PDA

View Full Version : 3 Cops killed in Pittsburgh


gunns
04-04-2009, 01:57 PM
All I can say is WOW

3 officers killed in Pittsburgh shooting


PITTSBURGH (AP) — A man opened fire on officers during a domestic disturbance call Saturday morning, killing three of them, a police official said. Friends said he recently had been upset about losing his job and that he feared the Obama administration was poised to ban guns.

Neighbors described how a quiet street in the city's Stanton Heights neighborhood turned into a battlefield with hundreds of rounds cracking through the morning air and fallen police officers lying bleeding in the street, their colleagues unable to reach them.

Three officers were killed, said a police official at the scene who spoke on condition of anonymity because was not authorized to talk to the media. Police spokeswoman Diane Richard would only say that at least five officers were wounded, but wouldn't give any other details.

Friends identified the suspect as Richard Poplawski, 23, but police would not immediately confirm his name. The gunman was arrested after a four-hour standoff, police said.

The shooting occurred just two weeks after four police officers were fatally shot March 21 in Oakland, Calif., in the deadliest day for U.S. law enforcement since Sept. 11, 2001. The officers were the first Pittsburgh city officers to die in the line of duty in 18 years.

Neighbors said the shooting began at about 7 a.m. and that two officers were shot almost immediately.

"When I looked down I saw two police officers laying in the street," said Don Sand, who lives across the street and was awoken by the sound of gunfire.

A short time later, more officers, SWAT teams and other law enforcement arrived and a third officer was shot, Sand said.

"They couldn't get the scene secure enough to get to them. They were just lying there bleeding," Sand said. "By the time they secured the scene enough to get to them it was way too late."

Gail Moschetti, who lives diagonally across the street from the Poplawski house, said she heard hundreds of shots as she and her husband took refuge in their basement. Tom Moffitt, 51, a city firefighter who lives two blocks away, said he came to the scene and heard "hundreds, just hundreds of shots."

Police planned to release more details at a mid-afternoon news conference Saturday.

Edward Perkovic said Poplawski, his best friend, feared "the Obama gun ban that's on the way" and "didn't like our rights being infringed upon." Another longtime friend, Aaron Vire, said Poplawski feared that President Barack Obama was going to take away his rights, though he said he "wasn't violently against Obama."

Perkovic, 22, said he got a call at work from him in which he said, "Eddie, I am going to die today. ... Tell your family I love them and I love you."

Perkovic said: "I heard gunshots and he hung up. ... He sounded like he was in pain, like he got shot."

Vire, 23, said Poplawski once had an Internet talk show but that it wasn't successful. Vire said Poplawski had an AK-47 rifle and several powerful handguns, including a .357 Magnum.

Another friend, Joe DiMarco, said Poplawski had been laid off from his job at a glass factory earlier this year. DiMarco said he didn't know the name of the company, but knew his friend had been upset about losing his job.

The last Pittsburgh police officers killed in the line of duty were Officers Thomas L. Herron and Joseph J. Grill, according to a Web site that tracks police killings. They died after their patrol car collided with another vehicle while chasing a stolen car on March 6, 1991.

According to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, 133 law enforcement officers died in the line of duty in 2008, a 27 percent decrease from year before and the lowest annual total since 1960.

Poplawski had often fought with neighbors and had even gotten into fistfights with a couple, Sand said.

"This is a relatively really quiet neighborhood except for him," Sand said. "He was just one of those kids that we knew to stay clear from."

Rob Gift, 45, who lives a block away, said the well-kept single-family houses with manicured lawns are home to many police officers, firefighters, paramedics and other city workers.

"It's just a very quiet neighborhood," Gift said.

TDmvp
04-04-2009, 01:58 PM
queue the moron crew...

Los Broncos
04-04-2009, 01:59 PM
I found it funny that the thread starters name is Gunns.

But cops dying is never, thats to bad.

Spider
04-04-2009, 02:01 PM
where in the hell is certain Baltimore cop that doesnt like being called dude and a certain Dallas Cop when you need them ?

Spider
04-04-2009, 02:04 PM
Dick Cheney with alot of botox ?

atomicbloke
04-04-2009, 02:09 PM
So in order to protect his second amendment rights, he shot and killed our defenders of society.

Remind me how wonderful the second amendment is and how we should be so proud of it.....

gunns
04-04-2009, 02:13 PM
I found it funny that the thread starters name is Gunns.

But cops dying is never, thats to bad.

Anyone dying is never funny. And the gunns is in reference to Elways arms.

Florida_Bronco
04-04-2009, 02:17 PM
So in order to protect his second amendment rights, he shot and killed our defenders of society.

Remind me how wonderful the second amendment is and how we should be so proud of it.....

You just won't quit will you?

Give it up already.

Los Broncos
04-04-2009, 02:33 PM
Anyone dying is never funny. And the gunns is in reference to Elways arms.

Am not making fun of your name just the two didn't go together.

TonyR
04-04-2009, 02:35 PM
Ten posts in and nobody's blamed Obama yet?

baja
04-04-2009, 02:44 PM
Anyone dying is never funny. And the gunns is in reference to Elways arms.

Damn here I always thought it was a nick name for your boobs.

Florida_Bronco
04-04-2009, 03:23 PM
What a sad month for law enforcement.

19Morton77
04-04-2009, 03:51 PM
So in order to protect his second amendment rights, he shot and killed our defenders of society.

Remind me how wonderful the second amendment is and how we should be so proud of it.....

Dont make it political. Guns save people everyday by using it as protection. The irony of the story is that he just lost his right to bear arms forever. Obama didnt have to sign one iota of legislature to relief him of his "god given" right. A young, stupid radical. Every group has them but this one went to the extreme.

Spider
04-04-2009, 03:54 PM
Dont make it political. Guns save people everyday by using it as protection. The irony of the story is that he just lost his right to bear arms forever. Obama didnt have to sign one iota of legislature to relief him of his "god given" right. A young, stupid radical. Every group has them but this one went to the extreme.

The entire shooting was political ........ But it and the old folks home , Malls , School shootings , Drive bys etc ........ Make a good argument for gun control.And no Guns dont save people everyday , I like to know where you got that

Bronco Bob
04-04-2009, 03:56 PM
Ten posts in and nobody's blamed Obama yet?

The guy that shot the cops already did.

Edward Perkovic said Poplawski, his best friend, feared "the Obama gun ban that's on the way" and "didn't like our rights being infringed upon."
Another longtime friend, Aaron Vire, said Poplawski feared that President Barack Obama was going to take away his rights, though he said he
"wasn't violently against Obama."

cutthemdown
04-04-2009, 03:56 PM
Honestly if not for guns cops would make what? maybe 20 grand less a yr. it's the fact you can get killed that makes it so dangerous.

Still don't more cops get killed in traffic collisions then by bullets?

cutthemdown
04-04-2009, 03:58 PM
What a sad month for law enforcement.

It really goes back further then a month. It's been a bad yr so far for police. From getting shot, to shooting the wrong people.

Spider
04-04-2009, 03:59 PM
Honestly if not for guns cops would make what? maybe 20 grand less a yr. it's the fact you can get killed that makes it so dangerous.

Still don't more cops get killed in traffic collisions then by bullets?

good question ....... I dont know ........ living where I do and the job i have ,i have seen some Troopers cruisers get totaled , mainly winter time ......

19Morton77
04-04-2009, 04:12 PM
The entire shooting was political ........ But it and the old folks home , Malls , School shootings , Drive bys etc ........ Make a good argument for gun control.And no Guns dont save people everyday , I like to know where you got that

guns are used as a deterent at least 2 million times a year. Divide that by 365 days and see the number you get. Make it just 100000 times in a year and you get 275 times a day. Attempted burglary, robbery, mugging, etc happens every minute of the day. You dont think at least one of those is stopped by someone with a gun for protection? Get real. Even places that have concealed weapons laws lax for ordinary citizens have shown that crime goes down as the criminal has at least enough sense to know that one public bystander is packing. You can go ahead and add another 10k laws to stop citizens from owning guns. You let me know when the criminals will turn in theirs. I guess if they offer a couple of Raider tickets to a home game then they will be racing down to the police station to obey the law.

