We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Friday, February 14. 2014
Sometimes Maggie's seems like an echo chamber because there is only one point of view, so try this one for me:
(Editor's note: If you disagree, do so kindly and explain yourself reasonably. No need to talk about deaths in car accidents. Azeff is a good-hearted guy who did not grow up with firearms in the farm kitchen, as I did. Somebody asked me the other day how many firearms I have. Between home and the Farm, I dunno, I replied. Never counted. I asked "How many hammers do you have? A hammer is a lethal weapon, just like a baseball bat. Nobody knows how many hammers they have. Firearms are just more expensive than hammers and baseball bats.")
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
It's because the extremes get the attention. The people who use firearms responsibly don't get all the ink, just the whack jobs. This is done to make all of the gun owners look like whack jobs, thus the impetus to disarm all of us.
Many years ago my wife was home alone upstairs when she heard the front door open and close. She called out the names of the the people she'd like for it to have been (my son and me) and got no answer.
She quickly picked up a bolt action rifle and went to the top of the stairs. She couldn't see who was downstairs and the person there couldn't see her because the stairs turned at a landing. She loudly announced "Listen up." and worked the bolt on the rifle.
She heard the front door open and close.
When I got home she asked me where we keep the ammunition. Yes, it was all bluff, but it was a successful bluff.
Hearing the sound of a bolt close does focus one's attention. Many years ago when I was serving in Germany, when we took our tanks to Graf for crew training, we would park and lock them at night and leave them in the capable hands of German military guards (I have no idea why, don't bother asking).
One evening one of crew needed to retrieve something from his tank a few of us went for the walk. No need for any keys to open any locks, just whack a empty periscope hatch with a rock or whatever was to hand, pop it open, reach in and unlatch the driver's hatch. In you go (the agility of youth is a wonderful thing).
Well, our friend retrieved what he was after and we we about to go on our way when we got a very Teutonic "Halt!" command. Being full of ourselves and a bit of beer we told Herman The German to mind his own business. He responded by chambering a round (or at least charging the bolt). He not only had our attention but our formerly absent courtesy as well.
A road patrol officer friend of mine said early and often "Nothing calms a situation like the rack of a well-oiled shotgun". Good on your wife!
but is all this noise wise? say you hear unknown Invaders downstairs in your castle during the middle watch. you grab your Mosschester Winblaster Express Master Defendinator 500, don your black tactical gear, load the 25 or so rounds you can hang on or in the gun, untangle the three point sling, roll up your sleeves, tie the dew rag across your forehead, fix the bayonet, etc., and creep out.
you hear Them again, and rack your shottie, ejecting a live round which clatters away down the stairs, lost forever even as you chamber a new one.
now all the FEMA/Ninjas know where you are, by the scary sound of a shotgun pump being pumped.
is this wise?
Could it be that men and women who use firearms to defend against criminal attack rarely need to fire a shot?
The introduction of a gun into a situation that is escalating toward violence is often enough to quell the act of violence.
Most criminals do not enjoy the the prospect of dying at the hands of their would-be victims.
Here is a good start - especially for someone who thinks that the MSM accurately reports such things:
Scroll down. Keep scrolling, as there are 162 blogpages of citizen self-defense entries.
In addition, take a look at the indispensable David Codrea's "Only Ones" posts, compiling armed abusive police behavior:
Street thugs, and uniformed maniacs.
Two good reasons why American men and women must not allow themselves to be disarmed.
Not sure what your point is, if any. I read plenty of reports about guns being used for self defense. Granted, the liberal media tends to only report self defense cases when (a) it's a young kid or elderly person defending themselves (or being shot), or (b) when they think they can portray the self-defense argument as bogus in order to attack guns and their owners. Other than that, the liberal media only reports the uncommon misuse of guns - if they can make it a white attacks black race issue, that's a bonus.
Note that the gun didn't cause the problem, the owner caused the problem. Misuse of useful items occurs not because of some inherent evil property of the item, but because of the evil property of the user and a system of incentives that don't adequately deter "bad" behavior and promote "good" behavior.
One man's collection of news stories regarding self defense and the use of firearms for self defense.
I have quite a few hammers; some are attached to firearms. A hammer is just a tool. A firearm is just a tool. You need different tools for different jobs; sometimes you need more than one of the same tool. Sometimes you need to let the hammer down. I think that just hit the nail on the head.
Last month a pick-up pulled up to my front door after traveling down my 0.5 mile private driveway and passing through a closed gate marked no trespassing. I asked the four men occupying the truck what they wanted. They said they were looking for work. They left when I said I had nothing for them.
I wonder how the conversation would have gone if I had not been holding a shotgun? This kind of story is never reported, but I expect it happens many times per day.
Victor Davis Hanson has told similar stories many times. Usually, something goes missing from the farm within a few days of those "visits." That is why I confront all who climb my drive and, while polite, I let them know I pay attention. The firearm is pretty much a given in my area.
It is also because the national press is largely anti gun ownership so the majority of the news items put gun ownership and use in a negative light. What is obviously missing are reports of all the cases where guns were used by civilians in a positive light - where good (or at least innocent) people were protected from a bad guy. Those stories are found daily in local media and some websites supporting those cases promote those stories.
The Zimmerman/Martin case is particular egregious. A person defends himself from a stronger (though younger) youth who had the upper hand in a violent fight and the press focuses on whether Zimmerman may have followed (or stalked) Martin, that Martin was unarmed, or that Zimmerman was supposed to be a wannabe cop. Another issue that was latched on was Stand Your Ground laws. In the first place, Stand Your Ground did not apply since there was no way Zimmerman could have retreated (as required without Stand Your Ground). Even if the points trumpeted by the press were facts, they are immaterial in the context of a fight for your life (or can be reasonably considered a fight for your life).
Trayvon was no choirboy. Mixed Martial Arts enthusiast, heavy drug user.
Bill Whittle has an excellent ten minute video here:
Bill is a national treasure -- google his name for some excellent videos.
Echo chamber like, I agree with ohboy, Mike M, tennesseered.... well, everyone so far. Guns are tools, which, in the hands of a fool and/or criminal will be misused. Nothing new to see here, move along.
