Associated Press
It struck me as unfortunate this week when Megan McArdle published a piece on the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School, which, among other things, said unarmed "young people" should be taught to suppress their self-preservation instincts and "instantly run at" well-armed madmen. What I didn't appreciate was how much worse the commentary surrounding the tragedy could get.
National Review, a leading conservative magazine, published an item yesterday by Charlotte Allen, which offered observations that are nothing short of stunning.
There was not a single adult male on the school premises when the shooting occurred. In this school of 450 students, a sizeable number of whom were undoubtedly 11- and 12-year-old boys (it was a K–6 school), all the personnel -- the teachers, the principal, the assistant principal, the school psychologist, the "reading specialist" -- were female. There didn't even seem to be a male janitor to heave his bucket at Adam Lanza's knees.
Women and small children are sitting ducks for mass-murderers.... [A] feminized setting is a setting in which helpless passivity is the norm.
Allen noted that the school's principal "seemed to have performed bravely," and some of the teachers saved lives, but she lamented the notion that "male aggression ... has been forced out of the culture of elementary schools." Allen wondered what might have happened if "some of the huskier 12-year-old boys" at the school had "converged on" the shooter.
The writer went on to encourage folks to "remember United Flight 93 on 9/11. It was a "flight of heroes" because a bunch of guys on that plane did what they could with what they had."
It's hard to know where to start with arguments like these. We could note, for example, how callous it is to denigrate the heroism of the school officials who showed extraordinary courage and heroism during unimaginable circumstances. We could also note how offensive it is complain -- in print, after having several days to ponder the issue -- about American culture based on antiquated and silly gender roles.
And while those concerns are certainly true, I'm also struck by Allen's total disregard for facts.
She wrote there was "not a single adult male on the school premises," which isn't true. She wrote that Sandy Hook was "a K–6 school," which isn't true. She wrote all of the teachers at the school were women, which isn't true. She said there was no male janitor, which isn't true. Indeed, Andrew Kaczynski noted that the "first two sentences" in Allen's piece "contain five factual errors."
What's more, there were no "husky 12-year-old boys" at the school.
And even if there were, I'd remind Allen that Y chromosomes do not contain magical bullet-resistant powers. Look at any of the recent mass shootings in the United States and you'll find victims of both genders.
As for the Flight 93 comparison, it's true that the people on that flight showed remarkable bravery, and saved countless lives on the ground, but I hope folks will appreciate the qualitative differences between charging at men holding box cutters and men holding AR-15s.
Leave a Comment:
Nothing has changed in our political discourse since the shooting. Politicians and lawmakers are still beholden to the gun lobby and its stash of campaign cash. In fact, we have heard even more disturbing and extreme responses from pro-gun nuts in the wake of Newtown, suggesting all sorts of insane theories to back up their deadly obsession with assault weapons. The only hope for saving kids like those in Connecticut rests with the people of America. We have changed. We see the need for common sense regulations in this country. We know madmen able to buy military guns and 100-round ammo clips at Walmart cannot be tolerated. - progressive
Actually something has changed - ALL people of a reasonable intelligence and that can feel empathy & sympathy should now realize that the GOTP wing in America politician or not are absolutely batcrap crazy and in desperate need of mental health treatment!
"Batcrap Crazy"? At least come up with an original insult, not something copied from Chuck Lorre. They aren't crazy, they just have an opinion different to yours. Maybe if more people did react more agressively to a 20 year old who looks to weigh about 120lbs wringing wet, then maybe the weird sods would just kill themselves quietly instead of murdering the innocent. It's because they know everyone will cower away that they do this sort of thing. As for your first statement implying you are intelligent, I would point out that intelligent people generally don't feel the need to embolden text to make a point.
In regards to your last sentence- it was grown men going after grown men with small knives; not small, scared children going after a well armed and very frightening man.
This whole 'the children should have rushed him' thing is so terribly appalling I can't even begin to describe how that makes me feel.
These people seriously, in their minds, conceive of a world where little children are expected to throw themselves at armed adults simply so to defend the right for Americans to own as many guns as they want?
That, to me, is insanity.
I am sick to death of these glory "Tin Soldiers" who seem to believe that we should be teaching our children to seek glory like some kind of comic book hero who have never been in combat themselves and whine and complain about violence in movies music and TV...
Which way is the Primal scream therapy session?
Yeah, obviously since it's a K-4 school, there were no 12-yo boys.
But let's be real here--elementary education has been a female-dominated profession since roughly forever. That and nursing were the two "proper" careers for women 100 years ago.
Allen may have a small point, in that this cowardly 20-yo geek may have chosen the K-4 school because there would be little resistance. But to suggest that a male principal or a male janitor would have made a difference is ridiculous.
What this is, is a pathetic attempt to blame gun violence on feminism. As ever, to deflect the responsibility from your own pet "liberties" to your favorite target.
Gee correct me if i am wrong, but there was a janitor there and He did run threw the halls telling teachers there's a shooter.
"That, to me, is insanity."
Worse...it is profoundly anti-moral.
Mike -
"elementary education has been a female-dominated profession since roughly forever"
except for the principal!
Agreed. But over the last couple decades, even that has changed. Starting with the elementary schools. When my son graduated last year, the high school principal and both asst. principals were women, at a school with 1500 students.
but that was last year ...
my point was that Ms Allen says this is all about the feminization of schools ... in fact, schools have been one of the longest lasting examples of a patriarchal organization -- women scrubs working for the man where the women are powerless and the organization's direction and culture are male-determined.
it seems to me that the teachers' actions - hiding the kids, making them safe, taking them out of the line of fire - is a completely "feminine" idea ... as opposed to first mcardle and now this somewhere-below-bacterium on the evolutionary scale who thinks the thing to do is train those "husky" 6yo boys to rush the bad guy - and explicitly says they would not be endangered by the weapon firing 1 bullet per trigger pull (never mentioning the rate of 45 bullets/min)
wonder how she explains the results of the real-life example of her perfect scenario - FT. HOOD - actually, i know her reactions - she ignores questions about it -- see her offensive attempt to defend of her idiocy in the comments section of Charles Pierce's blog post on this same topic
Not only that, but the Flight 93 passengers probably knew they were going to die one way or the other. The pilots were dead and as far as I know, no one else could fly that plane. They had nothing to lose but knew they could at least prevent that plane from flying into a building and killing even more people. Conversely, those teachers and kids were trying to stay alive.
Often, when I am working my way toward the bottom of a bottle, my mind comes up with "Good Ideas."
I jot them on cocktail napkins, and in the clear light of morning I use them to kindle the wood stove.
Stop mid bottle, pen your half good ideas and you might find the fame and fortune of a Beck or Limbaugh.
I have a couple of military friends who really really want to meet Ms. Charlotte in person.
The world she lives in, where the man of the house does all the spider killin', might be one of contrived helpless passivity, but should that be maintained as the "norm" for women in this country?
Well said, Day. I save the napkins, too. Then, maybe when I feel introspective, I read them again to remind myself how truly silly I can be.
NeedMore - In the GOTP "traditional family values" world - women are home barefoot & pregnant Stepford wives allowing "real men" to "save US".
But I'd like to take Ms Charlotte to Afghanistan and allow her to "throw herself" into some of the bullets that our troops (men & WOMEN) are taking for her freedom to be willfully ignorant!
Isn't it interesting that even unencumbered by facts, people like this come up with such absurd arguments. Allen's piece reads like a parody of David Brooks.
Ahh, another fact-free, logic-free, compassion-free op ed piece by a conservative pundit. No surprises there, I suppose.
Indeed! They're just so obvious. I have noticed many online "dialogues," where the topic might be lack of news coverage of gun murders in general and the conservative response is, "Gun control doesn't stop crime!" The disconnect practically gives me whiplash.
This is not a good time to be a keep-your-hands-off-my-precious-guns advocate. They're curled up in fetal position, frantic with worry and babbling nonsense. Be kind to them.
I like how she put "reading specialist" in quotes. That's a nice touch.
Wait, there are people at elementary schools whose job is just to help children learn how to read? What in the world is going on at these "schools" anyway?
Flight 93 has entered modern American mythology and has for some people become a Homeric symbol of courage and bravery. The disconnect is that the people on flight 93 were NOT 12 year old boys.
I will not even go into the blatant and odious sexism of the statement because that is so plane as to be ridiculous.
What I will say however is that we should never MUST NEVER do is try to turn our children into Suicide Bombers and make no mistake that is exactly what this mentality is suggesting.
There is little doubt that had a group of 12 year old boys "Converged" on the shooter that most of them would have been killed becoming martyrs to their own courage and I suspect in the authors mind some bizarre form of American Exceptionalism.
Teaching children to be willing to die for the greater good in this case amounts to nothing more than adopting the tactics of modern terrorism and putting them into our elementary school classrooms.
Sounds like they want to turn them into jihadists.
A news organization (or even the Daily Show or Colbert) should do a piece testing this approach. Let them train the kids for a week to rush a "shooter." Then one day have someone with a paintball gun come in, unknown to the kids, and barge in on their classroom or school. Then see how many kids have paint on them and if the paint is on their backs or fronts and if the "husky" kids got shot more than once or more often. Alternatively they could just train by rushing the guy with a paintball gun with the goal of wresting the gun away, if they get hit they have to stop.
The point is there they will see that, in the surprise attack flight will win over fight for the majority of the kids, half of whom are still afraid of the dark, and that in both scenarios the only limit on the number of "dead" kids will be the amount of ammunition the shooter has. There is no way a 10 - 12 year old is disarming someone if they managed to reach him over the bodies of the kids that have fallen.
If this were done by Stewart or Colbert, I would imagined they would conclude the piece with a mocking of the proponents of this tactic, which would please Disgustedwithitall on this sight.
One small step for fanaticism one giant leap backward for sanity
The last word in 8.2 should be "site." Damn auto-complete.
The only thing worse than a sexist woman hater is a female sexist woman hater.
I doubt she feels the generalizations she dispenses on other women apply to her.
What was particularly despicable is after writing this heinous column she wrote a 'reply' to a commenter on Charlie Pierce's blog defending it saying when she was almost raped she SCREAMED and scared the rapist. WTF? These people that emboldening CHILDREN to rush the attackers, snarky comments on schooling and overall obtusness on SCHOOL FOR CHRIST'S SAKE is really beyond the pale. The only reason 'this is a different world' from the one we grew up in is the passing of rotten policies that have affected the haves and have nots, mental health, guns, etc. THIS selfish rotten generation (of which I am a part of) is to blame.
The country should know that, right on the heels of the Newtown tragedy, right in the midst of the national discourse on the status of mental health among our youth, Louisiana's self-promoting, self-proclaimed GOP crown prince, Gov. Bobby Jindal, has just announced the complete elimination of the sole program for children deemed at "high risk" for developing mental problems. The cost to our State would have been less than $140K, in exchange for $2.7 million available from a Federal grant. ( See NOLA.com today. )
Well, Father, the right plans to teach the children to rush the gunman, which will probably render their mental health issues moot.
Why would Jindal care when he spends so little time actually in the state? He'll be off somewhere else campaigning when the mental health @!$%# hits the fan.
I'm afraid that your notions of "rock bottom" are a bit innocent:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2012/12/19/wingnut-murdering-kids-is-good-for-them
Behold why religion is on the decline. Any "Christian" who buys into this has traveled so far afield from Christ that they are anything but Christian.
At a press conference yesterday, President Obama was talking about curbing gun violence in our country and a reporter asked, “Where have you been?”
It was a good legitimate question that should be asked of all of us.
To all of the war veterans who know the power of automatic and semi-automatic weapons I ask, “Where have you been?”
To women who’s grandmothers fought for their right to vote I ask, “Where have you been?”
To citizens who think their only civic duty is to vote every four years I ask, “Where have you been?”
To all of the women and minorities who now benefit from the fight for equal rights I ask, “Where have you been”?
To the young generation who, more than everyone, knows the power of social media I ask, “Where have you been?”
All great social change come from the people not from Washington DC, certainly not from our politicians. How many of you have made your voice heard? How many of you have a voice at all? How many of you simply wait for change; wait for someone else to right a wrong? Our government is based on citizens who demand change for the social good. How many of you are willing to demand it?
Seriously ! I think that was Tapper. The Balls. Big Brass ones.
Obama should have fired back , where have you and the rest of the stenographer corps been?
Busy with a Britney or Royals sighting ?
Ya that's it . Ten minutes of the 20 minute nightly newscast on Kate getting knocked up.
Why don't you talk about the people who die needlessly every day as the result of gun violence?
Kudos to Huffpost for doing just that on their front page
You are absolutely right judy tee, we the people are just as culpable as the President if not more. I used to like Jake Tapper, but lately I think he has become a Republican in sheep reporter clothing.
Tapper= Hack
I'm going to defend Tapper on this one, just a little. Everyone knows that the President did not make gun control a priority in his first term. And that he made a conscious decision not to make this same effort after the shooting in Colorado, in the middle of the campaign, because it would have given the NRA and the right what they wanted.
That said, yes, the media was equally absent. 75-100 people are killed by guns every single day in this country. Sandy Hook was news because of how it happened and who the victims were, but that was less than a third of the people gunned down that DAY in this country.
It is worse than neglect of the other victims. The sensationalism of the coverage around these mass shootings certainly encourages more mass shootings.
If Obama had made gun control a priority at any point before the 2010 midterms all the MSM would have done is write stories about "overreach." If he'd done it after the midterms and before the election, all the stories would have been about weakness and futility.
I don't know, Mike. It's easy now to say that this issue should have been taken up earlier. But remember what happened less than three weeks ago, after the Jovan Belcher murder-suicide, when Bob Costas spoke his mind on national TV. He was REAMED.
I also know that this election was close. Just a few percentage points. And with all the money that was spent on campaigning, what wasn't spent but was threatened was that anyone who spoke out against the proliferation of guns was going to be buried in negative ads by the NRA. It could have easily been the difference in this election and we'd be preparing for President Romney's inauguration next month. [shudder!]
Something has changed in the public psyche. Perhaps it was the thought that it could have been my children or my neighbor's children who were hideously gunned down. Or maybe it was the chain of big news stories, coming one after the other, that made a difference. I'm just glad that we can now talk about it, so something constructive can be done.
If Obama had made "gun control" any kind of priority we would be looking forward to a Romney inauguration.
(At some point the thought of Mendacious Mitt being president will stop making me throw up a little and giving me chills)
What the hell is the Midnight Star and The Enquirer ... I mean TMZ ... doing in my "News"?
Since The Daily Show is on hiatus I've been watching RT (Russian Television?) between 11 and 11:30 because the local news has gossip and other "why should I care about this pap".
National "news" isn't much better.
So yes, Reporters, where have you been? I bet you spent more time on the latest singers coochie than on Sen. Inouye passing.
Perhaps, instead of restricting Second Amendment rights, we should focus on the First Amendment. This Charlotte Allen screed show just how dangerous access to pen and paper by deranged individuals can be!
No unfortunately we can't send the thought police after these people...
If anything they only serve demonstrate the invalidity of their own lies
Even the First Amendment comes with a caveat in that you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater (just one example of where power comes with responsibility). The NRA is backed by gun manufacturers, not their membership fees. They are beholden to the deep pockets of gun makers who want to continue to make bigger, badder and just barely legal firearms. Rapid fire weapons and magazines and clips that allow mass killing in seconds have NO use in the general population and this is where responsibility comes in. The Second Amendment, like the First Amendment, comes with responsibility, not carte blanche and bans on high-powered rifles and ability to shoot more than 10 rounds would be the responsible thing to do. No one wants to take away personal protection and hunting firearms, just the ones designed to kill a crowd in under a minute.
The 2nd Amendment was devised for people to be able to protect themselves with the same type of weaponry used by those from whom they might need protection. Simple.
Responsibility implied and expected, especially of those who have very little respect for others' liberty. Lest we forget about how governments go bad. (Happens rarely, but when it does, the tragic death of little kids tally extends to the level of nobody bothering to count...)
"The same type of weaponry used by those from whom they might need protection."
So, you think private citizens need drones, stealth bombers, aircraft carriers, satellites?
And how long have you worried that your government might some day come after you? I have a feeling it's been around 4 years.
damskippy-1635693 says "So, you think private citizens need drones, stealth bombers, aircraft carriers, satellites?"
I think we were talking about semi-auto AR15s and the like. As for your list, I think your question should be rephrased: "Don't you worry that all that firepower at the disposal of your government might ever be used on you? They're now flying drones above you." I'd like to see the State disarm some, and am especially not enamored with the militarization of our domestic police, nor the fact that we've become a surveillance state.
damskippy-1635693 continues: "And how long have you worried that your government might some day come after you? I have a feeling it's been around 4 years."
No. Actually, I've worried about it since I was a kid when I learned the story of how the German side of my family was badly screwed by know-it-all / to-hell-with-liberty crowd in Germany in the 1930s and 40s, and how my mom as a 6-year old had to walk by people with their heads blown off as a consequence. I've been reminded of it since I learned about Stalin, Mao, Pol-Pot, et al. I am reminded of it daily in the local and national news, and have been for most of the 44 years of my life.
So I'm not a Neo-Conned war-monger, nor am I an "indifferent to My Team's carnage" progressive (who ignore Obama's drone strikes that have killed hundreds of innocent children). I believe in liberty as the least of all evils, and don't believe that democracy somehow turns the individual ignorance and illiteracy of the masses into collective genius, and trust that the masses become as bad or worse authoritarians than any single despot, and know that any despot needs a critical mass of armed goons.
Now my turn: I have a feeling you're a smug, quasi-authoritarian, know-it-all who has very little respect for your fellow citizens viewpoints that might disagree with yours, or their right to say "no-thanks" to your wanting to force your opinions on them through legislation.
