Guest Editorialist Gets it All Wrong

Tennessean Guest Editorialist throws facts and reason out the door.

Article

“But there is no Second Amendment right to openly carry a weapon in public.”

Really, um, can you please explain to me what this means?

“…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Please note the references there:

a) people = public

b) keep = own

b) bear = carry

So let’s translate…

“…the right of the public to own and carry Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Seems your premise is rather weak. Unless you want to throw out our Constitution and bill of rights. But then you’d have to get rid of the freedom of speech, freedom of and from religion, right to a fair trial and much more.

***

Oh, btw, it turns out that the Pennsylvania gun-toting mother actually did have reason and justification to carry her firearm openly. Several months later she would be murdered by her husband, who worked as a parole officer. Perhaps her open-carrying that firearm and letting her husband know she was prepared not only kept her safe that day, but also kept the children safe.

***

“In Heller the Supreme Court decided only that Washington, D.C.’s ban on handguns in a person’s home was unconstitutional”

Once again your supposition is wrong. The Supreme Court found that DC’s ban was unconstitutional. That does not mean that only DC’s ban in unconstitutional. Just that said decision only related to DC. And when that decision is incorporated, what will your argument be then sir?

***

Lastly, you make the assumption that what the government does is Constitutional. When in fact most of what our government does these days is in fact unconstitutional.

***

“Some 107 people were killed by permit holders since 2007, ”

Let’s address this statement a little more honestly. There are two points to be made.

1) 107 people killed by permit holders. What is the breakdown of that statistic. Does that 107 number represent rapists shot dead by women defending themselves? Or robbers shot dead by a father protecting his home and family? To quote such a statistic without an accurate descriptor is poor behavior.

2) 107 out of 4 million (that is the number of permit holders you stated in your own words). So what is the percentage breakdown of that number? 5%, 2%, 1%, maybe even a quarter of a percent (0.25%)

No, the actual number is .002675%

Can you tell me how many police officers we have in the United States? Can you tell me how many people were killed by police officers in 2007?

Do you want to bet $20 that our police have a higher percentage rate?

***

“The claim by the NRA and gun lobbyists that less-restrictive gun laws or more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens will make society safer or deter crime is false.”

So is that why a state ranked very low by the Brady Campaign and consider to have way too many firearm freedoms had ZERO murders via firearm in 2008. Find a state on the bottom of Brady’s list that has higher crime than the ones on top.

“Simply put, more guns equal safer states.”

Advertisements
Published in: on January 8, 2010 at 4:40 am  Comments (2)  
Tags: ,

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: https://nugun.wordpress.com/2010/01/08/guest-editorialist-gets-it-all-wrong/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

2 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. Your percentage calculation is off by a factor of 1,000. 100 out of 4 million (roughly) is 1 out of 40,000, which is 1/4 out of 10,000, which is 1/4 of 1/100th of 1%, or 0.0025%. You have three too many zeroes behind the decimal point. (I think you slipped one decimal point when you did the division, and then forgot that to change a standard decimal to a percentage you have to multiply by 100.)

    As for the Second Amendment, the words “shall not be infringed” do not mean “shall be equivalent to mindless anarchy”. Eight of the 10 Amendments to the Bill of Rights include the words “shall not” (or variations), “shall not be infringed”, “shall not be violated” or “shall [be] no law”, often multiple times; the other two include positive requirements that certain things “shall” be done. None of them is absolute. Every such protection or privilege occurs in context and is subject to reasonable limitations. Congress shall make no law restricting freedom of speech, but you can’t scream out loud late at night and wake the neighbors, or incite violence against them. You shall not be required to incriminate yourself, but you can be required to give blood or DNA samples for investigation; you shall not twice be put in jeopardy of life or limb, but you can be tried at the state and federal levels for the same offense. You don’t have to like any of these rulings, but simply to assert that there are no limits at all on any of your rights because of your deliberately narrow, idiosyncratic interpretation of the Constitution is childish. To imagine that one and only one of the 10 Amendments incorporating almost identical language is immune to any and all accommodation with other legal issues, and it just happens to be the one you’re personally obsessed about, is even worse.

    And as long as you’re so insistent upon the language of the Second Amendment, you might bother to quote the whole thing. Then you might consider the significance of the first clause to the Amendment. Every Amendment in the Bill of Rights includes language guaranteeing broad protections, but only one explicitly justifies that language by reference to one specific context in which those rights could be exercised, which it then also says must be “well regulated”. If the requirements of logic or practical governance ensure that the regulation of every other right is permissible, what should we conclude about the one that, in its own language, tells us its regulation is actually “necessary“?

  2. You are correct. I made the mistake of not moving the decimal point over when I added the percent sign. The correct number is .002675% – I have updated the post to reflect the proper number.

    Essentially, still far less than 1%, far less than even .1%

    “As for the Second Amendment, the words “shall not be infringed” do not mean “shall be equivalent to mindless anarchy”

    And nothing we have asked for equates to mindless anarchy.

    “Congress shall make no law restricting freedom of speech, but you can’t scream out loud late at night and wake the neighbors, or incite violence against them.”

    Au contraire. I can scream as loud as I possibly can if there is an emergency. If a house is on fire, I can scream and make as much noise. While there are guidelines preventing disturbance and harm to others. There is always the exception for intent of protecting from harm.

    For example, it is oft quoted that you can’t shout “Fire” in a crowded theater. But you can, if there is a fire.

    Likewise, we advocate the right to utilize our right to protect ourselves. You won’t find a single 2nd Amendment activist who believes that we have the right to just shoot our guns off in town and let bullets fly in any direction just for the fun of it.

    “there are no limits at all on any of your rights because of your deliberately narrow, idiosyncratic interpretation of the Constitution is childish”

    First off sir, my interpretation happens to not only NOT be childish. But is agreed upon by the Supreme Court.

    Second, did I not just provide you a limit. Clearly I am not opposed to certain limits. And those limits is any activity that directly harms another.

    ” To imagine that one and only one of the 10 Amendments incorporating almost identical language is immune to any and all accommodation with other legal issues, and it just happens to be the one you’re personally obsessed about, is even worse.”

    Guess you missed the more recent Supreme Court decision on the 1st Amendment too.

    😉

    ” explicitly justifies that language by reference to one specific context in which those rights could be exercised, which it then also says must be “well regulated”.”

    And I guess you will have to learn some history. Because language evolves. Words, meanings and usage changes over time. At the time of Constitution the phrase “well regulated” did not mean laws pushing the right near out of existence. Rather, it meant well trained, or disciplined.

    Of note, are you familiar with the military term “regulars”. It was a term to denote the standing army units. Essentially, what the well regulated phrase meant was a militia that could hold it’s own against a standing army.

    Thank you, for correcting my mistake. I am glad to oblige the fact.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: