Morning Ethic Warm-Up, 10/3/2017: The Las Vegas Strip Shooting.

Not a good morning.

Not good at all.

I was preparing the notes for two business ethics seminars I’ll be running today when the news of the mass shooting in Las Vegas came on HLN. There are several items I had planned for today’s Warm-Up, but they all  seem trivial right now. 50+ dead, and over 200 wounded, the worst mass shooting in U.S. history.

Random thoughts, as I simultaneously watch reports:

1 The shooter has been killed. His name is Stephen Paddock. Are you relieved that he doesn’t have a Muslim name?

2. It sounds like the gun used was no ordinary automatic weapon, but possibly a belt-fed machine gun. I wonder if that fact will restrain the inevitable politicization of this tragedy, as it once again sets off the anti-gun ownership activists.

3. President Trump tweeted out the obligatory condolences. I assume he will make public statement in person. Twitter has the advantage of being quick, but there is something off about tweets as official reactions to such deadly national disasters.

4. I have believed for some time that the relentless escalation of 24-7 anger, political hate, fear-mongering and vicious partisan rhetoric in the news media and social media are creating an environment that risks driving the weak, the ill, the stressed and the vulnerable over the edge. Of course, this shooter may have had a brain tumor like Charles Whitman; the shooting may have no political connection whatsoever. Still, this is not a healthy culture right now. It can’t have helped.

250 Comments

Filed under U.S. Society

250 responses to “Morning Ethic Warm-Up, 10/3/2017: The Las Vegas Strip Shooting.

  1. Benjamin R

    As an Australian, I am perpetually surprised that nothing ever seems to come out of these senseless attacks. Every time that a massacre occurs involving guns, I think ‘Thank God that Australia has proper gun regulations’.

    Hell, even our left-wing supporters are eternally grateful for the conservative Prime Minister that implemented our stringent gun control measures in 1996. Since those gun control measures were introduced, we have virtually had nothing that even resembles that which occurs in the US far too frequently.

    So, I guess it leaves us in a situation where either Australia has a completely different culture, where acts of gun violence are for some reason uncommon, or it’s that gun control measures actually work.

    • Australia confiscated guns. You know, like dictators. That’s not “proper regulation.” That’s called tyranny.

      • Benjamin R

        Technically, the government bought the guns back. I’m pretty grateful to live in a society where guns are not prevalent and I don’t have to worry about people owning them.

        However, I can’t help but our thoughts will diverge quite a bit as culturally Australia and the US are quite different.

        • Many people who lived in sundown towns were equally grateful to live in a society were people of color were not prevalent after sundown.

          Here is what a sundown town was.

        • Benjamin R wrote, “…and I don’t have to worry about people owning them.”

          Maybe you should find a way to deal with your irrational paranoia; just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean your gun owning neighbor is a murderer.

          It’s not the ownership that’s the problem.

          • Benjamin R

            I don’t think it’s irrational paranoia to be glad that we don’t deal with mass shootings regularly.

            Given you said it’s not ownership that’s the issue, could you explain to me what is the issue then? Why does the US experience such a high volume of shootings comparatively to other Western nations?

            • Benjamin R wrote, “I don’t think it’s irrational paranoia to be glad that we don’t deal with mass shootings regularly.”

              That sir is dishonestly moving the goalposts. I addressed what you wrote (I quoted it) not what you think you wrote or what you think you meant.

              Benjamin R wrote, “Given you said it’s not ownership that’s the issue, could you explain to me what is the issue then?”

              A relatively recent shifting to a culture of division encouraging people to hate thy neighbor based on opinions. It’s hate that drives individuals to squeeze the trigger to murder others, it’s not the firearms or the bullets that are at fault. The vast majority of firearms are never fired in anger and anti-gunners IGNORE that fact and irrationally focus on emotion.

              • Benjamin R

                I apologise, I didn’t intend to shift the goal posts.

                Interesting. Do you think that mass shootings are a relatively new phenomenon? I don’t have the stats on me to see if it’s true or not.

                You did ignore my question about why the US has comparatively more shootings than other Western nations. The culture of division similarly exists in Australia, the UK etc so it’s hard to see that being the whole cause.

                FWIW, I’m not trying to push an agenda of Australian superiority. That would be quite pathetic in light of the travesty that occurred yesterday. I’m just curious to understand why the US has so many more shootings if it’s got nothing to do with gun laws.

                • Benjamin R wrote, “I apologize, I didn’t intend to shift the goal posts.”

