« Are you one of those people who can't throw anything out? | Main | Father of four pleads not guilty to flashing 91 people »
Teen charged with sexual assault after fathering child
Kou Yang, 17, was charged Monday with repeated sexual assault of a child for allegedly fathering a child with a 16-year-old girl he has lived with for more than two years. (Sheboygan Press)
March 18, 2008 | Permalink
Comments
I'm so glad I was a teenager in the 80's. If your parents caught you bonking your teenage g/f they just bitched at you and made sure you where at least using a condom. Nowdays they just throw your ass in jail and lable you a pedophille and stick you on a list for the rest of your life.
Posted by: The Asshole Guy | Mar 18, 2008 8:13:31 AM
This is nuts.
Posted by: Soo | Mar 18, 2008 8:15:41 AM
i agree, i miss the old days.
the worst was getting you ass kicked by the father or older brother. but you always went back for more though.
Posted by: AngrySockMonkey | Mar 18, 2008 8:16:51 AM
What the f*** is going on here? This makes no sense. So was it the girl who actually called the police? I can't believe the law says if a 17 and 16 year old have sex that the 17 year old should get arrested. If they actually go ahead and prosecute this case then someone needs their head examined.
Posted by: G-Man | Mar 18, 2008 8:28:25 AM
Why is he charged with a crime, but not her? The article says they were the same age (14) when they started having sex. I guess in Wisconsin only males can initiate sex.
Posted by: tiacheryl | Mar 18, 2008 8:42:11 AM
They BOTH were having sex with minors!
Posted by: Jack | Mar 18, 2008 8:42:21 AM
"The girl told police she and Yang began having sex shortly after they met in August 2005, when both were 14."
hunh? Sounds to me the persecutor needs to be locked up in principle. What an unspeakably despicable a$$hole, to charge this kid. Bullsh!t, Bullsh!t, bullsh!t. I'm calling bullsh!t. This sexual assault hysteria is gotten out of control in this country. Out of control. (a witch! a witch!) Mark my words, there will come a day that there will be a backlash against this out of control hysteria and the victims are not going to (rightfully) be the slugs like the prosecutor in the case, but they are going to be the children who nobody takes seriosuly b/c of a decade or two of hyper paranoia. We'll all win then, hunh? Fu%$ing A$$holes.
Posted by: sometimesilie | Mar 18, 2008 8:47:30 AM
did I mention that I saw a wolf just a little while ago?
Posted by: sometimesilie | Mar 18, 2008 8:48:25 AM
So who is behind these crazy laws? Is it the lazy parents? Is it the fools who think they'll live past death? Someone is demanding these kinds of laws...who are they?
Posted by: Sean, Torrington CT | Mar 18, 2008 9:01:53 AM
well, we know they're Red, White, and Stupid...Sean, it may be some of the folks who care so dang much about you before you are born and after you die, but in between, they'd as soon throw you to the wolves as not. Who was behind the witch hysteria or the Red scare? Someone looking to cash in, that's for sure.
Posted by: sometimesilie | Mar 18, 2008 9:05:26 AM
And all these years I thought I was just getting laid....I never realized my boyfriends were "assulting" me. Huh...go figure. Guess I should have enjoyed it less. Now I need therapy at the age of 37.
Posted by: sue | Mar 18, 2008 9:07:33 AM
DA's need to carefully view the surrounding circumstances before throwing charges around. Anyone with common sense can see that he did not "assault" this girl.
I agree with TAG - in the 80's sex between minors was just that, sex between minors. Nowadays, if teenagers have sex its some wholly immoral act that ends up perverting justice. This case is a fine example.
Save these types of charges for people who really deserve them, you know, the 35 year old who boinks the 15 year old.
Posted by: lawdog | Mar 18, 2008 9:14:26 AM
Sue....ditto. I'm with STS, it's BS in a major way. When I was in HS, nearly everybody was "doin it." If a girl got pregnant, well, the guy should'a been wearin a rubber....