Spider
04-04-2009, 04:19 PM
guns are used as a deterent at least 2 million times a year. Divide that by 365 days and see the number you get. Make it just 100000 times in a year and you get 275 times a day. Attempted burglary, robbery, mugging, etc happens every minute of the day. You dont think at least one of those is stopped by someone with a gun for protection? Get real. Even places that have concealed weapons laws lax for ordinary citizens have shown that crime goes down as the criminal has at least enough sense to know that one public bystander is packing. You can go ahead and add another 10k laws to stop citizens from owning guns. You let me know when the criminals will turn in theirs. I guess if they offer a couple of Raider tickets to a home game then they will be racing down to the police station to obey the law. dont tell me what you think , show me proof, never mind the fact that if Guns did work you wouldnt have these crimes happening ......Show me where Guns stop these crimes ......or saved Millins of lives every day ......

oubronco
04-04-2009, 04:24 PM
So in order to protect his second amendment rights, he shot and killed our defenders of society.

Remind me how wonderful the second amendment is and how we should be so proud of it.....

:thumbsup:

cutthemdown
04-04-2009, 04:40 PM
good question ....... I dont know ........ living where I do and the job i have ,i have seen some Troopers cruisers get totaled , mainly winter time ......

As bad as cop getting shot is, I think it get's sensationalized and then police agencies use it to say more money for the budget.

I sometimes wonder if maybe some better training driving the cars, safer cars, new rules to high speed chases, wouldn't save more police lives then a bun on guns.

Still domestic disturbance calls are a cops most hated job for a reason. It's just not safe walking up with holstered guns into an environment where someone is out of there minds with rage or anger. It's probably the most unpredictable situation cops have to do on a regular basis.

If I was a cop I would try to get into anything but patrol officer. How often do you hear of a detective getting shot? not very often.

UberBroncoMan
04-04-2009, 05:17 PM
So in order to protect his second amendment rights, he shot and killed our defenders of society.

Remind me how wonderful the second amendment is and how we should be so proud of it.....

Because every dictatorship, authoritarian rule, and communist society bans guns to prevent uprising. It was put into our Constitution by our founding fathers because they knew it would help prevent political takeover down the road. The government is supposed to fear the people in our society, not the other way around. Once the people as a whole fear the government, the government owns you.

As Joseph Stalin said, "We don't let people have guns, so why should we let them have ideas."

Basically, meaning no guns, and no free thinking (aka fairness doctrine).

As for what happened here. The guy was obviously had mental issues. Besides once you take away guns from the honest folk, criminals will still get their hands on them via smuggling unless we instituted mass capital punishment to prevent it... again like dictatorships and communist societies.

Spider
04-04-2009, 05:39 PM
Because every dictatorship, authoritarian rule, and communist society bans guns to prevent uprising. It was put into our Constitution by our founding fathers because they knew it would help prevent political takeover down the road. The government is supposed to fear the people in our society, not the other way around. Once the people as a whole fear the government, the government owns you.

As Joseph Stalin said, "We don't let people have guns, so why should we let them have ideas."

Basically, meaning no guns, and no free thinking (aka fairness doctrine).

As for what happened here. The guy was obviously had mental issues. Besides once you take away guns from the honest folk, criminals will still get their hands on them via smuggling unless we instituted mass capital punishment to prevent it... again like dictatorships and communist societies.

I see so if we dont have guns we dont have Ideas .......... Amazing what you learn on line isnt it .......

frerottenextelway
04-04-2009, 05:46 PM
Because every dictatorship, authoritarian rule, and communist society bans guns to prevent uprising. It was put into our Constitution by our founding fathers because they knew it would help prevent political takeover down the road. The government is supposed to fear the people in our society, not the other way around. Once the people as a whole fear the government, the government owns you.

As Joseph Stalin said, "We don't let people have guns, so why should we let them have ideas."

Basically, meaning no guns, and no free thinking (aka fairness doctrine).

As for what happened here. The guy was obviously had mental issues. Besides once you take away guns from the honest folk, criminals will still get their hands on them via smuggling unless we instituted mass capital punishment to prevent it... again like dictatorships and communist societies.

Wow.

First off, many free nations have bans on guns. I believe even most police don't carry guns in England. I would hardly call them a dictatorship or a communist society, but whatever.

Second, if you believe that the Constitution is a "living breathing document", then one should believe that it does provide gun rights to its citizens. That is my belief. But the irony is outstanding for the average person on the Right who believe that the ''living breathing document'' is some librul b.s. but then use just that to justify their pet cause.

Spider
04-04-2009, 05:49 PM
Wow.

First off, many free nations have bans on guns. I believe even most police don't carry guns in England. I would hardly call them a dictatorship or a communist society, but whatever.

Second, if you believe that the Constitution is a "living breathing document", then one should believe that it does provide gun rights to its citizens. That is my belief. But the irony is outstanding for the average person on the Right who believe that the ''living breathing document'' is some librul b.s. but then use just that to justify their pet cause.

LOL ......

houghtam
04-04-2009, 05:51 PM
Whatever your belief on gun control, you can't make the claim that this wack-job helped his own argument in the least.

Personally, I don't think there's any reason for a regular citizen to own a high-powered rifle, assault rifle, or large calibre handgun. You can hunt just fine with something less, and you're not any safer in your home with a .44 magnum than you are with a 9mm.

Cmac821
04-04-2009, 07:33 PM
I found it ironic that a person name GUNNS posted this.

Rohirrim
04-04-2009, 08:19 PM
The question is not should Americans be allowed to own guns. I think the 2nd Amendment is pretty much settled law as far as that goes. The question is, should Americans be allowed to own military-class weapons (like the AK-47) with armor piercing rounds?

Florida_Bronco
04-04-2009, 08:47 PM
The question is not should Americans be allowed to own guns. I think the 2nd Amendment is pretty much settled law as far as that goes. The question is, should Americans be allowed to own military-class weapons (like the AK-47) with armor piercing rounds?

I don't think there is really anything you can do to stop it. Clinton tried the assault weapon ban and it, for the most part, failed. Plus, there are already so many of them out there that even if you pass another AWB you still have to deal with the ones already sold over the past few decades.

And besides, as tragic as these shootings are, they usually aren't done with assault rifles. This shooting was, but we had the 7 people killed in the nursing home with a hunting rifle.

UberBroncoMan
04-04-2009, 08:57 PM
Wow.

First off, many free nations have bans on guns. I believe even most police don't carry guns in England. I would hardly call them a dictatorship or a communist society, but whatever.

Second, if you believe that the Constitution is a "living breathing document", then one should believe that it does provide gun rights to its citizens. That is my belief. But the irony is outstanding for the average person on the Right who believe that the ''living breathing document'' is some librul b.s. but then use just that to justify their pet cause.

First of to Popps, the ideas has nothing to do with the guns at present, it's just the next step after guns are taken. Secondly, I've lived in Europe and have friends from England etc. They think gun bans are stupid (as well as their health care), and since they don't have guns, they still do have gun murders (since criminals find a way to get them), but some of the most knifing kills in all of Europe. If you're going to kill, you'll find a way to do it. The Constitution was put in place for a reason and pretty much all the original amendments have proven to stand the test of time, and could do so forever. Additions, like womens suffrage etc, were great and needed. We're already heading down a socialist path, so all it would take is one wackjob president, with no checks and balances (ie. all one party in house, senate), to **** us and redo this nation to the whims of the people in power rather than the PEOPLE of the nation. Guns are an important right of Americans and for people who want to conform with socialist Europe, go move there now, or wait a few more years because that's what this nation is going to become.

UberBroncoMan
04-04-2009, 08:59 PM
The question is not should Americans be allowed to own guns. I think the 2nd Amendment is pretty much settled law as far as that goes. The question is, should Americans be allowed to own military-class weapons (like the AK-47) with armor piercing rounds?

Most American's don't own Assault rifles lol.

Hell we've got a ****ing World War II M1 Garand at our place.

Also, AK-47's are EVERYWHERE. If you want one you can get one. They're cheap, don't break easy, and accurate. As for if people should have em? If they haven't been convicted of a crime that would make you say... this guy can't be trusted, then go for it.

in awe
04-04-2009, 09:27 PM
In my oppinion I put a lot of blame for this on Fox News. Guys like Hannity repeatedly perpetuate the idea that Obama will ban guns. Among other things he stresses the "Pennsylvania people cling to their guns..." remark.

Fox News gets these radical idiots riled up with bias ridiculous remarks. The higher their ratings continue to get the more likely these incidents will occur.

Spider
04-04-2009, 09:40 PM
UberBroncoMan I have faced it all at one point and time , guns , knives , clubs , brass knuckles ,hell I even had a guy pull a slap jack one night , one thing all of the encounters have in common ........... I put myself in those situations , for example Walking around @ 3:00 am near Alameda and I 10 in LA and being white as a cotton ball , or 144 th and Broadway in Harlem , or hells kitchen in Brooklyn or on the west end of Flatbush ave in Brooklyn , hell i dont even know where I was in Miami all I know is I am the only one that spoke english , if I had stayed in my truck , I wouldnt have been in those situations ....... Just like when I cross the border from El Paso to Old Mex , I put myself in that situation .........

Spider
04-04-2009, 09:43 PM
and i got out of every one of those situations without a gun ......Just something to think about

Gort
04-04-2009, 10:19 PM
Wow.

First off, many free nations have bans on guns. I believe even most police don't carry guns in England. I would hardly call them a dictatorship or a communist society, but whatever.

Second, if you believe that the Constitution is a "living breathing document", then one should believe that it does provide gun rights to its citizens. That is my belief. But the irony is outstanding for the average person on the Right who believe that the ''living breathing document'' is some librul b.s. but then use just that to justify their pet cause.

nobody on the right believes that the constitution is a "living breathing document". that term was dreamed up by the left and basically it means that the constitution means whatever you want it to mean. the right believes that the constitution means exactly and only what the founding fathers intended it to. that's why constitutional arguments are conducted as follows... the left cites international law and modern law for their interpretations and the right cites the writings of the founding fathers.

Spider
04-04-2009, 10:24 PM
nobody on the right believes that the constitution is a "living breathing document". that term was dreamed up by the left and basically it means that the constitution means whatever you want it to mean. the right believes that the constitution means exactly and only what the founding fathers intended it to. that's why constitutional arguments are conducted as follows... the left cites international law and modern law for their interpretations and the right cites the writings of the founding fathers.

both right and left cities are guilty of making the constitution fit their needs .....

Popps
04-04-2009, 10:33 PM
both right and left cities are guilty of making the constitution fit their needs .....

QFT

Bronco Bob
04-04-2009, 11:07 PM
Because every dictatorship, authoritarian rule, and communist society bans guns to prevent uprising. It was put into our Constitution by our founding fathers because they knew it would help prevent political takeover down the road. The government is supposed to fear the people in our society, not the other way around. Once the people as a whole fear the government, the government owns you.

As Joseph Stalin said, "We don't let people have guns, so why should we let them have ideas."

Basically, meaning no guns, and no free thinking (aka fairness doctrine).

As for what happened here. The guy was obviously had mental issues. Besides once you take away guns from the honest folk, criminals will still get their hands on them via smuggling unless we instituted mass capital punishment to prevent it... again like dictatorships and communist societies.

Let's be realistic. The government has F22 fighter jets, M1 Abrams tanks,
Predator drones, Apache helicopters. What good is your 45 automatic
against those? If the government declared martial law and began
rounding up people, explain how your having a gun is going to stop them.
Everybody and their brother had a gun in Iraq. You could buy a gun
in Iraq from a street vendor like you can buy a hot dog here in the US.
When the US invaded Iraq, what good did their guns do for the Iraqis?

~Crash~
04-04-2009, 11:16 PM
I found it funny that the thread starters name is Gunns.

But cops dying is never, thats to bad.



I never met a gun that killed anyone . People kill people .

Rock Chalk
04-04-2009, 11:17 PM
dont tell me what you think , show me proof, never mind the fact that if Guns did work you wouldnt have these crimes happening ......Show me where Guns stop these crimes ......or saved Millins of lives every day ......

How hard Spider, is it for you to go do a google search on the topic?

Crime went down in Texas after they passed the concealed weapons law. Violent crime went down. It spiked briefly with teh criminals Houston and Dallas got from New Orleans after Katrina, but overall the crime levels went down.

The 2nd amendment is there for the people to protect themselves. Originally it wasnt intended for them to protect themselves from criminals but from politicians and the government which, I guess is just a synonym for Criminals. But each American should have the right.

Criminals do not obey the law. Restricting American's rights to own guns only empowers criminals as they will not turn in their guns. With open borders like we have, even if you ban the sale of guns everywhere in the US to citizens, guns will still exist and be smuggled in and used in crimes and then the citizens will live in fear.

With every right, comes the risk of danger. We have the right to drive cars in this country and with that right comes the risk that someone out there may kill you with their car. Drunk or sober. It happens EVERY DAY.

More people die from sober, legal driving citizens every day in car accidents than from legal gun owners with a bone to pick. Yet gun responsible gun owners are villified by the moronic, uneducated, illogical people in this country.

~Crash~
04-04-2009, 11:20 PM
poison, bombs, gas grenades take you choice ... lol knives .no guns an I bet they will sell 1000's more gallons more anti freeze

~Crash~
04-04-2009, 11:23 PM
man this watter taste sweet .....

~Crash~
04-04-2009, 11:24 PM
I am really not feeling good.

~Crash~
04-04-2009, 11:24 PM
uggggggggggggggggggggggggggg.......

SouthStndJunkie
04-05-2009, 12:24 AM
I think the 24/7/365 news media replaying every incident over and over ad nauseam does not help....and in a way it hurts, as I think other goofballs see how much attention it gets and know if they do something similar, they will get similar coverage.

Unfortunate incidents like this are not a new phenomenon....they are just covered and replayed 24 hours a day....where 30 years ago, it would have been in the paper for a few days and on the news once a night for a few days.

Florida_Bronco
04-05-2009, 12:48 AM
I think the 24/7/365 news media replaying every incident over and over ad nauseam does not help....and in a way it hurts, as I think other goofballs see how much attention it gets and know if they do something similar, they will get similar coverage.

Unfortunate incidents like this are not a new phenomenon....they are just covered and replayed 24 hours a day....where 30 years ago, it would have been in the paper for a few days and on the news once a night for a few days.

Yeah, these incidents usually happen in groups...ie copycat crimes.

UberBroncoMan
04-05-2009, 02:52 AM
Let's be realistic. The government has F22 fighter jets, M1 Abrams tanks,
Predator drones, Apache helicopters. What good is your 45 automatic
against those? If the government declared martial law and began
rounding up people, explain how your having a gun is going to stop them.
Everybody and their brother had a gun in Iraq. You could buy a gun
in Iraq from a street vendor like you can buy a hot dog here in the US.
When the US invaded Iraq, what good did their guns do for the Iraqis?

