Shooting at Police Station

[blastoff]

Been a while since I've read the rule book but I'm pretty sure someone dumb enough to get in a shoot out with cops in a police station forfeits any consideration for a Darwin Award.

 

[beretta304]

You're great in debate and one of the best guys on this forum. Don't waste another minute on them.

Thanks...can we get a room? You're not to shabby yourself.

You disabled your messages.. You know you can set that to where only FRIENDS can message you, right?

I'll check that out and correct it.

 

[Valerie]

Thanks...can we get a room? You're not to shabby yourself.

You disabled your messages.. You know you can set that to where only FRIENDS can message you, right?

I'll check that out and correct it.

Hey why don't you two get a room already

 

[beretta304]

You're great in debate and one of the best guys on this forum. Don't waste another minute on them.

Thanks...can we get a room? You're not to shabby yourself.

You disabled your messages.. You know you can set that to where only FRIENDS can message you, right?

"Me thinks" it's fixed.

 

[Valerie]

You didn't answer my question. THERE ARE GUN RESTRICTIVE LAWS out the butt in New Jersey and yet 3 PEOPLE are dead.. HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE when you liberals state the answer to gun violence is gun control??? Why didn't the criminal obey the laws in New Jersey? Come on liberal.. you want to take away our 2nd Amendment right.. ANSWER THE QUESTIONS.

I have a question for you... Why do you lie and claim anyone wants to take away your right to own firearms for lawful purposes when all anyone is talking about is restricting access to assault weapons...?


I laugh at your illogical standard of PROOF that gun restrictions "don't work" because criminals will always break the law.

Your position is as full of shit as a backed up septic tank. You CLAIM you want to "restrict access to assault weapons", but Fienstien's new bill includes semi-auto pistols and hunting rifles.

Hell, you people can't even decide on a single definition of 'assault weapon'. Going with your penchant for excessive regulation, it wouldn't surprise me if you said ALL guns are designed to 'assault', so therefore ALL guns should be banned.

That's the kind of shit you morons have priors for.

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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." Such language has created considerable debate regarding the Amendment's intended scope. On the one hand, some believe that the Amendment's phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" creates an individual constitutional right for citizens of the United States. Under this "individual right theory," the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional. On the other hand, some scholars point to the prefatory language "a well regulated Militia" to argue that the Framers intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a state's right to self-defense. Scholars have come to call this theory "the collective rights theory." A collective rights theory of the Second Amendment asserts that citizens do not have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state, and federal legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right.





In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court considered the matter in United States v. Miller. 307 U.S. 174. The Court adopted a collective rights approach in this case, determining that Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun that had moved in interstate commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934 because the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated milita . . . ." The Court then explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military.

This precedent stood for nearly 70 years when in 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court revisited the issue in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290). The plaintiff in Heller challenged the constitutionality of the Washington D.C. handgun ban, a statute that had stood for 32 years. Many considered the statute the most stringent in the nation. In a 5-4 decision, the Court, meticulously detailing the history and tradition of the Second Amendment at the time of the Constitutional Convention, proclaimed that the Second Amendment established an individual right for U.S. citizens to possess firearms and struck down the D.C. handgun ban as violative of that right. The majority carved out Miller as an exception to the general rule that Americans may possess firearms, claiming that law-abiding citizens cannot use sawed-off shotguns for any law-abiding purchase. Similarly, the Court in its dicta found regulations of similar weaponry that cannot be used for law-abiding purchases as laws that would not implicate the Second Amendment. Further, the Court suggested that the United States Constitution would not disallow regulations prohibiting criminals and the mentally ill from firearm possession.

Thus, the Supreme Court has revitalized the Second Amendment. The Court continued to strengthen the Second Amendment through the 2010 decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago (08-1521). The plaintiff in McDonald challenged the constitutionally of the Chicago handgun ban, which prohibited handgun possession by almost all private citizens. In a 5-4 decisions, the Court, citing the intentions of the framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment, held that the Second Amendment applies to the states through the incorporation doctrine. However, the Court did not have a majority on which clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the fundamental right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense. While Justice Alito and his supporters looked to the Due Process Clause, Justice Thomas in his concurrence stated that the Privileges and Immunities Clause should justify incorporation.



However, several questions still remain unanswered, such as whether regulations less stringent than the D.C. statute implicate the Second Amendment, whether lower courts will apply their dicta regarding permissible restrictions, and what level of scrutiny the courts should apply when analyzing a statute that infringes on the Second Amendment.

Second Amendment | LII / Legal Information Institute


http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/268296-wheres-the-well-regulated-militia.html#post6514525

http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...-rifles-was-lifted-in-2004-a.html#post6525081

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ible-for-assault-weapons-ban.html#post6522098

 

[konradv]

Three cops reportedly shot inside New Jersey police station | Fox News

Cant wait to hear these comments lol

I thought having lots of guns around prevented that sort of thing!

 

[GuyPinestra]

Three cops reportedly shot inside New Jersey police station | Fox News

Cant wait to hear these comments lol

I thought having lots of guns around prevented that sort of thing!

It certainly prevented this nutbag from killing a bunch of cops!

