Morning Ethics Warm-up, 6/8/2022: The Thread Of The Year, And More

I apologize for not posting anything in the last two days on the anniversary of D-Day. This past Memorial Day, Grace and I, and my sister were completely immersed in World War II as we honored my father, and I had watched “The Longest Day” again during the weekend. Somehow June 6 came up too fast this year. Even acknowledging its many flaws, my Dad liked that WWII movie far more than most, because all of the anecdotes (right out of Cornelius Ryan’s book, which is better than his screenplay) reminded him of his own weird experiences in combat. (Dad’s least favorite war movies? A tie between “The Battle of the Bulge—with barely any snow in evidence and Sherman tanks playing Tiger tanks, and “Saving Private Ryan.”)

D-Day also had a strange place in the Marshall family’s consciousness. Dad was scheduled to be an observer during the invasion, but was sidelined when an idiot in his platoon used the pin of a live hand-grenade to dig mud out of his boot, blowing up himself, two other soldiers and my father’s right foot, and sending Dad to a hospital for months. The surgeon who later fixed Ted Kennedy’s broken back rebuilt my father’s foot sufficiently that it could be stuffed in a boot to allow him to get back into the war during the Battle of the Bulge. But he liked to remind my sister and me that we probably owed our existence to D-Day, specifically the fact that he wasn’t killed “observing” it.

1. The arrogance of anti-gun zealots. I just inserted myself into a thread launched by a Facebook friend expressing horror that parents entering a pediatric hospital would (legally) carry their guns inside. One of the Facebook friend’s Facebook friends wrote “I’m sick of your rights” and another wrote,”No one needs a gun.” Signature significance in both cases, and I told them both why.

2. Ethics Alarms Thread of the Year. I spent a long time trying to choose which of the uniformly excellent comments on the post Update: The Great Stupid Meets The Sandy Hook Ethics Train Wreck, and decided that there were just too many. I therefore declare the whole thread Comment of the Day-worthy, something I’ve never done before, but, looking back, probably should have. Some highlights to send you over there:

  • “Remember that the people pushing for gun control laws are the same people pushing for restorative justice.”
  • “Forty percent of Americans believe in ghosts, and fifty percent think UFOs are alien spacecraft. Let’s not start making policy based on what people believe, especially the dim bulbs who answer phone surveys.”
  • “Wait! Are Democrats okay with convicted felons and the mentally ill being discriminated against? What’s up with that? Didn’t Terry McAuliffe get felons the right to vote in Virginia (because felons evidently always vote Democrat)? And the mentally ill are a protected group. They are allowed to live on the street and do whatever they want wherever they want to. Who’s really in favor of them not having the rights of all other people? Will the felon lobby and the mentally ill lobby stand for this?”
  • “It seems to be legal for the mentally ill to stab or beat people to death in one on one situations on the street. That results in a stern warning not to do it again. It also seems to be legal for the mentally ill to break into homes and kill people, even via gun violence. It is only when the mentally ill break into schools and commit mass murder that anyone cares, and even then you aren’t allowed to point out that untreated mental illness was the root cause…”
  • “Regarding “priorities”… there’s millions and millions of brains in this country. I’d be surprised if we can’t figure out five problems at once….”

And many more: those are just examples, not necessarily the highlights.3. HEY! Apparently San Francisco isn’t completely irresponsible and incompetent! Yesterday, its residents voted  to recall hyper-progressive District Attorney Chesa Boudin, whose reign of woke-rooted idiocy was first discussed here, and later in subsequent stories about the ethics madness in the city. This doesn’t let voters off the hook, however: what did they think they would get when they voted in a fake prosecutor whose solution to “over-incarceration” was simply to let people commit crimes? Mary Jung, a chair of the recall campaign, fatuously tried to have her Woke Cake and eat it too, saying, “This election does not mean that San Francisco has drifted to the far right on our approach to criminal justice. In fact, San Francisco has been a national beacon for progressive criminal justice reform for decades and will continue to do so with new leadership.”

Sure, Mary, if that makes you feel better. What it means is that conservatives were right, progressives were wrong, and you just got mugged by reality but don’t have the integrity to admit it.

4. Good. FIRE announced, “The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education is renaming itself the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (still FIRE) as it moves beyond college campuses to defend free speech everywhere. Part of the First Amendment campaign may challenge the American Civil Liberties Union’s primacy as a defender of free speech.”

“May” challenge? The ACLU is no longer non-partisan, and has devolved into another Democratic Party/ progressive propaganda and activism organ. FIRE picking up the ACLU’s fallen banner is wonderful news.

5. An “It Isn’t What It Is!” spectacular! Apparently Democrats and President Biden are really going to try to keep power by insisting that the economy isn’t just good, it’s grrrrrrrrrrreat! This is Yoo’s Rationalization (#64) and Jimmy Durante’s Jumbo on an epic scale, as well as yet another test of whether the American public is as stupid and gullible as Democrats assume/hope it is.

On CNN, former Obama White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer  blames the “right-wing media machine” for stopping the “truth” from getting out:  “I think there are two parts of political communication: what are you going to say and how do you get people to pay attention to it? Biden has nailed the first part for much of his Presidency. His agenda is popular, his messaging is good. But not enough people are hearing it.” The reason, he claimed as CNN’s host nodded approvingly, is that Fox News and a few conservative news sources completely dominate what the public hears and believes. This means that ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, MSNBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Associated Press and CNN itself are overwhelmed in their cheerleading and biased support for the Democrats.

Of course, having a semi-competent press secretary might help. Biden’s current paid liar was caught reading from her briefing sheet (again) as she was called upon to bolster the White House’s desperate “Everything’s great!” narrative, telling reporters, “What we’re trying to say is that the economy is in a better place than it has been historically.” Ann Althouse was morantly amused, writing,

It seems that she couldn’t directly say the economy is in something like a good place. She knew that’s what she was supposed to say. And then what she said was revealing that background scenario: They’ve figured out what they should try to say. That gives the whole game away!

They “should try to say” what is manifestly false?

How can anyone justify voting to keep these awful people in power?

77 thoughts on “Morning Ethics Warm-up, 6/8/2022: The Thread Of The Year, And More

  1. 3. Will the ‘sixties ever leave us? We have Bernie Sanders verging on being a was figure in the Senate. We have Pete Buttigieg, son of a Communist historian in the Cabinet. And we have/had a red diaper Weather Underground scion as a prosecutor? From the squirt’s wiki page:

    “Boudin was born in New York City to Jewish parents. His parents, Kathy Boudin and David Gilbert, were Weather Underground members. When Boudin was 14 months old, both were arrested and convicted of murder for their role as getaway car drivers in the Brink’s robbery of 1981 in Rockland County, New York. His mother was sentenced to 20 years to life and his father to 75 years to life for the felony murders of two police officers and a security guard.

    After his parents were incarcerated, Boudin was raised in Chicago by adoptive parents Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, who, like his parents, had been members of the Weather Underground. Boudin reports that he did not learn to read until age nine. Kathy Boudin was released under parole supervision in 2003. Gilbert was released in 2021.

    Boudin descends from a long left-wing lineage. His great-grand-uncle, Louis B. Boudin, was a Marxist theoretician and author of a two-volume history of the Supreme Court’s influence on American government, and his grandfather Leonard Boudin was an attorney who represented controversial clients, such as Fidel Castro and Paul Robeson. His uncle Michael Boudin was a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, and his grand-uncle Isidor Feinstein Stone (“I. F. Stone”) was an independent progressive journalist.”

    How does this country continue to spawn and nourish and elevate virulent enemies from within? And by the way, on his last day in office, Andrew Cuomo, aka, The Sex Pest, released David Gilbert from his 75 years to life sentence. I wonder who paid Andrew for that?

    • How does this country continue to spawn and nourish and elevate virulent enemies from within? And by the way, on his last day in office, Andrew Cuomo, aka, The Sex Pest, released David Gilbert from his 75 years to life sentence. I wonder who paid Andrew for that?

      More importantly, who knew left-wing ideology was actually genetic? This looks like proof positive.

  2. My grandfather missed D-Day because he was being trained as a medic and didn’t get sent overseas until the Fall of 44. He followed Patton’s army as it cut a swath through Germany before finally ending up in Bavaria where he transported concentration camp survivors to hospitals.

    Without that training, he might have ended up on the beaches and who knows if three more generations would have existed?

    1. “I’m sick of your rights?” That how liberty dies, right there. Imagine a conservative saying something like that to a woman or a minority.
    3. “Never admit you’re wrong” should be the Democratic Party motto.
    5. Ditto

    As for why anyone would vote for these fools…they throw free money at things and promote irresponsible consequence-free sex with taxpayers footing the bill for any consequences that do turn up. Those are the only rights they believe in.

  3. “Mental illness” is a convenient label to slap on anybody who does a mass shooting. I do believe that there is a small percentage of mentally ill individuals who should not have access to guns, because they can not be trusted to not harm themselves or others. However, there are millions of people who suffer from anxiety, depression, etc. who are likely to never hurt anyone. This is not a mental illness problem, it is a gun problem.

    Most mass shooters are perfectly sane. Indeed, the whole premise behind our justice system is that people can and should be punished if they are of sound mind at the time their crimes were committed. “Hate” is not a mental illness. Mass shooters are people who hate minorities, other religions, women, bosses, spouses, ex-boyfriends/girlfriends, neighbors, classmates, teachers, or just the world in general. Most violent crimes are committed by angry young men — they may be angry because they don’t have girlfriends, were bullied, hate their jobs, or [fill in the blank]. Who cares? These men are not mentally ill, but they are filled with rage and they have access to weapons.

    The current system is not working. Absent a total weapons ban, there is no way to prevent all these gun deaths. But there are measures that could prevent some:
    1) Criminal and civil liability for any homeowner for crimes committed with guns owned by them or being housed on premises — this would include acts by other family members or guests.
    2) Red Flag Laws: Anyone with knowledge that someone they know (co-worker, neighbor, family member, etc.) may commit a gun crime can notify the police. Any and all weapons will be immediately seized until the police complete an investigation and those findings are approved by a Court.
    3) Ammunition limits
    4) Certain types of weapons should not be available for public purchase. And before any of you jump in, with “Aha, she knows nothing about guns!,” you’d be right. But frankly, it doesn’t matter. There can be weapons for defense that aren’t designed to shred the bodies of numerous people in seconds. We all know that. If this weren’t the case, the military would still be using muskets.

    I know the majority of the readers here think that possession of firearms is necessary for the protection of a free society. I obviously disagree with that ideology, but your position is not even practical. Who decides when a society is free or not? At what point am I allowed to pick up my gun and shoot a government official? How many of you would allow your child to be shot in the head to protect your twisted romantic notion that some day you’ll need to hide in the woods and shoot at some random tax collector or sheriff? And even if you’re not willing to offer up your own child up for tribute, what is the number of gun deaths per year that would make you change your mind?

    • The Sandy Hook guy was sane? The guys in Colorado were sane? The Parkland guy is sane? The guy in Texas was sane? Come on, Sparty, you can do better than that. Stop with the “Mental illness is Republican misdirection!” talking point. You’re smarter than that. No boys you knew in high school went off the deep end with paranoid schizophrenia shortly after high school when boys who are going to suffer from that disease go nuts?

