3 officers killed in Pittsburgh shooting

From the article; Friends said he recently had been upset about losing his job and that he feared the Obama administration was poised to ban guns

Now there's a red-neck bull@!$%# conflation - if the account of the friends is accurate, this was a tragedy waiting to happen.

If the shooter lost his job due to the bad economy, it was set in motion on Bush's watch, not Obama's, and had the guns been banned, three police officers would still be alive.

I'm real f'n tired of the gun lobby and gun lovers.

A. Mac

If they banned guns the only people to have them would be criminals.

When I was in high school, it was ten times easier to get cocaine and marijuana than to get alcohol. So that will be one ounce of marijuana and a hand gun please, no make that an uzi.

A. Macarthur:

If the shooter lost his job due to the bad economy, it was set in motion on Bush's watch, not Obama's, and had the guns been banned, three police officers would still be alive.

I dare you to back that up. At all.

It's not that I don' t empathize with your anger, but while there a number of crimes I could lay at the feet of Bush, these officers deaths aren't among them. And for that matter, if you can make a reasonable argument that a man who was, according the above article, concerned with having his guns taken away somehow would not have snapped sooner if cops really had come to take his guns away, I'd like to hear it.

The problem isn't guns. It isn't money. It's people. Scared, stupid people. People who feel they are backed into a corner so they do stupid things. If you've got a cure for that, present it, win your nobel peace prize and be done with it. In the mean time, please don't try to reduce a complex chain of events down to "damn gun lovers".

A. Macarthur:

If the shooter lost his job due to the bad economy, it was set in motion on Bush's watch, not Obama's, and had the guns been banned, three police officers would still be alive.

I dare you to back that up. At all.

Not much of a challenge...the economy's recession hit during Bush's watch. Everyone knows that...except you, I guess. Not saying it was all Bush's fault, but that doesn't make the post any less true.

Blizzy:

I'm aware of when the recession hit. What I'm asking is direct proof that if the recession hadn't happened and somehow guns were banned that the officers who died would still be alive today. The notion that they certainly would is a straw man argument that assumes that all PA needed to be a safer place was for Bush to have never assumed power.

There's a difference between making a statement and making an argument. The posts up to this point do the former, not the latter. I'm asking if those statements can be made into arguments or are they just gut opinions?

As I write and read the article, I have one last comment that does not involve lawyers, gun rights, the economy, or psychiatrists:

Thanks to the three police officers (Eric Kelly, Stephen Mayhle and Paul Sciullo III) who gave their lives to our country. Our prayers are with them and their family!

Lordfluffy - They would have to be arguments wouldn't they? We can't go back in time, change conditions, and prove something to be true...

This man was not a criminal. He did not obtain his weapons illegally, therefore it is perfectly logical to imagine that had guns been banned, and he had no access, the 3 officers who died would still be alive today.

A.Mac.'s argument was clearly normative...

It's supposition and speculation.

The only thing we know about this guy is that he grossly overreacted and that he was fearful of being disarmed. If guns were banned on day one of Obama's administration, this scene might have still played out. There's nothing to indicate that he might not have armed himself up to the legal limit if guns had been banned 8 years ago or that he might not have sought out weapons illegally at that time (except perhaps that he would have been 15).

My point is there is no one factor or simple answer that I think we can say at this point that would have prevented this without first requiring a major restructuring of American law, culture and this guy's psyche some time in the less than recent past. It's like saying that if one of his armed neighbors had seen what was going on and shot him in the back that the officers would have lived. It's even like arguing that if he'd been a stoner everything would be alright. Such claims are unprovable, biased and more in line with expressing a pre-existing opinion than drawing a likely conclusion from the facts as presented.

So, unless there are additional facts available of which I'm not aware, I fail to see how one can securely say that this tragedy or something very much like it would not have occurred if the economy were better and firearms were illegal to possess. To be able to do so one would need powers of deduction bordering on omniscience.

