Elk County Forum

Five-Year-Old Girl Suspended For "Terroristic-threat" To Shoot Classmates With Pink Bubble Gun
         

Kindergartner grilled for three hours, forced to undergo psychological testing

Steve Watson
Infowars.com
Jan 18, 2013


In yet another hysterical over-reaction to last month's Sandy Hook school shooting, a girl of five-years-old has been suspended from school following a three hour grilling when she joked that she would shoot her classmates with a toy gun.

The girl, from Mount Carmel, Pennsylvania, was last week said to have told other children at the school that she was going to shoot them, and then herself with a pink Hello Kitty bubble gun; a toy that is filled with a soapy solution to make bubbles with.

School officials reportedly categorized the incident as a "terroristic threat," and labeled the girl's actions a "threat to harm others."

Superintendent Bernard Stellar of Mount Carmel school, who has refused to comment on the incident, at first suspended the girl for ten days, before reducing the punishment to two days. All this came after an interrogation that last several hours, at which the girl's parents were not present, according to their lawyer.

"This is a good-natured little girl," the lawyer, Robin Ficker said. "And this shows how hysterical people who work at schools have become since Sandy Hook."

"You're telling me that this child was questioned by adults, in a situation where there was no parent or parental guardian, and then she was, initially, given an incident category of 'making terrorist threats?'" Ficker asked. "And this from a 5-year-old? What's going on here? Can't kids be kids anymore?"

Ficker added that the so called "threat" came "from the mind of this beautiful 5-year-old child who was playing with her friends, whom she hugs every day".

Ficker also revealed that the girl was forced to undergo psychological testing from an independent practitioner before being allowed back into the school. He also noted that the incident will be added to the girl's permanent school record.

The parents of the girl are considering taking the matter further and may sue the school district, pending the outcome of a meeting with the district superintendent.

"All I know," said the mother, "is what my daughter has told me and she said she was told she could go to jail, which is a very traumatic thing for a 5-year-old to live with."

This may sound like a ridiculous incident, but it is not an isolated one, and magnifies how ludicrous the knee jerk reaction to the fateful December shooting has been.

Earlier this month a 6-year-old boy was suspended from his elementary school in Maryland for making a gun gesture with his hand and saying "pow".


Days later another two 6-year-olds in Maryland were suspended for pointing their fingers into gun shapes while playing "cops and robbers" with each other.

In oklahoma, a five-year-old boy was also recently suspended for making a gun gesture with his hand.

A 13-year-old Middle School seventh grade student in Pennsylvania was also suspended for the same hand gesture.

—————————————————————-

Steve Watson is the London based writer and editor for Alex Jones' Infowars.com, and Prisonplanet.com. He has a Masters Degree in International Relations from the School of Politics at The University of Nottingham, and a Bachelor Of Arts Degree in Literature and Creative Writing from Nottingham Trent University

This is ridiculous of course, but are you aware of how many times a year kids do take guns to school?... usually just to show them off, but it happens a lot. So what would you do?

Quote from: Diane Amberg on January 22, 2013, 06:44:30 PM
This is ridiculous of course, but are you aware of how many times a year kids do take guns to school?... usually just to show them off, but it happens a lot. So what would you do?

Is there anything of which this woman doesn't have anecdotal evidence?  I wonder, how many gallons of hunter urine are directly injected into our waterways annually?  Surely something needs to be done.  Quick, call the EPeeA!

Patriot that is a good one. When is it she does not have something to say. I think that kids should still be allowed to be kids. Things are just getting out of hand.

Quote from rosewolf:
When is it she does not have something to say


Let me answer that rosewolf---she is silent on telling me how my post # 77 in Guns--American style thread was so nasty and terrible even though I have asked for clarification a couple of times. Rumor is she was so upset at reading it she dropped down on the floor, weeping and wailing and gnashing her teeth, while flopping around like a carp out of water---or that's what Patriot told me---or was it Ross---or was it kshillbilly---I don't remember---haven't had my meds today !!!

That is a good question jarhead. When she stops flopping around like a carp maybe she will answer ;D

Jarhead, I am impressed how fearless you are to keep joshing  lady di after she made the statement that she could shoot you and she wouldn't even be charged for it. You better be watching your backside. Every time you see an ems ambulance you better really lookout as much clout as she claims she probably has the right to drive one to elk county.

Fearless ? You got me pegged way wrong. Dumber'n a hog and not knowing when to keep my pie hole shut is more like it. Been shot at before and----oh wait---I was a much smaller target back then----"as he rides off into the sunset never to be seen or heard from again --------"

I notice not one of you answered my question.
Also, I said I could shoot some one HERE, on my own Delaware property and would  not be charged.  I never said or suggested I could or would shoot anyone while in Elk County. Twisted information AGAIN. I hope you are having fun. No wonder nobody moves there any more, if that's the way you treat people. As for as riding your ambulance, why would I want to? You already have that system in place.

Quote from: Diane Amberg on January 22, 2013, 06:44:30 PM
This is ridiculous of course, but are you aware of how many times a year kids do take guns to school?... usually just to show them off, but it happens a lot. So what would you do?

