Another responsible NRA member

“WICHITA, Kansas (CNN) -- A source close to the investigation that led to the capture of a suspect in the BTK serial killings told CNN on Sunday that the suspect's daughter did not provide DNA to investigators and was not involved in her father's capture.

But CNN affiliate KAKE, which has investigated BTK for years, reported that the daughter's DNA did play a role in the investigation. It was unclear how authorities obtained the DNA, KAKE said.

Suspect Dennis Rader was arrested Friday in Park City, Kansas.

KAKE anchor Larry Hatteberg told CNN that Rader's daughter -- whom the station identified as 26-year-old Kerri Rader -- did not turn her father in, but that her DNA was indirectly involved in Rader's arrest.

"What we do know is that the police and FBI obtained the daughter's DNA," Hatteberg said. Part of the DNA strand matched something the authorities had, "so that they knew someone in her family was BTK."

Police said Saturday they plan to file 10 counts against Rader, 59, in connection with killings between 1974 and 1991 -- eight counts of first-degree murder and two other homicide charges.

Over the years, the killer communicated with KAKE and other news agencies, sending packages to reporters and to authorities at times.

The search for the BTK killer was re-ignited nearly a year ago when the killer sent letters to the media after decades of silence.

Hatteberg told CNN that in the killer's last few communications, "he made some mistakes" that helped authorities.

Over the past four weeks, investigators "really narrowed it down," and in the past five days "it got very tight," Hatteberg said.

'Family man'
According to the Wichita Eagle newspaper, Rader had worked as a compliance supervisor for Park City, Kansas, in charge of animal control, nuisances, inoperable vehicles and general code compliance, since about 1990. He is married with two grown children, the newspaper reported.

Some who know him expressed shock Sunday, saying they could not imagine that he was behind the crimes.

"I've known him for years," said Michael Clark, pastor of Christ Lutheran Church, where Rader became president in January. Clark said he has seen nothing "that would even tend to lead to these accusations."

"To my knowledge he was very nice, he was friendly," Clark said. "What I know of him, definitely a family man."

Under the church's rules, Rader remains president, Clark said.

"We do not know the outcome of the charges, but we are here not to judge him but to support him as a brother in Christ," Clark told reporters. The church supports the authorities "totally in what their energies and efforts are about," he said.

Congregants Paul and Freyja Carlsted said they have known Rader for 30 years.

"I think my mind is numb," Freyja Carlsted told CNN. "When we found out, all we could say was that it's impossible, it couldn't be."

"The person that we knew was kind, he was a hard worker, he was willing to help and do anything at this church," she said. "Obviously, we all respected him or he wouldn't have been president of our church."

The Carlsteds said Rader's wife, Paula, is "a wonderful lady" and praised "the whole family."

'Bind, torture and kill'
Police have not released details on the role DNA may have played in Rader's arrest.

But at a news conference Saturday, Lt. Ken Landwehr, commander of the task force investigating the case, seemed to be praising the previous police chief and other investigators for their careful handling of evidence over the years, which preserved crucial DNA, according to KAKE.

"They did such a good job that we were able to use evidence before anyone had any inkling of what technology would do -- that they did the job so well then that we could do our job now," Landwehr said.

Rader was arrested without incident during a routine traffic stop shortly after noon Friday in Park City, just north of Wichita, where he lived, Landwehr said.

Initially only eight killings were linked to BTK, but Sedgwick County Sheriff Gary Steed said police will file homicide charges for the previously unsolved killings of two Park City women: Marine Hedge in April 1985 and Delores Davis in January 1991.

The killer coined his own nickname, BTK, "bind, torture and kill," a pattern he has followed with most of his victims.

The pending first-degree murder charges are related to these killings :


January 1974: Julie and Joseph Otero are strangled in their home along with two of their children, Joseph Jr. and Josephine.



April 1974: Kathryn Bright, 21, is stabbed to death in her home.



March 1977: Shirley Vian, 24, is tied up and strangled in her home.



December 1977: Nancy Fox, 25, is tied up and strangled in her home. BTK's voice is captured on tape when he calls a police dispatcher to report the homicide.



September 1986: Vicki Wegerle, 28, was strangled in her home.

Sedgwick County District Attorney Nola Foulston said the death penalty will not apply in the BTK case because it was reinstated in 1994, three years after the last known killing attributed to BTK.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/02/27/btk.investigation/index.html


Look at that Christian face... the face of the NRA.”

