher Levels of Gun Ownership Have Higher Homicide Rates

For immediate release: January 11, 2007

Boston, MA -- Firearms are used to kill two out of every three homicide victims in America. In the first nationally representative study to examine the relationship between survey measures of household firearm ownership and state level rates of homicide, researchers at the Harvard Injury Control Research Center found that homicide rates among children, and among women and men of all ages, are higher in states where more households have guns. The study appears in the February 2007 issue of Social Science and Medicine. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2006.09.024

, Assistant Professor of Health Policy and Injury Prevention at Harvard School of Public Health, and his colleagues and , used survey data from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s 2001 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, the world’s largest telephone survey with over 200,000 respondents nationwide. Respondents in all 50 states were asked whether any firearms were kept in or around their home. The survey found that approximately one in three American households reported firearm ownership.

Matthew Miller, Assistant Professor of Health Policy and Injury Prevention at Harvard School of Public Health, and his colleagues David Hemenway and Deborah Azrael, used survey data from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s 2001 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, the world’s largest telephone survey with over 200,000 respondents nationwide. Respondents in all 50 states were asked whether any firearms were kept in or around their home. The survey found that approximately one in three American households reported firearm ownership.
Analyses that controlled for several measures of resource deprivation, urbanization, aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, and alcohol consumption found that states with higher rates of household firearm ownership had significantly higher homicide victimization rates for children, and for women and men. In these analyses, states within the highest quartile of firearm prevalence had firearm homicide rates 114% higher than states within the lowest quartile of firearm prevalence. Overall homicide rates were 60% higher. The association between firearm prevalence and homicide was driven by gun-related homicide rates; non-gun-related homicide rates were not significantly associated with rates of firearm ownership.

These results suggest that it is easier for potential homicide perpetrators to obtain a gun in states where guns are more prevalent. “Our findings suggest that in the United States, household firearms may be an important source of guns used to kill children, women and men, both on the street and in their homes,” said Miller.

[X_Digger]

49. See other reply re Hemenway's Hits

Hemenway posits correlation where none has been proven.

This is another in a long line of his "studies" having the same problem.

[cowman]

41. And I lost

friends in Vietnam but I don't blame the gun I blame the Pols. that sent us there. By the way the SCOTUS has affirmed the individual right to keep and bear arms

[Doctor_J]

44. This SCOTUS also affirmed that Al Qaeda can pour money into our elections

And that it only takes 5 votes to win a presidential election.

Citing SCOTUS right now is laughable.

[cowman]

47. whether you like

it or not, the gun control battle is esstially over, not even Pres. Obama is going to touch it nor are the Dems in congress, they remember what happened in 94 and more and more states are allowing more gun rights to honest law abiding citizens, face it, support for gun control is at an all time low.

[Doctor_J]

53. Yes, Big Media and the NRA have won the propaganda war

There is also a great deal of support for the theory that Saddam and Iraq were behind the 9/11 attacks, that the president was born in Kenya, and that he is a socialist.

Neither popular opinion nor the opinion of SCOTUS make something right.

[cowman]

55. Doesn't matter if

you think that SCOTUS is right or not, now if you don't like the 2nd amend work to change it. Let me know when you have the votes to do so. Support for the 2nd amend is at an all time high and I sure as hell don't hear congress clamoring for more gun control, could it be because the last time our party tried that we got our asses handed to us and it took us 12 years to take back the house

[RaleighNCDUer]

72. Isn't it amazing that people who rage against SCOTUS on every other

ruling they've made for 10 years think that ONE ruling of extraordinarily limited scope (Heller is relevant only to DC and, by extension, Federally controlled land, such as military bases and national parks) is the highest example of judicial wisdom.

[cowman]

76. That is true

but Mcdonald is about to change that and then King Daly will lose his gun ban in Chicago.

[cowman]

77. I don't get it

are people like you pissed because the SCOTUS is about to rule that the 2nd amend applies to the states as well, or are you pissed because your side has been losing the 2nd amend debate and losing big time? As I have said time and time again, if you don't like the 2nd amend., then work to abolish it with a constitutional amend.. Let me know when you have the votes for that. The gun control issue is pretty much dead, Even Pres. Obamam, because he is a smart politition, wont touch it with a 10' pole and I sure as hell don't hear the congress clamoring for gun control.

