In Oregon, Gun Rights Prevail Once Again

[mikeb302000]

http://www.statesmanjournal.com/article/20111116/NEWS/111160430/Mother-gets-probation-shooting-case?odyssey=tab">topnews|text|News|via The Statesman Journal

A woman whose 2-year-old son was shot in the stomach with her gun might have a clean record in 16 months.

Johnnie Williams appeared in Polk County court Tuesday morning and pleaded guilty to recklessly endangering the welfare of a child. She was sentenced to probation.

According to ORS 137.533, if she abides by all the terms of the 16-month sentence, the conviction will be cleared from her record.

This is Oregon where the good folks know their priorities. None of that http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2010/08/one-strike-youre-out.html">one-strike-you're-out crap for them. After all we're talkin' 'bout the natural human right to own pistols and leave 'em wherever the damn hell we want to. It's in the Constitution.

You may wonder where the dad was and whether he had any culpability in this shooting.

Williams' husband, Charles Flow, was in the room but was preoccupied tattooing his own stomach, Jarvis said.

Records show Polk County District Attorney Stan Butterfield filed a motion to dismiss charges against Flow "in the best interest of justice."

What's your opinion? Should people like this have the right to own guns? Don't they pose a hazard to themselves and others? Shouldn't they be disarmed for their own good and for the good of those around them?

Please leave a comment.
http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/">(cross posted at Mikeb302000)

[dtexdem]

1. Not only should they not have the privilege of owning guns, ...

they should have been prosecuted in this case.

[SteveM]

8. They should have been prosecuted, not given probation...

but a correction: The Second Amendment is a right, not a "privilege."

[RC]

15. No, it is only a right for the Militia part you keep skipping over.

Otherwise absolutely anyone could own/have guns and that is not the case.

[SteveM]

16. You do not visit here often, or you are willfully dishonest...

The so-called "militia clause" has been dealt with here many times before, and shown to be a subordinate clause which in no way restricts the people's right to keep and bear arms.

And you know that. You just don't wish to admit that you are wrong about the clause's purpose, and insist on repeating an untruthful line, over and over; like a broken record.

Please visit the archives if you wish to be properly instructed as to the meaning of the "militia clause," though I suspect you have repeatedly received an "F" for your past classroom efforts.

[DanTex]

22. LOL. "dealt with"

Apparently, "dealt with" here means that a bunch of pro-gunners decided to concur with the five far-right-wing (pro-gunners agreeing with right-wingers -- shocking!) SCOTUS justices who ruled, in violation of grammar, history, and sanity, that 2A was about self-defense and not state militias. Do I need to post the Stevens dissent again?

The thing that you don't seem to understand is that, there are also people here who tend to side with Democrats and progressives on the guns issue, and that generally prefer the judicial opinions of, say, a Justice Stevens over a Justice Scalia. I know it's hard for you to believe that Democrats would disagree with Scalia on anything, but, believe me, it's true!

You see, the fact that the pro-gunner Scaliaphiles pretend they have "dealt with" the militia clause carries very little weight to people who are not already fully in the Scalia corner. You can do your little victory dance all you want, but you're not going to be able to get people of sound mind to just ignore the militia clause.

[friendly_iconoclast]

23. Since you seem to like the associational fallacy- How 'bout that Mayor Bloomberg?

I hope having to keep those dirty hippy Occupy Wall Street terrorists in line isn't interfering too much with running his creation,
Mayors Against Illegal Guns. <sarcasm mode to OFF>

Protip: Never serve a dish you aren't willing to eat...

[SteveM]

24. It has been dealt with many times, here. Please re-read archives. nt

[DissedByBush]

27. Please post the Stevens dissent again

I could use a good laugh.

It was absolutely ridiculous, torturous logic in clear opposition to fact, intent and history to try to justify his personal feelings on the subject.

BTW, the "militia" is all citizens.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rrneck]

38. Are members of the militia people? nt

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

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

[mikeb302000]

31. bullshit, Steve.

It may have been dealt with many times, but only to the satisfaction of you and your friends. Reasonable people understand that the 2A is totally anachronistic and has no relevance in today's world.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

35. That's funny ....

I know a lot of reasonable people, and they disagree with you. The entire Supreme Court, Congress, and the legislatures of nearly every state disagree with you. Over 75% of the general public disagrees with you.

Either they are all unreasonable, or you're wrong - somehow I'm going to go with you being wrong. Don't know why - perhaps it is your historical capacity for lying your ass off?

If you believe it has no relevance in today's world, then by all means, work to get it repealed. If you could actually form a cogent argument as to WHY it has no relevance, I'd even listen to it.

[jmg257]

36. No relevance? It is VERY relevant as it stands as the greatest obstacle

for thwarting anti-gun agendas today (here in the US anyway). {Well - that, the people, and the NRA apparently}

You may not like the 2nd, but it is certainly relevant. Unreasonable to think otherwise.

[rrneck]

39. Here's the relevance.

We had a bunch of fascists in the White House for eight years Einstein. That's why the fastest growing growing group of gun owners by political affiliation are Democrats.

Surely a resident of Italy would know something about fascism.

[iverglas]

41. my post seems to have been mislaid, and I'd like an answer

You do not visit here often, or you are willfully dishonest...

The first option is false; I recognize the poster's name as a fairly frequent flyer in this forum, specifically recently, and I can't think of the slightest reason why you would not also.

So, since your first option is ruled out, that leaves us with the second: you have asserted that this poster is wilfully dishonest.

Care to explain?

Are you wilfully blind, or ............. ?

Oh, and is it now okay if, every time you "just don't wish to admit that you are wrong" when you say something I don't agree with, and instead "insist on repeating an untruthful line", I - knowing that you do visit here often - can just go ahead and say you are wilfully dishonest?

Just wanting to have the ground rules according to Steve clear in my head.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

17. Oh for fuck's sake...

besides the fact that canard doesn't even pass the grammar test, the Supreme Court cleared that up a few years back.

Get over it. That interpretation is wrong.

[rl6214]

20. "No, it is only a right for the Militia part you keep skipping over."

This has already been settled and you are just wrong.

[jmg257]

21. I don't skip that part - can I have an M16?

Myself and many others being in The Militia and all.

[AtheistCrusader]

30. Fuck that noise.

I'll take a SCAR-H in select-fire.

[jmg257]

34. Ooohh - good choice! OK - I'll take both. nt

[Hoopla Phil]

40. Well, my reading of this section of "Heller" would say yes.

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful
in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be
banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely
detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said,
the conception of the militia at the time of the Second
Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens
capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of
lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia
duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as
effective as militias in the 18th century, would require
sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at
large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small
arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and
tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited
the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the
protected right cannot change our interpretation of the
right.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

25. Sigh....

I'll ask you the same question I've asked many people before:

How did you arrive at that interpretation? Please make your answer logically, legally and grammatically consistent and accurate.

[rrneck]

37. *sigh*

Are members of the militia people?

[redgiant]

2. This was priceless

"Charles Flow, was in the room but was preoccupied tattooing his own stomach" :rofl:

[mikeb302000]

32. priceless indeed. nt

[classof56]

3. Well, as a long-time Oregonian, I have an opinion:

These people should not only not have guns, they really shouldn't have had children. I see from the S-J article that the mother is ordered not to have guns in her possession, and I guess the father is free to tattoo himself wherever on his body he chooses. The kids? Well, I wish them continued good luck. Given the parents they're stuck with, they're gonna need it.

I won't recount the tragedies I've been close to here in Oregon involving children killed by guns. Happens far too often, but for the life of me, I can't figure how to make people responsible for their own behavior. The consequences, kids dead for no good reason, are too painful to dwell upon.

Tired Old Cynic

[mikeb302000]

33. I draw the line at mandatory sterilization.

but it's http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2010/08/one-strike-youre-out.html">one-strike-you're-out for these clowns.

[gejohnston]

4. I think the mother should find a more mature

husband. Polk County needs a better DA for letting hubbie slide.

[msongs]

6. the child needs to find a new home ASAP nt

[SteveM]

7. I agree.

[SteveM]

5. So-o-o-o, are you against self-tattooing, or "people like these?"

One of your responders sounded close to advocating a eugenic/neutering solution for "these people." What's your opinion?

[ileus]

9. You do of course realize the "one strike you're out" rule is all in your head....right?

You're not king in this country.

[beevul]

28. Uh...

Hes not even PRESENT in this country.

Lol.

[Remmah2]

10. Why does Mike always find these gem news stories?

Does water seek it's own level?

[SteveM]

14. For the yee-HAH, white lightnin' swilling, corn-cob-smoking, cross-eyed stereotypes?

[Atypical Liberal]

11. Due process of law.

Learn it. Know it. Love it.

[montanto]

12. if you tattoo your own stomach the image is often upside down to others.

Take away his tattoo gun.

[SteveM]

13. Tattoo guns don't tattoo, tattooists toot & tattle.

[jmg257]

18. Our opinions don't really matter...these people do have the right, and numerous others.

If you want to infringe on their rights, give it shot - laws are made all the time to legislate 'stupid' - as long as it involves due process.

If it is decided they are too stupid to own guns, we certainly don't want them doing really dangerous things like raising kids and driving cars. You might want to question their voting privileges too.

[rl6214]

19. "None of that one-strike-you're-out crap"

Finally you've said something that makes sense. Glad you decided to drop that crap.

Unrec for the usual reasons: Blind links to blog, general BS.