Let them be kids is what i'd do. I'm sorry, but 5 and 6 year-old aren't murderers, escpecially with FINGERS making a gun and BUBBLES! The little girl didn't even have the stupid Hello Kitty bubble gun at school with her. To suspend this young of a child for NOTHING shows nothing but paranoid, liberal idiocy and people that want to further this Administrations' agenda. Put some armed guards in those schools and they would be there for when, God forbid, she shoots kids with bubbles, the boy magically makes bullets appear from his fingertips or some actual nutjob walks in there to ACTUALLY HARM THOSE KIDS!---Jennifer

To categorize this young ladys' actions of wanting to have a shootout with another young lady as terroristic threat or act, they may be onto something. My own grandchildren wear what is called urban camo. Were these little girls wearing a form of urban camo, maybe pink? The type of Hello Kitty gun, myself I'm unfamiliar with, is it the assault Hello Kitty gun?  Does it have a high capacity magazine? Is it a semi-auto bubble maker or a fully-auto bubble maker? Can they drop a clip and reload with at least 30 bottles of soap? Did the Hello Kitty gun have laser sights, maybe a scope, for long distance bubble shooting? These guns could be dangerous in the hands of untrained professionals! My own experience with soap is that it burns the eyes on contact, unless they are using a baby shampoo type soap. Do these girls have the skills for making Hello Kitty hand grenades, pipe bombs, propane bombs or maybe a Hello Kitty Molotov Cocktail? And has anyone checked the trunks of their electric Barbie cars to see if they have any Hello Kitty bubble rifles? Questions that should be asked: Do we need to raise the terroristic threat level from purple polka-dotted level to perhaps sunflowers with glitter or even the highest rating of pink Hello Kitty?

Kent                           The Shadow.............KNOWS that Liberals are stupid and paranoid!

Shadow,
I wish you had addressed Diane with all them questions. She gets pissy if you don't answer all of hers but shy's away from answering any asked of her. Great questions, by the way. ;D

I already said the whole business was ridiculous.  I'd share some personal experiences but you 'd just call me a liar.

Uh Diane---could you go back to my reply # 4 on this thread. That is the question I have been asking for a week now

Check video at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyF-yqbNJ9g

Someone has GOT to stop this growing madness in our public schools.  Another elementary school child has been emotionally brutalized by authoritarian adults who are over-zealous in their zero tolerance of anything that can be perceived to be a gun.  This time, it's over an innocuous piece of torn paper that vaguely resembles a gun.  Liberal zero tolerance rears its ugly, thuggish head once again and another child is primed for years of psychotherapy.

Because these PC-driven monsters publicly searched and threatened young Melody Valentin with ARREST over this small scrap of paper, her classmates are now taunting her, calling her a "murderer."  She's understandably devastated and traumatized and, according to her mother, is having nightmares over the ordeal.  Being a fifth-grader generally sucks, having its own set of awakening angst and insecurities and emotional social struggles.  But for this fifth grader, fifth grade has become a living hell, having been exacerbated by Gestapo-esque school officials who have turned an innocent little girl into a freak-show leper amongst her peers.

Over a %#$%&# ripped piece of paper!!!  

(http://www.frugal-cafe.com/public_html/frugal-blog/frugal-cafe-blogzone/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/idaho-looks-like-a-gun.jpg)

Uh, oh... Idaho looks like a gun... when will the Obuma-liberal $#!%@%* freaking school officials ban it?

I hope that a comprehensive investigation ensues and that some academic clown-heads at Newlin Fell Elementary School will roll.  Figuratively, of course.

....Warph


'Paper Gun' At School Prompts Suspension Of Philadelphia Girl
http://www.inquisitr.com/492410/paper-gun-at-school-prompts-suspension-of-philadelphia-girl/#LOWooLJ4bwZ8SBH8.99

Jar, I don't know what you are up to, but you know I don't trust you any longer. But ,fool that I am, and generally a cooperative sort, I did as you asked and went back to your number 4...which led me to change to a different thread entirely, and looked at number 77. So, after reading a whole bunch of hurtful posts...again...I was not referring to you. If I was, I would have used your name. Why are you are so hung up on it?
. There is also a big difference between conjecture, writing situationally, rather than personally and third party writing. A number of posters don't seem to understand how those work.   For the last time ,and off subject, but you caused it...I am not for total gun control. I do not want it so that just anybody can go out willy nilly and buy whatever they can get their hands on. I'm for gun registrations ,like many states already have, back ground checks, like many states already have and some sort of registration at gun shows and the like.Somehow we can't just shrug off the Sandy Hooks and try nothing. True hunters and true collectors should not be interfered with, but they need to understand  the need for some record keeping. State level is fine with me...just like getting a driver's license as far as I'm concerned....accountability surely means something. Also, I never said I was going to shoot anyone if I were in Elk County. That was said for me not by me! >:(. You come here and threaten me,that's a whole different story...and not just hot air, believe me. As far as my ' tales,'  That's true of any state that has some population...including Kansas. The emergency services people in more populated areas of Kansas have similar training and stories to tell, as here .
In fact NCC has a drunk with a gun call as I write this. He's smashed, has a gun and is threatening to kill the people in the house and anyone who comes near.  There is a premise history on the address. What would you do?

Gun Registration??...The gov't at any level has absolutely no right or business knowing what type of firearms I own.  I am a law abididng citizen and its not any of their business.  As for Sandy Hook, no assualt weapons were used, only pistols, that were obtained illegally.  Thats the thing, it doesn't matter how many laws are put into place, criminals are not going to follow them. 

