f13.net

Don't know if you guys saw this or not.

http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/38768.html (http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/38768.html)

U.S. agents question teen
Girl ran anti-Bush page on MySpace
By Laurel Rosenhall and Ryan Lillis - Bee Staff Writers

The latest Sacramento resident to be questioned by federal agents in possible threats against President Bush is a 14-year-old girl with a heart on her backpack and braces on her teeth, a freckle-nosed adolescent who is passionate about liberal politics and cute movie stars.

Her name is Julia Wilson, and she learned a vivid civics lesson Wednesday when two Secret Service agents pulled her out of biology class at McClatchy High School to ask about comments and images she posted on MySpace.

Beneath the words "Kill Bush," Julia posted a cartoonish photo-collage of a knife stabbing the hand of the president. It was one of a few images Julia said she used to decorate an anti-Bush Web page she moderated on MySpace, the social networking Web site that is hugely popular among teenagers.

The Secret Service refused to answer questions about the case or even confirm an investigation. Eric Zahren, a Secret Service spokesman, said the agency does not discuss its work "due to the sensitivity of our mission."

But Julia's mother, Kirstie Wilson, and an assistant principal at McClatchy High said two agents showed them badges stating they were with the Secret Service and the Department of Homeland Security.

Federal law prohibits making serious threats against the president, and Julia and her parents say what she did was wrong.

The couple are disturbed, however, that federal agents questioned a child at school -- without her parents present. And First Amendment lawyers question whether the Secret Service over-reacted to a 14-year-old's comments on a Web site made for casual socializing.

"I don't condone what she did, but it seems a little over the top to me," said Julia's father, Jim Moose. "You'd think they could look at the situation and determine that she's not a credible threat."

Earlier this month, federal officials arrested two Sacramento-area men for allegedly threatening the president. Elk Grove resident Michael Lee Braun has been charged with sending two threatening letters to the El Dorado Hills country club where Bush recently made an appearance. Rocklin resident Howard J. Kinsey is accused of threatening the president through a text message.

Here is how Julia Wilson's family tells their story:

Two Secret Service agents arrived at their Land Park home about 2:30 Wednesday afternoon, Kirstie Wilson said. They told her they wanted to speak with her daughter about threats to the president that she had posted on MySpace.

"She was in molecular biology, and I said I really didn't want to take her out of class for this," Kirstie Wilson said. "I said I'd make sure she came right home from school."

She asked the agents to come back in an hour, and they left.

Then Wilson sent her daughter a text message instructing her to come straight home from school.

"... there are two men from the secret service that want to talk with you. Apparently you made some death threats against president bush. Dont worry youre not going to jail or anything like that but they take these things very seriously these days," Kirstie Wilson wrote.

"Are you serious!?!? omg. Am I in a lot of trouble"? her daughter replied, using common teenage shorthand for "Oh, my God."

Kirstie Wilson called her husband. While they were on the phone, she received another text message from her daughter: "They took me out of class."

It was a 15- to 20-minute interview, Julia said. Agents asked her about her father's job, her e-mail address, and her Social Security number. They asked about the MySpace page she had created last year as an eighth-grader at Sutter Middle School.

"I told them I just really don't agree with Bush's politics," Julia said Thursday. "I don't have any plans of harming Bush in any way. I'm very peaceful; I just don't like Bush."

The MySpace page under question was a group page, similar to an online club.

Most of the groups Julia is a part of are fan clubs for movie stars like Jake Gyllenhaal and Ewan McGregor. The group that got her in trouble was called something like "People who want to stab Bush" -- Julia said she doesn't remember the exact name because she soon changed it.

After an eighth-grade history lesson in which she learned that threatening the president is against the law, Julia said she changed the group name to "So Bush is an idiot but hey what else is new?"

The group primarily consisted of her teenage friends who share her liberal political interests, Julia said. She deleted the group page over the summer when she decided that MySpace was juvenile and taking up too much time.

Moose and Wilson say they had no idea what their daughter had posted online.

"I was more than happy to have them talk to her about the severity of what she did. But I wanted to be here with her," Kirstie Wilson said.

McClatchy Assistant Principal Paul Belluomini said he usually does not notify parents when law enforcement officials come to school to interview students.

"Parents usually interfere with an investigation, so we usually don't notify them until it's done," he said.

Sacramento City Unified School District policy calls for parents to be notified but doesn't say whether it should happen before or after a student is interviewed. State law doesn't require parental notification.

In any case, said Ann Brick, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, Julia Wilson's post did not sound like a "true threat" to the president, making it political speech that is protected by the First Amendment.

"The courts have to distinguish between political rhetoric and hyperbole and a real threat," Brick said. "A reasonable person would have to interpret what was said as indication of a serious intent to commit harm."

Peter Scheer, executive director of the California First Amendment Coalition, said in the current political climate, "the threshold that brings (agents) in has gotten lower."

"It's a cautionary tale for kids who are on MySpace that putting something on MySpace like 'Kill the President' is not the same as saying it on e-mail or over the phone," Scheer said. "The government is not systematically listening to all phone calls or going through e-mails, but it probably does search the Internet."

What the fuck is up with the Secret Service these days ?

They're totally nutso.

The Secret Service has been doing this sort of thing long before the rise of the Web. Like the article implies it's part of their job duties to investigate all serious threats against the President.

No, I'm well aware of that.  However, I think with the heightened threat level, they're actually getting a little hysterical.  Arresting the guy who criticised Cheney is one thing, since it's possible he was being a douche, but to disregard a parents wishes to bust into class and have a private talking to to a minor is BAD SHIT.

If I was the parent I'd be a little less 'I understand they have a tough job' and a little more 'What the Fuck Do You Think You're Doing with My Daughter You Cunts.'

Maybe that's just me.

And were I the secret service agent I'd tell you to go fuck yourself, possibly with a headlock thrown in for good measure.

You threaten the President don't be surprised if some tall men in gray suits with earpieces pay you a visit.  And nope, it's not in their mandate to even inform you that they're talking to your darling offspring.

Yeah, but you combine that with your recent anti-terror laws and your SS just became, well, SS.

;)


Anyways, to me this is the same as the Music Industry arresting Dead Grannies for downloading MP3's.  A complete waste of time.  When the President is actually in danger of getting emo'd to death, I'm sure the SS will be ready !


"Watch out Mr President, her heart is cold and black as midnight as her soul suffers !  SHE'S GOT LACE !!!"

I'm sure she'll be picked up in a black van and never seen again.

There's nothing unusual about this, nor is it any different than what they did "pre 9/11".  Agents know that nearly all the threats they investigate are bogus and just people spouting off, but their job is to investigate anything regardless.  You don't get to threaten bodily harm on the President, because it's a threat against not just a person but the continuation of government.  There is the very real possibility that the assassination of a President could lead to a loss in continuation of government, but we take it for granted that it's not an issue.  That it's happened a few times without major revolt is a small miracle.

The girl was being a dumbass.  The Secret Service investigated, and let it go once they figured that's all it was.  The article says it was a 15-20 minute interview, and that's all that came of it. 

Over here, any official discussion with a minor needs to happen in the presence of a parent or guardian.

That's the thing.  Not the actual investigation, the end-run around the parent.

But, hey, it's Useless News, so who cares ?

Internet users are getting younger and younger.  With things such as MySpace around, there will be more and more kids posting with the immaturity of kids.  I mean, that's what kids do... say silly stuff like, "I'm going to poke you in the ey!!  And I don't care if you ARE the president!"  I sure hope we have enough secret service agents to keep all the dangerous ten year olds in line.

Send in the troops!

(http://www.wonkette.com/politics/dsc_560620%25.jpg)

They're the Secret Service. They can do what they want.

What the fuck are you talking about? Major revolt? Even if someone were to kill enough people to 'threaten the continuance' (a long goddamned list), we'd just have the parties prop up some new guys, run primaries and have a new election. It's not like anyone would suddenly think the sky is falling because a few politicians got offed. It's a nonissue to anyone but the president and his family, really. And the special interest that's into him for a few million, but hey.

Yes.  It's not likely but is possible, and cities have rioted for less.  Some governments have fallen as a result.  Ours has safeguards to help secure against any of this, but it's not a foregone conclusion that there wouldn't be problems resulting from an assassination.  That's why there's such heavy protection to try and prevent it, and a process to be followed which is defined fairly strictly to help ensure a continuation of government in that event.

The republitards might shit themselves and the defeatocrats will be dancing in the streets. I lived in LA during the King riots, rich white corporate america is not going to start a riot and the po' folks are going to celebrate some rich white guy getting a cap busted in his ass. Po' folks riot because it doesn't matter. Rich people (the kind that would care about who is president because it actually affects them directly) have a vested interest in not having riots interrupt their cashflow or portfolio. Our safeguards go far beyond any governmental heirarchy and inherent flexitibility.

The US would be just fine if W disappeared tomorrow, along with half the line of succession (in regards to the topic, I am in no way threatening violence against bushtard, I'm resigned to waiting out the next couple year in anticipation). Any real instability is so unlikely as to not be worth the thought.

The heavy protection is because the guy is in charge, of course he's going to use the assets available to cover his ass. Not because there's much danger beyond that, despite what he may think.

It's also completely illegal. A parent has to be present (or at least give permission) for a minor to be interviewed by police. If there were any actionable crimes, this could tank any case they had (or at least any evidence gathered from the interview) because they didn't follow the rules of evidence.

EDIT: Again, it's fine that they investigated it, despite the stupidity of it all. That's SOP. What's not SOP, nor even remotely acceptable or legal, is the agents questioning the child without the parent present.

If he uses his best resources to police virtual playgrounds, dispatching field agents to the homes of children, he's going to significantly improve his chances of being killed by a real assassin or terrorist cell. And I'll shed no tears.

Really?  What law requires police to get parental permission to interview a minor as part of investigating the minor for a crime?

And Righ:  This isn't a Bush thing, this is Secret Service operating procedure.  They have been doing this shit for decades.

As has been said, the Secret Service has a long history of at least going through the motions when it comes to bullshit "threats" against a President.  They went in knowing this kid's website meant nothing, talked for a few minutes so no one could say they ignored it, and left.  /shrug

There were similar stories about Ultra-Righties doing the same stupid shit when Clinton was in office.

The results were the same, a  visit from the Secret Service.  (http://news.com.com/2100-1023-211223.html)

In fact, I find that article pretty fucking Fox-News.  I'm so glad that the moral high ground keeps sinking.

One further thought.  They didn't do anything harsh to this kid.  They took her out of class for a 15 minute talk.  Her life isn't ruined.  She got embarrassed, but she should be.  In turn, the Secret Service investigated a potential threat (because school kids NEVER kill people), and quickly dismissed it.  No harm done.

I wish the rest of the government were this thorough when dealing with potential threats.  Maybe a few of the 9/11 guys would've been picked up.  Maybe Katrina wouldn't have happened as it did, or at least been quite as bad.  It would be nice if everyone took their responsibilities that seriously, but also exercised enough common sense to realize when they've caught a red herring and need to move on.  What happened here is what should've happened, and it's unfortunate it doesn't happen elsewhere.

Much as I'd love to be on the girl's side, I can't be on this one.  She didn't just say "I hate Bush", she said "Kill Bush."  That's a problem.  The SS was right to check it out, 14 or not, because someday one of those apparently bogus threats will turn out to be real.

Plus if she hates Bush, she clearly supports the Al-Qaeda terrorism methodology and a 14 year old still makes a great suicide bomber.  Hell, she's almost too old to be a suicide bomber.  She should be married and have callused cheeks from her daily beatings by now!

Running the risk of falling into Llava's sarchasm, I hope everyone realises that there are probably millions of people in this country who want Bush dead. The SS just showed themselves to be incredibly incompetent to spend resources on a 14 year old who couldn't possibly have the resources to assassinate the most closely guarded US presidents in history. The ones that are actively seeking an assassination and may actually present a threat are sure as hell not making a god damned MySpace about it.

Its the job of the Secret Service to investigate legitimate threats against the president. Even an idiot like Bush can't be gunned down like he would deserve it, its just not proper behaviour.

Legitimate being the key word here. Anybody trying to tell me a 14 year old girl is legitimate enough a threat to be dragged out of a class room is clearly deluded. She certainly wouldn't have grabbed her high velocity sniper rifle after school and killed the president before she came home. How's she do that? Take the bus? Go hitchhiking to the White House? And those SS agent knew that. They were already at home. They could have easily waited and the educating effect for the child would have been the same.

They were assholes. Plain and simple.

Ding, ding, ding.  Winner.

Embarrassed?  The feds and president were so scared that they sent the Secret Service after her, she's probably the coolest kid in school right now.  Actually, I doubt that, she probably started out at the computer nerd rank but this has got to bump her up quite a few notches on the social ladder.  She's rebel bad-girl now.

Hey, I think you figured out the point, finally. They're all commando on some girl's myspace page but completely inept at anything actually threatening american lives.

The President doesn't have anything to do with investigations like that, nor is it "fear".  This is SOP. 


Getting talked to by cops makes for an interesting story that people want to gossip over, but the cool factor doesn't extend to wanting to repeat or copycat the event.  Everyone's going to want to know about it, but no one is going to think "wow, I should try that". 

Kids aren't that stupid in your world ?

What, in yours when one gets arrested, they all decide to do it for kicks?  Must suck to be a shop owner in Scotland, but the teachers gotta have it easy. 

Personally, I'll still expecting to hear of the dead kid that got waterboarded by the lockerroom jocks. You know, since its not torture or dangerous or anything.

Nah, not all of them.  But I'd have to be a total fucking retard to say that 'no one' would think on doing it for attention.  Kids, they hate attention.


The Shop Owner is actually a pretty good analogy.  Look at Shoplifting.

? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swirlie)

No, the 'cool' behavior we were talking about isn't shoplifting (look, free shit I wanted!), it's getting caught.  How many people do you know shoplift and wave the merchandise infront of a camera/clerk/whatever so they can go to jail and spend time with cops?  You said that was the cool part.  I don't know anyone who thinks being interrogated/arrested is a fun way to spend the afternoon.

Well, maybe that Jon Benet confessor guy.  So that's one.

I cannot fault the secret service. This was their job you cannot joke around about doing fatal things to our commander in chief no matter how much you dislike them. Their main job and function is to track down threats to the president. Even if they are pretty clearly just a kid playing around they can't truly know until they talk to them.

Their 15 minute talk was probably more of a put a realization of consequences into the kids head and give her a bit of a scare so that actually starting any kind of more serious process would not be needed.

You may have the right to say things like this but the secret services WILL check up on you if you do it in a public forum or site.

kaid

It came up earlier in this thread, so if anyone is interested in a good read about how a total annihilation of our government could play out Executive Decision by Tom Clancy is about that scenario: a terrorist controlled plane crashes into the Capitol while all 535 Congressmen, POTUS and VPOTUS are there. I believe it is the last Jack Ryan book, but I could be wrong.

You are correct and I was wrong. The law is not required to get parental permission, unless the minor asks to speak with their parent before the interview. At least according to Yahoo Answers (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060926204105AA2zhEv).  I misspoke, and I apologize.

I still think it's pretty scummy, considering the parent did not want the child taken out of her class and said so to the officers.

How much money did that 15-minute talk cost the taxpayers? How much time investigating it was diverted from investigating a threat that wasn't on MySpace, a place known for retardation but hardly a threatening den of Internet terrorists? I'm sure the few thousand bucks they spent on the cash could have been better spent buying a Katrina victim a trailer, or scanning one cargo container at a dock.

Probably so until they ignore the one crazy who actually goes and tries to shoot the president. They are doing the job that they were mandated to do. If that is wasteful then it is something that will need to be looked at but I can't rip on somebody for doing their job by the book as they are supposed to.

Given some of the wackjobs that have assassinated world leaders or tried to even some yutz on myspace could seriously make an attempt.

Anyone could make an attempt? A 14-year old girl on MySpace? I'm thinking that unless she's like 5 minutes from the SS office, that's one that can wait.

The article noted it took like two months to track her down. I suspect it was not "high priority" but they do have to investigate every occurance. And I'm OK with that. A 20m conversation is not unreasonable. She didn't get labeled a enemy combatant and get extraordinarially renditioned. I am concerned with free speech, press, and my rights as much if not more so than the average guy, but this is an absoloute non-issue.

This isn't even news. It's been happening ever since *I* can remember, and every few years there's a sob story of a child getting a visit from secret service. I knew at a very young age there are just some things you don't joke about publically. It's not infringement of rigthts or harrassment, it's fucking common sense.

No harm was done and maybe she learned a thing or two about discretion, so why is this thread two pages? Stop being retarded and save the outrage for shit that matters.

Again, that's the point. This was handled all professionally, unlike most of what the government has been screwing up. That's why it's outrageous, they can find time to protect the president from myspace but not help our citizens in New Orleans, pages from congressmen, habeus corpus from the president, iraq from cheney, etc.

That's shit that matters in my book.

Secret service is one branch that has been doing what they do for a long, long time. They also don't fuck around and are generally left alone by the greater governmental whole. There are no political appointees there, they generally don't get replaced by new administrations when they come in, and have a very limited scope of responsibility where people's lives are at stake every day. They get a lot of practice. I've met several, and while they're all cool guys, they display a level of dedicaton that's pretty extraordinary.

They aren't your ordinary beuracrats, and it's really not fair to compare them to the rest of the government.

If they break the law, such as interrogating a minor child without a guardian present, those involved should be prosecuted.  If they do it as policy, they should be disbanded. 

Just sayin'....

Yes, we should disband the only functional agency in the government.  The hippies are out in full force today.

Breaking the law is functional? The criminals are out in full force today. Check your macho pride at the door if you're scared of 14 year old girls.

And why is that?

Because these folks save the President and Vice President's asses. When it comes to covering their own asses, our leaders don't fuck around with that. Now if they just had the same respect for FEMA, or the military, or the taxpayers, or Social Security, or health care, or...

You never know... it could have been a 14 year old girl on the grassy knoll.

No way. Kennedy would have seen her and sent a SS agent up there to get her digits.

The only law that was mentioned as possibly being broken was by the 14 year old.  And yes, on rare occations 14 year old girls do kill people.  We get about one a year in my state (I just looked due to curiosity), and we're small.

