The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    jollyroger's picture

    If Typhoid Mary lived next door, would you let your kids visit? Drink the lemonade? Gun owners are a public health issue.

    By jollyroger on Wed, 01/02/2013 - 6:09pm |

    The recent publication by the White Plains Journal-News of a  map highlighting the locations in Westchester and Rockland Counties of holders of  handgun permits raised howls of protest.

     

    Issues of privacy were raised, though the information is part of the public record by law, and thus available to anyone with the time and inclination to visit the county seat.

     

    A subsequent request under the Freedom of Information Act has driven the Putnam County authorities to consider civil disobedience.

     

    This is preposterous.

    Research suggests that homes with a gun are two to three times more likely to experience a firearm death than homes without guns, and that members of the household are 18 times more likely to be the victim than intruders.

     

    If you find yourself moved by the protestations of gun owners and their enablers, ask yourself whether you would allow your child to visit and play in a house where guns abide.  Then ask how you would apprise yourself of this fact, without the assistance of a civic minded news outlet.

     

    Stop the madness. Stop the murder.

     

    Seize the weapons.

    Comments

    Would you ask the parents, if they own a swimming pool, or whether they have auto insurance, if ever they were to take your kids, along with other neighborhood kids to see a movie or go to the roller rink?

    Inquiring into public records, to determine whether a household has a gun; which by the way, is a protected right;  IS an invasion of every American citizen / gun owners right, to privacy.

    As a parent, you can ask the host homeowner, where your child intends to visit or associate, if there are guns present, or better yet, assume the homeowner/ person is exercising their legally protected right.

    Just one of the reasons for vehemently protesting this record exposure. Peering into legal records of strangers, not pertinent to your child, is a violation of privacy rights.

    It is not a crime to own firearms; so assume, patriotic Americans have firearms

    It is not anyone’s business, what property or papers I have in my home, if I haven’t broken the law.

    The Fourth Amendment  “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, …………

    Our Natural law rights, (Individual liberty and rights) are not to be infringed upon.  This record exposure is clearly an abuse, committed by people who were never granted this right, by the governed.

    Excerpt:

    Hence also, the origin of all civil government, justly established, must be a voluntary compact, between the rulers and the ruled; and must be liable to such limitations, as are necessary for the security of the absolute rights of the latter; for what original title can any man or set of men have, to govern others, except their own consent? To usurp dominion over a people, in their own despite, or to grasp at a more extensive power than they are willing to entrust, is to violate that law of nature, which gives every man a right to his personal liberty; and can, therefore, confer no obligation to obedience.

    Alexander Hamilton,  The Farmer Refuted 23 Feb. 1775

    As to your other point about deaths

    Dr. Gary Kleck mentions, "The risk of being a victim of a fatal gun accident can be better appreciated if it is compared to a more familiar risk...Each year about five hundred children under the age of five accidentally drown in residential swimming pools, compared to about forty killed in gun accidents, despite the fact that there are only about five million households with swimming pools, compared to at least 43 million with guns. Thus, based on owning households, the risk of a fatal accident among small children is over one hundred times higher for swimming pools than for guns."


    by Resistance on Wed, 01/02/2013 - 9:07pm

     if they own a swimming pool  You're damn straight.  And if they did, I would not let my kid visit unaccompanied.


    by jollyroger on Wed, 01/02/2013 - 9:37pm

    See how easy it is Jolly

    I should have said  "PLEASE" :Would you ask the parents, if they own a swimming pool, or whether they have auto insurance, if ever they were to take your kids, along with other neighborhood kids to see a movie or go to the roller rink?

    The newspaper is wrong, they do not have a right to that information,

    If some stranger see's a beautiful girl, driving everyday in a particular neighborhood, they do not have a right to inquire of her name and address from MVD.

    The Newspaper, that disseminated this information, is a co conspirator to any stalker, with an ax to grind, against those they disagree with.

    Now that's all the legal citizens need; is another copy cat, abortion clinic bomber type, who'll despite the courts ruling, allowing abortions, this fruitcake disagrees.  

    Only the next fruitcake believes, YOU don't have a Right to own a gun; despite what the courts say. The newspaper, just placed at risk, innocent law abiding citizens. who choose to exercise their lawful freedom.  

    This conduct by the Newspaper, solidifies the opposition to gun registration.Too smart, by half

    Jolly, I did read all of your links before.

    Jolly, don't you think it is odd, that the Newspaper feels justified, for armed guards, for protection; but in turn attacks those, who feel they'd like to arm themselves for self-protection. 

    Self Protection:  a law of nature, predating the Constitution.

    "Don't come to this Newspaper office, we have armed guards" A deterrent good enough for them.  


    by Resistance on Thu, 01/03/2013 - 12:45am

    whether they have auto insurance, if ever they were to take your kids, along with other neighborhood kids to see a movie or go to the roller rink

    As one who has taken large dollars off of carriers who wrote ill-advised coverage, I am more concerned with the driver's record and the car's integrity than the possibility of collection after a catastrophe, but I take your meaning.  

    Of course, the presence of a swimming pool is rather self-evident, unlike the odd piece lying about unsecured.

     

    I am puzzled, in passing, by your position.  I thought the party line was that it was the announced   ABSENCE of fire arms (the "gun free zone") that drew the attention of evil doers.

     

    Why are you not defending the right of the non owners to remain anonymous, lest they become sheep for the wolves?

     

     

     


    by jollyroger on Thu, 01/03/2013 - 1:40am

    "The newspaper is wrong, they do not have a right to that information ..."

     

    I'm confused.  I thought the gun ownership records were in the public record.  Why doesn't a paper have a right to publish something that is in the public record? 

     

    Not trying to argue, just would like some clarification.


    by MrSmith1 on Thu, 01/03/2013 - 12:48pm

    What's your problem?  They are exercising their legally protected Second Amendment Right  to arm themselves, and the newspaper is exercising their legally protected First Amendment Right to disseminate information.  This enhances my exercise of my First Amendment Right to associate, or not.  It's all good.


    by jollyroger on Wed, 01/02/2013 - 9:39pm

    Are you not subject to an internal contradiction when you assert a "right to privacy" pursuant to which you wish to be heard to complain about information in a "public" record?


    by jollyroger on Wed, 01/02/2013 - 9:42pm

    I'll continue to be the voice of reason, until I am banned by the authorities.  

    As Dick would write, hahahaha


    by Resistance on Thu, 01/03/2013 - 12:53am

    Kleck, who you reference above, also said:

    In Targeting Guns, Dr. Kleck concludes in part, "Most gun accidents occur in the home, many (perhaps most) of them involving guns kept for defense. However, very few accidents occur in connection with actual defensive uses of guns. Gun accidents are generally committed by unusually reckless people with records of heavy drinking, repeated involvement in automobile crashes, many traffic citations, and prior arrests for assault.

    It seems to me a reasonable position would be to get the guns out of the hands of those unusually reckless people with some reasonable gun control legislation.

    A reasonable person might also address the views of those he is responding to rather than continuing to argue against the strawman that people here advocate banning guns. I haven't seen anyone here advocate banning guns. All I've seen is some discussion of limits.  In DC v Heller, which you like to quote, Scalia made it clear that the Second Amendment is not unlimited, as you seem to believe, but there are reasonable limitations and prohibitions that can be upheld under the Second Amendment. From DC v Heller:

    2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the sorts [**647]of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54-56.


    by ocean-kat on Thu, 01/03/2013 - 3:41am

    Most gun accidents occur in the home.

    Most people don't keep their personal belongings, guns, jewelry, money etc. under a park bench; where it could be robbed.

    A reasonable person might also address the views of those he is responding to rather than continuing to argue against the strawman that people here advocate banning guns

    It is you, creating the straw man.