You lost, get over it and move on

[RaleighNCDUer]

78. And yet you don't address the statement that a SCOTUS that is wrong on

everything is, suddenly, right on this.

For your information, you are NOT the majority. There are 80 million gun owners in a nation of 306 million. As for gun control 49% want less gun control, 49% want greater - where I'm from that's called a dead heat, not a win.

I believe that the 2nd refers to, in its own words, a 'well organized militia', and am dead opposed the the federalization of the state national guard as being a violation of the 2nd amendment. I believe states have the right to decide how they want to interpret the 'well organized militia' - if the state wants to have its citizens keep their arms at home, fine; if the state wants to have its citizens keep them in central armories, fine - that is the state's decision, not the federal government's. If a state wishes to have a broader unorganized militia, fine. Also their decision, not the federal government's. The constitution says the federal government will not restrict ownership, so the federal government has no say over how the states handle gun control.

[X_Digger]

80. You might want to check more recent polling..

I think your 49% came from the June 2008 gallup poll.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/123596/In-U.S.-Record-Low-Support-Stricter-Gun-Laws.aspx



Less than a majority want more gun control- 44% according to gallup's latest poll.

CNN ran a more recent poll than Gallup- http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/08/gun.control.poll/index.html

"Now, a recent poll reveals a sudden drop -- only 39 percent of Americans now favor stricter gun laws, according to a new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll."

Regarding the individual interpretation, that's the widely accepted opinion, from the public as well.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/105721/Public-Believes-Americans-Right-Own-Guns.aspx

The constitution says the federal government will not restrict ownership, so the federal government has no say over how the states handle gun control.

Would you feel the same way about the first amendment? After all, it says "Congress shall make no law.."

Do you dismiss the fourteenth amendment and the statements of those proposing it, that show that they wanted the bill of rights to apply to the states? (As was happening in post civil war southern states regarding voting, arms, contracts, etc.)

[cowman]

81. Here let

me address so you can rest easy, I don't disagree that the SCOTUS has, in my humble opinion, gotten alot of rulings wrong, they've also got alot of them right, Happy? Also if your side is "tied" then why are gun control laws falling right and left? More and More states are allowing their law abiding citizens to open and conceal carry and why is the Pres. and congress not pushing for more gun control?

Where I live, I can carry one of my "evil black rifles" into our local stores if I wanted to and they welcome us with open arms (no pun intended) because they trust the law abiding citizens, also we don't register our guns like the majority of states don't require registration because they trust their citizens.

What your belief of the meaning of the 2nd amend is apparently is not the belief of the majority of americans who have said quite clearly that the 2nd amend means the individual right to keep and bear arms and now SCOTUS is going to rule that the 2nd amend applies to the states also.
Your side lost, get over it

[beevul]

82. Supreme Court Backs Rights for Terror Detainees

"Supreme Court Backs Rights for Terror Detainees

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that foreign terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have a constitutional right to challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts.

In a 5-4 ruling, the court also said the Bush administration's system for classifying detainees as enemy combatants does not meet basic legal standards.

This is the third time the justices have told President Bush that his plan for handling foreign terrorists violates the Constitution. This time, the president had Congress on his side. In 2006, the Republican-controlled Congress passed a law called the Military Commissions Act. It closed the courthouse doors to Guantanamo detainees and set up a new system for terrorism trials at the camp in Cuba.

The Supreme Court now says the 2006 law unconstitutionally suspended habeas corpus — a prisoner's right to challenge his detention. The ruling overturns a lower court decision that said the law was constitutional.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91425261

Wrong on everything you say? Disagree with decision do you? If so, I guess your "a SCOTUS that is wrong on everything" has some basis.

If not, its disingenuous, dishonest, and inaccurate.





