2 5th-graders admit plot to kill 7 students

I would love to know who are the parents of these two kids and how were they able to gain access to the arsenal that was in their possession.

This is beyond disturbing to me:


The debate over arming school personnel hasn't touched on what to do if confronted by a 10-year-old student with murderous intent. That staggering possibility hit the citizens of the rural Washington town of Colville on Feb. 7, when two fifth-graders were arrested and confessed to a plot to kill not only a female classmate, but six other children. Authorities found a semiautomatic handgun, clip and knife in the backpack of one of the boys, who complained that the girl had become rude and "really annoying." Police later overheard the two talking about killing whoever had snitched on them, too. Although children 8-12 are not considered mentally capable of criminal intent under Washington law, the local prosecutor plans to proceed on charges of conspiracy to commit first-degree murder.




SOURCE

Updated On: 2/17/13 at 09:20 AM

Yup. We need more guns

---

What is wrong with kids these days? I've met some pretty perverted 12 year olds, but never any kid who wants to murder someone. When I was in middle school I wished for my English teacher to get fired because I couldn't stand her, but I never wanted to KILL her.

You silly simple minded backwoods sister screwing child.

Updated On: 2/17/13 at 11:19 AM

How rude and annoying had the girl become?

---

Mikey - here's a question.

Most people don't rob banks, right? It's simply not something they would do. I would figure you would agree with that statement.

It is against the law to rob banks. Nobody would say "let's leave it to punish the criminals, but leave it to the rest of the world to be able to rob banks."

Laws are made to stop people from hurting others. That's why they exist. There are laws for how to drive, how to buy homes, and run businesses. There are laws designed to stop people from murdering, stealing, and falsely representing themselves all in the name of stopping people from getting hurt. (If there's another reason for laws, please enlighten me).

Laws that would PROTECT people from guns would fall right into that sweet spot of stopping people from getting hurt. It doesn't HURT YOU to need a background check on guns. It doesn't hurt you to not have automatic killing weaponry at your disposal.

It's the same criteria I use for gay marriage - it doesn't HURT other people to allow two people in love to get married, therefore there needs to be no laws preventing it (indeed, there needs to be a law allowing it BECAUSE not allowing it DOES hurt people).

Your reasoning is simply unsound. Saying "allow law-abiding citizens to have guns" is the same saying "allow law-abiding citizens to have tanks and nuclear arms."

And please don't throw up the second amendment crap at me - if you want to be in the militia, fine. Then you can have a weapon. Until then, don't use that as a shield.

---

Thank God those children didn't get their hands on any hammers.

---

Thank you Jordan - exactly what I was going to say.

The rest of my post doesn't deal with your post, Mikey? It deals with precisely what you said. Your argument was don't infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens to deal with law breakers. That's EXACTLY what my point about robbing a bank is. Laws are in place to protect innocent people. There doesn't HAVE to be a law regarding stealing from banks as MOST people undoubtedly realize it's wrong to do so. Yet the law exists to protect banks. Similarly, many people may understand guns may be used for recreation or protection, but laws need to be in place to protect people from those who DON'T realize it.

I stand by my statement that your arguments regarding the second amendment are crap. I'm not saying the law is - having guns as part of a well regulated militia is fine. The amendment makes no point other than that, and interpreting as such IS crap.

---

The inconsistent Second Amendment interpretation to me is the problem. Strict constructionist's claim the reverence to the framers's actual words is paramount in other constitutional amendments, saying that the Bill of Rights is not a living a breathing document - but for the Second Amendment, hold no such limit or restriction. And, the blatant disregard for the whole "well armed militia" provisions.


If you want to interpret the 2nd Amendment consistent with its specific terms, then IF you are in the national guard, you can have a musket. Everything else is beyond a strict construction/narrow interpretation of the amendment. If you argue that guns and reality have changed since the 2nd Amendment was adopted, then you have to argue that for all other amendments (especially the 4th, protection against unreasonable search and seizures). The logical inconsistency is what drives me nuts.

If the rights of gun owners is to be construed broadly, then so to should the rights against unreasonable search and seizures under the 4th. But, those same jurists who claim constitutional purity on the 2nd, let the government run wild under the 4th.
The hypocrisy is what drives me nuts.

No, Mikey. The second amendment says:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Don't shorten it to try to make a point. Also, note the comma after Arms. It denotes that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" is subordinate to the main phrase, "A well regulated Militia." It's simple grammar.

---

Yeah, and apparently a condition precedent doesn't matter. The whole right to keep and bear arm is premised on the need for a well regulated militia.

Facts don't matter. And apparently, some words in the Bill of Rights matter more than others.

Like I said, hypocrites.

So, let me get this straight; you all are saying that the 2nd Amendment is talking about the rights of a MILITIA and NOT the rights of the people? Despite that FACT that it says "The right OF THE PEOPLE"?? (And yes I am shortening it to focus on the word RIGHT and whose RIGHT the 2nd Amendment is referring to. ) The 2nd Amendment is defining a RIGHT. Is it defining a right to THE PEOPLE or to THE MILITIA??
Again, look at the words "RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE" --I mean it's RIGHT THERE in the amendment!!

I think the facts are clear. And I wish I could write them on a 2x4 so I could beat it into mikey.

---