Those who live by the sword will die by the sword

[StephanieFox]

Those who live by the sword will die by the sword, or in this case, by the handgun. Gun totin' mom who was packin' at her five-year old daughter's soccer game and husband found dead of gunshot wounds. I feel so sorry for the little orphaned girl.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/08/gun.soccer.mom.dead/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

[Fran]

I couldn't access the link, Stephanie.

Maybe someone can explain why she'd need a gun at a five-year-old's football game. Dodgy refereeing? I don't know why anyone needs one, but that's my British mentality! Because I can't read the link - was it deliberate or accidental? Do the polis know yet?

[jennontheisland]

Same reason you need one at a presidential speech?

[robeiae]

Maybe someone can explain why she'd need a gun at a five-year-old's football game.Because she was a dolt.

That said, I see nothing that indicates she ever shot anyone. And it's not clear from the article who did the shooting in her home. So I don't see her as "living by the sword." In fact, I think her espousal of gun-carrying is pretty much inconsequential, here. Looks like a murder-suicide, and I'd lay odds that the husband shot her, then himself.

[StephanieFox]

I couldn't access the link, Stephanie.

Maybe someone can explain why she'd need a gun at a five-year-old's football game. Dodgy refereeing? I don't know why anyone needs one, but that's my British mentality! Because I can't read the link - was it deliberate or accidental? Do the polis know yet?

I tried the link myself and it works. Try it again. It explains about why she had a gun at the game – basically 'cause she has a right to have a gun and she liked guns a lot. But in case you can't find it, here's a paragraph from the article;

Melanie Hain became an overnight celebrity and, to some, a steward of Second Amendment rights (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/gun_control) when she carried a Glock strapped to her belt to her daughter's soccer game September 11, 2008.
Days later, on September 20, her permit to carry a gun was revoked by Lebanon County Sheriff Michael DeLeo, who claimed that she showed poor judgment at the child's game. County Judge Robert Eby later reinstated the permit. Weisberg, Hain's attorney, said the sheriff's action violated Hain's First, Second, Fourth and 14th Amendment rights.

The police have not yet released the details of the shooting, but it's probably not accidental.

[Don]

What does the story, a possible murder-suicide, have to do with the fact that over a year ago the woman legally exercised her second amendment rights?

What she did at the soccer game, over a year ago, was perfectly legal. As for why she was carrying, it's nobody's business. She. Was. Legal. End of story.

This is reaching, even for CNN.

Next week's headline:

"Man who voted for Ron Paul dies in traffic accident"

[Gretad08]

Ya know, I'm not sure why but, to me, her actions seemed to carry more of an implication of imbalance than the guy at the Obama debate.

Maybe it's b/c there was a political point to be made at the debate by exercising constitutional rights. This Mom, however, just did it to be a PITA (pain in the a##).

I STRONGLY support the right to carry, but I still feel that a certain level of courtesy/decorum needs to be maintained.

Sooooooooo sad that the kids have to live with this mess.

[robeiae]

This is reaching, even for CNN.

Next week's headline:

"Man who voted for Ron Paul dies in traffic accident"
No, no:

"Man who drove car to vote for Ron Paul dies in traffic accident"

See? Now, there's a valid link.

[Fran]

Sorry, Stephanie, the link worked that time. I'm defective. :)

[StephanieFox]

What does the story, a possible murder-suicide, have to do with the fact that over a year ago the woman legally exercised her second amendment rights?

What she did at the soccer game, over a year ago, was perfectly legal. As for why she was carrying, it's nobody's business. She. Was. Legal. End of story.

This is reaching, even for CNN.

Next week's headline:

"Man who voted for Ron Paul dies in traffic accident"

Well, let's see. Hmmm. A couple of people who feel the need to carry guns to even the most peaceful of events end up getting shot, most likely by each other. Few gun owners and advocates find it necessary to pack a piece everywhere they go, whether it's legal or not. I am not surprised that, perhaps in a moment of anger or in a planned assault, gun were used by these people.

Gun advocates will tell you that if you carry a gun, you should be prepared to use it, if necessary. But, once in a while, the guns get used when not necessary.

Your Ron Paul analogy is faulty. Try instead, "Ron Paul Supporter Who Spray Painted Obama and McCain Billbords Dies from Inhaling Paint."

[robeiae]

Well, let's see. Hmmm. A couple of people who feel the need to carry guns to even the most peaceful of events end up getting shot, most likely by each other.I think a murder-suicide is more likely, but it's possible that they shot each other. Few gun owners and advocates find it necessary to pack a piece everywhere they go, whether it's legal or not.True. I am not surprised that, perhaps in a moment of anger or in a planned assault, gun were used by these people.But it happened in their own home, where we can expect that any gun owner would likely have guns their gun(s). So, the carrying a gun stuff is, again, inconsequential.

And still, if she was murdered, there's nothing to suggest that she ever murdered anyone else. Surely, you're not suggesting that she deserved here fate, here.

[M.R.J. Le Blanc]

The way I understand people who advocate the right to carry guns is for protection. Okay fine, whatever. But a soccer game? A soccer game? You're either paranoid or stupid. Just because you can doesn't always mean you should.

[Don]

The way I understand people who advocate the right to carry guns is for protection. Okay fine, whatever. But a soccer game? A soccer game? You're either paranoid or stupid. Just because you can doesn't always mean you should.
Yeah, because mass shooting never occur in places like soccer fields or, say, college classrooms, or other public places.

Ask Suzanna Hupp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzanna_Hupp) her thoughts, perhaps? She was out for dinner and left her handgun in her car as required by law. It cost her the sight of seeing both parents gunned down.

On Wednesday, October 16, 1991, Hupp and her parents were having lunch at the Luby's Cafeteria in Killeen. She had left her handgun in her car to comply with Texas state law at the time which forbade carrying a concealed weapon. When George Hennard drove his truck into the cafeteria and opened fire on the patrons, Hupp instinctively reached into her purse for her weapon, but it was in her vehicle. Her father, Al Gratia, tried to rush Hennard and was shot in the chest. As the gunman reloaded, Hupp escaped through a broken window and believed that her mother, Ursula Gratia, was behind her. Hennard put a gun to her mother's head as she cradled her mortally wounded husband. Hupp's mother and father were killed along with twenty-one other persons. Hennard also wounded some twenty others. As a survivor of the Luby's massacre, Hupp testified across the country in support of concealed-handgun laws. She said that had there been a second chance to prevent the slaughter, she would have violated the Texas law and carried the handgun inside her purse into the restaurant.

[robeiae]

Yeah, because mass shooting never occur in places like soccer fields or, say college classrooms.
Well, the first person I'd worry about doing something like that is the person carrying a gun, Don.

If it was my kid's game, I'd be pissed big time. Leave in the friggin' car. She was being a dolt, there. No reason for an open carry, at all. It's both provocative and stupid, imo.

[Celia Cyanide]

What she did at the soccer game, over a year ago, was perfectly legal. As for why she was carrying, it's nobody's business. She. Was. Legal. End of story.

Whether it's legal or not, people are going to wonder why the hell she did it, and maybe think she's an idiot for doing it. Just because it's legal doesn't mean everyone has to respect it.

[Don]

Well, the first person I'd worry about doing something like that is the person carrying a gun, Don.

If it was my kid's game, I'd be pissed big time. Leave in the friggin' car. She was being a dolt, there. No reason for an open carry, at all. It's both provocative and stupid, imo.
I'll refer you back to Luby's and Ms. Hupp.

[M.R.J. Le Blanc]

Yeah, because mass shooting never occur in places like soccer fields or, say, college classrooms, or other public places.

Ask Suzanna Hupp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzanna_Hupp) her thoughts, perhaps? She was out for dinner and left her handgun in her car as required by law. It cost her the sight of seeing both parents gunned down.

Never said they didn't. But are you going to tell me they happen often enough to start meriting carrying around guns? Should parents send their kids to school with handguns in case some mentally disturbed person rolls up with a gun to shoot down the school? Don't get me wrong, what Ms. Hupp had to witness was terrible, and I truly feel for her. However you can't tell me that gun would have assured her of anything because I highly doubt that person would have stopped shooting upon seeing a gun pointed back at him. What if she missed? What if that guy had shot directly at her upon seeing her with a gun? What if it had been her gunned down instead of her parents? Police get in shootouts all the time and casualties still happen on the force. Training doesn't prepare you for real-life scenarios like this.

[rugcat]

What she did at the soccer game, over a year ago, was perfectly legal. As for why she was carrying, it's nobody's business. She. Was. Legal. End of story.See, what we're talking about here is irony.

Those who are particularly vocal and adamant about gun rights, to the degree where they pull inflammatory stunts like carrying a loaded sidearm to a kids soccer game are also the most vocal about the protective virtues of gun ownership and availability.

They challenge the statistics that show possessing a gun is actually more dangerous than not -- accidents and domestic violence involving guns account for far more deaths than do home invasions.

So when this woman herself becomes an unfortunate statistic of gun violence (and it does look like a murder suicide) it is rather ironic, no?

[robeiae]

I'll refer you back to Luby's and Ms. Hupp.
I'd refer you back to what I said: open carry.

Regardless, the idea that Hupp could have prevented the incident, had she her gun, is just speculation. Perhaps she would have just ended up as another casualty.

And it's still STUPID to have a presumably loaded gun in the open around young children. Suppose she sat down and it slipped out...or little hands managed to relieve her of it?

Stupid. And mostly just provocative. Me, I don't like having morons representing for the Second...

[jennontheisland]

Stupid. And mostly just provocative. Me, I don't like having morons representing for the Second...
See, the trouble with this statement, imo, is that just about any private citizen who carries a loaded firearm openly in a public place is a moron whether or not they are representing the Second.

[Snowstorm]

The issue I think is not that this woman carried the gun. Big deal, she packs a gun. The issue for me is she had this "Look at me, I'm packin'!" attitude by ensuring everyone knew it.

If she were more interested in self-protection and exercising her rights, she could have just carried concealed (assuming she had a concealed carry permit). No one needed to know she was carrying. After all, if her intent was self-protection, the best quote I've ever come across is: "Forewarned is forearmed." Any bad guy would know he'd need to take her out first. But, I'd wager self-protection were not her intent.

[AMCrenshaw]

All I'm saying here is don't blame the victim.






AMC


(btw, these folks lived about a half-hour from me)

[raburrell]

I'm about as anti-gun as they get, so under normal circumstances, I'd say this woman was a whackjob... but isn't it possible the person she was trying to scare off by displaying the gun was that POS husband of hers?

[jennontheisland]

The issue I think is not that this woman carried the gun. Big deal, she packs a gun. The issue for me is she had this "Look at me, I'm packin'!" attitude by ensuring everyone knew it.
Isn't that the point of an open carry? To make sure people know you're armed? How can a person walk around with a revolver strapped to their hip and claim they aren't doing it so everyone will know they're carrying a weapon?

[Celia Cyanide]

Stupid. And mostly just provocative. Me, I don't like having morons representing for the Second...

I would equate this kind of thing with having an abortion just to make a point, just because it's a protected right, and just because you can. I do believe in both of those rights, but I think they should be taken seriously, and are not to be used for obnoxiousness.

[Williebee]

The Luby's reference doesn't hold, Don, because a kid's soccer game is not, as Stephanie put it " the most peaceful of events". Only the slightest bit of humor intended.

Still, faulty judgement then doesn't necessarily equate to anything now.


The link indicates that the cops aren't calling it a murder - suicide yet, and aren't saying who shot who if it was. I suspect that historical numbers would back up Rob's idea that husband shot wife, and then himself. We'll know soon enough.

[M.R.J. Le Blanc]

Openly carrying a gun isn't a deterrent; it's a target. As far as I'm concerned, unless you have a badge you have no need to have a gun out in the open where everyone and their mother can see.

[robeiae]

See, the trouble with this statement, imo, is that just about any private citizen who carries a loaded firearm openly in a public place is a moron whether or not they are representing the Second.
Why is that "trouble"? I agree.

[Snowstorm]

Isn't that the point of an open carry? To make sure people know you're armed? How can a person walk around with a revolver strapped to their hip and claim they aren't doing it so everyone will know they're carrying a weapon?

Depends. When I'm in the mountains, I'm going to open carry so I don't have to fumble with "Wait, bear, hold on. Zipper's stuck ...." No big deal. In my little burg in the mountains, there's a lot of open carry. Hunters, personal protection, whatever; it's not necessarily to warn anyone. No big deal. Open carry to a kid's soccer game, IMHO, she was making a statement of "look at me" to everyone, not just for her own appreciation of guns or exercising her right.

[jennontheisland]

Open carry to a kid's soccer game, IMHO, she was making a statement of "look at me" to everyone, not just for her own appreciation of guns or exercising her right.
Yeah, um, that was my point.