      • And frankly, I’m insulted by the “it’s not mental illness” dodge. To me, undiagnosed and untreated severe mental illness is the most significant societal problem in the U.S. Nothing is even near being second most important. And who’s running the discussion of this issue? Advocates for the rights of the mentally ill. Which is nuts.

        • Well, I agree with you that mental illness is a huge problem in the US, but that is a topic for another day. Do I think the Oxford, MI shooter was sane? Yup. I think he had the misfortune of having terrible parents, but he knew what he was doing. We could go one by one through every shooting — we’d be here for a few months if we did that, but yes, plenty of people who commit horrific crimes are perfectly sane, just terrible people.

          But if your position is going to be, “Well, it is a mental illness problem, NOT a gun problem,” it is far easier to curb the sale of guns then it is to monitor the mental well-being of over 300 million people.

          • Like we curb the sale of cocaine and heroin?

            If you try to sale the curb of guns, the same people who dominate the market for cocaine and heroin will gain a greater share of, and possibly dominate, the gun market.

            • False comparison. I can make drugs in my garage. I guess I could 3-D print a gun too, but it would not be as effective. Other countries have done this. We wouldn’t be recreating the wheel.

              • British people made Sten guns a $7.00 a piece during World War II. Today, people in the Philippines make guns in garage workshops. This means criminal gangs can make their own guns, or at least skim the profits of someone whom makes guns- in addition to smuggling them. That is already what they do with drugs.

                And you keep saying other countries. Do these other countries include Brazil, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Russia, and South Africa?

              • False comparison. You don’t have to make very many guns in your garage when there are already hundreds of millions of them, and they will last for centuries if properly cared for. Drugs are consumables, guns are durable goods.

                  • This will be hard for you to read but here it is anyway…

                    Still Spartan wrote, “So your solution is to keep making more guns? Let’s make the problem even harder to solve!”

                    Taken in its entirety, that was a signature significant comment; clearly your are under some irrational delusion as to what the real problem is.

                    Until you and others like you can fully comprehend that the problem isn’t the damn tool (firearm) that’s being used to murder others, it’s the lack of functional morality¹ in the person wanting to murder others, you will remain an anti-gun hive minded foolish person spouting utter nonsense trying to turn our constitutional right to keep and bear arms into a civil privilege. Thinking that the problem is the tool is delusional² thinking; the firearm cannot physically walk itself into a school and shoot innocent children it physically requires an insane³ individual, yes insane individual, to preform the task.

                    How about we turn the entire Bill of Rights into a Bill of Civil Privileges just to satisfy the irrational delusions of people like you that seem to believe that it’s the gun that’s the root cause of murder. Who needs all those silly rights anyway, they just get in the way of “progress”; so, fuck your rights, you don’t need them because I say so, let’s apply the civil privilege concept to the entire constitution starting with your free speech. I will gladly be the voice on high that gets to determine who’s allowed these special privileges. Any questions my dear Sparty?

                    You Still Spartan, and delusional people that think like you, are a BIG problem in our culture!

                    Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Benjamin Franklin

                    What does it say about our culture when there are people being indoctrinated into believing that human life, human rights and constitutional rights are quaint anecdotes of an archaic history that needs to be scrubbed from existence?

                    ¹Morality: noun principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

                    ²Delusional: adjective characterized by or holding idiosyncratic beliefs or impressions that are contradicted by reality or rational argument.

                    ³Insane: adjective in a state of mind which prevents normal perception, behavior, or social interaction.

                  • I didn’t propose any solution at all. I was merely pointing out that the analogy isn’t very good.

                    Because of this difference in the nature of the two products, getting rid of guns from society is harder than getting rid of drugs, and we haven’t made any progress at all in getting rid of drugs, despite spending trillions of dollars on the problem over the last half-century.

                    We’d be better off trying to understand what the root causes are, of both drug abuse and violence, than to continue trying to treat the symptoms of the problem with solutions, like prohibition, that simply don’t work.

    • “they may be angry because they don’t have girlfriends, were bullied, hate their jobs, or [fill in the blank].”

      THE BLANK: Accepted…nay encouraged…cultural and behavioral patterns which devalue human life, glorify violence, and embrace savage conflict resolution.

      The Amish….?

    • 1: So if someone steals my car and runs somebody over with it, should I be liable?

      2. “A Republican politician just said something about ‘fighting’ the opposition! One of my Facebook friends just posted something about ‘getting the queers out of schools’. These are clearly disturbed individuals who should be investigated!”

      3. Driving up the price of subsistence hunting and self-defense. Plus there’s that pesky black market…

      4. Yes, it does matter what you know about guns. If you expect to persuade the opposition, you ought to know at least as much about the issue as they do, otherwise you shoot your argument in the foot (couldn’t resist).

      “At what point am I allowed to pick up my gun and shoot a government official?” Ask the people at Lexington and Concord in 1775. Or the Jews in Europe in the 1940s. And protecting a free society isn’t just about rebelling against an incurably corrupt and dangerous government. Who would you rather have serving in the armed forces protecting our nation? People who’ve never touched a gun in their lives until they joined up, or people who are familiar and comfortable with firearms?

      Lastly, you say these aforementioned measures COULD prevent SOME deaths; what if we implement every one and they still don’t prevent enough deaths to your liking? Will you push for more restrictions on personal liberty? Or will you say, “We’ve done all we can in this area, it’s time to focus on other areas to prevent mass murder”?

      • 1. Gun owners need to be responsible if they want to possess them. I grew up in a home with gun safes, and my brother has a gun safe with over 30 guns in it. I’m not a stranger to this issue. If you decide to leave guns accessible, and a family member or a guest decides to take it, yes, you should be liable. If someone comes over and drowns in my pool, I am liable if I didn’t have it fenced. This is not new territory.
        2. In your example, if that person also said something to the effect that they are going to buy or use a gun to shoot them, then yes.
        3. So what? No policy is perfect, plus no one is coming for your hunting rifle. Selling guns on the black market already is a crime.
        4. If I need to convince you, then you also need to worry about convincing me. The majority of people want tighter gun laws, including the vast majority of my family who all vote Republican. The problem isn’t the people’s will, it is the radical few and the gun lobby in D.C.
        5. I’m not sure what personal liberties you are referring to, but no, I’m pretty much in favor of personal liberties.

        • Gun owners need to be responsible if they want to possess them. I grew up in a home with gun safes, and my brother has a gun safe with over 30 guns in it. I’m not a stranger to this issue. If you decide to leave guns accessible, and a family member or a guest decides to take it, yes, you should be liable. If someone comes over and drowns in my pool, I am liable if I didn’t have it fenced. This is not new territory.

          There is a clear difference between a small child accessing a gun and an adult crook stealing a gun.

          The idea of gun owners being civilly (let alone criminally) responsible for crimes committed by an adult crook who stole their gun has absolutely zero precedent. It is not within our customary and traditional notions of responsibility.

          • That’s how Israel does it – if your gun is used in a crime and the police don’t find a broken gun safe, you are both civilly and criminally liable for what the person does with your gun.

            • I agree with Still Spartan on this.

              Owning a gun should be treated like owning a wild animal (legally). It should be strict liability if a third party uses the gun for a crime or if someone is injured because reasonable precautions were not taken.

              • Oh c’mon Jack!

                A wild animal that gets freed from its cage can go out and attack and hurt someone ALL ON ITS OWN.
                The gun strictly requires another person to point it at someone and pull the trigger. The person pulling the trigger is the one with strict liability.

                Surely you can see that this is a material difference.

                If someone is actually negligent in storing the gun, then we already have laws to cover that, right?

                –Dwayne

                • Do we? I’ve raised this before, as in the case of toddlers grabbing guns out of mommy’s purse. Adam Lanza’s mother was never prosecuted or held liable.

                  Surely you recall that first year torts case about the guy who kept an ape in a cage and it bit off the finger of someone who stuck their hand too near. The wild animal doesn’t have to escape. The idea of strict liability is that if you engage in dangerous activity or keep dangerous instrumentality, you better make sure nobody get hurt, or else. With rights come responsibilities.

                  • Adam Lanza’s mother was never prosecuted or held liable.”

                    Probably because her not-at-all-mentally-ill, totally sane son shot her four times in the head after stealing her guns to go on a murderous rampage.

                    Posthumous prosecution is pretty rare, even in Connecticut.

                  • I’ve raised this before, as in the case of toddlers grabbing guns out of mommy’s purse.

                    In your above comment, you used the term “third parties”, not “toddlers”.

                    “Third parties” would include career crooks who are presumed to know better, as well as toddlers who are presumed not to know better.

                    Adam Lanza’s mother was never prosecuted or held liable.

                    She was murdered.

                    The idea of strict liability is that if you engage in dangerous activity or keep dangerous instrumentality, you better make sure nobody get hurt, or else. With rights come responsibilities.

                    Except that the wild animal is uncontrollably dangerous, while a gun is only dangerous if actually used. We have no custom nor tradition of holding gun owners strictly liable for what third-party crooks do with their guns after stealing.

                    Furthermore, you fail to appreciate the implications of your proposal if it were enforced evenhandedly. If a sheriff’s deputy were to leave his loaded service pistol on a bartop in a bar when it is crowded, and someone steals it and uses it in a crime, the sheriff would be strictly civilly and criminally liable under your proposal, even if the deputy had asbolutely no prior history of being begligent with firearms, even if the department’s training of its deputies on gun safety was considered outstanding, merely because the sheriff owned the gun in question.

                    Similarly, had your proposal been in effect when Daunte Wright was killed, in theory the police chief and the mayor of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota would have been strictly civilly and criminally liable, because they owned the gun that Kimberly Ann Potter used to kill Daunte Wright. The case for strict liability would even be stronger, as Potter was a second party to the police chief and mayor.

                    Have you even thought of that? Do mayors and police chiefs deserve imprisonment or a multi-million dollar judgment because one of their guns was used in a crime, whether committed by an employee (like Potter) or by some crook who stole the gun from their government.

                    But, of course, we know that if your idea is adopted, it will not be enforced evenhandedly. We both know that even if your idea had been in force in Minnesota, neither the mayor nor police chief would have ever faced civil or criminal judgment for the killing of Daunte Wright. No President, no Attorney General, no governor, no mayor , no police chief, no sheriff would face prosecution on the basis that one of their employees wrongfully shot someone with their issued firearm. As a matter of fact, never in our history have public officials ever been held strictly liable, either in civil court or criminal court, for the misbehavior of their employees.

                    That reason alone is sufficient to reject your idea.

                    • “If a sheriff’s deputy were to leave his loaded service pistol on a bartop in a bar when it is crowded, and someone steals it and uses it in a crime, the sheriff would be strictly civilly and criminally liable under your proposal, even if the deputy had asbolutely no prior history of being begligent with firearms, even if the department’s training of its deputies on gun safety was considered outstanding, merely because the sheriff owned the gun in question.”

                      And that would be fine with me.

                      “Similarly, had your proposal been in effect when Daunte Wright was killed, in theory the police chief and the mayor of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota would have been strictly civilly and criminally liable, because they owned the gun that Kimberly Ann Potter used to kill Daunte Wright. The case for strict liability would even be stronger, as Potter was a second party to the police chief and mayor.”

                      That distortion of the meaning and intent of such a law would be extremely easy to avoid. Straw man.

                    • That distortion of the meaning and intent of such a law would be extremely easy to avoid. Straw man.

                      It is not a distortion.

                      The mayor and police chief owned the gun that Kimberly Ann Potter used to kill Daunte Wright.

                    • It is. That is not how the law treats ownership. Do we prosecute mayors for drug possession when police confiscate illegal drugs? Would we? Could we? It’s not a serious argument.

                    • Michael T. Ejercito wrote, “The mayor and police chief owned the gun that Kimberly Ann Potter used to kill Daunte Wright.”

                      No Michael, that’s absurd. The mayor and the police chief don’t “own” the firearms of the police force. That would be a rough equivalent to saying that military unit Commanders or President Biden “owns” all the weapons that are under their command.

                      Michael T. Ejercito wrote, ““So who owned the gun that killed Daunte Wright?”

                      The police force and therefore the City that has the police force “owns” the firearm.

                      I agree with Jack, this avenue of argumentation is a strawman, let it go.

                    • The police force and therefore the City that has the police force “owns” the firearm.

                      Fine then.

                      Have you heard of the Park doctrine?

                      Let me show you what the Park doctrine is.

                      https://www.corporatecomplianceinsights.com/jail-time-not-knowing-strict-liability-executives-park-doctrine/

                      The government will prosecute executives who “stand in responsible relation to a public danger” through the Responsible Corporate Officer doctrine (sometimes called the “Park doctrine”). See U.S. v. Dotterweich (1943). In Dotterweich, the CEO was convicted of violating the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) although he had no personal knowledge of the infraction, and the company was not convicted of the same crime! The Supreme Court upheld the misdemeanor conviction, endorsing the common law doctrine that a criminal conviction, without any criminal intent or even knowledge on the part of the defendant, is justified if the defendant is serving as a corporate officer.

                      The mayor and police chief of Brooklyn Center are corporate officers. As suich, applying the Park doctrine to Jack’s idea. As such, they would have been strictly criminally liable for the death of Daunte Wright.

                    • Michael,
                      You didn’t let it go as you should have and now you’re comparing apples to oranges while dragging the goal post around the field; really Michael? I view this avenue of argumentation as being just as absurd as saying the mayor and police chief own the firearms.

                      You come up with some really interesting stuff in your commentary sometimes but I really think your grasping at straws on this one. You’ve voiced your opinion, let it go.

              • For the sake of argument…

                Jack Marshall wrote, “Owning a gun should be treated like owning a wild animal (legally).”

                I agree to a point however, there is a clear difference between the things you compared. A wild animal is not an inanimate object that cannot physically function in the real world without the direct manipulation by an non-inanimate object, a wild animal (I presume a dangerous predator) is a living thing that naturally preys on others.

                Jack Marshall wrote, “It should be strict liability if a third party uses the gun for a crime or if someone is injured because reasonable precautions were not taken.”

                1. How did the third part obtain the firearm?
                2. What do you think a reasonable precaution is?
                3. What does an anti-2nd Amendment advocate think a reasonable precaution is?
                4. Who gets to legally define what a reasonable precaution?

                • If I were of a criminal persuasion, I would celebrate at the passage of such a law. All you would need to do is steal a gun, and you get carte blanche to shoot however many people you like! Drop the gun on the ground, and then walk as the guy who’s gun you stole does the time.

                  I’d certainly rather be the criminal than either of the other two players in that game, that’s for sure.

                  • Aaron Paschall wrote…

                    “If I were of a criminal persuasion, I would celebrate at the passage of such a law. All you would need to do is steal a gun, and you get carte blanche to shoot however many people you like! Drop the gun on the ground, and then walk as the guy who’s gun you stole does the time.

                    I’d certainly rather be the criminal than either of the other two players in that game, that’s for sure.”

                    I think that’s an absurd argument; what they were talking would not in any way absolve the person actually shooting the firearm.

        • Will you support stop and frisk in inner cities where most shootings take place. Inner city gang violence account for the majority of “mass” shootings. It is not a gun problem it is a behavioral problem. Guns are an inanimate object.

        • Still Spartan wrote, “Gun owners need to be responsible if they want to possess them.”

          Even though I completely agree with that statement, strictly speaking that’s not what the constitution says.

          Here are some facts about responsibility. Gun owners are very, VERY responsible and statistics literally prove that fact. There are hundreds of millions of gun owners in the USA in possession of hundreds of millions of firearms with probably well over a billion rounds of ammunition for those hundreds of millions of firearms and it’s less than 0.00001% of the overall firearms that are involved in murders. Here is a good writeup about the real statistics, LOGIC VS EMOTION. I’m sure the percentages have change slightly since 2018 when that was written but I’ll bet the farm that they probably haven’t changed more than 0.0001%.

          If lack of gun ownership responsibility was a real problem in the USA ,I think you’d be able to easily prove it but the actual facts prove your innuendo false.

          When you look at the reality of gun ownership statistics in the USA reality wins and baseless innuendo looses every time.

    • Leftwing ideology killed over 100 million people in the 20th century. No one needs leftwing ideology. Leftwing ideology inevitably leads to mass murder, widespread poverty, misery and death. Everyone should get real, and ban dangerous leftwing ideology from public discourse, print, and the internet. No one needs free speech. It inevitably leads to leftwing ideology and must be strictly controlled to prevent the inevitable consequences. We should immediately put in place red flag laws so that neighbors, family and friends can report people for leftwing ideology speech dangers, and remove these people’s ability to harm others with dangerous ideas. Speech limits should be put in place preventing internet access, public speaking and dissemination of written leftwing information. Criminal and civil liability should be put in place for individuals who violate speech codes on spreading leftwing ideology or who enable others to spread it by providing access to the internet, food, lodging or housing to such individuals. Until we get serious about this problem, poverty, crime and murder will continue to escalate in our society. No laws will completely eradicate left wing ideology, so we can expect crime, poverty and murder to continue, but we can make things better. Everyone should agree on that.

