But that does not appear to be the case, which is why Gov. Dayton signed legislation that in Minnesota takes away the guns of domestic abusers, child abusers, and those with protective orders.
Courtesy of the NRA, in most states, gun rights trump the right to be safe from bad guys with guns, against whom a person has an order of protection, including allowing them to carry concealed weapons.
One such person, 32 year old Brandon J. Thompson, demonstrated how much of a scofflaw he is, by threatening speaker of the House John Boehner, second behind Joe Biden to the authority of the position of president of the United States. He admitted to making the threats when arrested by the FBI.
He has had 5 restraining orders against him since 2001.
It makes no sense that someone who has presented a sufficient threat that an order of protection has been issued even once is trusted to safely carry a concealed firearm, much less 5 of them. The existence of 5 Orders of Protection should strongly argue that this is a person who has a problem with issues like anger and intimidation.
So far, a few of the lefty echo chamber hacks are trying to portray Thompson as a lefty/'liberul' for having threatened Boehner (over the issue of cutting off unemployment benefits extensions). Thompson specifically threatened to shoot John Boehner with an assault rifle.
But there is nothing that I can identify about Thompson that indicates either that he was politically active, much less that he was liberal. Boehner has routinely upset and even antagonized many on the right, including over this issue, and given the predominance of conservatives in the part of Indiana where Thompson lives, it is more likely that to the extent he has any political orientation, he is conservative, given the racial makeup of the area, and that it has been strongly republican dating back to at least 1983.
As noted from USA Today's coverage:
“Free speech is the cornerstone of our democracy but threats of violence have no place in our civil society,” said Joseph H. Hogsett, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Indiana, in a statement announcing the arrest. “People who are inclined to make them need to know that they violate the law and they will be aggressively pursued.”
I have a better idea; let's not have those who habitually threaten violence be allowed to be armed in the 1st place. Those who threaten people should never be allowed to possess a firearm of any kind, permanently, period. Threatening people should be an automatic disqualification for having a firearm --- which would distinctly thin out the number of people who currently both possess one or more firearms, and who too-frequently threaten others, including for disagreeing with them - as we saw during the same period with the threats made by gun-huggers towards a gun store owner for wanting to offer 'smart' guns for sale.
It's time for a new rule, nationwide one threat of violence or intimidation with a firearm -- no more firearm, EVER, much less a cc permit.
This "right to be safe" which you speak of, is this another one of those cases where "all rights have limitations"? So we have a right to be safe from bad guys with guns, but not bad guys with tire irons, golf clubs, or kitchen knives? All rights have limitations, so suck it up and take your beating. Is that about right?
ReplyDeleteTS, that's sarcastic and nasty even for you. Your stupid question can be turned around to ask, would you want dangerous people who can't be trusted with tire irons and golf clubs to have easy access to guns?
DeleteWe have a right to be safe as described by the Universal Declaration of Civil Rights, which gives us a right to be safe from violence. There is no recognized right to own a gun, just as there is no right to threaten people with tire irons, golf clubs or kitchen knives.
DeleteWhat is different about those last three is that we don't have mass killings with them, and they require you to get close and to put yourself at risk, and to require much greater effort to use them successfully. Further, which would worry you more, especially if you were a public official in elective office or someone with a restraining order against a violent person --- a threat with a screwdriver, or a threat with an assault rifle from someone you could not even see coming?
Your sarcasm fails the logic test, the practical real world test, and the test of presenting a disagreement in anything remotely like honesty.
Guns are more destructive, and therefore require greater limitations. People who own guns -- as we see daily -- believe themselves to be free to use them just because they own them, in emotional and impulsive ways that include threatening people. People who own guns also too often as we see in the news articles posted here regularly believe they are or should be free to be negligent with them, not handling them safely, or storing them securely.
Most of all --- as we see here and elsewhere -- gun owners too often have a false belief that owning a gun means they are free to oppose the government with them. They are wrong, but that is one more reason NOT to have lax gun laws - the ignorance combined with violent impulses of those who have them.
As has been noted here over and over --- every gun starts out legal. If we have a problem with armed criminals, then it is the fault of those gun owners, and the solution is not more guns, but fewer guns under more restrictive ownership regulation.