Furthermore, you don't even understand what it is you are talking about...and here you go out of your way to make it clear:

"I believe that the 2nd refers to, in its own words, a 'well organized militia', and am dead opposed the the federalization of the state national guard as being a violation of the 2nd amendment. I believe states have the right to decide how they want to interpret the 'well organized militia' - if the state wants to have its citizens keep their arms at home, fine; if the state wants to have its citizens keep them in central armories, fine - that is the state's decision, not the federal government's. If a state wishes to have a broader unorganized militia, fine. Also their decision, not the federal government's. The constitution says the federal government will not restrict ownership, so the federal government has no say over how the states handle gun control."


What YOU believe, has no relevance to the issue. The fact of the matter, is that the second amendment, like amendments 1 3 4 and 5, is a restriction on government power.

It says so in the preamble to the bill of rights:

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

http://billofrights.org/

In plain language, it says "the states, at the time of adopting the constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent government from misconstruing or abusing the powers granted to it, that further clauses, both declaratory and restrictive and aimed at government, should be added: To make sure the government behaves, and in doing so, will ensure public confidence in the Government.

While the second amendment refers to a "well regulated militia", the right that is protected is a right which belongs to the people.

The applicable restriction on government, is "shall not be infringed".


You can believe whatever you like, but those are facts there, and no matter how many times you mutter "well regulated militia" they aren't going to disappear.

[RaleighNCDUer]

84. I agree up to the point where you say it is about the people -

the 2nd restricts the federal government from banning state militias.

Take out the parenthetical clauses and you have "A well regulated militia will not be infringed." It is the militia that can stand up to an oppressive central government, not individuals. A militia can gather such firepower as would be needed to fend off a federal army. Not an individual. That was the accepted interpretation for 150 years - right up till the time of the rise of the robber barons and their republican enablers who want a stronger federal goverment because it makes it easier for them to control things than having to control dozens of seperate states. Prior to the turn of the 20th century nobody took issue with private ownership of weapons AND, at the same time, nobody took issue with municipalities controling weapons in their own way - it was up to state and local laws, because the federal government was expressly forbidden by the 2nd to interfere. So when Chicago or NY passes a weapons ban, that was their right, just as it was Wyatt Earp's right to collect guns at the edge of town in Dodge.

As you yourself said, the bill of rights is restricting the powers of the federal governement. The only way you can get YOUR interpretation is to simply ignore the 'well regulated militia' - do you really think the founders were in the habit of putting things in the constitution that they wanted us to ignore?

[X_Digger]

85. Arguing intent of the second amendment based on commas is like..

arguing the intent of a stop sign based on the position of the bolts holding it up.

18th century English didn't have the same rules about commas and parenthetical clauses that we use today.

Madison's first draft read-

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

The version passed by the house was-

"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."

The version passed by the senate was-

"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."

The version sent to the states for ratification was-

"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."

Now.. which "version" do you want to stand by? Or will you agree that trying to make grammatical tossed salad based on commas when those rules are a fairly modern construct is silly?

[beevul]

89. You keep twisting and/or ignoring the words.

"I agree up to the point where you say it is about the people - the 2nd restricts the federal government from banning state militias."

The second amendment restricts infringement on a right, which the amendment itself identifies as belonging to the people, namely the right to keep and bear arms.

It is protected from infringement, "because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state". That does NOT mean that the right is limited to exercise by those in a "well regulated militia", nor does it mean that protection from infringement of the right applies only to those in a "well regulated militia". The first half of the amendment, the part which you place so much emphasis on, is what is called a "declaratory clause" by the way. They are referred to here:


THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

http://billofrights.org/


"The only way you can get YOUR interpretation is to simply ignore the 'well regulated militia' - do you really think the founders were in the habit of putting things in the constitution that they wanted us to ignore?"

I have shown you, that I do not ignore the first half of the amendment, as you accuse me of. Furthermore, here YOU are, recorded for posterity, ignoring the meat of it yourself :

"Take out the parenthetical clauses and you have "A well regulated militia will not be infringed." "

You are ignoring the actual protection of the amendment. What is protected, is the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Protected because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.

Which one of us is ignoring some words again?

[X_Digger]

79. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day..

Or three times, apparently- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boumediene_v._Bush

[movonne]

50. I guess I hit a sore spot... if someone does not agree with

you they are ignorant..that is ignorant..

