3 Killed in Shooting at New Jersey Supermarket

[SecularMotion]

Source: NY Times

OLD BRIDGE, N.J. (AP) — A New Jersey supermarket employee opened fire at the closed store as a dozen or more colleagues worked inside, killing two co-workers and himself, a prosecutor said.

The 23-year-old man left a Pathmark in Old Bridge Township around 3:30 a.m. and returned a half-hour later with a handgun and an AK-47 assault rifle, Middlesex County Prosecutor Bruce Kaplan said.

There were 12 to 14 people in the store at the time, Kaplan said. The man fired the rifle at the first workers he saw, killing an 18-year-old woman and a 24-year-old man as other workers hid, he said. At least 16 rounds were fired, some breaking the front windows.

He then killed himself, said Kaplan, who did not release the name of the gunman or the victims. The motive is under investigation.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2012/08/31/us/ap-us-supermarket-shooting.html?hp

[otohara]

1. The NRA Need A Victims Fund

The Gov. in CO said he was "heartbroken" about the donations not being distributed to victims. Sadly in America if you get shot and you're uninsured, you have to rely on the kindness of strangers to pay your medical bills.

[Remmah2]

4. As a victim of bad guns laws I'd certainly appreciate compensation.

nt

[nanabugg]

29. Gun laws don't shoot people. People with guns shoot people.

[Remmah2]

2. NJ Gun Laws

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_New_Jersey

[uh clem]

7. That means it's pretty much certain...

...that the guns used to commit this crime were legally purchased.

[slackmaster]

9. Maybe, but not in New Jersey

[CountAllVotes]

3. Just great NOT!!!

A shooting a day definitely keeps the doctor away as you won't live to see him/her! &

May those that were killed RIP!

& recommend.

[Sherman A1]

5. Sad

simply, sad.......

[oldsarge54]

6. NRA needs to be Charged

If right wingers are going after Holder for one agent, they should be going after the NRA for their perverted interpretation of every man is a militia. When the second Amendment was written, everyone was expected to be in the militia (barring a few professions and "those known as Quakers." They were also fined if they didn't show up to drill. I AM NOT AGAINST guns, but I am against the wide open anything goes approach the NRA is pushing.

[slackmaster]

8. Technically, everyone still is in the militia

Federal law: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

They were also fined if they didn't show up to drill.

Most or all state laws still provide for penalties for people who fail to report for militia duty when ordered to do so. Here's mine:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=mvc&group=00001-01000&file=120-130

[progressivebydesign]

11. I think that if the NRA and GOP want to be technical about it, only muskets should be allowed. n/t

[slackmaster]

12. Well then, perhaps you would gladly exchange your computer for a quill pen and parchment

The authors of the Constitution were smart enough to know that there would be technological advancements in weaponry.

[Comrade_McKenzie]

25. False equivalency. nt

[oldsarge54]

13. The Laws for the Original

Really, where is the well regulated part. If everyone is part of an militia, where's the training?

[slackmaster]

17. Organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia are specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

You should read it some time.

As for the training for the unorganized militia, about all that's left of it is the Civilian Marksmanship Program. I acquired one of my M1 Garand rifles through it.

http://www.odcmp.com/

[oldsarge54]

21. Just what I mean

All that is left of a well regulated militia is a marksmanship program. Some old laws that are not enforced that everybody 16-45 must bear arms and report to drill. Meanwhile, the NRA operates as one of the most feared (or respected) lobby groups who draft laws for congress critters and does arm twisting for them. Yet they raised their hands, turn on the halos, and say they the bear no responsibilities for what goes on. Just like any other lobbyist, just like that preacher that burned a Koran and said the ensuing riots were not his fault.

[slackmaster]

28. No, you seem to be completely in the dark about this issue

Have you ever heard of the National Guard?

Some old laws that are not enforced that everybody 16-45 must bear arms and report to drill.

Now you're just making stuff up.

[oldsarge54]

32. Nope

No everybody joins the nation guard, do they. Not everyone, shows up to drill. I have no clue what the hell you are talking about. NRA's position is EVERYONE is in the militia. Some state laws still say so. I don't see well regulated in this argument. Guard is one thing. BY some people's lights, the Guard is what they are defending themselves from.

[slackmaster]

41. The LAW says that everyone is in the militia

It's in both federal and state law.

[oldsarge54]

16. SIlly me,

DO you have the dates these laws were passed? Are they enforced, or are they like the various Red Flag laws still on the books.

[slackmaster]

18. The present Section 311 was passed in 1916

This kind of stuff isn't really very hard to research.

Are they enforced, or are they like the various Red Flag laws still on the books.

What's to enforce? The section I cited simply defines the composition and classes of the militia. It's the law.

[Hoyt]

51. Here's a fine group of "regulated" militiamen.

This fine group of "citizens" take their militia responsibilities and NRA membership very seriously. Here they practice for hunting immigrants, other "undesirables," and perhaps the overthrow of the government some day. And, of course, they fly the ubiquitous TParty flag to show their patriotism.

Just in case --

[hack89]

14. Since when does the NRA make laws or issue judicial decisions?

what a ridiculous argument.

[oldsarge54]

15. By Threat

By threatening any lawmaker, judicial candidate, or anyone else that looks at them cross eyed. Your argument sir, is ridiculous. If you wanna go after holder, you gotta go after the NRA as well.

[hack89]

19. Voters punish politicians - not lobbyists.

the NRA has a little over 4 million members. If the public did not support pro-gun politicians or laws then there are not enough NRA members to make a difference.

You ignore the 50 million gun owners who are not NRA members - those are the votes that politicians fear.

[oldsarge54]

22. And while not member

Let get basic. Does the 2nd Amendment, read in full as one sentence, mean that every sicko without a record can buy an arsenal. Plain and simple. I say no. AND GET THIS STRAIGHT, I like my firearm, BUT CONTROL IS NOT BANNING ALL WEAPONS. The panic engendered by saying gun control merely reflect the medical condition of paranoia.

[hack89]

24. So what constitutes reasonable control?

it usually turns out to not be "reasonable" at all.

[oldsarge54]

30. Best I've seen

Best idea thus far was that using quick BI check, only on all transfers of ownership. A licensed deal must be part of each firearm transfer. A big problem is that every illegal gun starts out as a legal purchase, and many slide downhill into criminal hands. The suggestion I read include no registration for fixed small magazine (the person listed limits of around 7 rounds in a hand gun or long arm, I forgot about shotguns, but basically, no need to register fixed mags. Extended mags is any more than the basic mag, and the magazines themselves, after bi can be sold, but must be registered through the state. Might be a starting point. I mean, criminals get guns by oh, my brother gave this to me and then it was stolen.... As I said, I'm am a firearm owner myself, but a muzzle loading civil war replica is not going to give me much of a rate of fire. This might be a sensible direction to go for these "suicide by cop" types.

[hack89]

33. Strawman purchases is how criminals get guns

there is no shortage of friends and family willing to purchase guns for criminals.

Don't see the point in registration of mags - there are hundreds of millions of them in circulation. There will be plenty of unregistered mags for criminals.

[oldsarge54]

34. That Fine. When located, destroy them.

As for strawmen, jail them. Maybe there is something about limiting the number of firearms purchased. Do you have any suggestions, instead of objections (not meant to be snotty, more interested in dialog). I'm limited in the amounts of black powder I can buy, on the other hand, I don't use all that much so the limit really doesn't bother me.

[hack89]

36. The present laws are pretty much adequate

I have no problem requiring background checks for private sales but since that is purely a state issue I am under no illusion that every state will pass such laws.

Don't see the point in limiting the number of firearms one can own - most killers only have one gun to start with.

This is how I would reduce gun violence:

1. Decriminalize drugs and treat it as a public health problem. It will remove the financial incentive that drives so much crime.

2. Empty the prisons of non-violent drug offenders. It will save billions that can be spent on education, health care and social services.

3. Focus the justice system on like a laser on violent crime. Use a gun in committing a crime and go to prison for a very long time.

4. Single payer health care with mental health coverage.

My plan would actually address roots causes.

[oldsarge54]

37. Which of those suggestions

Which of those suggestions would address the Sikh temple attacker. Which of those suggestions would have helped in Aurora? How about the man that defended himself from the government in College Station. Your comment about the laws being adequate seems to be at odds with the news.

[hack89]

38. Considering that gun violence is at historic lows and still declining

it cannot be argued that our present laws don't work at all.

I can't think of a single gun control law that would have prevented the incidents you mention - not even a complete ban on guns. Their root causes go much deeper then access to guns. No law will rid the world of racists that want to kill Sikhs. Mental health may have prevented Aurora and College Station - both shooters clearly had mental issues.

[oldsarge54]

39. The point is that

Gun are too easily available. I don't know where your information on gun violence is coming from, but this last year for the first time guns killed more people than automobiles. And before you bring up the broccoli argument and suggest banning autos,, autos are designed to transport people, guns are designed to shoot something. A total ban won't stop anything, but control can and could at least make it harder for that violence. Consider Europe. Guns are not banned, but controlled. And their gun violence per capita is way below ours. Look outside our borders. I'm not shooting down all your suggestions, but I am being cranky that people feel that the 2nd Amendment gives them carte blanc. There IS a middle ground. I suggest we find it.

[hack89]

40. My stats come from the Department of Justice and the FBI

we have cut death due to murder and manslaughter in half since 1992.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl01.xls

As for your comparison to auto fatalities, the numbers are about the same. But at least half of gun deaths are suicides which have remained stubbornly high even as deaths due to violence crime have plummeted. Suicide is clearly a mental health issue.

Your problem is that you have yet to actually propose any laws that would work. We already restrict certain classes of people from owning guns. What other restrictions are needed.