What exactly is a "true hunter" and a "true collector"?  What about those people that purchase a firearm for defense, that do not hunt or collect weapons?  Why is it okay for others to tell me what I "need"?  For example, the argument from pro-control crowd "average citizens don't need to own high capacity magiznes or "assault rifles".?  Being in favor of "some sort of control" perhaps you can answer my questions.

True hunters actually hunt, for game to eat, they don't just talk about it or hunt and leave the kill for the vultures. I have many friends here who hunt duck, rabbit, dove, goose and deer every year and don't mind at all having their arms registered. They are much more self confident and not at all worried about any of it. One even has a good game dinner annually for the rest of us who don't hunt but like his results.
True collectors have many, many weapons in cabinets, on display and will show them off to anybody who is interested. They are usually well educated on the history and maker of each piece and can talk at length to anyone who is interested. I know several of them too, including some police officer buddies. They have very confident personalities and don't hide their gun passion.
As far as assault weapons, I don't know why the non military needs them, but I'm not sure how I really feel about them.
The Delaware constitution allows for weapons of self defense,sport and hunting...or words to that effect. I don't know about Kansas. Weapons for self defense makes sense, but if you do shoot, it's going to get complicated. Will you still be considered a law abiding citizen,especially as we know how much you hate  Gov't. Out where you are, where there are few people, according to you folks yourselves ...who ya gonna shoot? Ya'll brag about not even having to lock your houses! I actually think we are less spooky here! ;D
As far as what you "need?" I guess that's just personal choice, depending on the state. If you don't attract negative attention to yourself, I can't imagine anyone cares how many guns you have. Now start calling the police or family members and making threats, that's another story. I wish you could talk to Greg, who is one of our dispatchers...you wouldn't believe the calls they get from real crazies. Now what would you have done with the drunk with a gun call we just had?

Quote from Diane:
Also, I never said I was going to shoot anyone if I were in Elk County. That was said for me not by me! . You come here and threaten me,that's a whole different story...and not just hot air, believe me.


Diane I believe that statement is an equivocation. What you said on Jan 6th was---

"I'd shoot any of you dead in an instant if necessary, and since I am who I am I'd never be charged"

It wasn't until the next day that you gave us clarification by saying----

"Jar, if you showed up beating on my house and screaming and yelling and broke in, and you were a stranger to me, if I thought you meant me harm, I'll shoot to kill, with no second thoughts."

No mention on the 6th about anyone coming to Delaware . I'm not "up to anything" and no idea what you mean when you say you don't trust me. It is you that keeps flip flopping on what you have said

Jar, for goodness sakes...get off it! I never said I was going to Elk county to shoot anybody.You chose to make it so! If I'm here of course I'd be talking about here.I only rewrote it because you didn't seem to understand me.DUH! My house is here in Delaware!!!!!

Diane, I don't care if a perso hunts or not, collects guns or not, every law abiding citizen has the right to purchase and possess whatever firearm they wish.  The second admendment is about hunting or collecting and it states very clearly that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.  

What does where I live have to do with defense?  It doesn't matter where I live I will own a gun to protect myself and my family.  Why should how I feel about the government have anything to do with me owning weapons?

How can what I need be a personel choice if it is dependent upon the state?  What is "negative" attention and by whose standard is it being judged?  

You said that you favor registration and "record keeping", so YOU obviously care about the number of guns that a private citizen owns.
As for your "drunk with a gun", I don't know how I would handle the situation as you did not provide enough information.  Nor could you seeing as how situations like that have the ability to change from one extereme to the next in a split second.  The simple solution would be to put a bullet in his head.

First, I would like to say that Joe Biden should not be allowed to speak in public. Second, he is an idiot.---Jennifer

Biden on self-defense: 'Get yourself a shotgun'

Are you looking into buying an assault weapon for protection after a devastating natural disaster (or the coming Zombie Apocalypse) plunges society into deadly anarchy? You've got it all wrong, Vice President Joe Biden said Thursday: Get yourself a shotgun.

Biden, doing a Google+ "hangout" to promote President Barack Obama's proposals for battling gun violence, had been asked whether a new assault weapons ban might infringe on the Second Amendment rights of those who want one "as a last line of defense" to fend off looters after "some terrible natural disaster."

"Guess what? A shotgun will keep you a lot safer, a double-barreled shotgun, than the assault weapon in somebody's hands [who] doesn't know how to use it, even one who does know how to use it," the outspoken vice president, a shotgun owner himself, replied. "It's harder to use an assault weapon to hit something than it is a shotgun. You want to keep people away in an earthquake? Buy some shotgun shells."

With the fate of Obama's gun violence proposals unclear in the face of stiff opposition from most Republicans and some Democrats, Biden urged supporters of ideas like imposing a new assault weapons ban, limiting ammunition clips to 10 rounds and toughening background checks to pressure their elected representatives. "This town listens when people rise up and speak," Biden said.


Like Obama before him, the vice president emphasized that he's a firm believer in the Second Amendment—but compared proposed new curbs on assault weapons to keeping fully-equipped F-15 fighter jets off the market.

"You have an individual right to own a weapon both for recreation, for hunting and also for your self-protection," he said. "But just as you don't have an individual right to go out and buy an F-15—if you're a billionaire—with ordnance on it, just like you don't have the right to buy an M-1 tank, just like you don't have a right to buy an automatic weapon" you should not be able to get other weapons for which there is "no reasonable societal justification, or constitutional justification."

