Comments on: Armed and Female http://pjmedia.com/blog/armed-and-female/ Wed, 15 Feb 2012 08:12:41 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Moho http://pjmedia.com/blog/armed-and-female/#comment-443010 Moho Thu, 12 Nov 2009 19:05:31 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/?p=71203#comment-443010 I think the best reason to hold off on judgements about this issue is pure self-interest. Cramer is revealed now to have jumped to conclusions before all the facts were out and writing a hagiographic account of an incident that never happened. It was Munley's partner who brought down Hasan, and he brought him down in an extremely professional manner--shooting to wound and incapacitate, and calmly disarming the suspect. The man deserves an apology from those who sought to obscure him from the account. I think the best reason to hold off on judgements about this issue is pure self-interest. Cramer is revealed now to have jumped to conclusions before all the facts were out and writing a hagiographic account of an incident that never happened. It was Munley’s partner who brought down Hasan, and he brought him down in an extremely professional manner–shooting to wound and incapacitate, and calmly disarming the suspect. The man deserves an apology from those who sought to obscure him from the account.

]]> By: Odysseus http://pjmedia.com/blog/armed-and-female/#comment-442069 Odysseus Wed, 11 Nov 2009 15:40:26 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/?p=71203#comment-442069 Dwight, you asked, "(D)o you suppose that if there was evidence that he should be “removed from his position” that there would be sufficient evidence that he be on a list of people who could not purchase firearms?" If he were judged to be mentally impaired then it's possible his rights to ownership could be abridged: (http://www.jaapl.org/cgi/content/full/35/3/330) contains a bit of this history in the beginning, I think. But, Hasan was surrounded by mental health pro's none of whom seemed concerned enough to take action: This will make an insanity defense, rather interesting, I think. But of course, legal ownership and possession are two different things. I think, I would agree with the conclusion you draw in your last paragraph; but would add that there is no escape from the responsibility of being honest and aware of threats that do exist. The tragedy in this case came to be for lack of honesty that professionalism, at the very least, should have mandated. Dwight, you asked, “(D)o you suppose that if there was evidence that he should be “removed from his position” that there would be sufficient evidence that he be on a list of people who could not purchase firearms?”

If he were judged to be mentally impaired then it’s possible his rights to ownership could be abridged: (http://www.jaapl.org/cgi/content/full/35/3/330) contains a bit of this history in the beginning, I think. But, Hasan was surrounded by mental health pro’s none of whom seemed concerned enough to take action: This will make an insanity defense, rather interesting, I think.

But of course, legal ownership and possession are two different things. I think, I would agree with the conclusion you draw in your last paragraph; but would add that there is no escape from the responsibility of being honest and aware of threats that do exist. The tragedy in this case came to be for lack of honesty that professionalism, at the very least, should have mandated.

]]> By: Dwight http://pjmedia.com/blog/armed-and-female/#comment-441978 Dwight Wed, 11 Nov 2009 12:54:48 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/?p=71203#comment-441978 Odysseus wrote "there’s will be no question of Hasan’s right to possess subject to legal disqualifications currently standing or part of any subsequent ruling. The point that becomes clearer with each day has little to do with gun possession and much to do with people unwilling to initiate actions that would remove Hasan from a position that allowed him to carry out the atrocity." Yeah, the thread has grown cold, but do you suppose that if there was evidence that he should be "removed from his position" that there would be sufficient evidence that he be on a list of people who could not purchase firearms? I think that you are saying, yes, he could still purchase firearms , but no, he could not be in the military. Maybe none of it is a tough question, but it leads us to a position, and maybe it is simply a necessary cost of our freedom that one can worship at a mosque, espouse jihad, and still purchase as many firearms as you or I. Odysseus wrote “there’s will be no question of Hasan’s right to possess subject to legal disqualifications currently standing or part of any subsequent ruling. The point that becomes clearer with each day has little to do with gun possession and much to do with people unwilling to initiate actions that would remove Hasan from a position that allowed him to carry out the atrocity.”

Yeah, the thread has grown cold, but do you suppose that if there was evidence that he should be “removed from his position” that there would be sufficient evidence that he be on a list of people who could not purchase firearms?

I think that you are saying, yes, he could still purchase firearms , but no, he could not be in the military. Maybe none of it is a tough question, but it leads us to a position, and maybe it is simply a necessary cost of our freedom that one can worship at a mosque, espouse jihad, and still purchase as many firearms as you or I.

]]> By: Odysseus http://pjmedia.com/blog/armed-and-female/#comment-441836 Odysseus Wed, 11 Nov 2009 04:46:17 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/?p=71203#comment-441836 Not a tough question at all, Dwight. This thread simply has grown cold. (I've no idea if you'll see this.) Mr. Cramer can speak or write for himself. But with Heller v DC establishing an individual right in the 2nd Amendment an interpretation affirmed by 9 justices with disagreement primarily on the DC law as it impacted that right and with most now expecting NRA v Chicago to result in incorporation of the individual rights interpretation via the Privilges and Immunities and the 14th Amendment, there's will be no question of Hasan's right to possess subject to legal disqualifications currently standing or part of any subsequent ruling. The point that becomes clearer with each day has little to do with gun possession and much to do with people unwilling to initiate actions that would remove Hasan from a position that allowed him to carry out the atrocity. Not a tough question at all, Dwight. This thread simply has grown cold. (I’ve no idea if you’ll see this.) Mr. Cramer can speak or write for himself. But with Heller v DC establishing an individual right in the 2nd Amendment an interpretation affirmed by 9 justices with disagreement primarily on the DC law as it impacted that right and with most now expecting NRA v Chicago to result in incorporation of the individual rights interpretation via the Privilges and Immunities and the 14th Amendment, there’s will be no question of Hasan’s right to possess subject to legal disqualifications currently standing or part of any subsequent ruling. The point that becomes clearer with each day has little to do with gun possession and much to do with people unwilling to initiate actions that would remove Hasan from a position that allowed him to carry out the atrocity.

]]> By: Dwight http://pjmedia.com/blog/armed-and-female/#comment-441581 Dwight Tue, 10 Nov 2009 20:54:26 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/?p=71203#comment-441581 Tough question, eh? Tough question, eh?

]]> By: Dwight http://pjmedia.com/blog/armed-and-female/#comment-441248 Dwight Tue, 10 Nov 2009 12:34:27 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/?p=71203#comment-441248 Mr Cramer seems to be a relatively reasonable guy, but many of the posters on these gun threads passionately affirm the absolute nature of our constitutional rights, but now that we have Mr Hasan who apparently abused those rights, the obvious question arises: when and for whom should those rights be abridged BEFORE a crime is committed? If the answer is NEVER, then say it. I think that "politically correct" is going to cut both ways in this case from what Mr Hasan said and the response to it, to his going to the gun shop, etc. Is there something which Mr Hasan said or did which should have triggered his NOT being able to make the purchases at the gun shop? This question undoubtedly deserves a separate thread, so maybe Mr Cramer will write a new column addressing this issue. Mr Cramer seems to be a relatively reasonable guy, but many of the posters on these gun threads passionately affirm the absolute nature of our constitutional rights, but now that we have Mr Hasan who apparently abused those rights, the obvious question arises: when and for whom should those rights be abridged BEFORE a crime is committed? If the answer is NEVER, then say it.
I think that “politically correct” is going to cut both ways in this case from what Mr Hasan said and the response to it, to his going to the gun shop, etc. Is there something which Mr Hasan said or did which should have triggered his NOT being able to make the purchases at the gun shop? This question undoubtedly deserves a separate thread, so maybe Mr Cramer will write a new column addressing this issue.

]]> By: anonymous http://pjmedia.com/blog/armed-and-female/#comment-441147 anonymous Tue, 10 Nov 2009 06:11:02 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/?p=71203#comment-441147 87. Clayton E. Cramer: "pacifism is a minority point of view within Christianity. Jesus taught that we are to accept petty insults without retaliation–but he also directed the Apostles to buy swords. That wasn’t for cutting steak." "Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword." 87. Clayton E. Cramer: “pacifism is a minority point of view within Christianity. Jesus taught that we are to accept petty insults without retaliation–but he also directed the Apostles to buy swords. That wasn’t for cutting steak.”

“Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.”

]]> By: Odysseus http://pjmedia.com/blog/armed-and-female/#comment-441120 Odysseus Tue, 10 Nov 2009 04:44:44 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/?p=71203#comment-441120 Dwight, Constitutional rights apply to all citizens except as those rights may be abridged, for example, by reason of felony conviction or mental defect. Why you would think, as your note seems to suggest, that Mr. Cramer, for instance, would think otherwise, is beyond me. But by all means do tell. Dwight, Constitutional rights apply to all citizens except as those rights may be abridged, for example, by reason of felony conviction or mental defect. Why you would think, as your note seems to suggest, that Mr. Cramer, for instance, would think otherwise, is beyond me. But by all means do tell.

]]> By: Dwight http://pjmedia.com/blog/armed-and-female/#comment-441091 Dwight Tue, 10 Nov 2009 03:01:00 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/?p=71203#comment-441091 CC wrote, "Note: pacifism is a minority point of view within Christianity. Jesus taught that we are to accept petty insults without retaliation–but he also directed the Apostles to buy swords. That wasn’t for cutting steak." Yes, it is the minority view, for sure, but that is one of the central paradoxes of Christianity, that most just conveniently ignore a lot of Jesus' teachings, which are just too damned hard to follow. Instead, they praise the Lord and pass the ammunition. Hey, why not pick and choose the part of any religion that one wants to follow. I would do it inn a heartbeat, but most Christians aren't so good about admitting their selectiveness in this area. "If my Kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight." What do Christians do with that line? At any rate, I haven't heard any responses to my question about the gun-carrying rights of Muslim Americans. Do I hear an "Amen" for Muslim-American Second Amendment rights? And their freedom of speech? Hmmmm CC wrote, “Note: pacifism is a minority point of view within Christianity. Jesus taught that we are to accept petty insults without retaliation–but he also directed the Apostles to buy swords. That wasn’t for cutting steak.”

Yes, it is the minority view, for sure, but that is one of the central paradoxes of Christianity, that most just conveniently ignore a lot of Jesus’ teachings, which are just too damned hard to follow. Instead, they praise the Lord and pass the ammunition. Hey, why not pick and choose the part of any religion that one wants to follow. I would do it inn a heartbeat, but most Christians aren’t so good about admitting their selectiveness in this area. “If my Kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight.” What do Christians do with that line?

At any rate, I haven’t heard any responses to my question about the gun-carrying rights of Muslim Americans. Do I hear an “Amen” for Muslim-American Second Amendment rights? And their freedom of speech? Hmmmm

]]> By: Dwight http://pjmedia.com/blog/armed-and-female/#comment-441089 Dwight Tue, 10 Nov 2009 02:52:52 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/?p=71203#comment-441089 CC wrote, "Note: pacifism is a minority point of view within Christianity. Jesus taught that we are to accept petty insults without retaliation–but he also directed the Apostles to buy swords. That wasn’t for cutting steak. CC wrote, “Note: pacifism is a minority point of view within Christianity. Jesus taught that we are to accept petty insults without retaliation–but he also directed the Apostles to buy swords. That wasn’t for cutting steak.

]]>