“Psycopaths are in every walk of life.



Maybe you should seek some help yourself.”

“I read in another article that this BTK dude was not liked by his neigbours....since he was some sort of city ordinance inspector...and he would cite neigbours for every minor thing.”

“LOL @ Tilt!”

“You just lost me there USA

Otero - 4 Strangled
Bright - Strangled
Vian - Strangled
Fox - Strangled
Wegerle - Stangled

all 8 deaths with no firearm reference.

How do you make the intellectual leap to the NRA from here ??

Some of your thought patterns are scary dude !!”

“But just think how much more horrific the crime would of been had he used a gun! I mean someone would of probably been killed or something.”

“LOL! Now let’s play the quoting game.
>
“Hello? Is anybody in there? You said ALL citizens. Children born in the USA are citizens, yes, even at age 1. So now are you saying you have to be able to vote to have the right to bear arms? Because maybe if you knew your history, you would know women in this country didn't have the right to vote until, well, I will let you look that up for your lesson. So how do you use your twisted logic to explain that? Huh? Women were citizens, but didn't have a right to vote. So, by your standards would they have the right to bear arms?”
>
I’m sorry that you use the term “citizen” in its broadest, non-legal definition. But because of the seriousness of the subject matter, I have used the word “citizen” in its true sense. My posts use the word in a way that will hold up in a court of law. Your definition of the word will not.
>
While any US born child and felon can enjoy certain rights and protections under the Constitution they do not hold full citizenship in its legal sense. This is also true of all soldiers in the United States military. Minors below the age of 18 cannot vote. Neither can they, under most state laws, purchase firearms or ammunition. Also, minor age children can be forced to live in foster homes or with one parent against their will. Why is this? Because it is fully understood by the legal system that they don’t hold full legal citizenship. That fact is the “bedrock” on which the pertaining laws stand. The same goes for felons. In the act of committing a felon (and being judged guilty by a court of law) they have voluntarily given up the some constitutional rights (Articles 2, 12, 13.Sec1-Amendments). When a person makes one step forward and takes the oath to join a branch of the United States military service, s/he voluntarily agrees to give up certain constitutional rights and be ruled under the accords of the U.S. Uniform Code of Military Justice. As examples, military personnel do no have the constitutional right to a trial by a jury of their peers (Article 6- Amendments). Likewise, you can be drafted but you cannot be forced (inducted) into the military unless you step forward and take the oath. When you do this you are renouncing your right under Article 13. Sec 1 regarding involuntary servitude.
>
On June 21, 1788, when New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify the Constitution and Amendments (Bill of Rights), only white, property-owning males, born in one of the colonies, and over the age of 17 had full rights of US citizenship. Article 13. Section 1 of the Amendments declared slavery and involuntary servitude illegal and in a roundabout way gave black males over the age of 17 the right to vote and own firearms. Before this time they could do neither.
>
What is interesting is that Article 19 of the Amendments gave women the right to vote in roughly 1919, but women had always had the right to own firearms. You remember Annie Oakley don’t you USA? The reason behind this is that in the 18th and 19th centuries there was never any question as to what the 2nd Amendment meant. It was only in the latter half of the 20th century that gun control advocates began to twist the wording of the Amendment to argue otherwise.
>
Tomorrow, if I have time, I’m going to start the long process of explaining the 2nd Amendment as it was written and what it means. I’m not doing this for you USA. IMO one could beat you over the head all day long with the history, the semantics, and the logic of the FFs and you still wouldn’t get it. Thank God you don’t matter. It’s the court of law that matters and you gun control wackos have been on the losing end of the stick every time this issue makes it into federal court.
last edited: 2/28/05 11:12:14 AM”

“Can I have an AMEN brother.”

“The reason behind this is that in the 18th and 19th centuries there was never any question as to what the 2nd Amendment meant. It was only in the latter half of the 20th century that gun control advocates began to twist the wording of the Amendment to argue otherwise.


That's pretty biased of you, no? Maybe I'm not up on my Constitution. HS History is kind of fuzzy for me. Can you quote the part where it says I have the right to own a gun?”

“The second guarantees the right to keep and bear arms to a well-regulated militia (well-regulated meaning fit for a purpose and militia meaning the body of citizens likely to be of service in defense of the state). Current case law (including U.S. Supreme Court decisions) indicates that it is an individual right but not an absolute right, and that the states and federal government may omit certain classes of people from the general-public sense of the militia for cause (criminal record, young or old age, mental incapacity, etc.), and may limit the types of weapons to which the right applies. The courts have interpreted and re-interpreted the second amendment since it was ratified; the Supreme Court first visiting it in United States v. Cruikshank, in 1875.

here is the full 2nd amendmenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution”

“As you have shown, it is open to interpretation.

I am not arguing with the current interpretation.

Is not the Constitution writen to be somewhat fluid?”

“Ewker,
Be very careful when you use wikipedia to define your arguments surrounding this topic. Especially the part of about the regulated militia. As I will explain in my future posts, the words "regulated militia" and particularly the word "regulated" did not mean and do not mean to this day, what the gun control advocates are implying.

Bearmagnet
The Constitution is not a fluid or living document per se. The funny thing about gun control advocates is that they are trying to define the 2nd Amendment in the narrowest of terms. Yet on every other constitutional article they want the interpretation to be on the very broadest of terms. They have justified just about everything a person can do including late term abortions and selling porn under the the provisions of Articles 1 and 14. But when it comes to the 2nd, they take the opposite tack and then lie (yes lie) about the facts surrounding the document.
>
Anyone who wants to study the 2nd Amendment should really study the U.S. vs Emerson case. We'll get into that very soon.
last edited: 2/28/05 1:13:22 PM”

“I think what's funny about both sides is how y'all argue one side by using the constitution while simultaneously refuting your opponents use of the constitution.

BTW - I'm all in favor of a little more gun control. I see both sides. Both extremes seem a little radical to me.”

“Our opponents never use the constitution in their arguments. They base their entire position on NO KNOWLEDGE (not even a little bit) of US constitutional history and Orwellian semantics. They are at best ignorant of the facts and and at worst intellectually dishonest.”

“"Our opponents"?”

“"Our opponents" you ask? Are you trying to find out who the opponents are or are you asking about the collective "our"? If you are referring to the former then my answer would be "I don't know, or care really, let's just say the gun control wackos in general."
>
Now if you're talking about the "our" part I'm talking about the vast right wing conspiracy that is doing everything possible to make you blue state folks as miserable as possible.”

“Why do you suppose the 2nd is unique in that it is qualified with that 'well regulated militia' part whereas the rest are more catagorical?
last edited: 2/28/05 3:13:07 PM”

“Give me your definition of "well regulated militia". Also if you have any documentation from the period that backs that definition cite it also.
>
I'll give you my definition and evidence starting tonight or tomorrow. Bear in mind that I have a lot to cover. It's going to take time.
>
The sad thing about this whole argument, at least from what has happened in the courts, is that the question about what "well regulated militia" means WAS SETTLED IN U.S. vs Emerson.
>
Every year in TT some whining liberal airhead trys to beat the same dead horse. And every year since I've been here, someone has had to enlighten those same bozos with the LEGAL FACTS surrounding the issue. We have discussed this issue more than we have the best stove or Wiggie's sleeping bags. It's getting old and the worse part about it is that the WLAs never have any facts on their side. I guess what they are thinking is that if they say it long enough, maybe it will make it true.
>
Sorry Violin or whatever your name is today, that dog don't hunt.”

“Can you answer an honest question?

You seem a little too unstable to be permitted to own firearms.”

“Why because I don't suffer fools well?”

“Still waiting on any one of the gun control advocates that infest TT to give me their definition of what "well regulated militia" means. I think I know what you mean but just to be sure, let's get it down in black and white.”

“LMAO @ Violin !”

“Solitary Hiker,

Would you and Ultrapecker submit to a psychological exam to determine your competency to own a gun?

Probably not.

So let's look at the names you've chosen. One implies antisocial. And what would Freud say about someone who calls himself ULTRApecker? Is this a little bitty phallic preoccupation ?

Phallic according to Webster's: relating to or being the stage of psychosexual development in psychoanalytic theory when a child becomes interested in his own sexual organs.

BTW, do you consider a gun a phallic symbol? Do you like how your gun feels in your hands? Happiness is a warm gun afterall.”

“First, Ultrapecker is legally authorized to carry a firearm in the jurisdiction where he lives and words. And I feel safer that heis so authorized.

Second, James Madison, the author of the second amendment, intended the amendment to protect individual rights, not collect rights, as evidenced by his speeches at the time of submission.”

