Obviously he needed these all these for self defense in case there is a riot of 'mud-people' :rolleyes:

LITITZ, Pa. - Police seized 54 guns from the home of an 18-year-old man charged with killing his girlfriend’s parents and fleeing the state with her, according to court documents filed Thursday.

Warwick Township police removed the collection of rifles, shotguns, handguns and ammunition Sunday from the home where suspect David Ludwig lived with his parents.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10087890/

I heard this on the radio news on the way home, and what I wonder is what difference does it make?

I mean he only used one of the weapons....so it doesn't matter that there were 54 others.

He must have a really tiny penis. :|

I can't imagine that it was about his penis. He is only 18 years old, so they must be someone else's collection.

The gun collection didn't make the decision to commit double murder; he did.

The gun collection didn't make the decision to commit double murder; he did.


exactly, but gun haters will use anything they can to try and take our guns away from us :not:

I have close to that many guns, I've never killed anyone. Maybe my guns are defective?

At last count I think we have 30 between my father and I. I have given serious consideration to popping a high velocity .223 into my redneck, white trash neighbor.

pure sensationalism.

exactly, but gun haters will use anything they can to try and take our guns away from us :not:

I have close to that many guns, I've never killed anyone. Maybe my guns are defective?


The kid most likely didn't own the guns. He probably ripped one off from his father or somebody, and like an idiot, threw his life (and the lives of the victims) away for a girl. He should be convicted for stupidity and given life without parole.

The kid most likely didn't own the guns. He probably ripped one off from his father or somebody, and like an idiot, threw his life (and the lives of the victims) away for a girl. He should be convicted for stupidity and given life without parole.Hang him from a tree!

The gun collection didn't make the decision to commit double murder; he did.
Yes, that's why we've seen so many mass school murders committed with baseball bats. :rolleyes:

It's obviously because the lethality of guns plays no role in the decision to commit murder.

I think the fact that he was a sick mofo had more to do with him commiting murder than the availability of the guns...I know if he had tried to kill the parents with a knife, his efforts may have been more easy stopped...but there's also truth in that if you want somebody dead badly enough, you'll find a way to do it, gun or no.

If that's true, than why aren't kids carrying out these attacks with weapons other than guns?

Only the few kids that can get access to guns carry them out, so logically, we can assume that if they DIDN'T have access, they wouldn't be perpetrating them.

It seems quite evident that access to a gun is a key factor in committing murder in many cases.

If that's true, than why aren't kids carrying out these attacks with weapons other than guns?

Only the few kids that can get access to guns carry them out, so logically, we can assume that if they DIDN'T have access, they wouldn't be perpetrating them.

It seems quite evident that access to a gun is a key factor in committing murder in many cases.

Around these parts there's a number of stabbings on a daily basis...and from what I've noticed in the newspaper...the crimes done with guns make the headlines, and the ones done with knives are further back in th newpaper. For every school shooting you hear about, I'm sure there are a dozen instances where someone's been stabbed in a school.

True, but you don't see kids going on mass stabbing rampages, or mass beatdowns with baseball bats, do you? They only do that when they get access to guns.

That's why it's a good idea to prevent access to guns.

I believe people have way to easy access to guns...but there's intent behind the violence that never seems to get addressed. There's a reason people think that a gun is an answer to a problem...and that's messed up.

There's no difference between using a gun to make a point on a streetcorner, and using a gun (tanks, guns, bombers) to bully another nation.

Sure there is - the latter is rarely prosecuted. :rolleyes:

If that's true, than why aren't kids carrying out these attacks with weapons other than guns?

Only the few kids that can get access to guns carry them out, so logically, we can assume that if they DIDN'T have access, they wouldn't be perpetrating them.

It seems quite evident that access to a gun is a key factor in committing murder in many cases.that's certainly a stretch. most rural comunities are saturated with firearms. how many school shottings occur in rural areas?