Posted by: twerp | Mar 18, 2008 9:16:57 AM
lawdog, couldn't agree more...forget these stupid cases, save it for the freaks who attack girls at knife/gun point--like what happened to me.
Posted by: twerp | Mar 18, 2008 9:19:59 AM
Saudi 11-year-old marries 10-year-old cousin
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/afp/20080318/tod-saudi-marriage-children-7f81b96.html
Posted by: loungefly | Mar 18, 2008 9:20:42 AM
I recently saw a similar case on Nightline or one of those shows. The boy and girl had been dating for a while, and the girl, and the girl's mother didn't like the fact that they were sleeping together. She demanded that they stop, but it's a bit hard to put the genie back in the bottle, as they say. The mother eventually pressed statutory rape charges against the boy, and he was sent to prison. He's now a registered sex offender. After he was released, they got married and now have 2 kids together, but at the expense of his youth, and her relationship with her mother.
Thank god all my mom did was give me a lecture about getting a "bad reputation" and march me down to Planned Parenthood to get on The Pill!
Posted by: snappaloosa | Mar 18, 2008 9:29:24 AM
these laws are bullshit in their variances. Move one state over to my home state and you had me a 19 year old with a 16 year old girlfriend.
but 1. her parents were okay with me, and we dated for 4 years after that, and 2. Say they weren't okay with it, and called the cops, theres nothing to be done about it. It's not illegal there. 16 is the age of consent.
I'm not saying the federal government should set it, but the states need to put their heads together and figure out a good standard. Say, 17 with age gap laws of 2 years, so if a 18 year old sleeps with a 16 year old its fine. or 17 with 15, you get the idea. The laws should address adults fucking young adults, and not young adults fucking young adults.
Posted by: boynamedsue | Mar 18, 2008 9:33:24 AM
loungefly...that's crazy!
dammit, I have something to say about that and I hate going into this because it's really personal and hurts to think about it.
When I was a little girl, between the ages 7 & 9, I was sexually abused by a very distant cousin who was two years older than me. I'm not sure how it all started...I think I may have done something that I thought was bad and would get in trouble and she said she'd tell on me if I didn't do what she said...then as it went on she said she'd tell my mom that I liked what she was doing to me. I was scared and I was just a little kid. I didn't know how to handle what was happening to me. Anyhey, we moved to Alabama and it stopped thanks to the distance....
Looking back at it now that I'm grown, I think my cousin must have been sexually abused herself. Otherwise, she wouldn't have known how to do what she did to me because she was really young at the time too. So I forgive her.
The thing about the 11-year-old and 10-year-old makes me sick because that's just waaaay too young.....
I don't know when the "right" age is for people to start having sex.....I know when I was in HS, I was old enough for it. I knew about pregnancy, stds, and all that sexual stuff.
Maybe I'm not the best judge for stuff like this because of what all has happened in my personal life. It's been a really f*cked up one to say the least....(literally)
Posted by: twerp | Mar 18, 2008 9:33:44 AM
I HAVE A QUESTION! Who the hell is pressing charges? It says they live together and have for a while with parents. It said they've been having sex since they were both 14 AND it was concentual....so who the hell brought this to the attention of the authorities and WHY are they pressing charges. The article is seriously lacking in background info.
Posted by: Cherie | Mar 18, 2008 9:37:37 AM
This kind of thing happened to a guy I know. He was 18 and the girl was 16. They had been dating for several years. The boy was allowed to sleep over and even went on vacations with the girl and her family. The parents were completely cool with the kids sleeping together, until they broke up. The parents pressed charges, the boy was tagged a sex offender, and now his life is screwed up. There need to be some revision of these laws nationwide.
Posted by: Electric Mayhem | Mar 18, 2008 9:41:05 AM
Prior to puberty, no one is "ready" for sex.
After puberty, it's a matter of standards. I use "half plus 7." It makes sense in nearly every instance, and would definitely work for these two.
To the so-called authorities of Sheboygan: Were none of you ever teenagers? Did you skip past puberty and go straight to adulthood?