    I am not against reasonable controls; the problem is always the slippery slope.

    Those folks, who really want to ban guns, are always looking for dupes, to help them in their cause, to rid the Nation of guns.

    Every incident, every atrocity is just another chink in the armor, to disarm the people.  

    In DC v Heller, which you like to quote, Scalia made it clear that the Second Amendment is not unlimited, as you seem to believe,

    That is a mischaracterization, a false hood, a lie.  Just another strawman created by you.

     

    Most people believe, as it appears you do too,  the Second Amendment, granted us the right to bear arms.

    We the People already had that right, way before the Constitution.  

     

    Can YOU name me any State; which prohibits the Right of self-defense?  

    Gary Kleck,  writes:

    "In general, self-protection measures of all types are effective, in the sense of reducing the risk of property loss in robberies and confrontational burglaries, compared to doing nothing or cooperating with the offender. The most effective form of self-protection is use of a gun.

    "Most criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police." (James D. Wright & Peter H. Rossi, Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms [1986]. See Guns and Public Health: Epidemic of Violence or Pandemic of Propaganda? by Don B. Kates, et. al. Originally published as 61 Tenn. L. Rev. 513-596 [1994]).


    by Resistance on Thu, 01/03/2013 - 7:53am

    It is not a crime to own firearms; so assume, patriotic Americans have firearms

    Of all the ridiculous things you have posted here this is one of the most silly. There is zero correlation between gun ownership and patriotism. Some patriotic Americans own guns, some patriotic Americans do not own guns, some unpatriotic Americans own guns, and some unpatriotic Americans do not own guns. Owning or not owning a gun tells us absolutely nothing about a person's patriotism.

    As you have no clue what the Second Amendment means, you also have no clue what the Fourth Amendment means. The Fourth Amendment creates a wall between the police or other government officials protecting a citizen's person and property against unreasonable searches or seizures. It has nothing to do with publishing information in the public domain.

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    If I were so inclined I could find your name and create a website listing any and all information on you that is in the public domain and the Fourth Amendment would offer you no protection what so ever.

    To be clear, I would never waste my time in such a frivolous activity, but the Fourth Amendment would offer you no protection if I or any newspaper did print or post such information.

     


    by ocean-kat on Thu, 01/03/2013 - 4:29am

    As you note. there persists, alas, a popular confusion of which Res is here a victim, that fails to understand the difference between the intrusive behavior forbidden to the state but perfectly within the private actors option. One ( catastrophic if ironic) example: I had a friend whose son was supplying a contraband substance which carried a distinctive odor to a vendor in another city. He foolishly chose as his carrier FedEx, whose canine employees detected the substance during a routine general tour of the transhippment terminal which is forbidden to the USPS, even in their somewhat attenuated connection to the government. He mistakenly thought he would be MORE secure with FedEx. He has still some time left on the 20year jolt during which to ponder the vagaries of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.

    by jollyroger on Thu, 01/03/2013 - 5:58am

    Are you kidding? Ever hear of the Minutemen, or a well regulated militia is essential?  

    If I were so inclined I could find your name and create a website listing any and all information on you.

    What happens if ever your inclination; should change?

    It's obvious, your veiled threats and provocation can't be opposed, ever since they outlawed dueling, a gun can't protect me from those, who could abuse my 4th amendment rights. A right, for privacy.


    by Resistance on Thu, 01/03/2013 - 8:18am

    Resistance, do you honestly think that no one here has ever heard of the Minutemen, or of the idea that a well-regulated militia is essential? Because believe me, everyone has.

    The problem is that the "militia" hasn't done such a hot job of regulating itself....


    by erica20 on Thu, 01/03/2013 - 12:06pm

    Resistance, do you honestly think that no one here has ever heard

    Frankly, sometimes I wonder.

    It's like the new generation of Americans has NO clue.

    As one observer noted; everyone has an opinion , but we have very few combatants.