The populations are much lower so fewer crimes of all kinds occur there. Having access to a gun doesn't force you to commit crime, but that doesn't mean that you might not commit a crime without a gun that you would with one.

The populations are much lower so fewer crimes of all kinds occur there. Having access to a gun doesn't force you to commit crime, but that doesn't mean that you might not commit a crime without a gun that you would with one.
so, you're admitting that access to a firearm is a rather insignificant factor pertaining to the commission of crimes?

Am I the only one who blames the parents at all in this?

Twenty bucks says that mommy and daddy (assuming both were present) used the TV as a babysitter and never bothered to actually be parents.

Regardless of the method used (knife, baseball bat, gun, explosive, harsh language), the murderers usually have a whacked out view of reality vs. fantasy that is largely influenced by a skewed view of their own reality as it goes unchecked by parental guidance/supervision. It is the DUTY of a parent to raise his/her child with that guidance that helps them lead healthy, productive lives. In its absence, you get children--often in their mid- to late-teens when they are under the strongest control of hormonal urges--who act out on their fantasies because they do not fully appreciate the reality and the reprocussions of them.

Personally, I'm in favour of moderate gun control, but not banning guns outright. But rather than further restrict gun control, I'd like to see a societal push towards ACTIVE PARENTING.

Cow Punk: We have a right to have guns and people like you who think otherwise can't do anything about it.

As the SCOTUS stated in Miller, and virtually every federal court has reaffirmed in the 70 years since, you have no right whatsoever to own guns.

The city, state, & federal gov'ts can thus assess any criminal penalty for possessing them they wish to, up to & including death, & there's nothing people like you can do about it.

The Supreme Court has been absolutely silent on the 2nd Amendment for more than 1/2 of a century.

Actually it's reaffirmed it's commitment to the conclusions of Miller in: Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55 (1980); Barrett v. United States, 423 U.S. 212 (1976); Scarborough v. United States, 431 U.S. 563 (1977); United States v. Bass, 404 U.S. 336 (1971).

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/

BTW, when the court says nothing about a prior ruling, that means the former ruling stands.

Wrong. Those cases weren't about the individual's right to bear arms. the supreme court has been silent on it.

False - they certainly did invoke Miller. Lewis denied the due process claim of a convicted felon's on the grounds that no individual right to own a firearm exists, negating substantiative due process.

And, of course, as mentioned earlier, the fact that they've remained silent in terms of holdings only means that the the doctrine established in Miller continues to be in effect, and no individual right to own a firearm is recognized by the Constitution.

The Supreme court has not ruled on individual right to arms.

You keep quoting this one case, yet it was a remand and not a precedent.

It was in fact recalled as a precedent by forty federal circuit court rulings, all holding to its doctrine that no individual right to gun ownership exists.

Nope. You are wrong. And just repeating it doesn't make it so. Sorry.

I have guns. I walk around with them sometimes. I take them into banks and supermarkets. Often I carry one to school. I want to be able to shoot someone someday. I don't really care if that someone did something wrong. Maybe they are some sort of smelly, patchouli wearing lefty hippie. Plenty of those targets around the SF Bay Area. Noone would really care if they were shot either. I would probably get an award from the police or something. Maybe I will just go on a random shooting spree. And you know what?

Those fake references to a fake Supreme court precedence won't mean a darn thing!!!

Just like the gun controls you favor only allow a better armed criminal element. But of course the left love the criminal rights.

Am I the only one who blames the parents at all in this?

Twenty bucks says that mommy and daddy (assuming both were present) used the TV as a babysitter and never bothered to actually be parents.

Regardless of the method used (knife, baseball bat, gun, explosive, harsh language), the murderers usually have a whacked out view of reality vs. fantasy that is largely influenced by a skewed view of their own reality as it goes unchecked by parental guidance/supervision. It is the DUTY of a parent to raise his/her child with that guidance that helps them lead healthy, productive lives. In its absence, you get children--often in their mid- to late-teens when they are under the strongest control of hormonal urges--who act out on their fantasies because they do not fully appreciate the reality and the reprocussions of them.