As noted above, the self-defense stories are not reported or under-reported by the mainstream media.
More self-defense stories here.
I notice there are no links to the wild eyed assertions about justification. I've heard in passing the popcorn story but haven't followed it. Some who have didn't think it would fly. Are you saying that was accepted as a justification for the use of deadly force?
The loud music case is still awaiting a verdict according to Legal Insurrection. So I assume that means the justification wasn't accepted...yet.
So you throw out claims individuals or more likely their lawyers make after a shooting. People can claim all kinds of things but that doesn't mean it will be accepted in a proper investigative/judicial proceeding. Twinkie's have been used, postpartum depression, sugar, etc. Remember the glove that didn't fit... Many claims but most don't survive a fair hearing. Some that might sway a jury don't work a second time.
But why are the news stories about such claims, because it permits the media to promote a narrative and it sells ad space by attracting eyeballs.
A few years ago, an estranged husband showed up at his mother-in-law's house and tried to force his way in to get at his wife. They shot him. He continued. They shot him again. He got in, but shortly after a neighbor came over and shot the man. That is a bit humorous in a way. It didn't make more than a blurb in the local online paper. No headlines, no media circus. Probably because there was no shock value, just humor.
While everyone celebrates the freedom to blow your foot off or have your five year old shoot his four year old friend while playing cowboys and liberals
Throwing out offensive straw man arguments is no way to start a conversation, good-hearted fellow or not. I mean how does one even respond to such guff? Who supports the freedom of five year old children to shoot four year old friends? Find that reprehensible person and ask him or her.
If this is the slander by which you tar every supporter of the right to keep and bear arms its a wonder you don't attract only equally bombastic rhetoric. These are good, patient commenters here, and you might be getting far more latitude than you deserve.
I think that was supposed to be satire, or a strawman from the grabbtastic point of view, but I could be wrong, this isn't literature.
liberals portray gun owners as childish and dangerously negligent. unfortunately, there is some truth here.
I have been reading that lots of insurance companies now have to cover breast pumps and breastfeeding support for people, but have also heard that many people are merely permitted for a manual pump. Has anyone been successful at getting an electrical pump? Did you have any choice as to which pump you got?
I'm not convinced you'd be safe with any model, ask an adult in your life, if you know any.
Holster that iron Cowboy, you're responding to spam.
Are you making some sort of point here, or just driving by for yet another smear?
Why is it that those who want to change the Second Amendment won't make an honest argument?
By the way, I am far from a Second amendment absolutist, if that's the right term to use. I think, for example, that gun rights should be interpreted differently in the Bronx than in rural Wyoming. Different understandings of what's appropriate apply, certainly. What I cannot understand is the sneering superiority of the uneducated dolts who make straw man arguments that are highly generalized and completely miss any sort of a valid mark.
One other essential point - the police have NO legal duty to protect individual citizens from criminals; see generally:
Check with a competent attorney in your jurisdiction if you doubt this thesis.
So here's the gun controllers' proposition:
1) You citizens have no good reason to keep and bear firearms
2) The armed element of government has no legal duty to protect you and your family
3) Trust us; registration and eventual confiscation will lead to a more peaceful society
Not very reassuring.
To say the least.
Finally, please read former Navy SEAL and novelist Matt Bracken's thoughts on the history of gun registration and confiscation:
The FreeRepublic site has quite a few article (usually local) about people defending themselves successfully against muggers, rapists, robbers and murderers. These stories usually don't make it beyond the hometown papers.
you're surprised because you don't understand theater or the 24 hr news cycle.
self defense stories / puppy rescued from tree / sunny, sunny day stories are not very interesting.
good gun stories appeal to the feeling-persecuted crowd. for them, there are scores of lesser news sources providing feel good fodder.
I think gun owners are our own worst enemies. if I were a grabber testifying in congress, I'd read into the record random postings fantasies from any self defense forum: tricked out "shotties" (tactical laser sights, tactical flashlights, tactical heat shields, tactical tripods, tactical three point slings, tactical extended mags, tactical finishes), home defense kill zones, fire lanes, novelty ammo, gear for the well attired home defender, all in case FEMA ninjas parasail in. thank the gods the grabbers are too stupid to have delved into this treasure trove.
I'm happy with the current balance of personal rights vs public interest reflected in second amendment law. unfortunately, most gun rights advocates aren't interested in this complex field or just don't care, and exclude themselves from effective advocacy.
My lovely bride just called me and asked me on a Valentine's Day date. So I am about to go. But I can't let this pass without the most basic response:
A) The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution says that the government won't infringe on my right to bear arms. This is because the Founding Fathers knew that an American leader would be just as likely to become a tyrannical despot as King George had proven. They wanted us as armed as possible to prevent this.
B) the right to defend yourself is the most basic right in the world. You can have all the freedom of speech and press that you can stand but if someone attacks you violently you can't live long enough to enjoy it. Two of my cousins have used firearms to defend themselves from home invasions until the law showed up.
C) None of us celebrate nuts abusing guns. In fact, someone blowing their foot off is tragic. And a parent allowing a child to pick up a gun and hurt themselves or someone else is a horrible tragedy. But children have been killing themselves accidentally as long as there have been children. In Texas our law is strict enough to mandate that I have to keep my guns out of the hands of my children unless I am supervising them. Nobody needed to tell me to do this. I love my kids enough to do this even if the law didnt' require it.
D) if you dont' want to own guns, you don't have to. Nobody here at Maggies will force you to own guns. But you trying to take my right to own them is far more troubling than I have time to react to today. And even if you are a kind, gentle person who wouldn't tyranize me once you had me disarmed, I don't trust the government to play by your rules. And our Founding Fathers agreed with me. If they were here, they would agree with me even louder.
I do hope that was nice enough for you. I will gladly expound on it if you want me to.
right on cue...
" The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution says that the government won't infringe on my right to bear arms. This is because the Founding Fathers knew that an American leader would be just as likely to become a tyrannical despot as King George had proven. They wanted us as armed as possible to prevent this."
it does say that, but no constitutional right is absolute, so if you want to defend the second amendment, you've got to do more homework into how individual rights are always balanced against public interest and where that fulcrum is placed under the scale, because in a place where these arguments matter, a platitude like that will be run over.
"no constitutional right is absolute, so if you want to defend the second amendment, you've got to do more homework into how individual rights are always balanced against public interest and where that fulcrum is placed under the scale"
Fair enough. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. But in such a case the burden is - or at least should be - on the government to show that there are factual (not hypothetical) reasons that the public interest requires limiting those rights, and the rights should only be limited to the extent that the public interest can be shown to require it.
This is why civil rights opponents keep losing 2nd Amendment court cases - because they have NOT shown that the restrictions they put on civil rights meets those criteria.
"You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater."
Yes, actually you can.
That statement was made in a SCOTUS ruling (Schenck v. U.S. 1919) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States) that was later overturned.
The accurate quote is "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic."
This has several parts--one is that there is a "false" shouting, that there is not in fact a fire. The second is that it causes, or is intended to cause a panic.
So if there's a fire, or you THINK there's a fire and your intent is to alert other patrons that there's a fire then you're fine. If you're yelling at the screen telling the actor to shoot, you're stupid, but fine (as long as people don't believe you're asserting there IS a fire).
right. the balance of the scale favors the gun owner and restrictions have to be as narrowly tailored as possible.
libtarded politicians frequently make outrageous gun restriction proposals that have no chance of passing 2A muster, but which really are public relations ploys for their voters. the press rarely understands this.
@William O. B'Livion the point is that some speech content is unprotected. a rough second amendment equivalent is that there's no constitutional right to own a 6 inch naval gun.
. . .there's no constitutional right to own a 6 inch naval gun.
Well, they are rather hard to holster.
On the other hand, it's interesting how much militarily obsolescent cannon you can own. Mostly it's not illegal, it's just prohibitively expensive to buy / store / insure; or you can't find proper ammunition.
On a side note, sometimes people argue that the Founders would never have meant for civilians to be able to access the kind of personal arms common to modern militaries - that they're just too powerful. That might be true for big artillery, bombs and aircraft. Outside that I don't really buy it.
I don't think they would necessarily sympathize with arguments that personal weaponry in use by the average soldier is too powerful for the average civilian. They might argue instead that what's in use by the average soldier is necessarily exactly what ought to be available to the average civilian. If you examine their extrinsic writings about the 2nd Amendment and the right to bear arms, I think there's a pretty strong argument that they would expect the like of sub-machine guns and select-fire rifles to be available for civilian use. Those guys explicitly did not like the idea of a government that could overawe its populace.
you should read D.C. v. Heller, you'll appreciate it a lot. the majority opinion equates modern self defense weapons to self defense weapons that have been traditionally owned by the public (able bodied men who would form the militia) and especially those at the time the constitution was enacted.
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be
banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf at p56
I think its fair to include AR and AK types as the modern equivalents of a Brown Bess or Kentucky long rifle.
also, if I'm not mistaken, I think one of the oldest artillery companies was originally a private militia whose lineage continues in one of the regular army units.
. . .you should read D.C. v. Heller. . .
I should; I've only scanned a summary.
The "Bill of Rights" can be found here for those who wish to read it.
Don't skip the preamble.
All rights have corresponding limits (I prefer to think of them as responsibilities) whether they are in the Bill of Rights or not. Anyone's right to freely make a fist and swing their arm ends at the other guy's nose. We cannot assert our right to free speech to falsely shout "Fire!" in the theater. Our right to freedom of religion does not allow us to practice human sacrifice. I presume, although perhaps I shouldn't, that we all understand this and there is not need for further examples.
If we continue with these common examples we can readily see that the government does not forbid free speech just because it may be used improperly and even dangerously. When someone uses free speech in some fashion that causes harm they can be prosecuted or sued for it. Shout fire in the theater - pay damages to those who are injured during the panic. Slander someone but have a good lawyer to defend yourself. Be very careful about any commercial claims you make - you may find yourself sued for false advertising. Don't commit perjury, it's a crime.
We don't forbid religion just because some examples of it may engage in rituals that harm people or furry little critters. We don't forbid the making of fists and swinging of arms. What we forbid is the punching of noses; the crime or other harm that may result if the right is abused.
This is not true of the right to keep and bear arms. Actually, I should say it is only partially true. We do prosecute people who commit crimes or cause harm when they abuse their right to keep and bear arms.
Many state & local governments, however, do everything they possibly can to, effectively, forbid citizens from keeping and bearing arms. The Great State of NJ, as an example, makes the transportation of guns a legal minefield. Don't stop to pee or have lunch if there's an otherwise legally owned firearm in your car.
Te Great Cities of Chicago and Washington DC are notorious (or heroic depending on you view) in this matter.
If we must allow John Q. Citizen his right to keep and bear arms (not just firearms, mind you) let's make it impossible for him transport that weapon. And let's attempt to tax ammunition so John can't afford any. And let's make ranges illegal within city limits so he can't practice and we'll also make a restriction that he must practice. States and towns have tried to put forth storage laws along with the notion of unannounced police inspections of gun owner's homes to make sure they are within the parameters of legal storage of their arms. How's that 4th Amendment holding up these days, BTW? There's a case in DC now where a man is being prosecuted for possesing an expended shotgun shell. The point of such laws, it seems clear to me, is to make the exercise of the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms as unattractive and legally dangerous as possible.
Several states forbid the carrying of knives or give law enforcement the right to demand a "compelling reason" for the carrying of a knife. Not a knife over some length of blade. Any knife. I don't know about you but given modern packaging I don't how anyone gets through the week without needing a pocket knife.
But I digress. The Preamble to the Bill of Rights makes it pretty clear that it is a restraining order on the federal government rather than an enumeration of rights We The People are benevolently granted.
Prosecute or otherwise punish those who abuse any right including the right to keep and bear arms. But stop the attempt to kill the 2A by the death of a thousand cuts, a million pointless laws, and a billion frivolous prosecutions.
you are wrong. the government does forbid certain speech because it is dangerous or for a few other reasons. making child pornography, inciting riots or publishing troop transport movement during wartime crimes are examples of the government barring speech content. they've been upheld based on a specific kind of legal analysis. for almost all other speech, the government cannot regulate content.
defamation lawsuits are different, because they are private actions, not government restrictions.
second amendment law is similar, again, individual rights and public interest are in tension, but balanced. the best explanation I've seen, and a good source for pro second amendment advocates, is the opinion in D.C. v. Heller.
in fact, its more than a good source, if you intend to argue intelligently and refute the typical gun grabbing whiner, you need to understand this.
Of course we don't have the bulk of the major media outlets jumping up and screaming how we need to tighter regulate speech every time someone creates emotional distress or hurt feelings, or negligently pushes horrible policy ideas, or intentionally gets treasonous pols elected.
One could probably make a reasonable argument that shutting some people up would save a lot more innocent lives than gun control.
Actually, wirraway, your legal analysis is weak.
The government forbids those kinds of speech when there is actual harm - and in most of those cases, the speech is the harm. Usually, it merely chooses to say some speech isn't protected, or protected as completely. They don't take away your right to speech just because you might delve into those areas. "Oh, you might get into child porn, we'll take away your computer. Oh, you might reveal national security information, so we'll forbid you from having a cell phone."
In fact, prior restraint is virtually unheard of in First Amendment world practice. It almost always fails.
Almost everything in Second Amendment world is essentially prior restraint type legislation.
The restraints on the Second Amendment are about controlling your ability to shoot anyone. For anything. Ever. It's like controlling the instrumentalities of speech, not the speech itself.
Which makes our "benevolent" ruling class very happy. It's so much easier to make us do what they want that way. I can't count the number of times I've heard gun control proponents say that there's no point in private firearm ownership] anyway because the government has superior firepower, so why bother. I always think those folks might as well kneel down and allow the leg-irons be put on now. And be stripped of the right to vote.
my legal analysis is in summary form because this isn't a legal forum and a heavy percentage of readers apparently reject the doctrine of judicial review anyway, preferring the equivalent of the equally wrong and childish sola scriptura take on things.
there's no good reason to overextend 1A analogies when looking at 2A issues, the body of 2A law is well developed itself.
anyone wishing to understand how real people in the real world address second amendment issues should read DC v Heller, easily the best and most cogent explanation and the best source for how to out-argue gun grabbers.
anyone just interested in choir preaching can cite jefferson's letter to his dog, or something equally stupid out of context.
Bravo, that deserves to be a post on it's own.
This has been quite a long thread to read but entries like that make it worthwhile.
To pick a nit. The 2nd Amendment reads that the RKBA shall not be infringed That is absolute and universal. It does not specify an actor. Certainly, the government is forbidden to infringe, but so are private individuals. The RKBA inheres to the individual citizen.
MTF gave you the opening swat you deserved. Others have pointed to various reports of defensive firearm use and as well as examples of increasingly militarized and violent police forces in the US.
I made an attempt to go find an excellent analysis of the statistics about "children" being killed by guns in our nations. Unfortunately I could not find it quicly, perhaps you might want to research that since you seem interested in why loons might want to keep guns that slaughter "children."
The vast majority of gun deaths among "children" are "children" in the age range of 17-20 and are gang/crime related. A sizeable portion of those under 17 are also gang or crime related. There are very few actual events that have much in common with your "five year old shooting his four year old buddy" example. It happens, and that is sad. But we don't take away people's swimming pools just because they kill are far large number of actual children unrelated to gangs/crime. And pools aren't a constitutional right.
Last, but not least, my new response to anyone who asks why ordinary citizens need to own guns is to suggest the questioner pose that question to his local chief of police or other law enforcement leadership. They are armed to the teeth. They live and work in the same communities we do. Why do they need such weaponry? What are they afraid of? And since they have no responsibility to protect us and a diminishing inclination to serve us, why shouldn't we be afraid of, and armed against, the same things?
OK, it wasn't last. The last time I was in a jury pool about a year ago the case I was not selected for was a home invasion. Some scum broke into the home of some old people and beat the crap out of them and stole everything they could. I wish that homeowner had blasted the bastids to kingdom come.
People who use firearms successfully to defend/protect themselves or their loved ones generally don't have to actually fire them. And they have absolutely no desire to report it to the cops because - especially in blue states or major cities - the most likely reaction of the police will be to find a way to confiscate their gun. So you never hear about it.
The problem isn't the guns, the problem is the shallow understanding of the cases, largely brought on by a lazy, biased media with an agenda (that agenda being one or more of "hire the cheapest reporters", "gun control", or "get the news out in 30 seconds at the end of the hour")
In the case of Curtis Reeves shooting Chad Olson, Reeves was a *retired police officer*, not some random guy with a CCW. Police, including retired police, have almost always been allowed greater latitude in carrying firearms (the only time they aren't is when the general public is allowed to carry, or when they're in extremely stupid juridictions).
In this case it wasn't "just" throwing popcorn. Reeves complained about Olson texting during the previews. Olson responded, according to witnesses “If it was any of your f***ing business, I was texting my daughter. Stay the hell out of my face.” This escalated things. Then he grabbed REEVES popcorn out of his hands (at least it appears that way in the video) and throws it in his face. Did this level rise to the level of a "threat to the life or severe bodily injury?"
One more datapoint--Olson's wife was also shot. Through the hand. Reeves fired ONE shot. That one shot hit both the husband (in the chest) and the wife in the hand. Where was the wife's hand? On her husbands chest. As he faced Reeves. Apparently attempting to hold him back. Did it rise to the level of "threat to life or severe bodily injury"? Dunno.
When Michael Dunn shot Jordan Davis he claimed (and still claims) that the second time he went to ask the kids in the car to turn the music down he saw a weapon (IIRC a shotgun), and that after the shooting the teenagers drove to a second lot and presumably discarded the weapon there, and that police did not search that area within a reasonable time. Was there a shotgun there?