[jennontheisland]

Why is that "trouble"? I agree.
So only morons will walk around claiming to be representing the Second.

I agree.

[robeiae]

So only morons will walk around claiming to be representing the Second by openly carrying a gun for no justifiable reason.

I agree.Fixed it.

You don't like the second? Good enough. But don't think you're gonna trip me up on this. ;)

[jennontheisland]

How else can they represent the second?

[robeiae]

How else can they represent the second?
Join the NRA? Own a gun that's kept locked in a trunk in the attic without ammo? Speak up for the Second, when appropriate?

[Snowstorm]

Yeah, um, that was my point.

Your initial comment to me that the ONLY reason to open carry was to notify others [you wrote: "Isn't that the point of an open carry? To make sure people know you're armed?"]. In response to that, I wrote there are other reasons.

[Celia Cyanide]

I think you 3 are all agreeing with each other. And me :)

[Andrew]

See, what we're talking about here is irony.

Those who are particularly vocal and adamant about gun rights, to the degree where they pull inflammatory stunts like carrying a loaded sidearm to a kids soccer game are also the most vocal about the protective virtues of gun ownership and availability.

They challenge the statistics that show possessing a gun is actually more dangerous than not -- accidents and domestic violence involving guns account for far more deaths than do home invasions.

So when this woman herself becomes an unfortunate statistic of gun violence (and it does look like a murder suicide) it is rather ironic, no?

It doesn't matter. We (American citizens) have the right to own firearms.
I choose to own. I choose not to carry.

[rugcat]

It doesn't matter. We (American citizens) have the right to own firearms.
I choose to own. I choose not to carry. But it does matter. The right to own firearms is not totally unrestricted, any more than is the right of free speech. It's where the lines are drawn that is the battle.

And I don't think this incident proves anything either way. Just ironic, that's all.

[StephanieFox]

Most (note I said most, so there's no need to post rare exceptions) private citizens who feel they need to carry a gun around with them to protect themselves are paranoid and a paranoid person is the last person who should be carrying a gun. Of course they are often the last to realize this.

They have the right to do so, but that doesn't mean they should.

I'm a 5'2" and practically an old lady. I've never felt the need to protect myself with a gun. Drug dealers, muggers and other bad people back off when they see me. If I can do it, so can anyone.

Woof! Woof! Woof!

[clintl]

I never have felt the need to own a gun for protection, either. Of course, I live in a town where we've had one murder in the last 10 years. So I'm not too worried about my safety.

[robeiae]

Btw:

Murder-suicide (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33245133/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/).

[backslashbaby]

^^^ That's a scary article. Wow.

Did y'all notice from the first article that the Soccer Game incident might have had to do with her death?

Days later [after the game], on September 20, her permit to carry a gun was revoked by Lebanon County Sheriff Michael DeLeo, who claimed that she showed poor judgment at the child's game. County Judge Robert Eby later reinstated the permit.

Weisberg, Hain's attorney, said the sheriff's action violated Hain's First, Second, Fourth and 14th Amendment rights.

A lawsuit was filed against DeLeo on Hain's behalf for compensatory damages. She sought punitive and statutory damages, Weisberg said, along with reimbursement of attorneys' fees and lost wages.
Although Weisberg called the Hains a "loving" and "unified" couple, he said that about four months ago, Meleanie Hain told him that they were separating and that she wanted to remove his name from the $1 million lawsuit.

[dgiharris]

See, the trouble with this statement, imo, is that just about any private citizen who carries a loaded firearm openly in a public place is a moron whether or not they are representing the Second.

As long as someone has the right training and tempermant and is following the law, then I have no problem with open carry at a child's soccer game.

The problem I have is that it seems there is a 'gap' in the law and that there is no standardized training or training requirement for open carry.

Some quick google fu reveals that all you have to do to open carry in PA is fill out a stupid form to get a license.

Thus, that is my problem. You need training/testing to get a driver's license, yet all you need for a gun license is to fill out a form.

Anyways, i'm all for the 2nd amendment, but within reason, IMHO, that includes mandatory training/vetting ESPECIALLY in the matters of open carry. As is, there is a hole in regards to this whole issue that needs filling.

So, if a person had this training/vetting and was cleared to open carry, then I have no problem with them open carrying anywhere. But if all you need to do to open carry is to fill out some form.... Then I have a problem with that.

Mel...

[Celia Cyanide]

So, if a person had this training/vetting and was cleared to open carry, then I have no problem with them open carrying anywhere. But if all you need to do to open carry is to fill out some form.... Then I have a problem with that.

Didn't you have a problem with people open carrying near the President?

[dgiharris]

Didn't you have a problem with people open carrying near the President?

Absolutely.

Open carrying around the President brings about an unacceptable amount of risk endangering the security of the President.

It creates an environment upon which resources required to maintain security increase geometrically. For every person with a gun, you probably have three or more agents focusing on said person. You can easily compromise security with ten or so people with open carry while the real 'threats' are now enabled to get close and attack the President.

This is a completely 100% different scenario then open carry at a soccer game.

In a nutshell, I find very few absolutes in the universe. I am a proponent to open carry, but only with strict requirements and only in 99% of situations. Open carry around public officials in emotionally charged arenas in which security is a concern fall under the 1% of where it should not be allowed.

Mel...

PS. My training/vetting requirement would also state that you can't open carry around senior public officials in which security is a concern.

[Romantic Heretic]

I'm now thinking of the finishing lines of one of my favorite comfort reads (http://www.amazon.com/At-Any-Price-Hammers-Slammers/dp/0671559788/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255125425&sr=8-1).

"That's right, sir. You have to know exactly what you're doing before you decide to use guns."

[Celia Cyanide]

Absolutely.

Open carrying around the President brings about an unacceptable amount of risk endangering the security of the President.

It creates an environment upon which resources required to maintain security increase geometrically. For every person with a gun, you probably have three or more agents focusing on said person. You can easily compromise security with ten or so people with open carry while the real 'threats' are now enabled to get close and attack the President.

This is a completely 100% different scenario then open carry at a soccer game.

Yes, it is, but the open carry laws applies in both instances. It's legal in both cases, and I also have a problem with it.

[dgiharris]

Yes, it is, but the open carry laws applies in both instances. It's legal in both cases, and I also have a problem with it.

There are a host of instances where citizens are required to forgoe their rights under specific circumstances.

We do that all the time. No right is 100% absolute 100% of the time.

If I know the names of CIA operatives working undercover, do I have the 'right' to say their names on my youtube video?

If I'm driving down the street and an ambulance with sirens blaring comes up behind me, do I have the 'right' to continue onward or must I yield the right of way?

If I am walking to the movies and a citizen is injured in front of me with a life threatening injury, can I just ignore them and proceed to my movie or must I render some form of aid and call for help?

So the argument that because something is legal it holds 100% of the time is not true. We make exceptions all the time and or unique circumstances can trump our rights. And I think it is more than acceptible to require that open carry around the President and any senior government official upon which security is a concern, should be illegal.

I do not think that is unreasonable.

Mel...

[Fran]

I just find the different psychology (if that's the right term) completely fascinating. Show your average Brit a gun and they'd wet themselves. Americans, in general, are much more comfortable with them. Our regular polis aren't armed, our average gang won't have guns (stabbing is so much more interactive, dontya think?) and no one in their right mind would take a gun to a football match, let alone a kid's football match. I know many of you are saying that Ms Hain acted inappropriately, but the fact is she was acting within the law of the state she lived in. Handguns are against the law here. NO private citizen in the UK can own a handgun, for any reason, unless it's a certified antique, and therefore unable to be fired.

I'm not naive enough to think there are no guns in the UK, and it could be argued making them all illegal has just glamourised them further, particularly since it's hard to find an American TV programme where SOMEONE isn't waving a gun around. But your common or garden Brit will NEVER see a real gun in their life. Personally, I'm f'ing terrified of them so the ban makes no odds to me.

I don't mean to say gun ownership is bad, because I expect the vast majority of Americans who own one are responsible. It's when the US has laws that allows irresponsible people to own weapons that it worries me. But you can't punish the majority because a minority are nuts because you have the Constitution. Our government can do what it likes. Hooray. I think...

[Romantic Heretic]

Firearms are like all tools. To be used well they require training, intelligence, wisdom, restraint and care.

Using them as an ego prop, which is what they are used for too often, is a very bad idea.

[Duncan J Macdonald]

All three of your examples below are flawed to some extent.

There are a host of instances where citizens are required to forgoe their rights under specific circumstances.

We do that all the time. No right is 100% absolute 100% of the time. Rights are, by definition, 100% absolute 100% of the time.

If I know the names of CIA operatives working undercover, do I have the 'right' to say their names on my youtube video?Yes. If your YouTube video is a legitimate declaration of political disagreement with the government, it is covered under free speech.

If I'm driving down the street and an ambulance with sirens blaring comes up behind me, do I have the 'right' to continue onward or must I yield the right of way?False analogy. Operating a motor vehicle is not a right, but a privledge.

If I am walking to the movies and a citizen is injured in front of me with a life threatening injury, can I just ignore them and proceed to my movie or must I render some form of aid and call for help?Yes. There is no absolute reason for you to stop and render aid. You may be morally required to do so, however.

So the argument that because something is legal it holds 100% of the time is not true.
Something being legal and something being a right are two completely different things. Are there times when exercising my rights may land me on the wrong side of the law? Yes. See Selma Alabama for a sterling example.

We make exceptions all the time and or unique circumstances can trump our rights. And I think it is more than acceptible to require that open carry around the President and any senior government official upon which security is a concern, should be illegal.

I do not think that is unreasonable.
With regard to the Second Amendment, which part of "...shall not be infringed." is unclear?


Disclaimer: I'm a retired Naval officer, and I received training on both hand guns and long guns. I qualified "Expert" at pistol, and "Sharpshooter" with an M-14. I hold a current Concealed Handgun Permit in Virginia. I firmly believe that the words of the Second Amendment need no further interpretation.

[clintl]

That's not the part of the Second Amendment that's unclear. It's the garbled bunch of words that come before it.

[MattW]

Those who live by the Constitution, die by the Constitution.

[blacbird]

Back to the focus of the OP, this story really has nothing whatever to do with the possession or display or lack thereof, of firearms. It is nothing more than a regrettably sordid and common story of domestic violence, which made news only because this woman had made herself a spectacle a few weeks ago, via her theatricals at the soccer field. Barring that, it would have been a back-page two-inch story in any major city newspaper.

caw

[dgiharris]

Your replies are flawed to some extent :D


Rights are, by definition, 100% absolute 100% of the time.


Definitions and reality are two different things.


Yes. If your YouTube video is a legitimate declaration of political disagreement with the government, it is covered under free speech.

How many reporters have served jail time for things 'covered' by free speech.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/10/judy-miller-fox.html

Similarly, there are 'numerous' examples of rights being infringed upon under the umbrella of National Security.

And if you go on youtube and release classified information that puts America's national security at risk, have fun banging that 1st Amendment drum while you're sitting in jail.

And lets not forget when a judge issues a gag order expressly FORBIDDEN you to exercise your first amendment right as pertains to a trail. Which again, makes my point, there are circumstances upon which our 'rights' may be curtailed. It happens all the time. Nice try though :)


False analogy. Operating a motor vehicle is not a right, but a privledge.

Fair point. I concede


Yes. There is no absolute reason for you to stop and render aid. You may be morally required to do so, however.
Actually, yes there is. In some states, you are LEGALLY required to help under 'their' versions/amendments to the Good Samaritan law.

http://firstaid.about.com/od/medicallegal/f/07_good_sam_law.htm


Not all good Samaritan laws limit protection of untrained rescuers. Vermont provides immunity from liability specifically for untrained rescuers, as long as they don't screw up really badly (defined as gross negligence). However, Vermont is unique in another way. All other states provide immunity if a person chooses to help, but do not require us to aid our fellow humans. Vermont does, however -- the state's good Samaritan law actually orders citizens to help those in need.




Something being legal and something being a right are two completely different things. Are there times when exercising my rights may land me on the wrong side of the law? Yes. See Selma Alabama for a sterling example.

Ahh, here we go. We will never be able to agree if your definition of right has nothing to do with the law. If you do something and it lands you in jail, then it is not a 'right'. I mean, by that definition I can smoke crack at church because it's my 'right' and if they arrest me that is just a consequence of me being on the wrong side of the law? WTF?

If 'something' is your 'right' then that means you are able to do that 'something' without fear of reprisal or punishment from the authorative body in charge.

Otherwise, it is not a right. That is how I see it.

Mel...

[Don]

Mel, maybe this bit from Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights) will help.
Legal rights (sometimes also called civil rights or statutory rights) are rights conveyed by a particular polity, codified into legal statutes by some form of legislature (or unenumerated but implied from enumerated rights), and as such are contingent upon local laws, customs, or beliefs. In contrast, natural rights (also called moral rights or inalienable rights) are rights which are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of a particular society or polity. Natural rights are thus necessarily universal, whereas legal rights are culturally and politically relative.
Duncan is speaking of natural rights. You're speaking of legal rights.

The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution speak of natural rights, which of course have fallen out of favor with the political machine, since they limit the power of government.

ETA: You have a natural right to say anything anywhere -- including shouting fire in a crowded theatre. However, if governments are not supporters of natural rights, you may have to suffer the consequences. That does not negate your natural right, however.

[blacbird]

Yes. If your YouTube video is a legitimate declaration of political disagreement with the government, it is covered under free speech.

Your problem here (and your escape) is obviously the definition of the term "legitimate". Define, please.

caw

[Don]

That's not the part of the Second Amendment that's unclear. It's the garbled bunch of words that come before it.
So you've never seen a sentence with an explanatory preamble before?

Gee, they were real common (http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/common.htm) in the writing back then.

For example, does this mean that only the press has free speech, or that it must be printed to qualify?
The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish his sentiments on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty.

Here's a little more clarification as to meaning -- by the man who wrote the words.

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper No. 46.)

And this, from a letter from Jefferson to Madison.

"What country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." (Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Dec. 20, 1787, in Papers of Jefferson, ed. Boyd et al.)


Maybe that will help. :)

[smcc360]

Most (note I said most, so there's no need to post rare exceptions) private citizens who feel they need to carry a gun around with them to protect themselves are paranoid and a paranoid person is the last person who should be carrying a gun.

That's an interesting statement. What percentage of private citizens does 'most' encompass?

[clintl]

So you've never seen a sentence with an explanatory preamble before?



Oh, I've seen them before. It's just rare that they are badly written as that one is.

[clintl]

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper No. 46.)

And this, from a letter from Jefferson to Madison.

"What country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." (Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Dec. 20, 1787, in Papers of Jefferson, ed. Boyd et al.)


Maybe that will help. :)

So they obviously had the talent to write a coherent preample. One has to wonder why those chose incoherency instead.

[Duncan J Macdonald]

That's not the part of the Second Amendment that's unclear. It's the garbled bunch of words that come before it.
Sorry to be so late in responding -- I was away over the weekend to the wilds of West Virginia, where even cell phones don't roam.

Anyway, I was responding to
Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;"> Originally Posted by dgiharris http://absolutewrite.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4131748#post4131748)
We make exceptions all the time and or unique circumstances can trump our rights. And I think it is more than acceptible [sic] to require that open carry around the President and any senior government official upon which security is a concern, should be illegal.

I do not think that is unreasonable.
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>
That's infringement, that is.

[Duncan J Macdonald]

Ahh, here we go. We will never be able to agree if your definition of right has nothing to do with the law. If you do something and it lands you in jail, then it is not a 'right'. I mean, by that definition I can smoke crack at church because it's my 'right' and if they arrest me that is just a consequence of me being on the wrong side of the law? WTF?

If 'something' is your 'right' then that means you are able to do that 'something' without fear of reprisal or punishment from the authorative [sic] body in charge.

Otherwise, it is not a right. That is how I see it.

Mel...

Well, laws devolve from rights, not vice versa.

Specifically, the rights in question are those stated in the US Constitution.

My point about rights/laws is that there are laws on the books that are unconstitutional, that have not yet been challenged and struck down yet.

[Duncan J Macdonald]

Your problem here (and your escape) is obviously the definition of the term "legitimate". Define, please.

caw
Legitimate Political Disagreement? I disagree with the Federal Government, and I publish/speak my disagreements.

Non-real-life example:

As a member of the National Make Me Emperor for Life Party, I decry the extent to which the CIA performs domestic intelligence gathering operations. In order to curb these flagrant violations of statute, I release a manifesto denouncing those operatives, by name, so that my fellow MMEL brethren/sisthren can avoid interacting with them.

Question: Free Speech or not? (Y/N)

[rugcat]

Legitimate Political Disagreement? I disagree with the Federal Government, and I publish/speak my disagreements.

Non-real-life example:

As a member of the National Make Me Emperor for Life Party, I decry the extent to which the CIA performs domestic intelligence gathering operations. In order to curb these flagrant violations of statute, I release a manifesto denouncing those operatives, by name, so that my fellow MMEL brethren/sisthren can avoid interacting with them.

Question: Free Speech or not? (Y/N)Real Life example:

In the sixties, underground newspapers sometimes discovered and published the true names and home addresses of undercover narcotics officers.

Free speech or not?

[Duncan J Macdonald]

Real Life example:

In the sixties, underground newspapers sometimes discovered and published the true names and home addresses of undercover narcotics officers.

Free speech or not?
Free Speech

[rugcat]

The current Mexican drug cartel wars are such that if a newspaper were to do this, the immediate result would be the death of both the agents and their families. Not just a possibility, a certainty.

Just too bad for them? Freedom of speech (or the press) should trump all?

[Celia Cyanide]

Free Speech


Well, golly, if all this stuff is so easy that we can decide it right here in the PC&E forum, what the heck do we need courts for?

[Duncan J Macdonald]

The current Mexican drug cartel wars are such that if a newspaper were to do this, the immediate result would be the death of both the agents and their families. Not just a possibility, a certainty.

Just too bad for them? Freedom of speech (or the press) should trump all?

I'm a hard-liner on this. If the Cartels take out an agent's family, take out one of theirs.

But as to the point that you're trying to raise here, yes there is a heirarchy of rights. Opinions differ on which should be on top.

[Duncan J Macdonald]

Well, golly, if all this stuff is so easy that we can decide it right here in the PC&E forum, what the heck do we need courts for?

An excellent start. We'd also need to cut down on lawyers (without courts, don't need 'em).

Then add in politicians.

[Rowan]

The issue I think is not that this woman carried the gun. Big deal, she packs a gun. The issue for me is she had this "Look at me, I'm packin'!" attitude by ensuring everyone knew it.

If she were more interested in self-protection and exercising her rights, she could have just carried concealed (assuming she had a concealed carry permit). No one needed to know she was carrying. After all, if her intent was self-protection, the best quote I've ever come across is: "Forewarned is forearmed." Any bad guy would know he'd need to take her out first. But, I'd wager self-protection were not her intent.

I agree... concealed carry being the key phrase. I'm not sure why she felt the need to flaunt the fact that she was carrying. However, I don't think she 'deserved' her fate or "lived by the sword/died by the sword". Nobody deserves to be murdered..................I just think she used poor judgement.

