Saturday, March 24, 2012

Blame anyone but yourself for not being strong enough to put down the gun

98 comments:

DogsDontPurr said...

Yep.

Kalei's Best Friend said...

its way too easy to blame others!.. be accountable, man up! the one who can't put down the gun is the frickin' coward... making the gun the excuse for the result.

John Venlet said...

Erin, the blame everyone but yourself phenomenom articulated by Jackson is not exclusive to the gun.

The blame everyone but yourself culture has been nutured for many years and has been applied to everything from the events at Abu Gharib, to why poor, friendly Johnnie beat up Grandma for 5 bucks. Remember Marilyn Manson's music being blamed for the shootings at Columbine, for example?

Personal responsibility has been marginalized, and, as such, Jackson is correct in is elegy in noting that blame should rest squarely on the individual.

Are you surprised that individuals do not have the strength to step up to the plate and accept blame and responsibility for their actions, let alone have the strength to put down the gun? I'm not.

Erin O'Brien said...

And because my tax dollars purchased the weapons and ammunition that killed 17 innocent Afghan civilians, their blood is on my hands. I accept that, or should I say that I mourn it. It was an American-sponsored mass murder. Against the war, for the war, whatever--doesn't matter. If you're American, you paid for it and you're involved.

Back to Zimmerman. The NRA has systematically deregulated fire arms over the last few decades and enjoyed the resulting profits. They also promised to lobby for laws that make murder legal in Florida and some 20 other states. And they delivered.

Zimmerman's gun possession and permit are courtesy of the NRA. The NRA lobby successfully passed a law that ensured he wasn't charged with a crime. IN FLA, your free to shoot an innocent kid--as long as you have a reason. (Better not miss, though, you wouldn't want that kid surviving to tell any stories.)

Responsibility? If you have an NRA card in your wallet, you have some of the Martin kid's blood on your hands.

John Venlet said...

Responsibility? If you have an NRA card in your wallet, you have some of the Martin kid's blood on your hands.

Erin, that statement negates the words of Jackson which you link to approvingly.

Erin O'Brien said...

Please review the implication of the modifier some, John.

John Venlet said...

The modifier "some" implies that my, and other individuals, hands are bloodied every time some other individual is murdered with a gun, which does not support the message of individual responsibility.

FYI, I am not a member of the NRA.

Anonymous said...

I quit trying to learn grammar in about the sixth grade when I was required to diagram sentences. Even at this late age I find I still have a keen understanding of the intent of an English speaker without knowing a gerund from a participle. The "Stand Your Ground" legislation was and is a product of NRA lobbying efforts. If one supports the NRA by paying dues one supports their agenda. There is no equivocation. Reductionist Positivist thinking is a rationalization strategy. BTW, I am not an asshole I just sometimes talk like one.

RJ

Anonymous said...

@ John-as a citizen, a member of a representative democracy, each individual has a moral obligation to make their voices heard to their representatives. If a group like the NRA advocates for an extreme position that inevitably leads to many bad outcomes, and citizens stay silent, it's complicity in the bad outcomes.

MR

twinkly sparkles said...

"I weep and I mourn, and I move slowly on/I'm a poor mourning pilgrim, I'm bound for Canaan's land"
Sacred Harp #417 "Weeping Pilgrim"

That is not meant as a statement about politics, just as a statement of my feelings around murders and of the human condition.

I had not seen the Jackson video before, thanks for posting it.

I agree with everything you say Erin, but I am more effective when I think of myself in my small world, and not bearing responsibility for for the NRA's legislative power as if I, too, am a murderer because of their influence on American law. Sometimes money and the American vehemence for gun "rights" are too much to think about being able to change.

Go, Erin! I really had hoped to hear how your Mac's Backs reading was. Maybe tomorrow?

Bill said...

Don't forget the thousands of gang related murders. NRA members have that blood on their hands too. How do they live with themselves? If I had a gun I certainly wouldn't join the NRA.

Erin O'Brien said...

Don't forget the thousands of gang related murders. NRA members have that blood on their hands too.

Amen, brother.

philbilly said...

"CLEVELAND, Ohio — A 23-year-old Cleveland man pleaded guilty Thursday in the June 26 armed robbery of the Family Dollar store on Payne Avenue.

Cedric Parker will be sentenced in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court April 9 for felonious assault on a police officer using a gun, aggravated robbery and kidnapping.

He and a 16-year-old boy, both wearing masks, robbed the store at 3407 Payne Ave. by pointing a gun at the 47-year-old store manager and demanding money from the safe.

When the robbers saw police approaching, they ran outside, hid behind a trash bin and shot at two officers.

Parker then grabbed an 80-year-old woman and used her as a shield while he continued to shoot. He then pushed the woman to the ground and ran back into the store.

He demanded an employee's shirt and walked out telling officers he was an employee. They ordered him to stop, but he got away. The teen, now 17, was arrested and prosecuted in juvenile court.

Parker was arrested Aug. 29. He faces up to 40 years in prison, prosecutor's spokeswoman Maria Russo said."

philbilly said...

"CLEVELAND, Ohio — These are some of the cases moving through Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court.

Jeremy Logan, 19, and Robert Robinson, 18, both of Cleveland: Arraignments Monday on charges of aggravated murder, murder, felonious assault and firing a gun near a building. They are accused of fatally shooting Dena'Jua Delaney, 18, of East Cleveland, Feb. 22 during a fight on Garfield Avenue in East Cleveland.