*Also, "Sheboygan" sounds like an appetizer. I picture a Triscuit piled high with seafood salad, a leaf of cilantro, and a slice of black olive.
Posted by: Soo | Mar 18, 2008 9:51:00 AM
I bet the male is 'guilty of sexual assault' because he's acting like a typical teenager and looking at other girls. OR, the female wants him to act like a grown-up father to their child and he isn't ready. Whatever the story is, I bet he pi$$ed somebody off and that's why this is in the courts now.
Posted by: jilldini | Mar 18, 2008 10:03:58 AM
Cherie: The State is bringing the charges. Its the same in a murder case, the state brings the charges against you.
Which begs the question: how did the DA's office find out about this "crime."
Posted by: lawdog | Mar 18, 2008 10:13:05 AM
age of consent in WI is 18. Why isn't she getting charged as well?
Posted by: buddy | Mar 18, 2008 10:18:48 AM
20/20 recently did several stories on underage sex. These laws and the interpretation are way out of control.
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=4444516&page=1.
Posted by: Potato Head | Mar 18, 2008 10:20:11 AM
Sex-shy America has passed laws allowing the state to press charges in certain situations, even if none of the citizens involved wish to press charges.
Nice huh? That's the Nanny State for you.
Posted by: Sean, Torrington CT | Mar 18, 2008 10:21:11 AM
Buddy, you got me on that one. I have absolutely no idea. My "guess" is that she is the one that called the cops, but that is only a guess.
Posted by: lawdog | Mar 18, 2008 10:21:29 AM
Sean: The state can and will press charges even when people do not wish to pursue charges in many instances. While you may cry foul on it, it really does alot of good some circumstances, i.e. spousal abuse situations.
Posted by: lawdog | Mar 18, 2008 10:27:00 AM
I know a dumbass female Prosecutor that one evening in a pub openly said “Any man that would want his wife or girlfriend to shave or groom, is one step away from a pedophile.”
Being the Kibbles muncher that she is I am guessing that she looks like Bigfoot's sister.
Posted by: Dick C. Normas | Mar 18, 2008 10:32:42 AM
Soo:
Sheboygan was voted the best place to live in the USA a few years ago. Its some annual review that includes cost of living, job market, schooling, parks, etc. And I think its consistently in the top whatever.
It really is a nice place despite this lunacy. We spend many summer weekends in Sheyboygan County, though not the city itself.
Posted by: stopeatingmysesamecake | Mar 18, 2008 10:43:55 AM
Actually, its not "voted" either as it wasn't a contest or anything. "Named" or "selected" is more appropriate.
Posted by: stopeatingmysesamecake | Mar 18, 2008 10:46:43 AM
twerp:
at 7 and 9 most of us called it experimentation. I believe most of us touched and looked. It's when we figure out that if you touch certain spots that it feels good. How many played docter at that age? Come on! That is not sexual assult..it is called growing up! If you were held down and you cried and screamed then I guess it could be called assult. Again thought I would point out that most of us have played doctor and most of us came out okay!
Posted by: PARADISE | Mar 18, 2008 10:50:04 AM
Sean,
Lex dura sed Lex
Its not up to the citizens to make ad hoc decisions on which laws are going to be enforced or ignored.
If you don't like a law THEN GET OFF YOUR FAT ASS AND VOTE, DAMN YOU!
People like you are so freaking lazy they don't even know how to change a law, but not quite lazy enough to quit b*tching about stuff that offends their delicate sensibilities. Toughen up. The world wasn't made for you.
Posted by: nellagain | Mar 18, 2008 10:51:37 AM
damn PARADISE, you're kind of an a$$hole.
Posted by: sometimesilie | Mar 18, 2008 11:04:55 AM
PARADISE,
It was abuse; I wasn't "playing doctor" or "experimenting." She was TWO years older than me and two years is a BIG age difference for kids. She used to beat me up and she even shoved dog crap in my face. If that's not abuse, well, maybe MY perception is off.
I don't appreciate people saying crap like what you said. That's why I don't like opening up and talking about it. I told a psychologist about it once and she tried to feed me that "experimentation" BS. I flipped her off and left. You know, you're saying stuff like that is like taking a knife and stabbing me....it really hurts. I just think you should know that before being so quick to judge others.
Posted by: twerp | Mar 18, 2008 11:08:51 AM
I just know that too many people over analyze things. I am sorry twerp. I did say that if you were held down or cried that was a different story. It's not nice to call people names. I didn't call you a name, I just pointed out that many people at that age experiment, two year difference or not. I am sorry that you were traumatied. But tons of us "played" and never felt like we really did anything wrong. That is not to take away from your experience since it was obviously different than the typical childhood experience.
Posted by: Paradise | Mar 18, 2008 11:20:54 AM
I didn't call you a name...
Posted by: twerp | Mar 18, 2008 11:29:15 AM
Paradise,
shame on you for telling someone they are not feeling what they are obviously feeling
denying another person's experience does harm to that person
you don't have to agree with anyone, however dismissing others for having different reactions from you serves no purpose but to feed your own ego and arrogance
Posted by: Lambiepie | Mar 18, 2008 11:34:57 AM
Sue, if you were jewish, your name would be a verb.
Hmm, I wonder how dick tater feels about potato head.
Posted by: A.V. | Mar 18, 2008 11:39:07 AM
I think a lot of people initially supported these underaged sex laws because they thought they'd only punish, say, 35-year olds boinking 15-year olds. They didn't think things through and realize that the way the laws are written would punish 17-year olds boinking 15-year olds, too.
Clearly, there needs to be an exception for consensual sex between kids who are close in age.
Posted by: Phranqlin | Mar 18, 2008 11:41:48 AM
Paradise, Can we hear from your "play mates"? Have you checked in with them recently? ever?
You see, that's the problem. You don't know whether the "play" you engaged in was also play to the other person/people you sexually explored.
Twerp: good on you for flipping off the therapist--although there seems to be majority vote for a sock in the jaw from Heaven's 17. You are far better off with out therapist or shrink. Psychiatrists are the single most credulous group of bipeds on the planet and have all the compassion and sensitivity for human suffering as festering bowl of dog snot. Therapists are wanna be shrinks who couldn't pass the chemistry requirement and were too lazy to maintain a decent GPA.
Posted by: nellagain | Mar 18, 2008 11:43:35 AM
Paradise, you were way outta line there. There's a huge difference between innocent sexual experimentation and sexual abuse like what twerp described.
Posted by: Phranqlin | Mar 18, 2008 11:45:15 AM
I think you guys are way overreacting to what I said! I am not a mean person. Nor did I dismiss what that person said or their feelings! I for one KNOW what abuse is. I have and do experience it. EGO...is something I don't have. Talk about judging people! I take offense to your attacks. I was just pointing out a different side. I never meant to upset twerp. When you are abused you know it..trust me..I of all people can sympathize with that! And I am sorry if I offened twep or anyone else. Some people go overboard though and I was just exploring that possibility. My sister in law got all uspet when my nephew asked to see my neices yoohoo when they were young and made a big family deal about it..then realized later it was just kids being kids. That is all.... If you were truely assulted or abused then I was not addressing that situation. Just ones like this story in the news where people overreact. SO sorry for offending! I am going into the corner to cry now......
Posted by: Paradise | Mar 18, 2008 11:45:31 AM
"Psychiatrists are the single most credulous group of bipeds on the planet and have all the compassion and sensitivity for human suffering as festering bowl of dog snot."
Woo Hoo - someone who is hated more than lawyers!
Posted by: lawdog | Mar 18, 2008 11:56:13 AM
Since you asked about my playmates... my neice and nephew that i talked about are fine today and are normal, healthy, married (to others). My friends and I have talked about as adults and we all agreed that what we were doing was just learning. None of us have bad feelings. AGAIN....not to take anything away from those of you who were abused. If you were then your experience was different than those of me and my friends. No child should be abused in anyway. I am really sorry if that happened to you..really....