Good to hear that, CCArm. I was afraid that it was only me. I've never really been a fan of guns, although I've handled my fair share. It's devastating to think of so many gunned down on a regular basis these days. Even with stricter laws, I'm terrified that it won't ease the threat, or the pain.

I disagree. I am one of those police officers you are speaking for and don't see the firearms as the problem. No, the problem goes much deeper: all of the turds we let into our country, all of the turds we let out of jail, all of the turds we don't execute for crimes we should be executing them for, government overstepping their constitutional limits of authority, etc.

Lets take the NY shooting yesterday as a victim-made-zone, er, I mean 'gun-free-zone' civic building. There were how many ready-made victims in there just waiting to be killed? Just think how this would have turned out if someone in the building was armed and able to shoot back?

Remember, the second amendment is not about hunting.....and much of what the government tells us about guns and gun violence is a lie. Take the Mexico issue for an example: http://midatokie.newsvine.com/_news/2009/04/03/2637693-us-governmnet-lied-about-gun-numbers-into-mexico

all of the turds we let into our country, all of the turds we let out of jail, all of the turds we don't execute for crimes we should be executing them for, government overstepping their constitutional limits of authority, etc.

By all means, relate any of these to the recent shootings. The gunman in Binghamton was an immigrant, but initial reports suggested he was upset after losing his job. The guy in Oakland was on parole- parole is generally not extended to those guilty of crimes that the death penalty argument revolves around. You might think crimes x, y, and z are worthy of execution- I do- but that's simply opinion with no bearing on the matter. We have to let some turds out of jail because we can't build a big enough crapper to hold them all.

I don't know what the right answer is re: gun control. Countries where firearms have been made illegal have considerably less gun violence, but then, guns were never necessarily widespread in the first place. It's the difference between quarantining a plague and trying to stop it after it's in the general population. Any action or inaction we pursue in the belief we're doing the right thing is a guess.

What I do know is that relatively sensible ideas like "legal guns allow more people to keep from being victims" get drowned out by paranoid, racist, blaming comments like the quoted. Leave that garbage out of this. It does nothing useful.

Police did not immediately release the gunman's identity, but his friends identified him as Richard Poplawski, 23. They described him as a young man who thought the Obama administration would ban guns.

One friend, Edward Perkovic, said Poplawski 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 Obama was going to take away his rights, though he said he "wasn't violently against Obama."

It seems like the shooter was not very stable and also shared some of the extreme views that are present today. Here is the danger of ratcheting up the rhetoric incessantly, those that are loose cannons may not be able to distinguish between literal and figurative speech. I feel so badly for the families of the victims of this senseless crime. I will pray for them all.

TackKS: For the record, repeatedly using the word "turd" as a synonym for "person" detracts from the idea that you're making a reasoned argument.

As for the original point, most cops I know aren't for stricter gun control laws. For that matter, there's no law that is going to bind someone who already has a weapon and chooses to use it. If you want people to stop killing people, then remove the reason to kill people. Removing the weaponry is impractical at best and only disarms those willing to abide by laws in the first place.

With that said, I will say what I said in a thread about the NY shootings yesterday: This isn't the time to start the gun control debate. Every time a tragedy occurs, we need to look at it individually rather than plug quotes from the story into our already existing ideologies and arguments. Right now, I'd rather focus on the fact that 3 men who didn't have to died and offering up some words to my varied gods for them rather than sit and debate what could or could have not deprived their killer of the means.

Peace.

Spiffy- of course there is always an idiot who wants to throw an 'ist' word in the mix, eh?

By the way, banning guns is not a legal option, as it is beyond the legal ability of the congress to legislate away a civil right as given by the Bill of Rights. The same goes for the president. It is just as protected as the freedom of religion, only more; it is the only one with the 'shall not be infringed' clause in it. You ought to look up the meaning of 'infringed'.....

Have another sip, Bernard. MSM is "focusing on violent crimes" because they are happening. It's not as if killing sprees and cop-shootings happen in every town on a daily basis.

The wingnuts are creating their own self-fulfilling prophecy -- fabricate rhetoric about "Obama will take away our guns" in the absence any evidence, provoke nut-jobs into shooting sprees, leading to a crackdown on guns and gun-owners, leading to more nut-jobs going on shooting sprees, leading to....

Who are the real terrorists? (Hint: you don't go on a shooting spree if you don't own a cache of firearms and don't listen to wingnut media.)

Bernard, MSm isn't the only one. Have you counted lately all of the 'entertainment' programming that revolves around cops and or criminals? It's really stunning. One day I counted 54 programs not counting both on cable and networks and including re-runs and since then I have noticed more new programs coming out including various programs simulating S.W.A.T types. What is going on?

Now with cable news wars, some of which brag about and exhort others to 'revolution' and instigate whisper campaigns involving Obama curtailing the ownership of guns, well... it was bound to set somebody off and maybe more than one sombodies. Freedom of speech carries responsibilities for that same freedom. Everybody is very vocally insisting on their 'rights' without realizing that sometimes it is the first thing that causes various kinds of backlash. Who is trying to brain wash us? And to what end?

How can the police treat anybody and everybody they encounter as if each held imminent threat to violence or at the least not deserving of dignity just because they caught law enforcements attention and not expect to be feared and then hated for generating that very fear. The constant fear-mongering and baiting is gone beyond the pale regardless of who started it or how or why it started. What have we, as a society, become and where will it take us and our decendants?

One day I counted 54 programs not counting both on cable and networks and including re-runs and since then I have noticed more new programs coming out including various programs simulating S.W.A.T types. What is going on?

Fear programming, IMO, Opinion8ed. Get everyone afraid of each other, afraid of anything different, afraid of life. The only real answer is to discontinue cable and don't watch the tube. I did this years ago - one of the best decisions I ever made. There's a few other folks in my neighborhood who don;t watch the tube and, guess what? they are generally those best informed and most interesting to talk to.

I hear what you are saying Ire. As a recluse, it is one of my only contacts with the outside world. By the way I left out the word news between counting.... and both. I am hard pressed to give it up since I am losing the wherewithal to smoke. Culture shock. However, it is the season of gardening and that is coming on strong. Will try your method.

In 2009 this country is made up of a LARGE percentage of people who are either psychotic or border-line psychotic.

Any ideas on how to quit raising these folks on a mass level?

Status? Your implication is social status. Not relevant. Economic status is what's relevant. That's what they fear, losing everything.

Ironically, those people are the best argument for gun control. They're the ones most likely to own legal weaponry and turn it on their families. The kid in PA who shot his soon-to-be stepmom is another example. Yes, they're a tiny proportion, but I could very easily use your own post to say our government needs to take responsibility and get rid of guns.

You'd like to have seen him pull this in a community run by gangs? I assume your overarching point is that he wouldn't dare do it in a place where guns are obviously prevalent. Frankly, while I'm not necessarily for gun control, I'm baffled by the idea that knowing every other person around you might be packing can do anything but create an atmosphere of paranoia about the threat of instantly getting whacked at any moment. That's not a good state for any community to be in. And while the theory that criminals would be afraid to pull their guns out in such a place might sound good, the number of people who could just snap and start firing would increase so drastically that, just based on human nature and the inability of many people to deal with their problems, it would create a situation like Iraq- hearing about so many mass killings that the tragic aspect of it is lost.

The difference in other cultures is that, by and large, they were not based on the concept of arms for everyone. With respect to gun violence, there really is no example we can draw on to guide us. Countries either never had widespread weaponry and thus had no issue making them illegal, or they're Sudan-ish places with violence lots of places (but not solely attributable to the availability of guns, of course).

There is no easy fix. Maybe the only thing we can do is to make guns illegal and see if it works. But even then, if it would work, it's unlikely Americans would wait long enough to find out for sure. The second amendment was a great idea 200 years ago, but it's not doing us a lot of good right now.

