Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Kopel's Wall Street Journal column on Plaxico Burress

  1. #1
    Regular Member USMC91E6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Dinwiddie, VA USA/Jacksonville, NC, USA
    Posts
    65

    Post imported post

    Kopel argues that NY's law might be unconstitutional. Here's a link:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122835270947177981.html


    For the those who don't read the Wall Street Journal regularly, you might be surprised to learn that it's opposed to mindless gun control.


    I got this from www.firingline.com

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,544

    Post imported post

    pretty good article, overall. Maybe we'll see NY's laws rewritten in our favor...maybe....

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Yes, a good article by one who may be an economist.

    Unfortunately he makes two normative statements which value may not be as he expects. Alcohol is forbidden and a holster required for a gun carrier only by commonsensical neighbor-tyrants that would debate 'responsibility.'

    Which part of 'shall not be infringed' is not understood? The collective's conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common sense.

  4. #4
    Regular Member sccrref's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Virginia Beach, VA, , USA
    Posts
    741

    Post imported post

    I only take exception to it being referred to as an accidental discharge. If he had used common sense when securing his gun upon his person, it most likely would not have fallen out of his sweat pants. If he had let it fall and then the Glock discharged, that could have been considered an AD as Glocks are not supposed to do that. I believe that this discharge was due to negligence. I do strongly agree that NY gun laws are draconian.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Virginia USA, ,
    Posts
    1,688

    Post imported post

    USMC91E6 wrote:
    Kopel argues that NY's law might be unconstitutional. Here's a link:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122835270947177981.html


    For the those who don't read the Wall Street Journal regularly, you might be surprised to learn that it's opposed to mindless gun control.


    I got this from http://www.firingline.com
    Well, if anyone, Plaxico has the bank roll to run this up to the SCOTUS.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    sccrref wrote:
    I only take exception to it being referred to as an accidental discharge. If he had used common sense when securing his gun upon his person, it most likely would not have fallen out of his sweat pants. If he had let it fall and then the Glock discharged, that could have been considered an AD as Glocks are not supposed to do that. I believe that this discharge was due to negligence. I do strongly agree that NY gun laws are draconian.
    Did he shoot himself on purpose? No?

    Accident.

    Accident caused by negligence, but accident nonetheless. Let's not rewrite English.

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    sccrref wrote:
    I only take exception to it being referred to as an accidental discharge. If he had used common sense when securing his gun upon his person, it most likely would not have fallen out of his sweat pants. If he had let it fall and then the Glock discharged, that could have been considered an AD as Glocks are not supposed to do that. I believe that this discharge was due to negligence. I do strongly agree that NY gun laws are draconian.
    The source's understanding of the terminology, and the understandingof the audiencecomes into play.

    In the gun world, we distinguish between the two terms in order to promote safety, factoring in the personal responsibility angle as part of it.

    Non-gun people would not necessarily understand what a negligent discharge is, nor that it is distinguished from an accidental discharge. For years, accidental discharge was all there was under the heading unintentional.


    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  8. #8
    Regular Member sccrref's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Virginia Beach, VA, , USA
    Posts
    741

    Post imported post

    Tomahawk wrote:
    sccrref wrote:
    I only take exception to it being referred to as an accidental discharge. If he had used common sense when securing his gun upon his person, it most likely would not have fallen out of his sweat pants. If he had let it fall and then the Glock discharged, that could have been considered an AD as Glocks are not supposed to do that. I believe that this discharge was due to negligence. I do strongly agree that NY gun laws are draconian.
    Did he shoot himself on purpose? No?

    Accident.

    Accident caused by negligence, but accident nonetheless. Let's not rewrite English.
    I believe that it was an accident that he shot himself and that the accident was due to a negligent discharge. I agree to disagree and do believe that I am rewriting English.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •