I was just starting to think that competitive shooters were the safest. But, of course every group of gun owners has its irresponsible and unfit characters.Dustin Wesley Cook, 36, was arraigned Friday on a charge of aggravated assault, a second-degree felony, after a bullet extracted from one of the students was matched to his .308-caliber rifle.
Judge Charlie Espinoza set bail at $100,000, noting that while Cook had surrendered and was cooperative, "It's still a second-degree felony; somebody was injured."
Cook's lawyer, Michael Guerra, said his client had no criminal record and would be absolved of the charges once all the evidence came out.
In this case, Dustin Cook, despite his clean record and the fact that he never would have hurt a kid, violated one of the 4 Rules of Gun Safety and in doing so probably committed a crime. It makes you wonder, how many times he's done things like that in the past.
He's a perfect example of a "hidden criminal," a guy who breaks the rules when he wants and is only identified as a "criminal" when he gets caught. This is one of the biggest problems with gun owners and the lax or non-existent controls they enjoy concerning their gun ownership and use. Too many of them are really bad guys in disguise, like Dustin Wesley Cook.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
From the article:
ReplyDelete"In Edinburg, Sheriff Treviño said it is important for the public to know that the Harwell shooting appeared to be the result of recklessness.
"This was not a deranged shooter out there shooting children or some careless hunter shooting in the direction of a school, but a target shooter," he said."
and
"At a news conference Friday, police had a diagram that showed two target boards, one 100 yards away and another 300 yards away, both set in the direction of the campus.
"The damning indictment is we have two targets that align the shooter with children," Treviño said. The distance between Cook and the boys was nine-tenths of a mile, the sheriff said.
The school opened this year in a rural area of Hidalgo County on a campus adjacent to ranch lands with hunting leases.
Edinburg Consolidated Independent School District Superintendent Rene Gutierrez said landowners had assured him that there would be no more hunting on the nearby properties."
Indicate a degree of reckless, if not "depraved", indifference on the part of the shooter.
One of the students is paralyzed from the waist down. That seems a bit of a steep price to pay for ensuring that one can shoot tight groups at the next shootin' event.
mikeb302000 said...
ReplyDelete"He's a perfect example of a "hidden criminal," a guy who breaks the rules when he wants and is only identified as a "criminal" when he gets caught."
Yeah, they really should do some type of background check and mental health evaluation. Like they did for THIS police officer.
Someguy, with his typical failure at critical thinking that rivals Greg C's wrote:Yeah, they really should do some type of background check and mental health evaluation. Like they did for THIS police officer.
ReplyDeleteApparently someguy has a concentration problem that prohibits him from reading the things he cites to support his position, because clearly he must not have made it to the end of it in his reading.
While the very SAME news article that someguy linked clearly indicates a very different problem, alcohol, which adversely affects judgment and which inhibits impulse control, was in play:
"They were getting along good," he said. "When the cop started having more whiskey, he started getting belligerent.
"He lifted his shirt up and showed his gun. Sam was standing by the dartboard. He said, 'You don't want to do this; you're a nice guy.' And he shot him. That's what I'm told."
After a thorough review of the case, the district attorney's office filed the murder charge against Long. If convicted, he could face a sentence of 50 years to life in state prison.
Which is why alcohol use should be the reason we would be wise NOT to allow firearms in businesses which serve alcohol. And it is why drug testing might be an indicator of what kind of habitual use, if any, this officer had in his background.
Thank goodness so many police departments DO pro-actively Drug Test! Hopefully that will prove helpful to the prosecution.
But of course, someguy wants us to believe that HE is safer than a police officer, in every possible situation.
He has no objective basis in reality whatsoever in claiming that. It is purely his wishful thinking, but his delusional relationship with his firearm causes him to repeat those silly and not very plausible statements.
And once again, someguy conflates disapproval of idiotz wit teh gunz to approval of the same people-- by dog gone, me, Mikeb302000 and Laci The Dog--if those people are LEO's. Nothing could be further from the truth, but the truth doesn't serve the hysterical mindset of the gunzloonz.
ReplyDeletedog gone, speaking about me and not to me, said...
ReplyDelete"But of course, someguy wants us to believe that HE is safer than a police officer, in every possible situation."
and how you came to that conclusion is anyone's guess. If you recall, you suggested that before someone could own a firearm, there should be background checks, psycho tests, and hair shaft examinations. You've already presented TWO news articles where your plan failed. I presented the one that you quoted.
Now, here's another example of you're failed psyco tests and, I'm sure much to your delight, includes alcohol.
I know you would never consider the fact that 'accidents happen.'
ReplyDeleteIt is quite possible that this guy didn't even know there was a school there.
As I stated before, many of the schools in that area are simply a series of trailers, they are not brick or stone buildings in those rural/ag areas.
Anonymous wrote:It is quite possible that this guy didn't even know there was a school there.
ReplyDeleteNo it's not possible that they didn't KNOW there was a school there. It was a fairly sizable school,not some one room private school. No one snuck in and put it there overnight, without telling the community.
This falls squarely into the category of knowing where your bullet is going or could go, to shoot safely.
If you don't know, you don't shoot.
It does not sound as if those boards for target shooting just went up either. It sounds as if there may well have been other people or farm animals for that matter, between where the target boards were and where the kids were that were injured.
If the choices you offer are oh, too bad, if some kids get shot and their lives ruined by being paralyzed then that's an acceptable price for having so many firearms, if you are admitting there is no way to have firearms safely in this country, then lets not have wide spread civilian firearms.
I happen to believe that it IS possible, through stricter control and regulation, to have safe firearm ownership, although possibly not on quite the dangerous scale we have now.
The trade-off is fewer firearm deaths and fewer firearm injuries.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteYour trade off is one that we're unwilling to make. I support holding people accountable for their actions. I will not tolerate denying people their rights before they've done anything wrong. In the system that you dream of, we all have to prove that we're good people before we have our rights. Imagine if voters had to go through the same onerous system that you propose for firearm ownership and carry. How you would feel about voters is how we feel about gun ownership. As the 2000 presidential election demonstrated, voting affects millions, so it is a far more dangerous activity than owning or carrying a firearm.
someguy wroteand how you came to that conclusion is anyone's guess.
ReplyDeleteIf you recall, you suggested that before someone could own a firearm, there should be background checks,
Your problem with NOT giving convicted felons access to firearms is ...what?
Your objection to disallowing convicted or known drug users to buy firearms is WHAT?
Your objection to prohibiting dangerous paranoid schizophrenics from buying firearms is....what exactly?
Because that is what is on the table for discussion here.
psycho tests,
Psycho tests? You mean you are terrified of being discovered as a paranoid schizophrenic, a 'psycgho'?
YOU don't have a good argument against screening to prevent dangerously mentally ill people from buying firearms.
and hair shaft examinations.
Um...no. A hair shaft examination is how one would describe something a cosmetologist might do.
I proposed drug testing, to weed out people who habitually use drugs which compromise their mental processes, particularly those drugs which would impair their judgment and safety.
Call it what it is. Why do you WANT drug users who have impaired judgment having firearms someguy?
You've already presented TWO news articles where your plan failed.
Incorrect someguy.
I presented the one that you quoted. Yup. That would be the one that indicates that guns should not be permitted in bars, and that alcohol impairs impulse control.
It also supports the idea that carry is a problem and that people who do carry professionally do not practice the same rules and safety outside of their jobs, where they are supervised.
Now, here's another example of you're failed psyco tests and, I'm sure much to your delight, includes alcohol.
I would hope that the two former police officers are prosecuted for rape. This doesn't demonstrate any kind of failed psychology testing. Psychological testing could weed out those who are dangerously mentally ill. These men acted illegally; there is nothing in the article you linked that suggests either officer was consuming alcohol, which would show up on a drug test, OR that there was anything in what they did that would indicate schizophrenia.
Most of all, there is nothing in your story to suggest that firearms played any role in this crime by police officers.
Maybe if you grip your gun a little less tightly, it will allow the blood to flow to the rest of your body, including your brain. Your reasoning skills are incredibly poor.
But then that explains why you would open a locked door to men you claim were armed rapists so you could show and tell them how big and bad your penis substitutes were to impress them with your pseudo manliness.
Greg Camp writes how he's just happy as can be with mass shootings like Virginia Tech, Tuscson Arizona, and the mass slaughter of unarmed kids in Norway rather than take a simple, painless screening test.
ReplyDeleteI support holding people accountable for their actions. I will not tolerate denying people their rights before they've done anything wrong.
You do understand don't you, that schizophrenia is not a choice, not something you choose to do wrong, like jay walking or committing felonies?
It is a situation in which someone who has that illness is a danger to themselves and others. We prohibit those people by law from owning firearms. Testing for schizophrenia or other dangerous mental illness is not punitive, it does not penalize anyone, it simply denies a firearm to someone who should emphatically NOT have one.
So the determination that those people who are dangerously mentally ill, the one that denies them firearms? That's already BEEN MADE; those people don't have the right to a firearm, by law. You don't get to agree to that; it's a done deal, and a good decision.
It is really a shame that someone who reasons so poorly is teaching children. You need remedial logic classes yourself.
As the 2000 presidential election demonstrated, voting affects millions, so it is a far more dangerous activity than owning or carrying a firearm.
Voting is not a lethal activity. While it is true that the people whom we elect can affect millions, those decisions don't tend to be lethal or to do anything like the harm done by people with firearms. Using voting as a comparison is as bad an analogy, as false a comparison, as claiming that firearms are just like screwdrivers.
When you show us screw drivers that kill people minding their own business, like the recent killing of the Amish girl, or the three year old boy who as hit by a stray bullet inside his house, then and only then will you have a valid comparison.
When you show how a person voting does either of those two things - directly, not indirectly - then you will have a valid comparison.
Your badly flawed way of looking at any topic relating to firearms calls into question your judgment with one. Your demonstrably bad firearm security demonstrates how fundamentally unsafe you are as a gun owner and carrier.