Biden noted that "it's not about keeping bad guns out of the hands of good people, it's about keeping all guns out of the hands of bad people. There should be rational limits."

One of Biden's questioners asked why, if they're rational, there's the lack of political will to enact them.

Biden paused, then said he would have to watch his words. "Both left and right sometimes take absolutist positions," he said.

The vice president emphasized that the administration was not calling for armed guards in schools, a proposal recently floated by the National Rifle Association. Instead, schools would have the flexibility to hire a uniformed guard, armed or not, if they so desired.

But Biden warned it would be a "terrible mistake" to arm school staff. "The last thing we need to do is be arming schoolteachers and administrators" who may not have firearm training, he said.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/biden-self-defense-yourself-shotgun-201933598--politics.html

Quote from Varmit:   every law abiding citizen has the right to purchase and possess whatever firearm they wish.
I do not dissagree, except for one part:

I believe "whatever firearm they wish" are the operative words.  Most folk wish to protect their families, find food and take out a rabid skunk, etc.
It is they that wish otherwise, and therein lies the problem.  (I wish to kill everyone and me also, I want to see how a person dies with a high calibur bullet, etc)

Quote from Diane:

As far as assault weapons, I don't know why the non military needs them,

Diane,
Do you know how liberal that makes you look by saying that ? A true "assault weapon" is semi or fully automatic. Just because an AR-15 looks like a M-16 does not make it one. Why the liberal crowd can not figure that out is plain stupid on their part. Then you got the west Coast Diane wanting to ban (so called ) assault weapons---again. What makes it an assault weapon in her pea brain ? Because it has a flash suppressor---or a pistol grip---or it it the bayonet lug ? How many of the children at Sandy Hook were bayoneted ? Or at Aurora ? How in the world would a flash suppressor or the pistol grip make it a deadlier weapon ? 
Today I see where Sloe Joe tells people if you want REAL protection then get a 12 ga shotgun like he has. "Yep, Joe a shotgun is lethal up close and personal so tell you what---get your buddy (if you have any ) and arm him with that 12 gauge--I'll arm kshillbilly with an AR-15, y'all get back to back and pace off 100 steps then turn around and fire---and we will see who feels protected.---you simpleton !!! "

Just my opinion, as asked for...accept it or not.
According to how you talk and slam me, you (plural) apparently love your weapons more than anything else in life, including the whole of this country...and yes, I DO know what a ''real''assault weapon is. I stand by what I said. I have a weapons expert friend who works at Millers Gun Shop here and he's always willing to answer my questions, and he's even a REPUBLICAN! OOOOH  ;D ;D ;D ;D. Several others belong to gun clubs and shoot on a regular basis.  Al knows too.
The back room at the fire house sees many a political discussion on every subject there is, and nobody ever attacks anybody for their opinion. EVER! That's why it took me so long to learn to have to fight back on the forum: It's considered disrespectful and it just isn't done here. ( Many are Masons)  It's a good mix of people too, many Rebubs,some Demos, a lot of Independents and not one as regressive as Red.( I do read and have other sources for information besides the forum.) Many are from military backgrounds, including several who are recently home from the Marines and other branches, and one who is over "there'' now...again. Lots are also in the National Guard. I have one friend who retired as an Army Air Guard General ( I'd love to have his pension!) I just mention all this because I have a great many sources of information. That's the nice thing about being an Independent too,I can look at all sides of every issue and decide how I feel. I can also change my mind if the facts and circumstances change.  Yes, I'm sure you are bored to death...so what?

Forget I even asked---have a nice day

I don't know what you expect from me.You truncated a quote from me and posted it. You ask questions which I try to answer as honestly as I can, and that doesn't suit you. I can't help that I have had experiences and exposures that only a few folks in your area have had. Of course, it shapes who I am. After more than 40 years of doing most anything, most people have a lot of knowledge and experience in whatever it is they have been doing. Don't you?
I'm twice as old as some of you, yet you talk to me like I'm some teenager.
Now that I'm well again, I do plan on having a good rest of the day. Try to do the same...whatever it is you do with yourself. If you want to worry about something, try Korea.

Quote from: readyaimduck on January 24, 2013, 05:56:21 PM
Quote from Varmit:   every law abiding citizen has the right to purchase and possess whatever firearm they wish.
I do not dissagree, except for one part:

I believe "whatever firearm they wish" are the operative words.  Most folk wish to protect their families, find food and take out a rabid skunk, etc.
It is they that wish otherwise, and therein lies the problem.  (I wish to kill everyone and me also, I want to see how a person dies with a high calibur bullet, etc)

Note that I said "law abiding citizen", they aren't going to go out and go on a rampage. 

Quote from: Diane Amberg on January 25, 2013, 10:04:39 AM
Just my opinion, as asked for...accept it or not.
According to how you talk and slam me, you (plural) apparently love your weapons more than anything else in life, including the whole of this country...

So wanting to protect the rights given in the constitution isn't loving the country?  I would say the opposite would be true.  Those that wish to tell others what they need are wanting to strip the citizens of this country of their rights.

Quoteand yes, I DO know what a ''real''assault weapon is.

Then pray tell, what exactly is an "aasult weapon"?

And could you for once, actually answer questions that are presented to you instead of redirecting the conversation? 

What does where I live have to do with defense?  It doesn't matter where I live I will own a gun to protect myself and my family.  Why should how I feel about the government have anything to do with me owning weapons?