 

[Plasmaball]

I don't understand?? Assault weapons are banned in New Jersey.. You can't even carry with a permit unless you're in a security role. TOUGHEST gun laws in the nation. LAWS, LAWS, LAWS.. but but.. the criminal didn't adhere to the law? I don't understand? Laws and more laws-- Maybe we should pass laws about passing laws? Maybe the criminal would understand then? Help me out Liberals... How come to the criminal didn't obey the tough gun laws??????

well if he took the gun off the cop, then whats your argument then?

 

[Plasmaball]

I don't understand?? Assault weapons are banned in New Jersey.. You can't even carry with a permit unless you're in a security role. TOUGHEST gun laws in the nation. LAWS, LAWS, LAWS.. but but.. the criminal didn't adhere to the law? I don't understand? Laws and more laws-- Maybe we should pass laws about passing laws? Maybe the criminal would understand then? Help me out Liberals... How come to the criminal didn't obey the tough gun laws??????

A handgun was taken away from a policeman. Just like a handgun can be taken away from a teacher or security personnel at a school. Use you brain...

You didn't answer my question. THERE ARE GUN RESTRICTIVE LAWS out the butt in New Jersey and yet 3 PEOPLE are dead.. HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE when you liberals state the answer to gun violence is gun control??? Why didn't the criminal obey the laws in New Jersey? Come on liberal.. you want to take away our 2nd Amendment right.. ANSWER THE QUESTIONS.

your question is irrelevant to the story so far.

 

[konradv]

Three cops reportedly shot inside New Jersey police station | Fox News

Cant wait to hear these comments lol

I thought having lots of guns around prevented that sort of thing!

It certainly prevented this nutbag from killing a bunch of cops!

The argument has always been that the nutbags look for soft targets, like gun-free zones. Apparently that isn't the case. If the police can have their guns taken, what about armed teachers?

 

[MikeK]

I wonder if this guy gave his life to make a point or if he is just bat-shit crazy to go into a fuckin police station and start shooting

The report says the incident originated as a domestic dispute, which any seasoned police officer will attest is by far the most dangerous type of job they can handle because of the levels of rage and unpredictable behavior they can encounter. This is a prime example of exactly that circumstance.

 

[beretta304]

I thought having lots of guns around prevented that sort of thing!

It certainly prevented this nutbag from killing a bunch of cops!

The argument has always been that the nutbags look for soft targets, like gun-free zones. Apparently that isn't the case. If the police can have their guns taken, what about armed teachers?

Who's gonna take it? Naturally the reply is the shooter. In which case nothing gained or lost but at least there was a chance to prevent more from being killed.

If you read the story which you didn't then you would know he didn't go looking for the cops...he was there already.

"The early Friday morning shooting apparently occurred inside the police station, possibly near a stairwell in the rear of the building. Police said a suspect was under arrest in connection with a domestic violence-related incident when a struggle with officers ensued at around 5:30 a.m. The suspect "obtained a firearm" during the struggle, police sources said. Officers then returned fire, killing the unidentified suspect."



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/2...side-new-jersey-police-station/#ixzz2GNcuw2yU

 

[Plasmaball]

I dont believe that shit one bit

Of course you don't...

You purposely avoid having to answer questions which completely destroy your argument. NJ already has an assault weapon ban in place and even tougher gun laws than the majority of the state.. WHY DID THIS SHOOTING OCCUR???? How did more laws restricting legal gun owners from owning weapons, stop this shooting?? IT DIDN'T. Every liberal on this forum knows the truth. This is a gun grab- abolition of the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms.. it's a power play.. Most Americans see through the agenda and WON'T let it happen.

you stupid or something?

 

[Zoom]

Three cops reportedly shot inside New Jersey police station | Fox News

Cant wait to hear these comments lol

They should arm those cops.

 

[Zoom]

But.....but....but gotta make sure law-abiding Vinnie the Marine Corps Vet can't own a gun in his own house because evil/crazy people shoot people with guns....

Please make sure that marine is not dumb enough to take said gun into Mexico.

 

[Zoom]

So let's see....the police on the scene killed the shooter pretty quickly, but most liberals are against putting 1 police officer in each public school paid for by that state or local community via taxes.

I bet 1 police officer in that Newtown CT school could've prevented the deaths going past 1-10 dead people, which most likely would've only been the front office staff not the kids.

Higher taxes? Oh my god!!!!!

 

[GuyPinestra]

I thought having lots of guns around prevented that sort of thing!

It certainly prevented this nutbag from killing a bunch of cops!

The argument has always been that the nutbags look for soft targets, like gun-free zones. Apparently that isn't the case. If the police can have their guns taken, what about armed teachers?

Ever heard the term 'suicide by cop'? This nutbag was already IN CUSTODY and decided to go out in a blaze of glory.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I wonder if this guy gave his life to make a point or if he is just bat-shit crazy to go into a fuckin police station and start shooting

Nice to see people who don't even read their own links.

 

[catzmeow]

I honestly don't care what they think Beretta.

If that were true, you wouldn't cry and wail so frequently about how much I bully you.

 

[longknife]

1. Officers in the station are supposed to holster their weapons. Those holsters have straps to keep the weapons from dropping out OR BEING TAKEN AWAY.

2. Was the guy in handcuffs? And he was still able to get a gun?

3. Are the cops by chance unionized? That would clearly explain their ineptitude.