Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Deadly Shooting Puts School on Lockdown (Pittsburgh)
KDKA ^ | 3/16/05 | KDKA

Posted on 03/16/2005 12:51:41 PM PST by HereComesTheGOP

Pittsburgh (KDKA) A deadly shooting outside Carrick High School this afternoon has put the school on lockdown.

Officials have confirmed that one student is dead and two others were wounded in the shooting around 2pm.

According to authorities, police stopped a car outside the school and were running a check on its license plate when another vehicle pulled up and started shooting at the car.

One juvenile in the car was shot in the head and killed; a second juvenile was critically injured by gunshots. A third juvenile in the car was injured by flying glass. Authorities believe all three were Carrick High School students.

Police say the shooting may have involved an AK-47.

As a precaution, students have been kept inside the building past their normal 2:17pm dismissal while police officers swarmed the area; but they're expected to be released within the hour.

More than 1300 students in ninth through twelfth grades are enrolled at Carrick High School, which is located on Parkfield Street.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Crime/Corruption; News/Current Events; US: Pennsylvania
KEYWORDS: banglist; pittsburgh; schoolviolence; shooting
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 361-380381-400401-420421-435 next last
To: Conspiracy Guy

I guess mine are "versions" of.


381 posted on 03/17/2005 12:40:09 PM PST by PaRebel (Cosmos/chaos)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 378 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave

“Try reading my posts. I've asked you several times why a Constitutional amendment was necessary to prohibit alcohol.
The theories you are putting forth here are not congruent with the fact that an amendment was necessary. You are arguing that there are no Constitutional rights unless they are explicitly put forth in the Constitution.
You have also argued that the gov't has the power to do anything that it is not Constitutionally prohibited from doing.
So, the question remains. Why couldn't Congress outlaw alcohol by statue? Were they mistaken? Didn't they realize there was no right to alcohol and no limit on Congressional power in this area?”

I’d have to read the debates at the time. In general, the bill or rights is a list of prohibitions on the powers of government and the rest of the Constitution is simply boilerplate as to how the government will be organized and operate. Congress has outlawed a broad variety of things over the years. Drugs come to mind. No amendment was required. A more telling question would be, what acts have been precluded to government as a result of the 9th or 10th. I contend about none.

It is the reach of the courts into the legislative field that is more dangerous. As to alcohol specifically, it probably took an amendment for political reasons, ie; those against the idea made such a process necessary. If they had not objected so powerfully, the history might have been different.
From what I have read of your posts, you seem to believe that you are protected against reaches by unstated rights and powers found in the 9th and 10th. This is entertaining but has little effect on any of us.

I have argued that congress has the “power” to do anything not expressly prohibited. I stand by that. Heck, they have the “power” to do stuff that IS expressly prohibited. They do it all the time. Again a better question would be, what gave congress the “right” to act in such a way. My answer would be a combination of their very own reaching and the courts acting outside the constitution.

So, going back to cannon and the second. If the second cannot be found to explicitly protect an individual in owning cannon, then Congress does have the “power” to make them go away and arguing otherwise using the second would be futile. You would be better arguing on simple property rights law, and I believe you would lose there as well.

You seem to confuse what you believe the Constitution should do and say with what it really does do and say.


382 posted on 03/17/2005 12:44:04 PM PST by Jim Verdolini
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 376 | View Replies]

To: PaRebel

AK47 was designe as a full auto weapon. SKS is a semi auto similar in design but built by other mfrs. There are AK47 look alikes and I may be unaware of recent changes to the design. I'll restate, As far as my knowledge goes all AK47s are full auto. M16 is full auto. AR15 is semi auto version.


383 posted on 03/17/2005 12:45:21 PM PST by Conspiracy Guy (Okay, you evolved. I was created. Get used to it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 381 | View Replies]

To: Conspiracy Guy

"Using your logic, since Jefferson owned slaves and slaves are not mentioned as being Men and Women in the Constitution, then slavery was OK? "

Not OK, just legal and constitutional at the time.


384 posted on 03/17/2005 12:45:33 PM PST by Jim Verdolini
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 380 | View Replies]

To: SE Mom
There is NO good reason for AK-47's to be "on the streets".

If you mean by this that this firearm should be "controlled" or illegal to possess, then you are indeed an idiot, and the very reason that Ak's are "on the street".

385 posted on 03/17/2005 12:49:38 PM PST by Navy Patriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Jim Verdolini
I have argued that congress has the “power” to do anything not expressly prohibited. I stand by that. Heck, they have the “power” to do stuff that IS expressly prohibited. They do it all the time. Again a better question would be, what gave congress the “right” to act in such a way. My answer would be a combination of their very own reaching and the courts acting outside the constitution.

And you're OK with this?

You are right that there is a difference between rightful exercise of power and the exercise of power. Most conservatives believe in a strict interpretation of the Constitution, with the hopes of restoring the gov't to its rightful place.

This is a different thing than arguing about how to game the system as it is presently operating. I fear you are doing the latter (lawyering) while we are doing the former (engaging in philosophical discussion).

You seem to confuse what you believe the Constitution should do and say with what it really does do and say.

It says what it says. The question is whether the gov't is abiding by what it says.

SD

386 posted on 03/17/2005 12:54:00 PM PST by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 382 | View Replies]

To: PaRebel

I was wrong. There is a semi auto version built for US markets.