And sweet Jesus but you are dumb.
The point is, accidents happen, people make mistakes and there was obviously no criminal intent. No one will argue it wasn't a tragic event, it was still an accident.
ReplyDeleteMaybe you should blame the school district for putting a school next a known area used for hunting. Seriously, how stupid was that? If you wanna hold someone culpable, you may be looking in the wrong place.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteYou consistently refuse to acknowledge what we are actually saying.
1. Ask hundreds of thousands of Iraqis whether elections have consequences. Had Florida voters changed their numbers by only a few hundred (as they may actually have done), the invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq likely would never have happened. My comparison of guns to votes is that both are a civil right and both have important, even lethal consequences. Your inability to see the connection doesn't invalidate the argument.
2. If all you wanted was to deny firearms to those with dangerous mental illnesses, I'd agree with you. But I know that you want so much more. That's why I won't accept your proposals. If you would be reasonable by proposing only an improvement in the reporting system, I'd support that. If that's all you wanted, I wouldn't fight it. But you want to enact a system that would presume that anyone who wishes to own a gun is unfit and must demonstrate otherwise. I can't support that.
3. My only point of comparison between screwdrivers and firearms is that both are classes of tools. That's a minor point. You're the one who makes a big deal out of it.
4. I don't go around licking Jesuses, so I can't speak to their sweetness.
5. No matter what you say, I will still own guns and carry handguns.
"It is quite possible that this guy didn't even know there was a school there.
ReplyDeleteAs I stated before, many of the schools in that area are simply a series of trailers, they are not brick or stone buildings in those rural/ag areas.
January 8, 2012 6:53 PM"
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt. Wrong. Not even remotely fucking possible, according to the local authorities.
"Cook, a competitive shooter, was target practicing with another shooter in a direction aligned straight toward the school, Treviño said.
"By his own admission, he knew that at the end of his target, beyond his target in a direct line, was Harwell Middle School," Treviño said."
Perhaps you should be on his defense team.
GC writes:
ReplyDelete1. Ask hundreds of thousands of Iraqis whether elections have consequences.
Elections have consequences Greg.
They are just consequences completely UNLIKE the issues of U.S. guns. You see nothing wrong in comparing apples to asphalt.
For a comparison to be valid - something you seem NOT to understand - is that there has to be some common significant quality that is not only shared between the two or more things being compared.
There is no valid common quality of comparison in the example you made.
You reason so badly, so dishonestly, that your judgment and your integrity are not only flawed, your ability to think as a rational human being is substandard.
Having a discussion with you is like listening to the reasoning of a toddler of at best average intelligence.
Raise the bar for yourself if you intend to make an argument worthy of respect here.
You reason badly, you use invalid examples to support your badly reasoned position.
A typical example would be the crap you claimed about Billy the Kid having a revolver in his belt when he was killed as 'fact'; it is not fact, it was fiction. It is not established fact, not is it deemed factual by most well-regarded historians. You go for fiction that is inaccurate and which glamorizes or dresses up the reality of history. I have tremendous contempt for that.
Then you brought up the gunfight at the OK corral. Yes, there is a transcript of testimony that mentions guns stuck in belts. There is a lot of conflicting testimony about that transcript; different accounts of people who were at those hearings provide very different versions of events. There were no court reporters like we have now taking down the words verbatim.
What we DO know is historically accurate is that there was an ordinance in Tombstone that did not permit guns to be worn, including holsters. That appears to be the basis for some of the conflicts between the two sides that resulted in the OK corral incident.
But there is NO credible evidence that supports 'shootists' (a derogatory word you misuse) or gunfighters,or outlaws, or marksmen of any kind actually EVER wearing guns in their belts by choice.
It is the fact that you don't know fact from fiction, safe from dangerous, responsible from irresponsible, and that you credit some really crap teachings as credible that we have so little respect for you.
And make no mistake, we do not have any great respect for what you have claimed here, or for your knowledge or expertise, precisely because you reason and research so poorly.
You can't think your way out of the intellectual equivalent of a wet paper sack.
Anonymous wins the prize. He said we should blame the school for having built next to a know shooting area.
ReplyDeletedog gone:
ReplyDeletetypical reaction from someone losing an argument. 1. misconstrue 2. redirect 3. personal attacks. yep, you did all three.
What exactly is your obsession with the paranoid schizophrenics? You seem to be paranoid about the world being full of crazy people. In another post, you presented statistics that 26% of the U.S. is diagnosed with a mental health disorder, and then quit posting when I presented the real facts. There have been more people that have gone through your requisite mental health evals, drug testing, background checks and training that have snapped and killed people than persons with a diagnosed mental health disorder.
Then, of course, you have to insert your lame old accusation about the corelation of firearm ownership with penis size. I am curious, if a man owns a firearm as a penis substitute, why do women own firearms?
Dog Gone,
ReplyDelete1. I've given you plenty of sources that shoving a gun into a belt or waistband was done--not regularly, not typically, but done now and then. I also cited my source for James Butler Hickok's practice on the subject--"Guns of the Gunfighters," edited by James Garry. Hickok rarely, if ever, used holsters, according to that source. Now, if there's documentation to the contrary, I'll be happy to see it, but as I've said before, this is hardly the area of interest for many historians.
2. The comparison between voting and gun ownership?
A. Both are a civil right.
B. Both are derived from a natural right.
C. Both are actions that free peoples are able to do.
D. Both have consequences for the lives of the actor and for others.
Are we clear now?
I note that once again, you ignore my main points and drone on about minor matters. I'd have more respect for your reasoning if you'd address the important part of the argument, instead of dodging it. Perhaps you have no answer to it. Perhaps you worry the small matters because you can't address the main idea.
Someguy,
Freud would call it penis envy, but I have little respect for either term.
"2. The comparison between voting and gun ownership?
ReplyDeleteA. Both are a civil right.
B. Both are derived from a natural right.
C. Both are actions that free peoples are able to do.
D. Both have consequences for the lives of the actor and for others.
Are we clear now?"
It's clear that you're a pisspoor excuse for an educator.
Whether individuals exercise, or don't exercise, their right to vote has NO discernible/verifiable consequences for others in their vicinity or society at large. For idiotz like you, who insist that YOUR RIGHT to parade around with some "manpower" strapped to your belt trumps the rights of others to be free from the threat of being shot by some fucking moron who "thinks" he's being threatened there are discernible and verifiable consequences.
You're the posterboy for people who ARE dangerous because of their stupidity.
Hickok rarely, if ever, used holsters, according to that source. Now, if there's documentation to the contrary, I'll be happy to see it, but as I've said before, this is hardly the area of interest for many historians.
ReplyDeleteThat assumption appears to be based on two photos, both staged publicity studio photos.
Every other photo of Hickock - and there are many - the man was much photographed, all of which are taken where he was NOT posing for a publicity shot, but in more 'real life' situations - show him using holsters, consistently.
Those same specific publicity stills, as was noted in the Wikipedia caption, also show knives abnormally displayed outside of a sheath.
The plausible reason for the discrepancy is that the photographers wanted to show off the weapons more obviously than could be done if they were hidden in sheath or holster, respectively, to sensationalize the pictures. This is true of a few other figures who were the subject of similar hype, in one instance with another such figure in the same studio photo.
So, no, that is not a credible source; and the explanation and clear primary source material shows that is a stupid idea, and that NO, this was not done wherever there was a safer choice of carrying a firearm more safely - and frankly, a lot more comfortably - in a holster.
It is a clear demonstration of your sloppy research. Try using the concept - I know this will be hard for you, but try - of scholarship that doesn't single source, that values primary source material over stupid sensational and improbable sources.
The reality is Greg, that your fellow gun loons drool and get all tingly over belt carry, whether they call it mexican carry (another incorrect attribution, btw) or something else. Peole engage in that unsafe practice operating under the delusion that it will give them a speed advantage in quick drawing faster than an adversary.
It doesn't, it is dangerous. So when I see stupid glamorizing of fiction over genuine if more boring history used to justify bad practice, it completely supports the idea that gun loons have a whole mythology of illusions that make them more dangerous in relationship to firearms, not safer.
You pick the wrong things to do, the wrong things to value, the wrong things to glorify and glamorize.
It doesn't argue well for your judgment, your competency or your safety.
It does support the premise that you act and think emotionally, not objectively or logically, at least where your firearms are concerned.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteAnd just what photographs do you have to show Hickok using a holster?
By the way, has no one ever taught you the value of being concise?
Greg wrote:
ReplyDeleteA. Both are a civil right.
B. Both are derived from a natural right.
Where do I begin with all that in wrong and factually inaccurate here.
Civil rights exist only when and how we define them to exist. They are subject to all kinds of limitations.
There is NO SUCH THING AS A NATURAL RIGHT. Certainly we emphatically disallow things that were believed to be rights at the time of the writing of the U.S. Constitution, like the right to buy, own and sell slaves, or the limitation of voting rights to a very very few people. The right to a secret ballot rather than a public ballot, or an oral vote, for example is now considered a 'right', but was not one at the time of the founding fathers. The right of women to vote was another example of very different understanding of what was and was not a 'right' from how we think now.
If natural rights exist, they would be consistent across both history and geography; clearly they are not so. In fact, I would challenge Greg to prove that there is any such thing, if it exists. It doesn't. It was a working concept at the time of the founding fathers, and even then there was no agreement or consensus about it, much less any claim to a right of personal firearms, as distinct from communal militias. There is no more a 'natural right' to have a gun than there is a valid 'natural right' for droit du seigneur or the divine right of kings, which were believed at different times to exist PRIOR to the U.S. Constitution. Existing prior to the Constitution also doesn't make a right exist subsequently. You posit a bogus, and frankly an incredibly STUPID and ill-informed, substantively IGNORANT premise.