How can what I need be a personel choice if it is dependent upon the state?  What is "negative" attention and by whose standard is it being judged? 

You said that you favor registration and "record keeping", so YOU obviously care about the number of guns that a private citizen owns.

Don't know who said it, but it was once said "God created man. Sam Colt made them all equal." Now you've got a government that wishes to take away the edge that makes all men equal. The same government that has armed security 24 hours a day and has just placed into effect that he will be having armed security for the rest of his worthless socialist life. Joe Biden, another east coast moron, made statements when he was running for President in '08 that Obama was going to take away our guns! FACT! Now he's making an idiotic statement, one of many, that a double barreled shotgun would be more effective than a rifle when defending yourself. If this is such a true statement from that stupid, east coast son of a bitch, then why aren't we arming the military with Winchester 101's? And is it just me, or has anyone else noticed, that the guns on the banned list keep rising in number? At this rate, in July or maybe August, all guns will be banned, for whatever reason they make up. A government by the people, for the people? I think not. He crammed the health care bill down our throats without anyone's input, without a vote; telling us one price when the price continues to rise for it. Told us that anyone making less than $250,000 a year, wouldn't see their taxes go up (YOU LIE) and starts out with a handful of guns on a ban list and the numbers continue to rise.---Robert

Quote from: Diane Amberg on January 25, 2013, 10:04:39 AM
Just my opinion, as asked for...accept it or not.
According to how you talk and slam me, you (plural) apparently love your weapons more than anything else in life, including the whole of this country...

Diane,
    Just because people talk to you in a certain way, you can not tell if it is "apparently because they love their weapons more than anything else in life." That was a statement in which its' soul intent was to start an argument. And it's one of the dumbest statements I've ever heard in my life. Because I bitch at someone or because I'm nice to them has NO bearing on my love of weapons. Ever hear the saying, my level of sarcasm is based on your level of stupidity? If i'm bitching it's because someone is being stupid. If i'm nice, they are being good. It's not because, Hey, I LOVE MY GUN(S)! Also, people wouldn't talk to you the way they do if you would answer their questions once in awhile instead of deflecting and changing the subject. Just sayin....and that's MY opinion, accept it or not.---Jennifer

I answer plenty of questions, y'all just want to hear different answers. I just did write a big long answer about assault weapons, but for some reason it vanished, so I'll have to start over. GRRRR.
I'm also a lot more likely to answer questions when I'm not being called rude names.  That "statement" by the way, was something I extrapolated from an unknown writer of a larger piece, can't lay claim to it, but for some it does seem true....which is more important, your kids or your guns? If you had to choose which would it be?  and how can anyone compare protecting your home with being in combat? Talk about a questionable comparison! See, I'm trying to be polite! I didn't call anyone stupid.
    But you're right, when the 500 rabid skunks come swarming over the ridge to get you, ya want to be ready with that assault weapon. 8) ;D ;D ;D
I'm not sure who you are to be judging anyone, but knock your socks off, if it helps. :(

When you don't lay claim to a statement you should start out by saying "I don't know who said it, but" or put down who actually said it. You did neither!

With your superior knowledge of weaponry, or maybe you have someone close at hand that you can ask, WHAT CONSTITUTES AN ASSAULT RIFLE? The fact that it has a pistol grip? Flash suppressor? A vented forearm? Or a magazine larger than 10 rounds? All these "cosmetic" items can be purchased and added to just about ANY rifle from a .22 to a .50 cal. The question is again, Diane Feinstein Amberg, WHAT CONSTITUTES AN ASSAULT RIFLE, especially one that was not used in Newtown's school shooting. That as we all know was 2 9mm pistols.---Robert

       Diane Amberg, aka, secretary of the Harper Valley PTA.  ::) ::) ::)

Quote from: Diane Amberg on January 25, 2013, 06:49:19 PM
I answer plenty of questions, y'all just want to hear different answers. I just did write a big long answer about assault weapons, but for some reason it vanished, so I'll have to start over. GRRRR.

No one asked for a big long answer, just your definition of an assualt weapon.

Actually, a straight up answer would be nice, instead of going off on a long rant that either A) has nothing to do with the questions being asked or B) is an attempt to redirect the conversation because you cannot answer the question.

QuoteI'm also a lot more likely to answer questions when I'm not being called rude names.

I haven't called you a single name, either rude or otherwise, in this thread.  The only question you answered was about hunters or collectors

 

Quote...which is more important, your kids or your guns? If you had to choose which would it be?  and how can anyone compare protecting your home with being in combat? Talk about a questionable comparison! See, I'm trying to be polite! I didn't call anyone stupid.

What does the question about kids or guns have to do with anything.  In the general context of this thread that question makes no sense and doesn't apply.  However, for the sake of argument both are important to me.  If I had to chose between my kids or guns, of course I'd pick my kids.  I can always purchase new guns.  But why even ask that question?  What point are you getting at?  As far as the comparison between protecting my home and combat, that is actually an accurate comparison.  In combat a person is trying to kill you, when defending your home that distinction is not always clear, I want the weapon that is going to be the best possible option.  A combat ready rifle would fit tht description.  Given that criminals are likely to be as well armed as the police I want a weapon that is superior thus giving me and my family a greater margin of safety.
    

