Because that’s what democracy’s all about.
You make rules as best you can, and some people still fall through the cracks.īut in a democracy, you keep trying, keep perfecting. There was nothing preventing this awful, dangerous man from purchasing a gun and following through with his promises to her. She filed multiple restraining orders and typically, judges would look and see how respected he was, and dismiss them, suggesting she was crazy and had a problem. And he threatened to kill her and their kids repeatedly. One of my best friends - one of the mom’s I raised my children with, amongst the deepest friendships women ever have - was married to a doctor a research doctor with a serious pedigree and grants and fellowships at a prestigious university. You make rules the best you can, and some folk probably get caught up in them in ways not intended.
For driving 55 in a 35 on a rural road where everybody drives 55. Had he failed, he’d be a felon, and never able to purchase a gun. Because of that, we challenged it in court, and the charges were dismissed, but only with 6 months of no driving violations and no other legal charges. At least in this state, that’s considered criminal speeding. When he was 18, my son got pulled over for doing 55 in a 35 - 20 above the speed limit. Isn’t farm equipment more dangerous than guns, in terms of the number of fatalities in relation to the number of units in circulation? Isn’t the self-assurance of youth more dangerous, as a whole, to our society and what can be done about it? What other manner of thing is there where we tend to hold the tool responsible for the one directing it? For example, there have been a number of instances where an elderly person mistaken hits the gas pedal rather than the brakes, and plowed into a gathering of people, wiping out a number of them- yet no one has called for color coding of the pedals on vehicles, etc. Should the police be permitted to carry firearms, and what is the legitimate role of doing that? Does it make us more safe, or less safe in doing so? What is it that, in the course of ordinary police work, requires a firearm that cannot be accomplished by some other means? Are firearms primarily a storage of kinetic energy, a substitute for some other kind of action, appealing primarily to the inherently lazy and unresourceful? If your neighbor is just that damned scary, why not just go ahead and take him out? Don’t you have the right to feel safe in your own home, regardless of what your neighbor might be doing in his home? Should convicted felons be permitted to register for a guided tour and rent a hunting rifle for a day to take an antelope, or some other form of game? And should we also restrict them from fishing rods? If you believe (or don’t believe) that guns should not be allowed into the hands of the “mentally ill,” then what other manner of rights protected by the US Constitution should be removed from persons suffering from mental illness? Should persons with Tourette’s have their First Amendment rights abrogated, or sharply reduced? Should a person whom a police officer believes might be suffering from some form of mental illness enjoy the same level of protection against unlawful detention under the Fourth Amendment as a person where no reasonable suspicion to believe that they might be suffering from some form of mental illness should enjoy?
To see a list of all posts in the Symposium so far, click here.Īt times, we hear of people being “robbed of their humanity.” Is not the evil, or the potential for evil, a portion of the humanity of a person – if not a substantial portion? What then, to remove the capacity to perform evil? You can read the introductory post for the Symposium here. Note: This post is part of our League Symposium on Guns In America.
0 kommentar(er)