That is why the 2nd Amendment reads :A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. rather than the Constitution asserting every individual has the right to strap on a gun for self defense. Your lot likes to dishonestly cherry pick, ignoring the first part of the sentence entirely.
C. Both are actions that free peoples are able to do. Bull fucking shit it has ever meant that, you dishonest ignoramus.
Unless you define 'free people' as not applying to the overwhelming majority of the western world, and the rest of the developed and civilized world as well, where it usually is understood to mean something entirely different, that is emphatically false. There is nothing, anywhere, outside the dementia of you gun lunatics, that defines free as carrying guns. It customarily means a representative form of government, and rights such as habeus corpus being observed, and has fuck all to do with private firearms, ANYWHERE, EVER.
There is no more a 'natural right'
D. Both have consequences for the lives of the actor and for others.
Yeah, this has as much in common as claiming that your analogy applies because the sun rises in the east in both cases.
One, guns, have a direct effect; it is guns being used directly which kill, injure, maim or threaten. The other, voting, has an effect so far removed and so dramatically indirect and subject to so many other more substantive influences as to be utterly meaningless in a comparison / contrast.
Guns are intentional weapons as they are used; a vote never is.
This is a screwdriver, plastic spoon analogy to guns. It is fundamentally flawed, and only underlines your stupidity, your failure to understand and engage in critical thinking and logical argument, and your lack of factual knowledge about anything - critical thinking and reasoning, voting, and civil rights,
This is one more example of how ridiculous you are Greg.
About the only way you could demonstrate an even greater working stupidity is if in your silly and factually inaccurate photo where you are a poseur who clearly knows nothing about the west, historic or present,
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteWhy do you talk dirty to me?
The idea of a natural right is a philosophical position, so I don't expect you to understand it, but it was one that guided our Founders. It is true that they didn't follow through on that idea, but it was important to their thinking. You may reject it, but you have yet to explain to me what will keep society from forming a consensus about rights that you don't like. For example, the consensus in most states in this country is in favor of gun rights. You can whimper about how it's all the NRA's fault, but that only weakens your position. If a consensus can be distorted by special interests, isn't it better to have a view of rights that is based on human nature?
GC wrote:The idea of a natural right is a philosophical position, so I don't expect you to understand it, but it was one that guided our Founders
ReplyDeleteThe idea of a natural right is an outmoded notion from the 17th century which has long since been superseded, and for which there was no absolute consensus even at the time. It is not a fact, it is not something concrete, it is simply an outmoded idea which has no basis in objective reality.
As to understanding philosophy, I think you had better ameliorate your present understanding of it. I'd lay odds I'm better read in the subject and have better grades and more academic credits in it than you have, not to mention a better understanding of it.
But I'll defer to Laci, who has a degree in it to comment.
There is NOTHING about rights or consensus which guarantees there won't be a change I don't like. THAT is the messy part of democracy, rather like when the southern states started their treasonous war of aggression because they correctly anticipated that they did not have a right to own other human beings and that their property rights to those people were about to be suspended.
There are changes all the time to our rights. There was prohibition which temporarily ended people's right to drink alcohol legally.
There was the civil right legislation of the 60s which ended the southerners right to discriminate on a racial basis.
It happens ALL the time in an evolving society. Deal with it; we're not in the 18th century anymore.
It is true that they didn't follow through on that idea, full stop.
coulda-woulda-shoulda, they didn't. That they thought about it but did not act on it is all that matters here, and the fact that our thinking and understanding about rights has moved on, not turned backwards, not frozen in time into something unchanging and unchangeable.
IF it had been unchangeable, we wouldn't have women's right to vote or the end of slavery and the delegitimization of all kinds of social
constraints, like the right for people to use contraception, which was illegal for awhile,or the ban on miscegenation.
YOU may not like it, but gun ownership and gun carry is not a right that cannot be altered by consensus. That is real freedom,that is the essence of democracy.
isn't it better to have a view of rights that is based on human nature?
Hell no. Human nature can be wonderful; it can also be terrible. I'd rather not take potluck thanks.
The closest thing we have to a modern understanding of human rights comes from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, to which the United States subscribed,
Article 3
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
That says NOTHING about a right to be lethally armed. It is exactly the same however as asserting one has the right to be safe and secure, and not be shot by either a gun lunatic or the previously legal weapon a gun lunatic has allowed to fall into the hands of someone who is a danger to others with it.
So if you want to talk about the codification of fundamental rights? THAT would be it, and you would be on the wrong side of it.
So when I say there is an inherent right for people NOT to be shot, including in the U.S., I am correct, and you are, as usual,in factual error.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteQuoting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is cute, but that's not exactly a document with any teeth. It's no more or less inspiring than the idea of natural rights.
But let's consider your quotation. Just what does the right to security of person mean? Certainly, it includes the right for an innocent person not to be shot. However, we have to secure that right, both with law enforcement and the courts, but also with a personal ability to defend ourselves. A right has to be supported in the real world. You speak of the Declaration of Human Rights as being codified, but to borrow a saying, how many divisions does the United Nations have? It has only as much power as its member states give it, and thankfully, the United States doesn't submit to it often.