Hmmm, let me try this again.I didn't say or mean that YOU had called me names....recently....but many do, it was a general state ment. Varmit, and KS you are right,I should have attributed that one statement some how.It wasn't completely a direct quote, it was just part of a longer piece.
Now you do know that asking me to give a SHORT answer is like asking a cat to be a dog! ;D I had answered but it vanished when I posted it and I had no time last night to redo it.I don't deliberately try to misdirect questions,honestly,but some times I do wander off,I admit. I'll try to do better.
I already said I'm no weapons expert, but I do have friends who are. The back room at the fire house often hosts many conversations and debates and the weapons thing right now is a big one.
To me an assault weapon is one in use by the military in combat. It isn't in regular use by civilians. Yes, they are often equipped with larger magazines. They are auto or semi auto and have what ever adaptations give the military an advantage. You asked for short so I won't list them. Is that enough? I'm not sure how my only permitted conversation is to answer questions fired at me. Maybe that's a local thing out there? (By the way Varmit,I do not know what an "aasult" weapon is.poke,poke)
One other question that was asked, that has no short answer, had to do with what difference does it make where people live. The amount of available population has a lot to do with the person's chance of encountering a violent situation where self defense might be necessary. fewer people,fewer chances. In inner cities....big time chances, especially of being an injured innocent bystander during the hot summer months. I'm sure there are areas of Wichita that sensible people just don't go. I'm sure you must teach your kids about that. There are times when just avoiding situations can be a life saver. I don't care how good your weapon is, when the bad guy shoots first because you didn't know he was a bad guy,you are likely to be at a disadvantage.
Now for those who DID make unnecessary smart remarks...do you feel better now? Ya sassed the old lady. Big whoop.... real high class behavior. How does that move a real debate along? Go to your room.
Now I 've got a little snow to sweep. We got some beautiful fluffy stuff last night. Try to have a nice day.

Diane, us poor old dumb conservatives out here in the Bilbe belt. Realize that military and civilian guns are different. Military has full auto, civilians cannot own or posses without a class 3 FFL license, meaning we have semi auto. The rifle may look the same, but IT IS NOT! All of the attachments and up grades to make it look more menacing, Does not change the characteristics of that rifle. It is what  it is. To make it easier for you, and put it in layman term. Something that you can relate with, it's like putting lipstick on a pig.
--Robert

Diane, Thanks for explaining what you think an assault weapon is and I am really trying to understand your gun stance but I just keep getting confused. You say---and I fully agree-----
Quote:
"To me an assault weapon is one in use by the military in combat. It isn't in regular use by civilians"
But previously you said--
Quote:
"As far as assault weapons, I don't know why the non military needs them.",

The true assault weapon--in your words "is not in regular use by civilians" Civilians are the non military.
Am I so dense I can't understand or is it you----and I don't mean that as sarcasm.

Diane, thank you for clarifying your answer on what an assault weapon is.  By your own admission and definition you openly stated that the only firearm you feel civilians or "non military" should own are old school black powder weapons.  Hence, you are in favor of gun control as it is defined by the current adminstration.  More so in fact, at least for now they are still going to allow civilians to own single shot rifles and shotguns that fire modern ammunitions. 
Also, how do your law enforcement friends feel about being limited to black powder weapons?  How many do you think would be in favor of turning in their standard issue Glocks and AR-15's for colonial style muskets?  Afterall, using your logic our law enforcement, which would be included in the "non military" populace would not qualify to use the same weapons our military does.  You are aware that there isn't a single weapon in production that our military doesn't use to some extent or another aren't you?  Hell, some of our Special Forces sniper will use a .22 caliber air rifle for close in work. 
Being in such close contact with law enforcement as you say you are then you are also aware that the thing that makes a criminal, a criminal, is the total disregard for laws?  So how is passing new laws going to help?  What makes you think that criminals are just going to start following the law because a new one is passed?  Those "bad parts" of town wouldn't be so bad if the criminals know that the general populace is armed and will use deadly force if attacked.  That is a proven fact.

KS.I was asked to give a short answer, so I tried to do so. Now don't swat me for what I didn't write! I know not all mean looking weapons are assault weapons...I do know the difference, the AR15 for example.  There is the auto and the semi version and the M-16 from the same parent. (I'm glad only the experts have to keep all these variations straight.)  Why do you play the dumb old hick routine? What is the intent?
I still say I don't understand the civilian attraction to military assault weapons. Do they want tanks too? mines? rocket grenade launchers? How about APCs? Is it a "wanna be" thing? I'd be afraid of having it stolen and getting into the wrong hands.
The ex Marines here don't seem to miss them, and they had the real thing. ''Pugs'' just went duck hunting...I'll have to ask him why he didn't pine away for an assault weapon to bring those birds down. ;)
To use a dreaded analogy... why aren't professional fireworks available for general home use? Duh! How dare "they'' put restrictions on them and demand that only trained people set them off. Why, it might even be unconstitutional! :angel: Yes, I know it's not quite the same thing.
Varmit..black powder? Where are you getting all those unbased conclusions? I never said any such thing and you know it. It is absolutely NOT fact that areas with weapons have less violence.They know they are all armed and they have gun fights any way. That's how so many innocent people get shot. They get in the way of the gangs and drug toughs. Ya really went off the deep end misinterpreting what I wrote didn't ya? so much for my giving honest answers. No more. Now take your .22 and go home.