Posted by: Paradise | Mar 18, 2008 11:58:45 AM
'Festering Bowl of Dog Snot' = band name
:P
Posted by: Soo | Mar 18, 2008 12:17:45 PM
twerp writes:
"She used to beat me up and she even shoved dog crap in my face"
I lol'd. I did that to my little brother once. I lol'd then too.
Posted by: KF | Mar 18, 2008 12:23:36 PM
Yup lawdog, shrinks are way down the piss pole from lawyers. Regrettably they have better PR people than lawyers. And they are, technically, medical doctors although there's not one in a hundred who could tell a spleen from armpit hair.
Also not nearly as many people end up interacting with shrinks as with lawyers. But once you do (or better yet meet one of their kids) you'll re-adjust your targeting software. Trust me on this one.
Posted by: nellagain | Mar 18, 2008 12:47:27 PM
nellagain, I hope you were trolling me! Humans owning other humans was once 'the law', so I reject your assertion. I never took you for an authoritarian.
Posted by: Sean, Torrington CT | Mar 18, 2008 12:51:34 PM
And slavery is not the law NOW (although it took Mississippi a little while to come around-- I actually have a newspaper clipping from the mid 1990's about the last owned slave in MS, he was white and belonged to a black guy).
The law is shackle. It is, to paraphrase Edmund Burke, the chains that exist because intemparate men cannot put chains on their own their own exceses. But there's a kicker. The key to the shackle is in the hands of the voters. The voters *repealed* the Volstead Act and left the Mann Act in place.
Times change, laws and rules that made some kind of sense at some point stop making any sense at all. That's why there is a mechanism for changing them. But there's a lot of difference between planting an acorn and trying take down an oak tree.
Lex dura sed lex--the law is hard but its the law. It not just a cop-out for authorities; its a warning about the nature of having any law at all.
Laws are not arbitrary exercises in rule-making--that's mathematics. YOUR elected representatives are at this very minute trying to hammer out some legislation or other, may be it would be a good plan to find out what they are up to and make them stop.
Posted by: nellagain | Mar 18, 2008 1:21:06 PM
nell, I don't believe a whit that our diligent politicians care a about a single thing I say or even about right and wrong. From what I see it's all about Managed Perception these days. You're Not For the Rape of Children by Snarling Wolves, Are You? (why do they hate our freedom?)
If we- pardon me, 'they'- can't craft laws that differentiate between child sexual abuse and consensual sex between minors, than god help us all.
Who said we are the government. Sean did ask, earlier, just who are these people who are for prosecuting a 14 year old as a Sex Offender for a consensual relationship with another 14 year old?
Posted by: sometimesilie | Mar 18, 2008 1:36:39 PM
The only people in elected office these days are rich people who can afford to campaign. Why the hell would a cushy well-set politician care for the "little man?" Politicians have it all and just want more. That's why most of them want to make the rich richer.
What I'm getting at is that I sort of can see where STS is going with this. The people running the country are not doing what the majority of Americans want them to do. Politicians are going to do what benefits them the most and they are going to do what would get them re-elected so that they can make their own lives better.
Posted by: twerp | Mar 18, 2008 1:54:21 PM
"do what would get them re-elected so that they can make their own lives better."
Pardon, I have to correct myself again. Please replace that phrase with this:
"say what would get them re-elected so that they can continue to make their own lives better."
Posted by: twerp | Mar 18, 2008 2:00:08 PM
twerp, don't forget the lives of their wealthy supporters and golf buddies. ;)
Posted by: sometimesilie | Mar 18, 2008 2:17:38 PM
nellagain, that's very nice and idealistic. I'm still going to do my patriotic duty and ignore unjust laws until they are repealed. If they are repealed.
Posted by: Sean, Torrington CT | Mar 18, 2008 2:31:37 PM
The rich guys in power hate nothing more than contempt of the law by the common man. When the common man realizes that most of these laws are designed not to help him, but to help those with power over him, that man becomes discontent.