Now on to natural rights. Human nature includes the ability to make choices. Our natural rights go along with that--we have the right to act, to own property, to govern our own lives. The rights for self defense and for voting come out of natural rights. Owning slaves is a violation of natural rights. I can't help what people in the past did. I will say that it took us a long time to figure out that rights are universal. The right not to be a slave and the right of women to govern their own lives existed throughout all time. It's sad that it took human beings so long to realize that, but we're getting there.
Mikeb said: Anonymous wins the prize. He said we should blame the school for having built next to a know shooting area.
ReplyDeleteActually what I've said twice is that it was an accident, a tragic accident. What I got from your comment Mikeb, is that you think it is a smart idea for schools to built next to known hunting grounds.
dog gone said:
ReplyDelete"There is NO SUCH THING AS A NATURAL RIGHT. "
which explains why she went on to say..
"There is NOTHING about rights or consensus which guarantees there won't be a change I don't like. THAT is the messy part of democracy..."
Incorrect madame. The United States is a Republic. You are familiar with the Pledge of Allegiance, aren't you? Maybe, perhaps you've read that little document, oh, what's it called, the Constitution? I think you might find it in Article 4
Not only was the Second Amendment dated at the time of adoption, the institution of the Militia was questioned by Adam Smith in his Wealth of Nations, V.1.27:
ReplyDeleteThis distinction being well understood, the history of all ages, it will be found, bears testimony to the irresistible superiority which a well-regulated standing army has over a militia.
The debate related to the adoption of the Second Amendment did not concern firearms, but the arming and equiping of the Militia.
Anyone can claim anything as a right, but the real issue is having something, or an institution which will guarantee that right.
Quite frankly, Greg, making the argument that one has a right to own deadly weapons is completely fatuous on its face.
The Second Amendment makes it quite clear that the right is related to the militia, and that the right to keep and bear arms MUST only be related to that institution.
If you are arguing that purpose is no longer valid, then you have proven our point, the Second Amendment has no purpose in modern society and does not guarantee any right to own deadly weapons.
I should also add that self-defence, and any other personal purpose, is not specifically mentioned and cannot be asserted.
Unless of course, you have no problem with the law being whatever any judge or person claims it to be.
But, greg, I concur that you are a complete idiot for whom such intricacies go far past your ability to comprehend.
Laci The Dog said...
ReplyDelete"Not only was the Second Amendment dated at the time of adoption, the institution of the Militia was questioned by Adam Smith in his ERROR 404"
Aparently you are not familiar with the work of James Madison or George Mason on the Bill of Rights, but that's neither here nor there. SCOTUS has already ruled in U.S. v. Cruikshan, that the right to bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution nor is it dependant on the Constitution for it's existence. The court goes on to say that the Second Amendment mearly protects that right and of course you are familiar with the more recent rulings that affirm that the individual has the right bear arms and to protect himself.
It's no more or less inspiring than the idea of natural rights.
ReplyDeleteIt is a few hundred years more recent, it has worldwide support, which constitutes a consensus that your concept, out of date as it is, lacks.
We have as a nation subscribed to it, it has the same status as a treaty. That puts it under Article Six, section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. That's teeth enough to more than supersede your silly death grip on an out of date idea that was never sufficiently supported or sufficiently influential at the time to be implemented.
Then we have someguy chiming in stupidly with this:You are familiar with the Pledge of Allegiance, aren't you?
YES, I am.
Are you?
It is a silly pledge that was created by socialists to sell magazines to kids.
It is a nice way to honor the flag, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with the founding fathers, it has nothing like the weight of the constitution OR any law.
from wikipedia:
The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy (1855–1931), who was a Baptist minister, a Christian socialist, and the cousin of socialist utopian novelist Edward Bellamy (1850–1898). The original "Pledge of Allegiance" was published in the September 8 issue of the popular children's magazine The Youth's Companion as part of the National Public-School Celebration of Columbus Day, a celebration of the 400th anniversary of Christopher Columbus's arrival in the Americas. The event was conceived and promoted by James B. Upham, a marketer for the magazine, as a campaign to instill the idea of American nationalism by selling flags to public schools and magazines to students.[3][4][5][6]
And while you bring up the distinction between democracies and republics:
from dictionary.com:
de·moc·ra·cy
[dih-mok-ruh-see]
noun, plural -cies.
1.
government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
By THAT definition- note it is the FIRST definition - we are a democracy.
But just in case you were unsure, it is further expanded on in definition 2.:
2.
a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies.
3.a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.
So, while it CAN be correct to refer to the U.S. as a republic, the way I used the word is arguably MORE correct in this context, as we have democratic elections for our republic.
So unless you have a point where I am incorrect, per the dictionary, and where it is significant for the purpose of this discussion, you're point is silly.
