Another toter has a neglegent discharge, this time in DC.

[Remmah2]

Just imagine if this guy got close to US gov't officials. Probable lack of training too.
:sarcasm:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/crime-scene/post/secret-service-agent-mistakenly-fires-gun-near-russian-consulate/2011/11/09/gIQA8cbV5M_blog.html

[jmg257]

1. Sitting in his car playing with his fucking sidearm? What's with that?

We had guy at our department blast a hole in the door of a squad car with an 870.

Accidents happen, but not if you keep your damn finger off the trigger!

[We_Have_A_Problem]

2. Don't know that I would have used that title...

It implies it was a private individual with a CCW permit, when the reality is, it is one of those whom are considered to somehow be magically imbued with super special firearms rights and skills due to choosing law enforcement as their career...

[Hoyt]

3. There are plenty of private citizen examples too. Of course, they are ignored around here.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

7. what would you call post 2?

In case of mishap, I'll quote the part of your post I'm referring to:

A strawman

I didn't see one in Hoyt's thread. But how about the great big one in the thread? --

it is one of those whom are considered to somehow be magically imbued with super special firearms rights and skills due to choosing law enforcement as their career

This suggests that some significant number of people offer that as the reason why police and police equivalents are permitted (required) to carry firearms in public.

There are no "rights" involved; there are duties. A duty to carry a firearm in public in order to carry out the various duties assigned by the public.

And I know of no one who claims that anyone has super special firearms skills due to choosing law enforcement as their career.

We do know that people in those careers have at least some training in the use of firearms and education in the law, which fewer and fewer ordinary members of the public are apparently being required to have in order to be permitted to carry a firearm in public. So yes, there is a distinction there.

But I doubt that it is the distinction that many people, having considered the issue, would base their approval of police carrying firearms and disapproval of other people carrying firearms on. See my post 6.

I wonder whether the poster of the straw entity in question will reply to that one ...

[safeinOhio]

9. This post is the definition of

a personal attack.

[iverglas]

12. which is why

it suffered a mishap. ;) You just sneaked in there first!

[We_Have_A_Problem]

14. Really?

They're ignored? Funny - i could have sworn there was just one posted about a similar dumbass attack the other day....could have been mistaken...

Nope - i wasnt...Here it is: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=477538&mesg_id=477538


I sincerely doubt you could find one which happened in DC by a private citizen, but hey, if you can, by all means, post it.

Once again Hoyt, your dishonesty shines through..

[Hoyt]

17. How funny. Of course it would be difficult to find one in DC, they have good gun laws that prohibit

most people from carrying in public.

Further, every time one of your "brothers" makes a similar mistake, gunners start claiming they are a "dumb ass" or otherwise not representative of those who carry in public. Saw that recently in a thread about a judge who brandished a gun or two in traffic. If you are going to exclude everyone from the universe of toters who fucks up, you'll always have a universe that is "pure" in your minds. But, it doesn't wash with me.

Have a good day.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

18. You believe that?

You really think the gun laws in DC are good and actually stop people from carrying in public?

Must by why DC has consistently been at or near the top of the list when it comes to violent crime....all those people not carrying guns and all.

As far as DC's gun laws being good, the USSC rather disagrees with you. Perhaps you heard about it? D.C. v. Heller? Was in all the papers...

[Hoyt]

20. I've heard of Heller, I too agree people should be able to keep a reasonable number of guns at home.

But, Heller doesn't suggest people should be walking around in public with the things. And, as you should realize by now, the rulings of the Supreme Court in these narrow cases don't result in immediate changes to laws that need to be drafted carefully to avoid opening the spigot of guns in our society.

Finally, we need to work on what is considered a reasonable number and type of guns allowed at home.

But, you hang onto that Heller decision and pull it out every time some CCWer proves they are an idiot who should never have been allowed to own a gun, much less carry one.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

21. I fear for your sanity...

...when the gun laws you love so much are repealed or struck down one after the other...

[Hoyt]

25. That's what my wife used to say.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

26. I take it she's your ex-wife now?

Wish I could say I'm surprised...

[Hoyt]

30. I guess in a sense -- she passed away.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

31. My condolences

While I certainly didn't know, I probably dredged up some painful memories. A most sincere apology. We may be polar opposites on this issue, but that does not mean I am heartless.

[Hoyt]

32. Thanks. We're cool.

[Hoopla Phil]

33. Can you please cite where Heller says "only in the home"?

I know of three mentions of "in the home" and one mention of "such as in the home" but don't recall reading anywhere "only in the home".

