Man arrested at Univ of Kentucky Hospital with firearms, body armor and possible explosives

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

Binman4OSU

Legendary Cowboy
Aug 31, 2007
33,312
10,465
1,743
Stupid about AGW!!
#1
Neighboring town Versailles Kentucky police contacted Univ of Kentucky police this morning and informed them there may be an armed and dangerous man named Bryan Carroll headed to the Univ of Kentucky hospital to visit a family member

It is unclear where the Versailles police dept got their info at this time that prompted them to call the Univ of Kentucky police and raise a flag about Bryan Carroll

Univ of Kentucky police, the FBI and the ATF confronted and arrested the man without any incident as he was leaving the hospital and had multiple firearms on him, was wearing body armor and had possible explosive device in his car.

Univ of Kentucky police chief said the man is currently facing multiple state charges and there are pending federal charges as well.
 
Dec 16, 2019
170
64
78
32
Stillwater
#3
https://twitter.com/HLCityhall/status/1375164075840245765


https://twitter.com/LSearcLex/status/1375185907981152261
This is really starting to become absurd at this point, i cant really think of a time before this that there have been such unrest in this country. For some reason the right is so obsessed with their guns that everything gets thrown out of the window when it comes to safety regulations and TEACHING people how to properly handle and use a firearm. We are in a much different time than when our fore fathers came to this country, i am all for people have a pistol for home defense and a shotgun or rifle for hunting, but please give me an actual REAL reason why a civilian would need an AR-15 or a .50 caliber sniper?
 

Midnight Toker

Territorial Marshal
May 28, 2010
9,214
1,807
1,743
#4
This is nuts. And we just had another guy arrested at a publix in atlanta for virtually the same thing. carrying a bunch of guns, and wearing armor.

Maybe two shootings were prevented here.
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
16,334
17,097
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#6
but please give me an actual REAL reason why a civilian would need an AR-15 or a .50 caliber sniper?
-Large mobs of people looting and burning cities.
-Hate and/or anarchy groups taking over neighborhoods.
-A federal government that seeks to control every aspect of our lives.
-Because the constitution protects that right.

There is a way to change the constitution and it is hard on purpose. If you toss that process out the window over guns, ironically you'll wish we still had them when the rest of the bill of rights is tossed out with the same disregard.
 
Last edited:

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
18,388
20,476
1,743
#7
-Large mobs of people looting and burning cities.
-Hate and/or anarchy groups taking over neighborhoods.
-A federal government that seeks to control every aspect of our lives.
-Because the constitution protects that right.

There is a way to change the constitution and it is hard on purpose. If you toss that process out the window over guns, ironically you'll wish we still had them when the rest of the bill of rights is tossed out with the same disregard.
I'll take Constitution and guns for $200 Alex....

Who wrote....

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. ......"

and

"Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

and

"We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J. Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 271–272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N. C. 381, 383–384 (1824); O’Neill v. State, 16Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874).

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment ’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right."

Who is Antonin Scalia.....Probably the staunchest defendant and advocate of the 2nd Amendment on the SCOTUS ever?

CORRECT!
 
Oct 30, 2007
4,736
3,862
1,743
#9
I am all for people having a pistol for home defense and a shotgun or rifle for hunting, but please give me an actual REAL reason why a civilian would need an AR-15 or a .50 caliber sniper?
"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster

Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
- St. George Tucker

Everyone thinks they are part of a militia i guess....
"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
- James Madison

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms."
- Richard Henry Lee
 

Brad M

Wrangler
Jan 16, 2017
157
113
93
57
Wisconsin
#10
I'll take Constitution and guns for $200 Alex....

Who wrote....

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. ......"

and

"Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

and

"We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J. Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 271–272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N. C. 381, 383–384 (1824); O’Neill v. State, 16Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874).

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment ’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right."

Who is Antonin Scalia.....Probably the staunchest defendant and advocate of the 2nd Amendment on the SCOTUS ever?

CORRECT!
I was going to answer “Some f’ing lawyer” and then saw your answer at the end of your post........turns out I was right. I wish people would quit focusing on more gun control and start focusing on how to enforce the regulations that are already in place. That and how to get people to quit raising f’d up kids.
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
18,388
20,476
1,743
#11
People have a right to their opinions. Doesn't change what I wrote.
You are certainly free to have an opinion of the law of the Constitution that is completely and fully contrary to what the law actually is as established by probably the premier defender of the 2nd Amendment to sit on the Supreme Court.

By all means.....

I also have the right to point out how wrong your claims/opinions are, and that your opinion of constitutional law doesn't change what the premier defender of the 2nd Amendment to have sat on the Supreme Court has written either.

Your "opinion" of the 2nd Amendment vs. Justice Antonin Scalia's?

I know which one I'm going with.
 
Last edited:

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
18,388
20,476
1,743
#12
I was going to answer “Some f’ing lawyer” and then saw your answer at the end of your post........turns out I was right. I wish people would quit focusing on more gun control and start focusing on how to enforce the regulations that are already in place. That and how to get people to quit raising f’d up kids.
Your wishes and a buck will get you a small cup of copy at 7-11....maybe.

I posted what I did in response to an "opinion" that someone has a constitutional right to an AR-15 or .50 caliber sniper rifle.

I haven't even commented on my position/"opinion" regarding more gun control as a policy position. My comment was directly aimed at the constitutional limits of gun control under the present interpretation of the 2nd Amendment by probably the most pro-gun rights Justice to sit on the SCOTUS bench.

So keep wishing....no skin off my nose.
 

TheMonkey

Sheriff
A/V Subscriber
Sep 16, 2004
4,947
2,259
1,743
46
DFW
#13
I'll take Constitution and guns for $200 Alex....