Travon Martin was a teenage thug who was definately under the influence of Marijuana the night he was killed, he was a habitual user of Purple Drank (a drink made with prescription cough syrup containing codeine). He had been, at or just after dusk, in the rain walking from house to house staying near the house in what most of us call a "mobile home park" using the overhangs of the houses to stay out of the rain and talking on the cell phone. When confronted, he ran. Instead of running home he turned back around (probably when he realized that Zimmerman was short and out of shape). He then confronted Zimmerman, and a fight started. Zimmerman was, from the statements of witnesses, his statement, and forensic evidence on his back getting the hell beat out of him when he shot.
Martin was under suspension from school for having stolen property in his possession and having "buglary tools" (a "large" screwdriver). He had been caught with drugs at school previously.
Reeves probably shouldn't have shot. Olson shouldn't have been a dick. A simple "just telling the babysitter I'm shutting off the phone" would have stopped it. But I wasn't there and I wasn't looking at Olson's face when he grabbed the popcorn and threw it back.
If Dunn was threatened by a shotgun held by Davis he was justified. If there was no weapon, then he should go to jail. He probably will anyway since a weapon can't be found. Unless his lawyer(s) can get a confession from one of the other kids.
Zimmerman's had his day in court, a case polluted by everyone from the President on down trying to get Zimmerman (a "white hispanic") convicted in the media.
Might want to be more skeptical about the stories you're reading.
There are dozens to hundreds of justified uses of a firearm for self defense every day across this country. Most never result in a trigger pull. 80 to 100 million owners in the US. Less than 16k firearm murders every year. Most of those committed bu people who can't legally own a gun at all.
Somewhere between 1 and 4 percent of the US has a CCW. That puts it at 3+ million private citizens carrying with a permit. And most of them never draw in "anger".
If my right to carry a firearm had the same "reasonable" restrictions on my 2a right as there is on my 1a rights, or my right to an abortion, I'd be rolling down the street with an AK on my back, a glock on my hip and a couple of fragmentation gernades in my man-purse.
Then again if it was like my 4a-10a rights I'd be getting arrested for my little vitrionix (http://www.victorinox.com/us/product/Swiss-Army-Knives/Category/Classics/Classic-SD/53001).
A shotgun, two handguns, three hammers, a pipe-wrench, and 14 golf clubs (no baseball bat). And this old lady knows how to use each and every one! (Although my 7-wood could use a little work).
Well, I guess I got your attention. I appreciate many of your thoughtful responses. I have no problem with gun ownership.The notion that "they will take our guns away" is frankly ludicrous. It is a constitutional right. Whether the founders would see what has become of the amendment, arms for a "militia", is for another time. To me, basically an urban type, gun ownership has never been an interest. However, the issue with guns is the climate in which they exist. It is one thing to say you may be living in a dangerous place and another to say you are living in a dangerous place. Think of the physiological consequences of those differences, think of a doctor saying you may have cancer as opposed to you do have cancer. Why the police officer had a weapon in a movie theater in the company of his wife in what seemed to be a peaceful neighborhood is the question, not what was said between the two men. Back in the day in the Bronx, fists might have flown but not bullets.
"Why the police officer had a weapon in a movie theater in the company of his wife in what seemed to be a peaceful neighborhood is the question"
the question you should have asked is why the officer thought he needed a weapon in a movie theater because, obviously, the vast number of people don't share this belief.
"Whether the founders would see what has become of the amendment, arms for a "militia", is for another time."
that is a red herring question because it doesn't matter what they'd think.
Maybe it just my urban neighborhood, but we have many, many residents from Cuba, Ukraine, Poland, Germany, and parts of Africa that tell similar stories:
I'm barely 5'3", 120 lbs, with one not so good shoulder, single female. I Will Lose when fists fly every single time. I look like an easy target, I've been an easy target. I have Zero intention of being that target again.
Fists can kill. Me having a gun, might allow us both to walk away (since in many cases simply showing it resolves the issue) it definitely gives me a better probability of walking away than I have otherwise.
" . . . what seemed to be a peaceful neighborhood . . ."
Well, since the now dead man felt it was alright to start attacking an elderly man because he was chided for texting in the movie theater tells me that it was NOT a "peaceful" neighborhood. Violence is everywhere people are.
As others have noted here - fists can kill. Hit a 71-year old man in just the right spot and he will go down rather quickly, especially when the fist is coming from a 40-year old.
Anecdotal; but related, years ago a friend of mine asked a young man in the theater to please be quiet. The young guy stood up to get up in her (and my) face. She quickly and calmly stood up (she is not tall; but average height for a woman) pulled her dress jacket aside displaying her holstered gun and said: "be careful how you act, my brother the cop taught me how to use this well to defend myself." The young buck left in a hurry. Yes, it could have gone bad. But, sometimes bullies have to have someone smack them down. (as for me, I was trying very hard to melt down into my seat cushion hoping no one would see me, especially stray bullets)
CT: You have certainly "got (our) attention". You picked a hot topic in which it seems you have no vested interest. Could have chosen abortion or lousy schools or gay marriage. All these topics will show in word searches and result in a large hit count. Good for business.
Editor's note: Dr. Azeff will be a regular contributor on medical topics. Hmm, and such others as will stimulate reader response.
The notion that "they will take our guns away" is frankly ludicrous. Not really. (Do I sniff a bit of patronizing, condescending? C'mon CT, we're all pals here, n'est-ce pas?) Through legislation and Executive Orders the rights and freedoms regarding firearms possession and use have been steadily restricted. With the advent of wholesale info gathering our freedom in general is being compromised but regards firearms it is disproportionately so.
This lifted off the pages of The Washington Rebel some months ago, before it imploded. The sophistry and polemical discussion on that blog site reached critical mass:
"I doubt the efficacy of teaching, though it's noble indeed to attempt it. Witness the enormous learning, wit, and insight of so many wonderful bloggers whose voices can now be heard. Still, as entertaining as their efforts are, it seems to me that the effect of their work in defeating the liberal, grifter enemy is marginal." — Colonel B. Bunny
Sometimes Maggie's seems like an echo chamber ... Indeed. The echo phenomenon:
I'm just average, common too
I'm just like him, the same as you
I'm everybody's brother and son
I ain't different than anyone
It ain't no use a-talking to me
It's just the same as talking to you. — Dylan
The notion that "they will take our guns away" is frankly ludicrous.