What they did was only breaking the law in Magical Hippyland, and maybe someday in California if they can every get it past the Governator. She made a threat.  She got a stern talking to.  Hardly an evil crimal organization that should be disbanded.  Ya, folks like Nebu can hide behind a "government waste" arguement and you with your "afraid of girls" arguement.  But you guys are just pissed off at the current adminastration and trying to take a few more swipes at them via the Secert Service.  This is completely misguided.  They do good work in a difficult enviroment.  And if the process of doing a through job a girl is sent home crying, so fucking what. At least she has something semi-interesting to post on her blog.

Interviewing or holding a minor without a parent or guardian present is against the law. Also, nobody has proven that the 14 year old girl broke the law. Its up to the courts to decide whether her message was a credible threat or simply political hyperbole. Though I doubt that your fellow pedophobes will do anything that might involve submitting their excesses to judgment.

If you would, cite the law.  Otherwise I call bullshit because know better.


You don't need a conviction to question a suspect.  The whole questioning bit occurs before conviction.

Nah, you can have it. I'm not interested in googling law just to argue with you. I think its a waste of resources to have secret service agents chasing after teenagers who post political hyperbole, you don't. Shrug. Like I said, it makes it easier for the real killers and terrorists to do their jobs.

Everything I looked up, although, said that a parent or guardian had to be present when questioning a juvenile, although not all minors in all states are considered juveniles.  I couldn't find anything about the Secret Service regarding that, but I found loads of complaints about them doing this sort of thing, being aggressive with innocent people, violating free speech, things like that.  They seem just as much a bunch of bullies as an intelligence organisation.  The ACLU just loves them... but, of course, I'm sure you think they're just a bunch of hippies, too.  If they break laws, they should be held accountable. 

And I'm not a hippy so don't call me names unless they're clever or profane.  You wanky plonker, you.

What you've read is wrong.  Suck it up.  If a minor tells the authorities that they want their parents present then yes, they have to call the parents.  Same as if someone requests an attorney.  If they don't, too bad, the questioning can continue.  You may not like this, but the law is not determined by what Signe likes.


How is a 15 minute talk regarding a death threat to the President considered bullying?  They are mandated to follow up any threat to the president, no matter how implausible it may be.  That's their fucking job.  They don't have the leeway to say, "Nah, this probably isn't a serious threat, just let it slide".  They have to at least investigate every threat, and in this case it looks like they did that.  They talked to the girl, gave her a warning about doing this kind of thing in the future, and that was that.  No charges were pressed.  This doesn't sound like the thought police, for Christ's sake, it's routine Secret Service duty.  And for the record, they aren't an intelligence organization.  They're law enforcement (in cases of counterfeiting, etc)/protection.  That's it.

Again, what law was broken?  You bandy about the term as though it means something because you say it does.  YOU ARE WRONG. 

I did say "if" they break laws and it's juveniles, not minors... evidently there is a difference.  That's okay, though... just pick out the bits you want to shout at me about. 


It should be.  I think I'd make a wonderful boss of everyone.  (I'll make you Minister of Giggles.)

PS  Maybe this should be in politics where I can ignore it properly.

I think they were simply making an example out of her. I do believe her parents should have been present, but it never should have happened in the first place. Parents in general need to be more aware of what their children do while on the net.

Wheeeeeee.

Maybe they could have administered a good spanking.

Then everyone on the intardweb will be making threats.  Even me.

Point is, you can't go around saying you want to kill the president.  Sure, it'd be nice to be psychic and know which threat is legit and which isn't, and yeah the SS definitely took it too far by feeling they had to go to the school and talk with her- hell, once they realized she was in a school they should've said "Okay, let's move on."

But anyone can pretend to be a 14 year old girl on myspace.

"omg hi! this is my first time on the internet! i'm 14 and dont have a bf right now but i think i'd really like any guy who would try to kill the president

people i want to meet:  boys who will kill the president!"

Yes, but we expect people to exercise judgment about what is a valid threat and what is rhetoric. After all, you just said "i'd really like any guy who would try to kill the president" and now I have too. If it's simply a matter of parsing teh intarweb and sending the goons based on a fucking pattern match, our visits should arrive forthwith.

This story repeats maybe once every one or two years.  Some dumbfuck kid babbles publicly about how they wish the President was dead, or want to kill the President, or whatever.  The Secret Service gets wind of this, knows it's horseshit, but they sigh and eventually get around to sending some agents out to administer a ten-minute talking-to.  Then a bunch of asshats who hate whatever President is in power at the time stamp their feet and make assinine allusions to Nazi Germany, as if this is something new.

You're so worldly wise.

I think last time it was some kid drawing pictures of the President being shot in the head, or hung from a noose or something, in class at school.  The teacher pointed it out to the principal, and somehow the Secret Service ended up becoming aware of it.  As usual, they sent a couple of guys down to the school to make sure this was just some dumbass kid, and spent a few minutes giving him the "Timmy, don't threaten the President" speech.  Then they sent him back to class and went on their way.