Tony Goodwin, 18, of Bedford: Trial begins Monday on charges of aggravated murder, murder and firing a gun near a building. Prosecutors say Goodwin fatally shot DeWayne Rhym, 20, of Cleveland, March 18, 2011, in the 5900 block of Broadway in Cleveland.

Darrick Jones, 20, Erick Stewart, 21, and Robert Harder, 20, all of Cleveland: Trial begins Monday on charges of aggravated burglary, theft, kidnapping, attempted rape and possessing criminal tools. They are accused of crawling through a window at a Lake Avenue home in Lakewood Oct. 13 and taking cash, cellphones and a laptop while two 36-year-old residents were sleeping. Prosecutors say they then entered an Elbur Avenue home, where a 47-year-old woman was sexually assaulted at gunpoint. She escaped and the robbers took her purse.

Andres Cruz, 42, of Litchfield, and Flor Arroyo, 38, of Cleveland: Sentencing Wednesday by Judge Joseph Russo. A jury found Cruz guilty of five counts of cocaine trafficking, two counts of heroin trafficking, possession of cocaine and heroin and tampering with evidence. The jury found Arroyo guilty of four counts of heroin trafficking and two counts of heroin possession. Cruz, Arroyo, Alvin Caraballo, 28, of Litchfield, and Ruben Quiroz, 30, and Gerardo Juarez, 23, both of Columbus, had 1,000 grams of cocaine, 392 grams of heroin and 28 guns July 16 at a home in the 8400 block of Crow Road in Litchfield. The home was raided during an undercover investigation by sheriff's deputies and Cleveland police of drug sales in Cuyahoga County. Quiroz and Juarez pleaded guilty to possession and trafficking and were sentenced to three years in prison. Caraballo pleaded guilty to trafficking, possessing criminal tools and having a gun after a felony conviction. He was sentenced to 8½ years in prison.

Alan Bryson, 23, of Euclid: Sentencing Thursday by Judge Jose Villanueva in the May 15 fatal shooting of 34-year-old Angelo Lyons, of Cleveland, outside the China House Restaurant on St. Clair Avenue in Cleveland. A jury found Bryson guilty of aggravated murder and he faces a possible life sentence.

Jacqueline Martinez, 30, of Cleveland: Trial begins Thursday on charges of felonious assault, firing a gun near a building and child endangering. She is accused of fighting with a neighbor Oct. 6 on West 125th Street, then firing at the neighbor.
A bullet struck another neighbor near the eye, prosecutor's spokeswoman Maria Russo said. Police arrived and found Martinez had barricaded herself in her home with her three children and a niece, Russo said. She was arrested without incident."

Kirk said...

Zimmerman acted in self-defense. Why, had he caught up with that kid he was chasing, he might have got splashed with ice tea!

Erin O'Brien said...

Florida: the "Murder Me" state!

Erin O'Brien said...

My favorite part of this clip is the message that it takes more guts to put a gun down than it does to pick one up.

The Twisted Tine said...

I saw this for the first time yesterday, and goddamn if I wasn't moved...

I want this man to officiate my wedding, if I ever have one.

Bill said...

Officiate at your wedding? Blame yourself for not saying no! Jackson is an expert and someone we should listen to, because? I do agree with him, though.

As far as Zimmerman is concerned, we have yet to hear from him or see what's in the police file. There is, supposedly, another witness who makes it sound as if Zimmerman is the one yelling for help as he was getting pummeled while on his back in the grass. I just love the way the press, and some others, make it a slam dunk case without having the facts. The Black Panther party even has a $10,000 reward on Z's head. I remember Richard Jewell. Back off a little. There's plenty of time to hang Z if he's guilty.

Erin O'Brien said...

Slam dunk case? It was already over, Bill. He claimed self defense and that's all you need do in Florida. Since the only other witness was dead, Zimmerman walked away. In any other state in the Union Zimmerman would have had to prove self defense before a judge and jury.

He had 100 pounds and 10 years on the kid, yet still he was moved to use deadly force. Remember when men used to use their fists to defend themselves? Guns are so wonderful. Guns keep us safe.

Go America!

Anonymous said...

The "new Black Panther Party", so-called, is approximately 11 guys with matching berets and a website. If there were only 5 of them they'd be a boy band.

MR

alphadog said...

Holy Shit! My first two part comment. Bear with me.