I'm from a military family. The military takes an oath to UPHOLD the CONSTITUTION... and if the president or something came into power the military would actually fight it if they followed their oath and understood the true purpose of the military. The military serves the commander and chief, but the commander and chief is secondary to the Constitution. Also, you don't see F22's and M1 Abrams doing much in close quarter combat or guerrilla warfare. I doubt we'd blow the **** out of our own country to if the people rose up against the government. You really don't get how things would work. If the government attempted to round people up, much of the military would defect IF the top generals didn't actually go against the president/whoever is in power. You make it sound so simple, but it really isn't that way. We have guns, and that means tons of people would die if they tried to put people into camps and **** etc... and again, this is why nations who want COMPLETE control over their people with no possibility for a revolt to over throw their power, make sure the people don't have guns. I've studied this stuff all over the place, I know military tactics, I adore military history, and my family on the father's side is generation after generation of officers. Hell one of my Uncles (by marriage) is ex Israeli Special Forces, and I've learned some stuff from that too. Guns are what keeps this nation free. Once they are taken away, the people on top can do whatever the hell else they want and there isn't a damn thing we can do. To control a nation, you take away liberties and powers that people have, one by one, until they are left with nothing.

SportinOne
04-05-2009, 03:44 AM
Because every dictatorship, authoritarian rule, and communist society bans guns to prevent uprising. It was put into our Constitution by our founding fathers because they knew it would help prevent political takeover down the road. The government is supposed to fear the people in our society, not the other way around. Once the people as a whole fear the government, the government owns you.

As Joseph Stalin said, "We don't let people have guns, so why should we let them have ideas."

Basically, meaning no guns, and no free thinking (aka fairness doctrine).

As for what happened here. The guy was obviously had mental issues. Besides once you take away guns from the honest folk, criminals will still get their hands on them via smuggling unless we instituted mass capital punishment to prevent it... again like dictatorships and communist societies.

Couldn't have said it better. And I want to reiterate the fact that this guy was NOT any sort of activist nor was he making any sort of political statement. His friends were the ones who chimed in afterward, but he did nothing during this "demonstration" to indicate any sort of purpose other than cold blooded killing. It just seems like the guy had a lot of issues.

Spider
04-05-2009, 04:46 AM
How hard Spider, is it for you to go do a google search on the topic?

Crime went down in Texas after they passed the concealed weapons law. Violent crime went down. It spiked briefly with teh criminals Houston and Dallas got from New Orleans after Katrina, but overall the crime levels went down.

The 2nd amendment is there for the people to protect themselves. Originally it wasnt intended for them to protect themselves from criminals but from politicians and the government which, I guess is just a synonym for Criminals. But each American should have the right.

Criminals do not obey the law. Restricting American's rights to own guns only empowers criminals as they will not turn in their guns. With open borders like we have, even if you ban the sale of guns everywhere in the US to citizens, guns will still exist and be smuggled in and used in crimes and then the citizens will live in fear.

With every right, comes the risk of danger. We have the right to drive cars in this country and with that right comes the risk that someone out there may kill you with their car. Drunk or sober. It happens EVERY DAY.

More people die from sober, legal driving citizens every day in car accidents than from legal gun owners with a bone to pick. Yet gun responsible gun owners are villified by the moronic, uneducated, illogical people in this country.

LOL and crime went way down in new York city after Gulliani took over without passing a gun permit ...... how come ?

Spider
04-05-2009, 04:47 AM
Couldn't have said it better. And I want to reiterate the fact that this guy was NOT any sort of activist nor was he making any sort of political statement. His friends were the ones who chimed in afterward, but he did nothing during this "demonstration" to indicate any sort of purpose other than cold blooded killing. It just seems like the guy had a lot of issues.

Hilarious! wow

27atwater
04-05-2009, 06:08 AM
Wonderful...I work in a PA prison and we're still dealing w/ the cops that got killed by the Philly parolees last year. I wonder what changes will come out of this too...

frerottenextelway
04-05-2009, 09:12 AM
nobody on the right believes that the constitution is a "living breathing document". that term was dreamed up by the left and basically it means that the constitution means whatever you want it to mean. the right believes that the constitution means exactly and only what the founding fathers intended it to. that's why constitutional arguments are conducted as follows... the left cites international law and modern law for their interpretations and the right cites the writings of the founding fathers.

"Living breathing document" means to take a law as it was intended and apply it to modern society as reasonably as possible. It is necessary to believe in this to believe in that civilians have a Constitutional right to own guns. You can't pick and choose on this.

Gort
04-05-2009, 09:57 AM
"Living breathing document" means to take a law as it was intended and apply it to modern society as reasonably as possible. It is necessary to believe in this to believe in that civilians have a Constitutional right to own guns. You can't pick and choose on this.

no its not. the founding fathers writings are very clear that they intended the right to own guns was absolute when they wrote the 2nd amendment.

Florida_Bronco
04-05-2009, 10:12 AM
LOL and crime went way down in new York city after Gulliani took over without passing a gun permit ...... how come ?

He busted his ass and took down the mob.

houghtam
04-05-2009, 10:14 AM
no its not. the founding fathers writings are very clear that they intended the right to own guns was absolute when they wrote the 2nd amendment.

Everything in the Constitution is open to interpretation. We know they intended for us to be able to bear arms, that much is clear. But what is meant by arms? You didn't see many colonists setting up cannon in their front yard just because the Constitution said they could do it. My question is, if the founding fathers knew how far technology would progress, would they have meant it as you can own ANY gun?

That I'm not so sure about.

But to say that the Constitution isn't open to any interpretation is kind of ignorant, because it's far from clear, and as far as legal documents go, I've seen better ones written in a more clear and concise manner by first year law students. That reason alone leads me to believe that the framers of the Constitution had no idea things would progress as they have, which in turn makes me think it's not entirely out of the question to view the document in the context of modern society.

Spider
04-05-2009, 10:21 AM
He busted his ass and took down the mob.

gasp!!!!!!!!!!!!! you mean he didnt arm everyone ?

frerottenextelway
04-05-2009, 10:42 AM
no its not. the founding fathers writings are very clear that they intended the right to own guns was absolute when they wrote the 2nd amendment.

Here's the 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."

Here's what the 2nd Amendment would look like if it was clear and aboslute:

"The people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own State, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals."

That was proposed back then. But after much debate and revisions that's not the version that made it out. The first version I listed did. Which is why you need to liberally look for their intention and apply it reasonably to modern society.

Florida_Bronco
04-05-2009, 10:47 AM
gasp!!!!!!!!!!!!! you mean he didnt arm everyone ?

How would arming everyone have effected the mob?

Florida_Bronco
04-05-2009, 10:49 AM
Wonderful...I work in a PA prison and we're still dealing w/ the cops that got killed by the Philly parolees last year. I wonder what changes will come out of this too...

It's a shame man. I have a good friend on Philly PD and it's been a very tough year on them.

frerottenextelway
04-05-2009, 10:50 AM
But to say that the Constitution isn't open to any interpretation is kind of ignorant, because it's far from clear, and as far as legal documents go, I've seen better ones written in a more clear and concise manner by first year law students. That reason alone leads me to believe that the framers of the Constitution had no idea things would progress as they have, which in turn makes me think it's not entirely out of the question to view the document in the context of modern society.

Yep. And it's not as though they lacked the ability to produce a more clear and concise document, it's that they purposely chose not to.

Spider
04-05-2009, 10:57 AM
How would arming everyone have effected the mob?

Murder in New York is down to 1963 levels , the mob was bad , but .....
Violent crime is down for the 12 year in a row , the Mob was bad , but responsible for all crime ?
Mob did petty muggings ?
Now what did it was more cops on the street ........

Spider
04-05-2009, 11:04 AM
Gun Control and more cops on the beat is what turned New York city around .....

Florida_Bronco
04-05-2009, 11:27 AM
Gun Control and more cops on the beat is what turned New York city around .....

Gun control in NYC has been around alot longer than Giuliani. Giuliani got tough on small crime ("Broken Windows" thing) and put over 7000 new police officers on the street along with taking down the mob.

What about Washington D.C? They have strict gun control but look at all the crime there. And then how about L.A? Then, like Alec mentioned. Look at all the places we've loosened up the laws and allowed concealed carry. Crime went down, not up.

Look Spider, I know you've had some bad things happen in your life regarding guns and I'm sure that's shaped your views on it, but when you get down to it, the gun control idea just doesn't work. That's why you've seen an overwhelming trend of loosening the laws rather than tightening them.

