Father of Teen Charged

[riverrat]

Remember the kid who shot the police at the Sully District police station in May of last year? They charged the Dad??? With aiding and abetting?? He's responsible for providing the guns? What do you think of this?

http://www.wtopnews.com/?nid=25&sid=797061

 

[sunflower]

Linky no workie

 

[Dutch6]

For some reason your linkie didn't work. Try this. <-------

 

[kwillia]

Brian Kennedy, 50, is accused of lying on government forms to obtain an AK-47 and illegally possessing other guns that his son took to the Sully District police station in May.

If he lied and illegally obtained the guns he should be held responsible.

 

[riverrat]

Linky no workie

Sorry, I suck..I copied and pasted, I guess I don't know how to attach a link..

 

[Coventry17]

I believe whole heartedly in our right to possess guns. That being said I don't understand for the life of me why anyone would need an assault rifle. With rights come responsibilities. If you own a gun, then you have the responsibility to keep it locked up. If you don't, and someone steals it and uses it to commit a crime, then I believe you should be held responsible. I absolutely agree with charging the father in this case.

 

[2ndAmendment]

I believe whole heartedly in our right to possess guns. That being said I don't understand for the life of me why anyone would need an assault rifle. With rights come responsibilities. If you own a gun, then you have the responsibility to keep it locked up. If you don't, and someone steals it and uses it to commit a crime, then I believe you should be held responsible. I absolutely agree with charging the father in this case.

You must think that the Second Amendment is about hunting or the militia. Try again. History is your friend as is English. The English construction of the Second Amendment makes the right to keep and bear arms an individual right of the citizens. http://www.grifent.com/docsLinks/docs/2ndEnglishLesson/SecondAmedEnglishLesson.html
And the Second does not refer to a right of the militia. http://www.grifent.com/docsLinks/docs/second.htm

It was the intent of the founders that the citizens of the United States would have the exact same weaponry that the military had in order for the citizens to be able to control the government by force if necessary. That right should not be limited. It is but should not be.

You cannot own an assault rifle without a license from the federal government. Did you know that? An AR-15 is not an assault weapon. The Brady bunch and other gun control groups including most politicians of both parties that want to do away with the citizens right to keep and bear arms have no idea what the difference between a real assault weapon is and sporting weapons that have similar physical characteristics. Just because a rifle is black, has a pistol grip or thumb hole stock, detachable magazine, and a flash suppressor does not make it an assault rifle.

 

[Coventry17]

You must think that the Second Amendment is about hunting or the militia. Try again. History is your friend as is English.

Yes, I know. I majored in history in college.

The English construction of the Second Amendment makes the right to keep and bear arms an individual right of the citizens. http://www.grifent.com/docsLinks/docs/2ndEnglishLesson/SecondAmedEnglishLesson.html
And the Second does not refer to a right of the militia. http://www.grifent.com/docsLinks/docs/second.htm

Valid points

It was the intent of the founders that the citizens of the United States would have the exact same weaponry that the military had in order for the citizens to be able to control the government by force if necessary.

Ok, this is where you lost me. You cannot speak to the "intent" of something that took place over two centuries ago. The right to bear arms was granted to Americans at a time when there wasn't a well formed national defense. The country was dependent upon local militia for defense against enemies, foreign and domestic. If Thomas Jefferson knew that we were still using the exact same document he wrote over 200 years ago, he'd roll over in his grave. He never meant for the Constitution to be some tablet, set in stone. He meant for it to be a "working document" that would be revised every 25 years or so (he wrote about this in his journals late in life).

You cannot own an assault rifle without a license from the federal government. Did you know that?

No, but I'll take your word for it. I don't see that as a problem.

An AR-15 is not an assault weapon.

So what does the "AR" stand for? Achy rectum? Actively religious? Ancient racoon?

sporting weapons

Oxymoron

Finally, do you not see the duplicity of claiming to be Christian and following the Bible, yet touting weaponry and violent resistance?

 

[edinsomd]

I believe whole heartedly in our right to possess guns. That being said I don't understand for the life of me why anyone would need an assault rifle. With rights come responsibilities. If you own a gun, then you have the responsibility to keep it locked up. If you don't, and someone steals it and uses it to commit a crime, then I believe you should be held responsible. I absolutely agree with charging the father in this case.

OK, you own a car. Thugs break into your house, take the keys, and steal your car. They then go on a crime spree using that car. Are you responsible for the use of your car in the commision of their crimes?

Now, you provide a car to a person who you know is not legally allowed to operate one on the road, and that person commits crimes using that vehicle. Again, are you responsible for those crimes?

See the difference?
Ed

 

[Fubar]

When police enter the home of a juvenile who they have just shot because that person had killed 2 officers, and they find over 20 firearms owned by the father of that juvenile, along with some illegal drugs, it seems perfectly appropriate to me to file charges against the father for fostering those murders. Brian Kennedys son was psychotic, but he gave that son marijuana to smoke, and allowed him access to firearms. The man is an idiot who deserves to be prosecuted as an accessory to murder.

 

[Charles]

Both parents should have had warrants out for them shortly after the murder of the two officers. A relative was left to guard their house and the parents fled. They fled the police not just the media. Their behavior after this crime was not of ignorant parents not aware of what their weird son was up to. They are accessories to the crime.