I may hate myself tomorrow for commenting today, but here it goes.
I am an NRA member, a lifer. I'm also the first to admit that the ILA branch of the NRA most likely thanks God for every piece of gun legislation that is introduced because it generates revenue and justifies their (the ILA) reason for existence. I've also donated to Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership and Gun Owners of America. I make no apologies nor do I have any blood on my hands any more than I have the blood of the last drunk driving victim on my hands because of that bottle of rum I purchased.
The Constitution and Bill of Rights does not grant anyone anything. It guarantees natural rights of liberty and property and limits the government. This is important, the government grants me nothing, I grant the government. Self evident truths and inalienable rights notwithstanding, the government has assumed a position of supreme authority. They have attacked not only the Second Amendment, but numbers 4, 5, 6 and particularly 10. Many of you here have taken issue with the Patriot Act (no argument from me) and the trampling of the Constitution via the ruse of Homeland Security. I don't hear many commentors bemoaning the efforts of the ACLU or the SPLC in their efforts to defend the Constitution as they see fit and while I don't often agree with the battles they choose to fight, I applaud their dedication.
All that being said, Mr. Zimmerman, in my opinion, acted well beyond the intent of the law and bent it to suit his will. Whether it was racially motivated, I don't know. Neither does the MSM and they really ought to STFU and stop speculating. Whether it was self defense, it may well have been. But young Mr. Martin had a right to defend himself also and if his getting shot was a result of his defending himself, then Mr. Zimmerman is guilty of murder by virtue of having escalated the situation.
The entire truth will never be known. Mr Martin may have had nefarious deeds on his mind, but that assumption and the Stand Your Ground or Castle Doctrine Law does not give Mr. Zimmerman vigilante license. Castle Doctrine law simply says that you do not have a duty to retreat if you are in your home, car or temporary abode; you may use deadly force if you feel threatened. Stand Your Ground takes this one step further and states that you may act with deadly force when faced with imminent danger, even in public. It does not say you may go hunting. At the other end of the spectrum we have depraved indifference. Who can forget the final Seinfeld episode or, more tragically, the woman who was raped in a NY subway station while people walked around the spectacle, ignoring her cries for help.

Stay tuned for part II

alphadog said...

Two extremes; vigilantism and depraved indifference, where in between does a person's responsibility to his fellow man settle out? My personal position is, if you don't fuck with me, I won't fuck with you. Peace brother. If I'm observing a robbery going down I'll make the 911 call and stick around just in case, maybe take some pictures, but frankly, your financial loss isn't worth my ultimate commitment. But what if you came upon a rape in progress or an elderly person getting the shit beat out of them for their social security check? Damn, damn, damn. What is your level of commitment here? I know that the victim is praying for some sort of intervention. But I have to ask myself, if the situation escalates to the point of me having to shoot the attacker, am I willing to live with that for the rest of my life along with the potential for civil and criminal charges being filed against me? Quite the conundrum. My initial response has to be no. I'm an old chubby bald guy. I doubt that I could physically restrain or overpower a younger, stronger, motivated and possibly powder adjusted individual. Other than relying upon the over rated 911 call, that leaves me one option, my gun that I carry for the protection of me and my loved ones. And honestly stranger, you're not worth the shitstorm that is likely to befall me.
That is my considered, common sense position while sitting here at the computer. Confronted with the above mentioned situations in real life I'm not certain how I would respond, but I trust it would be honestly and honorably. My best advice to everyone is to accept it that you may become a victim, refuse to be a victim and learn how to be responsible for your own well being or stay inside in the relative safety of your home. This comment is meant to be neither inflammatory nor argumentative, simply the reflections of a responsible gun owner mulling over another irresponsible gun action.
On a much lighter note, it was my great pleasure to be present last night at Mac's Backs. Erin was as Erin is. She amused and delighted and even sold a book or two.
I had the added bonus of meeting the Goat and MR. I had a nice chat with the Goat and despite our rather significant political differences, I'm sorry I had to rush off and didn't have more time to spend getting to know MR and his wife.
Thank you Erin and thank you Suzanne for a great Saturday evening in Cleveland.

Anonymous said...

"I'm also the first to admit that the ILA branch of the NRA most likely thanks God for every piece of gun legislation that is introduced because it generates revenue..."-alphadog.

Bingo! And regrettably thanks to the almighty likely also rise up from every cable news program director for every human tragedy that provides them with content. Maybe the Romans with their Colosseum spectacles weren't quite so barbaric after all huh?

RJ

Erin O'Brien said...

This comment is meant to be neither inflammatory nor argumentative, simply the reflections of a responsible gun owner mulling over another irresponsible gun action.

Uh huh. You think Zimmerman didn't consider himself to be a "responsible gun owner?" Of course he did, so did the state of Florida. This shit ALWAYS happens to guys who think they are responsible gun owners.

You, alph, and every other self-righteous NRA "lifer" is one shaky trigger finger away from being in the exact same boat as Zimmerman. Every gun enthusiast I know smirks and rolls his eyes in the humor of relief over the worst-that-didn't-happen as they tell the story of the time they almost shot their best buddy, shot themselves or some other near miss.

Mrs. C said...

@Bill, 4:48:

What makes Jackson an authority in this case is that he speaks a universal truth; i.e., "universal" because, as I teach my students, it is as true for Adolf Hitler as it is for Jesus Christ as it is for you and for me...true across space and time.

Anonymous said...

I don't think anyone who watches that PSA will think Mr Jackson is an expert of any kind re gun violence nor is he presenting himself as such, but rather an extremely effective spokesperson.

MR

Erin O'Brien said...

And alph, thank you and MR both for being there Saturday night.

: )

Truly.

Bill said...

Mrs. C. I trust you are using many of my comments when teaching your students.

Judy said...

From what I understand, the kid that got shot did not have a gun; therefore he had the courage to put the gun down and it got him shot...so the video doesn't really apply...

The person who did the shooting sounds like he went way beyond what the law permits and escalated the situation for his own purpose whatever that was...

The laws do not permit murder... And most law abiding persons who carry guns to not commit murder...though many times, they have prevented a murder...

Again, it's the difference between law abiding and not...