I am discontent.
Posted by: Sean, Torrington CT | Mar 18, 2008 2:34:06 PM
I wonder if the hospital called the state if the boy reported himself as the father and provided his age. Punished for acknowledging he's the father, basically.
Posted by: andie | Mar 18, 2008 2:36:30 PM
andie, If i had to guess I think that's the case. Where I live the state can and does go after fathers for any support money the unwed mothers apply for. But damn, charging a 17yr old for having sex with a 16yr old? Methinks someone has an axe to grind or is out to prove a point.
Posted by: Hey! | Mar 18, 2008 3:35:08 PM
The real issue here is this...
I beleive it's law, that if the DA is aware of the situation she/he is legally bound to prosecute on behalf of the minor. They(those in the legal system) have been aware of this problem for years(rediculas prosecution) but the law remains "as is". Another instance of Big Brother tying his own hands...
Posted by: D | Mar 18, 2008 6:41:20 PM
me too, Sean....grrr....
Posted by: twerp | Mar 18, 2008 9:04:02 PM
"Independence and Capitalism" sound like great ideas but mix the two, after a couple of centuries, you got a mess of lower class citizens enslaved by their government. The "Independence and Capitalism" turns "Empirical."
Yes, God help us all. This country has turned into what our founding fore-fathers' were trying to keep us free from. This country was founded by militias who were trying to form a better, free country. Nowdays, if anybody is considered a member of a militia or any other group wanting to change the government, they are considered a "terrorist" and a "traitor" so these "traitors" are water-boarded in prisons off the coast of this "land of the free."
Yes, God help us all!
Posted by: twerp | Mar 18, 2008 9:39:50 PM
"I'm still going to do my patriotic duty and ignore unjust laws until they are repealed. If they are repealed.
Well, Sean you do that then, you can be the Gahndi of CT--just don't forget to vote. And show up at city council meetings every now and then. You're the type that scares the piss out of them. It will be good for your ego, edifying for the council members, and beneficial for the local cardiologists.
Twerp, If god did exist, I think as supreme being and creator of the universe, god might have one or two other things on the Celestial To-Do list in front of wiping the butts of a bunch of whiny group of humans born into the most priveldged positions in the history of the planet. Your god already blessed America, and look what you did with it. You want this stopped? Register, vote, hound your elected officials until they cry for their mamas.
Sorry for being cranky, Number 15 is up to her ears in power consumption projections for western africa. I think we may lose africa.
Posted by: nellagain | Mar 19, 2008 6:25:18 AM
nell, cuddly little out of context, fuzzily remembered fact for your research- Americans expend more or as much energy by having their electronic devices on "standby" than the entire continent of Africa spends on everything. I can't remember if 'America' also includes Western Europe, but the point remains the same.
Posted by: sometimesilie | Mar 19, 2008 6:56:11 AM
You guys have deviated way off from the topic. Let's get back to attacking Paradise for speaking his mind!
Get with the program guys!
Posted by: Naga Please! | Mar 19, 2008 7:32:24 AM
nellagain, do you know me? I attend as many local government meetings as I can, and express my opinion on issues. I was just at the TownHall today, protesting the war in Iraq. Being a salaried work-at-home corporate mofo with flex time has its benefits. Enjoy being a happy tool of your political betters! Just wait until a law is passed that infringes on an issue important to yourself...I'm sure you'll just get on your knees and obey. Sad...I thought you had more gusto than that.
Posted by: Sean, Torrington CT | Mar 19, 2008 1:13:57 PM
Sean,
You're not...not Angry Connecticut Flag Guy are you? The one on stilts in Waterbury? I'm glad you're attending local meetings, it heartens me that you leave your house occasionally.
In any event there are literally thousands of laws that inconvenience, annoy, and piss me off--both in the US and in my native country and in other countries I go to (working from home is cute, so 1980s of you, but the real cash is in Dubai)
STS,
energy consumption isn't quite the problem; production and distribution is. You can cut your energy consumption down to zero and it still doesn't put one more watt into Chad or Sierra Leone.
Posted by: nellagain | Mar 19, 2008 3:01:32 PM
Nell, I don't have time to wear stilts. I'm glad to see that you obey all the laws that you disagree with out of principle. It is an admirable, if misguided, trait. I'm not looking for 'real cash' else I'd don a suit and build financial systems on Wall Street like my classmates have done. I'm a craft-beer-craving pot-smoking geek who just wants enough to have a little land, a house, a family and a vacation every year. I couldn't possibly make money in Dubai...their social policies are saddening, and all the money is in gouging people who are dependent on oil. Goes against my conscience.
Telecommuting is 1980s? Hmm..in the 1980s my dad had a 300baud typewriter/terminal he could bring home and work with on the company's mainframes...
Posted by: Sean, Torrington CT | Mar 19, 2008 3:55:28 PM
Though no one is paying attention to me, I'm writing this just for the hell of it because it goes along with the last couple of comments I made on this page (I wish I had written it the other day but I didn't get the balls to do it until after I had a clash with our wonderful city law enforcement officials earlier today--oink, oink little piggy, oink, oink) :
The right to bear arms is up in question with the supreme court right now. TOTAL BS!!
The right to bear arms goes back to the days when our country was founded by militias. Our founding fathers saw that even the government they were in the process of founding could become too powerful (or full of selfish idiots in powerful positions). The right to bear arms is there so that we the people can have the ability to rise up against the government if that happens.
"The Land of the Free" is turning into an empire.
I'm ready to see a revolution.
Posted by: twerp | Mar 19, 2008 9:07:02 PM
Most statutory rape laws assume that girls are somehow especially unable to give proper sexual consent than boys. Even if she was older than him, he'd still go to jail. The law says I, as a girl, am too stupid to choose to have sex until I'm of a certain age, and until I reach that age, the cute boy in history class is a hormone-crazed fiend who only sees me as sexual prey. That's unfair both ways, yes? Originally these laws were meant to stop personal abuse, but now they're being used to destroy otherwise relatively functioning families.... That just ain't right.
Posted by: Kel | Mar 19, 2008 9:32:03 PM
"The right to bear arms is up in question with the supreme court right now. TOTAL BS!!"
Turn the outrage down just a smidge. The Supremes found for the Plaintiff and declared DC's ban on handguns unconstitutional. At the same time they found that states and localities are within their rights to regulate matters but may NOT regulate to the point that it functions as a ban. I just hope they REMEMBER that when abortion regulation comes around again.
The handgun ban wasn't working, although it made some gun dealers very wealthy. DC's problems are thickly nested and and those folks are desperate.
Posted by: nellagain | Mar 20, 2008 7:23:53 AM
OOOOOOOO! Gun Debate! Sweet! Twerp, there's no way your "right to bear arms" is going to stop Abrahms Tanks or attack helicopters or F-16's. If the Elites in the Federal Government finally decide they've had enough of people like Sean and Myself, our pistolas or whatever is not going to make one whit of a difference. Philadelphia is having MAJOR gun violence issues and it is b/c of gun laws crafted for a majority rural state. Philly is getting shot to pieces. One bit of legislation that they're "up in arms" (pardon) about is a law requiring gun owners to report lost or stolen weapons to law enforcement. Imagine. Outrageous. The next thing you know their is going to be some sort of Josef Stalin figure interning us all in the Yukon. The real world reality of this is Straw Buyers (people with clean records) are buying truckloads of guns and then selling them at inflated prices to thugs. When law enforcement traces the guns back to the source, these sellers through there hands up and say "Oops! Lost!" or "Oops! Stolen!" and business continues as usual. I'm not for taking people's guns away, but the reality of the situation needs to be reflected in tighter gun laws and stricter enforcement. If you can't do that state wide, you need to unclench your a$$hole and let cities do it. I for one am happy to own my high powered assault rifle; the difference is, I'm not a violent criminal or thug. You can craft legislation to make it more difficult for those guys to get weapons and I'll still be able to own my M1. And as much as I despise the government, not me or anyone else is going to use that to violently unseat them b/c I would get shot to pieces in 3 seconds flat. I just like going up to the mountains and blazing away at cans, targets, etc. Guns are fun, gun laws suck. :)
Posted by: sometimesilie | Mar 20, 2008 7:46:42 AM
STS, The US doesn't own the Yukon and, speaking obliquly for the canadiens, we'd prefer you'd keep your criminals on *your* side of the border.