Laci the Dog,
ReplyDeleteYou keep trotting out that line about the Second Amendment and militias, but I don't care. The Supreme Court recently ruled (Heller and McDonald) that the amendment in question is an individual right, unconnected with militia service. I like it when courts make good rulings. I like it when courts rule in favor of natural rights. When they rule the other way--see Citizens United--I'm not pleased. But, and do try to pay attention here, our rights are not what the courts say they are. We are born with them. The courts recognize some of our natural rights in the context of the law. We work to get them to recognize more.
The point? Whatever the Founders meant by the Second Amendment--something that isn't clear, no matter how much you keep saying about it--it means an individual right today. The court has improved our understanding of that amendment and moved it closer to a natural rights position. The right could be found elsewhere, if needed.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDelete1. Treaties are subject to our Constitution. We don't have to give up our rights, just because some international body gets pissy.
2. New does not equal better. Just because a few people have come up with some shiny new idea doesn't mean that it is an improvement. That has to be determined. I am not an early adopter, and I don't follow the latest fad, whether in clothing or in philosophy.
3. But nothing in the Universal Declaration requires my country to take away my guns. As is typical of products from talk shops, the Declaration is sufficiently vague to allow a wide variety of nations to support it.
How many state constitutions allow for the general public to keep and bear arms? How many states have passed laws allowing private citizens to carry their personal weapons on them in public either concealed or openly? If the Federal Constituion forbids such activity then the States would not be allowed to declare it legal would they? Has anyone challenged a state law allowing private citizens that are not members of the militia to carry a weapon in the federal courts as unconstitutional?
ReplyDeletedog gone said...
ReplyDelete"So unless you have a point where I am incorrect, "
Now that you invited me.
A democracy and a republic are in fact, very similar, however, a democracy is where people decide policy matters directly by voting. A republic, on the other hand is a system where representatives make policy decisions on behalf of their constituents. Of course, there are many other differences inclduing rights and laws, but there's no reason to get into all of that.
Per the Constitution Article 4 section 4 The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.
Constitution
then dog gone went on to say "The United States and Canada are democracies."
Uh...no. Canada is a Constitutional Monarchy
Pooch, so you're saying the 'palladium of liberty' is the militia.
ReplyDeleteIf individuals aren't supposed to have guns, what in the hell were Alexander Hamilton and Burr doing with them?
Hamilton and Burr were doing something of marginal legality, and maximum stupidity.
ReplyDeleteThat was why Hamilton ended up dead, and Burr ended up ruined, and the government ended up at least temporarily discredited.
A democracy and a republic are in fact, very similar, however, a democracy is where people decide policy matters directly by voting. A republic, on the other hand is a system where representatives make policy decisions on behalf of their constituents.
ReplyDeleteI'm well aware of the distinction you mention. See the dictionary definition which encompassed, correctly, the way I used the word.
We do in fact vote on any number of things directly and not through our representatives, notably referenda and state amendments, and judges to name a few.
So we are BOTH if you wish to be technical, a democracy AND a republic.
I used the more correct term to encompass both, per the dictionary.
So very happy to be able to educate you on those distinctions.
Greg is losing so he has to try to change the terms of the discussion when he writes:
ReplyDelete1. Treaties are subject to our Constitution. We don't have to give up our rights, just because some international body gets pissy.
No one has gotten pissy. But this is something to which WE agreed and support. No one was holding a gun to our heads, we did it willingly. The only pissy folks are you and the gun loons. You don't have a clear consensus on guns in this nation, and you sure as hell are at odds with the rest of the world. They matter, and the people in this country who disagree with you matter. You are a minority.
2. New does not equal better.
ReplyDeleteNeither does old equal better either.
But THAT is not the topic under discussion. You yourself admit that the concept of natural rights was an idea, but not one that was either acted on or entrenched. It is an old and outdated, and generally discredited idea.
The ONLY reason you embrace it is because it favors what you want, not because it is any good, or any more valid than the divine right of kings, or the right to own slaves or the pater familias right of a parent at one time to kill their children if they were unhappy with them or if they disobeyed.
THAT is one more instance of your intellectual dishonesty.
Rights depend on a consensus; you have no such consensus ANYWHERE including in this country for your concept of a natural right.
Just because a few people have come up with some shiny new idea doesn't mean that it is an improvement.
You lying sack of excrement. A 'few people'? There were a 'few' people a 'few' hundred years ago that had that idea. YOU are one of the very few who are deliberately reactionary in not progressing with changes.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a declaration adopted by the United Nations General Assembly (10 December 1948 at Palais de Chaillot, Paris). The Declaration arose directly from the experience of the Second World War and represents the first global expression of rights to which all human beings are inherently entitled. It consists of 30 articles which have been elaborated in subsequent international treaties, regional human rights instruments, national constitutions and laws. The International Bill of Human Rights consists of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its two Optional Protocols. In 1966 the General Assembly adopted the two detailed Covenants, which complete the International Bill of Human Rights; and in 1976, after the Covenants had been ratified by a sufficient number of individual nations, the Bill took on the force of international law.[1]
That's more than 'a few people' bozo; that is the rest of the whole world. And it has, as a document, replaced the U.S. Constitution as the basis for the new governments that have come into existence as well. It has stood up to the tests of time and both national and international courts. It is way past some novelty document. Wow - another whopping instance of intellectual dishonesty!