It is the stated intention of many on the left to take all of them away from the average citizen. This is a theme repeated over and over.
And people like you will help them load the rail cars.
And yes, they may be willing to leave "us" with double barrel shotguns and maybe a 4 shot bolt gun for "hunting", but the "reasonable" restrictions will be such that only the rich or the really dedicated will be able to do it. I've lived under those restrictions (Australia), it sucks and at best it changes the nature of crimes rather than preventing them.
To me, basically an urban type, gun ownership has never been an interest.
Urban has nothing to do with it. I'm "basically" an urban type. The only reason I live in the suburbs is that my local "big city" has a ban on magazines over 20 rounds, so I live in a big suburb.
some on the left want to take away all your guns. some on the right want the right to own main battle tanks. I'd like to be a the dictator of a small island in the caribbean. each of these things are equally likely. the difference is, I'm not delusional.
you're buying into the theatrical BS that surrounds 2A debate but not understanding how 2A law actually works.
read Heller, read the recent 9th circuit case out of san diego.
we gun owners need to stop sounding like a kids frightened by bullies and instead have a thorough grasp 2A law.
Anyone who thinks the concept of "them" trying to take away all guns is ludicrous just lost all credibility with me. The ignorance contained within that statement speaks volumes. You are living in a world that doesn't exist, if you think our "authorities" can be trusted to that degree. It amounts to willful ignorance to state such a thing. They clearly would like to, what they lack is the means to do so without igniting civil violence on a scale they clearly can imagine.
As for any of your rationalization about anyone's "need" to have firearms (may be living in a dangerous place versus are living in a dangerous place), frankly, they are irrelevant. It isn't for you or any one else to tell me what I need, based upon your subjective views versus my subjective views. You presume an authority (based in some misguided concept of democracy, no doubt) that you don't have. You and your ilk may have the power to try and enforce it, but that is called something else ... but it surely isn't freedom and liberty. I'm deeply angered by and ashamed of people like that who consider themselves my fellow citizens.
And it deserves to be met with contempt, noncompliance, and if necessary, force. If ever there was a tipping point for politics in this country, this is the issue that will do the trick.
walk away from the Drama and choir preaching, just for a few minutes.
you're never going to legally own an anti-tank rocket, no matter how much you want one or think you need one. that's not a subjective opinion, that's second amendment analysis.
despite its wettest of wet dreams, pelosi-reid is never going to take away my AR 15. if you're a lawyer, read Heller and its progeny. personal defense is core to the 2A, personal defense weapons at the time of the enactment of the 2A are extrapolated forward into their modern equivalents and protected. the majority opinion in Heller even specifically refers to M16s.
this endless fantasy of the FEM/Homeland Security/NWO GeheimeStaatspolizei tearing down your door and seizing your machine guns is childish and counterproductive to the people who are really protecting the 2A.
Wow - I wouldn't put so much belief in the rational interpretation of the Constitution by any branch of Federal or State governments, either now or in the future. Just because something is clearly unconstitutional, just plain wrong, and completely irrational doesn't mean it won't be enacted into law.
In fact, I think you've missed some of the anti-2A action over the last few years. If the rational pro-2Aer's hadn't launched a full-court press, we might have Feinstein's Federal "assault weapon ban" right now. As it is, we now have "assault weapons registration in CT and NY (and by "assault" I mean Modern Sporting Rifles - you know those black scary looking rifles that are the most popular long guns now).
And in NJ, getting a CCW is impossible, the historic WWII M1 Carbine is ILLEGAL to own (M1 Garand is OK though (?)), and you can only purchase a handgun every 31+ days, after getting an individual purchase permit involving a lengthy investigation. And that's AFTER getting your fingerprinted firearms purchase permit, and lengthy review process, etc., etc.
So I don't have your apparent faith that sanity and rational thought will prevail when it comes to firearms laws (or any other laws for that matter).
(in full disclosure, I don't want a main battle tank/rocket launcher/mini-gun or A-10's GAU-8. I am not adverse to the idea of having to pass a safety class for ownership - being responsible with at least minimal proficiency might reduce some of the idiocy that makes the papers, and would make me feel safer at the range).
wirraway is living in another decade. Maybe the early 1960's.
Another victim of normalcy bias.
He pretends to the position of being one of the "people who are really protecting the 2A." But in reality, he's just generating a lot of friendly fire. I'm sure he means well. I'm sure it's so much easier for him to talk to the neighborhood gun-grabbers when he can sympathize about those crazy extremists gun rights people.
But he doesn't or refuses to understand what happened to our government over the past couple of decades; that the barbarians really are at the gate. It's death by a thousand cuts, but have no doubt that they mean to bleed us all.
ad homs are droll, surely you can do better.
since you mention the 1960s, my recollection is hazy, since I was a kid, but I do recall the government routinely using police dogs, batons, fire hoses and jail and a couple of lynchings/murders to suppress constitutional rights. so I'm not really impressed with the whining going on in 2014 about conspiracies to grab guns that fly in the face of recent court rulings.
the fact is, you need pelosi-reed to provide the scary monster under the bed, reverse of the coin: they need to paint you as gun nuts and the result is that everyone wins. drama queens on both sides get to feel persecuted and threatened but in a safe way, since no one really is and the money rolls keeps rolling into the brady foundation and the NRA.
that's how the game is played and that's more or less ok by me, but I'm also certain that only the peons believe the theatrics and the fantasy.
It isn't ad hominem to describe your viewpoint and where it comes from.
If I were denigrating you rather than, or as a substitute for addressing your arguments, that would be ad hominem. That isn't happening here.
You need to make better arguments to support your conclusive statements, not just fall back on "It's ad hominem". Not after "this endless fantasy of the FEM/Homeland Security/NWO GeheimeStaatspolizei tearing down your door and seizing your machine guns is childish and counterproductive ".
You don't get off that easily.
