Wednesday, July 22, 2009

Heart Breaking News


Blogger Pro Christ Pro Gun said...

Tragically, as is almost always the rule, the police showed up too late to save this defenseless woman. Too bad she did not have the means to defend herself from her murderer.

Glad that the good guys permanently removed this bad guy from society. That single well placed shot saved the delco taxpayers alot of money.

C. Scott Shields, Esquire

July 22, 2009 at 1:26 PM 
Anonymous right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness said...

C. Scott Shields,

This was another Mad man with a gun, it was not the gun that kills it is the person with the gun that kills. To often, people with mental health issued are premitted to carry weapons. although, this was not the case for this monster.

Please do not justify your progun position in this case because it only proves the point that Pennaylvania MUST have a longer waiting period, so that monster like this do not obtain weapons through permits or straw purchased.

I am not in any way trying to restrict law abiding citizens from purchasing guns, However, their must be a more comprehensive check.

Nicole Cogdell

July 22, 2009 at 6:29 PM 
Blogger Pro Christ Pro Gun said...

Right to life...:

I don't understand how a long waiting period would have had an impact in this tragedy. The murderer did not buy the gun in a store. He took it from his father.

It is sad that she did not have the means to protect herself. The police almost always show up after the fact.

C. Scott Shields, Esquire

July 23, 2009 at 6:31 AM 
Anonymous Right to Life said...

C. Scott Shields,

Read what I wrote, I wrote this is not the case. yes, he had his father's gun. However, their are monsters like him that use straw purchasing and legal means to purchase guns due to Pennsylvania's system. Although, you do not understand how it would have helped with this tradegy, however, what about the traqdegies like William Trippley, Emenim Smith, Franklin Carter, Jamiyah Butler, Oliie Carter, Stephen Kennard, Cheryl harden. Joceloyn Harden, Charles Reynolds and countless others.
They were mad monsters without their daddies gun.

Nicole cogdell

July 23, 2009 at 10:16 AM 
Blogger Pro Christ Pro Gun said...


I am sure that you heard before that guns don't kill people, people kill people. In fact, people kill people all the time with instruments other than firearms.

I understand that there is an emotional argument made about why guns are bad, however, gun ownership is a real constitutional right. That said, your right to pursue life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness also includes your right and obligation of self determination, including your ability to own, possess and carry a firearm for the defense of yourself and your family. I believe it is your obligation to do so.

The Constititution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania says that the "right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be questioned".

The real tragedy here is that this young woman had no chance except being armed, and it is sad that she wasn't.

C. Scott Shields, Esquire

July 23, 2009 at 4:27 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mr. "Shields,

Our Constitution also states in the first amendment that we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I am not against your right to bear arms. However, teens under the age of 18 can not carry a gun and some of the names that I listed were in fact under the age of 18. Therefore, who protects them when they are unable to bear arms?

Please answer my question, what is wrong with reporting a gun if it is fact lost or stolen? If your car is stolen you have to report that.

I agree that guns do not kill people do but what happens when guns get in the hands of people with mental health problems or straw purchaser?

Everything that you are stating I agree with, However, this young lady made the choice not to bear arms and that was her right, however, for those who choose not to bear arms, why do we have to be subjected to thugs that should not have guns in the first place.

What about us? What about our constitutional first amendment right?

Nicole Cogdell

July 23, 2009 at 8:56 PM 
Anonymous right to life said...


what about our first amendment right of Life. Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

I agree guns do not kill people do
I agree people have the right to bear arms.

What i do not agree withis the fact that law abiding citizen have a problem with reporting a gun if it is lost or stolen?

I have a problem with Pennsylvania not doing a comprehensive check before a Monster purchases a gun?

I have a problem with children dieing daily and the solution is Well if they had a gun to protect themselves, what about the children who are to young to bear arms and runs into straw purchaser? PLEASE GIVE ME A SOLUTION

I am not against the right to bear arms so this is not an emotional argument for me. In closing, you are correct their are other instruments that can be used to commit a crime, however, gun violence is the number cause of homocide . Law enforcement is experiencing this issue daily.