[Rowan]

Most (note I said most, so there's no need to post rare exceptions) private citizens who feel they need to carry a gun around with them to protect themselves are paranoid and a paranoid person is the last person who should be carrying a gun. Of course they are often the last to realize this.

They have the right to do so, but that doesn't mean they should.

I'm a 5'2" and practically an old lady. I've never felt the need to protect myself with a gun. Drug dealers, muggers and other bad people back off when they see me. If I can do it, so can anyone.

Woof! Woof! Woof!

Wow. Rare exceptions? We had this discussion in my Interview thread re: home break-ins but as a private citizen - and former federal agent - who does carry (CCW permit), I strongly disagree with your statement (and I find it offensive). I'm a single woman who often runs early morning/at night due to my work schedule and if I choose to carry a firearm for protection that doesn't make me paranoid. Not five miles from where I live a couple was attacked, the husband brutally beaten to death and the wife raped and left for dead. And this was an affluent neighborhood. http://www.loudouni.com/news/breaking-news/2009-03-23/murder-lansdowne
http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local-beat/Alleged-Gang-Members-Arrested-in-Lansdowne-Murder.html

I'm not sure what else to say. I suppose at 5'6" and as a former Marine/Federal Agent I'm just not as a tough as you that I can scare thugs off with a well-aimed glare.

[Romantic Heretic]

I'm a hard-liner on this. If the Cartels take out an agent's family, take out one of theirs.

But as to the point that you're trying to raise here, yes there is a heirarchy of rights. Opinions differ on which should be on top.
So, execution without a trial then? Being related to a criminal is a crime?

Interesting.

[Rowan]

The current Mexican drug cartel wars are such that if a newspaper were to do this, the immediate result would be the death of both the agents and their families. Not just a possibility, a certainty.

Just too bad for them? Freedom of speech (or the press) should trump all?

I was going to post a lengthy comment but I decided to refrain (way off topic)... Anyone ever hear of Enrique "Kiki" Camarena?
Freedom of Speech/Press doesn't trump all.

ETA: I meant to quote Duncan J Macdonald post as I agree w/Rug Rat's implication --- OOPS!:
I'm a hard-liner on this. If the Cartels take out an agent's family, take out one of theirs.

But as to the point that you're trying to raise here, yes there is a heirarchy of rights. Opinions differ on which should be on top.

[EgyptianGoddess]

............I'm just not as a tough as you that I can scare thugs off with a well-aimed glare.


OMG, I almost spewed on my monitor!!!:D

[Justin91]

I'm just not as a tough as you that I can scare thugs off with a well-aimed glare.

I had to laugh at this too...I wish I lived in a land where a glare from my wife would protect her from harm...

[Rowan]

I had to laugh at this too...I wish I lived in a land where a glare from my wife would protect her from harm...

I was a little fired up (no pun intended)... ;) I wish I did too!

EgyptianGoddess: No spewing. :)

[EgyptianGoddess]

........EG: No spewing.

Too late.......tossing paper towel covered with Windex and spit into trash can

[dgiharris]

Well, laws devolve from rights, not vice versa.

Specifically, the rights in question are those stated in the US Constitution.

My point about rights/laws is that there are laws on the books that are unconstitutional, that have not yet been challenged and struck down yet.

I think I understand the spirit and intent of your logic regarding rights.

And I apologize for sounding condescending, but it's been my experience that absolutes just don't work well in this universe.

I will concede that 99.8% of the time, a Right is a Right and should not be infringed upon. But there is always that 0.2% in which the Rights SHOULD be infringed given the uniqueness of the circumstance.

However, what proponents of absolutes like to do is take that 0.2% scenario and then try to expand it to a slippery slope to which we are under the heels of oppressive overseers and now have no rights. And that is not what I am proposing.

The reason why a 100% condition is not reasonable is because in this universe, you pay an extremely high cost to get that 100%.

I'm not sure if you are familiar with engineering, but there is a phenonmena known as tolerancing.

When you design something with a dimension, lets say a 22 inch wheel, the wheel is not 22 inches. It is really 22 inches +/- 0.1% inches.

Now, lets say you are adamant about getting a wheel that is 100% 22 inches, well you pay a cost. And that cost goes up exponentially once you reach a threshold.

22.03 inch wheel costs you $92
22.02 inch wheel costs you $93
22.01 inch wheel will costs you $100
22.001 inch wheel will costs you $1,000
22.0001 inch wheel will costs you $10,000
22.00001 inch wheel will costs you $100,000 and so forth.

I believe the same things happen with Rights.

Rights applying 99.7% of the time costs a society $Y x 9.9
Rights applying 99.8% of the time costs a society $Y x 10
Rights applying 99.9% of the time costs a society $Y x 100
Rights applying 99.99% of the time costs a society $Y x 1,000
Rights applying 99.999% of the time costs a society $Y x 10,000

And since society does not have an infinite 'checkbook' there is a point where society cannot pay the cost for Rights applying 100% of the time.

Mel...

[Duncan J Macdonald]

So, execution without a trial then? Being related to a criminal is a crime?

Interesting.

Being related to an undercover police officer is a crime?

Interesting.

[dgiharris]

So how does my above rant apply to arguments. Take Rugcats example of printing the names of DEA operatives.

The cost of that 'right' will cost the lives of whomever is printed. Similarly, printing those names does incalcuable harm to one of the legal agencies charged with protecting the nation and enforcing laws.

That cost can easily be calculated as being in the Millions not to mention the lives of the human beings that are printed on that list.

So, is this cost exceptable to the society in question?

In this case, no. It is not. This falls under that narrow 0.2% realm I talked about earlier.

Now, conversely, lets look at the Civil Rights Movement.

Minorities were not getting proper treatment as dictated by the constitution. The Law was against them.

Minorities (whites included) staged an indefinite moral war of attrition against the government. This war cost the government BILLIONS of dollars in man-hours, resources, opportunity cost, etc, etc.

So the 'cost' to society was too great and as such had no choice but to acquiesce. That is, society could no longer bear this cost (there are other considerations but just looking at this from a cost standpoint)

So in conclusion, cost is the primary factor limiting or granting application of Rights (whether approval or denial). THere are various types of cost, whether they be monetary, man-hours, resources, etc but they are costs all the same. And as you approach 100% costs grow exponentially to the point where a society cannot bear them and that is why Rights 'cannot' be 100% all the time IMO.

Mel...

[rugcat]

Being related to an undercover police officer is a crime?

Interesting.Your previous post seemed to say you thought that targeting the families of criminals who had targeted families of narcotics officers was an acceptable solution. I assume that would include the children of the cartel members.

I'm a hard-liner on this. If the Cartels take out an agent's family, take out one of theirs.
Did I misunderstand you?

[Duncan J Macdonald]

I think I understand the spirit and intent of your logic regarding rights.

And I apologize for sounding condescending, but it's been my experience that absolutes just don't work well in this universe.

I will concede that 99.8% of the time, a Right is a Right and should not be infringed upon. But there is always that 0.2% in which the Rights SHOULD be infringed given the uniqueness of the circumstance.

Here we disagree. 100% of the time, a Right is a Right. There may exist a remote possibility that a given Right may take precedence over another Right, but such conflicts need to be kept to a minimum.

However, what proponents of absolutes like to do is take that 0.2% scenario and then try to expand it to a slippery slope to which we are under the heels of oppressive overseers and now have no rights. And that is not what I am proposing.

The reason why a 100% condition is not reasonable is because in this universe, you pay an extremely high cost to get that 100%.

Contrarywise, what the proponents of "sometimes, rights need to be constrained" do is take that 0.2% scenario and expand it to 98.2% -- at that point we fall under the heels of opressive overseers.

I'm not sure if you are familiar with engineering, but there is a phenonmena known as tolerancing.

My undergrad degree(s) are in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, with minors in Math and History. My Masters is in Computer Science.

When you design something with a dimension, lets say a 22 inch wheel, the wheel is not 22 inches. It is really 22 inches +/- 0.1% inches.

Snip the wheel. In digital signaling, any voltage over a given level (say 5.0 volts DC (+/- .2) is considered a 'One' and anyhting at 0.0 volts DC (+/- .2) is considered a 'Zero'.

A non-dimming light switch (simple make/break) has two states when operating correctly.

Yes, in machining, tolerances matter, and the tighter the tolerance, the more expensive the process -- right now I work as a Defense Contractor, and I see how much the DoD pays for some of the MilSpec tolerances they require.

I believe the same things happen with Rights.

Rights applying 99.7% of the time costs a society $Y x 9.9
Rights applying 99.8% of the time costs a society $Y x 10
Rights applying 99.9% of the time costs a society $Y x 100
Rights applying 99.99% of the time costs a society $Y x 1,000
Rights applying 99.999% of the time costs a society $Y x 10,000

And since society does not have an infinite 'checkbook' there is a point where society cannot pay the cost for Rights applying 100% of the time.


In my view, turn that table upside down.

Rights Applying 100% of the time costs a society $Y x 1
Rights Applying 99.999% of the time costs society $Y x 10
Rights Applying 99.99% of the time costs society $Y x 100
Rights Applying 99.9% of the time costs society $Y x 1,000
Rights Applying 99.8% of the time costs society $Y x 10,000

I will agree that society does not have an infinite checkbook -- and there is a point where not only can society not pay for rights to apply less and less, but that a point will be reached where society will shatter and cease to exist.

[dgiharris]

In my view, turn that table upside down.

Rights Applying 100% of the time costs a society $Y x 1
Rights Applying 99.999% of the time costs society $Y x 10
Rights Applying 99.99% of the time costs society $Y x 100
Rights Applying 99.9% of the time costs society $Y x 1,000
Rights Applying 99.8% of the time costs society $Y x 10,000

I will agree that society does not have an infinite checkbook -- and there is a point where not only can society not pay for rights to apply less and less, but that a point will be reached where society will shatter and cease to exist.

The only examples I can think of where denying a right resulted in costs are the civil rights movement.

Conversely, I can think of infinite examples where 100% granting of a right can cost society an infinite amount of money.

I mean, if I have the plans for a new cheaper process for enriching Uranium and posted that process on my Website, I cost the US government Billions of dollars while undermining the National Security of the Nation.

that seems a bit grandiose just so little ol me can thump my chest, extend a middle finger to Uncle Sam, and proclaim my website is awesome.

Should society have to bear that cost because of my 100% right?

I'm quite comfortable with my rights applying 99.8% of the time, because for 99.999% of the population, we will never be in that 0.2% and if we ever are in that 0.2% category, then the circumstances will be so unique that the vast majority of us will have no problem relinquishing our rights for the greater good.

When I'm driving and an ambulance is behind me, I have absolutely no problem pulling over to the side of the road.

As a journalist with the names of all the DEA undercover operatives, I'd have absolutely no problem with NOT printing those names as the harm to the nation I print for would be incalculable.

Conversely, I would consider it reckless to the extreme to exercise any right that will have a substantial negative consequence to the society upon which those rights have been granted to you in the first place.

Kinda like a Catch-22. Your mom says you can have anything you want for your birthday so you decide to hire a hitman to kill her just because you 'can'.

hmmmm... o.k. maybe not the best example but it makes my point, well, sorta, o.k. enough alcohol for the day.

Mel...

[robeiae]

Nothing quite like watching engineers argue about the proper extent of natural and civil rights. Though I guess you guys could be civil engineers...

:roll:

I slay myself.

[Romantic Heretic]

Being related to an undercover police officer is a crime?

Interesting.
No, killing a relative of an undercover police officer is a crime. But I still want them charged and convicted in a court of law.

Are you willing to live in a country where the government can kill you on suspicion? Or because you're related to someone who is suspicious?

What you seem to be saying is that the right to free speech is more important than good sense. If I knew someone was an undercover policeman and that his family and him or herself was in danger if I told anyone, I'd keep my mouth shut.

Just because I have the right to free speech doen't mean I have to exercise it.

[Duncan J Macdonald]

No, killing a relative of an undercover police officer is a crime. But I still want them charged and convicted in a court of law.

Are you willing to live in a country where the government can kill you on suspicion? Or because you're related to someone who is suspicious?

In the example posed, one of the actors was a Mexican Drug Cartel. That moves the discussion to international relations, and there is no viable international court. Kind of hard to get convictions that way.

To answer the question, no I'm not. But I am perfectly willing to live in a country where foreign issues are dealt with directly.

What you seem to be saying is that the right to free speech is more important than good sense. If I knew someone was an undercover policeman and that his family and him or herself was in danger if I told anyone, I'd keep my mouth shut.

Just because I have the right to free speech doen't mean I have to exercise it.

Quoted for truth, and bolding mine. You have that right -- no one else is taking it from you.

[Duncan J Macdonald]

Nothing quite like watching engineers argue about the proper extent of natural and civil rights. Though I guess you guys could be civil engineers...

:roll:

I slay myself.

Given some of the staff meetings I've been in, we're being very civil. But, if you want to see fireworks, I could start a discussion on left-handed quarks...

[Bartholomew]

Well, the first person I'd worry about doing something like that is the person carrying a gun, Don.

If it was my kid's game, I'd be pissed big time. Leave in the friggin' car. She was being a dolt, there. No reason for an open carry, at all. It's both provocative and stupid, imo.

Eh... I think an armed, honest citizen of good intent should be present at all public locations, whether or not that person is officially involved in law enforcement.

[smcc360]

Wow. Rare exceptions? We had this discussion in my Interview thread re: home break-ins but as a private citizen - and former federal agent - who does carry (CCW permit), I strongly disagree with your statement (and I find it offensive).

That's why I'm curious as to StephanieFox's source for her assertion. I can't imagine it's the kind of statistic someone would simply pull out of the air, based on nothing but personal opinion.

[Don]

Eh... I think an armed, honest citizen of good intent should be present at all public locations, whether or not that person is officially involved in law enforcement.
It might cut down on mass shootings, but it would make rob mad, so we better not do that.

She. Was. Legal. I don't get all teh hatez for doing something perfectly legal. People getting freaked because they're not used to it seems to me to be more reason for people to exercise their right, not less. Education is important. Lots of people are afraid of guns simply due to lack of knowledge and exposure.

[raburrell]

My experiences with some of the country's more vehement defenders of the second have not been positive. The guy who lived next door to us while we were in college, for example. We woke up one night to him throwing rocks at our window in a drunken rage, shouting expletive after expletive. Apparently, he thought we'd gotten his car towed after a snowstorm. The cops came and found a cache of about 130 weapons in his basement. Never did figure out why he resorted to rocks, but I can't say I'm complaining. Nor did we ever see him again. So, when I hear 'Second Amendment', he's the guy whose face I see.

So... when I hear about someone carrying guns to a kid's soccer game, in this crazy modern world, yes, I would be more inclined to believe the person carrying had maniacal intent towards the kids on the field than a sincere belief that God put him or her on this earth to put a stop to some impending soccer game massacre.

[robeiae]

She. Was. Legal.
So effing what? Doesn't make her actions any less stupid, imo.

And the Second is not about people walking around with a sidearm strapped to their thigh, any more than the First is about celebrity gossip rags. The fact that these rights make stupid and obnoxious acts legal doesn't make such acts any less stupid and obnoxious. We may have to allow it, but we can still call it what it is.

You openly wear a gun to kids' soccer game? To what end?

[cray]

Lots of people are afraid of guns simply due to lack of knowledge and exposure.

i know this wasn't intended to be funny but it is.
:roll:

exposure to guns. yes. that's what everyone needs.
for some, it will be their last.




You openly wear a gun to kids' soccer game? To what end?


to educate the masses.

[rugcat]

She. Was. Legal. I don't get all teh hatez for doing something perfectly legal.You might want to think about that. When someone does something stupid (and dangerous to kids) because it's legal, many people might just start thinking, hey, maybe we need a change. Maybe that shouldn't be legal after all.

I doubt you would be happy with that unintended consequence.

[Duncan J Macdonald]

So effing what? Doesn't make her actions any less stupid, imo.

And the Second is not about people walking around with a sidearm strapped to their thigh, any more than the First is about celebrity gossip rags. The fact that these rights make stupid and obnoxious acts legal doesn't make such acts any less stupid and obnoxious. We may have to allow it, but we can still call it what it is.

You openly wear a gun to kids' soccer game? To what end?

The Second really is about people walking around with a sidearm.

Her action was not inherently stupid, nor did it place the children in danger. Any other interpretation of her actions is, IMHO, inflammatory.

Also, go back and look at the original post again, and note the date of her open carry.

[Duncan J Macdonald]

You might want to think about that. When someone does something stupid (and dangerous to kids) because it's legal, many people might just start thinking, hey, maybe we need a change. Maybe that shouldn't be legal after all.

I doubt you would be happy with that unintended consequence.
True. Look at all those cars in the parking lot. Imagine having all those dangerous machines anywhere near to kids!

Ban 'em! Ban 'em all!

[Don]

ton-plus missles, filled with 20, or 30 or more gallons of explosive liquid? And we give the keys to kids, then expect them to aim them for head-on near-misses, within a couple of feet, time after time? Sheer foolishness!

[Diana Hignutt]

You openly wear a gun to kids' soccer game? To what end?

To keep the ref on his toes?

[robeiae]

The Second really is about people walking around with a sidearm.
No, it's really not. It's about insuring that citizens can own a gun and insuring that the government cannot concoct a reason to arbitrarily confiscate those guns. The intent here was not that every citizen walk about ALWAYS armed. Jefferson was the only one with that particular condition.

[robeiae]

Her action was not inherently stupid, nor did it place the children in danger. Any other interpretation of her actions is, IMHO, inflammatory.
Her action WAS inherently stupid. Imo.

[Gretad08]

Her action WAS inherently stupid. Imo.

I agree...It's one thing to go to a nasty neighborhood packin' a lil' heat, but a kids soccer game in Pollyanaville suburbia...she did it for attention and that's inflammatory IMO.

[Rowan]

I agree...It's one thing to go to a nasty neighborhood packin' a lil' heat, but a kids soccer game in Pollyanaville suburbia...she did it for attention and that's inflammatory IMO.

In all fairness, how do you know she did it for "attention"? There is nothing in the reports to indicate that.....quite the contrary in fact.

[Duncan J Macdonald]

No, it's really not. It's about insuring that citizens can own a gun and insuring that the government cannot concoct a reason to arbitrarily confiscate those guns. The intent here was not that every citizen walk about ALWAYS armed. Jefferson was the only one with that particular condition.
Are we forgetting about the 'bear' portion of the amendment?

Never said the citizenry should always carry, but that would be a good experiment -- where do I sign up?

[Duncan J Macdonald]

Her action WAS inherently stupid. Imo.

We'll have to agree to disagree at this point. Neither one of us is willing to
A) Change our opinion
B) Change the other's opinion

[Gretad08]

In all fairness, how do you know she did it for "attention"? There is nothing in the reports to indicate that.....quite the contrary in fact.

You're right, it's purely speculation.

However, I don't see anything in the reports that indicates her actions were made with the intent to stay under the radar.

Just my opinion though.