Oh, I know -- "you won the election" - with 52% of the 42% of the population that bothered to vote, so your views are now anointed, laundered by a scant 1% swing in a democratic election, now a divine mandate. To the victor goes the spoils.
And you wonder why some people actually respect the 2nd Amendment.
Leopold . . . I'm terribly sorry for what your mother went through, but to compare the Nazis, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot to President Obama and the American government is absurd. If you really see those parallels, you should probably just go ahead and hide in your basement.
I do not know it all and would never claim that I do. So explain to me how banning military-style assault rifles and 30-round magazines interferes with your right to own a gun. How do background checks and mental health screenings interfere with your right to own a gun?
And I'm not smug . . . I'm heartbroken. What happened in Newtown has happened over and over and over, and nothing has been done about it because people like you think Nancy Lanza's right to buy any kind of gun she wanted to buy and put it within reach of her troubled son is more important than our children's right to go to school without being shot to death.
And if you think I'm just being political . . . screw you.
"If you really see those parallels, you should probably just go ahead and hide in your basement."
There is no way a rational person could "see" any such parallels and take them seriously. Those on the right are, however, inordinately fond of self-righteous attempts at emotional blackmail. Don't feel at all sorry for him. He doesn't deserve it.
Please tell me where you get your basis for the first paragraph and where it states in the US Constitution that you have the right to use your weapons against the US government.
You will find that no such statements of advocacy exist from our founders nor indeed does the US Constitution ever state that it is OK for you to use violence against the US government.
You are openly advocating in this statement that you need access to AR-15's to use against your government. You do realize that this is an advocacy for sedition, yeah?
For the record we've almost always been a surveillance state. Saying "we've become" one shows you don't really pay that much attention to what private businesses and the government does.
I've said this before so I'll say it again: I personally have zero tolerance for people who freak out about the government keeping tabs on them when they do not freak out about private businesses doing the same considering that private corporations have wayyyy more information you (and they directly impact your personal life much more dramatically) than the US government.
What is "evil" and how does one quantify that? What is "liberty" and how does one quantify that? You've just made an entire sentence without ever stating a specific. Liberty and evil are subjective and relative terms so you stating "I believe in liberty as the least of all evils" makes absolutely zero sense.
....you are now refuting an argument that no one besides you made. But I do enjoy the fact that your rejection of democracy necessitates that all power be localized in that of a singular authoritarian figure. Presumably one who agrees with your own ideology (which is in and of itself more advocacy for authoritarianism).
I replied too quickly it seems. So you are confirming you believe power centralized into the hands of one authority is better than it belonging to the people for whom that power will govern. I do not think authoritarianism means what you think it means....
And now we've returned to the belief that the US Constitution grants you the authority to kill the President of the United States if you disagree with his policies. Please cite for me where this exists in the US Constitution.
You have made claims about the 2nd Amendment that do not actually belong to the 2nd Amendment. That isn't respecting the amendment- it's changing it's meaning to fit your particular ideology for the moment (respecting the amendment would be taking it in context as is).
For the record it is authoritarian for you to assume that you have the right to kill people with whom you disagree.
Also really you're using the handle Butters? Obvious troll is obvious.
Cartoonthenews! says: "You will find that no such statements of advocacy exist from our founders nor indeed does the US Constitution ever state that it is OK for you to use violence against the US government."
You've been mal-educated and don't understand that our nation's founding was intended to preserve LIBERTY of the individual and state's rights, not the right of some massive centralized government authority we now identify as "The U.S. Government"! Where they erred was in not preserving liberty for all individuals (slaves, etc.), a reflection of both the times and of compromise to achieve the critical mass needed for rebellion (the southern colonies would not have joined if slavery were not allowed...).
But I digress: your perspective is just so lopsided. They were not rebelling to form the U.S. Government. They were rebelling to enable self-determination at the State Level, with some states having far greater respect for liberty vs. others, and all colonies voting to join a loose confederacy of states with the idea primarily that together they provided a better deterrent to the Brits giving it another go. They were quite content as self-determining states before voting to unite.
To your question on no authority stated in the Constitution, again you're out of touch. The constitution is not a limited list of authority granted to the individual or states; It is a very limited list of authority granted to the U.S. government by the states and individuals": "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
We can argue till the cows come home about the correct way to interpret that defined constitutional authority, but the living document (whatever floats our boat for the moment) interpretation seems to be winning out.
As for the Second Amendment, if you bother, you can find a big debate over adding the Amendments at all because those who didn't want them said that some day they'd be interpreted as "the exceptions to full Federal Authority" rather than specific clarifications as to what they felt was most important to be "reserved for the people", etc.
Cartoonthenews! says: "You will find that no such statements of advocacy exist from our founders... ...that it is OK for you to use violence against the US government."
Apart from your misinterpretation on point of view, that we're talking about the U.S. Government vs. protecting LIBERTY as the intent, you are flat wrong. For example, let's consider Thomas Jefferson's observation on protecting LIBERTY:
"What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure."
- Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, Paris, 13 Nov. 1787[2]
The point was that these guys had enough understanding of history, power, authoritarianism, etc., to understand that it is the natural progression of governments and those who benefit from it to use it at the expense of individual liberty. The 2nd Amendment was exactly that clause that reserved the right to protect liberty with "the people".
"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington
I know we're not taught this stuff (I'd hazard because our schools are a byproduct of Big Govt. Authority and are not so big on liberty (e.g. Unions Requirements are anti liberty, etc.), but it's out there if we bother.
Cartoonthenews! says: "You do realize that this is an advocacy for sedition, yeah?"
I'm pointing out that gun ownership keeps tyranny at bay, and presents a clear price that must be paid if tyranny wishes to try to take a bite. Draw your own conclusions.
Cartoonthenews! says: "For the record we've almost always been a surveillance state. Saying "we've become" one shows you don't really pay that much attention to what private businesses and the government does."
You know nothing about my views on this. Don't like it one way or the other when I'm not offered and opportunity to consent. Government is inherently force to back up opinions, and it's very indifferent to consent when the power says it's so. Business can succumb to pressure, although it often co-opts big government to enshrine its stealing of liberty in law, just the same. They are bed fellows.
Do you also know that positing a second similar wrong as justification of a first wrong you support is a lousy debate tactic?
Cartoonthenews! says:
"What is "evil" and how does one quantify that?
Oh, common. I suppose if we must -- Let's use Wikipedia's basic: "evil is commonly associated with conscious and deliberate wrongdoing, discrimination designed to harm others, humiliation of people designed to diminish their psychological well-being and dignity, destructiveness, motives of causing pain or suffering for selfish or malicious intentions, and acts of unnecessary or indiscriminate violence."
I would add that in a most logical sense, evil results in a violations of another's liberty -- your right to your body, effort, and fruits thereof -- e.g., your right to consent.
Cartoonthenews! continues:
"What is "liberty" and how does one quantify that?"
I take a pretty basic approach to the definition, although 'tis a shame most are not schooled in basic ideas of Liberty given our nation was founded with it in mind. You should know what I mean.
Liberty is the freedom to do as you choose with your own life and property, as long as you don't harm the person and property of others. I think it implies both respect and tolerance, and is directly tied to the success and progress of the human race.
Cartoonthenews! continues:
"....you are now refuting an argument that no one besides you made. "
Oh, no -- I'm seeing plenty of people citing that if a majority are against guns (or one variety over another), then they should disappear, etc. Much like I'm seeing the argument that because the President won the election, the Republicans should grant him what he wants. (Not defending republicans, only pointing out the "democracy rules" argument espoused by the left.)
Cartoonthenews! continues:
"But I do enjoy the fact that your rejection of democracy necessitates that all power be localized in that of a singular authoritarian figure. "
That's a fallacy of your own poor logic, and reflects you're limited understanding of these concepts. I am not against democracy per say. I am against democracy unrestrained, where it is allowed to act indifferently to liberty. Then it is merely tyranny of the majority, which is historically as bad as tyranny of the few. Our founding fathers were very well schooled in the shortfalls of democracy. That would be why the United States was not intended to be a Democracy, but rather a liberty based republic with democratic elements.
Cartoonthenews! continues:
"Presumably one who agrees with your own ideology (which is in and of itself more advocacy for authoritarianism).
I replied too quickly it seems. So you are confirming you believe power centralized into the hands of one authority is better than it belonging to the people for whom that power will govern. I do not think authoritarianism means what you think it means...."
Whaaa? You need to read up on Democracy before commenting further. Evidently you don't know that Democracies can trample all over liberty, or that Authoritarianism demands that the individual's will be subservient to that of the state, whatever the source of its power.
Cartoonthenews! continues:
"And now we've returned to the belief that the US Constitution grants you the authority to kill the President of the United States if you disagree with his policies. Please cite for me where this exists in the US Constitution."
What? Not advocating any such (currently, at least). Let me turn the question on you: At what point would you advocate an armed revolution against your own government? What's your flinch point? Anti gunners are already advocating that Wayne Lapierre be killed and worse for running the NRA. So that's OK? Or is it Saddam? How do you define a crime against the people? On what basis?
Get it?
Also -- AND Again, you should know: The constitution enshrines powers granted to or reserved for the U.S. government, all else to the people. You really should read something other than progressive sources on the founding fathers intent on the 2nd Amendment and their ideas of preserving liberty, and the order of power structure. I think that's a common problem on this site.
Cartoonthenews! continues:
"You have made claims about the 2nd Amendment that do not actually belong to the 2nd Amendment. That isn't respecting the amendment- it's changing it's meaning to fit your particular ideology for the moment (respecting the amendment would be taking it in context as is)."
I encourage you to actually read the words of the founding fathers. There are so many quotes, but I like this one from Daniel Webster, not a founding father persay, but it summarizes generally the sentiment of that crowd:
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people!"
- Patrick Henry
For the record it is authoritarian for you to assume that you have the right to kill people with whom you disagree."
Cartoonthenews! continues: "Also really you're using the handle Butters? Obvious troll is obvious."
Define Troll. I'm actually honestly trying to intellectually engage you folks.
SIOUX FALLS, S.D. -- A 16-year-old boy fatally shot his friend with a shotgun after the pair argued over a paintball game and playfully wrestled at the boy's home in South Dakota, according to an arrest affidavit released Wednesday.
The boys, both 16, were classmates at Riggs High School.
*****
Our culture/society went terribly wrong somewhere along the way.
And I am appalled that the arguments I hear continue to center around the 2nd Amendment and gun rights.
When is enough is enough? What is it going to take for people to understand we have a serious serious problem here in America with guns?
I am appalled at people's ignorance and indifference to the importance of a 2nd Amendment. Only a spoiled population that takes liberty for granted could possibly be so blind.
When are people going to understand that guns have always been available in the United States and that something culturally has changed that encourages nutjobs to do this on a more frequent basis. Canada has lots of guns, virtually no crime. Swiss are armed to the teeth. Same with Israelis.
Meanwhile, we see how well prohibitions actually work -- drugs don't seem to be unavailable to our kids. Criminals still get automatic (illegal) guns all the time, and will control the gun market since by definition criminals don't comply with laws, only the law-abiding turn theirs in.
Finally, when are people going to realize that it is up to each individual to protect himself from those who would harm him / her? Being a victim in waiting, whether from 1-on-1 violence, group-on-1 violence, or government sanctioned authoritarian-oriented (without your consent, violating your liberty) type violence?
Had family suffer under the Nazi regime when a critical mass of nutzos took over. Not just jews were killed. Those who dissented were equally disposable and / or punished.
Oh, I know: It'll never happen here.
Easy way to solve the problem of what happened to these poor children and teachers: stop advertising defense-free-zones to the Nutzos. Otherwise you're relying on the government to solve your problems, and we should look at the track record so far. Lots of chalk-lines ain't the solution. And I'll bet you donuts-to-dollars that not one of those teachers who were killed or shot at were thinking, "man, I'm glad none of us has guns right now to defend the kids we've been entrusted with."
Looky here, folks...right up above we have a perfect example of the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the "rugged individual" mentality.
Shorter Leopold:
"Look, the sky is falling!", said Chicken Little.
Sorry, pubescent right wing fantasies about bravely facing down a band of armed intruders invading a home, or resiting the oppression of a tyrannical government are arguments that have no basis in reality and should be removed from a sensible debate about regulating firearms in our society.
Guns have been part of the American experience since day one but never before has there been easy access to high powered weaponry been available to the general public as we have today.
Additionally, you mention other countries with armed citizenry. What you fail to acknowledge is that these countries have mandatory military service where proper training on the use of the weapons is conducted. Also, these weapons are heavily regulated.
In America on the other hand, anyone who has the urge can go to a gun show, buy as many weapons and ammo as they want, with no background check, no proof of expertise or training, and no questions asked
And, Leopold, it's not up to 5 and 6 year-olds to protect themselves -- that's our job as a civilized society.
Controlling access to the kinds of weapons that caused the devastation in Newtown is not the entire solution, but IMO it's not a bad place to start. And if that means that you can't buy a Bushmaster with a 30-round clip? Too f'ing bad.
damskippy-1635693 says "And, Leopold, it's not up to 5 and 6 year-olds to protect themselves -- that's our job as a civilized society."
Exactly. Unfortunately civilized society can't stick its head in the sand and pretend that some members of society are sick. Our job is the protect ourselves and our children. Abdicating that through "hope" that prohibitions on some this type of weapon will end killings and through "defense free zones" fantasy. The killers will move on to another firearm, and the logical conclusion from the anti-gun crowd will be to eliminate each firearm one by one as "the problem".
citizen_pain_71 says: "Sorry, pubescent right wing fantasies about bravely facing down a band of armed intruders invading a home, or resiting the oppression of a tyrannical government are arguments that have no basis in reality and should be removed from a sensible debate about regulating firearms in our society."
Be my guest if you think going defenseless is the approach to any of this. You may choose to ignore the examples, and they don't get much media coverage, but there are plenty of examples of armed defense against home intruders and mass killers. In fact, most mass killers snuff themselves once they realize the gig is up and they're actually going to have to fight it out on terms that are more equal. They are cowards in the first place, hence they choose the defenseless as their victims. (As for recent examples, over the weekend a crazed gunman who started shooting in a Movie Theater had his rampage ended before it could really gain traction thanks to a concealed handgun coming out. Didn't hear Maddow (et al) talk about that, did you? There are dozens of other examples ignored because they defy this emotional reflex to ban certain / all guns.)
Re resisting Tyrannical Governments having "no basis i reality", are you kidding me? Half of you are commenting here (rightly so) about the factual errors in the referenced authors comments, and you make that statement?? Good God! Ask our troops in Afghanistan how they feel about their resistance. Ask the Nazis how they felt about the French Resistance. Look at the founding of our nation, or countless revolutions that just took place across the Middle East in the last 18 mos.
You dare hide behind the some arbitrary standard of sensible debate?
You people are dangerous, and are exactly why the 2nd Amendment is part of our Constitution - codified specifically to make it abundantly clear that guns are to remain the right of the people.
citizen_pain_71 continues: Guns have been part of the American experience since day one but never before has there been easy access to high powered weaponry been available to the general public as we have today.
You could say this at any point in the American Experience, what -- with the advancements of technology allowing for the means of production to create inexpensive ownership of increasingly more advanced firearms. The King of England realized this problem in the colonies when he started to work on reigning in such access.
EntropyRules says "Looky here, folks...right up above we have a perfect example of the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the "rugged individual" mentality."
Looky here -- a very typical, disrespectful example of the smug disdain and elitism common among self-proclaimed "progressives".
Thank god we have both a 1st or 2nd Amendment. Or else the self-anointed like Entropy would know what's best for us all, and threaten us with incarceration or death if we don't step in line.
You guys all claim some kind of moral high ground when you're nothing more than quasi-authoritarian punks all dressed fancy to hide it. You think your excrement smells like perfume. Just a bunch more lipstick on the same old authoritarian pig.
Good thing you're not smug, Leopold . . .
Leopold, your "crazed gunman who started shooting in a Movie Theater had his rampage ended before it could really gain traction thanks to a concealed handgun coming out" was actually more like this:
Gunman fired shots in a nearby restaurant, walked to theater parking lot and shot someone in the lot, went into theater and fired one shot that hit no one; security guard (off-duty sheriff's deputy) pulled out his gun and shot the perpetrator. It's not like some civilian had the presence of mind in a haze of gunfire to pull out his handy-dandy concealed pistol to save the day. Given the unfolding of events, there was a chance for the guard to gather his wits and make a considered judgment about how to proceed.
I took the time to look up the news story about it. Obviously, you didn't.
And you wonder why this wasn't mentioned on TRMS? Really??
Leo the Lyin' is just another pompous, arrogant right-winger who is 100% convinced that he is entitled to get on a non-conservative site and do as he pleases. He desperately needs to get over himself. I am not even remotely intimidated by such morally challenged "people".
Leopold, listen up:
If you choose to live your life in perpetual fear of being attacked by armed criminals at any moment, so be it, it's your prerogative. But your irrational fear does not have any more weight than a person with the opposite outlook on life. Your opinion is not fact, your judgement is yours and yours alone.
Further, as evidenced by the debunking of your movie theater shooter example directly above, courageous civilians fighting off bands of armed gangs and criminals is a myth. I challenge you to provide real examples of this happening on a regular basis.
You bring up Nazi Germany as an example of tyrannical government oppression, and seem to think it could happen here. You obviously have no insight into the history of centuries of warfare in Europe, the climate during the era you mention, and any number of other factors that led to the rise of the Nazis. This is a classic straw man argument designed to obfuscate.
But beyond this, if you actually think you, or any one of your armed to the teeth fellow gun worshipers, have even a fighting chance against the US Military, you're even more detached from reality than I thought. What is an AK-47 or an AR-15 going to do against an Apache helicopter shooting Hellfire missiles? Or one single M1-Abrams tank? This thinking is part of the lunatic fringe element that needs to be shunned and marginalized. It has no basis in reality.
As for the Second Amendment, funny how the right always forgets the part about a 'well regulated militia'. Just as on can't yell fire in a crowded theater, rational and sensible thought must be applied to the second amendment in terms of regulating the firearms industry.
The Founders created the Constitution to be a living breathing document, malleable to the needs of the future, a future they could not envision, but were wise enough to consider. It is not etched in stone, and was designed to change along with the changing times.
Know this Leopold:
A small minority of fear stricken, paranoid 'the sky is falling' chicken little gun nuts will no longer be allowed to dictate gun policy that effects millions of people.
We are not going to allow the unencumbered proliferation of weapons designed to kill large amounts of people any longer. Like all right wingers, you are on the wrong side of history.
I was thinking along the same lines as something you said, Citizen. There's that famous saying about a coward dying a thousand deaths but a hero dying but one? I think that's how it goes.
I look at it that I could worry about every moving shadow or sudden noise, thinking it's someone about to jump out and whack me, or I can relax and assume I'm safe. If I'm not safe, it probably won't last long, and it'll be over and done with. And in the meantime, I can actually enjoy the time I have on earth.
And you're right about the superior fire power of the U.S. armed forces. These make-believe soldiers are like a gnat bothering a grizzly bear.
damskippy-1635693 says "Good thing you're not smug, Leopold . . ."
I'm not the one espousing using government force to force you to do anything.
I believe in seeking others consent being a pretty good basis for law, prefer not being governed by intellectual elitism. Churchill once quipped "the best conversation against democracy is a 5-minute conversation with the average voter", which can be read a few ways. I like it because we are all going to disagree, and some randomly achieved majority shouldn't be able to chain you into giving up your right to say "no thanks!"
Be my guest and associate with whomever you please, go live in disarmed neighborhoods, if that's your preference.
It's this "It's right for me and therefore you must accept it" mentality on both the right and left that is simply authoritarian.
At least you guys have the integrity to not challenge that around here.
citizen_pain_71 says "If you choose to live your life in perpetual fear of being attacked by armed criminals at any moment, so be it, it's your prerogative."
Don't put your bias into my head. I choose to live my life responsibly. I recognize that crime does happen, and choose to not be a unarmed victim in the extreme unlikelihood that an issue arises. I do so not out of paranoia as many of you here insist, but simply to be responsible for protecting my own liberty, and possibly those around me should they benefit. If more of us acted this way (responsibly, trained), it would deter violent crime.
citizen_pain_71 continues: "But your irrational fear does not have any more weight than a person with the opposite outlook on life. Your opinion is not fact, your judgement is yours and yours alone."
Huh?? I'm the one espousing live-and-let-live via consent and responsibility, e.g. LIBERTY. I'm not forcing you to buy a gun for self defense. If you're sane and learn to use it responsibly, then I'm for it. We need more of those carrying to deter the coward nut-jobs, and the rest of the violent predators.
citizen_pain_71 continues: "Further, as evidenced by the debunking of your movie theater shooter example directly above...,
Debunked? Overstatement. I've since seen the details updated to reflect that ti was an off duty cop in plain clothes, to now a deputy security guard. What's your point? Prepared armed guy stopped thug. End of discussion. ( I know... I know... Only government prepared people pass your test? Government = good, individual self-prepared = nut job waiting to go bonkers.
citizen_pain_71 continues: "...courageous civilians fighting off bands of armed gangs and criminals is a myth. I challenge you to provide real examples of this happening on a regular basis."
You won't accept the outcomes or the half the sources, but plenty of studies exist on gun use related to self-defense. For example:
http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/WP-Tough-Targets.pdf
(google "Cato Tough Targets" if that link isn't allowed) A 40-page report of which 20-pages are devoted to examples of defense.
Or you can go to sites that try to track examples as they happen -- specifically to counter the lefty anti-gun assertion that self defense with guns is, as you so perfectly and on cue state, "a myth".
Here's a guy who simply grabbed stories and posted them late 2010 into early 2011 before stopping in March of 2011. We can assume the examples just didn't dry up suddenly.
http://thearmedcitizen.com/wp/category/armed
You can do your own homework by googling "examples of guns used in self defense"
Although, I suspect, you've convinced yourself of the opposite and won't accept it, preferring the intellectual incest of websites like this. You're no better than the right wing wacko who does the same.
JL in Montana says: "Leopold, your "crazed gunman... rampage ended ...thanks to a concealed handgun coming out" was actually more like this: Gunman fired shots in a nearby restaurant, walked to theater parking lot and shot someone in the lot, went into theater and fired one shot that hit no one; security guard (off-duty sheriff's deputy) pulled out his gun and shot the perpetrator."
Initial reports I'd heard were that it was a concealed carry, and then an off duty cop in plain clothes going to see movie. Since clarified.
You made a point of noting that the perp shot but "hit no one"... Was that to say that he wasn't a real threat? (I'd point out that he maybe hit no one because he was summarily disarmed by being shot 4 times by the off-duty deputy / security guard.)
JL in Montana continues: It's not like some civilian had the presence of mind in a haze of gunfire to pull out his handy-dandy concealed pistol to save the day.
Fair enough - not an example of a civilian, but those happen. It's not only official authorities have the ability to solve the problem. The guy was taken out after getting off only one shot. No problem with that, regardless of how it was done.
JL in Montana continues: "Given the unfolding of events, there was a chance for the guard to gather his wits and make a considered judgment about how to proceed."
Not sure what your point is about "gathering wits and make considered judgement". Is it to say that we'd be much worse off if he'd not had time to do so? No doubt, prep is better than none, but I'd still choose to have had him in there so that the perp was not able to shoot the place up.
If your point is that only trained law enforcement have this ability, puleaaase. Training is better than no training, no doubt. Argument for being properly trained to use a firearm if you're going to conceal carry.
JL in Montana continues: I took the time to look up the news story about it. Obviously, you didn't.
More details have since emerged, and I concede that I did not have all the information. Fair enough. But IT STILL PROVES my overall point THAT ARMED SANE PERSONS STOP CRIME.