“USA
Sure I'd be more than willing to submit to any test. The question is are you're willing to pony up the dough to pay for it?
>
As far as my moniker on this site? When I first visited thebackpacker.com in late 1998 all of my backpacking had been done solo. I loved the freedom of doing what I wanted to and when I wanted to. I'm wasn't afraid of the woods then and I 'm not afraid of them now (and I don't pack heat I might add.) Therefore based on my past backpacking experience I chose a suitable name. Since then all of my hikes have been with other TTers. For the most part I've enjoyed every minute of it. Am I going to change my name? Hell no. I like it.
>
You on the other hand have probably never hiked with any TT member. And if you have you're not known as 'USA" when you do it. Face it you're a troll and not ever a good one at that.
>
You have started or kept this thread going my posting irrelavent material that has nothing to do with the NRA. You post the same tired "well regulated militia" crap to try to belittle the true intent of the 2nd Amendment. Other equally uninformed individuals on this site chime in with their nonsense. And when someone like me starts using the facts to refute you then you fall back on the pitiful "are you mentally competent or phallic symbol" accusations. Nevertheless if you want to have an intelligent conversation about the 2nd Amendment I'm more than willing to take all of you on.”

“Our opponents never use the constitution in their arguments. They base their entire position on NO KNOWLEDGE (not even a little bit) of US constitutional history and Orwellian semantics. They are at best ignorant of the facts and and at worst intellectually dishonest.”
solitary hiker
2:21:31 PM
2/28/05

Your speech there says to me you are on the far extreme of one side of the issue. Therefore, you are a gun advocate "whacko" beeyotching about gun control "whacko's".

I can't tell the difference.

Now, IMHO, you should be allowed to own a gun. I don't think anyone should be walking around with one.

Oh, and to own a gun, you should be a member of the National Guard, of course. Then, like the in the beginning of this Nations History, we'll have that much needed well armed militia to keep them Imperialist Brits out!”

“Bearmagnet

From the opening of the war against the Brits April 19,1775 until the evacuation of NYC by the Brits Nov 25,1783.

It was SIX YEARS before the 2nd ammendment was passed. So it not about the Brits, they were long gone.

Of course some people in NYC still long for those days when the crown kept the general populace unarmed, conveniently forgetting the hangings and floggings that enforced that peace.
(and yes I am picking on you Tree, but just in fun)”

“I think the strongest argument in favor of gun ownership is the threat of a totalitarian government in America (although it seems to be doing just fine anyway).

I would still like to know why the 2nd amendment has that little “well regulated militia” qualifier. Gun nuts? Whackos? Assorted crazies?”

“it's not totalitarian, it's in the interests of "national securuty."”

“Wow, I stayed away from this thread the last few days. Just for the hell of it, I decide to read the last few posts and voila! Here I is!!!

Yeah, I know you're funning me, Manuka. I was doing a similar thing to you on the 'dream about TTer's' thread when I mentioned you!”

“I think the strongest argument in favor of gun ownership is the threat of a totalitarian government in America
vioLIN
1:24:04 PM
3/01/05

I take back what I said and think Guns should be outlawed. Most gun "whackos" think Bush can do no wrong. We're going to rely on these people to fight a totalitarian government? I think not. At least outlaws hate government, they'll be on our side when it's time to remove Il Duce.”

“hmmm bearmagnet. Working on the basis "If we outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns," we should outlaw guns. That way "freedom" will be protected.”

“I like it.

The again, only outlaws use illicit drugs.”

“Manuka - missed your post, sorry. What I was saying in my usual facetious way was;

That was then, this is now.”

“Personal firearms ownership would be completely inadequate against any totalitarian government of the last 50 years.

Take David Koresh for example, although well armed in the sense of the 2nd ammendment (legally also). They did not do so well against Janet Reno's tanks.

No, I do not think NRA type firearms are any threat to a government.

Then what is this mysterious 'Militia' and what possible use can it be?

Well in the wake of Hurricane Andrew in Florida, and during the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles, the only places that were not looted and burned were those where armed citizens did form a militia, an informal army of neighbors to protect themselves and their property. They were not law enforcement, or vigilantes, as they did not attempt to stop or arrest the looters, they just said "you don't come here". Very successfully in both instances.
And when civil order was restored by the National Guard and Police, their firearms went back into storage, back to being target, or hunting, or household protection, and they became normal citizens once more.

That in my opinion is the 2nd ammendment.

The right to protect yourself and your loved ones whether the civil disorder is widespread, or just a house invasion.”