387 posted on 03/17/2005 12:57:02 PM PST by Conspiracy Guy (Okay, you evolved. I was created. Get used to it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 381 | View Replies]

To: Conspiracy Guy

Check out Robinson Armaments; they offer Ak47s, made in Russia no less, either in semi or full auto. Other companies do as well. Now I agree that when Mr. Kalashnikov invented the AK 47, it was invented as a full auto "assault weapon", but today one can acquire "AK 47" in a wide variety of designs. Point being that from the article posted, it is impossible to know whether the perps were using full or semi versions. I have owned many versions of AKs, but never a full auto version, and thus, never needed "no stinkin license" to own or use them. But you are correct that the "mint" AK was designed by the Mr. K as a full auto light infantry weapon.


388 posted on 03/17/2005 1:06:15 PM PST by PaRebel (Visualize whirled peas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 383 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave

“You are right that there is a difference between rightful exercise of power and the exercise of power. Most conservatives believe in a strict interpretation of the Constitution, with the hopes of restoring the gov't to its rightful place.

This is a different thing than arguing about how to game the system as it is presently operating. I fear you are doing the latter (lawyering) while we are doing the former (engaging in philosophical discussion). “

The question was. “are rocket launchers and mortars protected by the second amendment”? Alarmingly, some who should know better said yes. I asked for real, honest to God constitutional or legal arguments and I got philosophy, opinion, and a hodge-podge of Constitutional cites that did not come from the second.

I fail to see how plugging ones personal opinion into an issue that begged for a factual answer is good for the discussion. There simply is NO legal protection for such weapons under the second. No court has ever held such to be true mostly because no lawyer has ever been able to make even a weak case.


389 posted on 03/17/2005 1:10:54 PM PST by Jim Verdolini
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 386 | View Replies]

To: Jim Verdolini
This isn't a courtroom, and when you exhibit the misunderstanding of the Constitution and its purpose that you do, it is no wonder that you receive the response you do.

Once again, you have failed to answer a question of mine. My last post asked "And you're OK with this?"

That's a valid question to ask, given your arguments here. I think you should try to answer it.

SD

390 posted on 03/17/2005 1:16:38 PM PST by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 389 | View Replies]

To: PaRebel
I corrected myself at 387. I'm really not an AK fan so I did not know all the variants. AK meant Auto Kalashnikov so I guess they bastardized the name.
391 posted on 03/17/2005 1:26:27 PM PST by Conspiracy Guy (Okay, you evolved. I was created. Get used to it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 388 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave
"This isn't a courtroom, and when you exhibit the misunderstanding of the Constitution and its purpose that you do, it is no wonder that you receive the response you do.
Once again, you have failed to answer a question of mine. My last post asked "And you're OK with this?"

That's a valid question to ask, given your arguments here. I think you should try to answer it."

You confuse recognition of reality with being Ok with it. I speak about what the Constitution IS while you speak of what you wish it were. I contend that it is you who are confused over the issue.

Your argument is a lot the the medieval religious about angels dancing on the head of a pin. It is entertaining but has little to do with the actual nature of God.

Your view as to what the Constitution should mean and say has little to do with the reality of what it really does say.

You say I misunderstand the Constitution while YOU are the one who failed to produce a constitutional argument on the second.
392 posted on 03/17/2005 1:26:32 PM PST by Jim Verdolini
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 390 | View Replies]

To: Jim Verdolini
So, are you OK with it or not? These are really simple questions.

I speak about what the Constitution IS while you speak of what you wish it were

No, you speak about what the gov't IS and what it has usurped. I am speaking about what the Constitution IS, what it says and what that means, in plain English.

I acknowledge we are discussing two different things. There's no need for you to get snotty about it.

SD

393 posted on 03/17/2005 1:32:08 PM PST by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 392 | View Replies]

To: rant57
Pittsburgh is spelled with an "h".

By gos , you're rig t!

Sorry.

394 posted on 03/17/2005 1:36:59 PM PST by Gritty ("the brains of our own students have simply not been adequately developed in our schools"-T Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 379 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave

We simply differ. I can only produce the document itself, the clear language of the discussions surrounding it, the early acts of the congress and a score of court opinions. I must be wrong as your body of evidence is so much stronger.


395 posted on 03/17/2005 1:46:02 PM PST by Jim Verdolini
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 393 | View Replies]

To: Jim Verdolini
Stop flattering yourself. You don't understand what I am saying. I never argued about the 2nd Amendment with you one time. You are bogged down in tiny details. I am talking about fundamental issues.

You have never grasped that, even though I've come right out and told you.

SD

396 posted on 03/17/2005 1:56:59 PM PST by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 395 | View Replies]

To: SE Mom

There is no rational thought in that statement.

Punish the criminal. Not the tools.

How about we ban cars that kill more people than legally purchased firearms every year?


397 posted on 03/17/2005 3:49:32 PM PST by Stopislamnow (Islam sucks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: King Prout; SoothingDave; Spktyr; Conspiracy Guy

thanks you guys, wish there were a few million more like you out there. i'm ... just dang sad over how things are. over how the three branches have userped powers never given to them.. the states have too according to their own Constitutions.

i'm proud of you guys. and i learned some things on this thread from you all. so thanks again..


398 posted on 03/17/2005 4:10:46 PM PST by sdpatriot (remember waco and ruby ridge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 361 | View Replies]

To: Conspiracy Guy

Understand. I've been a fan of AKs for some time, but moved on a few years ago.


399 posted on 03/17/2005 4:25:25 PM PST by PaRebel (Visualize whirled peas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 391 | View Replies]

To: PaRebel
As long as the AK is not full-auto, no federal permit is required.

I guess so. That would be a special order, wouldn't it?

400 posted on 03/17/2005 5:08:48 PM PST by FreePaul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 369 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 361-380381-400401-420421-435 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson