Gun not at fault for Belcher's acts

Gun not at fault for Belcher's acts

Posted in the Minneapolis Forum

First Prev
of 4
Next Last
DSM Local

Ankeny, IA

#1 Dec 3, 2012
The burning embers of the Twin Towers had a way of being invoked when a particularly dicey part of the Patriot Act needed selling 11 years ago.

This was the smart play. Watering down constitutional rights is not easily undertaken. So scaring Americans and then using that fear to explain why this egregious assault on their rights is for their own good is genius. This is exactly why the right protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures of Americans is no longer absolute, thanks to the Patriot Act, and a right to a speedy and public trial by jury was only days ago finally reaffirmed in the Senate, with Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) so eloquently arguing,“If we relinquish our rights because of fear, what is it exactly, then, we are fighting for?”

Yes, tragedy is a dangerous time for the Bill of Rights because somebody is always there to wave a flag or an orphaned baby and use that to explain why we need to voluntarily give up rights our Founding Fathers so wisely gave to us. And so it is with this Jovan Belcher tragedy.

The Kansas City Chiefs linebacker gunned down his girlfriend — the mother of his baby — and then killed himself, leaving a 3-month-old girl without parents. That this is a tragedy is inarguable. That this is some sort of referendum on the Second Amendment and our right to bear arms is absurd.

My esteemed colleague, Jason Whitlock, argued just that in a very thoughtful column, noting “What I believe is, if (Belcher) didn’t possess/own a gun, he and Kasandra Perkins would both be alive today.” NBC analyst Bob Costas used this as a jumping off point to proselytize during halftime of “Football Night in America” about perspective in sports and the dangers of guns.

The problem with intelligent, impassioned, well-reasoned arguments is how seductive they are. It is easier to blow off the crazy guy screaming “ban all guns” than journalists such as Whitlock or Costas who are arguing rather convincingly how the Second Amendment threatens our liberty rather than enhances it.
DSM Local

Ankeny, IA

#2 Dec 3, 2012
What I know for sure is the distinguished senator from Kentucky is right. And his impassioned defense of the Sixth Amendment on the Senate floor last week needs to be Googled and viewed by everybody calling for a gun ban in response to the Belcher tragedy.

“We have nothing to fear that should cause us to relinquish our rights as free men and women,” Paul said.“I urge my colleagues to reject fear, to reject the siren call for ever more powerful government.”

This is not simply about guns. This is about rights. It is a slippery slope from doing something in the interest of public safety to giving up what we hold dear. The slope is greased with fear, with a self-righteous belief that we know better than the framers of the Constitution. And it is all based on informal fallacy.

The idea that if we just ban all guns Kasandra Perkins does not die and a 3-month-old baby is not orphaned is the very essence of a stated premise that fails to support its proposed conclusion. Yes, guns are dangerous and people such as Belcher sometimes use them to do awful things. What I believe in my heart is Jovan Belcher was going to find a way to wreak havoc that day whether he had a gun or a knife or only his fists. And even the potential to stop him is not justification for willingly handing over rights guaranteed to us.

If this makes me a gun nut or a wing nut or a preachy PITA, I am OK with those labels. Although, I prefer Constitutionalist.

There are not a lot of us left — not absolutists, at least.

Conservatives argue for limiting the right to a speedy trial because terrorists are dangerous. Liberals argue for taking away my right to bear arms because people like Belcher use them in unspeakably horrific ways. Hell, the mayor of New York wants to take away my right to buy a big cup of Coke while in his city because obesity has become such an epidemic. Where does it end? Taking away free speech, freedom of the press? Restricting our right to peaceably assemble? Whittling away our very liberty?

Liberty and democracy are not the same things.

Democracy means the majority decides what rules govern us. Liberty is the idea that we all have certain rights that cannot be taken away, not even by a majority. These are the “inalienable rights” of the Declaration of Independence, and when we give them up voluntarily, for whatever reason no matter how altruistic, what we find is all we have done is given more rights to the government that were intended for us.

Doing so makes us less safe, not more.

So I absolutely believe in “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” just as I do the right to a trial by jury and freedom of religion. And as tragic as this Belcher murder-suicide story is, as much as my heart breaks for that little girl, the answer is not taking away or willingly giving up the right of Americans to bear arms.

Because if we give up our liberty for the mirage of safety, what really have we won?

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/kansas-cit...
Cloud 9

United States

#4 Dec 3, 2012
If he didn't choose a gun he would choose a knife.

Once someone has killing on the mind he/she will carry it out.

I'll never forget the guy who burned up like 124 people in a nightclub in order to kill his girl friend.

There are more dangerous weapons than a gun.
DSM Local

Ankeny, IA

#5 Dec 3, 2012
Slew hates the constitution and our founding fathers
Comrade Slew

Ankeny, IA

#7 Dec 3, 2012
Bob Schmahl wrote:
No. He would not have chosen a knife. You have no idea that is true. Guns allows people to kill in a fit of rage in a coldly impersonal way, and kill many people at a time. The is NO reason to allow handguns in our society.
stupid american constitution lets BURN IT

Since: Apr 12

Saint Paul, MN

#9 Dec 3, 2012
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/50039959/ns/local...
No guns involved in this story, yet 3 people are dead.
Cloud 9

United States

#11 Dec 3, 2012
Bob Schmahl wrote:
No. He would not have chosen a knife. You have no idea that is true. Guns allows people to kill in a fit of rage in a coldly impersonal way, and kill many people at a time. The is NO reason to allow handguns in our society.
Sooooo knives arn't used to kill people in a fit of rage, OJ Simpson comes to mind?

Knives are used to kill in an impersonal way, a stab in the back?

The nightclub killing of over 100 people AND 900+ people died from poisen by Jim Jones, Waco killings left 76 dead including many kids, recent killing of 3 in Montana with a bow and arrow and knives, Murray explosion killed 168 including kids, the 9/11 attach that killed thousands using box cutters and airplanes.

Handguns are banned in many US cities but crime with many weapons is still a problem.

On the flip side how many areas are perfectly safe with many guns in each house?

You see IF you evaluate the situation with an open mind you quickly realize that guns are not the problem, crimminals are the problem.
DSM Local

Ankeny, IA

#12 Dec 3, 2012
Slew is a criminal incapable of taking personal responsibility for his past crimes
Amused Slew

Seattle, WA

#13 Dec 3, 2012
No, the gun wasn't at fault - the azzwipe NRA and Republicans that let him have access to a gun are at fault.

“The one and only Smart Liberal”

Since: Aug 12

Former MN Tax Payer

#14 Dec 3, 2012
Bob Schmahl wrote:
No, the gun wasn't at fault - the azzwipe NRA and Republicans that let him have access to a gun are at fault.
Correction...the US Constitution let him have access to the gun. Stupid people like you have no clue what the Contitution actually says or does.
Amused Slew

Seattle, WA

#15 Dec 3, 2012
We know what it says and the situation/timing when it was written...Oddly enough, cars didn't exist, so your Corvair is irrelevant...(Ps-It was anyway!!)
Bob Schmahl

Saint Paul, MN

#16 Dec 3, 2012
Bob Schmahl wrote:
No - let's amend it to make it better.
We no longer need to have guns.
When seconds count, the police are minutes away.
Bob Schmahl

Saint Paul, MN

#17 Dec 3, 2012
Bob Schmahl wrote:
FU, clown! How many more people have to die before azzwipes like you realize that times have changed and putting guns in the hands of drunks, people with mental problems and drug users is not in the best interests of our nation?
There is blood on YOUR hands tonight, moron!
There are already laws against the mentally ill and felons from owning guns.
Bob Schmahl

Saint Paul, MN

#18 Dec 3, 2012
Bob Schmahl wrote:
No - let's amend it to make it better.
We no longer need to have guns.
I agree. President Obama and the Democrats in the US Congress and Democrats in the various state legislatures should make amending the constitution, ie. revising the 2nd Amendment, a top priority until they get it changed.
DSM Local

Ankeny, IA

#19 Dec 3, 2012
Bob Schmahl wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree. President Obama and the Democrats in the US Congress and Democrats in the various state legislatures should make amending the constitution, ie. revising the 2nd Amendment, a top priority until they get it changed.
Sou you disagree with the founding fathers, why do you have a problem with those who founded this exceptional nation?
DSM Local

Ankeny, IA

#20 Dec 4, 2012
DSM Local wrote:
<quoted text>
Sou you disagree with the founding fathers, why do you have a problem with those who founded this exceptional nation?
no response fro the coward
Amused Slew

Seattle, WA

#21 Dec 4, 2012
Sou ??? Yeah, we NEED to respond to a moron, huh ? Naw, you're OUR best argument... As for the founding father's "argument", that was then, this is now.
Amused Slew

Seattle, WA

#22 Dec 4, 2012
Bob Schmahl wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree. President Obama and the Democrats in the US Congress and Democrats in the various state legislatures should make amending the constitution, ie. revising the 2nd Amendment, a top priority until they get it changed.
If you agree, BOTH parties should fix your mess... Perhaps, dishonesty is ALL YOU KNOW, huh ???
Bridgework

Lincoln, NE

#23 Dec 4, 2012
Amused Slew wrote:
We know what it says and the situation/timing when it was written...Oddly enough, cars didn't exist, so your Corvair is irrelevant...(Ps-It was anyway!!)
Is car ownership a constitutional right?
Bridgework

Lincoln, NE

#24 Dec 4, 2012
Amused Slew wrote:
Sou ??? Yeah, we NEED to respond to a moron, huh ? Naw, you're OUR best argument... As for the founding father's "argument", that was then, this is now.
How many guns do you own again?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Minneapolis Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Police investigate 5 separate shootings in Milw... 7 min Cheetah Mutumbo 24
Subways jared a pedophile? 11 min TOASTER 10
Minneapolis: The News that the Libertards Hide 46 min Crunch 6
Drop one word....add one word game (Apr '14) 1 hr cathouse cowboy 293
News African immigrants found to be a powerful econo... 2 hr Cheetah Mutumbo 1
News When it comes to Africans in Minnesota, the num... 5 hr This IS GOOD 4
News Lake Calhoun in Minneapolis, Minnesota. 5 hr This IS GOOD 7
More from around the web

Minneapolis People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Minneapolis Mortgages