Personally, I'm in favour of moderate gun control, but not banning guns outright. But rather than further restrict gun control, I'd like to see a societal push towards ACTIVE PARENTING.


I'm not convinnced on this onbe yet. Both kids were home schooled.

My kids have been home schooled for years, and it takes constant, daily , one on one contact, and dedication.

I think the stupid kid was either in "love" for the first time, or got laid for the first time. When people are in that state, they're not thinking rationally to begin with.

When the relationship was threatened, he (and possibly her) plotted a scheme to keep it alive. Now he'll be in jail for life, and never be with her again.

Nope. You are wrong. And just repeating it doesn't make it so. Sorry.
Pot. Kettle. Black.

I have guns. I walk around with them sometimes. I take them into banks and supermarkets. Often I carry one to school. I want to be able to shoot someone someday. I don't really care if that someone did something wrong. Maybe they are some sort of smelly, patchouli wearing lefty hippie. Plenty of those targets around the SF Bay Area. Noone would really care if they were shot either. I would probably get an award from the police or something. Maybe I will just go on a random shooting spree.
:eek3:

Woah, there, sparky. The TOS specifically state that open advocations of violence are against the TOS. Might wanna lay off of those, okay?

And I'm pretty sure that no school in the country would have an open policy on carrying firearms on campus/into classrooms. Probably a really bad idea to do that. And I know that it's against the law--federal law I believe--to have a firearm inside of a bank.

And you know what?

Those fake references to a fake Supreme court precedence won't mean a darn thing!!!

:scratch: Are you daft? Fake Supreme Court precedence? The case really happened, how is it fake?

Just like the gun controls you favor only allow a better armed criminal element. But of course the left love the criminal rights.[/QUOTE]

Hyperbolic exaggeration. Adds nothing to the debate. Lay off the inflammatory remarks too.

Nope. You are wrong. And just repeating it doesn't make it so. Sorry.

I have guns. I walk around with them sometimes. I take them into banks and supermarkets. Often I carry one to school. I want to be able to shoot someone someday. I don't really care if that someone did something wrong. Maybe they are some sort of smelly, patchouli wearing lefty hippie. Plenty of those targets around the SF Bay Area. Noone would really care if they were shot either. I would probably get an award from the police or something. Maybe I will just go on a random shooting spree. And you know what?

Those fake references to a fake Supreme court precedence won't mean a darn thing!!!

Just like the gun controls you favor only allow a better armed criminal element. But of course the left love the criminal rights.
Sorry, but the SCOTUS has spoken, as have 40 federals courts, and they say you're wrong, as always.

You have no right to own a gun, and you never will.

By the way, they're called PRECEDENTS, genius. :rolleyes:

I have the personal right to own a gun because it is the facts on the grounds.

Monster I wasn't advocating violence just pointing out that fake precedence doesn't stop me from having/using a gun.

Monster I don't inform the authorities of when I am carrying a gun. I don't have a CCW, but I think that it is my right to be armed and so therefore I often have a gun with me, even when I go to class. I don't let anyone know that I have a gun. That would defeat the purpose. But I will be ready if anyone decides to start gangsta-ing it up. Knowwhatimean.

And precedents become the precedence genius.

There's no such thing as A SCOTUS precendence, there's just THE SCOTUS precedence, a singular.

And facts on the ground don't create a right - they simply create facts, & they don't restrict the Congress from legislating. Only the Constitution & case law can do that.

And the latter clearly states that there is no such right.

You have only provided your assertion that the precedence is favoring your position. It is not the case that Miller was an individual right case nor does it dispute the fact that the Supreme Court has been silent on it for more than half a century.

Miller certainly was an individual rights case, as the defendant asserted his individual right to ownership of a weapon as a defense to the charges, which the court denied.

And it doesn't matter how long ago the court ruled - since it hasn't overturned its previous ruling, the prior ruling stands. The lower federal courts have referred to it as a precedent denying an individual right to a weapon as recently as 2004.