    • However, there are millions of people who suffer from anxiety, depression, etc. who are likely to never hurt anyone. This is not a mental illness problem, it is a gun problem.

      Do I actually need to point out the flaw in this reasoning? Have you never heard of the Fallacy of Composition?

      Mass shooters are people who hate minorities, other religions, women, bosses, spouses, ex-boyfriends/girlfriends, neighbors, classmates, teachers, or just the world in general.

      Ah. Well, you’ve solved it then. Anyone who “hates” anything should have their enumerated Constitutional rights abridged. And let’s not stop at guns, let’s do that pesky “free speech” thing, too — we’ve been assured by the Left that regardless of hundreds of years of Supreme Court precedent that “hate speech” is subject to punishment by the government.

      Seems to me that if we just test everybody for “hate” (I won’t even ask for a definition), we’ll solve all our problems! Just send them all up in a big space shuttle and pitch them out the airlock!

      These men are not mentally ill, but they are filled with rage and they have access to weapons.

      Ah! Angry young men, check. Pitch them out the airlock, too. Let’s have a peaceful society!

      As to your solutions:

      1. Punish people for crimes committed against their property. Great idea. Do we extend that to stolen knives too? Baseball bats? Hammers, machetes, etc? All these things have been used to commit multiple murders. What about explosive precursors, like… fertilizer? Many more large mass murders have been carried out with bombs than guns.

      2. Red flag laws with strong due process protections are acceptable to most in the gun community in principle.

      3. Do criminals get ammunition limits, too? Asking for a friend…

      4. Certain types of weapons are already unavailable for public purchase without massive red tape. Putting more weapons on that list will not change a thing. If you limit magazines to ten rounds, the solution is simple — bring more magazines or illegally extend them. Outlaw semi-autos? No problem, bring ten revolvers or lever-action or pump-action shotguns with loads of ammunition, which have no effective ammo limit if properly used. Ammunition limits? Make your own!

      I know the majority of the readers here think that possession of firearms is necessary for the protection of a free society. I obviously disagree with that ideology, but your position is not even practical.

      Of course it is. What is impractical is trying to disarm an extensively armed society, or imagine that you can stuff that genie back into the bottle. A significant percentage of Americans have grown up with firearms, and a fair number of those know how to make their own ordinance. You cannot ban knowledge, lead, or the components of gunpowder. Many people will defend their rights to the tools of freedom with their lives.

      Who decides when a society is free or not?

      The people via their elected representatives might be a place to start. Seems to me that ship has largely sailed.

      And even if you’re not willing to offer up your own child up for tribute, what is the number of gun deaths per year that would make you change your mind?

      Ah, once again the great fallacy of “if even one…” recast as “if even your…”. Same invalid logic, the “Fallacy of Incommensurability.” How many young drivers must die because automotive transport is legal? Airplanes? Just too dangerous. Train wrecks? Yikes. Didn’t we try a Constitutional amendment once to eliminate the scourge of alcohol on the basis of health and morality? How did that work out, again? And how many people perish from alcohol every year? Cigarettes? Obesity? Drunk drivers? Bad drivers?

      Perhaps we should outlaw all these things, including fast food, sweets, sodas, and … well, everything that might lead to death. If even one person is saved, shouldn’t we be willing to sacrifice our freedom? After all, we’d still have life and could do some things.

      I’m against it, though.

    • > …think that possession of firearms is necessary for the protection of a free society. I obviously disagree with that ideology.

      The United States is the only free society that has existed under its founding charter as long as it has. I believe this is due to no government monopoly of force. Citizenry’s ability to maintain the right of revolution is a check and balance on oppression of government power. You’re not just disagreeing with the majority of readers here, history also doesn’t agree with you.

    • From Still Spartan “2) Red Flag Laws: Anyone with knowledge that someone they know (co-worker, neighbor, family member, etc.) may commit a gun crime can notify the police. Any and all weapons will be immediately seized until the police complete an investigation and those findings are approved by a Court.”
      And how many people will have their guns seized and have to wait for many months unable to defend themselves while overburdened police investigate a false report made by a malicious co-worker, neighbor, family member, etc.
      I recall that when in Ireland they were discussing their abortion law that someone suggested that pregnant women should not be allowed to travel overseas to get an abortion. Immediately I thought how easy it would be for any malicious person to put in a false report that a woman was travelling overseas to get an abortion. Laws like this are very prone for any malicious person to severely inconvenience others with no comeback on them.

    • How many of you would allow your child to be shot in the head to protect your twisted romantic notion that some day you’ll need to hide in the woods and shoot at some random tax collector or sheriff? And even if you’re not willing to offer up your own child up for tribute, what is the number of gun deaths per year that would make you change your mind?

      It seems that you have stumbled upon a dirty little secret.

      The street thug and the gangbanger use their civil rights protections to faciliate, and get away with, their crimes.

      They peaceably assemble to plan, plot, and prepare their robberies and drive-by shootings.

      They peacefully bear arms to and from the scenes of robberies and drive-by shootings.

      They use their freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures to conceal evidence that they committed, or are about to commit, a robbery or a drive-by shooting.

      They use their right to a fair trial, their right to an attorney, their right to due process of law, to escape punishment for committing robberies and drive-by shootings.

      They use their freedom from cruel and unusual punishment to avoid the punishment that they deserve for committing a robbery or a drive-by shooting, even if they are judged guilty consistently with their other rights.

      Without the Constitution protecting these rights, the cops can judge street thugs and gangbangers guilty and give them the punishment that they deserve.