Jar, I'm sorry if I can't quite get my point across, but since every word I say is picked apart, I'm not free to just free association write.I'm not sure why you care about my opinion anyway. You usually don't. What are you really up to?  ???

OK folks ,now it's your turn. You demanded I tell you my understanding of assault weapons, but I don't notice any real definitions from any of you. So how 'bout it... define an assault weapon for poor little ignorant me. So then I can pick them all apart like Varmit does and run off and draw conclusions with no basis, and put things in your mouths according to some strange unearthly version of ''logic." :P Now Varmit try to follow your own rules, please.

Diane,
I aint up to nothing---just seeking clear definitions.

Quote from Diane:
I do know the difference, the AR15 for example. There is the auto and the semi version and the M-16 from the same parent.

Now we are getting somewhere. There is no ( unless illegally -modified ) AR-15 that is fully auto. You are still confusing things when you say----
Quote "I still say I don't understand the civilian attraction to military assault weapons" when  before you said---"To me an assault weapon is one in use by the military in combat. It isn't in regular use by civilians"
Us rednecks are not attracted to the military assault weapons. It is the AR's SKS's and AK's that look like a military weapon but not the same.
Unless Delaware's hunting laws are different than everyone else's I would say Pugs never shot ducks with an AK-47 because it's against the law to shoot water fowl with a rifle but You will just have to ask him.

I aint Varmit but to me assault weapon is just a Liberal definition of a black gun used to strike fear in the sheep's hearts.

Quote from: Diane Amberg on January 26, 2013, 09:14:48 AM
To me an assault weapon is one in use by the military in combat. It isn't in regular use by civilians. Yes, they are often equipped with larger magazines. They are auto or semi auto and have what ever adaptations give the military an advantage. You asked for short so I won't list them. 

Quote
As far as assault weapons, I don't know why the non military needs them,

Quote from: Diane Amberg on January 26, 2013, 10:42:10 AM
Varmit..black powder? Where are you getting all those unbased conclusions? I never said any such thing and you know it. It is absolutely NOT fact that areas with weapons have less violence.They know they are all armed and they have gun fights any way. That's how so many innocent people get shot. They get in the way of the gangs and drug toughs. Ya really went off the deep end misinterpreting what I wrote didn't ya? so much for my giving honest answers. No more. Now take your .22 and go home.

I did not misquote or "run off and draw conclusions with no basis, and put things in your mouths according to some strange unearthly version of ''logic."  You stated yourself that non military do not need them.  Last time I checked Law enforcement were not military personnel.  They are civilians, just like the rest of us.
As for the AR-15...there are no fully automatic versions.  An AR-15 is a semi auto version of the M4 carbine, which by the way, isn't fully auto either.  It has a single shot and 3 round burst selector.  You might want to seek out a different "weapons expert".

If its not fact that areas that have a greater concentration of armed civilians have less crime then how do you explain the drop in floridas crime when they allowed concealed carry?  How do you explain the rise in crime in areas that have strict form of gun control such as great britian, austriallia, chicago?

What is going on in our schools anymore? Every few days there is a report of this behavior. I would imagine that for every case that gets reported there are many, many cases that fly under the radar. They want to ban guns because of children in schools getting killed or wounded. Well, guess what---there are a lot of kids being "mentally wounded" by these perverts. What's next? Ban teachers? Now before I catch a bunch of flak, I do know there are lots of good teachers out there that have nothing but goals to teach young minds and love the children but this seems to be getting epidemic.

NJ high school teacher accused of having sex with student

View more videos at: http://nbcnewyork.com.

By Pat Battle, NBCNewYork.com
A New Jersey high school teacher has been arrested for allegedly having a sexual relationship with a student, authorities said.

Jennalin Garcia-Calle, a 28-year-old algebra teacher at Plainfield High School, was arrested Thursday in Davie, Fla., and charged with second-degree sexual assault and fourth-degree child abuse.

According to prosecutors, Garcia-Calle began the relationship with the 16-year-old boy in December. Prosecutors allege that at least three sexual encounters occurred in a classroom inside the school.


Follow @NBCNewsUS
"The boy is not at a stage in his life where he's able to make that type of legal and quite frankly mature enough decision," said Union County Prosecutor Theodore Romankow

Here are a couple of recent articles from the Wall Street Journal I thought you might find interesting about education.   

From the Wall Street Journal.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323854904578264253178260028.html

From the Wichita Eagle.
http://www.kansas.com/2012/11/24/2579419/outgoing-kansas-board-of-education.html#storylink=cpy

Wow, what fun..now you folks are starting to contradict each other, no surprise there... and what is a bilbe belt anyway? Some sort of hobbit gear? Sorry I'm behind, but I was writing while others were posting about something else.
So, now we know, on the one hand ,any weapon can be used at anytime by the military ,an AR15 is or is not available as an auto (M-16) or semi auto, or can be one for the military and be adapted by anybody for either use, legal or otherwise. The M-16,M-4,AR15 bunch are all part of a whole family of similar weapons with various differences. So ? What's the point?
  I just came home from having lunch with a girlfriend and her Vietman Vet husband and another girlfriend who just retired as a teacher. You can guess what we talked about. and it wasn't black powder like that liar Varmit wrote. As far as what weapons people ''need"...what about it?...it depends, now doesn't it? I wouldn't use a Hopkins lure to catch a sunfish either...wrong tackle. If you don't agree among yourselves, don't ask me for answers!
We here do not consider any of our sworn officers to be "civilians"...perhaps just a regional thing.
 And Pugs doesn't need any weapon to get ducks. He tells terrible jokes and while they are laughing he scoops them into his duck bag. Nobody ever said he used an AK47 to get ducks. Where do you people get this stuff?
Varmit,one more time I am going to ask nicely. STOP REWRITING WHAT I WRITE IN THE WAY YOU WANT ME TO HAVE WRITTEN IT.  These readers can decide what I mean for themselves. I did not ''state"that non military do not need assault weapons,I asked a question about it. Go back to #17 and get it right. sheesh.
Now lets see how badly you can screw up all the information on Sandy Hook. Do you even know what a hook is? Now tell me how many and what weapon/s were used. Bet ya can't all agree.