"like a kids frightened by bullies"
"anyone just interested in choir preaching can cite jefferson's letter to his dog, or something equally stupid out of context"
"gun owners as childish and dangerously negligent. unfortunately, there is some truth here"
"this endless fantasy of the FEM/Homeland Security/NWO GeheimeStaatspolizei tearing down your door and seizing your machine guns is childish"
"only the peons believe the theatrics and the fantasy"
wirraway, I hadn't intended this to turn antagonistic at this kind of personal level, but you've been so patently disrespectful in that "droll" sophomoric way, someone needed to call you on your crap. You are the master of ad hominem arguing.
You want to straddle the fence and play the "reasonable person" by tossing insults both directions, but you have to be willfully ignorant in order to rationalize away what so many here have articulated. Sure, there's some truth to your cynicism about the rattling of public relation swords, the thumping of drums for raising donations ... but you seem to be missing the bigger picture. It isn't all kabuki and puppet theater anymore - there's been a sea change in how your government thinks of you and I. Firearm owners need to be aware of that.
It's fine if you disagree with that assertion. But it would be nice if you did so respectfully. Not with the kind of stuff you wrote that I listed here, supra. (And you had the nerve to complain - incorrectly, I think - about ad hominem after that?)
BTW, you'll need to be more specific about what I was evasive about (unless you're just trying to duck out with a last parting unsupported snide comment, like retreating under cover of smoke).
On the whole of the circumstances, I wonder if you are really just trolling. I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you do support 2A issues, but ... the issue seems in doubt.
You recall police and the government suppressing civil rights before your eyes, and you believe the idea of their confiscating guns is ludicrous?
I see how you fscked up there.
Well, since an anti-tank rocket arguably isn't a firearm for Second Amendment analysis, it's hard to see what your point is, wirraway.
As for drama and choir preaching, don't get so bombastic yourself.
As an attorney, and having read Heller, and knowing that DC has effectively ignored it anyway, you really have no facts to support your position. Heller may have sounded good, but left a pretty wide ambiguity or two about what are "reasonable" restrictions.
We all know how entertaining it can be to poke fun at the conspiracy theorists (and clearly you enjoy it a lot) but I think thou dost protest too much. There's a good bit of validated evidence and goings-on to raise more than a reasonable suspicion as to what our current string of lord and masters are up to. It wasn't that long ago that reasonable people would have scoffed at the idea of armed drones in the US airspace, the NSA intercepting and storing all our electronic communications, and POTUS's saying they could do what they want, change passed signed legislation by decree, and generally act like tinpot third world dictators. But it's all come true. Massive ammunition purchases by agencies that clearly have little need for ammunition. The militarization of law enforcement at the same time civilians are being told they don't "need" weaponry. The purging of the military of flag officers of questionable loyalty to POTUS as opposed to the Constitution.
Just ask the folks in California or Connecticut about keeping their AR's and hi-cap magazines. Don't know what state you're in, but I doubt yours is as secure from seizure as you think it is.
very pedestrian. how about an anti-tank rifle like a mauser 1918 t-gewehr. I'd love to have one of those suckers.
your argument is that Heller is being ignored, which is demonstrably false, the 9th circuit -- the libtarded 9th circuit -- struck down a CA anti-concealed carry law a couple of days ago, as an attorney familiar with this, you will have read it, as well as McDonald v. Chicago and other cases which have stabilized the present 2A balance.
but if Heller is being ignored -- which is a preposterously stupid claim -- then, apart from the psychological need to be part of a persecuted minority, what's the point of this debate? your position is that the government will always do what the liberals want it to do, regardless of rule of law, so why are you bothering to complain about constitutional rights you believe will never be enforced or protected? that's not a rhetorical question. are you really a lawyer who has never won a civil rights case? never beaten a RICO indictment? never won any criminal trial? never won an eminent domain case? never won a federal claim or government tort claim? do you really think there's a vast kornspiracy of LEO, military, judges, congressmen ad nausea just itching to take your Mossblaster or light saber or whatever you think They're after?
Substituting arrogance, dismissiveness, and insult for thoughtfulness isn't gaining you any progress in this discussion. It just makes your good faith doubtful.
Since I live just outside of DC, I know for a fact that DC has attempted to load up their bureaucracy with enough "reasonable" hurdles to make Heller well-gutted. It isn't preposterous, but to claim otherwise is. Open your eyes. They prosecute people for empty shell casings. Someone just wrote a book about how it took them nearly two years to negotiate the red tape to legally own a pistol.
url http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/guns/2012/feb/8/miller-emily-got-her-gun/ /url
Your argument about rule of law is absurd. Ginning up strawmen arguments is no way to make your point, assuming it's a point worth making. Do you really expect the whole edifice to fall apart simultaneously? Or would it be more likely that it will unravel at the edges where the political powers don't care for the results? Why do you think it has to be the result of a vast self-contained conspiracy? There are more than enough anti-liberty factions at play that the aggregate effect is what we encounter.
You seem to be in complete denial, which is your right. But that doesn't give you license to be rude, even on the internet. The rudeness and sneering condescension only speaks to your own personal failings, not to some special cleverness of your arguments.
you're never going to legally own an anti-tank rocket, no matter how much you want one or think you need one. that's not a subjective opinion, that's second amendment analysis.
Actually, you can all manner of weird "destructive devices" covered under Class III tax stamps, the issue is that for most of them it's a $200 tax stamp per round in addition to the expense. So yeah, you can legally purchase an anti-tank rocket or an RPG, but you're going to be paying a LOT for them.
And no, crew served weapons and "ordinance" would probably not be considered part of 2A rights, but one could make an argument that anything a normal infantry soldier would carry for individual use (bayonet, grenade launcher (e.g. M203) and both the grenades for it and regular grenades) would be something "the Militia" would be expected to field in the 17 and 1800s. That was the original intent and understanding.
I realize we've gotten away from that understanding and intent, but the same is true of religion and the press.
“Well, I guess I got your attention.” – wasn’t that the point of your “question” which I read as snide, judgmental, and condescending?
“The notion that "they will take our guns away" is frankly ludicrous” – ok, proves you haven’t been paying attention to the progressives’ “holy grail” effort over the last couple of years – only a strong stand by pro-2Aers limited the damage.
