Richard Martinez
I am certain that plans are already in the works to trot out Richard Martinez, the grieving father of one of the victims of killer Elliot Rodger in his murderous rampage at the University of California in Santa Barbara, for service in hearings, at rallies, for fund-raisers, at protests and in anti-gun ads. The emotionally distraught father provided a ready-made media sound chomp in his CNN rant against anyone and anything that have, in his mind, prevented radical restrictions on guns, those who, in his view, contributed to the death of his son.
“What has changed? Have we learned nothing? These things are going to continue until somebody does something, so where the hell is the leadership? Where the hell are these people we elect to Congress that we spend so much money on? These people are getting rich sitting in Congress, what do they do? They don’t take care of our kids.My kid died because nobody responded to what happened at Sandy Hook. Those parents lost little kids. It’s bad enough that I lost my 20-year-old, but I had 20 years with my son, that’s all I’ll have. But those people lost their children at six and seven years old. How do you think they feel? And who’s talking to them now? Who is doing anything for them now? Who is standing up for those kids that died back then in an elementary school? Why wasn’t something done? It’s outrageous!”
I don’t blame Martinez for how he feels, but I will blame those who exploit him, and I know there is no chance that they won’t.
In 2013, we all saw how every Sandy Hook parent who was sufficiently enraged and camera-worthy fueled the shameless drive to use fear-mongering and exaggeration in the push to finally gut the Second Amendment, as anti-gun activists have so long wanted to do. Martinez is perfect, just as Cindy Sheehan, destroyed because her soldier son died in a war, was custom-fit for pacifists and anti-war advocates, just as a brain-damaged Gabby Giffords was ideal to have recite child-like generalities against firearms in Congress.
Of course, Martinez can’t be objective or rational on the topic of his son’s death, which means that in a fair and responsible political environment, he would be the last one who anyone should want to see influencing public policy. He is full of anger and rage, and if given the chance, I’m sure he would want every gun removed from private hands. If his son had been mauled by a pit bull, he’d want to have all pit bulls killed; if his son had been eaten by a shark, he would want the monsters eradicated from the seas; if his son had been murdered by an illegal immigrant with a police record, I’m sure he’d want to have all illegals with police records deported, and if his child was molested by a registered sex offender, I wouldn’t be surprised if he advocated all registered sex offenders to have warnings tattooed on their foreheads. In short, Martinez’s connection to one gun-related tragedy makes his judgment on the matter of gun regulation unreliable. It creates a conflict of interest, a bias, that removes him as a useful participant in dispassionate discussions and disqualifies him as an agent of rational public debate. He can appeal to emotion only, and though one could never convince Richard Martinez otherwise (and nobody should try), the issues of personal rights and reasonable gun control measures are far more complicated than he is capable of grasping now, and probably ever.
Recruiting Martinez and those like him to lead the debate on gun control and preventing violence is a cheap and cynical strategy favored by anti-gun zealots who want to avoid honest consideration of difficult legal, ethical and practical questions, but it is completely consistent with the shallow reasoning of those who think the winning question in any such debate should be, “How would you feel if it were your child was the one [facing capital punishment/being deported/who who was raped, molested, mauled, or murdered]?”, or the irresponsible rhetoric of a demagogue President who has argued more than once, including in a State of the Union address, that “if we can save only one child,” it justifies changes in the law and policy.
Martinez has a right, like any other American, to express his views on gun control and public safety. But because his reason is presumably clouded by anger and grief, his influence on the debate should be less than most, not more. Those who exploit his appeal to emotion reveal themselves as not merely uninterested in responsible public discourse on an important issue involving life, death, and basic rights; they alert us that their intent is to undermine it.
__________________________________
Source: Mediaite
Ethics Alarms 
What this whole incident proves is that psychologically and emotionally disturbed people like Elliot Rodger are not just a threat to our lives, they are a threat to our civil rights. They are a cancer on humanity.
Cancer is not cured by transforming the cancer cells back to normal, healthy cells. Cancer is cured by destroying the cancer cells. So too, we must destroy this cancer on humanity,. The existence of mentally and emotionally disturbed people like Elliot Rodger can no longer be tolerated. The threat to our lives and civil rights is just too great to try anything else except destroy them. And the destruction must be thorough. Even one psychological or emotional deviant is one person too many.
As terrorist attacks are threats to our civil rights. If we reduce our rights to guard against the most flagrant abuses of them, we will have no rights.
I have read the Constitution, and none of them enumerate a right to be a psychological or emotional deviant. On the other hand, there is a right to keep and bear arms, explicitly enumerated.
The Constitution only protects those rights explicitly enumerated. There is no right to be a deviant. States can ban and punish deviancy. We need to crack down on the deviants. As Richard Martinez proves, these deviants are a threat to the rights of all Americans. Better to sacrifice the deviants than the rights of the American people.
But Michael, the Constitution doesn’t distinguish “deviants” from normal citizens, and their rights—due process, for example—are protected.
So what do you think about red flag laws?
Personally I think Red Flag laws will end up in the the Supreme Court and be ruled unconstitutional.
Does that answer your question?
Your thoughts on this topic are quite similar to what the Nazi’s did to the Jews?
I agree, because Red Flag laws implicate fundamental rights without sufficient due process.
An ex parte hearing might not even be sufficient to suspend any licenses to practice law or medicine.
It is especially telling, however, that these people, alleged to be an imminent danger to themselves and others, are only disarmed under these Red Flag laws.
These people who are an extreme risk are nevertheless still permitted to practice law or medicine.
They are still allowed to have intimate relationships, let alone intimate contact.
And they are not required to wear any sort of distinctive badge or emblem on their left sleeve while out in public.
It is as if Red Flag laws are not about public safety at all.
Michael, Your logic is faulty. You are suggesting that we sacrifice the ones deemed deviant BEFORE they act. Who determines who is a deviant before the act occurs. We punish for deviant behavior not simply because some whacko might think s/he hears voices. What you are advocating for is exactly what those that wish to strip away your 2nd amendment freedoms want to do; deny personal ownership of weapons because they think they could be used by someone with deviant behavior. Since we cannot tell who is deviant we will punish all that have guns.
The Constitution is document limiting the rights and powers of the government that we as a people have agreed to. It does not limit the rights of the individual. Only legislation that passes Constitutional muster can limit your ability to act as you choose. So if you want to try to get a law passed to lock people up for what they think and not for what they have done go for it. Just be sure if it passes that you are part of the group that determines what is socially acceptable thought. Because, your thoughts could land you in jail or an asylum.
I would recommend that you review Article IX which basically says unless we have given power to the Federal government to do something specific then nothing in the Constitution can be used to disparage the rights retained by the states or the people themselves. In short, simply because the right is not enumerated does not mean that it does not exist. All power vested in government comes from the people. Government is not the provider of our rights; we are.
Article iX only protects rights “deeply rooted in our nation’s history and tradition” Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 at 710-719 (1997) A “right” to be deviant in personality of conduct is not deeply rooted in our nation’s history and tradition, so Article IX does nor protect such a “right”.
What I would propose is civil restrictions on persons who fit Elliot Rodger’s psychological and emotional profile. if they fit the propfile, they wikll be considered psychologically and emotionally deviant. The key word is civil because only a preponderance of evidence will be required.
Persons found to be deviant will be required to register with the state. Refusal or failure to register will be a felony. There is no fundamental right to refuse to register with the state.
Deviants will be required to wear distinctive insignia. Failure or refusal to do so will be a felony. Again, there is no fundamental right to be free from wearing distinctive insignia when required to do so by the state.
Deviants will be banned from certain professions, such as law or medicine. There is no fundamental right to practice law or medicine or any profession.
Finally, there will be a massive state-funded propaganda campaign to educate the public about deviants. This campaign will be directed towards the man in the street and the man in the beer hall. Catchphrases include “Deviants are Among Us” “Deviants Have No Place in America” “Do Your Patriotic Duty: Report Suspected Deviants” “Remember Isla Vista” “1 in 4 Women in College Are Raped. 4 in 4 of These Rapes are Committed By Deviants” The goal of this propaganda campaign is to make deviants pariahs and outcasts in American society, to get Americans terrified of deviants, terrified that they might go killing at any moment. There is no fundamental right to be free from a propaganda campaign to turn America against you.
Note what I do not propose.
I do not propose infringing on First Amendment rights, even the right tio disagree with my proposed policy, or to run a counter-campaign to attempt to get Americans to accept deviants.
I do not propose taking away their Second Amendment rights. Deviancy will not be deemed sufficient cause to prohibit a person from keeping and bearing arms
I do not propose taking away Third Amendment rights.
I do not propose taking away Fourth Amendment rights.
I do not propose taking away Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, or Eight Amendment rights. Deviants accused of crimes will still be entitled to due process of law.
This leaves equal protection. Deviants are not a suspect class, so rational basis scrutiny applies. all the policies I mentioned are rationally related to the compelling interest of public safety. The policies I propose will survive a federal equal protection challenge.
Mr. Ejercito:
You cited a case, Washington vs Glucksburg to rationalize your argument. That case dealt with assisted suicide and whether or not a person had a fundamental liberty to choose when to die. Further it did not deal with the prosecution of individuals that were successful in their attempt to commit suicide but only those that assisted them in the process. It was the concept of the preservation of life that was the “deeply held belief” referred to in that case.
The Ninth Amendment was James Madison’s attempt to ensure that the Bill of Rights was not seen as granting to the people of the United States only the specific rights it addressed. In recent years, some have interpreted it as affirming the existence of such “unenumerated” rights outside those expressly protected by the Bill of Rights.
Elliott Rodgers may have a specific profile what if the deviant does not match perfectly (i.e. all the enumerated profile markers are not exhibited) what latitude will be permitted to avoid the sanctions you prescribe?
Three days ago Psychology Today ran a piece by Laurie Essig, Ph.D. in Love, Inc. I bet she would happily join your campaign to extinguish personal dignity.
excerpt:
” It is not an accident that the overwhelming majority of mass shootings are committed by men, but not just men, white men,* and not just white men, but white men who feel entitled and because of that entitlement feel as if they have been cheated and robbed of their rights.
This sort of “angry masculinity” stems from what sociologist Michael Kimmel describes as “aggrieved entitlement.” Historically, the US created conditions that favored both whites and men. Now, with those traditional privileges more regularly challenged and yet sexism and racism hanging on as ways of understanding the world, these men feel the right to dominate others and when that doesn’t happen, they feel the right to beat them, rape them, and even kill them. This violence isn’t the result of mental illness, but occurs with depressing regularity as part of angry manhood. According to Kimmel and others who study this aggrieved masculinity, violence and the rhetoric that supports it is embedded in American manhood from rape and domestic violence statistics to men’s movement rhetoric to fraternity parties on campuses like UCSB.
. . . And that’s the point. Mainstream masculinity is often embedded in such a deep and abiding hatred for women, a sense of entitlement to women’s bodies, and a seriously sick way of keeping women scared and in their place through violence and violent rhetoric that to name Rodger “mentally ill” is to create a smokescreen through which it’s difficult to see that there is something seriously sick in our culture. Until we admit this, until men reject this woman-hating and embrace feminism, until women only embrace feminist men, we will be stuck in a cycle of violence where the discussion is not about the thing that is happening- that thing called patriarchy- but instead about mental illness, guns, and a few “bad apples” in an otherwise healthy culture of masculinity.
These are some of the most racist and misandristic comments I have ever seen – If you are white and male you believe that you are entitled to special privileges and are prone to commit violence when they do not materialize.
At the very bottom of the article she notes that Rodgers was white and part Asian but he had all the trappings of “Whiteness” and “privilege”. What if you grew up privileged but were not white? Are you immune to the affliction of whiteness and its inherent deviancy? Will you be protected from the
The essay by a PhD in a reputed to be legitimate magazine illustrates that even credentialed scholars have the capability of going off the deep end with their own distorted view of the world. Look carefully at the language (propaganda) “Mainstream masculinity is often embedded with a deep hatred for women” – “a sense of entitlement to their bodies” – “a seriously sick way of keeping women scared and in their place.” She is unequivocal in this statement. “This violence isn’t the result of mental illness, but occurs with depressing regularity as part of angry manhood.” In this article she compares all men to the likes of Elliot Rodgers.
In her world virtually all men are deviants – especially white men irrespective of their socioeconomic status. If given the chance, I bet she would advocate for rounding up all white males for testing and reeducation into her way of thinking. She would start with the white ones – because they do all the mass killings, then move to the yellow males – too few to put up much of a fuss, then the brown males – get them before they grow to be too many, and finally to the black males who have grown up in a matriarchal environment.
So if you still want to round up the deviants, pack your bags too because someone is bound to classify your ideas as deviant at some point.
Your entire point of view reinforces Jack’s post on why the lay person needs a legal education.
.
Glucksberg established a framework by which to determine if an asserted liberty interest is a fundamental right.
Deviants are, by definition, people who are not normal.
Gays were generally, and even legally, considered deviants not too long ago.
Mr. Ejercito:
If all of government’s powers are conferred upon it by the people and those not specifically conferred are retained by the people then the government cannot assert that it can assume a power or take away a right simply because it is not enumerated in the Constitution.
At question in Glucksburg was the idea of assisted suicide. If you read the case you know that the court concluded that the taking of a life by any person was something that society has always imposed a high penalty. Even the act of committing suicide was contrary to the notion of the sanctity of life – acknowledging that state cannot prosecute one that successfully commits the crime of suicide. Therefore, the idea that if one helps a terminal patient end his life then it is no different than being complicit in a murder. What I found interesting in that courts conclusion was that we do not jail people for the unsuccessful attempt at taking one’s own life as we would who tried to take another person’s life. The state also does not find that it is inherently wrong to give up ones own life if it serves to advance the interests of the state – we give posthumous medals for that behavior. That suggests that their might be a fundamental right within each of us to choose to live or die.
There is no long legal precedent nor deeply rooted history of requiring people to submit to testing to determine deviancy. That means we do have a fundamental right – under Glucksburg – not to have to register with the state simply because of who we are and what we think. Furthermore a smart deviant could just not utter the words if he/she knows that it will result in sanctions.
Even if Glucksburg did lay out a framework for establishing if an asserted liberty interest is a fundamental right, the entire Constitution is based on the premise of being free to live our lives as we see fit without undue governmental intrusion. Many of the precepts of personal liberty in our Constitution originated in the Magna Carta way back in 1215AD. I think that establishes a long deeply rooted belief.
Since you are so concerned about the rights of women please explain how the “right to privacy” which is also not an enumerated right underpins the Roe v Wade decision. Do we have a deeply rooted history of giving women rights or the elimination of potentially viable human beings? NO.
I do not disagree that people with severe mental health issues that pose a threat to themselves or society should be able to be held and treated to protect the public but that was not your assertion. You wanted to have a state funded campaign to root out people that you defined as deviants. You wanted us to live in a police state so you felt secure.
When the government kicks in your door in the dark of night without any provocation, evidence, or legal rationale and drags you or a family member away on a politically motivated charge, remember all those that said if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear from the law. It is not the law you must fear it is the executioner of the laws that pose the threat.
Sorry, she just REALLY got under my skin. I will say that she’s in no position to call me out on my “misogyny” , mine being transient, mocking, and very person-specific, and her misandry being a heart-felt and persistent condition aimed at half the world’s population. It probably wouldn’t bother me nearly as much if I thought that she *wasn’t* brainwashing scores of young women, or if I thought that these sorts didn’t have lairs at pretty much every university from coast to coast.
Agreed, and I fully understand how it can engender such a visceral reaction. It is however important that we do not give this women and others like her ammunition to use against males. If we examine the tactics of such polemicists use we will find that they want to elicit such a reaction to use later to justify their original premise.
Statements and beliefs such as Mr. Ejercito’s and Dr.Essig’s are contrary to the beliefs of most everyday Americans. Unfortunately, some people that are predisposed to believing such tripe will happily parrot those sentiments to gain fame. Today, feminist lawyer Gloria Aldridge picked up this sentiment and claimed that male chauvinism is classified as a mental illness that should be treated. Nowhere in the DSM V manual does such classification exist. This is a gross breach of professional ethics. It is an outright lie. She, as an officer of the court, has a duty not to make such false claims to a mass media audience knowing that her statements will go unchallenged and will be believed as fact. Ironically, this predisposition to repeat falsehoods because it serves to reinforce their own prejudices is the precursor to the very behavior for which they are condemning the white male population demographic.
The best we can do is to challenge the distorted ideas when they manifest themselves using logical and unassailable rhetoric.
How much do you want to bet that this ditz minored in trans-vaginal women’s victim’s studies or some shit like that? Whenever I hear one of these angry, histrionic, hyper-menstruating, emasculating harridans bleating about sexism, racism, feminism, or multiculturalism, the angry white male in me wants to run amok with an axe.
Have you ever met one of these granola-snorting shrews? I have, on several occasions. They were all plainly deeply disturbed. They’re a big part of the reasons I bailed on a Ph.D. in psychology.
Oh man did I nail this one: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/love-inc
Fucking women’s and gender studies, GAH ! I hope she paid for that degree with her own money. Check out that mugshot too. My nuts retreated into my stomach when I looked into those eyes. She HATES me and my oppressive white pee-nuss !
Now, normally, I might write you off-line, like I do Scott from time to time (futilely, you will notice) asking you to oolitcay with the unlgarityvay, except that I read the article, and she deserves it.
I’m posting on the damn thing too. As far an I’m concerned, that kind of ugly male-bashing is of a piece with Chimpmania, and no better.
Joe:
I understand your feelings but your comment gives her credibility. I would suggest we simply say she has a very distorted view of the world; probably due to her own cultural upbringing and interactions with males of her own choosing. The point we need to reinforce is that these misandristic comments are as bad as misogynistic comments.
The first politician who actually suggests what you just discribed should be hung from a tall pole as a warning to others.
A government that enacts such measures would find itself on the business end of the first rebal army I could put together, which would have the sole purpose in life of purging from creation every shitpile that voted for it.
You and your “label the deviants” bullshit are anti-liberty. That you could sit there and not see any fucking problem with using a “51% of the evidence” standard to label someone – anyone – enrages me to the point that I now understand why Almighty God has seen fit to refuse to grant me the power to kill with my mind. You are nothing but a totalitarian, eagerly seeking a way to punish what you consider to be wrong thought.
Fuck you. The day I would sit idle while shit like that happened is the day they put a fucking tag on my toe.
You just try to push for this shit. You just try.
You will find me waiting for you in the tall grass.
So you oppose red flag laws, then?
WOW, this conversation was quite a read!!
Yes, it is.
I wonder where Scott Jacobs’s rebel army is.
That’s an interesting way of looking at the Constitution.
So if we use that kind of argument elsewhere, the Constitution does not explicitly protect a woman’s right to order a doctor to kill the defenseless human being that’s inside of her with an abortion so the Supreme Court should strike down a woman’s right to choose.
I believe the Suipreme Court doctrine of unenumerated rights was wrongly decided.
So therefore is the answer is to arm every American..Which is their right correct? ( of course after passing a background check)….Would All those people who Elliot shot have been safe if they were armed?…So your teacher comes to school armed, all the clerks in the stores come to work armed and a gun in every pocket is America’s right…Is that it? They are shooting in churches now and places of worship, so the congregation comes in armed, the preacher is armed, This goes to the NRA statement that the answer to a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun…So I am good..My slate is clean …Passed many background check for jobs etc..So everyone like me should be armed with a gun….Is that the answer ? So if I am armed and the other guy is armed and the other guy is crazy, but i do not know it, he acts normal..But something about me ticks him off that I do not know about, so i suspect nothing…he shoot me in the back…But I am armed to the teeth…So everyone should be required like the health care law to pass a gun background test and pass a gun safety test and purchase a gun or the IRS will tax you at the end of the year…Is that the answer???
Hi Lionel—welcome to Ethics Alarms, and boy, what a pathetic comment to make a debut with.
The post is about exploiting emotion and fear rather than arguing fairly and rationally. There is nothing in the post that either endorses arming everyone or that condemns regulations. Your rant is off topic. Yup, there are considerations to balance, but you are addressing a question the post neither asks nor attempts to answer, except to say that the “answer” isn’t to see how many votes you can win by having a despairing father’s tears substitute for actual, valid, substantive arguments.
I’ll give you one answer though: If I, as a law abiding US citizen, decide that I want to have a firearm of my choosing available to protect my home and family. and am prepared to store and use it responsibly, nobody, including a father whose son was killed by a maniac with gun, has any business telling me I can’t, or condemning those who protect my right to do so.
In situations where someone in the crowd is armed, the average body count is less than 3. Where you have to wait for the cops, the average is more than several times that.
If you want to be helpless that’s fine, but the guy who wants to kill people doesn’t give a fuck about your gun free zones.
Absurd strawman. Fail. Next…
Lionel,
There is a big difference between that which is a citizens a right to do something and governmental prescriptions or proscriptions that require that I act or in a certain manner.
I have the right to do many things but I choose not to exercise that right because it might not be in my best interest.
I called Mr. Ejercito to task for his logic that suggested that we eliminate – he does not say how – all deviants before they commit some murderous aggressive act. That is exactly the argument espoused by the anti-gun zealots; we need to get them before they get us.
The whole point of the original post was to call into question the way we attempt to develop solutions for social problems. Using anger, grief, and fear, especially to promote a political agenda, is not a legitimate basis for formulating workable solutions. If it were, we would allow the parents whose child is killed by a drunk driver or murdered some other way to exact revenge on the perpetrator. This is no different than demanding that we eviscerate an enumerated Constitutionally protected right because we are aghast at the actions of someone that abuses one of our rights.
If you are willing to give up a right that others hold dear, which right that you hold dear may they take from you? Taking away a right from one group means that it is not a right at all and all the other civil liberties you enjoy are at risk when someone else decides that it is good for the social order.
Ten thumbs-up on this comment, sir !
Good heavens! How do you function with ten thumbs??????
I took Michael for being facetious or tongue-in-cheek – made me chuckle.
Barely, but chicks really dig us freaks!
I do not claim that deviancy per se should be cause to limit their freedom of speech or to keep and bear arms or to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures or to be denied a fair trial when criminal accusations are challenged.
That written, there is no enumerated right to be free from having to register oneself as a deviant with the state if identified as a deviant. There is no enumerated right to be free from having to wear distinctive insignia when required to do so by the state. There is no enumerated right to practice law or medicine. There is no enumerated right to keep the state from waging a massive propaganda campaign designed to get the public to fear deviants.
Mr. Ejercito:
Let me say again, under our Constitution I reserve all rights to do as I please unless legislation that restricts my actions is passed by our elected officials. Such legislation must be able to withstand a Constitutional challenge or it fails to restrict the individual’s rights – enumerated or not. We the people confer the rights upon ourselves, not the government – or mobs that want to seek and destroy those they think are deviants.
Your last paragraph scare the living hell out of me unless you are talking about people whose liberties are restricted after committing an act, prosecuted with all available legal protections for the accused, and duly convicted in a fair manner.
However, if you think the state or some other citizen action group should, without any due process or provable charge, require those it thinks are deviants to register with that body, or that deviants should be required to wear a distinctive insignia (tattoos on the left forearm come to mind) that identifies that person as whatever it is the body finds objectionable, then I am glad I have a non-enumerated right to wage a massive propaganda campaign to inform people that they will lose every right they have when they restrict rights out of fear and follow you.
There is no enumerated right that you ever have to leave the safety of your home so your argument that a right must be enumerated to make it right is specious.
But, Mr. Marschner, think of the children. If it could save just one child…..
“There is no enumerated right to be free from having to wear distinctive insignia when required to do so by the state. ” You mean like the star of David? Don’t get me wrong, I do empathize with you, but I am much more afraid of our legislators taking liberties with our rights than I am deviants, terrorists, or other criminals, no matter how well-intentioned they initially may be.
Being required to wear distinctive insignia is far less intrusive on liberty than the no-fly list.
Great idea…
Maybe we could use little Stars of David…
They are historically associated with Jews, and would not be an appropriate insignia for the purpose of identifying those who are psychologically and/or emotionally disturbed.
Yeah, but they worked so damned well the last time a country wanted to be able to easily identify those they deemed to be undesirable, I figure we could just reuse it…
Because that is exactly what you are suggesting, you fuck.
The Nazis included “deviants” and “mentally inferior” individuals as well as Jews in their purifying efforts.
The problem is, Richard Martinez and people like him are proof that deviants are a threat to our civil rights. They are chomping at the bit to use the psychologically and emotionally disturbed as a weapon against the civil rights of all Americans. Peaceful coexistence is impossible with those people, because they do not want to peacefully coexist with us.
A no fly list is not available for whack jobs to go out and find the people on the list to exact some sort of vigilante justice. A required distinctive insignia is a tool used by authoritarian regimes to command obedience or to ostracize or make the person a target for mob actions.
It is obvious that the original comments you made were not an attempt at simply tongue in cheek humor.
And the downside of commanding obedience from those people is…
You have got to be kidding me. The downside of commanding obedience is that we lose the right to be a free people. I suggest you read Civil Disobedience by Henry David Thoreau. Our ability to be able to freely elect people to represent our ideals and interests is threatened by blind obedience. I agree,we must obey the laws that we the people, through our elected representative, enact to provide efficiency and social stability. But I reserve the right to challenge that law if it could be unconstitutional. Thus, commanding obedience means that all laws are deemed valid and no one is entitled to challenge them.
You forgot the mob violence part. The downside with that is that we wind up creating alliances with those that agree with our point of view to eliminate the opposing forces that want to enslave the other to the forced acceptance of an antithetical ideal. What you have suggested will result in a massive decline in social stability. So much for enhancing personal security.
You are talking about governmentally prescribed thought. That is mind control. To what length will you go to command obedience? Obedience to what or to whom. What if I was in power and enacted a law that said only certain races could procreate. There is no enumerated right to procreation. Theoretically, by law all persons deemed unacceptable would be required to be castrated or given forced hysterectomies to ensure that they do not grow to be too large of a population that could threaten the existing social order.
You sir are the deviant in my opinion. Your ideas are a real threat to my inalienable rights that I was endowed with by my creator.
Command obedience???
I will disobey on general principle because fuck you.