[Hoyt]

52. NRA leadership - which includes these guys and worse - do influence laws, and not just gun laws.

&feature=player_embedded


There are more just like the bunch above. They are actively working for the defeat of Obama and other good Democrats. NRA members -- and the free riders -- are responsible for a lot of the ugliness in this country.

[hack89]

55. So why doesn't the Brady bunch and VPC simply muster enough votes to override the NRA influence? nt

[darkangel218]

26. The NRA has nothing to do with somone going mental.

In countries where carying guns is prohibited, they go on stabbing sprees. Instead of blaming the NRA maybe we should blame his friends/aquintances who read his threats on social networks, yet did nothing about it.

[oldsarge54]

31. Fact

Fact is though, the NRA insistance that everyone is in a militia and is entitled to anything they can lay down money for makes it too damn easy. Also, the motivation factor. NRA preaches we need firearms to protect ourselves from the government. Some of these shootings are just that, like the one in College Station.

[hughee99]

42. So we're going to charge lobbying groups for the laws that are passed

rather than the politicians who pass them?

[oldsarge54]

43. Does it make a difference

The NRA has created a mind set that everybody must have arms to defend themselves. THE MINDSET. They indeed block legislation by using threats, more effectively than any other lobbying body. They are pushing for more guns out in the public, identifying gun free areas as target rich environment, and telling everyone that if they were more guns, the be less shootings. Yeah, it is about time they should be held accountable for what they have done.

[hughee99]

44. Just wanted to be clear that you were suggesting

the government should be PROSECUTING advocacy groups for advocating for things they are legally allowed to advocate for.

[oldsarge54]

45. To be Sure

I believe that the NRA, which it's insistence on guns for everybody, and gun will cure all ills, and their rabid fight against any registration or form of control, should accept responsibility for the deaths that their positions make possible. And those deaths based on so-called heroes fighting the "government" should be directly charged to the NRA as they misrepresent what Jefferson had said.

[hughee99]

46. So we're going to do away with the first amendment too?

I don't think I like where this is going.

[oldsarge54]

47. Are you being deliberately negative

Where did this affect the 1st Amendment? This is about responsibility. When you advocate gun for everyone, and 32K americans die every year by gunfire. When you obstruct any effort to control the flow of guns, this is about responsibility. It would be better that the NRA would work together in creating a workable solution to the problem beyond the argument more guns. Don't you see people claiming that gun free zones are just target rich environments? Do you not see people making the argument that guns are necessary to keep the government under control. In United States vs Miller, the supreme court did back registration. Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion District of Columbia vs Heller, stated that certain weapons can be banned or controlled. Lastly, if the Republicans can bitch about traitors in the Supreme COurt concerning the ACA, the 5/4 decision to separate gun ownership from militia is equally a bad call.

[hughee99]

48. You're proposing to PROSECUTE a group for doing something they have the constitutional

right to do, advocate for guns. Once you tell the government that it's okay (or even EXPECTED) that they do that, what other speech will they choose to prosecute?

[oldsarge54]

49. NO

I proposing that those who block legislation to control firearms, threaten legislators who try to control firearms, and preach that they need their guns to defend themselves against the government, should acknowledge their responsibility, instead of saying "not my fault they are crazy, anarchist, stupid, lazy or whatever." The NRA IS responsible for the plethora of types of guns loose in this country.

[hughee99]

50. Only politicians have the power to block legislation,

and threatening to either not support legislators or actively oppose them is completely constitutional, it's how every political group works with politicians. Preaching about the need for guns is also protected speech. Again, ALL is protected under the first amendment.

I'm all for prosecuting them for any laws they've broken, but the things you're suggesting we prosecute them for are constitutionally protected.

[Walk away]

53. The law takes into account the concept of "shouting FIRE in a crowded theater".

Your speech is no longer protected by the 1st Amendment when you abuse that right by inciting behavior that causes injury or death. It is up to the courts to decide not a bunch of bloggers.

[hughee99]

54. And you're suggesting people arguing that a person has a constitutional right to

own firearms is the same as shouting fire in a crowded theater?

[progressivebydesign]

10. So many lives ruined again, at the hands of a coward.

Cowards love guns.. all it takes is a little wiggle of the finger to unleash death, and the destruction of hundreds of lives that ripple from the moment of death even for one person.

[valerief]

20. On the bright side, at least he had his freedumbs. nt

[rachel1]

23. What a sickening freak!

I hope the perpetrator burns in hell for what he's done.

[oldsarge54]

35. Fore Fathers

Sure the Founding Fathers said everyone was in the militia. In fact, they were, and fined when they didn't go to drill. A well regulated militia (yes, I know all of the 27 words of the amendment). Fact is, not every state enacted militia laws, and some even banned militia in recent years. But the founding fathers statements were based on law. The lawyers out there, find the date of their militia laws, and find out if people are being fined for not attending drill.

<a href="" target="_blank"><img src="" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>






Don't ban guns, just keep it reasonable. Gun owners would be the best people to write the gun control laws, unless you want lawyers to do it for you.