This situation in Florida is extremely sad for everyone...

Bill said...

If Trayvon Martin tried to get the gun from Zimmerman, the case changes.

The race baiting is getting sickening. Obama helps fuel it.

Why don't they use more recent pictures?

Erin O'Brien said...

Judy, Zimmerman was questioned by the police after the shooting. He was not arrested and is still free--uncharged with any crime. Zimmerman claimed self-defense.

In Florida, unless another witness is willing to sign an affidavit saying the killing was not self-defense, the police are prohibited from arresting him. It is essentially legal homicide. Zimmerman acts as judge, jury and executioner. That's the law.

Bill, trying to get the gun out of Zimmerman's hands could quite easily be construed as self defense on the kid's part. But do keep on this vein. You and Rush and the righties are onto one beautiful follow-up to the war on women.

Anonymous said...

@ Erin...right back 'atcha kid...

@ bill...I can see why, if you're trying to make a case that the guy who left his vehicle against the rules of Neighborhood Watch with a loaded gun, and against the urging of the 911 dispatcher followed an unarmed kid, if you wanted to somehow try to whip up a scenario where that guy wasn't responsible for what happened you'd like to see a more recent picture of Mr Zimmerman, especially one that doesn't look like a mug shot, for instance like when he was arrested in 2005 for assaulting a police officer...

And PUH-leeeze...if the kid tried to get the gun, ie, if the kid tried to defend himself, it's a whole different case? The "Stand Your Ground" law is now the "Stand There and Take it Because I Pulled my Gun First" law?

And WHAT, in the name of all that's holy, did you construe in the President's remarks to be "race-baiting"??? Trying to connect on a personal level with parents all across the country who lose children to senseless stupid violence? Is race-baiting?

MR

Anonymous said...

Reading this article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin and not willing to jump to conclusions I have many questions about what really happened.
The thing that jumps out at me is, no missing persons report for 24 hours. Any kind of shooting justified or not has consequences, one person dead another marked for life even if he was correct. The press has tried and convicted, that disturbs me more than anything.

James Old Guy

Bill said...

Apparently there's a witness that will say it was self defense.

War on women, Erin? War on who? Black teenagers? Give me a break. That's how this is gonna be spun? Us against them? Sick!

Yes, MR, Obama is adding fuel to the race baiting fire. What difference does it make that a son of the President would "look like" Trayvon?

I think there's a manslaughter charge coming.

I feel tremendous sadness for the family of this young man.

It appears that the family will try to keep this in the headlines for a while. Here's the latest move by the
greiving mother

Al The Retired Army Guy said...

"Zimmerman's gun possession and permit are courtesy of the NRA."

Actually, his gun possession and permit are courtesy of the 2nd Amendment to our Constitution.

I'm with James - I haven't seen the police report or other investigative information related to this case. Until I do, I'm not making an opinion one way or another. If anyone here has that info I'd love to see it.

Al
TRAG
Not an NRA Member

Bill said...

Race baiting?"

Erin O'Brien said...

Al, I think the whole country would love to see the transcripts of the questioning sessions between police and Zimmerman.

The thing that bothers me most about this case is that Zimmerman committed a homicide and was free to go--completely exonerated from having to prove self defense before judge and jury.

Only in Florida, folks--the Murder Me state!

Erin O'Brien said...

No missing persons report for 24 hours?

A snarky link about a "grieving mother?"

So what? What have either of those things to do with this kid's killing?

Bill said...

Just trying to point out some of the hypocrisy and race baiting on the left trying to score political points. It's a tragedy any way you slice it. Trying to put some guilt on gun owners or asking the entire population to do some soul searching, is absurd.

Anonymous said...

@Al...with all due respect, people who are most vocal about their Second Amendment rights seem not to have read the entire Second Amendment. That whole militia part seems always to escape people's memory when their on their way to an unregulated gun show to buy automatic weapons and cop-killer ammo.

For everyone's information, "bill's" "race-baiting link is to a blog, The Daily Caller. This site is marginally up the blogger food chain from Glenn Beck's "The Blaze" or Andrew Breitbart's (RIH) site.

bill, if you'd like your citations to be taken seriously, perhaps you could try to mix in a few references to sources with established credentials, which perhaps have a print outlet,and which employ FACT-CHECKERS...you know, journalists...
And bill, did you snicker while you typed about your sympathy for the family while preparing a link to attack his mother's motivation? Or was ZIMMERMAN'S family the family you feel sad for? It would make more sense that way...

MR

Anonymous said...

bill, even by your past standards of logic and reason, accusing the President of race-baiting based upon his very temperate and human and restrained remarks is a stretch. Aside from links to Breitbart, Beck, or Limbaugh, can you try to explain the race-baiting nature of the President's remarks?

Take your time. Review the tape of the President's remarks.

MR
WV: 'whinglis'-how the "bowling ball" geese wound up, in the previous geese post...

Anonymous said...

Sorry for the "Their-They're" thing above...
MR

Bill said...

Not sure why MR would question the sincerity of the sympathy one parent has for another over the loss of a child. As for the President fanning the race bating flame; I explained that in my comment.

Anonymous said...

@ bil
So, your explanation is that there is no explanation? The wingnut right, ie, Gingrich, Santorum, Fox...says it's race-baiting...but WHY or HOW is that comment race-baiting? What's the racial component to it?
MR

Al The Retired Army Guy said...