A bunch of hippies squawked, but no laws were broken and nobody really gave a shit.  And as of now, nobody even remembers it ever happened.  The same way no one will remember this story two years from now, when some retard kid gets a talking-to from a couple of agents over his "I wish President Hillary was dead" website.

Um. At 14 I had a hunting license (and appropiate firearms) and the ability to build radio guided explosive rockets with a 1000 foot flight range using off the shelf hobbiest components. What kind of lame-assed slacker are you that you think a 14 year old can in no way be a threat?

As to the article, THIS is what pisses me off:
Yet another argument against public schooling. :/

Or 6 years ago.. from the story mentioning TWO teens I linked to.

Shock.

Awe.

You have hunting licenses at 14? I'm without words here. As a country you deserve every gun related crime that happens.

Ok, I wanted out of this thread, but For Fucks Sake :

My ire at this is not to do with the President, or the Child, or the School, or the Secret Service really.  It stems from the fact that IN MY COUNTRY what the SS did was blatantly illegal.  You just DO NOT interview/speak/address a minor without Parental or Guardian consent.  Especially when said parent or guardians have already stated that THEY DO NOT WANT HER SCHOOLING INTERRUPTED FOR SOMETHING SO FUCKING TRIVIAL.  So, you can ignore me, because I'm basing my views on my own little ditchy backwater.

Further, this quote gets me even more annoyed because, over here, this stupid numbnuts would BE FIRED for her actions and BEATEN WITH A STICK for that comment.  My mother (Head Teacher) would quite literally thrash anyone under her who thought of such stupidity.  Are parents overprotective, shrill, drama queening whores when 'Little Timmy' is in trouble ?  Sure they are.  Should they still be told ?  Without doubt.

What the fuck.

Pfft.  A kid with a hunting license is the last person I'm worried about when it comes to gun related crime.  A kid who goes hunting is a kid who knows about gun safety and probably spends a lot of time outdoors in the company of his family.  Pretty much the antithesis of the sort of kid who accidentally shoots his friend with Dad's gun, or the crazy Columbine-style shut-in whose disinterested parents never notice that junior is making pipe bombs in the garage.

EDIT:  Fourteen is old.  Here's a story about an eight-year old girl hunting and killing a fucking bear (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/24/AR2005102402024.html).

You are teaching children to kill. You are training them to lose their inhibitions. You are presenting violence as means to problem solving at an early age. At an age where they are neither allowed to have sex nor to vote. But they can drive a bullet through the skull of a living breathing being.

Killing things is family entertainment for long weekends. The brains of children work different than the brains of adults. They are changed by the positive presentation of violence and killing. As a society, you people are fucked up beyond the pale if you not only allow, but encourage it.

That's nowt.  It's easy to kill a bear when it's fucking.

Well, big whoop.  IN MY COUNTRY we don't put up surveillance cameras every 2 feet because the public can't be trusted.

We just shoot each other.

Amazing.  I wouldn't have thought it possible, but I can smell the mangina wafting out from this ethernet connection.

Re-read this bit pls.  "So, you can ignore me, because I'm basing my views on my own little ditchy backwater"

I'd rather get ignored.  The self-insult was, you know, built in.  But, hey, if you wanna barrack my backwater (which I am totally patriotic about because we execute our own civilians and that's Peachy-Keen), you go for it.  I'll defend this Islands Shining Sanctity till the end.  Oh wait, no I won't.  It's a shithole.

And, to be honest, I didn't think we were rich enough for Cameras every 2 feet.  It's surely not helping the crime figures.   :|

Does the big scary Gulp feel all manly now? Does he? Is Gulp a big potent boy, is he?

I never can decide if I should pity you or be amused. Luckily I can do both at the same time.

You will always lack the self awareness that insults from you are compliments for me, will you?

Kids who are raised by hunters tend to be safer around guns, because they are taught gun safety and the guns are generally respected and kept locked up, unlike a suburban kid who finds his dad's gun in the closet. Killing animals for food is as old as the human race, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. Most kids I know grew up hunting and shooting at the range for fun. We also have a healthy respect for guns and would never consider shooting anyone.

I was shooting when I was younger than that. I've beaten a lot of guys up, never shot anyone. Never knifed anyone, either. Guns are safe, and our right as americans to protect ourselves. I hope I never have to shoot anyone, but that doesn't mean I want to be disarmed and vulnerable. Police are just there to clean up the crime scene.

Don't be ignorant.

Personally, I disagree with Teb on this one, but I'm interested Sky :  Vulnerable to what ?

