Kenton Cowgill Jr. was charged with three counts of domestic assault, two counts of armed criminal action and one count of unlawful possession of a firearm.This is why shotguns should be regulated just like handguns.
The Jasper County Sheriff's Office says the fight Monday began when 48-year-old Mark Wittenmeyer confronted Cowgill about a domestic assault involving Cowgill's wife, Wittenmeyer's daughter.
Prosecutors say Cowgill grabbed a shotgun and it discharged while the men struggled over the weapon, striking a 2-year-old girl and 4-year-old boy in the face.
What do you think? Is that asking too much?
Please leave a comment.
Yes, shotguns should be regulated just like handguns--not at all. What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you get? But the case you cite here isn't about regulating shotguns. It's a case of a thug who can't control himself. Regulate him. His kind doesn't need a gun to be abusive.
ReplyDeleteYou're the one who doesn't get "shall not be infringed." The extreme position on that one phrase of the 2A is reserved for lunatics and fanatics. Even Justice Scalia said so.
DeleteYou mean lunatics and fanatics who can read plain English? Your side is the one that insists on distorting the text beyond belief.
DeleteGet this: The Supreme Court rules on laws, but no court and no government has anything to say about what rights we have. Our rights are prior to all of that.
Yes, Greg, you have the right to go back in time and join the militia of 1790. It's your god-given right and no one can take it away.
DeleteFunny how the Second Amendment doesn't have an expiration date. Funny also how you can't read. The right is identified as belonging to the people, not to anyone else.
DeleteFunny how "the people" is a very collective term. The right does belong to the people (collectively), to be exercised through State-sanctioned armed forces.
DeleteE.N., the people refer to all of us individually. Rights are held by individuals. Groups may have powers, but rights are expressed one at a time.
DeleteFor Greg, one shooting isn't enough. He wants blood, death, and multiple slayings. NRA wacks are insane.
ReplyDeleteEnough for what? Owning and carrying guns is a right. So let's look at other rights. Is one case of voter fraud enough to require ID? Is one person producing an offensive photograph enough to warrant restricting free expression? Is one pastor making threats enough to take away freedom of religion?
DeleteBut perhaps you missed the part about how I want this man to be punished for his actions. Abusing a spouse or a child is never acceptable. It's not about the object; it's the behavior that matters.
Whenever the argument falters, we look at the other rights.
DeleteQuit being an idiot. My argument isn't faltering. I point to other rights to remind you that your side has rights that you care about. When you violate one set of rights, no rights are safe.
DeleteState protection of individual "rights", which manifestly infringe upon the rights of others is far worse than the subjects of a nation lacking any guaranteed (negative) rights at all. Societies which continue to guarantee certain absolute liberties for mere individuals, create a dangerous Charybdis of individuality, which will deliver our nation to the anarchy inherent in personal freedom.
DeleteThere can be no civil liberties without stepping on innocent toes.
E.N., you're becoming boring. There's no surprise in that, as the worst crime of the old Soviet Bloc was to impose its flat, grey idea of the world on millions of human beings. But that ideology is dead. Your pathetic attempts to revive it only make you look foolish.
DeleteThe world may yet fall back into the supreme horror of collectivism, but as long as there are human beings alive, that will fail again. The human spirit is individual, creative, and willful. No matter how many times sociopaths like yourself try to suppress it, it will rise up once more.
Are you saying shotguns should be completely banned in DC and Chicago?
ReplyDeleteNo.
DeleteWhy do you waste your time with stupid questions like that?
Because we know you supported those bans. We know you say handguns are not regulated enough in this country, and now you just added that shotguns should be no different than handguns. Walk me through where I went wrong.
DeleteWhy should shotguns and handguns be subject to different regulations when possessed by civilians? They are designed, marketed, and proliferated for the same purpose (killing), so why should the State govern their possession as if long-arms (shotguns) are less lethal in the hand of the mere civilian than handguns?
DeleteHere, E.N., you make a small bit of sense without meaning to. A gun is a gun is a gun. It's the right of all of us to own and carry them. Differences in regulation make no sense. I'll add that we should get rid of most regulations, but, of course, I did say that already.
DeleteWhere you're wrong TS is that I never have had a problem with qualified and responsible people owning guns. You keep trying to paint me as a total anti-gun guy, which is not true.
DeleteCan you read a trend line, Mikeb? Apparently not, since can't see that violent crime rates have been falling since the early 90s. But look at your own statements. You started out saying that ten percent of American gun owners are unfit. Now you say it's fifty percent.
DeleteWe know what your side really wants. There's no point in trying to deceive us.
You have a problem with anyone owning a handgun in Chicago and DC (even the qualified ones) because you supported those bans. Now you are saying shotguns should be the same.
Delete