      Now here is a question if we repeal, or ignore, the Bill of Rights to be safe from the street thug and the gangbanger.

      What makes you think that the cops will only go after the street thug and the gangbanger?

      What makes you think the cops will even go after the street thug and the gangbanger?

    • “However, there are millions of people who suffer from anxiety, depression, etc. who are likely to never hurt anyone. This is not a mental illness problem, it is a gun problem.” About 32% of the US are gun owners. About 26% of the US has some from of mental illness. (quick google search, but it depends on what you include in that lump. that estimate is using a broad definition). On a pure statistical basis, owning a gun is a less reliable predictor of a mass shooting than having any form of mental illness. Neither is actually a GOOD predictor.

      You decry using mental illness, but then promote red flag laws, which can flag someone for exactly that reason. It’s inconsistent. Such laws are incredibly easy to abuse if you allow anonymous reporting, but even without that “The process is the punishment” still applies. Being able to appeal doesn’t make the original violation a problem.

      Gun control tends to be a form of collective punishment. Collective punishment is wrong, even if you believe it’s in a good cause. You shouldn’t be able to say I can’t own a gun because of something some other unspecified person might do with one.

    • Still Spartan wrote, “Most mass shooters are perfectly sane.”

      Insane: adjective in a state of mind which prevents normal perception, behavior, or social interaction.

      Let me get this right; you’re believe that most mass shooters are in a state of mind that gives them a normal perception of the world around them, leading to normal behaviors and normal interactions with others?

      That Still Spartan is delusional thinking.

      And you wonder why people adamantly disagree with the crap you write when it’s based on that kind of delusional thinking.

      Delusional: adjective characterized by or holding idiosyncratic beliefs or impressions that are contradicted by reality or rational argument.

      • ” ‘Most mass shooters are perfectly sane.’ ” (bolds/italics mine)

        And Atilla The Hun led an active, outdoor lifestyle.

        THAT is THE most clueless f*cking thing I’ve read in a long LONG time; feel free to supply citation that supports it.

        Perfection is not a human attribute, especially in this instance.

      • Wait, I missed that. Did SS really write that mass shooters are “perfectly sane”? I wish I missed that and never caught it.Deliberately killing mass numbers of innocent people outside of wartime is signature significance: sane people never do it. Not even once. The fact that the psychiatric profession often can’t identify exactly how a mass shooter is bonkers just is more evidence of how limited that field of study is.

        • That’s a slippery slope. So are all convicted serial killers insane by this logic? Should they all be placed in psychiatric hospitals and then released once they have convinced their doctors that they are no longer a threat to society?

          Were the Nazis who participated in the actual extermination of Jews insane? Nazi doctors? Nazi propagandists?

          • Yes, they are insane. I would execute them anyway, thus eliminating your problem. The various formulas for insanity eliminating criminal culpability are too vague and too subject to manipulation. Serial killer? Bye. Mass shooter? Same thing. Was there any question that Ted Bundy was insane? But he wasn’t the right kind of insane, so he was executed.

            The Nazis’ murders were political and ideological. No, they weren’t insane. Just sociopaths.

            • Jack Marshall wrote, “The Nazis’ murders were political and ideological. No, they weren’t insane. Just sociopaths.”

              If they were in fact sociopaths (which is quite likely) then they were either borderline or actually clinically insane by definition. I think the murderous Nazi’s killing the Jews were pure evil which does tend to steer towards being sociopaths; however, I also think there are clear crossovers between the definitions with the root being insane.

              Evil: adjective profoundly immoral and wicked.

              Sociopath: noun a person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behavior and a lack of conscience.

              Insane: adjective in a state of mind which prevents normal perception, behavior, or social interaction.

              Personally I think a sociopath personality disorder is a form of insanity and the fact that the American Psychiatric Association has tried to separate them over the years and peel off a layer of social unacceptability and it’s a dumbing down “politically correct” bridge too far. I think it’s intentional skewed social justice public propaganda to brainwash the public. Just because some insane people can function better in society than others does not mean they are not “insane” simply because they choose to label them differently.

              I’d really like to hear what our couple of resident retired professional psychiatrists have to say about my opinion on this.

              • Sharing this here because it’s directly relevant.

                The relevant part of the reply from dragin_dragon obtained in a different thread was…

                Understand that “sane” and “insane” are legal terms, not terms used by Psychologists. Jack is right in that one symptom is a lack of conscience, but, they (Sociopaths) have no problem identifying right from wrong, they just don’t care…. So, yes, sociopathy is a disorder, but it is NOT a psychosis, and my feeling is that sociopaths should be held responsible for their behavior. I have known and dealt with many over the years and only one went off the rails. Research has shown us that self-preservation can be a powerful motivator, and sociopaths are quite capable of understanding that their survival depends on adhering to societal norms.”

                dragin_dragon also added in a follow-up comment…

                I would point out that Jack’s definition of insane uses the word incapable, which is an overstatement. Insane (or crazy, if you will) people do have the capability of regulating their behavior, but “normally” do not either because of delusional thinking or hallucinations.

                Lots of good food for thought from dragin_dragon and I really appreciate the input.

                I had forgotten that “sane” and “insane” are legal terms, not terms used by Psychologists, in fact, I think I may have forgotten that detail in the past too. I’ll have to rethink about what I wrote above keeping that in mind.

          • Still Spartan wrote…

            “That’s a slippery slope. So are all convicted serial killers insane by this logic? Should they all be placed in psychiatric hospitals and then released once they have convinced their doctors that they are no longer a threat to society?

            Were the Nazis who participated in the actual extermination of Jews insane? Nazi doctors? Nazi propagandists?”

            Yes, by definition they are insane.

            Insane: adjective in a state of mind which prevents normal perception, behavior, or social interaction.