Spiffy You are a WHACK. Try to take guns from american people. It would and never could happen. Too many hunters and sportsman in this country. Hide in your big city bubble and leave us real people alone,

Pay attention, homey. I'm not suggesting we actually do it. I pretty much agree that it would be almost impossible to implement a full-scale ban.

My point was that the only way to figure out if a gun ban would work better than the status quo at preventing gun violence is to actually enact a gun ban. That doesn't mean it would be a good idea. That doesn't mean it would succeed. It could make things twice as bad. But as long as the status quo remains, so will the debate, because we simply can't know what the best answer is for certain.

Must have misunderstood Sorry.

Spiffy- banning guns is not a legal option.

I appreciate that, mike.

Tack, I trust you know as well as I do that if the government is so motivated, they can make anything as legal or illegal as they want and just leave a little loophole that covers them constitutionally. Their technical limitations are mostly moot.

Spiffy- what you are saying the government can do anything they want and justify it by saying, 'they can'. Well, the public has fallen for that for years, but it is not going to work much longer. The government does NOT have the right to do what they want, which is the reason we have the second amendment to begin with!

Technical limitations? Are you calling the constitution a 'technical limitation'??? How absurd!

Betty- you may pecieve there is a difference, but there is not. Did the black guy in California give up? The white guy in PA did. Had the police killed the white guy in PA, do you think the local white community would be making a hero out of him as was the case in CA?

Bottom line, had the guy in CA given up, the outcome would have been the same. Stop making a racial issue out of everything.

Soy- Good post! You hit the nail on the head!

Most immigrants I don't think listen to Rush.

And this guy wasn't an immigrant from what's been said so far.

Nor was it said he listened to radio talk shows at all much less Limbaugh.

Just to check, do you guys want to get to the bottom of the issue or do you just want to see who can prove their point better? If it's the former stick to the facts. If it's the latter, then you may wish to take a step back and ask why that's so important. The bickering isn't really helping anything.

And who makes the evaluations? The people who doped up kids on Ritalin? It's fine in theory, but without a better understanding of mental illness, this doesn't seem like a plausible idea.

auntie, I agree mental health does need to be addressed and is an area where we are severely lacking in services. Something really needs to give on that one.

Spiffy, It is not a theory and you are right more of our money needs to be spent on mental illness in all three areas treatment, diagnosis and research.

When did "mental health issues" become the catch all for this kind of behavior?

Once upon a time in America almost everyone went to church. If that did nothing else, it did establish parameters for acceptable behavior that was, by and large, adhered to.

Civility, common courtesy and good manners have also declined since those not so long ago days. So yes, it is the brave new American culture. No foundation, but plenty of facade.

That said, my heartfelt condolences to the families.

Civility, common courtesy and good manners have also declined since those not so long ago days. So yes, it is the brave new American culture. No foundation, but plenty of facade.

And who's fault is that? The parents who have, themselves, allowed morality and the morality of their children fall by the waist-side or the government (somehow)?

I just find it hiliarious this notion that people need the church and organized religion to teach them right from wrong. I learned it from my family, and have never stepped foot inside a church outside of funerals and weddings.

Faulty logic. Sin happens in the presence of religion as much as it does otherwise. You couldn't prove otherwise if you tried.

Sin happens in the presence of religion as much as it does otherwise. You couldn't prove otherwise if you tried.

I wouldn't try. I happen to agree.

I don't know how old you are so I don't know what decades you've experienced. I remember a different America once and I have to take some of the blame for where we are. I was certainly a vocal advocate in the 60's when we were going to change the world. Well we did and it falls in the catagory of "Be careful what you wish for".

I hear what you're saying there Kate...

But this isn't the 60's. We didn't have assault rifles in the hands of citizens in the 60's. High caliber hand guns, baffles, UZI's and Tech-9's, armour piercing bullets, etc. didn't exist. Today we have these problems, and they need to be addressed...not ignored.

The gun industry is only getting more high-tech; and with fewer militaries to sell their weapons to, they're heading to the streets - unless legislation blocks their path.

We didn't have assault rifles in the hands of citizens in the 60's.

Alright... for a moment, I'm going to assume what you mean is a semi automatic rifle with a detachable box magazine rather than a fully automatic or select-fire weapon with detachable magazine of 20 or more rounds, which is a more proper definition of "assault rifle" as applied to military tactics, as opposed to how the media portrays assault weapons (which is pretty much by shape and color).

So with that definition in mind, you're still wrong.

Weapons that have been around since the 1960's and have semi-automatic variants include: The H&K g3, M-14, the FN-FAL, the AK-47 and the M-1 carbine. If you include weapons with internal magazines, you can add the M1 Garand and the SKS to that list.

The Uzi sub machine gun was developed in the 50's. So was the .44 magnum handgun cartridge. AP ammo has been around almost as long as there has been armor. Silencers too. And while fully automatic weapons were restricted in the 1930's, they have been availible, legally, to private owners since then in a number of states with the proper paperwork from the ATF.

The only thing you were right about was the Tec-9, which is basically an overblown 9mm pistol, which was developed in the 80's.

The problem isn't guns. These weapons and more powerful ones (look up the BAR, Browning Automatic Rifle) have been accessable by the general public since their creation.

Uncle Google and Auntie Wikipedia are your friends.

Like I said...we didn't have citizens owning those guns. I never said they didn't exist. For the most part, they were too expensive, and not as readily available on the black market, or in their many variants as they are today...

While I'm not saying the technology didn't advance, I am saying those weapons were in private hands.

The BAR was the prefered weapon of Bonnie and Clyde. They were bought legally; it was because of the use of weapons like that and the Thompson sub-machine gun (which could be accquired at hardware stores) that the current laws regarding possession of automatic weapons were written.

The M14 match rifle (semi auto, tuned for competition shooting), which fires a more powerful cartridge than the AR-15 (the semi auto M16/M4), was available through the NRA civilian marksmanship program as of 1959. The HK41 was introduced into the civilian market in the 1960's. As for high powered handguns, the first commerical gun firing the .44 mag cartridge was a single action Ruger (a common hunting sidearm).

After ten minutes of Googling, I haven't found a listing of how much these weapons cost when first made available, but I can say that they've never been out of the reach of the average American and the thing that drove up the price of "assault weapons" was the ban in the 1990's.

Please tell me, Blizzy: what is your experience with firearms? What are you basing your statements on?

And as for "available on the black market" please keep in mind, many of the weapons used in today's tragedy's are bought in legitimate markets. Certainly, there are people buying illicit weapons, having people accquire them legally if they themselves can't legally own one or simply stealing them, but a large number are bought over the counter and in full compliance with the law.

Do you have evidence the contrary?

My argument regarding cost comes from standard comparative economics. The absense of technology and high-speed production lines like we have today, made prices for pretty much all guns higher in the 60's - prices go down as the costs for production decrease.

The idea that the assault weapons ban of 94' made assault weapons more expensive makes no sense...they weren't available for legal sale.

The argument that average citizens didn't have access to assault weapons comes from my knowledge of the history behind the AR15/M16. When Fairchild Aircraft created ArmaLite in the 50's they gave their AR15 (5.56mm cartridge over the older 7.62mm one) to the Army. It was not available for consumer sale at all.

As sales declined, ArmaLite sold the designs to Colt, who marketed it heavily to the consumer market as well as foreign markets. The gun, and it's legal variants, has been popular ever since.

I realize that's just one gun, but that's the history of a number of weapons that are now available for consumer sale - they started out as military weapons, until the corporations needed someone else to sell to. I realize that some were always intended for consumer use, and I would concede those as the exceptions, though not the rule.

I own rifles of my own as well as a competition bow. I have bow hunted deer before, but I don't believe in hunting animals with a rifle. Am I a gun expert? Nah. But I have many other skills...

