Police: Boy, 2, accidentally kills woman in store
Associated Press | Tuesday, 30 December 2014
HAYDEN, Idaho (AP) — Authorities in northern Idaho say a 2-year-old boy accidentally shot and killed a woman after he reached into her purse at a Wal-Mart store and her concealed gun fired.
Kootenai County sheriff's spokesman Stu Miller tells reporters that the woman was shopping with several children, and it's unclear how they are related. Authorities originally said the boy was the woman's son.
Authorities say the woman had a concealed weapons permit. Her identity has not been released.
Miller says the shooting was accidental and occurred in the Wal-Mart in Hayden, Idaho, a town about 40 miles northeast of Spokane, Washington. The store closed after the shooting.
Hayden is a politically conservative town of about 9,000 people just north of Coeur d'Alene in Idaho's northern panhandle.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/police ... ?ocid=iehp
[It turns out that the Idaho shooting story was not complete. The kid killed his own mother. Here is the new, expanded report. RebLem]
2-year-old accidentally kills his mom in Wal-Mart
By Nicholas K. Geranioss | Associated Press | Tuesday, 30 DEC 2014
HAYDEN, Idaho — A 2-year-old boy accidentally shot and killed his mother after he reached into her purse at a northern Idaho Wal-Mart and her concealed gun fired, authorities said Tuesday.
Veronica J. Rutledge, 29, was shopping with her son and three other children, Kootenai County sheriff's spokesman Stu Miller said. Rutledge was from Blackfoot in southeastern Idaho, and her family had come to the area to visit relatives.
She had a concealed weapons permit. Miller said the young boy was left in a shopping cart, reached into his mother's purse and grabbed a small-caliber handgun, which discharged one time.
Deputies who responded to the Wal-Mart found Rutledge dead, the sheriff's office said. "It appears to be a pretty tragic accident," Miller said. [An accident? Maybe, but its an accident that was waiting to happen. When a woman leaves an open purse with a gun in it within her child's reach but not her own, that is not an accident. It is irresponsible carelessness for which this woman paid with her life. RebLem] The victim's father-in-law, Terry Rutledge, told The Associated Press that Veronica Rutledge "was a beautiful, young, loving mother. She was not the least bit irresponsible," [Really? How do we get to that? I am willing to hear any syllogisms that show that. RebLem] Terry Rutledge said. "She was taken much too soon."
The woman's husband was not in the store when the shooting happened at about 10:20 a.m. Miller said the man arrived shortly after the shooting. All the children were taken to a relative's house. [Do the relatives have concealed carry permits, too? Did anyone check to see? RebLem]
The shooting occurred in the Wal-Mart in Hayden, Idaho, a town about 40 miles northeast of Spokane, Washington. The store closed and was not expected to reopen until Wednesday morning.
Brooke Buchanan, a spokeswoman for Wal-Mart, said in a statement the shooting was a "very sad and tragic accident. [There's that little nonsense word again. RebLem] We are working closely with the local sheriff's department while they investigate what happened," Buchanan said.
There do not appear to be reliable national statistics about the number of accidental fatalities involving children handling guns. [Of course not. We are horses, people. The NRA sees to it that we have all been fitted with blinders. They don't want to scare us. And, as long as we let it work, we deserve to be treated like horses. RebLem]
In neighboring Washington state, a 3-year-old boy was seriously injured in November when he accidentally shot himself in the face in a home in Lake Stevens, about 30 miles north of Seattle.
In April, a 2-year-old boy apparently shot and killed his 11-year-old sister while they and their siblings played with a gun inside a Philadelphia home. Authorities said the gun was believed to have been brought into the home by the mother's boyfriend.
Hayden is a politically conservative town of about 9,000 people just north of Coeur d'Alene, in Idaho's northern panhandle.
Idaho lawmakers passed legislation earlier this year allowing concealed weapons on the state's public college and university campuses. Despite facing opposition from all eight of the state's university college presidents, lawmakers sided with gun rights advocates who said the law would better uphold the Second Amendment.
Under the law, gun holders are barred from bringing their weapons into dormitories or buildings that hold more than 1,000 people, such as stadiums or concert halls. [Aha! Here we have a direct statement of the outrage threshhold. You have to have a thousand people killed for official outrage to be the proper reaction. 999 just wouldn't cut it. That'd be just another ho-hum "tragic accident." RebLem]
___
Associated Press writer Kimberlee Kruesi in Boise, Idaho, contributed to this story.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/2-year-old-accidentally-kills-his-mom-in-wal-mart/ar-BBhmnXx?ocid=iehp
It can be an accident and still the result of irresponsible stupidity.
Your comment about the official outrage threshold is -- being kind here -- a non-sequitur.
?? nra mind control told the kid to reach into the purse and discharge the weapon ??
FAIL
Why you so fraid of guns reb?
I'm sure you've seen that hilarious new PSA everyone's mawing about?
It's not guns, snyprrr. It's the folks who, without proper training and precautions, think they can solve certain societal problems. And also the folks who throw the second half of the Second Amendment in our faces, forgetting that "the right to keep and bear arms" is contained in the context of "A well-regulated militia". I only ask that firearms be subject to the same licensing and training as automobiles--an equally deadly weapon in many people's hands.
I also find it ironic that edged weapons past a certain length are completely illegal--as if swords were inherently more deadly than an AK-47. ::)
This is typical of RebLem and other left-wing folks who use a tragedy to immediately howl at the moon against the current gun laws. However, I do favor jochanaan's recommendation.
All the idiots brandishinc guns are better arguments than any leftwinger can come up with.
Quote from: The new erato on December 31, 2014, 11:22:15 AM
All the idiots brandishinc guns are better arguments than any leftwinger can come up with.
I don't see how a two year old could unlatch a safety and pull a trigger. So this pistol must have had a round chambered already, just waiting to go off. That must count as reckless.
Quote from: Ken B on December 31, 2014, 11:31:03 AM
I don't see how a two year old could unlatch a safety and pull a trigger. So this pistol must have had a round chambered already, just waiting to go off. That must count as reckless.
My point exactly. Guns and idiots don't blend well, and it's easier to remove the guns than the idiots.....jochanaan hs good points.
As a sports shooter and firearm owner I had to go through a testing and evaluation program before being permitted to own a firearm. There appears to be no such strictures in the US and maybe this is the root cause of the problem.
I am not allowed to carry that firearm on my person in public unless I am transporting it to and from my vehicle where it must reside, unloaded and with some sort of security device such as a trigger guard. While this will not prevent me from running amok should I choose to do so it certainly gives some peace of mind to the Australian public.
The NRA slogan of guns don't kill people, people kill people is certainly true but it takes no account of who you allow to have weapons. That said, how are you ever going to change a law that has been so entrenched for so long as a constitutional right.
Quote from: Holden on December 31, 2014, 01:11:01 PM
As a sports shooter and firearm owner I had to go through a testing and evaluation program before being permitted to own a firearm. There appears to be no such strictures in the US and maybe this is the root cause of the problem.
I am not allowed to carry that firearm on my person in public unless I am transporting it to and from my vehicle where it must reside, unloaded and with some sort of security device such as a trigger guard. While this will not prevent me from running amok should I choose to do so it certainly gives some peace of mind to the Australian public.
The NRA slogan of guns don't kill people, people kill people is certainly true but it takes no account of who you allow to have weapons. That said, how are you ever going to change a law that has been so entrenched for so long as a constitutional right.
To get my concealed carry permit in Texas I had to take 10 hours of classroom training and 8 more on the range. The instructor had zero tolerance for screwups either, it was entirely at his discretion if we passed or not.
That whole story is bizarre. No two year old in the world could take my pistol and shoot me with it. It just couldn't be done. I would have to see the video before I bought in.
As for the entire gun control mess, I have been a responsible gun owner for 50 years. I certainly have some reservations about who should be able to have guns, I think our system of handing them out to anyone and everyone is ludicrous, but I would never favor a no-guns policy, no matter the rationale. Surely there are people in this discussion who aren't either right wingnuts or left wingnuts... ::)
8)
I think I'm pretty moderate on the gun subject. I've never owned one, but I do consider it now and then.
(http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/full-width/images/2012/04/blogs/graphic-detail/20120428_WOC086.png)
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/04/daily-chart-14 (http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/04/daily-chart-14)
Americans' attitude towards firearms is frankly ridiculous. I have no idea how concealed carry is supposed to benefit anyone, or why anyone other than a farmer/park ranger/hunter would want to own a gun in the first place. (I don't see why anyone, full stop, would want to own a sword or a battleaxe or VX nerve gas etc., unless they actually wanted to kill people. So I have no problem with those things being banned completely. Guns are useful for other purposes on the other hand. But not in Wal-Mart, on a university campus, or whatever. I can't imagine why anyone would think a firearm would help them shop better?)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on December 31, 2014, 01:26:59 PM
To get my concealed carry permit in Texas I had to take 10 hours of classroom training and 8 more on the range. The instructor had zero tolerance for screwups either, it was entirely at his discretion if we passed or not.
That whole story is bizarre. No two year old in the world could take my pistol and shoot me with it. It just couldn't be done. I would have to see the video before I bought in.
As for the entire gun control mess, I have been a responsible gun owner for 50 years. I certainly have some reservations about who should be able to have guns, I think our system of handing them out to anyone and everyone is ludicrous, but I would never favor a no-guns policy, no matter the rationale. Surely there are people in this discussion who aren't either right wingnuts or left wingnuts... ::)
8)
My position is this. Gun control does not work. Maybe it might in Japan, where there are few guns already, but not in the US. I believe the statistics bear this out. I do not support futile laws or regulations.
I have no desire to own a gun, and would not do so.
Quote from: amw on December 31, 2014, 02:28:40 PM
Americans' attitude towards firearms is frankly ridiculous. I have no idea how concealed carry is supposed to benefit anyone, or why anyone other than a farmer/park ranger/hunter would want to own a gun in the first place. (I don't see why anyone, full stop, would want to own a sword or a battleaxe or VX nerve gas etc., unless they actually wanted to kill people. So I have no problem with those things being banned completely. Guns are useful for other purposes on the other hand. But not in Wal-Mart, on a university campus, or whatever. I can't imagine why anyone would think a firearm would help them shop better?)
That you have no idea only shows you have not listened to the counter arguments against you. There are serious arguments on both sides and a lot of studies.
Quote from: Moonfish on December 31, 2014, 01:52:28 PM
(http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/full-width/images/2012/04/blogs/graphic-detail/20120428_WOC086.png)
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/04/daily-chart-14 (http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/04/daily-chart-14)
Interesting chart. And that's why I don't like to drive too much than I have to...
Quote from: amw on December 31, 2014, 02:28:40 PM
Americans' attitude towards firearms is frankly ridiculous. I have no idea how concealed carry is supposed to benefit anyone, or why anyone other than a farmer/park ranger/hunter would want to own a gun in the first place. (I don't see why anyone, full stop, would want to own a sword or a battleaxe or VX nerve gas etc., unless they actually wanted to kill people. So I have no problem with those things being banned completely. Guns are useful for other purposes on the other hand. But not in Wal-Mart, on a university campus, or whatever. I can't imagine why anyone would think a firearm would help them shop better?)
Um... some people like collecting guns, swords, etc. and don't want to kill people. Owning a katana would be pretty cool, though I probably wouldn't get one since swords are a bit dangerous.
Quote from: Ken B on December 31, 2014, 02:34:51 PM
My position is this. Gun control does not work. Maybe it might in Japan, where there are few guns already, but not in the US. I believe the statistics bear this out. I do not support futile laws or regulations.
I have no desire to own a gun, and would not do so.
Yep, and in time the whole debate will be meaningless when you can 3D print guns. Sure, it may be illegal to do so in Japan, but it's not something you can actually stop in the long run.
Quote from: Ken B on December 31, 2014, 02:39:04 PM
That you have no idea only shows you have not listened to the counter arguments against you. There are serious arguments on both sides and a lot of studies.
To me it says more that arguments in favour of concealed carry and the like are actually taken seriously. But then I don't know, I've never lived in America outside New York City, maybe the rest of the country really is a crime-ridden hellhole where carrying a firearm on your person at all times is the only way to ensure your survival against school shooters and terrorist cells.
Quote from: amw on December 31, 2014, 03:00:20 PM
To me it says more that arguments in favour of concealed carry and the like are actually taken seriously. But then I don't know, I've never lived in America outside New York City, maybe the rest of the country really is a crime-ridden hellhole where carrying a firearm on your person at all times is the only way to ensure your survival against school shooters and terrorist cells.
Which are not the arguments made for concealed carry.
The young woman who died was apparently a nuclear research scientist. (There are actually a lot of those in Idaho, believe it or not.) That doesn't mean she wasn't an "idiot" or "reckless" or whatever other label one wants to slap on her, nor does it mean she was, but it also indicates this may just be another sad story without a whole lot in terms of lessons to be learned. Her fate certainly doesn't add much value to the gun control debate. The situation in the US is now, long has been, and pretty much always will be, something non-Americans will never understand, however much they try, however much they posture.
Quote from: Todd on December 31, 2014, 05:23:46 PM
The young woman who died was apparently a nuclear research scientist. (There are actually a lot of those in Idaho, believe it or not.) That doesn't mean she wasn't an "idiot" or "reckless" or whatever other label one wants to slap on her, nor does it mean she was, but it also indicates this may just be another sad story without a whole lot in terms of lessons to be learned. Her fate certainly doesn't add much value to the gun control debate.
The situation in the US is now, long has been, and pretty much always will be, something non-Americans will never understand, however much they try, however much they posture.
What a pompous statement, Todd! Where is your evidence? Or is your conclusion just anecdotal as usual? Perhaps you should rephrase it so it becomes your favored hypothesis. Or, alternatively, state (in a less pompous manner) that "
I think that the situation in the US....". Now you just have to prove it (not the pompous aspect of your statement as that is already clearly established - just the hypothesis)! Good luck!
Quote from: Moonfish on December 31, 2014, 05:43:34 PM
What a pompous statement, Todd! Where is your evidence? Or is your conclusion just anecdotal as usual? Perhaps you should rephrase it so it becomes your favored hypothesis. Or, alternatively, state (in a less pompous manner) that "I think that the situation in the US....". Now you just have to prove it (not the pompous aspect of your statemen as that is already clearly established - just the hypothesis)! Good luck!
Oh, goodness, just look at you! What a big boy (or girl) you are! Demanding presumably scientific evidence for something that is inherently unscientific. And just what is a "statemen"?
Tell you what, you intellectual tough guy, recite the most important second amendment cases prior to 1970, the we can cover this in more detail.
Gun control seems to work pretty good almost everywhere in the first world. Sure, it will not prevent criminals getting guns nor the occasional school shooting (because there are still plenty of hunter, sport shooters etc. around and even with strict regulations the wrong person might get hold of one). But a toddler shooting his mommy or playdate is exceedingly rare everywhere else.
Of course if hundreds of millions of guns are already in circulation because of almost no control in the past, it is kind of hard to squeeze the toothpaste back. This seems to be the problem in the US without a simple solution.
As for the chart, this is the wrong pool for comparison. I bet the US looks o.k. if plotted against Iran, Somalia, Nigeria...
Quote from: Jo498 on January 01, 2015, 12:35:38 AM
Gun control seems to work pretty good almost everywhere in the first world.
Hitler thought it was the shizzle,... and Mao,... uh,... dictators looove "gun control". Once again, we need fully automatic deterrence against a tyrannical government, who doesn't understand that?
Quote from: snyprrr on January 01, 2015, 07:52:55 AM
Hitler thought it was the shizzle,... and Mao,... uh,... dictators looove "gun control". Once again, we need fully automatic deterrence against a tyrannical government, who doesn't understand that?
No you don't. One man, one vote. Not one gun, one vote. I realize that may have been the intention when your constitution was written, but surely you have progressed beyond that?
Quote from: The new erato on January 01, 2015, 08:55:13 AM
No you don't. One man, one vote. Not one gun, one vote. I realize that may have been the intention when your constitution was written, but surely you have progressed beyond that?
He is referring to the right wing fantasy in which gun owners organize and successfully resist an oppressive government. They think the American Revolution is their precedent. Never mind that the Revolution succeeded only because the French Navy and Army eventually neutralized the British Army in North America, and that large parts of the British public were more sympathetic to the Americans than their own government. George Washington's real achievement was simply keeping the American military force, and with it, the rebellion, in being until those other factors came into play.
I'm aware of that fantasy, but with snyprrr I'm never sure if he is part of a fantasy or for real....
To have any chance to counter a modern army (if a dictator wanted to take over) one would have to be allowed to privately own tanks, helicopters, anti aircraft missile launchers etc. which is not the case even in the US if I am not mistaken.
Quote from: Jo498 on January 01, 2015, 09:13:50 AM
To have any chance to counter a modern army (if a dictator wanted to take over) one would have to be allowed to privately own tanks, helicopters, anti aircraft missile launchers etc. which is not the case even in the US if I am not mistaken.
You should all be happy they weren't invented when your founding fathers wrote the constitution. Though concealed carry would be difficult.
Quote from: Todd on December 31, 2014, 05:52:08 PM
Oh, goodness, just look at you! What a big boy (or girl) you are! Demanding presumably scientific evidence for something that is inherently unscientific. And just what is a "statemen"?
Tell you what, you intellectual tough guy, recite the most important second amendment cases prior to 1970, the we can cover this in more detail.
Hmm, yes, that is a very persuasive argument. Let's get back to the initial question here instead of arguing about the letter 't'. Where is the evidence for your pretentious statement? You are such a bigot, Todd!
Quote from: Todd on December 31, 2014, 05:23:46 PM
The situation in the US is now, long has been, and pretty much always will be, something non-Americans will never understand, however much they try, however much they posture.
Oh, the situation in itself is as clear as daylight to any moderately rational and reasonable person , whether a Gabonese, a Spaniard or the Man in the Moon: a constitution written about 250 years ago in peculiar social and political circumstances is supposed to be eternally binding for, and continuously regulate the lives of, every future generation following that of its authors, until the end of times forever and ever amen!, no matter how much those circumstances may have changed, or even disappeared altogether.
What is indeed incomprehensible is that supposedly rational and reasonable persons can think this situation is normal or desirable or commendable.
Quote from: Florestan on January 02, 2015, 01:13:26 AM
Oh, the situation in itself is as clear as daylight to any moderately rational and reasonable person , whether a Gabonese, a Spaniard or the Man in the Moon: a constitution written about 250 years ago in peculiar social and political circumstances is supposed to be eternally binding for, and continuously regulate the lives of, every future generation following that of its authors, until the end of times forever and ever amen!, no matter how much those circumstances may have changed, or even disappeared altogether.
What is indeed incomprehensible is that supposedly rational and reasonable persons can think this situation is normal or desirable or commendable.
Old constitutions, pfui. Down with the Glorious Revolution of 1689. Burn Magna Carta too! What we need is a party chairman who can act freely to solve problems.
Game, set, match to Todd. :(
The accidental shooting was on the news here (UK). I think that it is probably difficult for people in the UK and other countries where there is not a tradition of ordinary citizens owning guns to understand the cultural difference. The fact is that in the US there is such a tradition and presumably a lot of money invested in the manufacture of weapons. This is not a criticism but an awareness of a completely different attitude to gun ownership. There have been terrible gun-related massacres here too (Dunblane/Hungerford) so we are not immune from the tragedies which can occur.
Quote from: Florestan on January 02, 2015, 01:13:26 AM
Oh, the situation in itself is as clear as daylight to any moderately rational and reasonable person , whether a Gabonese, a Spaniard or the Man in the Moon: a constitution written about 250 years ago in peculiar social and political circumstances is supposed to be eternally binding for, and continuously regulate the lives of, every future generation following that of its authors, until the end of times forever and ever amen!, no matter how much those circumstances may have changed, or even disappeared altogether.
What is indeed incomprehensible is that supposedly rational and reasonable persons can think this situation is normal or desirable or commendable.
If you are referring to the US Constitution, you are incorrect. The constitution creates a framework or structure. So it does not create policies per se, which can be changed as often as desired. In addition, the framework itself is not 'eternal' - it can be changed at any time (and has been many times). You may feel that the threshold for doing so is too high, but any of the articles and any part of those articles can be changed, which is opposite of what you were saying.
Quote from: Florestan on January 02, 2015, 01:13:26 AM
Oh, the situation in itself is as clear as daylight to any moderately rational and reasonable person , whether a Gabonese, a Spaniard or the Man in the Moon: a constitution written about 250 years ago in peculiar social and political circumstances is supposed to be eternally binding for, and continuously regulate the lives of, every future generation following that of its authors, until the end of times forever and ever amen!, no matter how much those circumstances may have changed, or even disappeared altogether.
What is indeed incomprehensible is that supposedly rational and reasonable persons can think this situation is normal or desirable or commendable.
You proved Todd's point quite nicely. :)
8)
Quote from: Ken B on January 02, 2015, 06:51:24 AM
Old constitutions, pfui. Down with the Glorious Revolution of 1689. Burn Magna Carta too!
Except that the events of 1688 were neither glorious, nor a revolution (incidentally, Tom Paine has a few words about it in "Rights of Man"), while Magna Charta was no Constitution at all, unless by this term one understands the "rights" that an army of barons forced a feeble king to grant them.
Yesterday you seemed to object to my criticizing Burke, today you seem to subscribe to the Whig history myths...
Quote
What we need is a party chairman who can act freely to solve problems.
That you of all people should lay down this insinuation at my door is quite frankly disappointing, to say the least. But I can live with that and we can still be friends.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on January 02, 2015, 07:58:38 AM
If you are referring to the US Constitution, you are incorrect. The constitution creates a framework or structure. So it does not create policies per se, which can be changed as often as desired. In addition, the framework itself is not 'eternal' - it can be changed at any time (and has been many times). You may feel that the threshold for doing so is too high, but any of the articles and any part of those articles can be changed, which is opposite of what you were saying.
I admit that my rhetoric was rather convoluted, but the fact is that I´m not referring to the US Constitution per se, only to the interpretation that some people seem to give it, and more specifically to the Second Amendment.
Now, of course, I am not a Justice of the Supreme Court, not even an American, and this is probably sufficient ground for some to dismiss any qualification of mine to interpret it in my turn --- and I concede that they would have a strong case if, by so doing, were I to recommend to the American people what to do, or to not do. But as I have no such intention, I might be perhaps permitted to express my views, for which I can offer no other qualifications than a serviceable command of the English language, a moderate degree of reading comprehension and a little knowledge of logic.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.Now, either the right to bear arms is related to the existence and efficiency of a well-regulated militia, or it is not. Tertium non datur.
If it is not, and the right to bear arms has no relation whatsoever with any militia, well or bad regulated, then one can only ask why the first clause was inserted in the text. I must admit my ignorance as to the answer.
If, on the contrary, the text says exactly what it says, and the right to bear arms is related to the well-regulated militia, then it begs a few questions more:
1. Does this right, which the text implies to be possessed by a citizen in his quality of a member of the well-regulated militia, extends also to times and places when he acts not in that quality? When he is patrolling the streets, or fighting an enemy, as a publicly identifiable member of the militia, he clearly has the right to bear arms, does he retain the right as a civilian too, say at home or when he goes shopping?
The answer depends on yet another issue to be decided, viz. whether the militia membership is limited to active duty only, or extends to all times and places a militia man not on publicly identifiable active duty might find himself in. Personally I believe that it doesn´t, just as a policeman is a policeman only when on publicly identifiable active duty and in any other situation is just an ordinary citizen.
Thus, I think that the right to bear arms is linked to membership of, and limited to the time of active duty in, a well-regulated militia. Absent that militia, or present but badly or not at all regulated, the right ceases.
2. If the right extends beyond the citizen´s acting as a member of the militia on active duty, what arms fall under this right? Any arms whatsoever, or only those arms that are in use by the militia?
If the former, then it contradicts the well-regulated militia condition, because such a militia will not use battleaxes or spears, for instance. If the latter, then all types of guns should be allowed, from revolvers to machine-guns to poisonous gas grenades or whatever is presently used by a well-regulated militia to discharge its duties, thus potentially converting every home in an arsenal.
Any way I look at it, it seems to me clear, logical and common-sense that (1) the right to bear arms is limited to the time spent on active duty as a member of the well-regulated militia, and (2) even if it is stretched to times and places beyond that, some limit on the type of the arms must be set.
Now, of course there are a lot of particular cases of owning and bearing arms: hunting, sports, collectibles or people living in remote areas where they are a vital necessity of defense against wild beasts and wild humans, but as they are in no logical way connected to any well-regulated militia, they cannot logically be the object of the amendment and the regulation of their owning, bearing and use should logically be the business of the States, not of the Federal Government.
One final question to which I would like to know the answer and I´m done: is there today in the US such a well-regulated militia?
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on January 02, 2015, 08:12:22 AM
You proved Todd's point quite nicely. :)
Not in the least. All I might have proved by being wrong (which I may very well be, after all I am just as human and fallible as everybody else) is that there is at least one Romanian that doesn´t understand the situation in US. Any other conclusion than that is unwarranted. :)
The text of the Second Amendment is an abridgement of the corresponding section of the Virginia Bill of Rights. In the Virginia version, the reasoning is more explicit. A militia, meaning the citizens armed and organized for their own defense, would obviate the need for a standing army, one of the chief bogeymen of that era. No standing army meant no force available to a government to force its will on the people and no way to engage in foreign adventures.
The 19th century showed the need for a permanent military, but certainly the militarization of the police and the modern use of the military as enforcers of foreign policy would undoubtedly horrify the Founders as examples of standing armies. Yet ironically the American right supports gun rights and strong military and police at the same time, and the American left is the reverse.