Who wrote....

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. ......"

and

"Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

and

"We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J. Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 271–272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N. C. 381, 383–384 (1824); O’Neill v. State, 16Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874).

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment ’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right."

Who is Antonin Scalia.....Probably the staunchest defendant and advocate of the 2nd Amendment on the SCOTUS ever?

CORRECT!
 

TheMonkey

Sheriff
A/V Subscriber
Sep 16, 2004
4,947
2,259
1,743
46
DFW
#14
"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster

Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
- St. George Tucker


"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
- James Madison

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms."
- Richard Henry Lee
How does this answer the question about AR-15s and .50 sniper rifles? Why can’t someone buy RPGs and a Sherman tank... at Walmart? This doesn’t come down to changing the constitution, it’s how we interpret it. And that is tricky since we are no longer living in the era when a person fires a musket into a crowd and would be mobbed before he could load It again.

Also, do we want to encourage people to stockpile enough weapons to fight against the nation’s military strength? You really think you’re going to put up a fight against a military unit? We need to take this discussion to a more modern level. This isn’t the 18th century.
 
Oct 30, 2007
4,736
3,862
1,743
#15
How does this answer the question about AR-15s and .50 sniper rifles? Why can’t someone buy RPGs and a Sherman tank... at Walmart? This doesn’t come down to changing the constitution, it’s how we interpret it. And that is tricky since we are no longer living in the era when a person fires a musket into a crowd and would be mobbed before he could load It again.

Also, do we want to encourage people to stockpile enough weapons to fight against the nation’s military strength? You really think you’re going to put up a fight against a military unit? We need to take this discussion to a more modern level. This isn’t the 18th century.
Consider this:
1. There are 1.3 million US military members.
2. There are 330-350 million US citizens.
3. There are around 400 million civilian owned firearms in circulation.
The US government doesn't have the overall manpower to win a war against the civilian population unless its been disarmed. It will start with the scary assault rifles, proceed to higher capacity handguns, and eventually we'll be left with nothing more than bolt-action and primitive firearms.

I understand the argument that arms are subject to reasonable regulation. Not everyone needs a nuclear warhead. I disagree that we should ban semi-automatic rifles and limit magazine capacities though. That's going way too far.

BTW, you can buy a Sherman tank... but not at Walmart. :D
 

kaboy42

Territorial Marshal
May 2, 2007
8,042
7,801
1,743
#16
i am all for people have a pistol for home defense and a shotgun or rifle for hunting, but please give me an actual REAL reason why a civilian would need an AR-15 or a .50 caliber sniper?
You have questions, I have questions...

Please explain the difference to me between this “hunting” rifle that you state you are okay with and this “assault” rifle that you are not okay with people owning.

1616791995091.jpg


1616792230959.jpg
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
16,334
17,097
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#17
This doesn’t come down to changing the constitution, it’s how we interpret it. And that is tricky since we are no longer living in the era when a person fires a musket into a crowd and would be mobbed before he could load It again.

Also, do we want to encourage people to stockpile enough weapons to fight against the nation’s military strength? You really think you’re going to put up a fight against a military unit? We need to take this discussion to a more modern level. This isn’t the 18th century.
Curious, do you want to reinterpret freedom of speech and freedom of the press based on changing technology or is just guns? Guns of today are more like guns of the 18th century than media of today is like media of the 18th century. Yes, there were repeating muskets at the time the constitution was written.
 

TheMonkey

Sheriff
A/V Subscriber
Sep 16, 2004
4,947
2,259
1,743
46
DFW
#18
Curious, do you want to reinterpret freedom of speech and freedom of the press based on changing technology or is just guns? Guns of today are more like guns of the 18th century than media of today is like media of the 18th century. Yes, there were repeating muskets at the time the constitution was written.
You’re saying the courts haven’t interpreted modern media any differently compared to the 18th century?
The US government doesn't have the overall manpower to win a war against the civilian population unless its been disarmed. It will start with the scary assault rifles, proceed to higher capacity handguns, and eventually we'll be left with nothing more than bolt-action and primitive firearms.
This is a classic slippery slope. Let’s not argue about only allowing bolt-action and primitive firearms. No one has suggested that. Why does anyone need an AR-15 or extended magazines? Has anyone on this board ever needed more than 10 rounds in a handgun? I don’t see the justification.
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
18,388
20,476
1,743
#19
You have questions, I have questions...

Please explain the difference to me between this “hunting” rifle that you state you are okay with and this “assault” rifle that you are not okay with people owning.

View attachment 89569

View attachment 89570
This is a policy question/issue upon which reasonable minds can disagree, IMO.

I'm not in favor of so-called "assault rifle" bans, personally....but I can see why reasonable people might disagree with me.

I also recognize that unless filibuster rules are done away with in the Senate, the chance of actually passing any meaningful gun legislation is zero. I also don't believe that any Biden, Harris, or anyone else is looking to confiscate all our guns and change this country to a military dictatorship.

That's why I am more interested in a focus on trying to frame the discussion in terms of what possible legislation would or wouldn't be Constitutional....but that's just me.

And the answer is substantively/functionally....essentially zero difference.
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
16,334
17,097
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#20
Why does anyone need an AR-15 or extended magazines? Has anyone on this board ever needed more than 10 rounds in a handgun? I don’t see the justification.
I just gave you reasons a few posts back; riots, pandemics, natural disasters. Heck we just had a president that half the country was 100% convinced was an actual real legitimate threat to take over and install a dictatorship. I have several things that I hope and pray I never need, doesn't mean I'm not going to have them.

Also, why does anybody need a car that can go over 80 mph? I mean if you are so concerned about public safety and saving lives, then why limit yourself to one issue.