Thanks

[We_Have_A_Problem]

34. It doesn't...I checked.

The Brady Campaign and others tried to get some traction out of insinuating it was restricted to in the home, but that bullshit was pretty quickly silenced. The stake was driven through its heart when they ruled on McDonald.

[Hoopla Phil]

39. I know, but I wanted to give the fellow upthread the opportunity to educate

himself on Heller a bit more. I'm not real convinced that he has actually read Heller as his knowledge of it is pretty bad. I was hoping he would go looking for "only in the home" and maybe actually learn a thing or two. I found following the foot note sources very educational. Heller was VERY well researched on the original intent of the 2A. Hell, at one point the "M-16" was specifically named as being well suited to militia duty. I know that such mention does in, or of itself, roll back the Hughes Amendment but it certainly does invite a challenge to it (IMO).

[PavePusher]

41. So, what does the "bear" part of "keep and bear" mean?

Or is it just Constitutional pocket lint?

[Hoopla Phil]

44. I wonder if you'll get an answer. I've been waiting for an answer to my

question for a while now. Note, I'm NOT holding my breath.

[Hoopla Phil]

45. Did you ever find where in Heller it said "only in the home"? I still cannot find

it myself so maybe you can point me to it.

Thanks.

[oneshooter]

46. What do you concider a"reasonable number of guns at home." Hoyt?

[AtheistCrusader]

4. That was the point.

[iverglas]

6. some people are required to carry firearms

in the course of performing duties assigned to them by the public, which they perform in the public interest.

They are subject to public oversight, and if they are negligent, sanctions can be applied. That oversight appears to be getting exercised here.

The public assumes the risks associated with those people carrying firearms, based on the belief that the benefits (preventing crimes, interrupting crimes, apprehending criminals, protecting the people who do that work, just generally protecting the public) outweigh the risks.

Since everybody seems happy to admit that unintentional discharges, or whatever the jargon is, will happen, the question is: should the public agree to assume this risk in situations in which no public interest is served by the carrying of the firearm?

People other than police and police equivalents carry firearms in public in their own interest and no one else's. There are no benefits to the public at all, let alone benefits that outweigh the risks.

Why should anyone else be compelled to assume the risks that come with that action?

[jmg257]

8. I'll take a shot! :)

There are procedures in place which allow the public to 'refuse to accept' the risks of the carrying of firearms.

When enough of the public agrees, laws can be changed or passed by representatives of the people so it is not legal to do so, as has been/is the case (in some 'localities').


Edit to add a couple quotes I find interesting on this type of stuff:
(though they are from those olds guys 220 yrs old!) :)

Madison to jefferson:

"Supposing a bill of rights to be proper ...I am inclined to think that absolute restrictions in cases that are doubtful, or where emergencies may overrule them, ought to be avoided. The restrictions however strongly marked on paper will never be regarded when opposed to the decided sense of the public, and after repeated violations in extraordinary cases they will lose even their ordinary efficacy."


Noah Webster:

"But what is tyranny? Or how can a free people be deprived of their liberties? Tyranny is the exercise of some power over a man, which is not warranted by law, or necessary for the public safety.

[iverglas]

10. sorry, but that weasn't really responsive

My question was:

Why should anyone else be compelled to assume the risks that come with that action?

I wasn't asking for an explanation of how or why laws are made; I'm really pretty conversant with that process.

I was suggesting that those who advocate laws that permit the carrying of firearms in public offer their reasons why the public should be compelled to assume the risks associated with that practice.


Noah Webster:
"But what is tyranny? Or how can a free people be deprived of their liberties? Tyranny is the exercise of some power over a man, which is not warranted by law, or necessary for the public safety."

Didn't he write dictionaries? I'll be happy to offer some of my favourite Dr. Johnson quotes; he wrote dictionaries first, and was very witty, if not the paragon of progressive thought.

Whether something is "necessary for the public safety" is a matter of opinion -- worthwhile opinion being based on true facts and reasonable argument, of course.

And whether that is the actual standard to be applied in liberal democracies in the 21st century, well, that's a matter for debate anyhow.

I can't even tell from that what Webster's opinion of anything was. Did he have an opinion about carrying concealed weapons in public, and whether it should be permitted?

I offer what Benjamin Franklin probably really said, or close to:

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

But then, that was just his opinion, and his opinion about who deserves liberty or safety isn't really of much concern to anyone.


I leave you with Samuel Johnson.