@ MR: I have a copy of the Constitution as an app on my computer. I have read it from top to bottom, and I know what it says in the Second Amendment. To wit:

"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."

What I think most folks lose sight of is the reason it was put in the Constitution in the first place. The colonies had just won the Revolutionary War, and had come out from under the thumb of the British. The militia, known as the "Minutemen" due to their reputation of being able to defend their land, communities etc. at a minute's notice were the ones, at least initially, providing the security during the Revolution. After the revolution, the founding fathers rightfully saw, I think, that such a force was necessary if the Republic was going to survive. That is what is truly meant by the word "security" - basically, if the Government or any other entity attempted to usurp the liberties and freedoms as outlined in the Constitution, this "militia" would be the force that would defend them. In other words, armed citizens ensured that the Government or other entities would not overstep its bounds as outlined in the Constitution.

Now, have some interpreted the Second Amendment (and all the others) to suit whatever agenda it is they have? Sure. It doesn't change the fact that until that Amendment is rescinded by Congress, people in this country have the Constitutional authority to keep and bear arms.

It appears more facts are coming out in this case. Still looking for the police report, etc. And to quote Bill O'Reilly, Erin's favorite journalist, every reasonable person in this country should want to see justice done in this case. If Zimmerman overstepped and did what he did not in self defense, he should be held accountable for his actions. What truly bothers me is that the tapes of the call between him and the police clearly show that the cops told him to back off. Why he didn't is a mystery to me, and that's why I'm so curious to get the police report or other investigative information about this case. And the media, all media, left and right should stop trying this case in the press, on the air, and on the internet. Let's get the facts and find out what really happened (if that's possible, and I hope it is) before judging anyone or anything.

Al
TRAG

Anonymous said...

@ Al-Thoughtful and informative. I agree absolutely that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of citizens to gun ownership. For those of us who lean left, however,after that point we diverge sharply and the NRA's rabid absolutism is irrational.

I keep a pocket Constitution in my briefcase. It seems to me that many individuals who try to wrap it around them should wrap their brains around what it means first.
MR...
PS-I got 2 hugs from Erin Saturday night-jealous?

Al The Retired Army Guy said...

@ MR: I am always jealous of those who are lucky enough to receive Erin hugs .... ;-)

Al
TRAG

Anonymous said...

I'm never going to wash my shoulder again...
MR

Anonymous said...

In Re: 2nd Amendment Security.

It is my belief that the only way a corrupt U.S. Government could be overthrown by force in 2012 is by some sort of military coup. If a "Militia" from Tennessee or Michigan or Alaska or anywhere else in the U.S. tried to overthrow the Gov it'd look alot like Syria.

"Handguns are made for killin' ain't no good for nothing else." lynyrd skynyrd "Saturday Night Special" circa 1974.

RJ

Bill said...

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."

-- Mahatma Gandhi

Anonymous said...

I'm sure Gandi would be an NRA member were he alive today Bill. As usual your comment adds nothing to the discussion. STFU and go away.

RJ

Bill said...

Discussion: Consideration of a subject by a group; an earnest conversation.

Vitriol: extreme bitterness and hatred toward somebody or something, or an expression of this feeling in speech or writing

Al The Retired Army Guy said...

@ RJ: Actually, the modern day descendants of the Minutemen or "militia" are the National Guard of each state. National Guardsmen are trained by their respective service (Army National Guard at Active Army Traning Centers; Air National Guard at Active Air Force Training Centers). Thus they have the same potential capability to stage a military coup as they are trained and equipped for the most part as is the active military. In fact, many National Guard units rotated in and out of Iraq/Afghanistan - they did so because they have the same capabilities as their active duty counterparts.

Now, would a military coup ever take place in this country? In my view it is highly unlikely. Every military member takes an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and to bear true faith and allegiance to the same. It would take a serious assault on that document (e.g., freedoms being eroded, rights taken away, etc.) for that to ever come to fruition.

Al
TRAG

Erin O'Brien said...

e.g., freedoms being eroded, rights taken away, etc.

Got drones?

Anonymous said...

Daniel Webster: Friend of Bill.

"That's not writing, that's typing."-Truman Capote.

RJ

Anonymous said...

@Al,

You think I'd get a positive response if I told these guys that run around in the woods weekends doing "manuevers" in Tennessee that they can relax the National Guard has got their backs?

RJ

Anonymous said...

Con't...

My point being that I think it unlikely a successful armed citizen uprising could be staged in this day and time in the U.S. Ergo it seems a poor argument for opponents of gun control law.

RJ

alphadog said...

RJ,
Please consider this.
Since you are willing to sacrifice or vote away my freedoms simply because they don't appeal to you, I trust you will not be bitter should you find the same has happened to you.

Al The Retired Army Guy said...

@ RJ: I said that it would be highly unlikely, but yet it is still possible, however slim that possibility may be. The reason the Second Amedment was written was to ensure that the Government didn't overstep its bounds. An armed citizenry makes that possible, and the founding fathers knew this (Americans had just threw the dominant power at the time, Great Britain, out of the colonies - they could do the same to any nascent government as well).

And note the use of the words "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state....." The use of "security of a free state" means security of the rights and liberties as espoused in the Constitution as I read it. It means that the government, if it acts excessively is, if you will, subject to recall by its armed citizenry.