That has to be determined. I am not an early adopter, and I don't follow the latest fad, whether in clothing or in philosophy.
I can't wait to see your next photo, in knee britches and silk stockings and a powdered wig. Again, you dishonest lying sack of poo. It has damned well BEEN determined, whether you wish to stick your head in a hole and howl or not.
3. But nothing in the Universal Declaration requires my country to take away my guns. As is typical of products from talk shops, the Declaration is sufficiently vague to allow a wide variety of nations to support it.
NOWHERE in that declaration does it embrace lethal violence or arming civilian populations for any kind of self defense. There is a clear consensus and you are on the wrong side of it.
I've already won the debate, and you have soundly lost it, that there is any other kind of right than what we determine by consensus. I've demonstrated that consensus. You are in the minority, you are the one out of step with history.
It is just a matter of time for progress to win. Try not to shoot yourself while we wait for those who are backwards among us, and ill educated, and poor thinkers, and of course irresponsible and dishonest (that would be YOU) to catch up.
"Hamilton and Burr were doing something of marginal legality"
ReplyDeleteThat makes less than marginal sense.
What the Hamilton/Burr incident clearly shows is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms were not infringed, just like the second amendment guarantees.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteIt never ceases to amaze me how your side can't argue without using foul language. To borrow a line from Captain Archer, when your logic fails, you raise your voice.
But look at what you cited. The Universal Declaration refers to rights "to which all human beings are inherently entitled." I wonder what that could mean. Oh, yes, rights are with us from the time that we are born. Would you care to distinguish between that and a natural right?
As to whether you've won the debate, on what grounds can you claim that?
1. A good portion of the rest of the world agrees with you. So what? If they wish to disarm themselves, I shan't stand in their way. Perhaps they'll sell us their no longer wanted weapons.
2. The states of this country? Not even close. The number of states on your side is ten or fewer. Given our system, that may get you your choice of president, but that's it. If you believe in consensus, you have to recognize that the consensus in much of America is on my side. I've pointed that out to you before, and you do keep ignoring it.
3. We're left with your fellow bloggers on this site. It comes as no surprise that they reflexively agree with you.
dog gone said...
ReplyDelete"I'm well aware of the distinction you mention. See the dictionary definition which encompassed, correctly, the way I used the word. "
It's saddening that you don't recognize the difference between a Republic and a Democracy and let a dictionary define who you are. Under a Rebublic, you have certain unalienable rights. As a woman, you have rights that can't be taken away from you, such as the right to vote. Although that right hasn't always been recognized, it is now, and it can't be retracted. Under a Democracy, the privilage to vote can be given and retracted as the majority decides.
It's a shame that you are so submisive, that you're willing to have your rights as a human being decided by the majority of the population rather than being held as an equal.
Under a Democracy, a negro man is free or slave at the whims of the majority, under a republic, a negro man is free.
You've made comments about rights being given during the "women's rights era or the "civil rights era" and you are incorrect. Rights weren't given, they were recognized and the Constitution was amended to affirm and protect those rights.
Nowhere in the Constitution will you find the word democracy, and the reason being, the founders of our country knew the difference and feared a democracy.
"We do in fact vote on any number of things directly and not through our representatives, notably referenda and state amendments, and judges to name a few."
Nowhere in the Constitution will you find a provision for national voting on initiatives or referendums.
"I used the more correct term to encompass both, per the dictionary."
You used the wrong dictionary. Republican government. One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whome those powers are specially delegated. In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627. [Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 626]
I'm sure your friend snoop doggie ummm. Laci can enlighten you on the difference, but I'll tell you incase he's busy. Under a Republic, the powers of sovereignty are vested in all of the people, in a Democracy, the powers of sovereignty are vested in the majority.
"So very happy to be able to educate you on those distinctions."
You haven't educated me of anything. You've only enlightened me as to your lack of understanding. I'm sure I've pissed away more knowledge of Constitutional law than you've every learned.
Anonymous says it was a "tragic accident."
ReplyDeleteI'd call it criminal negligence.
Mikeb, if it were criminal negligence then it would be the cops job to arrest everyone who hunted and fired rounds on that property.
ReplyDeleteThey would all have to be considered negligent
By the way, it's off topic, but I'm curious. What's with the getup that the man is in? Is this routine attire for defendants? I'm especially interested in the oven mitts he looks to be wearing.
ReplyDeleteI had the same question, Greg. Handcuffing in front with those protective gloves is a new one on me.
ReplyDeleteGreg and Mikeb, the device is appears to be what called "the tube". Being handcuffed in front with a chain around the waist is normal for transport and court appearances (that are outside of the view of the jury) so that the defendant can sit down. Using "the tube" on this defendant would seem to be out of the ordinary, unless that's Houston's SOP
ReplyDeleteThanks, Someguy. It does seem excessive.
ReplyDelete