Spider
04-05-2009, 11:39 AM
Gun control in NYC has been around alot longer than Giuliani. Giuliani got tough on small crime ("Broken Windows" thing) and put over 7000 new police officers on the street along with taking down the mob.

What about Washington D.C? They have strict gun control but look at all the crime there. And then how about L.A? Then, like Alec mentioned. Look at all the places we've loosened up the laws and allowed concealed carry. Crime went down, not up.

Look Spider, I know you've had some bad things happen in your life regarding guns and I'm sure that's shaped your views on it, but when you get down to it, the gun control idea just doesn't work. That's why you've seen an overwhelming trend of loosening the laws rather than tightening them.
I did look I didnt find those results and Crime rate in D.C. has fallen to levels of 20 years ago .........
Doesnt matter my opinion of Guns , I am not anti gun , I used to hunt , but there is a place for guns , and everyone packing heat in your local wal mart isnt it .......

frerottenextelway
04-05-2009, 11:44 AM
Gun control in NYC has been around alot longer than Giuliani. Giuliani got tough on small crime ("Broken Windows" thing) and put over 7000 new police officers on the street along with taking down the mob.


Those 7,000 officers were put on the streets by federal dollars from the Clinton crime bill that the Rightards almost uniformally opposed.

Look for yourself:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=103&session=2&vote=00295

Florida_Bronco
04-05-2009, 11:54 AM
Those 7,000 officers were put on the streets by federal dollars from the Clinton crime bill that the Rightards almost uniformally opposed.

Look for yourself:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=103&session=2&vote=00295

Cool. What's your point?

Florida_Bronco
04-05-2009, 11:55 AM
I did look I didnt find those results and Crime rate in D.C. has fallen to levels of 20 years ago .........
Doesnt matter my opinion of Guns , I am not anti gun , I used to hunt , but there is a place for guns , and everyone packing heat in your local wal mart isnt it .......

Depends on who is packing.

frerottenextelway
04-05-2009, 11:56 AM
Cool. What's your point?

"Giuliani ... put over 7000 new police officers on the street"

Status: False

"Clinton put over 7,000 police officers on the street in NYC"

Status: True

Florida_Bronco
04-05-2009, 12:06 PM
"Giuliani ... put over 7000 new police officers on the street"

Status: False

"Clinton put over 7,000 police officers on the street in NYC"

Status: True

Ok. Again, what's your point?

frerottenextelway
04-05-2009, 12:08 PM
What about Washington D.C? They have strict gun control but look at all the crime there. And then how about L.A? Then, like Alec mentioned. Look at all the places we've loosened up the laws and allowed concealed carry. Crime went down, not up.


Gun control would have to be done nation wide, like was done in England.

Obviously, it reduces crime:

England has about 50 gun deaths a year, or 0.1 gun deaths per 100,000 of population.

The U.S. has about 9,000 gun deaths a year, or 3.0 gun deaths per 100,000 of population

frerottenextelway
04-05-2009, 12:09 PM
Ok. Again, what's your point?

What you said was categorically untrue. What more point do you need?

Florida_Bronco
04-05-2009, 12:10 PM
What you said was categorically untrue. What more point do you need?

We can start with what difference it makes, for one.

Florida_Bronco
04-05-2009, 12:15 PM
Gun control would have to be done nation wide, like was done in England.

Obviously, it reduces crime:

England has about 50 gun deaths a year, or 0.1 gun deaths per 100,000 of population.

The U.S. has about 9,000 gun deaths a year, or 3.0 gun deaths per 100,000 of population

They also have a queen too. Entirely different cultures and way of life.

Also, gun control on a national level at this point is impossible. There are too many guns out there already. It's way to late in the game for something like that, and that's not even addressing the 2nd amendment issue that the SC just ruled on.

Spider
04-05-2009, 12:20 PM
Depends on who is packing.

would you want a guy like me packing ? I am eligible when I am home ........ would you be ok with a guy like me packing heat ?

frerottenextelway
04-05-2009, 12:24 PM
They also have a queen too. Entirely different cultures and way of life.

Also, gun control on a national level at this point is impossible. There are too many guns out there already. It's way to late in the game for something like that, and that's not even addressing the 2nd amendment issue that the SC just ruled on.

England has an entirely different culture and way of life? Ha.

Look, they didn't do this at the start of the game, they did this 10 years ago. I'm not saying we should - the 2nd Amendment protects those rights - but its crazytalk to suggest gun bans wouldn't reduce violent crime.

Florida_Bronco
04-05-2009, 12:42 PM
England has an entirely different culture and way of life? Ha.

Look, they didn't do this at the start of the game, they did this 10 years ago. I'm not saying we should - the 2nd Amendment protects those rights - but its crazytalk to suggest gun bans wouldn't reduce violent crime.

I never said it was crazy talk. It would reduce violent crime, just like banning cars would reduce traffic deaths and banning sports would reduce physical injuries. But for any of those bans to work you'd have to find a way to remove the firearms from society (not going to happen) and find a way to ensure criminals can't get their hands on them.

It would work...IF it could be done...which isn't going to happen.

Florida_Bronco
04-05-2009, 12:43 PM
would you want a guy like me packing ? I am eligible when I am home ........ would you be ok with a guy like me packing heat ?

Sure I would.

frerottenextelway
04-05-2009, 12:52 PM
I never said it was crazy talk. It would reduce violent crime, just like banning cars would reduce traffic deaths and banning sports would reduce physical injuries. But for any of those bans to work you'd have to find a way to remove the firearms from society (not going to happen) and find a way to ensure criminals can't get their hands on them.

It would work...IF it could be done...which isn't going to happen.

At least we agree on something, it isn't going to happen. :thumbsup:

Spider
04-05-2009, 12:52 PM
Sure I would.

Then you would be making a huge mistake ........ I dont even carry a knife ,Cause I know what I am capable of

Florida_Bronco
04-05-2009, 01:01 PM
Then you would be making a huge mistake ........ I dont even carry a knife ,Cause I know what I am capable of

You may be a fighter, but I don't see you using a weapon unless it was justified. Hell, might actually calm ya down. Ha!

cutthemdown
04-05-2009, 01:05 PM
You may be a fighter, but I don't see you using a weapon unless it was justified. Hell, might actually calm ya down. Ha!

no he's saying he has a bad temper. Spider is smart. Everyman has some limitations, it's knowing what they are and how to overcome them that makes you a man.

No way I would carry a gun. I also have been known to have a temper.

I have had guns pointed around me before. Not at me but a gun pulled on a friend of mine. Thank god dude didn't have balls to pull trigger, but instead ran away waving the gun at us. Had I had one I would have probably pulled it out. Now we have a gunfight and someone is going to get killed.

Gunfights are best left to the police and military. I have a shotgun and some handguns, if someone comes in my house I will use them, but never on the street. Walking around like its the old west is cazy IMO.

I live in Los Angeles, I shudder to think what it would be like if everyone carried a gun. With the heat, the tempers, the races, I don't think it would be a good thing.

Spider
04-05-2009, 01:06 PM
You may be a fighter, but I don't see you using a weapon unless it was justified. Hell, might actually calm ya down. Ha!