The National Guard is under the control of each state, with the Governor of that state the CIC of those forces until they are federalized and mustered into federal service (this has been done for every conflict from World War I to the present). Their primary role, in peacetime is to react to disasters, aid in flood relief, etc. In wartime, they are treated as any armed force, e.g., they go kill people and break things when told and where told. An important thing to note is that in peacetime their weaponry is locked up when not in use, as is their ammunition (same goes for our Active Duty folks when they are in garrison). This means most of the time in peacetime, unless they are training (e.g., gunnery ranges, rifle ranges, rotations to our training centers, etc.). In other words, while they are an armed force, they are usually unarmed the vast majority of the time. They don't necessarily have the backs of those in TN on "maneuvers." As to whether you'd get a positive response, well, my guess is no.

Al
TRAG

Anonymous said...

@Alph,
Regrettably I fear I'm already bitter. Seems to me all but a privledged few have seen their liberties compromised.

I'm going off to meditate on compassion for a week. Maybe that'll help my outlook.

RJ

Anonymous said...

It seems like much of the discussion in fact misses the point of the original post (video). Many here vehemently blame the NRA for this, that, or the other, while Mr. Jackson seems to (correctly) advocate personal responsibility and not blaming anyone but yourself for your actions.

So, for the blamers in the audience, if I were an NRA member, would I also get credit ("blame") for all of the crimes that never occur, or are thwarted due to the righteous use of firearms? Of course not. I am blameless for someone else's gun crime or other bad behavior; I am not owed anything for someone else's good fortune or hard work.

Collectivists, whether red or blue, left or right, white or black, all suck.

Al The Retired Army Guy said...

"I am blameless for someone else's gun crime or other bad behavior; I am not owed anything for someone else's good fortune or hard work."

Works for me.

Al
TRAG

Bill said...

The left wants us all to share in their liberal guilt. Misery loves company.

Erin O'Brien said...

So, for the blamers in the audience, if I were an NRA member, would I also get credit ("blame") for all of the crimes that never occur, or are thwarted due to the righteous use of firearms?

Anon, go spend some time on any pro-gun site. You'll find plenty of braying about "the righteous use of firearms." The gun idiots are more than happy to take credit for the one justified use of a gun, but offer up nothing more than indignant wide-eyed blinking when anyone suggests that just maybe loosened regulations have something to do with the hundreds of shootings gone oh-so-wrong.

Alph, what the hell do you think your NRA dues are paying for? The singular FLA "stand your ground" law, with it's exoneration clause is one of the organizations most sparkling achievements: shoot 'em dead and get off scott free!

I'm sick of all these miserable fucks. Right-to-lifer shitbags who decry a woman's right to choose, but are happy to shoot her kid when he grows up and dons a hoodie. These same darlings rail against Planned Parenthood, but happily offer up their insurance cards when they pick up their Viagra en route to the cathouse.

Got Mecklenborg?

It's time to take the power out of these cocksuckers' hands

Bill said...

Re: the Mecklenborg article. That Carolyn Shultz is one angry woman. The article was informative though. I didn't know law enforcement tested for the presence of Viagra. That's funny.

Anonymous said...

I'm sick of all these miserable fucks. Right-to-lifer shitbags who decry a woman's right to choose, but are happy to shoot her kid when he grows up and dons a hoodie.

Me too.

Sadly, though, it seems that most folks here are merely advocating for one portfolio of state intervention in private affairs (and against a different one) while paying only lip service to higher principles of "freedom" or "choice". Two sides of the same rotten busybody coin. How about the government stays away from our natural rights in general: yours regarding medical decisions (e.g., abortion) and mine regarding self-defense (e.g., "gun control")?

And while we're on the subject of medical decisions, what about my natural rights regarding medical decisions (e.g., ObamaCare)? Those who are most virulently against the government getting involved (i.e., limiting/prohibiting) in their medical decisions (e.g., abortion) mysteriously seem to loose their passion when it's other people's medical decisions (e.g., ObamaCare).

People should be brave and convicted enough to pick one of the two REAL and logically consistent sides: the one that wants to use government to tell people what [you want them] to do, and the one that doesn't. Anything less just is just hypocrisy.

(the same Anonymous Coward from 6:58P above)

Anonymous said...

@ bil-Her name is CONNIE Schultz, she's a Pulitzer Prize winner, and she also happens to be Mrs Sherrod Brown (United States Senator from our fair state.)

Please enlighten the rest of the denizens of the blog on what you found so 'angry' in her column? It seems pretty reasoned and well-presented to me, so as you were noting the definition of vitriol above, tell the audience where you see anger here?

If anyone is interested in another nugget from the ouevre of former Rep Mecklenborg, he also sponsored Ohio's version of the voter-suppressive ID laws proposed in virtually all the states where the Republicans gained control of both legislatures and governorships in 2010. When it was pointed out to Mr Mecklenborg that the alleged voter fraud that the bill was supposed to combat occurs at a rate of .00004%, and that out of that miniscule sample not all of the cases involved voter impersonation, which was the entire raison d'etre for the law, the great statesman and diplomat Mecklenborg replied "I believe it exists"

I think "I Believe it Exists" would look great on a tombstone...

MR

Anonymous said...

@ Anon@2:57
For the readership's education perhaps you can explain the ways in which the PPACA has or will impinge on your personal freedom of choice?

MR

Erin O'Brien said...

Anon, you're the only one to use the phrase "anonymous coward" in this thread.

Have you ever been involved in a corporate "wellness" program, anon? Believe me, corporate America is infinitely more controlling when it comes to your health (and placement on the actuary tables) than Uncle Sam will ever be.

I don't believe a smoking senior citizen pays more for Medicare than a non-smoker. Can't say the same for a policy from Aetna.

Do Vets with pre-existing conditions get denied coverage? Do vets of different ages pay different rates?

Nope.

You go and do some homework on private insurance, then tell me about control.

Erin O'Brien said...

Let me make it easy for you, anon.

This is what an actual corporate wellness program looks like.

Make sure you scan all the way down to the bottom.

Appalling, Really said...

Too many anons here... I'll pick a "name".

@MR:

Two ways right off the top of my head, without reading the 2700 page "magnum opus":

- I am no longer free to opt out entirely. Let's say I'm independently wealthy and healthy and decide to self-insure. Well, I can't do that; I must pay penalties, or, failing that, embrace the tender mercies of the IRS and its cohorts.

- I am no longer free to choose (i.e., insurance companies are no longer allowed to provide) a policy that is more suited to my circumstances (e.g., I don't need maternity coverage), hence the cost goes up for me and everyone else.

In the abstract, I've got a bridge to sell you if you think that, if this intrusion on our liberty is allowed to stand, further intrusion won't occur in its wake. History shows time and again that laws and the powers they confer always metastasize in ways that a) were dismissed during whatever debate might have occurred with "That will never happen!", and/or b) were never "intended" or "foreseen".

Erin O'Brien said...

Appalling: You call your insurance provider and tell them that you don't need maternity coverage (or mental health coverage or whatever) and you want a credit. Then sign back on and tell me how it went.

As for the penalty, I'm assuming that goes to help out the poverty stricken. As it stands, we pay their way via inflated ER treatment.

Al The Retired Army Guy said...

I think I've decided on the brand for the .45 ACP automatic pistol I'm going to buy - Colt.

Al
TRAG

Anonymous said...

Erin
Dead wrong, Insurance companies do charges a surge charge for smokers,at my current job the premiums increase 200 a month for my ex wife, her's went up 180 a month.
James Old Guy

Erin O'Brien said...

Exactly James, that was my point. Maybe you misread my comment--or maybe I didn't phrase it very well.

As it stands with private insurance, smokers pay more--LOTS more. This is not the case for Medicare, Medicaid or VA recipients--any GOV sponsored insurance. Smokers and nonsmokers are treated the same.

Appalling, Really said...

@Erin:

In fact, I have done plenty of research on insurance plans, as I'm a small business owner that provides the choice of several to my employees as part of our benefits package. We have for 15 years, and I've been the one making the decisions and choosing the options.

As far as the wellness program goes, neither they nor my employer who would be offering the program would have the tools to fine me, garnish my wages, arrest me, or otherwise curtail my freedom (excepting fraud, of course). I can simply opt out, either of the plan or the employer.

Try that with the IRS and let me know how that works out.

It's curious that the fact that (state) government insurance regulators have (inappropriately) made it impossible for insurance companies to offer health insurance with or without certain coverages is being used to somehow justify or excuse (federal) government attempts to do the same thing... Just because the states have interfered and screwed things up doesn't mean we should concede the ground and let the feds finish the job.

Why is the "fix" for government intervention in something always more intervention and never less (or none)? It happens everywhere: medicine, education, guns, drugs, terrorism, financial markets, politics, ... We are as ants in an ant farm, shaken up "to see what'll happen" every time someone with a title decides to. Conferring a political title on someone doesn't make them smarter, it just makes them more dangerous: more willing to "do something", take your stuff, and throw you in jail.

Enough already.

Bill said...

Sherrod's wife! No wonder she's angry. She's also snarky (been called that myself), one sided, and, won't cut a guy some slack for a night out on the town.

Anonymous said...

@bil-I forgot you're immune to irony, ie, the irony of a self-righteous blowhard pontificating on what a woman may or may not do with her own uterus because of his moral beliefs then spending a drunken night out with a hooker...I would imagine that would tend to bring out SOME snark from a female commentator...though I don't see any there...as to one-sided, Ms Schultz doesn't say one way or another, but I would have to imagine if she asked Mr Mecklenborg probably would've declined comment.In any event she's a columnist and not a news writer, so equal time is not necessarily owed.

As to slack, for a night out on the town...DUI? Slack?

Anonymous said...

(MR previous @ 8:46)

Anonymous said...

@ Anon @3:46...
The penalties for non-compliance are a relative pittance. There is no mechanism for non-compliance save a deduction from your tax return. There is NO collections procedures if that is not met.
You're probably right about the 'liberty' trope, though...somewhat around 30 million of your fellow citizens will no longer have the liberty of either a)going without routine medical treatment or b)going to an extremely expensive emergency room to get medical treatment that would have been nipped in the bud with the availability of primary care, treatment that gets paid for by the insured through higher rates.
MR

Appalling, Really said...

MR @9:08...

The "'liberty' trope" is yours, not mine.