What the BoR does not address is the right of self defense, which is one of the many rights which are unnamed but "reserved to the people".
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on January 02, 2015, 11:08:49 AM
No standing army meant no force available to a government to force its will on the people and no way to engage in foreign adventures.
That is more wishful thinking than reality. Prior to the fifteenth century no Western European State had a standing army, yet governmental opression and foreign adventures were the norm rather than the exception. ;D
Quote from: Florestan on January 02, 2015, 11:43:38 AM
That is more wishful thinking than reality. Prior to the fifteenth century no Western European State had a standing army, yet governmental opression and foreign adventures were the norm rather than the exception. ;D
In large part because the populace did not have arms to counter the force available to the ruling class.
The idea of the citizen army as a counter to government oppression was first enunciated by Machiavelli in his Commentaries on Livy, I think.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on January 02, 2015, 12:07:00 PM
In large part because the populace did not have arms to counter the force available to the ruling class.
Granted, but the moment one allows the populace to arm, another question arises: who can guarantee that the either the ruling class as a whole will not deceive the self-same populace into lending it their force for suppressing dissent or engaging in foreign adventures, or that different factions of the ruling class will not do the same thing with the populace, or parts thereof, thus making them their instruments for gaining and retaining power? History is full of such examples.
Quote from: Florestan on January 02, 2015, 12:29:34 PM
Granted, but the moment one allows the populace to arm, another question arises: who can guarantee that the either the ruling class as a whole will not deceive the self-same populace into lending it their force for suppressing dissent or engaging in foreign adventures, or that different factions of the ruling class will not do the same thing with the populace, or parts thereof, thus making them their instruments for gaining and retaining power? History is full of such examples.
Ideally, the citizenry is the ruling class.
More realistically, armed citizenry makes the process you describe both more difficult and less tyrannical.
Quote from: Florestan on January 02, 2015, 09:08:22 AM
Except that the events of 1688 were neither glorious, nor a revolution (incidentally, Tom Paine has a few words about it in "Rights of Man"), while Magna Charta was no Constitution at all, unless by this term one understands the "rights" that an army of barons forced a feeble king to grant them.
Yesterday you seemed to object to my criticizing Burke, today you seem to subscribe to the Whig history myths...
That you of all people should lay down this insinuation at my door is quite frankly disappointing, to say the least. But I can live with that and we can still be friends.
I'm not insinuating. I'm pointing out how absurd your claim is Andrei.
Governments are constrained by three things: force, law, and convention. You don't support the force argument obviously. Yet here you are decrying both law -- established constitutions -- and convention -- respect for them. You would would leave nothing to constrain government.
Pause for a second and notice. You have Todd, Gurn, Neal, and me all agreeing! Most of the time we don't even agree on the day of the week.
Quote from: Ken B on January 02, 2015, 05:57:15 PM
Pause for a second and notice. You have Todd, Gurn, Neal, and me all agreeing! Most of the time we don't even agree on the day of the week.
Hell of a thing to point out on a Tuesday.... >:D
8)
An armed populace to constrain the government is a concept so foreign to me that I cannot even grasp it, and signifies a view of government totally belonging (to me) in a time and climate I cannot even imagine. And a view of how conflicts are resolved that I totally abhor. But perhaps I just have been living in a peaceful and sheltered society for too long.
I have no idea how the US constitution and amendments are to be interpreted.
But if the "spirit", not the letter is relevant, one could point out two things. Firstly, a "well regulated militia" would be compatible with rather restrictive arms rights that would be likely to avoid accidental shootings by or of two year olds. E.g. one may keep arms privately but only after passing some test, the arms have to be locked up in one's home etc. If the call for forming the militia comes, everybody can get his rifle out of his secure locker etc. No carrying in handbags where toddlers can reach them.
Secondly, as said above, a modern army is not very likely to be efficiently countered by a few dozen vigilants with handguns. So an effective militia would have to be allowed at least tanks and helicopters (preferably nukes...?) to become a force to be reckoned with. So apparently the goal of restricting government by force is not furthered by the current situation. (edit: One could argue that, to the contrary, the police is forced into an arms race and a tendency to preventive lethal force because they have to expect well-armed criminals, even in cases of petty crime. So the current situation leads to a MORE coercive and restrictive state than would be the case with stricter gun laws.)
(In any case I have to agree with Erato that the idea to "restrict" the government through arms-bearing citizen sounds really very odd to me. One of the central ideas of government since early modernity seemed to be the "monopoly of force". The citizens yield (most of) their force to the government which in turn provides internal (police, law enforcement) and external (defense) safety. The government is held in check by laws and a balance of power between the different governmental institutions.
Otherwise we could go back to earlier ages with local feuds and vendettas among armed citizens being frequent occurences.)
Quote from: Jo498 on January 03, 2015, 12:22:41 AM
If the call for forming the militia comes, everybody can get his rifle out of his secure locker etc. No carrying in handbags where toddlers can reach them.
Just like the Home Guard in Norway (or, as far as I understand, the mobilization army in Switzerland) do.
Quote from: Jo498 on January 03, 2015, 12:22:41 AM
I have no idea how the US constitution and amendments are to be interpreted.