;D no I would use it , no doubt in my mind about that ...... I use my fist cause I dont carry weapons ;D

Gort
04-05-2009, 03:50 PM
That was proposed back then. But after much debate and revisions that's not the version that made it out. The first version I listed did. Which is why you need to liberally look for their intention and apply it reasonably to modern society.


umm. no you don't. i get it... you're a libtard. you have no problem with the supreme court inventing things (such as the right to privacy) that are not in the constitution and then claiming such rights as the basis for their rulings. but the constitution is not a "living breathing" document. that's just so much BS. the constitution says what it says because that's what the founding fathers wanted it to say. nothing more. nothing less. if you want to change the constitution, there is a mechanism. but the people have to be the ones to make the change, not the courts. and that's ultimately what the argument is really about. the "living breathing" crowd thinks that if they can stack the supreme court, then they can get away with doing anything they want, constitution be damned. the rest of us believe that the constitution trumps the whims of the supreme court. without it, we have no freedoms that cannot be taken away by likes of Chavez, Castro, Stalin, Hitler, or Obama. the 2nd amendment has always been understood as the best deterrence that the citizenry has to tyrany.

http://www.nraila.org/issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=108

Spider
04-05-2009, 04:01 PM
Obama ? taking our freedoms ? Put down the ****ing remote turn fox news off and go for a walk or something ...... It is just this type of idiotic rambling that drives people like you over the edge we have no freedoms that cannot be taken away by likes of Chavez, Castro, Stalin, Hitler, or Obama.

the 2nd amendment has always been understood as the best deterrence that the citizenry has to tyrany. Life isnt like a Rambo movie , you wont take out a tank with a rifle, or bring down a fighter jet , or stop 100 Marines hell bent on kicking your ass .....Get a grip on reality

Spider
04-05-2009, 04:04 PM
I just pictured who is John Gault as a guy all decked out in Camo hiding in his closet wit ha 30-30 waiting for the invasion .....

Tombstone RJ
04-05-2009, 04:09 PM
Then you would be making a huge mistake ........ I dont even carry a knife ,Cause I know what I am capable of

This coming from a guy with how many kids?

Spider
04-05-2009, 04:10 PM
This coming from a guy with how many kids?

what do my kids have to do with this ?

Spider
04-05-2009, 04:11 PM
Well Boy , what do my kids have to do with this ?

Tombstone RJ
04-05-2009, 04:15 PM
umm. no you don't. i get it... you're a libtard. you have no problem with the supreme court inventing things (such as the right to privacy) that are not in the constitution and then claiming such rights as the basis for their rulings. but the constitution is not a "living breathing" document. that's just so much BS. the constitution says what it says because that's what the founding fathers wanted it to say. nothing more. nothing less. if you want to change the constitution, there is a mechanism. but the people have to be the ones to make the change, not the courts. and that's ultimately what the argument is really about. the "living breathing" crowd thinks that if they can stack the supreme court, then they can get away with doing anything they want, constitution be damned. the rest of us believe that the constitution trumps the whims of the supreme court. without it, we have no freedoms that cannot be taken away by likes of Chavez, Castro, Stalin, Hitler, or Obama. the 2nd amendment has always been understood as the best deterrence that the citizenry has to tyrany.

http://www.nraila.org/issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=108

Both the 1st and 2nd go hand in hand.

broncocalijohn
04-05-2009, 04:58 PM
and i got out of every one of those situations without a gun ......Just something to think about

Yes but you would throat punch someone in a heart beat and we know your knuckles are against the law in 33 states and 2 countries. But hey, if you got out of situations without a gun, then everyone should. I just wish we all had lighting fast knuckles that have pin point accuracy to the throat.

frerottenextelway
04-05-2009, 05:04 PM
umm. no you don't. i get it... you're a libtard. you have no problem with the supreme court inventing things (such as the right to privacy) that are not in the constitution and then claiming such rights as the basis for their rulings. but the constitution is not a "living breathing" document. that's just so much BS. the constitution says what it says because that's what the founding fathers wanted it to say. nothing more. nothing less. if you want to change the constitution, there is a mechanism. but the people have to be the ones to make the change, not the courts. and that's ultimately what the argument is really about. the "living breathing" crowd thinks that if they can stack the supreme court, then they can get away with doing anything they want, constitution be damned. the rest of us believe that the constitution trumps the whims of the supreme court. without it, we have no freedoms that cannot be taken away by likes of Chavez, Castro, Stalin, Hitler, or Obama. the 2nd amendment has always been understood as the best deterrence that the citizenry has to tyrany.

http://www.nraila.org/issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=108

Awesome, so you're a strict constructionist that even Scalia mocks. Except when it comes to guns apparently. Further to the Right than Scalia and playing the center card. Bwhahahaha.

Spider
04-05-2009, 05:11 PM
Yes but you would throat punch someone in a heart beat and we know your knuckles are against the law in 33 states and 2 countries. But hey, if you got out of situations without a gun, then everyone should. I just wish we all had lighting fast knuckles that have pin point accuracy to the throat.

No dickweed , the point is dont get yourself into those situations if you cant get yourself out ........ Besides if you could , you would have been a man and defended your sister at the Raiders games instead of crying about it on line ........

broncocalijohn
04-05-2009, 05:15 PM
No dickweed , the point is dont get yourself into those situations if you cant get yourself out ........ Besides if you could , you would have been a man and defended your sister at the Raiders games instead of crying about it on line ........

Not sure what the sister comment was but i did have a gun pulled on me at a Raiders game. But I guess no one ever gets shot or held up at a safe place like a bank or their own house! Here is some to chew on while you plan on your next Chuck Norris move at the local truck stop.

Spider, here are some from that damn internet.

Following is a report on 2.5 million a year…
http://www.rense.com/general76/univ.htm

Here is a copy and carry of many articles on what guns do for citizens
To own guns. I like the one about Florida concealed weapons permits
Of 315,000 have them and only 5 known have committed a crime while
Holding an active permit. That is 840 times less likely to have a criminal
Hold a permit than to pick a Floridian out randomly.
But here it is for you….
http://www.marylandshallissue.org/images/fact_sheet.pdf

But you want where one was used in self defense style. Here is a blog
That looks for them. Of course many are not called into the authorities.
http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html

Let us not go on. Your gun control argument is flawed and with millions
Of law abiding citizens own and use it for protection. Most criminals do not
Use guns that are registered to themselves. So, unless you are planning on going
Gastapo on every household that has a registered gun and of course skip the homes That do not show a registered gun even though they might own an illegal gun, then your 10k laws plus wont work to your enjoyment. I will always have that image of The LA Riots after the Rodney King verdicts of the Indian or Paki family loading up their store in a UHual while a few of them are guarding the entrance with guns and seeing the store right next to them getting looted. Amazing how criminals went for the easy target.

Spider
04-05-2009, 05:18 PM
Not sure what the sister comment was but i did have a gun pulled on me at a Raiders game. But I guess no one ever gets shot or held up at a safe place like a bank or their own house! Here is some to chew on while you plan on your next Chuck Norris move at the local truck stop. oh you was crying a while back about someone throwing beer at your sister ....Sure people get shot at banks , but that doesnt mean you arm everyone ..........

Spider, here are some from that damn internet.

Following is a report on 2.5 million a year…
http://www.rense.com/general76/univ.htm

Here is a copy and carry of many articles on what guns do for citizens
To own guns. I like the one about Florida concealed weapons permits
Of 315,000 have them and only 5 known have committed a crime while
Holding an active permit. That is 840 times less likely to have a criminal
Hold a permit than to pick a Floridian out randomly.
But here it is for you….
http://www.marylandshallissue.org/images/fact_sheet.pdf

But you want where one was used in self defense style. Here is a blog
That looks for them. Of course many are not called into the authorities.
http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html

Let us not go on. Your gun control argument is flawed and with millions
Of law abiding citizens own and use it for protection. Most criminals do not
Use guns that are registered to themselves. So, unless you are planning on going
Gastapo on every household that has a registered gun and of course skip the homes That do not show a registered gun even though they might own an illegal gun, then your 10k laws plus wont work to your enjoyment. I will always have that image of The LA Riots after the Rodney King verdicts of the Indian or Paki family loading up their store in a UHual while a few of them are guarding the entrance with guns and seeing the store right next to them getting looted. Amazing how criminals went for the easy target.
Yo Genius , if Guns worked , you wouldnt have that many crimes now would you ?

Spider
04-05-2009, 05:32 PM
Guns been around a long time , the right to carry guns just as long .. yet we have crime ..... you had crime back in the old west , and every one was armed ..Gee according to some people here , the old west should have been the safest place on earth .........

frerottenextelway
04-05-2009, 05:35 PM
Guns been around a long time , the right to carry guns just as long .. yet we have crime ..... you had crime back in the old west , and every one was armed ..Gee according to some people here , the old west should have been the safest place on earth .........