It most definitely matters especially since Miller didn't preclude or decide the individual rights issue.

Since every federal court that's ruled on it as an individual rights issue has disagreed, we can dismiss your claim as false.

No restriction on gun ownership has ever been ruled unconstitutional by a federal court, nor has any federal court ever incorporated the 2nd into the 14th.

Am I the only one who blames the parents at all in this?

Twenty bucks says that mommy and daddy (assuming both were present) used the TV as a babysitter and never bothered to actually be parents.

Regardless of the method used (knife, baseball bat, gun, explosive, harsh language), the murderers usually have a whacked out view of reality vs. fantasy that is largely influenced by a skewed view of their own reality as it goes unchecked by parental guidance/supervision. It is the DUTY of a parent to raise his/her child with that guidance that helps them lead healthy, productive lives. In its absence, you get children--often in their mid- to late-teens when they are under the strongest control of hormonal urges--who act out on their fantasies because they do not fully appreciate the reality and the reprocussions of them.

Personally, I'm in favour of moderate gun control, but not banning guns outright. But rather than further restrict gun control, I'd like to see a societal push towards ACTIVE PARENTING.

This is the same phenomena that is breaking down marriages...lack of communication.
And you have a good point.
The issue isn't so much the gun as the intent of the person behind the trigger. What the hell happened to this kid to put him there...pointing a loaded gun at someone. There's a story that ends where the headlines begin.

For that matter, what negligence on their part contributed to their son building up a collection of 54 guns in their house without their knowledge? :eek3:

It boils down to this

Whack job without a gun = a minor hazard to the peace

A gun by itself = zero hazard

A whackjob with a gun = an enormous hazard to the peace

The NRA and other peace loving firearm enthusiasts / hunters / sportsmen are taking the wrong approach, they concentrate on any legal measure to restrict ownership or types of weapons when they should be working with law enforcement and the legislature to figure out ways to keep lethal weapons away from whackjobs.

Right now as I type this, there is some guy holding hostages in a Tacoma mall and 6-8 people are in the hospital, and they were not stabbed or hit with baseball bats.

There is no way I know to prevent some people from going nuts, so the burden falls on society to prevent easy access to lethal weapons

For that matter, what negligence on their part contributed to their son building up a collection of 54 guns in their house without their knowledge? :eek3:

It didn't state that the guns belonged to the son, just that they were confiscated from the home. I had assumed they were the father's...

It didn't state that the guns belonged to the son, just that they were confiscated from the home. I had assumed they were the father's...


They probably were, because the sale of hanguns to people under the age of 21 is illegal in many, if not most states.

It didn't state that the guns belonged to the son, just that they were confiscated from the home. I had assumed they were the father's...

His parents have not commented publicly and the news stories I've seen said it was not clear who owned the weapons

It didn't state that the guns belonged to the son, just that they were confiscated from the home. I had assumed they were the father's...
Even so - how responsible is a gun owner or parent who doesn't notice 54 of their weapons missing & in the hands of their teen child? :confused:

Even so - how responsible is a gun owner or parent who doesn't notice 54 of their weapons missing & in the hands of their teen child? :confused:

I'm not sure where you get the part about the son having 54 guns in his direct possession. If they were in the family home, regardless of ownership, the police confiscated them . The kid only needed 1 gun to shoot somebody. Out of 54 guns, who would notice if their kid lifted one?

It is difficult to judge exactly what happened from the info in the article.

Yeah...what about that? :mad:

Lazy-ass reporters. :p

Looks like everyone's lawyered up & not talking.

The kid, not the gun, committed the crime. The gun doesn't shoot itself. Guns are only as dangerous as the people behind them. My husband has guns. I don't worry about it.

www.careymcwilliams.com

The kid, not the gun, committed the crime. The gun doesn't shoot itself. Guns are only as dangerous as the people behind them. My husband has guns. I don't worry about it.

www.careymcwilliams.com

You are right.