    Our forefathers met with the same apathy; but once independence was gained, everyone was a patriot. Patting each other on the backs, saying "look at what we have made ."

    "WE"?   

    When the Koch brothers get together with others of like minds, they say "Look at what WE have stopped"

    Maybe the point is; NOT that they haven't heard, but whether they have learned the lessons of history.

    "No compact among men... can be pronounced everlasting and inviolable, and if I may so express myself, that no Wall of words, that no mound of parchment can be so formed as to stand against the sweeping torrent of boundless ambition on the one side, aided by the sapping current of corrupted morals on the other." 

    George Washington, draft of First Inaugural Address, April 1789

    It has been noted;  particularly during this last election campaign; that war had been declared against the working class.

    "If we desire to insult, we must be able to repel it; if we desire to secure peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known, that we are at all times ready for War."

    George Washington, Annual Message, December 1793


    by Resistance on Thu, 01/03/2013 - 2:08pm

    Okay. You acknowledge that we've actually heard about the whole well-regulated militia concept. Let's leave aside wondering about learning the lessons of history so that you can ponder the following:

    Slate is keeping a (somewhat rough) running tally of gun deaths since Newtown. I noticed that of the 409 gun deaths since then, six were children under 13, with the following causes:

    1 Hunting accident

    1 Drive-by shooting of infant strapped in car seat

    1 Shot fired in home

    3 Child under 3 grabbed a gun and shot self with it.

    I assume that none of the gun-owners in question was actively involved in protecting American Liberty at the time of these deaths. Do you:

    1) Have an actual idea about how to prevent child gun deaths, or

    2) Do you view these unfortunate incidents as part of the cost of protecting all of us from some sort of loss of freedom?

    I will follow up depending on your answer.


    by erica20 on Thu, 01/03/2013 - 2:46pm

    Why didn't you provide the Slate link? Could it be, the information would have undermined your position?  Out of 409 incidents six were children?

    What were the other 403 deaths caused by ?

    How many other causes for fatalities, did Slate include?

    Don't tell me;  you fell for the propaganda, Slate wants to peddle?   

    Slate's message "gun accidents are increasing, so therefore civilian gun ownership must be further restricted or regulated".  Give the impression that: fatal gun accidents are more prevalent than other fatal accidents?

    I will return, to enlighten you, to point out the truth, in order to free you from the propaganda, intended to deprive you and others  of your Rights      to answer more of your good questions.


    by Resistance on Thu, 01/03/2013 - 5:17pm


    Res. lemme put it to you.  Would you wake up in a cold sweat if you were limited to one easily securable .50 cal. desert eagle?


    by jollyroger on Thu, 01/03/2013 - 5:29pm

    Why didn't you provide the Slate link?

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_...

     

    for your convenience


    by jollyroger on Thu, 01/03/2013 - 5:32pm

    Jolly has very kindly provided the link; I apologize for not posting it.

    Here it is again, for your convenience.

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_...

    As you will see, it's a pretty simple tally, broken down by age and gender. The total number--yes, of gun deaths, not deaths for other reasons--was 409 when I last looked, and it appeared to include data up to/including Jan 1. Of those 409, six were children.

    I did not and do not believe that posting the link would undermine my position.

    I believe you are incorrect about Slate's position.

    Regarding the statistics themselves, I can't say offhand whether gun deaths are increasing, but I do know they are increasing relative to other types of fatalities such as car accidents--an area in which we have made strides in safety. (A-Man has mentioned this, and I recently wrote a blog about it--please let me know if you would like links.)

    I still would like to know what you suggest regarding reducing the number of gun fatalities. Thanks, but I am not likely to be impressed with further warnings about my, or anyone's, freedoms being eroded by changes to gun laws.

     

     


    by erica20 on Thu, 01/03/2013 - 6:21pm

    I don't believe you found my comment intimidating. I think that's just your typical method of diverting the conversation away from the areas you can't logically sustain or defend. You don't want to discuss your ridiculous interpretation of the fourth amendment so you pretend I've made a threat.