I don't know why, but I'm reminded of this classic.

"I wish we lived in the day where you challenge a person to a duel.''

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/AuBnlNjZq24&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/AuBnlNjZq24&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Spider
04-05-2009, 05:39 PM
I don't know why, but I'm reminded of this classic.

"I wish we lived in the day where you challenge a person to a duel.''

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/AuBnlNjZq24&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/AuBnlNjZq24&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

LOL .......

Tombstone RJ
04-05-2009, 06:19 PM
what do my kids have to do with this ?

Your pretty quick to solve problems with violence. Leaving your children fatherless has to come across your mind every once in a while.

Spider
04-05-2009, 06:21 PM
Your pretty quick to solve problems with violence. Leaving your children fatherless has to come across your mind every once in a while.

I die , they become rich ...... Besides if it is my time to go , then it is my time , all the caution in the world wont stop it ....... I could die tomorrow on my way up to So.Dakota goin to Galveston Texas ........Death gets us all live life on your terms .......

Tombstone RJ
04-05-2009, 06:27 PM
I die , they become rich ...... Besides if it is my time to go , then it is my time , all the caution in the world wont stop it ....... I could die tomorrow on my way up to So.Dakota goin to Galveston Texas ........Death gets us all live life on your terms .......

Yah, ok. I'd love to here your wife try to explain this sentiment to your kids as your being lowered into the ground... anyhow, some people should not own guns and I guess you think that includes you. Fine, groovy.

Spider
04-05-2009, 06:32 PM
Yah, ok. I'd love to here your wife try to explain this sentiment to your kids as your being lowered into the ground... anyhow, some people should not own guns and I guess you think that includes you. Fine, groovy.
My wife would tell my kids ? 17 , 14, 7 and then the triplets 3 year olds ..... what should she tell them ? the 17 ,14 and 7 year old already know me . the triplets are a little young to attend a funeral ....... probably find a baby sitter ..what in the hell is wrong with you ? you dont drag babies to funerals

Spider
04-05-2009, 09:22 PM
well it seems there more to the shooter ......
http://www.truecrimereport.com/2009/04/richard_poplawski_accused_pitt.php
[UPDATED] Richard Poplawski: Accused Pittsburgh Cop Killer, Possible White Supremacist
Posted at 6:51 PM Apr 04, 2009

UPDATE 2, SUNDAY, 4/5/09

This is already all over the Web - it's an old MySpace kept by Richard Poplawski under the screen name RichieDelicious. This is Poplawski's now-infamous MySpace blog post from the same account. A copy has been saved here.
UPDATE, SUNDAY, 4/5/09

Let's all congratulate The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette on catching up with True Crime Report. I broke the news of Poplawski's association with Stormfront.org in this post yesterday. This is from the Post-Gazette's article published today:
[Poplawski's] online profile suggests someone at once lonely and seething. He wrote of burning the backs of both of his hands, the first time with a cigarette, the second time for symmetry. He subscribed to conspiracy theories and, by January 2007, was posting photographs of his tattoos on white supremacist Web site Stormfront. Among his ambitions: "to accumulate enough 'I punched that [expletive] so hard' stories to match my old man."

I haven't checked to see if the Post-Gazette's IP shows up in this blog's stats, but then again, everyone knows how to use Google now, or should. Either way, you heard it here, first.

ETA: Many thanks to Crooks & Liars for acknowledging this blog's sleuthing in this case. In the interest of balance (because I try to keep my political views out of this blog), thanks to Kurt Nimmo from InfoWars.com for his link to this post as well.
Richard Poplawski's buddy Eddie Perkovic told the press that his friend feared that President Obama would ban guns. Perkovic seemed to think this had some bearing on the crime for which Poplawski stands accused: the shooting deaths of Pittsburgh, PA police officers Eric Kelly, Stephen Mayhle and Paul Sciullo III.

According to the Associated Press, Poplawski was wearing a bulletproof vest and 'laying in wait' for the cops early Saturday when law enforcement responded to a domestic disturbance call at the residence Poplawski shared with his parents. Between SWAT teams who responded to the standoff that ensued after the initial gun battle and the shooter himself, more than 100 rounds were fired, overall. Poplawski suffered non-fatal injuries to his extremities.

Eddie Perkovic was interviewed after the tragedy, and he said that his friend feared "the Obama gun ban" that he felt was "on its way." Poplawski also "didn't like our rights being infringed upon."

I checked out Perkovic's MySpace profile (won't link because a: it's easy to find and b: he might make it private, anyway) and found that he had a friend with this profile:

http://www.myspace.com/richp

Apparently, Richard Poplawski. Folks elsewhere online have photos from that page, but it was private by the time I found it. I did find Poplawski's Stumbleupon account. Stumbleupon is mainly for bookmarking interesting web pages, and Poplawski's account may be worth a close look just to get some idea of what he liked.

When I searched the full URL of Poplawski's apparent MySpace profile, though, I happened onto a thread at StormFront.org. It is a message board for folks who believe in "White Pride World Wide." Someone using the screen name "Braced For Fate" wrote the following:

as much as I HATE myspace

I do still have a page left over from when it was an okay site (circa late '04 early 05)

http://www.myspace.com/richp

BTW, OP, it requires your last name or email address to be able to add you as a friend, not the best setup if you're trying to expand your friend base

Google's cache of the StormFront thread, made in late February of this year, showed that at that time, "Braced For Fate's" screen name was "RichP."

Eddie Perkovic, for his part, clearly must share some of Poplawski's views, as his profile revealed a fear of "Zionists" and some kind of ethnic takeover of America. Among Perkovic's recommended reads were "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" and The Turner Diaries.

The longer I do this crime blogging thing, the more I try to shy away both from editorializing and from fear-mongering. But I can't help but feel we'll hear from more Richard Poplawskis in the years to come. There are changes happening in the world that they, to say the least, don't like very much. After all, prior to 9/11/01, the worst modern act of terrorism committed on American soil was committed by Americans. And one of those Americans, Tim McVeigh, happened to have pages from The Turner Diaries with him when he was arrested.

I'm just saying: while we were searching for the key to eliminating Al Qaeda, guys like Richard Poplawski didn't go anywhere. Hell, they may have even multiplied. Just remember that.

cutthemdown
04-06-2009, 12:43 AM
If I believed no guns meant guns in citizens hands was really rare then i would probably go for it.

I just figure you make guns illegal criminals will still have them. Plus obviously you would create a huge black market which IMO can't be controlled.

Obviously though that is not realistic.

To make people abide by a ban the penalty would be stiff. Guns are ingrained into the culture, otherwise law abiding Americans would become felons over night because they wouldn't give up guns.

Now we have to start busting people that otherwise would not have been a problem.

That's just not America to me. America by it's nature was always a little wild and untamed. We are different then other countries and with that comes the good and the bad and the ugly.

Spider
04-06-2009, 07:51 AM
If I believed no guns meant guns in citizens hands was really rare then i would probably go for it.

I just figure you make guns illegal criminals will still have them. Plus obviously you would create a huge black market which IMO can't be controlled.

Obviously though that is not realistic.

To make people abide by a ban the penalty would be stiff. Guns are ingrained into the culture, otherwise law abiding Americans would become felons over night because they wouldn't give up guns.

Now we have to start busting people that otherwise would not have been a problem.

That's just not America to me. America by it's nature was always a little wild and untamed. We are different then other countries and with that comes the good and the bad and the ugly.

I dont thinking banning all guns would work either ,Just like I wish Drivers Ed was mandatory , a gun training course should be also ,Handguns , Shotguns ,Hunting Rifles should be legal .Ak47 Meh not so much

Archer81
04-06-2009, 07:59 AM
A gun is just a tool. You gonna ban knives, too? Its sad about the police officers in the Burgh. Prayers for them and their families.