            Are serial killers insane, yes. Were Nazi doctors that murdered the Jews insane, yes. Those two groups proved that they’re insane with their obvious abnormal perception and behavior showing that they did not value human life, in my book, their actions alone are enough to prove insanity because sane people value human live and don’t intentionally murder innocent people.

            Were Nazi propagandists insane, probably not, they were politically expedient political tools. We have lots and lots of propagandists spouting all kinds of political trash right now in the USA and I don’t consider any of them to fit the definition of insane. Are their actions unethical and immoral, yes but until a medical professional psychologically evaluates a political propagandist you can’t tell if they truly believe what they are spewing or if they’re just a willing political parrot, there is a difference.

  4. #1 Also, I found this on Facebook…

    Since owning and driving a car is a civil privilege and the keeping and bearing arms is literally a Constitutional right, the person that posted that wants to strip the right and make it a civil privilege and to do that the 2nd Amendment would have to be completely abolished.

    I wonder if people who share this kind of advocacy understand what they are advocating for of if they are just reacting emotionally to current events?

    • Steve, as a point of interest, lots of people (very likely including Sparty) read the second amendment to only apply to a well-regulated militia being armed. They do not read the Constitution as providing for the right of individual citizens to bear arms.

      • I would take it further. The 2nd Amendment doesn’t provide the right for individual citizens to bear arms. It reads that the “right will not be infringed.”

        That means the right to keep and bears arms exists in America even if the 2nd Amendment doesn’t. That right is assumed.

        I would challenge Still Spartan with this:
        Tell me the law that could be passed that would cause criminals to become responsible gun owners or, as you would like, have them give up their guns.

        • Joel Mundt,
          I’ve presented that argument in a few different way in various places online and I have yet to get back a logical counter argument, I have gotten back some extrapolations to utter absurdity. I think it’s an interesting argument that will only be fully resolved by being an argument that’s included in a 2nd Amendment case brought before the Supreme Court of the United States.

  5. “This election does not mean that San Francisco has drifted to the far right on our approach to criminal justice. In fact, San Francisco has been a national beacon for progressive criminal justice reform for decades and will continue to do so with new leadership.”

    Just remember, the same people who favor progressive criminal justice reform also favor stricter gun control laws.

    Always remember that, in case any of us are tempted to believe that the government would use such laws to keep us safe from the street thug and the gangbanger.

  6. 1. A good response to that kind of arrogance is μολὼν λαβέ! Molon Labe! Come and take them! A bunch of man-bun sporting, scruffy-bearded, mom-jean wearing soy boys aren’t going to take anything.

    • He wrote a long letter about it, and sent it to the military advisor on the film. He got a response too, which was essentially, “You’re right, but you know: Hollywood.” he objected to Tom Hanks having his bars on his helmet (Snipers, you know) ; he objected to the platoon diverging from the mission repeatedly; he really objected to the whole conceit of the film, that in the midst of the most crucial campaign of the war, George Marshall would place high priority on any single soldier’s survival, and a lot more. He also thought the representation of the level of fire the landing soldiers face on Omaha was seriously misleading, though it was that intense on the first wave.

  7. Things to consider:
    1. There are estimates (using sales data and issuance of hunting licenses, etc) that there are 400 million guns privately owned in the US. I cannot speak to the accuracy of that, but even a 20% error would still mean a lot of guns. When all these common-sense laws take place, what happens to those guns?
    2. If a magic wand becomes available and those 400-odd million go away, what is the over/under, in days, before the next gun appears? Its like mules; get rid of them all and if you have a horse and a donkey, you can start making mules. 3-D printing is not the answer/ Lathes, drill presses, mills, and a bit of mechanical ability is what it takes. Check our You Tube or Rumble for all the basement machinists making things out of metal…. and all basement machinists don’t post on the net. Harbor Freight sells much of the tooling one might need.
    3. The mental health issue so far bars people who have been institutionalized at some point. Who checks on all the walking wounded who are booted out of street clinics with a handful of pills to self medicate. That won’t show up on a record check and what if they already have a gun that they bought before their demons showed up? And what about HIIPA and medical privacy?

    I see the above points a something that needs to be included in anything someone dares to call common sense. But it makes no difference. The bottom line is: the Second amendment needs to be repealed first, and none of the legislatures around the country appear to have that on their agenda today.

  8. One relatively recently armed woman’s story. It’s a good read!
    https://naomiwolf.substack.com/p/rethinking-the-second-amendment?s=r

    Also, some of most vocal proponents for gun control seem to me a lot like preemptive policing. Should we begin locking people up indefinitely based solely on an accusation in an ex parte proceeding? (DoJ & DC Courts and AUSAs holding people for trespass, essentially, without bond on 1/6 comes to mind.)
    Just thinking out loud a bit,
    MB

    • I’m glad you said that. It’s tough to argue when you’re outnumbered and multiple people are posting ripostes to your ideas at once. Much respect for Still Spartan for being willing to take the heat.

    • Jack Marshall wrote, “I’m very grateful to Still Spartan for re-entering the fray here to make her case about firearms.”

      I agree.

      Even though Still Spartan and I adamantly disagree on some points we do have some points where we completely agree, I say so and this debate is no different. I do appreciate controversial input and I hold no animosity towards her when we disagree, in fact controversial input has a tendency to force fact based argumentation for validity and help solidify viewpoints. On a similar note; when I find out that I’m wrong, I try to own it and do better.

      I learned long ago that even though we may disagree (sometimes to extremes) I will not hold grudges I’ll still share my fox hole with anyone that’s willing to defend this nation and I try to apply that to debates. That said, that doesn’t mean that I don’t consciously limit where and with whom to choose to engage in debate.

      In general, there is a solid foundation of human commonalities to build upon.

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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.