    If in fact you feel intimidated then you must admit that your interpretation of the Fourth Amendment is patently wrong and it offers no protection from anyone or any newspaper from publishing information in the public domain.

    If this is not one of your ruses to avoid discussing the Fourth Amendment  issue you raised and you truly felt threatened. I apologize. As I stated I personally would never dox anyone, especially you, Resistance, simply because I don't care about you. I come here for education and entertainment and you're just some inconsequential stranger to me. While its possible that I might become friendly with some people here, I've read enough of your posts to know that you will never be more than an inconsequential stranger to me.

    I'm surprised in this day and age that you seem unaware that there is no anonymity on the internet. I think that's a good thing. People would not post the things they do if they felt they had to take personal responsibility for it. Unlike you when I post I accept and am prepared to take personal responsibility for my statements. While I use a screen name I've posted both my home address and my job on this site. That wasn't an accident, lack of awareness, or stupidity. I deliberately made myself vulnerable, made a deliberate hole that people can go through to easily find out my real name. One does not need to be a computer wiz or hacker. I use a screen name only to slow the process down. To find that information one must be a regular reader here or be willing to search all my comments. I am not an anonymous poster hiding behind a screen name.

    Yet even without posting personal information no one here or anywhere on the internet is truly anonymous to a determined hacker. That's not a threat I'm making against every person posting here its simply a statement of factual reality.

     


    by ocean-kat on Mon, 01/07/2013 - 3:02pm

    The proverbial ink, hasn’t even dried on your proposed agreement, to cease and desist.

    Like you, I haven’t the time to deal with your BS.

    Within days after the Sandy hook incident, I took a stand, to protect the Second Amendment, against hastily proposed gun legislation.

    Fearing every step towards control, could lead to the slippery slope.

    But it was clear I was in the minority at Dagblog, but whatever;  I thought without reservation, it was a matter of; to each to their own opinion or expression of thought, in order to deliberate and sort things out.

    Through a concerted effort by some, to purposely misconstrue my true intentions, one or more of the contributors here at Dagblog, tried to lay the blood, of those innocent children and teachers at my feet.

    Someone made the comment, I don’t know if it were you, or someone else; implying, how would I like it, if it was me or my family who were to be massacred.

    It’s one thing to disagree, on what should be done, but it is sinister, to suggest I was to blame.

    So now you suggest how inconsequential I am and how easy it would be, for someone to find me.

    It’s clear you gun control fanatics, want to stifle anyone, who disagrees with your goal.

    What’s next, maybe I should take the hint from you, that I can be found and maybe some late night;  I might be met by some folks in white sheets, threatening my family, because I’m to be considered a trouble maker?

    Maybe someone, who was triggered to do violence, by the suggestion made at Dagblog, to blame me for the massacre and they begin the process in their twisted minds; “Yeah why don’t we hack the system and find out who it is, that’s causing us gun control fanatics, trouble. All because I dared, to speak up for a minority?

    Reminding me of our beloved Martin Luther King, who was murdered; because he was considered a trouble maker?


    by Resistance on Mon, 01/07/2013 - 4:25pm

    Someone made the comment, I don’t know if it were you, or someone else; implying, how would I like it, if it was me or my family who were to be massacred.

    I did not post that comment.

    The proverbial ink, hasn’t even dried on your proposed agreement, to cease and desist.

    Yes, proposed agreement which you have not agreed to. I am happy to respect your request to no longer reply to you if you also agree to no longer reply to me.

    Apparently you feel I should shut up while you can pontificate and attack me at will.

    Again I will agree to your request to leave you alone if you also will agree to leave me alone.

    Do we have an agreement?


    by ocean-kat on Mon, 01/07/2013 - 4:57pm

    Are you serious?  Up until you made another comment, I hadn't violated the agreement.

    I moved on, as I will again.