Violence in this situation does solve a problem: the need for food.  Fishing is killing too, it just doesn't use gunpowder.  For that matter, buying wrapped meat at the supermarket is just paying other people to do the killing for you, and you'll have a hard time arguing that the condition most of those creatures are kept in prior to being killed is more humane than living in the wild and being preyed upon by hunters (as opposed to other things that normally prey on them). 

Thing is, everyone who I know who hunts is very aware of gun safety (because walking around waving a gun all over tends to REALLY PISS OFF other hunters who also have guns), of what they are doing and why (they want to avoid animal suffering, and will eat their kills) and are socially adjusted just fine.  At least, adjusted as far as their normal non-hunting social circles go.  The main complaints I hear about hunters from people around them aren't that they are violent savages, but that some of them tend to clean their kills and leave the remains in the field which stinks the place up (or worse, who dump remains on the side of a road), or hunters who hunt too close to or on private property.

I'll hazard a guess:
to people who use guns less discriminately and for criminal activities.

Hmmm.

The Great Bear Menace.

While I personally would never hunt I see the appeal to go hunt your own food on the open range. I can see the appeal of adult hunters wanting to be more in tune with nature and going on a hunting trip. Hell, I can even see the shooting of your first deer as a sort of coming-of-age ritual, a bonding moment between father and son. And of course it helps if that boy knows how to handle and shoot a hunting rifle prior to that. Tagging along with the group on a hunting trip, target practice on a shooting range, all fine with me. Hunters are the last people I would like to take the guns away from and hunting rifles are not really the most dangerous guns out there.

But thats entirely different from children actually having hunting licenses and killing animals on their own. Thats what I can't get my head around. Sorry for the confusion if that sounded like I am against all hunting.

Perhaps there's simply an assumption on Tebonas' part that a 14 year old with a hunting license means he's legally allowed to wander in the woods alone, unsupervised shooting up any thing that moves. I can assure you that not only is that not the case, but that the traditions within hunting families, both in the US and around the world, would not condone that.

What is to me far more to the point is the perception that the SS lacks a coherent threat assesment standard. By itself, one can make apologies for the SS and their strong-arm tactics, but when you couple that with the Air Marshall's authority to put anyone they feel like on the No-Fly list (as examined in the politics thread), you have to wonder if the entire method of threat assesment to US security is on the fritz.

You can't have that father/son moment without the son having a hunting license.  Not legally anyway.  Also, once familiar with gun safety, hunting and so forth, it's not uncommon for them to go on the same trip to the same place, but setup their stands in different locations.


Not so much bears, but wild animals can be a rare but existant threat in rural areas.  My brother in-law shot a coyote that got too close to him.  They can sometimes be heard at night, and this is on land that isn't far from the city.  Doesn't mean people always carry guns outdoors, but a number of them would like to keep it an option that is sometimes exercised.

Ya think? When INS lets in all of the 9/11 hijackers despite the fact that many of them were on their lists as known terrorists? Or when Saudi nationals are allowed in without barely a glance at their record because of chumminess with the Saudis? When 95% of all cargo containers arriving by ship in the country are not scanned or searched in any way, shape or form?

Yeah, that's an understatment.

Yeah. 'Cause teaching kids gun saftey while under parental supervision is a BAD thing.

...

What you don't teach gun safety to your kids? Ok. You deserve every armed intrusion your country suffers. There. Feel happy after trading purile strawmen?

Oh, and more thing. This is not a law of the US. The State of Oregon allows people aged 10 and up to participate in gun safety courses, and to acquire a hunting license with parental consent - and parentel supervision. I have no idea what the law is in other states.

deleted because the post wasn't relevant.

In Boulder Colorado, a year ago, a woman was eaten by a Cougar while jogging. Not mauled. Not chased. EATEN. The cougar vivisected her and ate her internal organs because they are yummy. This is not ths sticks people. This is part of a large urban center.

Every year we have bears entering homes on the fringes of the city and raiding trash bins to get at discarded food.

Every week or so cyotes make off with outdoor pets at night.

So. Do you have a point grounded in reality?

Ah. Now I see the disconnet. A 14 year old cannot go hunting unsupervised by an adult.

Vulnerable to criminals. I'm not afraid of criminals, but it is a reality. If someone breaks into my house, I am not going to be victimized. There is not much protection from such a thing, as I said, police are there to investigate the crime, not save you. When I lived in the country, I was 30 minutes from the closest trooper station, with no local police at all. I'm not sitting around in the dark with a shotgun in my lap muttering to myself and waiting for an intruder or whatever. I just like to be prepared for the worst case scenario. I've had to deal with armed criminals before, and not only did I lose some property but the cops never found anyone or returned it. I will not be put in that situation again.