I’m not the one drawing a distinction, Mike. We don’t trust them with any weapons in prison, right? My question is this “right to be safe”- what are its limitations? Dog Gone expressly said it is a “right to be safe from bad guys with guns” suggesting it is limited to being safe from only bad guns with that one type of weapon. As in we have no right to be safe (or protect ourselves) from people with other kinds of weapons.
DeleteDog Gone, with your response you are confirming what I said. You gave your explanation how guns are more destructive than these other devices so therefore this “right to be safe” in Dog Gone’s Bill of Rights applies only to guns. So not only do we have no right to be safe from a machete wielding psycho, but based on your views on self-defense, we have no right to protect ourselves from that psycho either. You also said we don’t have a right to threaten people with tire irons, knives, or golf clubs, which is absolutely true (as there is no right to threaten people with guns either), but you specifically said there is no right to own guns while we can still own (with no restrictions) a decent set of Wusthofs so long as we don’t cause harm with them.
DeleteYou also go on about mass killings being the difference. So is this “right to be safe” a collective right? Individually, we have no “right to be safe” from being stabbed to death, but should a bunch of other people around you die at the same time, now your “right to be safe” has been violated. Is that about right?
TS, I think the idea is that a gun is the most efficient and lethal killing tool.
DeleteRight, I didn't dispute that. My question is about the limitations on this "right to be safe". By constantly repeating that guns are more efficient than knives, you two are saying that the line is drawn between them, yes? We we have a "right to be safe" from a bad gun with a gun, but we don't have a right to be safe from a knife wielding maniac.
DeleteTS, doing what he's best at, turning the discussion into a tedious, nit-picking, bickering session.
DeleteI never wrote that there is only a right to be safe from guns. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights refers to all forms of violence and intimidation. Guns happen to be the worst.
Delete"Thompson specifically threatened to shoot John Boehner with an assault rifle."
ReplyDeleteLaci, shall we start out with the fact that most sniper rifles aren't assault rifles? One notable exception is the old soviet Dragunov sniper rifle.
And to be accurate, trying to determine what someone's political affiliation from how his home town voted is not very smart, unless you're perhaps looking at the voting history of a town in say North Korea.
I imagine we'll likely hear more in regards to his politics as time goes by, but lets look at who exactly he threatened and why, John Boehner, I believe he's a Republican. And he was blocking an issue backed by, I believe, Democrats. Of course, we cant rule out simple self interest overriding political affiliation, but it tracks much more believably than going by an 11% voting majority in the last Presidential election. That's right, it was hardly a landslide. Though in Henry County, where New Castle is located, the lead jumped to 17%.
http://www.politico.com/2012-election/results/president/indiana/
"That neighbor told authorities that Thompson had pulled a gun on a debt collector four years ago. Thompson had also had five protective orders filed against him, issued in 2001, 2002, 2005, 2008 and April 24, 2014."
I know that in Minnesota, even if he had managed to get a permit after his previous order expired, it would have been revoked or suspended when the most recent order went into effect.
Dog Gone also forgot to mention that gun owners groups worked as a part of the process of passing recent legislation barring possession of firearms by those under protection orders. We discussed it here,
http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2014/03/bills-that-would-bar-domestic-abusers.html
“Well, you drunk John Bin Laden, it’s time to take you out . . . You want to play with 2.7 million peoples’ lives. I am going to take yours. You will never see it coming with my sniper rifle.”
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/national_world/2014/05/09/boehner-threat.html
That's funny that you made a point of the target being a Republican and the would-be shooter presumably a Democrat. In other discussions you resist the fact that most gun nuts are conservative and Republican.
DeleteThere is zero indication the shooter is a Democrat that I found. Statistically given the politics of the part of Indiana where he has lived for some time, it is far more likely he is a Republican or some other form of conservative/right winger.
DeleteAs we saw in the silly circus of the American Spring last weekend, and other events, Right wing nuts are perfectly willing to threaten to harm other right wingers who disappoint them.
"Statistically given the politics of the part of Indiana where he has lived for some time, it is far more likely he is a Republican or some other form of conservative/right winger."
DeleteSo you're basing your assertion on a 17% lead in the last election? Cool.....