Here malice, rapine, accident conspire,
And now a rabble rages, now a fire;
Their ambush here relentless ruffians lay,
And here the fell attorney prowls for prey;
Here falling houses thunder on your head,
And here a female atheist talks you dead.
- "London", 1738 (and formerly my sig line!)

Sir, a woman's preaching is like a dog's walking on his hind legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all.

A cucumber should be well-sliced, dressed with pepper and vinegar, and then thrown out.

[jmg257]

19. OK - got ya...I see the difference in what you offered and what I returned.

"I was suggesting that those who advocate laws that permit the carrying of firearms in public offer their reasons why the public should be compelled to assume the risks associated with that practice."

I think most advocates will say (right or wrong) that a) it's 'your' burden to prove infringing on a constitutional right is justified. b) concealed carry has been shown to reduce crime; c) the dangers to the public of not allowing CC is worse then allowing it; d) MY carrying will not pose a public risk, so MY carrying should not be restricted; e) risks aren't significant enough; f) any or all of the above.

I think the true answer would often be selfish in nature.



As for the quotes...

Apparently some framers asked Webster to come up with his take on the proposed constitution.
"This document was second only to the Federalist Papers in influencing ratification of the Constitution"
"Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, 1787"
http://www.potowmack.org/2noahweb.html

I had noticed Webster's quote when recalling his notions related to the intent of the 2nd (re: one of the threads from a couple days ago). He'd be quotable for stuff like: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed" (with regards to power and a standing army etc., not CC). But when seeing above that he gives a justification for such a use of powers that many...advocates would likely consider tyranny: "...necessary for the public safety.", I remember how many others consider the carrying of concealed arms to be just that - a threat to public safety.

Madison was included along the same lines. He thinks "that absolute restrictions in cases that are doubtful, or where emergencies may overrule them, ought to be avoided." Seeming to make a good argument on the wisdom of the 2nd, since they did include it, but then says "The restrictions however strongly marked on paper will never be regarded when opposed to the decided sense of the public", which to me is another example of saying the people will (should) do what they think is best anyway.


Opinions for sure, but I find that stuff interesting - things to make a person go 'hmmm'.


"I'm really pretty conversant with that process."

I know, I hope you know I didn't mean at all to imply otherwise! I learn plenty from your posts! (thought provoking - i.e 'hmmm...') :)

[iverglas]

23. c'mon

I think most advocates will say (right or wrong) that a) it's 'your' burden to prove infringing on a constitutional right is justified. b) concealed carry has been shown to reduce crime; c) the dangers to the public of not allowing CC is worse then allowing it; d) MY carrying will not pose a public risk, so MY carrying should not be restricted; e) risks aren't significant enough; f) any or all of the above.

Well, maybe they would.


On (b), they'd be wrong. What does that do to their argument?

On (c), they'd be making an unsubstantiated claim; what does that do to their argument?

On (d), that's an assertion of something that can be neither proved nor disproved, since it is a prediction of the future (and might even be an intentionally false claim by someone who has their fingers crossed), so it just doesn't belong there at all.

On (e), that's a matter of opinion; is the death of a bystander to a negligent discharge a significant risk? Significant in terms of the odds of it happening, or significant in terms of the harm if it does?


On (a), yes, and there are accepted tests for meeting that burden, the process being known as constitutional scrutiny.

As part of that process, someone could try actually proving (b) or (c), for example. Or argue that the low odds of a death from a negligent discharge mean that the horrific potential outcome, the death of a bystander, should not be given much weight. And so on.


As for quoting people who spoke in the 18th century, well, it just doesn't carry weight unless one's interlocutor or the arbitrator considers those people to be authorities whose words are either persuasive or conclusive. I just find it bizarre. "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed" -- what nonsense is this, what remote relevance does it have to life in the 21st century? The US is ruled by a standing army of corporations; what do guns have to do with that, and in any event what have the guns ever done or are they likely to do about it?

I find argument based on relevant facts and reason persuasive; I find the opinions somebody going on 250 years ago, about the world that existed in that century, to be pretty much irrelevant.


"The restrictions however strongly marked on paper will never be regarded when opposed to the decided sense of the public" -- yup, or as I've said: if a Canadian government decides to avail itself of the "notwithstanding" clause in our constitution and exercise its parliamentary supremacy to override individual constitutional rights, our problem isn't going to be the "notwithstanding" clause, it's going to be the people chose to elect such a government.