And there's the second amendment. I don't want the fact that I find such things distasteful to prevent me from being prepared for a bad scenario, like a revolt of the people against an government gone rogue, which is what the second amendment is all about. We are already restricted from owning automatic weapons for self-defense. Again, I pray cooler heads prevail and I live the rest of my life peacefully, I'm against violence. But I don't want to trust my life to hope, I'll keep an ace card. A double-barrelled ace card.

I'm no threat to anyone unless they come looking for it.

Actually I've got a friend who would still have his cats if he had a gun.  A few coyotes came after his cats one night, ripped them up before he could get 'em off.  They actually ran off with one of them, and the other one was torn up so bad they had to mercy kill it.  If he'd had a gun, those coyotes would've fucked off pretty quick.

To take this gun control thing further, I'm cool with hunting rifles and such- I just don't see why law abiding citizens need handguns.

Edit: Somehow I took unsupervised hunting children with their own rifles from "At 14 I had a rifle and a hunting license". My bad, sorry for all the agitation.

Of course, then the hunting rifle the girl could have killed the president with was locked away at home as well, and those Secret Service guys are still assholes.

I'll tackle this one.

Hi, I was taken hunting by my father since I was seven.  I shot my first deer at nine.  Over a score and some odd years I have killed numerous animals, and every single one as quickly and cleanly as my skills allowed.  (With a rifle I am a very good shot, so usually very quickly.)  We like the meat, but there is no reason to make an animal suffer.  Every shot I make is as serious as the last even though I could reflexively aim and pull the trigger with little thought.

Spending significant amounts of time with my father in the wilderness allowed us to grow very close.  That bond has gotten us through some tough times that could have torn other families apart.  It instilled in me his repsect for nature, wildlife and conservation.  I am a strong proponent of green technologies because of this.  It was many years before I was allowed to hunt alone.  I do not wantonly shoot, or even aim at, everything that passes by.  I know damn well how to handle a gun properly at all times and we keep ours stored in a safe, not under a bed or an unlocked drawer.  We respect our weapons, our fellow hunters, the property, the game wardens, and the wildlife.

Turning a kid loose with a tool as powerful as a gun would be an idiotic thing to do, but it is not the same thing as teaching a child how to hunt.

Besides the article detailing two different incidents that Merusk linked to, there was the time in 2004 that I referred to, and another occurrence in 2003 that I wasn't aware of until I went googling.  Seriously, some dumbass teenager gets the "Don't threaten the President" speech from a Secret Service agent literally every one or two years.

Nobody thinks these kids are really a threat.  Nobody is arresting them.  The Secret Service isn't going broke chasing down red herrings.  They're delivering one fifteen-minute lecture every 12 to 24 months, to keep more red herrings from cropping up.  Yelling at half a dozen high school idiots per decade is a hell of a lot easier than making shit like this legal, and maintaining a catalogue of "non-serious threats" to avoid investigating.

But don't let any of that keep anyone from their shrill "OMG TEH GESTAPO" crying.   :roll:

Didn't we arrive here based on the notion that being frightened of 14 year olds was acceptable because one or more people here had a hunting license at 14? Seems to be a cake and eat it thing in this argument.

No, we dissuaded the idea that 14 year olds are 'no threat'.
We also dissuaded the idea that teaching 14 year olds how to hunt is psychocrazy 'The End of Civilization'.

You are taking two completely separate conversations and blendering them. Quit it.

So, in summary for the home audience:
A 14 year old, sufficiently motivated, could wreak all sorts of havoc - which is why threats against the President by kids are taken seriously.

And - a 14 year old can responsibly handle a gun.

Give it up, Daeven, Righ's got us.  It's clear that the SS is the new SS.  Except instead of rounding up thousands of people, they talk to one teenager every couple years.  And instead of sending them to death camps, they talk to them for a few minutes and then send them back to class.  But other than that, totally the same. :roll:

You never hear about all the kids they take away to the secret camps because the government doesn't have to tell anyone...

If the parents aren't even complaining, it's for the best.

Hey!  I was just going to yell at you for never saying anything funny and then you went and did it.  Spoiled my fun, too!   :-P

Damnit, broke character.

Many, many, many giggles.

Don't be retarded.  It was a joke.  Think Colbert.

Finally, somebody else understands the reason behind the second amendment. Sky, you are awesome.

Ok.  You can have your musket.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b1/Boeing_X-45A_UCAV.jpg/350px-Boeing_X-45A_UCAV.jpg)

Go fish.

TYTYTYTYTY! We almost have a militia!

Those work so well in Afghanistan.

They did, yes.

No, that was the calvary and suitcases of hundred dollar bills.

Oh, and Osama still missing and rich warlords retaking that country, new Taliban, etc. Mission Accomplished?

That's no more an argument against UCAVs than it is M-16s or leather boots.

Oh,  I forgot. It's Roac.