Skip to main content

Another breaking story involving a gun

MIDLAND CITY, Ala. (AP) — Police, SWAT teams and negotiators were at a rural property where a man was believed to be holed up in a homemade bunker Wednesday after fatally shooting the driver of a school bus and fleeing with a 6-year-old child passenger, authorities said.
Now the least of us have become the prime targets.

More later when/if it becomes known.

Tired of politics?  Need to escape?  Try my Greek mythology based novels, either the story of Oedipus from the point of view of Jocasta, or a trilogy about Niobe, whose children were murdered by the gods - or were they?

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    radical simplicity, a2nite

    by chloris creator on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 05:58:32 AM PST

  •  But this clearly anti-social hostage taker's (3+ / 0-)

    second amendment rights are the most important thing on God's earth, according to many.  More important than others' right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."  

    That's one more thing to add to my long list of small problems. --my son, age 10

    by concernedamerican on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 06:05:19 AM PST

    •  You have no idea how rights work do you? (0+ / 0-)

      The right to own a gun does not, in any way, give that person the right to take life or liberty away from anyone else.  It just simply does not.

      Giving rights to one person doesn't take rights away from another.  The Right to Liberty doesn't mean the liberty to take a life, it doesn't mean freedom from all laws.  The Right to own a gun doesn't give that person rights over anyone else's life.  It does not legalize murder.

      This sick individual chose to use his free will to take a life and kidnap a child.  He chose to become a murderer.  Why don't you focus on that instead of the weapon used?  The truth is this person, armed with a gun or not, is a dangerous deadly person.  A gun isn't needed to kidnap a child, no gun laws prevent that.

      But I have to ask you, if this person is so "clearly anti-social", then why wasn't his liberty already removed by law to better protect the lives around him?  Why was he walking free instead of being locked up in a nut house?

      I just do not understand why so many choose to blame psychotic behavior like pedifilia and kidnapping on a gun, instead of on the individual.  And by focusing on the wrong thing, you ensure acts like this will continue.

      •  Norm, did you read the linked article? The guy (0+ / 0-)

        had a history in his neighborhood of hostility to neighbors.

        In terms of why he was walking around free-- well, he has a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness like everyone else.  

        Did he do the right thing with his gun?  Of course not.  Could he have killed the bus driver without a gun?  It would have been a lot harder to do so.

        I am not anti-gun.  I think people should be able to have handguns for personal safety, and hunting guns for recreational purposes.  Everyone who has gone through training and had a background check and a psychological screening should be able to have guns for self-defense and recreational purposes if they want them.

        Just like a driver's license, you should have to re-take these exams and checks every year.

        Anyone who can pass them shall not have their right to bear arms infringed.

        Anyone who cannot pass them-- a criminal background, say; or mental illness; or a history of violence against others-- should have a MUCH more difficult time obtaining weapons.

        The second amendment says nothing about an individual's right to keep and bear arms trumping the general public welfare and public safety.

        It also says nothing about ammunition.  It says nothing about a right to own high-capacity magazines of ammunition, or ammo for military-type weaponry.

        That's one more thing to add to my long list of small problems. --my son, age 10

        by concernedamerican on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 11:57:15 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, individual rights can be removed from persons (0+ / 0-)

          I have no issue with the mentally ill losing their rights.  They can be denied their rights through due process in a court of law.  That is how innocent until proven guilty works.  If you want to start taking rights away from people, then start charging them with the crime of being mentally ill, find them guilty and then strip away their rights.

          If a person is a danger to the public welfare and public safety, they are a danger with or without a gun.  So find them, charge them, prosecute them and lock them up.

          What you don't get to do is to start unconstitutionally discriminating against people and denying rights without trial.

      •  Competing rights (0+ / 0-)

        I know how rights work and I also know how the real world works.

        Giving rights to one person does not take away rights to another. True (although many people who oppose granting the right to marry to homosexual couples would disagree with you).

        The right to own a firearm does not give you the right to use it to take someone else's life. Also true. However, the right of some people to own firearms infringes upon my right to life, and the pursuit of happiness as it makes me less secure in my every day life should they choose to infringe upon my rights.

        Why was the "anti-social" (crazy, disturbed, maladjusted, drunk, angry) person neither locked up nor prohibited from owning a firearm? Few people who commit these acts of violence with firearms have committed prior acts that would fall within the parameters that would allow the state to deprive them of their right to liberty. You have no right to lock them up because you think they might someday get a weapon and kill someone.

        It has also been determined that is a violation of a citizen's right to privacy to require background checks that would show medical history, misdemeanor assaults (domestic disputes), or other anti-social behavior prior to that citizen exercising his/her 2nd Amendment right to own a firearm. Only felony convictions can be shared as part of background checks. The state of MN, for example, determined that County Sheriffs have no right to deny a concealed carry permit to anyone based on knowledge they may have about non-felony disturbances of the peace etc.

        So there are a compendium of competing "rights", which is why repeating "2nd Amendment" and over is futile. The "right to keep and bear arms" is not inalienable and has no claim to primacy over any of the other enumerated rights in the Constitution. If it intrudes too heavily into the right to life and the right to the pursuit of happiness (security of the person), then it ought to be reconsidered. Even in DC vs Heller, the most permissive Supreme Court decision on gun ownership, and the only one to assert it as an individual right, the Roberts court upheld states' rights to put reasonable limits on gun ownership, types of firearms that were permissible, and restrictions on where firearms could be carried.

        •  No it does not infringe on your right to life (0+ / 0-)

          The fact that a person owns a gun does not infringe on your RIGHT to life one single bit.  You have the exact same Right to your life regardless.

          You actually did word it right, partially.  Your Right to Life is infringed if another person CHOOSES to take it away from you.

          But the method they choose to use is not a factor.  If a person chooses to shoot you, stab you, poison you, strangle you or run you over with a car, your Right to Live was infringed on exactly the same.

          You are not less dead if shot than if stabbed, and you have the exact same Right to Life regardless if the person next you has a gun, a knife or just their bare hands.  You may not FEEL that way, but the law is based on fact not emotion.

          And you still have the Right to PURSUE Happiness if your neighbor owns a gun.  You may not BE happy about it at that moment, but you can still persue your own happiness.  There are lots of things our neighbors can do that make us unhappy.  That doesn't mean they've violated our rights.

          If your rights are ever violated, it is because a person chose to violate them, not because they owned a particualr object.

  •  I call shotgun! (5+ / 0-)

    So it's no longer sufficient to have armed guards at our schools, we now need to have to go back to the olden days with a stagecoach shotgun rider next to the driver.  Which means the next easy spot to kidnap and kill our children will be the bus stops so now we'll need guard towers at each bus stop.  And don't forget armed checkpoints at each school crosswalk crossing.

    I despair for the American civilization. Time to fight back.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site