Of course, with a multi-party first-past-the-post system, it could get elected the way the present one did: with 40% of the popular vote ...

But yes. No parchment is a defence against anything.

[jmg257]

27. Checking out "scrutiny" now...haven't visited those notions in a while.

"On (a), yes, and there are accepted tests for meeting that burden, the process being known as constitutional scrutiny."

"As part of that process, someone could try actually proving (b) or (c), for example. Or argue that the low odds of a death from a negligent discharge mean that the horrific potential outcome, the death of a bystander, should not be given much weight. And so on."


Thanks!

[one-eyed fat man]

48. But yes. No parchment is a defence against anything.

Someone ought to bring that up the next 911 tape where a woman dies pleading for the police to come. A protective order doesn't do much even if you roll it up really really tight and poke the attacker in the eye with it.

[Straw Man]

37. The "take one for the team" strategy.

People other than police and police equivalents carry firearms in public in their own interest and no one else's. There are no benefits to the public at all, let alone benefits that outweigh the risks.

I see that you conveniently exclude these people from "the public." So for you the individual right of self-defense carries no weight at all? The individual is expendable if his/her defense entails any risk whatsoever to the general public?

[iverglas]

38. got questions?

Feel free to ask them.

You want to hoke up some insulting false garbage and stick question marks on the end of it and pretend I said it, you feel free now. No concern of mine.

[Straw Man]

40. got answers?

got questions?

Feel free to ask them.

Those were questions. Feel free to answer in either the affirmative or negative. Feel free to elucidate if you feel a simple "yes" or "no" answer is too reductive.

You want to hoke up some insulting false garbage and stick question marks on the end of it and pretend I said it, you feel free now. No concern of mine.

Please show me where I "pretended" you said anything. These are the questions raised by my interpretation of your stated position. If you feel that I have misinterpreted your position, you may respond. Or not. No concern of mine.

[iverglas]

42. aptly named, aren't you?

[Straw Man]

43. So that's a "no"?

[Hoopla Phil]

47. It would certainly appear so. . .

Hey, I'm a poet and just don't know it.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[rl6214]

11. A Toter?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toter

[iverglas]

13. that one needs some disambiguation ;)

Maybe the alternative offered works better.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheelie_bin

[Remmah2]

15. So that's where you get your information.

Classy.

[iverglas]

22. maybe that one actually does apply

How can you be so lacking in common sense as to make yourself look like what that makes you look like?

Maybe you need to look up wiki's "disambiguation" explanation. Who knows?

Did you click on the link posted by the person to whom I replied?

Try not to die of embarrassment.

[SteveM]

16. I got turned around and used the Soviet Embassy drive as a U-turn...

I got caught in one-way traffic with no exits, heading to Maryland, found a service cut, turned off the road and went into someone's extravagant drive: It was the Soviet Embassy. Guards looked at each other as I see-sawed my '63 Chevy II Wagon up to the gate and pulled out back toward D.C. They noticed my Texas plate and just shook their heads.

A few weeks earlier, I got turned around and was going the wrong way in front of the Treasury Department. Everyone was gesticulating to reverse course, so I lumbered around in the slowest 180 on record. They saw the plates and laughed.

Damn, those Texas plates had a wondrous force field. But nothing matched a Maine plate.

Back in the early 50s, one of my Dad's colleagues at the U. of Florida saw an ad for "portable" well-digging equipment, located in Maine. He took a train (yep, better connections) one-way to Maine, bought the rig and proceeded to drive it back to N. Florida. Of course, he got screwed up in D.C., and at 5 p.m. got into one-way traffic in front of the Capitol -- going the wrong way. The poor traffic cop looked around in panic as horns everywhere blared. 'Here came the multi-wheeled well-digging stuff out of a sea of cars. He noted the plate, and just walked off.

[iverglas]

24. and that

is why they invented ring roads. ;)

[formercia]

29. That must have been why they decided to build the Beltway.

They were afraid it would happen again.

[GreenStormCloud]

28. He was a U.S. Secrect Service Agent, NOT an ordinary citizen with a CCW.

He is not what is commonly meant around here as a "toter". Are you advocating the complete disarmament of federal law enforcement agents?

[Euromutt]

35. I think Remmah's point was to mock the term (n/t)

[iverglas]

36. I love it when they eat their own young

We left them to their own devices for a couple of weeks, a few years ago.

Wasn't long before the internecine wars broke out.

Isn't there some sort of secret handshake you fellas could use for mutual recognition?

Even just paying attention to the poster's name ...