But as for "not looking things up", you're taking an attitude as if no armed individuals protect themselves. With such a strong opinion, have you ever bothered to google that up? A phrase like "examples of guns used in self defense" brings up (gasp!!) EXAMPLES! (Oh, I know -- it's just "a myth" that people defend themselves, a "gun industry lie"... So if you're like many on your side, you won't bother or you'll outright dismiss the sources...) See my comment above with sources.
And you wonder why this wasn't mentioned on TRMS? Really??
Well, it's your side that (after literally calling for someone to shoot and kill him / all NRA members) is calling La Pierre a lunatic for suggesting armed guards in schools is a solution. Not a fan of it, personally, when allowing responsible adults to conceal carry solves the problem far less expensively, and more effectively WHILE erring on the side of liberty vs. police state. But this would appear to be a perfect example of armed guard working as advertised. Yet TRMS = Zero coverage.
Isn't it wondeful how some media outlets pay their reporters to write fiction. I never was such a good fiction writer. I dabbled in poetry, which I still enjoy, but can't generate good poetry in stressful living conditions. It's an art thing for me I guess.
Another error that you didn't mention was she said it was a K - 6 school when it was actually a K - 4 school; with 600 students not 450. When any reader notices any one or more of these errors then they must place the whole article in the fiction caregory. Right?
My last job, I work for myself now, was as a teacher at an elementary school. I was one of several people on the non-violent intervention team. I've seen guns at school brought by students, brought accidentally, or by a parent whom had been hunting during the day, but no one ever used one. Allen's article should have never made publication.
Exactly!
Wingnuts will surprise you. If you think this is rock bottom, just wait.
Aside from the sheer audacity of just making up supporting facts, I take issue with the notion that masculinity has been "forced out" of the school setting. However, I'm certain that if you check the rolls of any college, you will find the percentage of young men studying elementary ed probably closes matches that of male teachers in most elementary schools. Are the rest of the young men being "forced" out of pursuing a career in elementary ed? Thinking the femi-nazis are not to blame if most teachers are still female. Thinking it's more the lingering stereotypes this "author" purports to lament.
My experience with the conservative folks is that they're concerned about young male behavioral differences vs. female being medicated into compliance. Don't know how prevalent this is, but hear a lot of folks questioning the wisdom of doing it. Anyway, the right says that this is a deliberate demasculinization of males in schools at all levels since it is not natural. From that, there is a fear that it is an institutionalized effort to implement policies that treat the sexes as if they're the same, with a bias of setting "neutral" in ways that are not respectful of biological young male reality, leaving young men with an identity crisis once out of school
Those on the right have to know full well (unless they are clinically psychotic) that there is no such thing as "deliberate demasculinization" going on. Their claims are clearly nothing but malicious misinformation.
I think many believe it. Seriously.
Lol! What hogwash!
Deliberate demasculinization of males in schools? People on the right believe this? Why does this not surprise me? I've noticed a strong bent toward misogyny among right-leaning folk, and this applies to the women in a strange sort of way, as well. It's like they play into that thinking by trying to placate men.
Wake up, ladies! You have the same right as people of the XY persuasion to live and breathe. And your opinions might occasionally be of more value than some of the men's. Not always, necessarily, but just because you were born female doesn't mean you're inferior. Maybe that's what men feel is demasculinizing. Can't get their way "because I said so!" which used to work so well for them.
Well, real men do eat quiche and actually enjoy the company of women. At least, so I've been told.
Leopold B. Scotch -
I think many believe it. Seriously.
Another example of the Right Wing attempt at validity. If you ever listen closely to Fox news contributors as well as Right Wing radio personalities, the phrase "Many people think..." or "I've heard people say..." pops up as often as the word "the", as though this lends credence to whatever gibberish flows out of the mouth next. Hearing something doesn't make it true. Hearing something repeatedly still does not make it true. Saying something with conviction and towing in fabricated "others" as support for an idea does not make it true.
And, how ironic that the GOP fought so hard during the campaign to flush out voter fraud, often citing that people need IDs to drive a car, cash a check, etc... so why NOT have voter ID to curb fraud? Ok, running with that premise, since voting is a RIGHT, not a privilege and owning a gun is a RIGHT, not a privelege, then how about back ground checks and training for EVERYONE who wants to own a gun? Any damned gun that swings your gate. But, to take every measure possible that the semi-automatic with a 100-round clip is used just for target practice and not for annihilation just seems to make some sense. Maybe it's all those people I've heard who believe that....
Yeah, Missy. Even their beloved Ayn Rand is famous for saying, "The truth is not subject to majority vote." Well, how 'bout them apples. . . .
No. I've actually heard it.
Why do you guys equate Liberty with Right Wing? I'm not right wing.
between her and McArdle, it's hard to decide who is merely stupid and who's just ridiculous
And whether they both need years of intensive therapy to learn to self-actualize and drop the I-need-a-man-to-protect-me silliness.
the nuns in my school had rulers that could defect bullets
What Ms. Allen did was to belittle the sacrifice those teachers made at that school trying to save those children. She should apologize to each and everyone of those families for her shallow and disgusting comments. Somehow in her fantasy world male aggression equates to heroism while female aggression just means she's a b!tch. We need real solutions, not some harlequin fantasy.
The stupidity of these people boggles the mind...I would like to see if some of these same "journalists" would like to take that challenge and try to disarm someone with a semi auto...I don't think the deskbound cowards deserve their pay checks or deserve to be heard..
Chuck Todd is still a bozo...and part of the national problem of mis information...
Hey, Newt Gingrich was right!! Just think . . . if the poor kids at Sandy Hook had been hired to mop the floors, they would know where the buckets were and could have heaved them at the gunman's knees. Think how much that would have increased their self-esteem -- if they survived, that is.
Just when I think the RWNJs can't get any more offensive, they go right ahead and do it.
Allen is just another troll following in the footsteps of Megan McArdle. Their drivel has given them more attention than they could ever have expected. Doesn't matter how negative that attention is. As P.T. Barnum said:
You can tell that these people who talk so bravely have never, ever had a gun pulled on them.