“Why the police officer had a weapon … in what seemed to be a peaceful neighborhood is the question” – Maybe in case the urban utopia turned out not to be as peaceful as you might wish it to be? Maybe his years in law enforcement made him confront face-to-face the evil men are capable of and he couldn’t hide behind the utopian façade that everyone is as peaceful and rational as you are? Maybe he didn’t want his wife or him to be added to the “knockout” game statistics?
“Back in the day in the Bronx, fists might have flown but not bullets” – well that was a kinder, gentler time wasn’t it? Thanks to decades of lenient, progressive policies, a significant fraction of the US population has gone feral, with any semblance of reasonable behavior along with it. Normal, law-abiding citizens may be feeling a greater need to be prepared to defend themselves from the feral elements. I know someone who is on Metro Dade PD - from his stories Miami’s morgue has seen many law-abiding citizens and tourists who thought they were in a tropical urban paradise – until they randomly encountered said feral elements.
Just to be clear, I’m not defending Curtis Reeves, I think both parties “acted stupidly”, and Reeves may well be found guilty of 2nd degree murder. But here’s another way this situation could have played out though, not involving firearms: Oulsen gets in Reeve’s face, pushing ensues, 71-yo Reeves slips/falls, hits head on chair arm or ground and dies. Never makes the papers. Why was 43-yo Oulsen so willing to confront 71-yo Reeves instead of ignoring him or just finishing his text?
I posit to you that the underlying question really isn’t about firearms and CCW, it’s really about the breakdown of societal norms, social decorum, and the rise of feral behavior.
"Editor's note: Dr. Azeff will be a regular contributor on medical topics".
Oh, OK, now I get it.
RE: "Where are the stories of self defense?"
As noted above, the MSM avoids reporting stories of self defense by firearms because it goes against the meme.
Even when stories emerge of firearms used in self defense, the MSM frequently lies about the particulars to avoid the impression that firearms are actually useful. For example, in the mass shooting at a shopping mall, a citizen produced a handgun. The bad guy stopped shooting, withdrew, and eventually committed suicide. In the case of a mass shooting in a Philadelphia-area law school, a good guy retrieved his gun and affected an arrest. New reports frequently reported that the good guy "tackled" or "subdued" the shooter and failed to mention the gun.
RonF has it right: the biggest reason why firearms used in self defense don't make the news is simply that the incident is never reported. Bad guys won't report their attempted crimes, and good guys don't want the attention, the risk of prosecution, or the paperwork.
As a personal example, a kid pulled a knife on me once. His biggest mistake was picking me for a target, but his second biggest mistake was tipping his hand that he was going to do it. I was ready for him. When he deployed his weapon, I deployed mine. Mine was better. We were close enough that he could cut me. But my handgun made his plan impossible. (His plan was probably to rob me to get drugs.) So he put the knife away, showed me his hands, backed up, turned, and ran down the street to change his underwear.
Not reported to the police. Not reported to the press. Why? Because there isn't anything to report.
The question is; is throwing the popcorn including the container in someone's face at point blank range assault? Also a second question; is it reasonable to assume that someone who would do something so outrageous as throw popcorn at you might follow it up with a punch or worse? How much punishment should a person absorb before they can defend themselves? Would one box of popcorn thrown point blank followed by a couple of punches be sufficient to "defend" oneself? If the same act took place and no one had a gun would the victim be justified to punch the attacker? If they had pepper spray would they be justified in using it? If they are female or very old or otherwise unable to go toe to toe with an attacker can they then use a gun to stop an attack or are they only allowed to take a beating and make an official complaint if they live through it?
" . . . they [are] only allowed to take a beating and make an official complaint if they live through it."
Very well put; but sadly, that does seem to be the mindset of so many people.
Dear CT Azeff. Or whomever you represent.
You. Are. An asshole.
Life does not exist only at the extreme edges.
while I apreciate the editors exortation to be politically correct, your question begins outside the bounds of reason so I will not adhere to those limits.
Fuck you CT and the other statist assholes like you.
I have a right to life. And liberty. I have the right to defend myself from the predations of those who would do me harm. The situations you describe do not fall into these categories, with the exception of the poor, sad George Zimmerman who had to defend himself from a ruthless thug bent on destruction.
So. I will continue. fug you. You fugging fuc%.
do you find yourself being gut hooked online much?
just so you know, for the sake of the Permanent Record, you're now on the Special List, for when the hammer comes down.
Whoever CT Azeff may be, his style is a poor fit, in my opinion, with Maggies Farm. The regulars would be best counselled to reconsider asking him to post; it's not been worthwhile. I will not read HIS contributions, no matter what topic they may consider.
Actually, I would vote to keep him on. If he is an honest liberal, we can have a civil debate and we can point out errors of fact for each side.
If we cast aside members with different views, we run the risk of creating a self-referential echo chamber and our own ideology can drift away from the boots-on-the-ground reality.
Remember that progressives deal with narrative and if you try to challenge them with facts that contradict that narrative, they will invariably change the subject. This can be a great forum to hold their toes to the fire and to not allow this.
"Where are the stories of self defense?"
Are you asking me to explain why the media, largely anti-gun people, don't print as many stories favoring gun ownership and self-protection with a gun, as they do stories that side with their beliefs?
Sort of obvious.
And CT Azeff remains silent. It's as I and other commenters have suggested: a post on a hot topic and all the buzz words. Provocative for academic purposes?
Usually posters and commenters offer some glimpse into their private lives and beliefs.
Here's me in a succinct way:
Where are you CT, besides being a provocateur?
The arguement that the 9th has recently upheld the 2nd amendment so therefore you have noting to worry about is ludicrious and naive. The very fact that a court has to address unconstitutional laws regarding the 2nd amendment is proof that the 2nd amendment is under attack. In DC you can go to jail for merely having a empty bullet shell, ditto for Massachusetts. New York seems intent on utting away innocent civilians caught up in the maze of unconstitutional anti 2nd amendment laws. Honestly you would think the DA would be embarrassed and ashamed to prosecute an innocent honest citizen with an unconstitutional law that IF you believed those who wrote it was ONLY intended to stop the bad guys. Where is the prosecutorial descretion when it could be used appropriately? Ask yourself why the zealous prosection of honest citizens who stumbled over the maze of unconstitutional laws? Why? If not to intimidate!