Actually, I’d like to see all illegals with felony convictions deported after they have served their full sentence. If they show up in the USA again, throw them in prison for 20 years. That being said, I guess the price of freedom of speech is to put up with these anti 2nd amendment nuts.
A key comment here from Richard Martinez:
“Where the hell are these people we elect to Congress that we spend so much money on? These people are getting rich sitting in Congress, what do they do? They don’t take care of our kids.”
It’s the government’s responsibility to take care of our kids? Get off it. I cannot imagine having my child die before me, much less be murdered, But bad things happen to good people all the time. Why hasn’t Congress appropriated more money to the fight against cancer? After all, Congress is apparently charged with caring for our kids, and the number of children who die from various kinds of childhood cancers is logarithmically higher that school shootings.
Taking guns away from everyone except criminals, the emotionally unhinged, and ineffective police is going to do what, exactly? I’d really like a rational explanation here.
Well, for one thing it will be the impetus for an extremely lucrative and violent black market in basement machine-shop made fully-automatic weapons (the easiest to make). Another thing will be even more of a monopoly of force in the hands of the government, which, of course, is every statist’s wet-dream. Third; I sincerely believe that if there is ever an event which would cause straight-thinking people to take up arms, this would be it. People who have the capacity to learn from history (history such as 262 million people perishing at the hands of their governments following their disarmament in the last century alone)would realize that there would be no going back once this occurred, and there would be nothing material standing in the way of all-out tyranny. I pray it never comes to this.
That reminds me of the time Congress promised to feed my kids some spaghetti and meatballs, and they totally did nothing. The government also failed to change the baby’s diapers, which really made me reconsider this whole democracy thing.
Although, I still trust the government with all the guns and knives and stinkbombs. All those are just too dangerous for regular people to have.
This asshole chooses a state with astonishingly restrictive laws, votes for people who push against and PREVENT the NRA from getting mental health records included in background checks, and where virtually every location of there were shots fired were “gun-free zones”, and it is the NRAs fault?
Someone should tell that this asshole that he did more to make the murder of his child possible than the NRA ever did.
Blaming the NRA for setting up a firewall against just the kind of anti-gun hysteria that these incidents create is especially absurd. Nobody who reads the killer’s increasingly deranged rants can possibly attribute his acts to gun policy. Some people like him just go underground and strangle dozens of women over years, or gut them, like Jack the Ripper. Should we try to keep people like this away from guns? Of course. If keeping guns away from citizens who want them for protection or recreation is the only way to do that, is that a sensible trade-off? I think to any non-biased individual, it’s an easy question, just like whether we should censor speech because, say, Ed Schultz abuses it daily.
I’m in a rush to go pound on Free Speech at the Peoria City Council meeting again, or I would rant long-form about this whole pile of stupid…
But it has footnotes! All scholarly works require footnotes.
Gun-free zones would only work if EVERY state became a gun-free zone. Unless we want to stop people at state borders for gun checks. That would make my daily commute suck big time.
No, because the only people who would obey the gun free laws are the ones who wouldn’t be using them to kill people.
Make the laws as harsh as you want, the criminals will still bring them to kill people.
And with that in mind, I prefer to be armed. Equal footing helps me relax.
Unless guns were per se illegal. It would be tough to enforce collection in the beginning. And, of course, people would just make homemade guns. The black market would go ballistic.
The problem right now is that mass hysteria is going to make everyone arm up — and not everybody should own a gun. The mentally ill and criminals are easy groups, but what about people who are never going to take gun safety classes or practice shooting? I don’t mind if you own a gun, or the majority of my family who regularly use them — but I seriously have no business owning one. I’m so busy I can’t remember to take out the trash — target practice will never make it onto my schedule.
But I know myself enough to know that it would be a stupid idea. I worry that most people don’t think about it before rushing out to purchase one.
It would never happen here. Believe me when I say that there is a HUGE swath of this population who would never, under any circumstances, give up their weapons, despite the carefully-crafted impression that the media propagates to the contrary. For many people, it is much more that a constitutional right, it is a natural, inalienable right; a right to protect one’s self and loved ones, quite literally the right to exist. Many of these people are also aware of the sort of thing that the 2nd amendment was implemented to help prevent: http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DBG.CHAP2.HTM
This is the most thorough treatise on democide, which cost 262 MILLION people their lives in the last century alone, to date.
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM
It wouldn’t work then, either.
In Mexico, every state is a gun-free zone.
See? And that works GREAT!!!!
“Why wasn’t something done? It’s outrageous!” This is always the outcry from people who have been personally injured or suffered a loss. While most of the time we can sympathize with his loss, there’s precious little we can do in a country of 300 million to target every emotional unstable or psychopathic individual who might kill someone. What usually happens is that we get a “feel good law”, like the seat belt, or anti-texting laws, or something similar that everyone knows cannot be really “enforced” but it makes everyone feel good that they “did something”. Without trampling someone else’s Constitutional Rights, it’s virtually impossible to find an answer, except for Personal Responsibility. This killer’s friends and family bear the weight of this act, if we believe that they had credible evidence that he was a danger and emotionally unstable, yet they did almost nothing. I saw a TV interview where a Psychiatrist posited that the local Police in their “general welfare” visit didn’t take all the appropriate actions. Perhaps, but we all know the Police are great at picking up the pieces, and targeting known criminals, gangs, etc but, however, they aren’t very effective in these situations. I can’t imagine this Father’s anguish, but I also can’t condone the MSM using that anguish as an Anti-Gun pogrom.
Random acts of violence are virtually unpreventable. Ask the Aussies and English who practically abolished guns and are now discussing abolishing knives, as the killers just use different means to their ends.
I haven’t been following this story too closely, but it seems to me (and probably reinforces the point) that this kid was not parented very well. I think the parent’s are looking for a scapegoat… any scapegoat… on which to hang this incident. Now, NRA is an easy scapegoat anytime guns are involved, so he is probably just following the path of least resistance. I noted that the perp also used his automobile and knives as weapons. Since car owners and knife owners are not easy scapegoats, those get left out of the blame game.
These statist ghouls ejaculate into their drawers every time some lunatic goes on a rampage, and the useful idiots clap their flippers and howl like a bunch of lobotomized harp seals. Makes me sick to my stomach.
I agree wholeheartedly. While there is inherent sadness in a tragedy, it is just as sickening to see political figures and ideologues use the tragedy to forward their own power or agenda. Ugh.
I always say that any person who has any kind of legal power who hides behind “the children” is either a moral coward or a sinister, cynical luster of power. They are dangerous lechers who are only worthy of contempt.
(I sympathize with those who have lost their lives, and the family members who are grieving. I loathe the politicos who are there to sweep in and “save” them, taking advantage of grief for control.)
I read summaries of his rants and felt nauseated. I think most people tho are thinking about this will admit the problem isn’t the specific weapon, knives and tire irons can be lethal too, guns are just faster.
I think the bigger issue is that he was frustrated that he didn’t have the beautiful girlfriend, popularity, and financial success he DESERVES. Tossing hit drinks on girls because they didn’t smile at him? Killing his roommates because they had some of these things? No one deserves an attractive lover because they exist. They have to work at it. You don’t become popular by throwing a frappicino on a PDAing couple. You don’t work for success by dropping out. It seems to me there is a large segment of our population, especially young men, to react more often with violence when frustrated. A younger generation simply doesn’t understand ‘no,’ and that you cannot have what you want, when you want it. ‘No’ is not a reason to get violent. Mommy and Daddy can’t give you everything you want no matter how much they love you. Patience is a virtue, not narcissism.
I think the bigger issue is that he was frustrated that he didn’t have the beautiful girlfriend, popularity, and financial success he DESERVES. Tossing hit drinks on girls because they didn’t smile at him? Killing his roommates because they had some of these things? No one deserves an attractive lover because they exist. They have to work at it. You don’t become popular by throwing a frappicino on a PDAing couple. You don’t work for success by dropping out. It seems to me there is a large segment of our population, especially young men, to react more often with violence when frustrated. A younger generation simply doesn’t understand ‘no,’ and that you cannot have what you want, when you want it. ‘No’ is not a reason to get violent. Mommy and Daddy can’t give you everything you want no matter how much they love you. Patience is a virtue, not narcissism.
********************
Ding ding ding we have a winner!!!
Look at the way the Entitlement Generation was raised and you will have your answer.
For fuck’s sake, he relied on winning the lottery to make a fortune.
I bet he was endowed with a ton of self-esteem prior to being released into the real world.
All you bed-wetting thumbsuckers who never emotionally matured into this ENORMOUSLY unsafe and violent universe should go hide in a dark place and wait for the universe to become “friendly”. May I suggest that you hold your breath. As to “concerns” about this nefarious usage or that criminal misuse of (phobically feared object/tool/process inserted here)….get over it. Just like the climate change panickers, they don’t understand that the only thing us self-impressed chimpanzees should do is adapt, adapt, ADAPT. Trying to legislate death away is a futile exercise which only serves to make our pathetically short and unimpressive lives even more dull and boring than they should be. The natural state of all living creatures is freedom. To the emotionally immature freedom appears too dangerous. They don’t adapt to the universe. They never gain any rational control over their emotions. To those that either try to eliminate that which they fear or use the fear in others to control them, freedom appears messy and is something to be controlled and regulated. Worse, they become the unwitting tools of power-hungry tyrants who, ironically, will make their cozy little cocoons even more dangerous once an irate, armed populace is no longer a potential hindrance. Kind of remind me of moths drawn into a fire.
Unless guns were per se illegal.
***********
Yes, that’s it!
Sort of like making drugs illegal. @@
But, But, Finlay!!!
In magical Leftopia, once the guns are illegal, the lions and the lambs will rest together!!!!
Can I just end the Ejercito digression with a solid irritating:
“TROLOLOLOL!!!!”
I ask your indulgence for that Jack… This time.
First of all, the author of this article is a moron. You can fill in the blanks as to why. Second, all of those people ranting about how you have a “right to bear arms” are also morons. The idiotic phrasing is HUNDREDS of years old dating from a time where people needed to protect themselves from wild animals, hunt, fish and there was a TON more wild life then. There was also civil war and complete lawlessness. That does not exist anymore (and if you think otherwise, see my first comment, as it also describes you).
Unless you are a paranoid and delusional human being, the conditions existing when the Constitution was created no longer exist.
Why do you need to bear arms? Why do you need semi-automatic rifles, hand guns, armor piercing bullets? Why are civilians exempt from the same regulations that military officers must follow (do not store guns and ammo in same area, initial AND ONGOING criminal records checks, mental health status checks, etc).
If you think otherwise, then wait until your mother or father is shot and killed, or your child is shot and killed, then you will have gained the credentials to decide what should happen with guns in the US. To date, the guns have increased in number and availability and the problems have increased along with them. If you can’t understand that there is a link there, and why continuing on the same path is bad, then see my first comment. It describes you.
I’m allowing this offensive and ignorant comment to post because it is a great res ipsa loquitur: self-evidently biased, ill informed, arrogant and foolish. To summarize, with quick rebuttals of these stale, bumper sticker arguments that were pre-digested by others before Mike swallowed them whole:
1. “First of all, the author of this article is a moron. You can fill in the blanks as to why”
Love it. Mike can’t muster a real argument, so he asks everyone else to cover for him. Classic.
2. “Second, all of those people ranting about how you have a “right to bear arms” are also morons. The idiotic phrasing is HUNDREDS of years old dating from a time where people needed to protect themselves from wild animals, hunt, fish and there was a TON more wild life then.”
Is this a typical anti-gun advocate? I think not, and hope not. Yes, Mike, the Second Amendment was all about protection from wild animals, which were running amuck through the streets of Boston and Philadelphia. W-O-W.
3. “There was also civil war and complete lawlessness.”
Uh, the Civil War really wasn’t a factor in the inclusion of the Second Amendment, it being 85 years in the future, and law enforcement isn’t covered by the amendment even now. Before making a history-based argument, I would advise actually learning some history. The lawlessness at issue was the Britsih government—as in “the government” posing a risk of disarming citizens so only it was armed.
4.”That does not exist anymore (and if you think otherwise, see my first comment, as it also describes you).”
Just so you know, this kind of debate style, which is pure ad hominem (look it up), is occasionally tolerated from established contributors, but not from stunningly ignorant newbies. You get banned with your next post even it it’s just to say “I’m sorry” I went off my meds.”
5.”Unless you are a paranoid and delusional human being, the conditions existing when the Constitution was created no longer exist.”
The Constitution, doofus, is a philosophical charter document and not a set of laws in response to conditions of the time. It defines what the values and rights of the nation are then and will forever be. Sorry you don’t like the country’s values, but they have worked extraordinarily well.
6.Why do you need to bear arms?
Here’s one good answer. Mine would be: in a free country, you don’t get to tell ME what I need.
7.If you think otherwise, then wait until your mother or father is shot and killed, or your child is shot and killed, then you will have gained the credentials to decide what should happen with guns in the US.
Isn’t this great? Mike is shooting for every bad ethics rationalization and faulty reasoning thread possible! Yes, Mike, and let’s put mothers of kids killed by cars in charge of how fast cars can go. Let’s make sure all policy-makers are biased and emotional beyond reason. Let’s put Cindy Sheehan in charge of our foreign policy. Sounds good to you, doesn’t it?
8.To date, the guns have increased in number and availability and the problems have increased along with them.
The exact same thing can be said, and is said, of free speech. And people like you want to ban that, too.
8. If you can’t understand that there is a link there, and why continuing on the same path is bad, then see my first comment. It describes you.
Summary of Mike’s carefully thought-out argument: “I am ignorant of history, logic, ethics, rights, reasoning and law, and if you disagree with me, you are a moron.” As someone in favor of better gun regulations, it is allowing people like this to control any aspect of our lives that leads me to oppose the them until they are argued fairly and rationally without appeals to emotion and name-calling. Bye, Mike. And again, thanks for proving my point.
Why do you need to stop other people from having ” semi-automatic rifles, hand guns, armor piercing bullets”?
Because they do not operate under military discipline. It is the same reason civilians may burn an American flag to express distaste of America, Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), while active duty military officers who do so face court-martial.
And similarly, only persons (black or otherwise) who are victims of black crime have the credentials to determine what rights black persons accused of crimes should have, right?
Really, Mike’s comment was too ignorant, obnoxious and lazy to justify both of us taking it apart, don’t you think? Shooting fish in a barrel…
It is fair to reply to his one single coherent point, a point oft drummed out by the anti-gun hysterics. His mention that “the conditions that led to the 2nd Amendment’s usefulness do not exist today” is the argument – “you’re a loony if you think the American government can become tyrannical”. That argument must be addressed, because ALL governments at ALL times can be usurped or used by those who wish to consolidate their own power to lord over the people who abide in the country in question.
The true loony (Mike) is the one who can’t recognize that and thinks that if left unchecked, a good natured cluster of power wielders will stay good natured and therefore shouldn’t be seen as potential threats to liberty and protection under the law.
Another trope, a kissing cousin to the first point, drummed out by his ilk that should be addressed is the “2nd Amendment was written for the 18th Century”. Yeah? So was the 1st Amendment…guess it needs to go also. So were the 4th through 8th Amendments…guess you don’t need to be protected from unfair prosecution if you happen to be innocent but become a convenient target for which Due Process is an inconvenient barrier to railroading…
Blind little ignorant fool.
And as much as some would say the 3rd Amendment truly is outdated, it is DIRECTLY related to the still very appropriate (but eroding, thanks to fools like Mike) American concepts of right to privacy, sanctity of private property, and non-imposition without compensation.
A discussion on 9 and 10 would take an essay.
“Blind little ignorant fool” doesn’t do the comment justice. This is the level of argument you will see as the majority on all the news aggregator sites, the Huffington Post, Mediaite, Politico, the Daily Kos. Bad facts, lazy reasoning, stated as certainty with ad hominem insults aimed at anyone who disagrees. This is the “base” of both parties.