Sunday, September 9, 2012

Lawful Kentucky Gun Owner Shoots up the Place

The Washington Post reports

A Louisville man accused of opening fire at a homeowners association meeting, killing one and critically wounding another, was ordered held on a $1 million bond Saturday at an initial court hearing where a prosecutor called him “the epitome of danger to the community.”

A not guilty plea was entered on behalf of 55-year-old Mahmoud Yousef Hindi to charges of murder, assault and wanton endangerment in the Thursday evening shooting at a church.
Just another of the daily stories we read about in which lawful gun owners go wrong. What would have prevented this, the pro-gun crowd loves to ask.

Well, it's impossible to know what could have prevented this specific act of violence.  But one thing for sure is, a general tightening of gun laws and a raising of the bar as to who can own guns would prevent some of these acts.

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.

17 comments:

  1. my ky relatives all have guns and i guarantee they're a bunch of kooks!
    tom webber
    miami

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm sure that they feel the same about you.

      Delete
  2. Ownership of a gun, unless you are a hunter or a cop, is ipso facto demonstration of paranoid insanity. If it is for "home defense", you should be put in preventative detention. It's only a matter of time before you blow people away.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One hundred million gun owners in this country, give or take, and you characterize them all by the actions of a few? In other contexts, that would be called racism.

      But let's think about what "paranoid insanity" means. You think that all gun owners are a dangerous menace, out to get you. You label an entire group of people--many millions of your fellow Americans--as insane. Which one of us is paranoid?

      Delete
    2. Greg, for truth's sake, you have to stop claiming kinship with all 100,000 gun owners. Many of them are more like me than you.

      Delete
    3. You might have a hundred thousand on your side. There are traitors and idiots in every group. But you discount the effect that gun control efforts had in the 90s. Gun owners were put on notice.

      Delete
  3. // You think that all gun owners are a dangerous menace, out to get you. You label an entire group of people//

    and Greg... you label everyone who would advocate any form of gun regulation/safety/control as being anti-gun. Which, in my case, is so far from the truth as to be laughable. You are offering a deductively invalid argument....some control folks would ban guns...jimm favors some gun control there fore jimm is anti-gun.

    Gosh.....I am decidedly anti-broccoli... broccoli is a vegetable therefore I would ban vegetables. (well, at least broccoli)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jimm, what books would you ban? To follow the line used on this site, I may have the right to read, but that doesn't imply a right to own a particular physical book. So which ones do you wish to make off limits? Or from which law-abiding citizens would you take the right to vote? We have the right to choose our leaders, but not the right to cast a specific ballot.

      That's how Mikeb and you and others see gun rights. We have the right to life and property; we have the right to defend our lives, but when it comes to the tools to achieve that, your side has a list of limits and denials. You have nothing to offer us that we want, nothing that we aren't able to get through legislative and judicial means that we're already using. That's a weak bargaining position, and it's why you're losing.

      Delete
    2. All weak comparisons, Greg. Your whole argument is weak, so of course you stretch it like that.

      Delete
    3. Your labels interest me less and less each day. You don't know how to judge the strength of an argument. The only thing that matters to you is how it feels.

      You've never answered the key point that I keep making. If the government can take away one right, what's to stop it from taking away any other right? Your entire narrative depends on trusting the government, but I'm not buying into that story.

      Delete
    4. How many times have you watched Braveheart, Greg? In your head it's still 14th century Scotland.

      Delete
    5. Once, when it was in the theater. But you're still dodging the point.

      Delete
  4. //Jimm, what books would you ban?//
    Gees, mostly the semi-automatic ones that shoot .50 caliber armor piercing verbs and nouns. And ones that are solely broccoli recipes.
    Terribly insipid arguments and assertions, Greg.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In other words, you have no answer for my argument, so you choose to fling poo. Ever notice how books inspire revolutions?

      But the key point that your side can never answer is that once you are willing to sacrifice one right, what's to stop you from tossing out all the others?

      Delete
    2. That argument came first from Laurence Tribe, Harvard Law professor and left-leaning Constitutional scholar. I'd think twice before calling him insipid.

      Delete
  5. //you choose to fling poo.//

    really? That is quite a leap. And as to Tribe...he argues in one abstract that 'whether a particular liberty-whether or not expressly enumerated in the Bill of Rights-is a "fundamental" right." In essence, while gun ownership may be a fundamental right is not the arguing point; whether the Federal Government reserves the right to control or mandate what is included in that fundamental right. Tribe, in fact wrote in a WSJ article in 2008
    "But nothing I have discovered or written supports an absolute right to possess the weapons of one's choice. The lower court's decision in this case -- the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals found the District's ban on concealable handguns in a densely populated area to be unconstitutional -- went overboard. Under any plausible standard of review, a legislature's choice to limit the citizenry to rifles, shotguns and other weapons less likely to augment urban violence need not, and should not, be viewed as an unconstitutional abridgment of the right of the people to keep or bear arms."

    Greg, you are still offering a illogical fallacy

    gun ownership is a right
    a free press is a right
    any attempt to control guns will lead to a ban on books

    huh?
    \

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tribe and others are the origin of the idea that if the American government can ignore or negate one enumerated right, it can do the same for all such rights. In other words, if the government can violate the clear text and intent of the Second Amendment, what's to stop it from violating others?

      Have you not already seen enough examples in the last decade of our government out of control? George W. Bush started a great many violations in the name of the War on Terror, and Obama has continued merrily down the same path. We have a government that has no respect for basic rights. It's no fallacy to show the dangers here, and it's the duty of all Americans who love liberty to push back.

      Delete