To change subjects,I totally agree.I don't have a clue as to what is in these teachers heads, male or female. That breaks a sacred trust that teachers have always adhered to. When there is a problem,the teacher is one you can always go to.It makes me  sick.

Diane,
I guess I missed it---would you like to point out the contradictions ?
Quote from Diane
Nobody ever said he used an AK47 to get ducks. Where do you people get this stuff?

I guess I came up with this stuff by what you said below
Quote from Diane:
''Pugs'' just went duck hunting...I'll have to ask him why he didn't pine away for an assault weapon to bring those birds down.
 
Quote from Diane:
I did not ''state"that non military do not need assault weapons,I asked a question about it. Go back to #17 and get it right. sheesh.

Oh yes you did Diane. I went back to your reply # 17 and it's right below. There is no question there.

Quote from Diane
As far as assault weapons, I don't know why the non military needs them, but I'm not sure how I really feel about them

And what's with "like that liar Varmit wrote" You get on your high horse and preach about the vile people calling you names and how you hate the name calling but you my dear lady are the worst offender on this forum when it comes to calling people names . I don't like to stoop to your level but I will and call you a name. You are a bully in the first degree. I shudder to think that decades ago you taught children with your bullying attitude and ways

I stand by exactly what I said. You had asked for my opinion and yet when I gave it you tore me apart. Now go look at what Varmit said  #47.It's not what I had really said at all. I did not state that the non military doesn't need them.There is an implied question there, and it still stands. He lied and I'll call that as I see it.
Let me rephrase my "question"to make it easier to understand. "Why does the non military need assault weapons?I'm not sure how I  feel about them." Now go back and read what Varmit said.....and black powder? Please show me where I ever said anything about black powder weapons.
I wondered what you were really up to and now I know. I was right ,you can't be trusted. I don't write my opinions to please anybody,take it or leave it.Insulting me doesn't make my opinion any less valid. Varmit misquoted me at best and lied at worst. Ya don't like it?Then stop reading what I write and stop asking my opinion. How does defending what I really said make me a bully? Wouldn't you stand up for yourself? black powder indeed!

Who cares that the Kshillbillys misspelled Bible? I think every one understood where he was going. Who cares if you can't trust Jarhead? Or that you think Varmit is a liar. No one cares for your judgement of them. So, my point being. GET YOUR KNICKERS OUT OF A KNOT. If you're so busy, like you claim, why are you always on here?  --The Raven.

Quote from: The Raven on January 26, 2013, 08:28:36 PM
Who cares that the Kshillbillys misspelled Bible? I think every one understood where he was going. Who cares if you can't trust Jarhead? Or that you think Varmit is a liar. No one cares for your judgement of them. So, my point being. GET YOUR KNICKERS OUT OF A KNOT. If you're so busy, like you claim, why are you always on here?  --The Raven.

Raven, you are right on.

Diane, thank you once again!!  You clearly showed that someone uses your own words and logic, without twisting anything, against you and clearly backs you into a corner you cannot refute what they said.  You use that tried and true liberal tactic and begin attacking the person instead of their argument. 
I never lied, yet you called me a liar.  I simply used what you said against you.  I asked you to define an assault weapon, all you provided was what you consider to be an assault weapon...no legal definition, just your opinion. 
You implied that non military types do not need them, hence the black powder reference that I made.  If you take away all the guns that can be used as assault weapons, that only leaves the black powder variety.  Don't believe me...ok, lets put it to a little test then shall we...

QuoteTo me an assault weapon is one in use by the military in combat. It isn't in regular use by civilians. Yes, they are often equipped with larger magazines. They are auto or semi auto and have what ever adaptations give the military an advantage. You asked for short so I won't list them. 

According to your definition what weapon, that is not a black powder type, is not an assault weapon?

Fine. Why do you want to back me into a corner anyway? Why are you making me your special project.
I do apologize for calling you a liar. That was beneath me. I did lose my temper because I don't know what you want from me. I answer your questions and then you make sport of my answers. WHY? I could have easily looked up the legal definition of an assault weapon, again, but you demanded a short answer.I complied, gave you my opinion, and then you took exception to it. I'll not be tricked again. 
The last question has no answer, because one of you rightly stated that the military uses most everything at one time or another. and no, Pugs doesn't use cannon or AK47s to get ducks. I've picked out enough shot to know!
I did not mean to "imply'' that the non military doesn't "need" assault weapons, although it's still a good question in many people's minds. I said I don't know how I feel about it. I still haven't decided. It was just my independent opinion! Now you'll try to make something out of my honest answer. Fine, you do what you think you need to do.