So are buildings in Philly really becoming structurally unsound due to gunfire? I'm not a big fan of Philly, owing to having been to one too many cubs games. I've been in the city twice, once I got food poisoning and the other time I wish had been carrying.
"the difference is, I'm not a violent criminal or thug"
We only have your word on that. But you are right, the best the solitary gun owner can do in case of armed insurrection is to Put The Gun Down.
Ever have a hillbilly thanksgiving? I attended one and it was GREAT. Way the hell and gone out in the country. We stuffed ourselves stupid on smoked turkey and dozens of home made side dishes (mashed yams and apples mmmmmm) home-brewed beer, wine , and little whiskey neat for the older folks (its cold in November) and then we went out back and did some target shooting. Every one brought guns, right along with mashed potatoes and cornbread stuffing. After a while we all went inside and flopped around the fire. Oddly enough no one got shot over the last drumstick and no one went on to rob a liquor store. Mainly there was snoring.
Posted by: nellagain | Mar 20, 2008 8:07:47 AM
Nell, the internet makes this easy. 648 (reported) shootings, January 1st-May 18th in 2007.
http://inquirer.philly.com/graphics/shootings_map_2007/
There were well over a thousand (reported) in all. I read an Inquirer article last year, I don't know where in the heck it is now, that estimated that the number of cases of "shots fired" (hits added with misses. Het, you sunk my Battleship!) was several thousand. Lots of anecdotal interviews with kids on the street who claim getting a gun is easier than obtaining alcohol. Numbers crunchers who claim that in some neighborhoods, an 18-25 year old is more likely to become a victim of gun violence than a soldier on tour in Iraq. All of which speaks to an underlying culture of gun violence. It's almost always with a pistol, and some people who know what they're about and are trying to come up with solutions for this problem oh whatever. You see a lot of bullet holes (and in cars especially, for some reason) My current neighborhood is well out of the connection of big red dots, but there are places I used to go, people I used to visit, buses I used to ride that I don't anymore. Places I used to live for that matter, although non of those neighborhoods were ever or are not now "that bad" although a couple blocks one way or the other and it got bad, quick. Philly is that way.
As for the Yukon- I know where it is--I was implying our impending Imperialistic Western Hemisphere Ambitions, in a world where gun owners didn't have that protection against the government.
You are certainly not kidding about the Hillbilly Thanksgivings; but why wait for Thanksgiving? I go back up the Mountain for long weekends in the summer and we call that "vacation." I feel safer spending a whole weekend around a bunch of armed, beer swilling rednecks than I do outside my own house at 2 in the morning. If only there were *any* jobs up there way I would move to a trailer on the mountain in a second.
As for being an armed thug, they haven't caught me yet ;)
Posted by: sometimesilie | Mar 20, 2008 8:35:48 AM
Nell, no king of England is going to come up in *my* house and quarter his Hessians there. I'm using my refund check to by a cuban made assault rifle come July!
Posted by: sometimesilie | Mar 20, 2008 8:38:31 AM
:-)
Posted by: twerp | Mar 20, 2008 10:50:32 AM
DC should just 'regulate' guns such that the only ones allowed are single-shot weapons like the ones used in the biathlon.
Posted by: Sean, Torrington CT | Mar 20, 2008 1:00:48 PM
Sean, it would be nice to have a single-shot cannon....I've always wanted one of those!
Posted by: twerp | Mar 20, 2008 1:24:41 PM