Blizzy:

The one gun I found a 1960 price for was a Winchester lever action rifle that sold for about 85 bucks. This is at a time when the average salary was about $5,500. This means that a purchase of a Winchester lever action cost roughly 1.5% of the average person's yearly salary.

The average salary in 2005 was 42K. The same rifle now runs, from what I can find, anywhere from $350 to $600, or .8% to 1.2 percent of the average salary. While sigificant, I wouldn't call that prohibitive.

And $600 in 2009 gets you a very cheap assualt rifle.

The idea that the assault weapons ban of 94' made assault weapons more expensive makes no sense...they weren't available for legal sale.

You apparently are unaware of what the assault weapons ban actually banned. It didn't ban the sale, it banned the manufacture and import. As of 1 week prior to the AWB's expiration, I was in a pawn shop looking at a semi-auto AK47.

Right before the ban went into place, one could accquire an SKS for under $100. Now, it's closer to $350. AK's sold for $300. Now $600. AR15's were in the $600 range pre pan, over $1000 today. The AWB did nothing to stem the demand, only the supply.

And as for your assumptions about the motives of corporations, yes the civilian market got better marketing over the years, but there was always a market. Your assumptions are based on less than scientific data.

I reinterate, these weapons have been available on the civilan market since their creation. Some models less than others, but always something. You statment about what was and wasn't available in the 1960's was wrong.

I maintain the problem isn't guns.

Speak out America, good advice. But how about speaking the truth instead of the same old tired talking points. Get rid of the premise of something being a fact when it is only an opinion. Most of your statement is a misdirected opinion based on conjecture and distortion. There are loose cannons out there that cannot distinguish what is a fact in your statement and which is an opinion. If the POTUS addressed every false claims that the right wing constantly spews that would be all he would be doing for the rest of his term. Maybe the right should stop their assault on this country with their lies and deceit. Just a thought.

Linda I'm really curious exactly what rights has Obama taken from you. Please be specific.... and provide a link from a reputable source...

And how is this Obama's fault, exactly, linda?

Seems to me there's a personal accountability issue, so cherished, that is being ignored.

Thanks for contributing something useful to this article Linda...

*sarcasm*

I did not say he has taken anything away or at least not yet but there is a lot of anger out there with all of the things that Obama and his admin has talked about wanting to do. Yes, He is responsible for calming the fears of American citizens on important issues. His silence on these subjects only makes people feel more stressed

Acorn doing the census, gun ban, putting gitmo detainees inside US borders,forcing Catholic hospitals to perform abortions, I could go on and on

I am not saying he is in support of these things but there is a feeling in the country that he is therefore, if he does not plan on doing these things he should talk about it and tell people where he stands. That is all I was trying to point out

oops

In 1945 Canada passed a Canadian Citizenship Act which completely altered the position and introduced an entirely new principle. The Canadian Act established a citizenship for Canada and declared all Canadian citizens to be British subjects. Section 28 of that Act reads: A person who has acquired the status of British subject by birth or naturalisation under the laws of any country of the British Commonwealth other than Canada to which he was subject at the time of his birth or naturalisation shall be recognised in Canada as a British subject. I need not go into all the technical differences which have arisen, as the result of the Canadian Act, between Canadian law and our own, but I will give one example. The acquisition of nationality by descent is now different in this country from what it is in Canada. If a person who is a British subject by reason of his birth in this country goes abroad and has a son born abroad, that son is a British subject. If that son has a son, the grandson of the first man is not a British subject unless his birth is registered at a consulate. Under the Canadian Act, if a Canadian citizen, who is a British subject by virtue of being a Canadian citizen, goes abroad and has a son, that son is not a Canadian citizen if born abroad; but he may well be a British subject by our law.

Why don't you matriculate your child in a religious school?

A chicken in every pot!:

Good statement and very true!

So, to add context to your statement:

Since the founding of this country, morality and sanctity of life went too.

