Jump to content
Prefatory clauses like the one about "a well regulated militia" may serve to explain WHY a rule is made, but don't change the rule itself. Madison could just as well have written, "Flintlocks being highly desirable decorative elements over family hearths, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," and it would not change the meaning of the right itself one iota.
How willfully blind can someone be? ALL laws are enforced at the point of a gun. Otherwise they'd be called suggestions.
The NRA would not want anyone packing who was unwilling to abide by the safety rules of carrying firearms. Just like you and I would not want anyone driving who was unwilling to abide by the safety rules of driving cars. It is unfortunately true that we usually do not know who such people are before they reveal themselves. Sometimes people get hurt or even killed in the reveal (very rarely with guns since most misuses of guns are intentional, but quite commonly with cars), but we do not preemptively ban everyone from driving for that reason, nor should we preemptively ban anyone who can pass a background check from carrying for that reason.
The NRA's answer to gun violence is enforcement of existing laws. Felons who try to acquire guns through perjured background check forms should be PROSECUTED and LOCKED UP. Read our Court Services reports here in Walla Walla, and you'll see that felons in possession of firearms are barely given a slap on the wrist in sentencing.
Yes, there is a big difference between what Carson said and Mr. McCaw's paraphrase. One is a statement of reasonable opinion and another is a wild exaggeration of that opinion.
Nothing Jews could have done at the time would have "prevented" the Holocaust since that era's "progressives" had already made it inevitable. But more resistance would have saved more lives, just as the resistance at Sobibor and Treblinka death camps, at the Warsaw Ghetto and elsewhere saved lives and diverted the Nazis.
If disarming Jews especially, and the German population at large, was NOT in aid of the Holocaust, why did Hitler undertake it so vigorously?
I don't know any gun-rights advocate who claims that guns are going to make "everyone" safer. We don't usually require that safety measures make "everyone" safer, just that they make more people safer than otherwise. Guns do that. As a woman over 60, I am not much of match for the person or persons who are most likely to invade my home - young, strong males, possibly anesthetized by drugs. My gun and my dog help equalize my ability to protect myself. They make ME safer, but of course not the invaders, so not "everyone".
The NRA has no desire to have "everyone" packing, and you well know that, but you prefer wild exaggeration and straw-man arguments to rational discussion. And you probably don't even have to be drunk to do it.
Not that it matters to Mr. McCaw, but Ben Carson never said that. And I've never heard any gun-rights advocate praise or encourage the use of guns by drunks settling arguments about sports. But since Mr. McCaw has no good arguments for his position, he has no choice but to roam the territory of the ridiculous.
FYI: Gun sales soared not because the gun-lobby was able to reach millions with its theories about gun confiscation, but because millions listened to Obama, Feinstein, Clinton, etc., and heard what they said - loud and clear.
A "cadre", huh? Granted there are other meanings, the one that always springs to my mind is "a cell of indoctrinated leaders who work to advance the interests of a revolutionary party."
I just can never think of Social Studies teachers in our schools the same way any more after reading of the Edmonds-Woodway High School teacher who had the word "Che" tattooed on her ankle in memory of her "hero", the murderous Che Guevara.
The truly terrifying thing about this article is the statement that the civil legal needs of the average household have tripled since 2003. Civil law has been around for almost 1,500 years. What could possibly have caused its involvement with the "average household" to take what had evolved over that many years, and triple it in the space of just 12 years?
Half a million new legal cases per year could be funded by $15.5 million of extra legal aid attorneys? I don't think so. That's $31 per case. Even relatively low-paid legal aid attorneys are going to expect higher pay than pennies per hour. And that doesn't count the costs of new clerks, judges, court reporters, bailiffs, courtroom facilities, etc.
Every eviction is a potential civil lawsuit, but the vast majority of evictions take place because the tenant didn't pay the rent or misused the property. A legal aid attorney might be able to delay the eviction for a month or two, but that only makes housing for other tenants less affordable as the landlord adds the cost of litigation to the cost of housing.
Only you know whether you're being honest. With or without an agenda, though, it's a reasonable question.
The answer is, generally, yes, PRIVATE businesses should be able to refuse service to anyone for any reason, with some major important exceptions.
One exception would be a business that is given monopoly or cartel powers by the government, making it difficult or impossible for other businesses, that WOULD serve everybody, to compete. Examples would include medical facilities that must have certificates of need issued by the government, or taxicabs or fishing boats, for which government limits the number of available licenses.
Another exception is that businesses should not be allowed to collude with each other to try to avoid the negative competitive consequences of their discriminatory practices. And a corollary of that is that their discriminatory policies must be publicly disclosed, so that ALL potential customers are aware of them and can decide whether to patronize that business. In other words, Arlene should have had a sign up disclosing her discriminatory policy, so that Mr. Freed and Mr. Ingersoll and I could choose to shop elsewhere. If you read the article, you'll notice that part of the gentlemen's complaint is in fact that they patronized her shop for years without knowing of her bigotry. I would have been upset about that myself.
Another exception would be businesses that enjoy a natural or structural monopoly - railroads, the service centers they have on toll ways in some states, the businesses within local improvement districts created by governments to fund benefits such as freeway off-ramps.
And obviously, any business that derives a significant part of its revenues from government funding should not be allowed to discriminate.
Nor should a business be able to restrain trade downstream - meaning if you produce widgets but don't want to sell them to gay people, that's fine, but a contract with a buyer of your widgets that THEY can't sell your widgets to gays would be unenforceable.
I believe discrimination against people based on ANY irrational ground is stupid and in most cases morally wrong, but as long as it is limited to the stupid and immoral person's withdrawal of their OWN value to their targets, it should be allowed as a basic element of freedom and the autonomy of the individual. Just as Mr. Freed, Mr. Ingersoll and I are free to withhold our consumer business from Arlene for ANY reason, she should be free to withhold her seller business from us.
"Discrimination" simply means distinguishing between two or more things.
I discriminate when I choose my eggs sunny-side up instead of over-hard. You may say that's just a matter of taste, but there are some who would like to forbid me that choice because there's a statistically higher chance I'll be exposed to salmonella. They're right on the statistics, so must we all eat our eggs the way "they" say?
I discriminate when I prefer to hire someone with experience and a clean record rather than someone with no experience and a lengthy criminal history. That's a matter of judgment, but there are those who say that is unfair to racial groups who have longer criminal histories and less experience. Must I forego my own judgment to satisfy theirs?
Arlene believed that what Mr. Freed and Mr. Ingersoll were planning - their wedding - was morally wrong. I don't happen to agree with her, but that's what she believed.
Mr. Freed and Mr. Ingersoll want her to be compelled by threat of violence (because that is, ultimately, the only power government has) to serve them against her wishes. I DO believe compelling personal service against the desires of the servant, by threat of violence, is wrong. You don't.
Each of us is discriminating between two beliefs and coming up with different answers. You want the guns of government to enforce your way. Whose discrimination is really more dangerous?
Last login: Tuesday, November 24, 2015
2015 Best Of The Best Winners
The latest wine and dine news.
The Valley's people, wine & food.
Find your way around the Valley.
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2015 Union-Bulletin, 112 S. First Ave., Walla Walla, WA 99362/509-525-3300. All rights reserved.