CT Shooter NOT from Hoboken

Ryan Lanza to police: “Adam had personality disorder”

5:30pm:

Ryan Lanza, 24, brother of gunman Adam Lanza, 20, told authorities that his younger brother is autistic, or has Asperger syndrome and a “personality disorder.” Neighbors described the younger man as “odd” and displaying characteristics associated with obsessive-compulsive disorder.

Must be a tough time for Ryan – as not only did the original reports mis-identify him as the alleged perpetrator, but now he has a family tragedy to deal with.

Conflicting reports about CT Shooter

4:00pm:

Eyewitness News now reports that 20-year old Adam Lanza was the shooter…

Gotta tell you that all this technology and instant communication makes things a lot more difficult to sort through.

Mass CT shooter Lanza from Hoboken, NJ?

2:00pm:

Hoboken continues to spew bad news! Got reports just now that the shooter in Connecticut who killed 27 people was from Hoboken. The shooter was allegedly Ryan Lanza – and he apparently lived in the area on Grand Street between 13th & 14th.

Earlier reports said he allegedly also shot his father who also lives in Hoboken.

Here’s video from ABC News:

Here is a link to Ryan Lanza’s Facebook Account: (Which has subsequently been removed)

Leave a Reply

47 Comments on "CT Shooter NOT from Hoboken"


Member
HansBrix
2 years 8 months ago

Once I read in National Lampoon “guns don’t kill people knives do”

Well, this isn’t satire: the Brits are introducing “stab proof knives”…

http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/288585.php

“I have no idea if the design of the knife will prevent it from being used as a stabbing weapon, but it is apparently sharp enough to geld an entire nation.”

I wonder how far down this slippery slope we’ll go.

Member
2 years 8 months ago

There’s a difference between opinion, and law. If I said I like the Eagles, you can say you despise them, and say the Giants are the best. If the law restricts the government from infringing, entirely, against your natural law right to bear arms, it’s a matter of legal construct. A shall not is a ban against the government, not a (positive law) privilege given to the people. It’s not a matter of opinion, but the structure that makes the government criminal under U.S.C. Title 18, Chapter 13, and unconstitutional. You can try to say you disagree with me, but I’ve stated no opinion of my own with which you can disagree. It’s a matter of incorporation and the Supremacy Clause. To do otherwise is an open move that is illegal, even if the Congress passes it, the Executive signs it, and the courts twist to uphold it. It’s Null and Void if it does not adhere to the construct of the compact. Again, no opinion here with which to disagree.

As to your movie theater scenario, yes, if you illegally ban all arms anywhere, there will be zero chance to protect your friend, loved ones, family and children in a theater, school, home, anywhere. The only ones then with arms would be the government, and people who mean to do you harm. There are many things which are banned, but are increasing in supply; drugs, illegal gambling, illegal everything.

When the government banned alcohol, production and demand increased, and became more deadly. When Texas passed carry conceal, home invasions, robberies and such decreased.

Member
2 years 8 months ago

Just so that anyone else knows, what whine and chow are proposing not only is banned from being legislated, but they argue that Congress should also violate the ex post facto clause of the Constitution, which basically bans the government from making law that is retroactive. They don’t care, but maybe others might.

For example, if you’re a parent and you choose to exercise your right to defend your family and nation with arms, and you already did so under regulation, they argue that the government can take all of that away retroactively, which cannot be done without doing so criminally.

Member
2 years 8 months ago

btw, your last line implies Congress can write an amendment which alters the Second Amendment. Do you not understand that the Second Amendment bans Congress from writing an Amendment that it is banned from legislating?

Incorporation – applies to all states the same as above

Member
whineanddineinhob
2 years 8 months ago

It’s been stated that the orginial vision for the “right to bear arms” was about local militas keeping check on a federal militay establishment. And there are those who believe limiting the size of clips to 10 bullits, banning assult weapons, and making it harder for mentally unstable people to get guns, in no way interferes with the fundamental right to bear arms, but at the same time makes us safer. The constitution in my opinion, can use a little sandblasting. The weapons used today to inflict such destruction and pain were most likely the farthest thoughts of those adoping the bill of rights. And so without a crystal ball, they’ve allowed for amendments.

Member
2 years 8 months ago

whineanddineinhob, if you had an AR, and you were in the next room, would save however many children and take out the guy, or would you repeat what you said in post 33, hoping intellect is ignorant?

Only because you clearly know the Second Amendment is clear and convincing as to shall not infringe on the right to bear arms. So you try to twist and squirm to pretend otherwise.

Ever read the testimony of the Midnight Rider? How about Thomas Jefferson or the Federalist Papers? Ever read the Indictment of King George III which lists his ever violations of liberties of a free people? How about the Declaration of Independence where the people have the right to dissolve the government when it infringes against our rights (then read the government’s Alien and Sedition Acts to prevent such out of fear)?

Ever read George Washington’s First State of the Union Address from January 8, 1790? In that, he said that a free people is an armed people. Know what that means?[quote comment=”218685″]It’s been stated that the orginial vision for the “right to bear arms” was about local militas keeping check on a federal militay establishment. And there are those who believe limiting the size of clips to 10 bullits, banning assult weapons, and making it harder for mentally unstable people to get guns, in no way interferes with the fundamental right to bear arms, but at the same time makes us safer. The constitution in my opinion, can use a little sandblasting. The weapons used today to inflict such destruction and pain were most likely the farthest thoughts of those adoping the bill of rights. And so without a crystal ball, they’ve allowed for amendments.[/quote]

Member
whineanddineinhob
2 years 8 months ago

Midnight, you can dance around the topic all you like with what you’ve read and what you think other people should read and only then have a voice. And as of today, I could give a rats ass what Washington thought in 1790 when a man’s prestige was valued by how many slaves he kept. The times are a changing and no one is being pushed to the back of the bus anymore. Let me make it perfectly clear. You can quote text, read every book in the LIbrary of Congress and I’ll still disagree with you. Now, do you get it?[quote comment=”218697″]whineanddineinhob, if you had an AR, and you were in the next room, would save however many children and take out the guy, or would you repeat what you said in post 33, hoping intellect is ignorant?Only because you clearly know the Second Amendment is clear and convincing as to shall not infringe on the right to bear arms. So you try to twist and squirm to pretend otherwise.Ever read the testimony of the Midnight Rider? How about Thomas Jefferson or the Federalist Papers? Ever read the Indictment of King George III which lists his ever violations of liberties of a free people? How about the Declaration of Independence where the people have the right to dissolve the government when it infringes against our rights (then read the government’s Alien and Sedition Acts to prevent such out of fear)?Ever read George Washington’s First State of the Union Address from January 8, 1790? In that, he said that a free people is an armed people. Know what that means?[/quote]

Member
2 years 8 months ago

whine, problem with your argument is that it’s not my opinion but a matter of law. There is no wiggle room in “shall not be infringed”. That also is addressed to Chow. Because the Constitution was ratified by each of the states, they entered into incorporation and are bound to the Supremacy Clause. OK, you hate the Constitution and would rather have an autocracy, like fuedalism, right, something we escaped? So just say you want to destroy the US and start over from the ashes (– Che Guevara). Problem with your argument is you want to break the law and pretend you didn’t. Shall not be infringed is a legal fact, not an opinion of a commenter. Break it and you are a criminal (see USC Title 18 chapter 13). When you and chow want to erase or change that of which is restricted from such ban, you openly call for violating the natural law right of people to defend their freedoms from people who would harm their families, including people who share your opinion.

So let’s get back to the question that you avoided. If you were at the school, as a teacher or staff, and you knew where arms were while the guy was going to one at a time, would you take action, or would you throw that thing away? Better question; Which do you value more? life or ideology?[quote comment=”218705″]Midnight, you can dance around the topic all you like with what you’ve read and what you think other people should read and only then have a voice. And as of today, I could give a rats ass what Washington thought in 1790 when a man’s prestige was valued by how many slaves he kept. The times are a changing and no one is being pushed to the back of the bus anymore. Let me make it perfectly clear. You can quote text, read every book in the LIbrary of Congress and I’ll still disagree with you. Now, do you get it?[/quote]

Member
whineanddineinhob
2 years 8 months ago

MIdnight, I don’t appreciate you putting words in my mouth that I hate the constitution or want to destroy the U.S. because we disagree. I and others can feel the same way about you wanting to destroy this country by wanting to man everone with a weapon to safeguard themselves from everyone else. And as for avoiding the question you mentioned, if I disagreed with you and would like to see a change in gun laws, then I”d be willing to take the chance and feel more free entering a theater, school, church or shopping mall, knowing there are less semi-automatic weapons available to nut jobs. My response was not to be debatable with you or anyone else. I stated a fact. And that is that I disagree with the current gun laws and I want to see them changed, and I’m not going to go back and forth with you on my decision. You have yours and I have mine, regadless of how you feel about it. End of story.[quote comment=”218707″]whine, problem with your argument is that it’s not my opinion but a matter of law. There is no wiggle room in “shall not be infringed”. That also is addressed to Chow. Because the Constitution was ratified by each of the states, they entered into incorporation and are bound to the Supremacy Clause. OK, you hate the Constitution and would rather have an autocracy, like fuedalism, right, something we escaped? So just say you want to destroy the US and start over from the ashes (– Che Guevara). Problem with your argument is you want to break the law and pretend you didn’t. Shall not be infringed is a legal fact, not an opinion of a commenter. Break it and you are a criminal (see USC Title 18 chapter 13). When you and chow want to erase or change that of which is restricted from such ban, you openly call for violating the natural law right of people to defend their freedoms from people who would harm their families, including people who share your opinion.So let’s get back to the question that you avoided. If you were at the school, as a teacher or staff, and you knew where arms were while the guy was going to one at a time, would you take action, or would you throw that thing away? Better question; Which do you value more? life or ideology?[/quote]

Member
Chow
2 years 8 months ago

The founding fathers were also slave owners and did not believe that women had the right to vote. The second amendment needs a little modification like the commerce clause……

Fewer guns, fewer gun deaths.[quote comment=”218697″]whineanddineinhob, if you had an AR, and you were in the next room, would save however many children and take out the guy, or would you repeat what you said in post 33, hoping intellect is ignorant?Only because you clearly know the Second Amendment is clear and convincing as to shall not infringe on the right to bear arms. So you try to twist and squirm to pretend otherwise.Ever read the testimony of the Midnight Rider? How about Thomas Jefferson or the Federalist Papers? Ever read the Indictment of King George III which lists his ever violations of liberties of a free people? How about the Declaration of Independence where the people have the right to dissolve the government when it infringes against our rights (then read the government’s Alien and Sedition Acts to prevent such out of fear)?Ever read George Washington’s First State of the Union Address from January 8, 1790? In that, he said that a free people is an armed people. Know what that means?[/quote]