    I figured, hmmmmm. here's someone who disregards Constitutions  as worthless instruments and now you were to be trusted?

    In the fable The scorpion and the frog, the frog asks "Why did you sting me? Scorpion replies " You knew I was a scorpion".

    I know what you are.  

    You violated your law and I reckon you'll disregard all other agreements when you see an advantage to do so. 

    BYE


    by Resistance on Mon, 01/07/2013 - 4:57pm

    This is not an answer.

    Again I will agree to your request to leave you alone if you will agree to leave me alone.

    Do we have an agreement? Let the record be clear, yes or no?


    by ocean-kat on Mon, 01/07/2013 - 5:14pm

    Can you both just agree to disagree?  I think we all would appreciate it.  Thanks.


    by Ramona on Mon, 01/07/2013 - 6:03pm

    Another curious proclamation - personal privacy doesn't exist because there's a better hacker out there somewhere. So if I tell you a secret, well, you can tell everyone because someone would find out somehow anyway. Stalking? No problem - who could possibly expect to be walled off in this interconnected brave new world?

    And that makes you superior, because you are "prepared to take personal responsibility for my statements". How grownup of you. Me, I'm banking it being too much trouble for the average idiot to track me down, and that those with the skills won't find much of use if they do. Between those 2, I find posting by pseudonym vastly preferred to letting a lazy hacker use some script kiddie tools to come pester me over some nonsense. And I like that the US government has to show a modicum of effort to go dragnet the internet, and hopefully some of the assholes involved feel guilty even if it's not that hard, that they've pressured the ISPs & telcos and other providers into cooperation. Anyway, viva anonymity, whether for Wikileaks, George Sands, Deep Throat, or your average blogger.


    by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 01/07/2013 - 4:29pm

    Paper That Put Gun Permit Map Online Hires Armed Guards developing...

    by jollyroger on Wed, 01/02/2013 - 9:34pm

    I wonder why gun owners are not going out of their way to reassure newspaper staff that even though they may have violated privacy rules, they have no need to fear violent reprisal from one or more of the law-abiding-gun-owners they may have wronged....

    After all, we do live in a rule-of-law society. 

    Right?


    by erica20 on Thu, 01/03/2013 - 12:16pm

    apparently the tenor of the email response has failed to achieve the reasoned tone of polite and respectful disagreement that you correctly hope. Unencumbered by access to the actual texts, I imagine they take on more of the hysterical tone evidenced by Resistance (" co-conspirators?" gimme a break...)

    by jollyroger on Thu, 01/03/2013 - 4:10pm

    Umm...jolly, I'm not really wondering. That was more of a rhetorical flourish.

    In all seriousness, what is up with the people with guns complaining about feeling threatened by people armed only with typewriters? It's silly. I mean, that fellow who had to hit the fainting couch about the map conferring a "scarlet letter" on his fellow gun owners? My lands, Miss Melly, next they'll be refusin' to utilize the spittoons for their rightful purposes!

    While all this arm-waving has been happening, at least six little kids have lost their lives to guns owned by people whose responsibility failed them at rather crucial moments.


    by erica20 on Thu, 01/03/2013 - 4:42pm

     That was more of a rhetorical flourish

    yeah.  me too..


    by jollyroger on Thu, 01/03/2013 - 5:03pm

    I know, honey, I know.


    by erica20 on Thu, 01/03/2013 - 6:03pm

    What's next, to be displayed on the maps?

    In a time of a food shortage, we can see where all the Mormons live, knowing their religious beliefs say, they need to store a years supply of food? 


    by Resistance on Thu, 01/03/2013 - 5:20pm

    Well, let's see..


    We don't license preppers, so no.

    We do list sex offenders,  Maybe some overlap there?


    by jollyroger on Thu, 01/03/2013 - 5:26pm

    Res, you put the "absurd" in reductio ad absurdum


    by jollyroger on Thu, 01/03/2013 - 5:36pm