                  Ok. Thanks.

                  Benjamin R wrote, “”Do you think that mass shootings are a relatively new phenomenon?”

                  I get the feeling that I’m being baited. Doesn’t that really depend on how a person “defines” mass shootings? Can I consider 2 at the same time to be mass because it’s more than one or do I have to follow some predefined definition that I am not aware of?

                  Benjamin R wrote, “You did ignore my question about why the US has comparatively more shootings than other Western nations.”

                  It’s basically a rhetorical question that no one can properly answer; it’s all subjective.

                  The United States Constitution guarantees “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” I support the Constitution regardless of emotional topic of the day arguments.

              • Chris

                I’m not sure I find your theory convincing, Zoltar. Have most mass shooters really acted because of their hate for people with different opinions? My understanding was that most have been non-political. (In addition to hating the fact that a lot of my fellow lefties are jumping to “gun control would have helped!” with no evidence, I also hate that a lot of them jumped to label the shooter a terrorist, before having any idea of his motive.)

                  • Chris

                    I have, and I don’t get it. If most mass shooters have not acted because of their hate for people with different opinions, then your statement that “A relatively recent shifting to a culture of division encouraging people to hate thy neighbor based on opinions” is the issue causing an increase in mass shootings seems unsupportable.

            • Which Western nations?

              Brazil?

              Mexico?

              Jamaica?

              Venezuela?

        • And what happened to those who refused to sell their guns back?

    • I am sure many people in apartheid-era South Africa were equally grateful for apartheid when they heard stories of violence committed by blacks in America.

      • Benjamin R

        What?

        In the 20 years prior to 1996, we had something like 18 mass shootings. In the 20 years since, we’ve had none.

        • So for the past twenty years, there were zero murders in Australia?

          There were only eighteen murders between 1976 and 1996?

          do you really expect us to believe such an outlandish claim?

          • Benjamin R

            I’ll assume that you misread that I wrote ‘mass shootings’ not ‘murders’.

            “The number of mass shootings in Australia—defined as incidents in which a gunman killed five or more people other than himself, which is notably a higher casualty count than is generally applied for tallying mass shootings in the U.S.—dropped from 13 in the 18-year period before 1996 to zero after the Port Arthur massacre. Between 1995 and 2006, gun-related homicides and suicides in the country dropped by 59 percent and 65 percent, respectively, though these declines appear to have since leveled off. Two academics who have studied the impact of the reform initiative estimate that the gun-buyback program saves at least 200 lives each year, according to The New York Times.”

            • Chris

              A generous assumption, Ben. I think Michael intentionally misrepresented your point; I just have no idea why.

              Who did you think you were fooling, Michael?

              • Because I refuse to recognize any significant distinction between mass shootings and murders in general, any more than I recognize a substantial distinction between red car crashes and car crashes in general, or interracial rape and rape in general.

                • Chris

                  Well, that’s pretty fucking stupid.

                  • No, it is not.

                    The comparison between mass shootings and interracial rape is apt, in that they are both superficial distinctions from murder and rape, respectively .

                    For two decades, I have read online posts from white nationalists decrying black-on-white violent crime, especially rape. They often point out how 30,000 white females are raped by black males each year, while 0 black females are raped by white males each year. I read about how Jared Taylor complains about a “Black War on White America”.

                    So, if we were to treat, for example, the rapes of white females by black males as a distinct problem from rape in general, then what should be the solution to this allegedly distinct problem?

                    Sundown towns?

                    A pass law system to limit the movements of young black males?

                    Make them live in barbed wire enclosed hostels so that the police could better control their movements?

                    The obvious response is that such solutions would be unconstitutional and wrong. That it is unfair to infringe on the freedom of all black men because a tiny minority of them commit this crime.

                    But that same response applies equally to gun control laws as solutions to the allegedly distinct problem of mass shootings. For they infringe on the freedom of all gun owners based upon a tiny minority committing mass shootings.

                    Then thing is, violent crime rates have dropped precipitously since 1993. so the anti-gun cult and the white nationalist cult deflect by exaggerating superficial distinctions from violent crime in general and claiming a crisis that needs to be solved by infringing on constitutional protections, be that sundown towns or assault weapons bans.

                    • Chris

                      Dear god. There are many relevant distinctions between mass shootings and individual shootings. Mass shootings kill more people than individual shootings. They cause more damage to society. They target random innocents more often, whereas individual shootings usually happen due to a personal relationship between the killer and victim. They are more often planned rather than being crimes of passion.

                      None of these distinctions exist between interracial rape and same-race rape.

                      Your comments are getting stupider and stupider.

                    • Chris

                      “For two decades, I have read online posts from white nationalists decrying black-on-white violent crime, especially rape. They often point out how 30,000 white females are raped by black males each year, while 0 black females are raped by white males each year.”

                      You must know this is a lie, right?

                    • That would be a fair assessment.

                    • Furthermore, if mass shootings are planned, gun control laws can not stop them.

                      It is similar to laws against cocaine. Clearly, these laws make it nigh impossible for someone with no connections to just buy some powder on a whim.

                      But if someone is planning a party and wants to offer cocaine, these laws do little. the only way the law would stop a person from hosting a party offering cocaine is if someone snitched. Possession and distribution of cocaine is, after all, a victimless crime, and there is little incentive to – and great deterrent from- reporting the crime.

              • Benjamin R

                I created an account because I find it pretty fascinating the way Americans can be so adamant about their gun rights.

                Why are they so important?

                Let’s be real, a militia is probably not going to prevent the 1 trillion dollar industry that is the US military if something were to happen.

                It seems that the right to bear arms is inherently tied in with the concept of freedom for a lot of people. At least that’s what I’ve surmised by the few snappy remarks I’ve received from people!

                • Ben – the whole of the U.S. Constitution is tied together and viewed with reverence as an infallible document and people hate change. We also view the constitution as what holds us together. I think gun rights are important but I need not even defend that position when every proposal out there regarding control is an ordinary law or regulation that pretends the Constitution isn’t a thing. Owing to that shortcoming, none of the proposals that might have worked for Australia can work for the U.S. because they can’t withstand legal and constitutional scrutiny without amending the constitution. Gun Control Advocates in our country don’t want to open up the constitution to change either because 1) “it’s too hard” or 2) they don’t want to risk other changes to the constitution that might hurt their other causes.

                  I guarantee a single subject amendment regarding gun control won’t make it through 2/3 of Congress let alone ratified by 3/4 of the states. The best bet might be the call for a convention by the state legislators, but then everything is on the table, not just firearms. If a convention gets started, I guarantee line item 1 will probably be “balanced budget” and “no more debt”. Politicians would hate it if the debt gravy train came to a crashing halt.

                • I think the reason is quite simple. The reason is so that Americans could, were it necessary, go to battle against a tyrannical government.

                  What has happened in the American Republic in respect to the war-industry is I personally think a separate issue. At a certain point the war-making industry, allied with other manufacturers, chose to transform the US into a bellicose, neo-imperial power and put it on the track it has been following for 120 years, more or less. The transformation is from the Republic it once was to a ‘Nation’ with little relationship to what it started as.

                  Slowly, these usurpers have completely dominated the political scene and they have — as often happens when the military forces go to excess — created a behind-the-scenes para-military power which has tremendous influence. I suppose that their power is based in the various war-offices that were established in the first and second WWs. These are culture-molding offices and they engage in social engineering to keep things moving along the track they define.

                  I think everyone knows this, more or less, but few seem to be able to state it openly. You cannot state it openly and participate in any of the spectacles and the public rehearsals that mimic public debate. Obviously, the media industries, the PR industry and the MSM are deeply compromised and they work hard to keep people mystified and confused. On this blog you will find false-conservatives who have surrendered a basic moral position for a pseudo-ethical sophistry which the dress up in high-falutining moral tones in support of their corrupt position.

                  Now, in our present, the *sustaining narratives* that have upheld this power-system are beginning to unravel. This is because of the free exchange of information that the Internet enabled. Information can be exchanged so rapidly and without passing before a censor (the MSM of course is just that) and so people — average people — are communicating and learning and attempting to organize what they see, to gain a ground and a platform. The ‘powers-that-be’ are naturally tremendously concerned about this and so they have established vast governmental agencies in order to monitor what people think and say.

                  Everyone also knows this.

                  We live in an extremely dangerous period of time where, quite literally, the fate of nations is controlled and influenced by ‘shadow-governments’ and private interests. It is safe to say (I think this is fair) that ‘they will stop at nothing to hold to power’ and, if it is necessary, will precipitate situations that enable them to extend their control-tendency (plan).

                  The false-flag event(s) of 9/11 — if my understanding is correct — is the most evident example of their use of shock & awe and overt use of terror to achieve their policy and geo-political goals. We now live within that, that is within the outcomes, and most people thought they know this at a basic level have no idea how to approach confronting it. However, as every day goes by more and more people are informing themselves and, in the US and worldwide, people are forming an idea of what really is going on. This will lead to very serious ideological battles and also physical and cyber-confrontations.

                  This perspective I gained as a result of coming to this Blog. I sort of understood it, I suppose, but as I have continued to research and to read I have come to this general structure of conception. To be a moral person, and an ethical person, must mean to confront this *reality* at a structural level as a sort of ‘first principle’ of conceptualization.

                  You might want to sign up for my weekly reading list. We all sell vitamins at significant discount and are in process of establishing a dental plan! 😉

                  (Gallows humor is funnest when one stands on the edge of the Abyss).

            • joed68

              Stay in Australia and lick the boots of your masters in gratitude. We’ll keep our messy freedom.

            • The number of mass shootings in Australia—defined as incidents in which a gunman killed five or more people… dropped from 13 in the 18-year period before 1996 to zero after the Port Arthur massacre.

              This is misleading. That stat is cherry picking to show how well gun control is ‘working’ in Australia.

              The Hunt Family was killed in Lockhart, New South Wales on Sept 9th, 2014. Five deaths, but somehow it does not count since the shooter died.

              Or the Sydney Siege, 15 Dec 2014. Moral luck that only three of seven victims died. There are more shootings despite the gun control, just the number of victims are lower than the threshold chosen here.

              By this logic, cars should be banned in Australia: Just this year a car was used to kill 6 and wound 30 in Melbourne.

              Or mass murder with knives.

              The problem is people. Eventually you have to outlaw rocks if the weapon was the problem.

              America trusts our citizens, and Australia does not trust theirs. We pay a price for that, but not the one Aussies do: being subservient to whatever the powerful elites decide to do.

              • Joe Fowler

                Misleading stats? Are you saying that people deliberately cherry pick, falsely represent, and omit data to mislead others? Would this include the “children harmed by guns” statistic that usually somehow includes gang members up to the age of 25?
                It’s as if people will actually lie to support their position on gun control. More insidiously, they are able to quote misinformation that is presented as fact.

              • John Billingsley

                Or the Monash University shooting in 2002 in which a student shot and killed 2 and wounded 5. It is simply luck that there were 2 dead and 5 wounded vs. 7 dead. Interestingly, 13 years later the shooter stabbed a doctor in the mental hospital where he had been confined for treatment.

                For another take on this, see the article by J. Baker and S. McPhedran in The British Journal of Criminology Volume 47, Issue 3, 1 May 2007, Pages 455–469 titled “Gun Laws and Sudden Death: Did the Australian Firearms Legislation of 1996 Make a Difference?” The short answer they found was, no it did not. They looked at homicide, suicide, and accidental death before and after the 1996 National Firearms Agreement. They found that firearm suicide was the only parameter the NFA may have influenced. They found though that the number of non-firearm suicides showed a significant increase after the law was passed. The entire article is readily available on line.

                The rate of firearm related incidents is lower in Austrailia than in the United States but the statement that the 1996 NFA totally eliminated mass shootings and significantly lowered the rate of firearm related homicide and accidental death is clearly false. As the authors of the above study say, “The findings have profound implications for future firearm legislation policy direction.” Anyone proposing legislation in the United States should take heed.

                • Pennagain

                  They found though that the number of non-firearm suicides showed a significant increase after the law was passed.

                  There is an unfortunate psychological correlation there. I’ve heard it quoted by the family members, friends or other well-meaning persons who found what they thought was The Weapon and decided “tough love” was the way to deal with a mortally despairing individual whose death they were now mourning Don’t tell me I can’t kill myself; I’ll show you!

          • Michael Ejercito,
            It’s really hard to proclaim that you’re not a troll when you write ridiculous comments like that.

            Give it a rest.

    • Jeff

      “Since those gun control measures were introduced, we have virtually had nothing that even resembles that which occurs in the US far too frequently.”

      True. Also true is that before those gun control measures were passed Australia had virtually no mass shootings, as well. Port Arthur was an extremely rare event in Australia’s history. Using Australia’s experience to claim that gun control prevents mass shootings is a bit like claiming that your magic rock keeps tigers away, when there weren’t any tigers around before you found the rock.

  2. Here is an excellent retort I saw on Twitter.

  3. I am as far from a conspiracy-obsessed person as anyone could be. And yet…something is not adding up about this supposed lone shooter.

    That hotel no doubt has plenty of surveillance cameras. Somehow, over a span of days, a large number of weapons and ammunition were hauled up to that one hotel room. By one person? I am starting to doubt that. I am further starting to doubt that the dead man, the alleged shooter, was alone in his room the whole time. Maybe his suicide was staged. Did anyone know how good of a marksman the dead man was? Was one person really able to fire that many rounds all by himself, to kill and wound that many people?

    The crime scene is making less and less sense…

    • crella

      How big are the guns? Could they fit in gym bags or suitcases? I had wondered that too, but if they fit in bags, he was just one more person in Vegas with too much luggage.

      Listening to the audio, it doesn’t seem as if more than one weapon was being fired at the same time, there was silence every once in a while (reloading?), which I would not expect if there were more than one shooter.

      • luckyesteeyoreman

        Crella, I have the same impression from the audio. It just leaves me all the more incredulous that one shooter was able to fire as many rounds as correspond to the death and injury count. With one allowance: that perhaps some individual bullets killed and/or wounded more than one person.

        • crella

          The injury count includes all injuries, such as being trampled, not only gunshot wounds. I counted the shots in the first two volleys in the audio, there were about 50 shots per volley, and there were what, 3-4 bursts? 200-300 shots fired into a dense crowd resulting in 59 deaths doesn’t seem ‘off’. I don’t own and have never owned a gun, and have no military experience though, this is just my own impressions.

        • He used multiple guns to allow the barrels to cool enough to continue shooting. Rapid fire will destroy the gun barrel without this (hence, ‘water cooled machine guns’) so he just used more guns.

    • Chris

      This is the second time this week you have suggested that an attack may be a false flag. To say you are “as far from a conspiracy-obsessed person as anyone can be” is just…not very self-aware.

    • Jeff

      “Did anyone know how good of a marksman the dead man was?”

      Shooting hundreds of round indiscriminately into a crowd of 20,000 people from a high vantage point requires no marksmanship ability at all.

      As for bringing the guns and ammo to the room, that’s not a particularly difficult feat. Unless he had a Ma Deuce and a pallet of ammunition, it wouldn’t be difficult to fit a couple rifles into a suitcase (possibly partially disassembled – an AR15 can be broken into two halves each less than 24″ long by removing just two pins with no tools), and a thousand rounds of ammunition for it weighs about 30 pounds and fits in a space the size of a shoebox.

      So far, there doesn’t appear to be anything logistically difficult about a single person perpetrating this atrocity. The main thing that doesn’t seem to add up is the lack of any obvious motive so far, and that nobody at all seems to have noticed any warning signs with this guy right up until he started shooting. That seems unusual.

      • Shooting hundreds of rounds indiscriminately into a crowd of 20,000 people from a high vantage point requires no marksmanship ability at all.

        I had considered that before I posted last night. On one hand, of course you are right. Depending on crowd density. Denser crowd means easier targets to hit. On the other hand, as soon as the crowd starts to disperse in panic, the shooter has to work at least a bit harder to hit any targets, no matter the level of marksmanship.

        Now, maybe the shooter took advantage of a large number of folks in the crowd who froze and just hunkered down, then just sprayed those targets. That is possible. But then, that would seem counter to a motive to kill as many as possible, because how is a shooter at nighttime going to be sure he isn’t just re-shooting whom he has already hit? Were that many people just frozen and sitting ducks? That seems improbable. To hit at least 59 fatally and wound 500…that is one hell of a lot of bullets that had to be fired, at a 1000 foot range, for one shooter to hit that many people. So maybe there were many instances of one bullet hitting more than one person. Oh well, that’s just intuition and speculation.

        As for bringing the guns and ammo to the room, that’s not a particularly difficult feat. Unless he had a Ma Deuce and a pallet of ammunition, it wouldn’t be difficult to fit a couple rifles into a suitcase (possibly partially disassembled – an AR15 can be broken into two halves each less than 24″ long by removing just two pins with no tools), and a thousand rounds of ammunition for it weighs about 30 pounds and fits in a space the size of a shoebox.

        Perhaps that provides a hint for preventing future shoot-fests. Perhaps there needs to be more baggage-checking of people bringing stuff into high-rise buildings – or to any multi-story building.

        • Marksmanship is a moot point when firing that fast. You are ‘firing for effect,’ spraying bullets in the general direction of your target.

          • dragin_dragon

            Absolutely! “Hit the dirt” is only an effective command if the shooter is on a level with you. Makes you a smaller target, harder to hit, even if ‘spraying’. When the shooter is 320 ft. in the air and maybe 1000 yards off, the bullets are coming in at something like 45 degrees (no, I did not do the calculations to determine exactly the angle). The point, here, is that marksmanship is NOT required. ‘Spraying’ was more effective.

            • IF the range on the ground is 1000 yards, and the room was 107 yards up (roughly 320 feet,) then the actual shot path was approximately 1005 yards, and the angle of shots was about 84% down.

              Laying down was not a good idea: bullet skips were probably common

              • 1000 Yards is a bit off.

                You can measure on Google Earth. His closest targets would have been about 900 ft as the crow flies, which is about 950 ft when you consider an elevation of about 320 ft. His furthest targets about 1650 ft, which is about 1685 ft considering elevation.

                So, his shooting into the mass would have been between approximately 300 meters and 550 meters (easy shooting for a massed target).

                If you consider the left and right limits of the packed concert area, you get a 28 degree spread (side to side). When you consider the farthest and nearest limits you get about a 10 degree spread (up and down). His angle down from the horizon varied between 10 degrees and 20 degrees…

        • crella

          ” To hit at least 59 fatally and wound 500…that is one hell of a lot of bullets that had to be fired, at a 1000 foot range”

          Not all the injuries were gunshot wounds…I don’t know the proportion of gunshot injuries vs. others, but there were a lot of injuries were, according to the press, ‘stampede injuries’. In addition, he was shooting for 9-11 minutes, each group of shots were about 50. In the available audio (which isn’t the whole incident) you can count roughly 200,

        • Pennagain

          Perhaps there needs to be more baggage-checking of people bringing stuff into high-rise buildings – or to any multi-story building.

          I just had a vision of the umpteen inviting entrances to hotels with casinos and shows — the number of guests, gamblers (especially cash-laden grandmas), entertainers, employees, and casual tourists entering and exiting 24/7. Then, I observe my 12-storey, 472-apartment block alone . . . let’s see: four main gates, internally connecting corridors and staircases, lots of wheelchair-bound folks, pizza delivery, moms with strollers, postmen, most everyone (including me) going in and out with a two-wheeled shopping cart . . . . Hundreds of windows overlooking a bustling inside courtyard and playground a half block across: a true “sniper target central”

          … though it would mean a lot more employment for checkers. And guards. Guards who would, of course, have to be armed.
          Give it up, Lucky. You can’t missile-proof any urban area, whether the ammunition is water, garbage, words or bullets.

      • Jeff, I tried to reply to you, but my comment got spammed.

  4. An update. Yiou might even want to dedicate an entire post to this.

    http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2017/10/02/country-guitarist-changes-mind-gun-control-after-las-vegas-shooting/TwFoswuE4vLL5rV65xl6YJ/story.html?s_campaign=bostonglobe%3Asocialflow%3Afacebook

    I’ve been a proponent of the 2nd amendment my entire life. Until the events of last night. I cannot express how wrong I was.

    ‘‘We need gun control RIGHT. NOW. My biggest regret is that I stubbornly didn’t realize it until my brothers on the road and myself were threatened by it. We are unbelievably fortunate to not be among the number of victims killed or seriously wounded by this maniac.’’

    Caleb Keeter is a complete dumbass.

    What other amendments should we compromise?

    How about the 4th? After all, if the police had greater power to conduct searches and seizures, without needing probable cause, they can catch criminals more easily.

    Or maybe the 5th? That beyond a reasonable doubt standard makes it easier for criminals to get away with their crimes. I am sure that it would be much harder for criminals to get away with their crimes if they had no privilege against self-incrimination.

    Or what about the 14th? Maybe we should selectively restrict the liberties of certain parts of the population that are more crime-prone than the rest of the population. I am sure there is some conspicuous trait law enforcement can use as a proxy for propensity for crime. Maybe it even rhymes with wack.

    The thing is, a state that can ignore the 2nd would have little to no reservation about ignoring the 4th, 5th, or 14th.

    • As progressives have found, the rules they enforce will be used against them when the wind blow from the other direction. The right no longer is restrained by ethics, morals, or a sense of fair play (Golden Rule).

      Discarding amendments you don’t like will result in your opposition discarding those you like when they get in power.

      Unless you simply take over as a dictator.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s