But if the "spirit", not the letter is relevant, one could point out two things. Firstly, a "well regulated militia" would be compatible with rather restrictive arms rights that would be likely to avoid accidental shootings by or of two year olds. E.g. one may keep arms privately but only after passing some test, the arms have to be locked up in one's home etc. If the call for forming the militia comes, everybody can get his rifle out of his secure locker etc. No carrying in handbags where toddlers can reach them.
Secondly, as said above, a modern army is not very likely to be efficiently countered by a few dozen vigilants with handguns. So an effective militia would have to be allowed at least tanks and helicopters (preferably nukes...?) to become a force to be reckoned with. So apparently the goal of restricting government by force is not furthered by the current situation. (edit: One could argue that, to the contrary, the police is forced into an arms race and a tendency to preventive lethal force because they have to expect well-armed criminals, even in cases of petty crime. So the current situation leads to a MORE coercive and restrictive state than would be the case with stricter gun laws.)
(In any case I have to agree with Erato that the idea to "restrict" the government through arms-bearing citizen sounds really very odd to me. One of the central ideas of government since early modernity seemed to be the "monopoly of force". The citizens yield (most of) their force to the government which in turn provides internal (police, law enforcement) and external (defense) safety. The government is held in check by laws and a balance of power between the different governmental institutions.
Otherwise we could go back to earlier ages with local feuds and vendettas among armed citizens being frequent occurences.)
As for the more restrictive point. It's not the gun laws, it's the guns. Banning guns does not remove the guns. The horse has fled the barn on the ubiquity of guns in America. The world would be a better place if no-one believed in god too, but passing laws against it is still a bad idea.
As for private feuds, yes. Look into anarcho-capitalists, who sincerely believe a return to "private law" would be a good thing. (They are totally wrong but do have some interesting arguments that they push past the breaking point.) (They are extreme type 2 libertarians if you were part of that discussion.)
Quote from: Ken B on January 02, 2015, 05:57:15 PM
I'm not insinuating. I'm pointing out how absurd your claim is Andrei.
Actually, I claimed nothing. I retorted with exaggerated rhetoric to the exaggerated rhetoric of Todd. Yet exaggeration aside, I stand by the main implication: Constitutions are not eternal; sooner or later they become obsolete either partially or wholly, just like everything under the Sun which is made by man. Whether this is the case now with the US, I don´t know, probably not. But I have no doubt that a time will come when changes will be made, and that among the first issues to be reckoned with will be gun ownership. That you or I or Todd may not live long enough to witness it is probably, but irrelevant. And the changes will be made not on the orders of a party chairman, but by the democratically elected representatives of the people expressly charged with the task, just as the Constitution was drafted, debated and voted for the first time --- actually, much more democratically than back then, since next time women and non-Whites will have their say, too.
QuoteGovernments are constrained by three things: force, law, and convention. You don't support the force argument obviously. Yet here you are decrying both law -- established constitutions -- and convention -- respect for them. You would would leave nothing to constrain government.
Interesting that you should put first the force. It might have been true --- indeed it was --- in times when civilization was still in its infancy, or not fully developed. We have come a long way since then. Today, any government that needs be restrained by force testifies to a yet uncivilized society; when civilization will mature there, too, then a government restrained only by law and convention will be the only government needed and known of.
You might wish to entertain the fantasy myth that it is people owning guns that prevented the constitutional US government from being, or becoming, tyrannical --- but pause for a second to consider three things, and answer three questions, if you please.
1. The constitutional government of Norway, established in 1809, was not from its inception, and never became afterwards, tyrannical, despite the fact that gun ownership was much more limited and restricted than in the US. Granted, it might have overstepped its limits now and then, it might have even acted for a while against popular sentiment, or oppose for a while popularly supported and demanded reforms (just as the US government did) --- but tyrannical it never was, nor contemplated to be, save for the brief German occupation, when other forces and influences were at play than the Constitution and the laws of the country. How do you explain it?
2. The gun owning citizens of the US, as a whole, were much worse armed and much less trained than the Mexican or the Spanish Army, yet this obvious fact did not hinder the US government to wage aggressive wars against Mexico and Spain. Would you seriously maintain that a government which did not refrain from expanding its dominion by fighting professional armies, would have refrained from fighting vigilantes if it really wished to expand its powers?
3. What value, more than the paper it is printed on, can a Constitution have, whose application and keeping is ultimately conditioned by the strength of the armed force supporting it? The moment the government becomes stronger armed than the citizens --- and this always was, is and will be the case of any government, whether established by force or by consent --- that Constitution is doomed; unless, of course, the ruling class --- and there always was, is and will be a ruling class in any government, whether established by force or by consent --- is committed on principle not to break it beyond the threshold which marks the beginning of tyranny and the end of liberty.
QuotePause for a second and notice. You have Todd, Gurn, Neal, and me all agreeing! Most of the time we don't even agree on the day of the week.
Your agreement, far from being any assurance, is on the contrary highly disturbing for me: I am suspicious of majorities on principle, but circumstantial majorities I directly abhor... ;D :D >:D
Quote from: Ken B on January 03, 2015, 06:52:16 AM
The horse has fled the barn on the ubiquity of guns in America. The world would be a better place if no-one believed in god too, but passing laws against it is still a bad idea.
Probably right on both points.
Quote from: Ken B on January 03, 2015, 06:52:16 AM
The horse has fled the barn on the ubiquity of guns in America. The world would be a better place if no-one believed in god too, but passing laws against it is still a bad idea.
Non sequitur!
Quote from: Moonfish on January 03, 2015, 01:05:01 PM
Non sequitur!
Sequitur. You excised the link. I stated the problem with gun control is the ubiquity of guns. "Banning guns does not remove guns." New gun laws will no more rid the country of guns than banning religion will rid the country of religion, desirable as that might be.
Quote from: Ken B on January 03, 2015, 02:14:39 PM
the problem with gun control is the ubiquity of guns.
The problem with slavery was the ubiquity of slaves and slave-owners. Solved.
The problem with aristocratic and ecclesiastical privileges was the ubiquity of titles and tithes. Solved.
The problem with smallpox was the ubiquity of epidemias. Solved.
It's rare that I agree with Florestan, but I am finding his arguments here fairly persuasive.
Quote from: Florestan on January 04, 2015, 05:51:18 AM
The problem with slavery was the ubiquity of slaves and slave-owners. Solved.
The problem with aristocratic and ecclesiastical privileges was the ubiquity of titles and tithes. Solved.
The problem with smallpox was the ubiquity of epidemias. Solved.
And to take guns away, the government would literally have to go to people's houses and try to take their property... I don't quite see that happening, especially in the south. That's why the ubiquity of guns will never be solved. Not quite the same as in those cases- maybe owning slaves was
slightly comparable because they were considered property, but that's about it.
And like I said before, the gun problem will never be solved when you can 3D print guns.
Quote from: Greg on January 04, 2015, 10:10:44 AM
And to take guns away, the government would literally have to go to people's houses and try to take their property... I don't quite see that happening, especially in the south. That's why the ubiquity of guns will never be solved. Not quite the same as in those cases- maybe owning slaves was slightly comparable because they were considered property, but that's about it.
And like I said before, the gun problem will never be solved when you can 3D print guns.
And American slavery was abolished so peacefully too.
This is what is wrong with Florestan's "examples": none was just a matter of passing a few laws. But that is precisely what he is disputing. I agree with Andrei that exiling all the guns owners might work too, to anticipate his next argument. Send them to Liberia? ::)
Quote from: Ken B on January 04, 2015, 01:19:14 PM
I agree with Andrei that exiling all the guns owners might work too, to anticipate his next argument. Send them to Liberia? ::)
Considering how many people here would die before handing over their gun to the government, that would result in a mini-genocide.
I thought this picture was appropriate for this thread:
(http://global3.memecdn.com/merica_o_762715.jpg)
Quote from: Mirror Image on January 04, 2015, 05:04:39 PM
I thought this picture was appropriate for this thread:
(http://global3.memecdn.com/merica_o_762715.jpg)
:D
I was going to post this early on, but I didn't want to seem like an insensitive jerk since the origin of the thread does concern a loss of life. It seems that no one really remembers that now, so I'll post it:
(http://www.animationsensations.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/s/i/simpsons-mr-burns2-icon.jpg)
Quote from: Ken B on January 04, 2015, 01:19:14 PM
I agree with Andrei that exiling all the guns owners might work too, to anticipate his next argument. Send them to Liberia? ::)
Quote from: Greg on January 04, 2015, 01:56:22 PM
Considering how many people here would die before handing over their gun to the government, that would result in a mini-genocide.
Eventually, I must concede to Todd´s point, slightly modified: it is indeed, and probably forever will be, incomprehensible for a non-American why matters involving law* and law-abiding are thought of by some (many? most?) Americans as ultimately a question of force and violent coercion --- and this, in a country which is regarded, rightly or wrongly, as the standard-bearer of the rule of law. ;D
(* I anticipate Ken´s next argument better than he did mine, so I hasten to add that I´m talking about laws established by the democratically elected representatives of the people in full compliance with the rules prescribed for doing so, not about the legal embodiment of a tyrant´s will.)
First of all, you seem to conflate on principle two quite distinct things: owning a gun, and carrying or using it in public, and therefore you conflate in practice other two quite distinct things: banning guns altogether, and regulating their use. The former is not practiced in any non-US Western nation; it´s only the latter that indeed is, and the main point of regulation is that one cannot carry it loaded, much less use it, in public places.
Secondly, returning to law-abiding, I submit to your consideration an idea which is not, I think, less American than force: money. Suppose a law is voted by the Congress granting a 25 % deduction on all federal taxes for the next 5 fiscal years to anyone who would (1) hand their guns to the nearest police station, and (2) not buy another one for the 5 years to come. What percentage of citizens do you estimate will abide?
Thirdly, there are two big ideas which the American Right attaches to the right of carrying guns: opposition to tyrannical government, and self-defense.
As for the former, the self-same Right regarded, and perhaps still regards, as tyrannical both the 16th amendment, and pretty much all the policies of New Deal ---yet they didn´t fire a single shoot at the governmental officials charged with their enforcing. They shot themselves in the foot instead (pardon the pun): an armed people offered no resistance to the establishment of tyranny, thus rendering moot their own theory of resistance.
As for the latter, here´s a question for you, Ken (BTW, you still haven´t answered my previous ones...): if, as you told us, you don´t own a gun nor do you intend to, how are you going to self-defend yourself, should (God forbid!) the need be? (Mind you, I do not imply thereby that you belong to the American Right.)