[cowman]

51. Damn right

you hit a sore spot. I get sick and tired of people telling me that I am a danger because I carry a weapon even though the state of NV and the FBI has investigated me and found that I am a trustworthy person. and also when someone thinks that the RKBA is a law and not a right. If that is not what you meant then I apologize.

Gun control is pretty much done, Not even Pres. Obama will touch it with a 10' pole and he pretty much told Eric Holder to STFU about gun control. I have an idea, how about we enforce the more than 20,000 gun laws on the book now rather than plea bargain every fucking gun case

BTW I said you show your ignorance when you call people like me gun nuts.
My daughter learned to handle and shoot guns by the time she was 5 and by learning to respect guns took away the mystic of guns. She is now a Las Vegas Metro Police Officer and a firearms instructor

[truedelphi]

58. Inever thought that I would care one bit about the gun laws in this nation

And then Bush/Cheney took office.

Although I still haven't purchased a gun, I do consider it something I will be doing.

And I've known many non-nutty people who were gun owners.

[cowman]

64. If your

going to purchase a gun I would highly recommend that you go to a gun store that will let you shoot several types of guns so you can choose what is best for you and then take a gun safety course and practice, practice, practice shooting your gun to become proficient with it. Owning a gun is an awesome responsibility not to be taken lightly, and get a good gun safe. Just my friendly advice from someone who has owned and carried guns for many a years

[truedelphi]

65. I was fully intending to do all of that. But glad you

Took the time to point those things out.

I have gotten much great advice on this Board, even help from an odd remark made weeks if not months ago that helped my spouse repair our car two weeks back.

You never know when something you say here helps the other person out a lot.

[cowman]

68. Glad I could

help. My concealed carry gun is a compact Star Firestar .45 Cal. only holds 6 rounds in the mag but I carry 2 xtra mags with me. My home defense weapon is a 12 ga. Winchester pump shotgun. Have never personally had to use either and I pray and hope I never have to, My wife had to hold a burglar at bay one night when I was at work but she didn't have to shoot, when she racked a round the perp hit the floor screaming "please don't shoot me, I give up" when the police got there he was so glad to see them that he actually thanked my wife for not shooting him.

Good luck with your purchase and if you need advice anyone on this site will gladly help you

[wordpix]

14. a shooting per day in a public space---when will we get real gun control?

OK, you NRA loving gun toters - flame away with your defense of the loose "control" laws.

[slackmaster]

18. Let's see some specific ideas

:hi:

[The Hope Mobile]

28. How about the UK system of keeping ALL guns locked at a hunting club?

There would be no street guns! THAT would be awesome!!

[slackmaster]

31. Unconstitutional

:nuke:

[RaleighNCDUer]

34. Not a bit.

That doesn't prohibit someone from owning a gun. It just stores it elsewhere.

When you go hunting you are not 'bearing arms' - bearing arms, in the language of the day, was to carry arms in military service. So 'keep and bear arms' allows ownership, but maintains control of the weapon, while allowing the owner membership in a well organized militia.

Ain't the English language awesome?

[X_Digger]

42. Both Keep and Bear..

You're right, you have to torture the English language to make that fit.

btw, only 20% of gun owners hunt, and the second amendment isn't about hunting.

[cowman]

43. How the hell

do you know what the Founding Fathers meant? Were you there? Your interpertation has been debunked time after time

[RaleighNCDUer]

46. How the hell to you know what the Founding Fathers meant?

Were you there? Your interpretation has been debunked time after time.

BTW, remember Lexington and Concord? The British were after the colonials' armory, where their well-regulated militia kept their arms.

[cowman]

48. Your the

one who seemed to know what the Founding Fathers meant.

Once again, your side has lost the gun control debate, live with it, or try to change the Constitution, good luck with that

[beevul]

83. Heres how we know what the framers meant.

The First 10 Amendments to the
Constitution as Ratified by the States
December 15, 1791
Preamble
Congress OF THE United States
begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday
the Fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

http://billofrights.org/

That passage makes crystal clear - without the slightest ambiguity - what the framers meant.