“So there's no reason to carry a gun while taking a stroll.”

“Why do you suppose the 2nd is unique in that it is qualified with that 'well regulated militia' part whereas the rest are more catagorical?
last edited: 2/28/05 3:13:07 PM”
vioLIN
3:12:04 PM
2/28/05

One reasoning, that this might seem to be 'qualified' more than others is overwhelming fear of a standing army our Founding Fathers had at the time.”

““So there's no reason to carry a gun while taking a stroll.”
Bearmagnet
12:45:58 PM
3/01/05

Correct, as long as you are 100% sure that nothing will go wrong while you are taking that stroll. Bad lapse of judgement if your house or neighborhood was the target of looters while you were out. But you can still take that stroll if you are comfortable that your neighbors will a) call the police, and b) be able and willing to protect your home while you are away.

BTW home means people, I do not care about the TV.

If you think that your neighbors are unwilling or unable to protect your home, might be a good idea to carry the firearm with you so at least you can do something on your return. Hey you just might be able to help someone else while you are out like Mark Alan Wilson who saved the kids life.

Sorry BM but your post indicates that if you saw someone in trouble you wouldn't want to get involved. I would prefer to have the rural neighbors I do have. They will call the police and they will get the shotgun out and help.”

“Bearmagnet,
Yes I am a gun ownership advocate and if that makes me a gun wacko then so be it. I'll wear that name with pride.
>
My original statement is true. Most gun control advocates have no knowledge of the how the Constitution or Bill of Rights was formulated, much less how the 2nd Amendment came about. If they did we wouldn't be having this "discussion".
>
I'm still waiting for a least one gun control advocate to define in writing what they think "well regulated militia" means. I'm not even asking for supporting documentation. When I get this definition then I will present my case with full documentation. It will come straight from the mouths of the men who wrote the Constitution. I will also give you link, after link, after link that will back my position. These links will be from organizations that have no interest in this issue.
>
The bottom line at this point is that you guys either need to put up or shut up. My guess, based on prior experience, is that the gun control advocates will do nothing because, at heart ,they are intellectually lazy. They really don't want to dig into the subject very deep. Probably because of what they would learn. They'll repeat the same tired lies, make some lame joke, then tuck tail and run. Just watch.
>
Briar Rabbit,
You have the meat of the subject. I think you know where I'm headed.
last edited: 3/01/05 2:34:10 PM”

“Sorry BM but your post indicates that if you saw someone in trouble you wouldn't want to get involved. I would prefer to have the rural neighbors I do have. They will call the police and they will get the shotgun out and help.”
manuka
3:10:09 PM
3/01/05

That was a giant leap. And I think you should not make such blind assumptions.

Love being stereotyped too.

How many Americans are killed each year by Guns? Let me qualify that: How many "innocent" Americans are murdered by strangers each year?

sh - I see. Your "original statement" was an opinion. And a biased one, IMHO.
last edited: 3/01/05 2:38:38 PM”

“How many Americans are killed by cars each year?”

“lz - good point. One should carry a gun while driving to defend themselves against cars.”

“Just remember, if you shoot it you have to eat it.”

“I can't just stuff it?







Note - I was gonna say "mount" but that doesn't help either.”

“No stereotyping BM, just an opinion formed by the opinions you have expressed.

Please define "innocent". If you want to take the definition of the Christian Church there are no innocent Americans.

By the definition of Islam there are no innocent Americans. All infidels, or guilty of living amid infidels.”

“Whatever floats your boat, but watch out, the tailpipe might be hot.
8D”

“Manuka - Bull#&%!$. Or if you're serious, then you suck at it and you should stop.

Innocent Stranger - not crime related. To clarify that - not a drug deal gone bad.
last edited: 3/01/05 2:49:58 PM”

“And Bearmagnet,
This thread is not about what I think or about what you think on the subject of gun control. Our opinions really don't matter. What matters is what was the intent of the FFs when they wrote the 2nd. Amendment and what will hold up in a court of law.”

“We can not know the true intent of the FFs. We therefore interpret what we think they meant. And then we spend too much time arguing in circles. LOL!

Where's Nigal?”

“Bull#&%!$.

But BM why should you have a monopoly on that?

What makes you so special that you can spout Bull#&%!$ as a selfstyled expert on women, firearms, politics, and no one else is allowed similar priveleges on the internet.

Your opinions are such pearls of wisdom and so definitive that it must be a source of constant amazement to you that anyone should disagree.”