I am against straw purchasing and monsters purchasing guns and as a result getting in the hand of kids.

C, I know about the right to bear arms and until we can sit down and reason with one another, we will continue to have died children and adults.

July 23, 2009 at 9:16 PM 
Blogger Pro Christ Pro Gun said...


The first amendment does not guarantee the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If that was the case then the unborn would be protected.

Straw purchasing is illegal, and carrying a gun when under the age of 21 is also illegal.

If you want to turn this discussion into "why not require mandatory reporting of lost or stolen guns", then I have to point out to you that there is no law that requires the reporting of a lost or stolen car. So if we require the reporting of lost or stolen guns to alert the police to another gun out in circulation, why not force women to report, under penalties of jail time and/or fines, a rape. Better yet, why not require the reporting of any crime. I could go on and on with this, but the point is that your safety is dependent on you and not the government and its police.

If you are old enough and care enough about your moral obligation to protect yourself and your family, I urge you to buy a handgun and to learn how to use it effectively. I will even take you shooting if you are interested. Send me an email.

C. Scott Shields, Esquire

July 23, 2009 at 9:47 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...


If your car is used in a crime like a hit and run or crashes into a person, the owner can be held responsible, however, if a law abiding citizen has a problem with reporting his gun lost or stolen shame on him. Mothers are beginning to consider civil suits for those owners of guns and that is for a judge to decide.

I am not going to muddy the issues, some victims of violence are children and although, it is the responsibility of the parents to protect their children it becomes difficult when the children are at the playground or on their front yard. The lack of a comprehensive background check like New Jersey makes it easier for straw purchasers to obtain weapons.

I am intersted in your offer, only if you attend a meeting with Women of Strength, Mothers who have lost children to violence.

In Closing, we must communicate and then you may see that we have more in common then we differ, I do not understand and this is not to be rude why a law abiding citizen has a problem with reporting their gun lost or stolen, unless it becomes an issue of power.

Rape,is a crime of power and control and due to fear women are often I feel that all crimes should be reported, However, in terms of the guns, this request is made before this weapon gets in the hand of monsters, it assist in holding straw purchasers accountable, it assist law enforcement when a girlfriend of a monster states " The gun was lost or stolen " and she is totally aware of the fact that she just purchased it for her monster boyfriend to reep HAVOC.

Therefore, law abiding citizens,whom are gun owners can in fact assist in holding straw purchasers accountable.

Eamil me for our dates if you are interested in meeting with the moms, I will be interested in going .

July 24, 2009 at 8:05 AM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...



the law does not Guarantee that everyone can bear arms either.

Anything can have mitagating circumstances, that is my we have the court of law.

July 24, 2009 at 8:26 AM 
Blogger Pro Christ Pro Gun said...


You are right, not everyone can own a gun. Justice Scalia stated that in Heller. However, shouldn't judicial review of gun regulation be held to the highest levels of scrutiny, as in strict scrutiny? That question has yet to be answered.

Surely you agree that the second amendment is as important and should be accorded the same weight as the first amendment, or even the made up constitutional right to have an abortion on demand. What about gun regulation in PA which has its own constitutional rights that are independent of the US Constitution? Do you know what the Commonwealth Constitution says about the right to bear arms?

C. Scott Shields, Esquire

July 24, 2009 at 9:01 AM 
Anonymous jake said...

It is rather amazing that something so speculative and hypothetical as global warming is taken as an undisputed fact.
Yet something as clearly defined as the right to bear arms is subject to constant questions and legal challenges.

July 24, 2009 at 1:14 PM 
Blogger Pro Christ Pro Gun said...


Don't forget about that unwritten constitutional right to abortion. I even recall the ACLU bringing a constitutional challenge to prohibitions against internet pornography and filters to keep it away from children. Those areas of the law are so well settled (like global warming) yet the libs still can't figure out the gun issue.

It is all about obtaining a free love anything goes gun free group hug socialist utopia.

C. Scott Shields, Esquire

July 24, 2009 at 3:46 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...


When children are dieing it should be, C, you put an offer out now are we going to follow through or not.


July 24, 2009 at 7:13 PM 
Anonymous jake said...

It is not responsible to assert that gun violence and children dieing (sic) are caused by the right to bear arms.
Using that same logic, you would have us believe that misspellings and bad grammar are caused by freedom of expression.

July 25, 2009 at 9:50 AM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

PS: jake, I never questioned bearing arms, I asked why would a law abiding citizen have a problem with reporting a gun lost or stolen? It is a simply a question.

I also took C up on his offer so that he could possibly educate me and other moms about this issue.

It may be hard to swallow, but we buried our children. C it appears that we agree concerning the right to life issue. Therefore, please email we at to schedule a date to go out shooting.
Once again, I am not against bearing arms, Why is thie your only form of defense, it is simply not true. I will not blog after this message and will take it , if I do not get a email then C you are not a man of your word.


July 25, 2009 at 10:07 AM 
Anonymous Bryan Miller said...

First off, let’s dispose of the pro-gunners nonsensical contention that the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution grants some sort of ‘fundamental right’ to possess any gun, anywhere at any time. It doesn’t, and right-wing darling Justice Scalia made that clear last year in his ruling in Heller. As he wrote for the majority, “the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." The same is true for PA’s Constitution, no matter how that may pain the fearful men who feel they need a gun.

Furthermore, the vast bulk of citizens of any civil society accept that it is the job of their public servants to provide for the public safety. If they didn’t we’d have anarchy and the folks with the biggest or most guns would rule (per Wayne LaPierre). Fortunately, our society (with the exception of criminals, militant anti-government types and ‘militias’ and the fearful little men who need guns) has endowed law enforcers and other public officials with the imperfect duty to protect us. They don’t always succeed, but they certainly do a better job than a bunch of John Q. Need-A-Guns deputizing themselves to do the job.

Finally, note that the rates of gun violence in countries and states that have stronger gun laws than PA are generally far lower than the rate for PA. For instance, no other developed country (Western Europe, Canada, Japan – OECD data) has even a fraction of the per capita rate of gun homicide the USA does. And, the states with the lowest per capita rates of gun death in America (MA, CT, RI, HI, NY, NJ – CDC data) are all notable for having strong gun laws. This demonstrates folks in PA don’t have to just accept the horrific level of gun violence the state endures. Through non-burdensome laws like One Handgun A Month, PA can begin to get a handle on its gun crime and violence – and stop exporting illegal handguns to the rest of the northeast USA. There’s no good reason not to.
(To learn how weak PA gun laws affect its neighbor NJ, read

July 25, 2009 at 10:43 AM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks, Bryan since I had difficulty with expressing myself you have done a great job. Jake can you understand that. It appears that you are never narrow minded I was just trying to learn about anothers point of view. However, since I disagreed you had to resort to belittling and that is sad. I can see that you have not in fact lost a child to violence because even C respected my view.

July 25, 2009 at 2:58 PM 
Anonymous jake said...

I vigorously disagree with your comments and find your unbridled disdain for a well-founded, opposing viewpoint to be typical.
Your elitist compulsion to tell me how to live my life is precisely what the Founding Fathers sought to protect the citizens from, when they carefully crafted the Bill of Rights.
Inappropriately, you rely on a quote from Judge Scalia which demonstrates the paucity of your intellectual arguments.
Let me offer an analogy that even your little mind might grasp:
Nothing kills more people than cars. Many people operate these machines in an unsafe and illegal manner. Yet you would like to restrict the lawful ownership and operation of all vehicles because of the misconduct of a few. Does that really make any sense?

July 26, 2009 at 1:02 PM 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home