See how silly that sounds? The real problem is bad parenting, not schools, and the idea that only religious people have a sense of morality and believe in the sanctity of life is quite the narrow assumption...

The real problem is bad parenting

Agreed. Why is there bad parenting? Could it be that they have no foundation upon which to build? Where do they get that? Dr. Spock?

Oh come on...you mean to tell me that without religion it's impossible to have a moral barometer? I dont' buy it.

Where and how are children going to receive exposure to any type of respect for life or moral behaviour when everywhere it may be introduced, the ACLU comes along and silences it? The idiological responses written about children being able to find a moral barometer through most parents who shush their kids to see who is the next idol, or dancer are parenting from the osborne style and will end up with such spawn. I did matriculate (register) my children into a Catholic school to insure a solid foundation in addition to caring and loving parenting at home. They are exposed to everything life has to offer, but they know what we consider acceptable parameters. We aren't religious zealots, yet we allow them to see our Spirituality which is lacking in the lifestyles I notice happening in alot of families I have the unfortunate experience of having to interact with. We are far from a perfect family, (who is?), but we do take an active role in teaching our children how to cope instead of letting them search for lessons from otherwise undesireable sources, like some of the respondents thoughts on this post!

First off, the big bad ACLU is not coming into your homes and telling you not to instill values into your children. So give up on the excuse. Whether you want to admit it or not, the ACLU has had a significant and positive effect on a large swath of people in our country. Our's is one of the few nations having an organization with a vested interest in protecting the constitutional rights of its citizens...and the demonization of the ACLU by a GOP that supposedly is infatuated with the constitution down to the letter is difficult to understand.

That point aside - to what I was saying before - I went to a friends school for my education. We learned about religion, but we learned about pretty much all of the major ones. The point was to educate us in the belief systems of others so that we can respect their views, as well as form our own. My belief system I got from my family. I am not a religious person at all, only time you'll see me in a church is for some sort of event that usually happens in churches (wedding, funeral, baptism, etc.).

The idea that everyone needs religion, from people who themselves need it is what annoys me. And the idea that society's lowering standards are somehow the fault of the constitution (which disallows the federal recognition of a single religion - cause that's what the argument boils down to) because without the church morality doesn't exist, is idiotic.

NO The ACLU may not be coming in our homes but the UN sure does want to! An International Council that says how we can correct our children and how we cannot force our own children to attend church with us?

We are expected to adhere to what BIG BROTHER wants No smoking, no guns, how much money we make, not taking our children to the church of our choice, not being able to pray at a ball game,not being able to keep what our parents leave for us,what type car we drive, WANT MORE EXAMPLES?

WANT MORE EXAMPLES?

Not if you're going to make them up...

I've played football, baseball, basketball, and soccer. Before every game, we prayed. No one ever told us we couldn't. If there was someone of a different faith, they would have the option to say their own prayer before the group as well. Our coach was Jewish...but he still respected our faith. It's that way in most parts of the country. Your more exclusionary people tend to be so-called Christians who think everyone should believe what they do, because they're right...

The government never said you can't smoke. And making something more expensive isn't prohibiting it. Smokers without insurance have made their mark on our health-care system so I have little sympathy for people who willfully put their lives in danger and expect everyone else to take care of them when they get lung cancer or emphysema.

No one is trying to control how much YOU make. You're no CEO. But there is a such thing as fair compensation. Earning $300K a year to run a company makes sense. Earning $15-16M a year does not...regardless of how much money the company makes. That's irresponsible and is detrimental to the spirit of capitalism. In a capitalist society, the investors and the entrepreneurs should be the one's making the money. Not some guy who is running the company, especially when his performance is lacking.

Not taking your children to the church of your choice? What the hell are you talking about? What makes people like you seem like wackos is your willingness to throw logic and factual information out the door in favor of rhetoric or straight up lies.