As per section 1501 (et seq.) of PPACA, the monthly penalty assessed is 1/12th the greater of a) $695, or b) 2.5% of (household income - filing threshold) by 2016. Depending on your circumstances, that's a decent number. It does turn out that, for now (see comment about metastasis) nonpayment of such penalties are exempt from levies or criminal prosecution. I stand corrected on this point, but we'll see how that cancer grows. I'm confident that sometime in the foreseeable future that exemption will be quietly excised completely or negated.

Ultimately, though, you and your fellow citizens, whoever they are and whatever titles they hold, have thus arrogated for yourselves a seat at a table where you are not welcome and have no claim. And once we start down that road, very, very few of us (that's you and me) are going to like where we end up. Wait until it's not "your guy" wielding whatever power we might want to discuss, and you'll see what I mean. You're in the cheering section now, but just wait until the wind changes and they are telling you what to do...

The only way to win is not to play. It's not a left/right, democrat/republican, red/blue thing, it's a free/not free thing. It's really as simple and as stark as that. How many times do we need to see this movie before we recognize the plot and where it goes?

Erin O'Brien said...

"You're in the cheering section now"

Ha! Talk about appalling ....

President Obama is a long long way from candidate Obama, baby.

The HCR law as it stands garnered my respect for Obama because it was not a political gain. As for the structure of it, with the mandate--it sucks. It was a construct of righties like The Heritage Foundation. The only reason the right has acted all indignant about it was to discredit Obama.

When they destroy "Obamacare," there will only be one option left on the table: single payer.

Hence I do believe a single payer option--probably by way of a Medicare expansion--will eventually rise from the ashes and that's what I'm hoping for.

Erin O'Brien said...

Now then, behold a real American HC hero.

Appalling, Really said...

@Erin:

Agreed on the heroism ...

... and as the government and its evil symbionts like collectivists and crony capitalists get more involved, truly righteous work like this woman's will get regulated or otherwise hounded out of existence. For example. The examples of petty dictators abound. Do we really want them to be involved in even more stuff?

I believe that as the government "does" more, it suppresses our propensity towards charity and honor and deadens us as citizens, turning us into petty, argumentative, selfish, and dependent brats. This is private citizens not government. My only comment is that such acts are not restricted to MoveOn members or those of any other group.

We sovereign, free, and responsible (to Samuel Jackson's original point) citizens are the solution and must stay that way.

Anonymous said...

"Appalling" @ 9:45-"no longer free", used twice, sounds to me like someone complaining about their 'liberty'...

MR

Appalling, Really said...

@MR:

I was in fact talking about actual freedom. Your sarcasm included a trope (see definition 1) referring to the newfound "freedom" to force other people to pay for you (for a policy) and provide services to you (at an arbitrary cost).

Anonymous said...

@'Appalling'-my tone there was more ironic than sarcastic, I think...
-BUT- I've read a few of your entries here and I've come to a conclusion....

You're....you're a {GASP} LIBERTARIAN, aren't you?

good luck with that...

MR

Appalling, Really said...

@MR:

Maybe, maybe not. What difference does that make?

That Liberty and its necessaries and sufficiencies aren't popular or well-understood neither diminishes the principle nor proves the opposite. You might accessorize with a D or an R (or an L or a C for that matter), but that doesn't mean an actual fact you state is less of one.

As far as my luck goes, unfortunately for all of us, you're right, and I will likely have to bide my time and wait for the wheels to come off to be proven right. Make no mistake. The wheels will come off, at which point we can expect a chorus of blame: "the unexpected", "the unknown", "the rich", "the poor", "democrats", "republicans", "terrorists", "George Bush", "Barack Obama", "national security", "the fat cats", "capitalists", "business", "China", ..., "them", ...

All to deflect attention from the fact that the outcome was foreseeable, but this time it was going to be different.

Politicians are horrible ... ahem ... at predicting costs and disclosing the real story, whether it's for social programs, wars and weapons, bridges and tunnels and trains, or pretty much anything else.

Anonymous said...

@ Appalling Anon...
Maybe it makes a difference...maybe not...

MR

Bill said...

Took some time to read these comments. My favorite word, so far? Arrogated. Thanks, A,R.

Appalling, Really said...

@Bill:

Ha!

Ain't no sense in writing unless you're going to use words!

I think my personal favorite is (evil) symbionts.

Bill said...

That's a good one too. There could be an entire post about certain groups who've arrogated their way into symbionic relationships. Do I have the usage correct?

Appalling, Really said...

Absolutely. To wit:

Take or claim for yourself, without justification, a close and usually obligatory association with another organism of a different species that lives closely with you, often (but not necessarily) to your mutual benefit.

A concept startlingly close to the original post. We've come full circle...

Bill said...

here's an example of the race baiting I was talking about

Anonymous said...

Bill this is NOT an example of the race-baiting you were talking about, because you posted on Monday and the "Today" show fubar ran on Tuesday. You can't make an accusation, wait around for the something that finally backs you up to show up, and then tell everybody "I tol' ya so!"


Toodle-oo
MR

Bill said...

Pretty weak, initialed one.

Anonymous said...

Wow, Bill, we agree! It WAS pretty weak for you to claim that something that happened on Tuesday was evidence of a claim you made on Monday.

There is hope for you yet, Bill. Now returning to a question that I asked you last week, and which you never answered, what was the racial component of the President's remarks about the Trayvon shooting that caused you to accuse him of race-baiting?
MR