That dead-ends the direction you'd take the interpretation.

[slackmaster]

73. Please point out what part of the Constitution would give the fedgov the power

To dictate how people store their tools.

[Pavulon]

54. Right after you win the war on drugs.. Then move on.

once coke is banned and weed is a distant memory, then move on to things mentioned in the boll of rights. The UK allows rich people access.

[hack89]

22. After we get real crime control?

what do you suggest as a first step? More laws that criminals will ignore? Or stripping tens of millions of their civil rights even though they have committed no crime?

[Kolesar]

25. The "crime hysteria" message was a powerful political message in the 1980s & beyond

Although the US is a relatively safe place to go out and about and the crime rate has been decreasing for decades due to demographic trends.

[sinkingfeeling]

16. Update: Disgruntled employee shot 2 and then killed himself.

http://www.10tv.com/live/content/local/stories/2010/03/09/story-columbus-ohio-state-mccracken-shooting.html?sid=102

COLUMBUS, Ohio — Police on Tuesday said that a disgruntled Ohio State custodial worker shot two employees before turning the gun on himself.

Nathaniel Brown, a custodial worker, entered a maintenance building located on Tuttle Park Place, just east of Ohio Stadium, at about 3:30 a.m. and started shooting, police said.

Brown, 51, then killed himself, police said.

University administrators said that Brown was a probationary employee who recently received a bad performance review and was going to be dismissed.

[greiner3]

17. Maybe it's that kooky Prof;

That maintains the sun is made of burnable materials. He holds the sun is due to burn out in a few thousand years. He maintains the astronomy, physics, chemistry and cosmology depts. are out to get him because they would not publish his theories. Turns out he is/was a fundy and was one of the first to try to stain the academic (theory) of peer based publications. He's nutty enough to be on either side of this.

[sinkingfeeling]

20. Another update from OSU: Killer targeted his supervisor and 2nd. employee was hit by accident.

http://www.thelantern.com/campus/updated-osu-janitor-kills-a-supervisor-wounds-another-then-shoots-and-kills-himself-1.1260849

There were more than half a dozen employees in the room at the time. According to the 911 call, Brown opened fire in room 107 of the Maintenance Building.

Brown entered the room and specifically asked for Wallington. When he found him, he shot him. Wallington tried to flee and Brown chased him around the room and continue to shoot at him, the source said. Butler was hit by accident.

[LadyoftheRabbits]

52. I used to work at that building

That was my student job last year. I still can't believe this happened... everyone treated each other as family there, and Larry was a long-timer. It's terrible.

[Endangered Specie]

59. But, but, he was in a gun free zone, that isn't supposed to happen!

[murdoch]

71. His boss reprimanded him

Now his boss is dead.

I guess some people don't go in for this system of capitalism where you are a subordinate, dependent on the good grace of your managers and the organization owners for the food on your table.

Sort of like that guy in Alabama who told the woman she wasn't going to get tenure and had to leave - she's dead as well.

I will be shedding no tears for these people. If you want to put yourself in a managerial position where you may be denying people food on their table - watch out for the consequences.

[slackmaster]

74. Yes, just because the guy lied on his application, showed up late, slept on the job,

And didn't do the work, is no reason for that boss to undermine the man's personal dignity.

[Jimbo S]

75. If your employee is a fuck up

that person deserves to be fired.

Don't go demonizing people for doing the right thing.

[Pavulon]

86. Are you kidding, no really?

if not WOW. Ever been to work, done something for money? Yeah. Me too. There are fuckups wherever you go, in the Army, in College, in real life. If a guy sleeps on the job he gets 15ed (military discipline), flunks out, or fired. Those are the breaks friend.

And if you were a fuck up in the USSR, you got sent to the gulags. Not like a noncapatilist system embraces lying, cheating, fuckoffs. In mother russia, free handjobs for the morons amongst us. NOPE.

You picked the wrong side here. Both of those pieces of human shit would have been better off just shooting themselves rather than those who grew tired of their lying incompetent behavior.

[Raskolnik]

90. Seriously? This kind of shit doesn't get deleted?

Really?