Now I don't live in a 'pollyanna' bubble thinking prayer in schools alone would stop any of this violence. There are and always will be actions throughout the world that ask the question of "If there is a Loving, Caring GOD why does he allow this to happen?" What concerns me is that the foundation of ANY religion is 'love one another as one of God's creations', (in other words, respect life), but that has been systematically removed from exposure to minds, especially impressionable minds of children. That has happened mainly by the actions and lawsuits directly attributable to the ACLU. Yet the silence is deafing when beliefs in destruction of moral behavior ARE forced on our children and ourselves to accept as law. The introduction of the U.N. is a perfect example. I remember when in elementary school, given 'Weekly Readers', extolling the wonderful world of the U.N., hah! They are and always have been about eliminating our sovereignty, and destroying our Great Country, but I digress. My original point is, the suppression of moral behaviors, exchanged for the elevation of immoral behaviors, while using the falactious argument of separation of Church and State has been killing our country by a death of a thousand slices. That's just my opinion, and Thank God, I can still express it. My question is 'For how long before it is viewed as hate-speech in the eyes of the grand supreme leader of a one-world government?'

Right. You are SO right. And so is the NRA. In fact, everyone should own an AK 47. Clearly the three cops who got mowed down today weren't a victim of an AK 47, just a nut right? Give me a break. This is just another one of the terrible tragedies of the Bush era. Allowing someone who got kicked out of high school and kicked out of the Marines to own an AK. THIS is why Obama was elected. Because after 8 years of this insanity Americans have had enough. If we could have used our heads and elected a Dem in 2000 and 2004.........wait......we did......twice.

Furthermore, your point is insane. You are basically saying that Iran and North Korea should be allowed to create nuclear weapons along the same arguement as all Americans should be allowed to own any weapon they chose. Nuclear weapons don't kill people, terrorists do. Is that the point you are tryng to get across? Or are you speaking out of both sides of your mouth?

Gun reform is necessary. Today's tragedy is proof. While President Obama never said he was going to take everyone's guns away, only Rush did, I think he should. No one...NO ONE needs an AK 47 and no where does the Constitution say that you are entitled to. Grow up Republicans. How many years have to go by that Republicans are killing Americans before you freaking wake up?????

Clearly the three cops who got mowed down today weren't a victim of an AK 47, just a nut right?

Correct!

Nuclear weapons don't kill people, terrorists do. Is that the point you are tryng to get across?

Not at all. But since you brought it up, those nuclear weapons don't just show up and kill people. People kill people. :-) Get the point?

Prohibition on nuclear weapons doesn't work either. Case in point, Iran and North Korea.

Or are you speaking out of both sides of your mouth?

No.

How many years have to go by that Republicans are killing Americans before you freaking wake up?????

Do you have any facts to back up this insanely stupid comment/question? Or, in your mind, is anyone who shoots someone tossed into the category of being a Republican? Let me know when you have some facts on this one ... Okay?

Thank you Dave My point exactly!

This guy was a democrat He voted for Obama. He was mad because of all the caos Obama is causing.

Thank you Dave My point exactly!

Thanks Linda.

It's amazing how many people can't get beyond the "ban all guns" argument. What they don't realize is that they are really saying, "Let's ban all legal guns." There is no way to control the illegal guns or those who will choose to have them illegally. They don't have an answer for how to deal with that and it's a pretty big leap of faith to think all the gangs and criminals in the States are just going show up at the local police station to turn in their guns.

What is even clearer is that prohibition has never worked. Look at alcohol. Look at the war on drugs. If people want it, they will find a way to get it. Generally, prohibition increases the incidents of crime rather than decreases it. I'm not advocating the legalization of drugs, but I think it's a pretty clear example that a ban on anything does not prevent it from being in society.

That sounds like a very responsible approach.

I feel your outrage and want of vigilanteism, but I do applaude the professionalism of the Pittsburgh Police Department in apprehending and not becoming the executioner of this as you so aptly described him, "turd".

Guess I should have put *sarcasm* but I thought it was obvious.

Maybe you should pass second grade English class before you post on here.

The economy is the problem. People who have nothing else to loose will resort to drastic measures.