:Broncos:

Spider
04-06-2009, 08:00 AM
A gun is just a tool. You gonna ban knives, too? Its sad about the police officers in the Burgh. Prayers for them and their families.


:Broncos:

robbing a bank with a knife just doesnt have the same effect does it ?
going on a stabbing spree = someone goin on a shooting spree ?

El Guapo
04-06-2009, 08:31 AM
So in order to protect his second amendment rights, he shot and killed our defenders of society.

Remind me how wonderful the second amendment is and how we should be so proud of it.....

Guns don't kill people.

Getting rid of the 2nd Amendment would be just like banning drugs. People will still get their hands on them and then only the criminals will have them. How are you going to defend yourself?

Tombstone RJ
04-06-2009, 09:19 AM
robbing a bank with a knife just doesnt have the same effect does it ?
going on a stabbing spree = someone goin on a shooting spree ?

Exactly. And who's robbing that bank Spider? Is that person you, a law-abiding guy who's just trying to make a living?

My point is that the guy robbing the bank with a gun is a criminal. That criminal will get his guns regardless of your's or mine rights to bear arms.

If I can't buy the bullets for my gun because the feds want to tax the bullets to such a degree that I can't afford them, well, the only people with bullets are criminals.

When prohibition started, it was started with great intentions. Stop people from drinking by making it illegal and society as a whole will benefit.

WRONG!

Now if a guy wants a beer, he has to break the law. Who's he gonna get a beer from if he can't go to his local watering hole? That's right, he goes to a criminal organization that provides him beer. Now, the only people making money are the gangsters and organized crime.

This is what is gonna happen if the feds think they are smarter than your average citizen. If they starting making it hard for a guy like me to buy either ammunition or parts for my gun, or the guns themselves because they don't want criminals to get these weapons, then the only person who pays the price is me. Not the criminals.

Now I'm forced to either break the law to get what I want, or to pray and hope I'm not the next victom of the criminal who wants to rob my house because he knows I can't stop him.

Spider
04-06-2009, 09:26 AM
Exactly. And who's robbing that bank Spider? Is that person you, a law-abiding guy who's just trying to make a living?

My point is that the guy robbing the bank with a gun is a criminal. That criminal will get his guns regardless of your's or mine rights to bear arms.

If I can't buy the bullets for my gun because the feds want to tax the bullets to such a degree that I can't afford them, well, the only people with bullets are criminals.

When prohibition started, it was started with great intentions. Stop people from drinking by making it illegal and society as a whole will benefit.

WRONG!

Now if a guy wants a beer, he has to break the law. Who's he gonna get a beer from if he can't go to his local watering hole? That's right, he goes to a criminal organization that provides him beer. Now, the only people making money are the gangsters and organized crime.

This is what is gonna happen if the feds think they are smarter than your average citizen. If they starting making it hard for a guy like me to buy either ammunition or parts for my gun, or the guns themselves because they don't want criminals to get these weapons, then the only person who pays the price is me. Not the criminals.

Now I'm forced to either break the law to get what I want, or to pray and hope I'm not the next victom of the criminal who wants to rob my house because he knows I can't stop him.

So it is a good Idea to have everyone in the bank packing heat ?
tried that in the old west , didnt work out so well did it . and you cant stop someone without a gun ? you in a wheelchair ? mental disability ? ...... put Clorox in a squirt bottle , or better yet , a pete rose wrapped in barbwire ..
Pretty sad if someone comes into your house and you dont have a gun you feel as if you cant stop em ......

Spider
04-06-2009, 09:30 AM
how about keepin a pot of coffee going all the time , A glass pot works best , someone breaks into your house , sucker hit em with that ......... if that doesnt phase the crook , I strongly suggest a sincere apology and help the guy pack your valuables up .........

houghtam
04-06-2009, 09:35 AM
I think you'll be hard pressed to find anyone on this board that wants to ban all guns entirely, especially as someone said, since guns are so ingrained in our culture now.

I think Spider's right though. I think making gun safety courses a mandatory requirement of obtaining a permit, is a good start, and making the penalty for anyone who owns/possesses a firearm without a permit a stiff one (felony) would be even better.

I also think banning assault rifles and high calibre handguns would do more good than harm. Combined, that could turn the 1-20 sentence for armed robbery where a first time offender might get a year and some change and parol into a 20 year minimum.

broncocalijohn
04-06-2009, 11:06 AM
oh you was crying a while back about someone throwing beer at your sister ....Sure people get shot at banks , but that doesnt mean you arm everyone ..........


Yo Genius , if Guns worked , you wouldnt have that many crimes now would you ?


Spider, my sister doesnt go to games so your memory is fogged. As for the bolded sentence, do you actually read what you type? The argument that never ends with the anti gun crowd. Guns are everywhere for years. Criminals will get them. The laws are only good to prosecute after the criminal gets caught not during the action of the crime. If the authorities cant be everywhere at everytime, who will protect us? Never mind. If it hasnt got through your thick skull now, it never will. Just stick to throat punching and protect us all.

broncocalijohn
04-06-2009, 11:14 AM
how about keepin a pot of coffee going all the time , A glass pot works best , someone breaks into your house , sucker hit em with that ......... if that doesnt phase the crook , I strongly suggest a sincere apology and help the guy pack your valuables up .........

Hilarious! That is Hilarious! that keeping a pot of coffee by your bedside to protect the family from an intruder with a possible gun as a weapon. I think you watched Fast Times at Ridgemont High too many times. Only Hamilton has the accuracy to pull off the Hot coffee to the face trick. But if you just want to run at the burglar with a glass coffee pot and strike him before he shoots you, go for it. I suggest you call 911 instead and hide the family of 8 in the closet.

Spider
04-06-2009, 12:23 PM
Hilarious! That is Hilarious! that keeping a pot of coffee by your bedside to protect the family from an intruder with a possible gun as a weapon. I think you watched Fast Times at Ridgemont High too many times. Only Hamilton has the accuracy to pull off the Hot coffee to the face trick. But if you just want to run at the burglar with a glass coffee pot and strike him before he shoots you, go for it. I suggest you call 911 instead and hide the family of 8 in the closet.

LOL I see and if the weapon doesnt make a loud bang it doesnt work ......... and it is your house stupid , you dont have to run any where ...why would you tip off where you are ? freakin Pussy ........there are all kinds of deadly weapons in your house ......

Spider
04-06-2009, 12:25 PM
Spider, my sister doesnt go to games so your memory is fogged. As for the bolded sentence, do you actually read what you type? The argument that never ends with the anti gun crowd. Guns are everywhere for years. Criminals will get them. The laws are only good to prosecute after the criminal gets caught not during the action of the crime. If the authorities cant be everywhere at everytime, who will protect us? Never mind. If it hasnt got through your thick skull now, it never will. Just stick to throat punching and protect us all.

No it was you crying about some abuse your sister and you took at a game ....in fact I was so moved I wanted to hand you a tissue .......
I dont need cops to protect me , you shouldnt either .....

Spider
04-06-2009, 12:27 PM
Again according to you , the old west should have been safe ......

ElwayMD
04-06-2009, 02:35 PM
Again according to you , the old west should have been safe ......

The "wild west" was actually pretty "mild". The only reason we think that it was lawless is because of the television and movies that glorify the violence. Cases like the shootout at the OK corall, the duels in the streets, and bank robberies are told time and time again because other than that, nothing really happened. Handgun violence was very low in comparison to the current day due to the fact that people carried hanguns. It's much easier to be a "big man" when you don't see a pistol on the hip of the person next to you.

Tombstone RJ
04-06-2009, 04:47 PM
Again according to you , the old west should have been safe ......

Actually, I don't think most people carried guns around in the Old West. In fact, most towns had laws prohibiting people from carrying guns inside the city limits. If you were caught with a gun, it was confiscated by the local authorities.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying guns weren't a huge part of the Old West, absolutely they were. But as another poster stated, the perception that every tom, dick and harry had a six shooter at his side is a simply incorrect.