Fixing the Wrong in Cartoons: Texas Shootings edition.

Because reality matters. The real reality, not the one you live in after a few extra shots of Nyquil.

I found this over at Legal Insurrection
Gotta-loveTexas-600-LI

It is totally wrong. The 2nd amendment exists to preserve life. Your God-Given right to self preservation is meaningless if you do not have the credible means to accomplish it. The defense of your right to free speech and to blaspheme against Mohammed is NOT something that God gave you. It is something that the Constitution gave you. This, the constitution and the total sum weight of the laws and protections in it, defend the freedom of speech. The courts defend the freedom of speech. Your legislature defends freedom of speech. Your right to own and bear arms does not.

Then, I found this little gem over at The Mellow Jihadi:
theo3
The cartoon is obviously wrong in critical elements. It features a kitted up “operator” in full battle rattle complete with an assault rifle. This picture is the epitome of the over-militarized police. The reality is, the hero of the day was an off-duty traffic cop, carrying only his pistol, and hired as extra security. So, it wasn’t the “police” who saved the day. Nor was it guys dressed in their shar of federal anti-terrorism funds.

This one runs a common theme.

texas
Again. It is very wrong. There is nothing special about Texas and it’s ability to counter terrorism or defend themselves. You may recall, the Fort hood shooting? That was in Texas. The Lubbies massacre? Killeen, Texas (right outside Ft Hood). Even the grand daddy of such things, the University of Texas clock tower shooting? TEXAS. Texas is a part of the civilised USA. They have laws and courts and police. They even paint yellow lines down the middle of their roads to divide traffic. Most of the people in Texas do not carry guns and are totally unprepared to shoot back ALL THE TIME… Just like every other state. Again, the hero in this case was not a typical Texan just going to the free speech show. He was an armed security guard, off duty police, who was there with his gun because he was paid to be… JUST LIKE ALL THE OTHER STATES.

And finally this one from Blues Blog:
oh shit
Totally wrong on every level. The bad guys couldn’t care less about either defending or attacking the 1st amendment. Nor was the 1st amendment binding on them in any way. The 1st amendment is binding on the acts of the federal government, not private individuals. Nor is the use of badged, uniformed police to provide security at a private event in any way related to the 2nd amendment. The Second amendment protects the right of individuals to protect themselves, NOT the right of the government to establish and employ security guards.

Advertisements

About No One

I am totally non-threatening
This entry was posted in Defense, Government, Guns, Islam, Religion, Self Defense, Stupid, Terrorists, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Fixing the Wrong in Cartoons: Texas Shootings edition.

  1. 3boxesofbs says:

    [Bob, Thanks for writting]
    The defense of your right to free speech and to blaspheme against Mohammed is NOT something that God gave you.

    So if I say something that offends someone and they threaten my life; I should do what? [this is already clearly establish legally in your jusrisdiction and it has NOTHING at all to do with what you say and everything to do with the threat being offered. The one does not depend on the other. The second is in no way justified or mitigated by the first. They are independent.]The attackers in Garland Texas (not far from my home city) clearly show that yes, the 2nd is there to protect the 1st. It isn’t the ONLY reason but that is a part of it.
    [no. The attacks in Garland TX clearly showed nothing about the second or the first amendment. As a police officer, using a police issued weapon, the police man is exempt from all of the state laws restricting firearms to average Joe Citizen. He represents the state, not the citizen as a model of exercising armed force in self defense.]

    It is something that the Constitution gave you

    Sorry but no. The Constitution didn’t give me the Right to Free Speech. Like the 2nd Amendment, the 1st protects an already established or existing right. I would have the right to freely say, even offensive or blasphemous things even if the Constitution never existed. My life should not be forfeit just because someone doesn’t like what I have to say.
    [ The 1st amendment is a unique situation in world history. It does not exist in most of the world nor in most of human history. It exists in the USA because it is a CONSTITUTIONAL right, not a pre-existing moral right. You are correct in claiming that you have a pre-existent right to life no matter what you say. That is because you have a right to LIFE. Not because you have a right to speak. Your “right to speak” is very restricted by the laws, even going back to common law. Even the ancients recognized the harm the tongue could do and proposed restrictions on it’s use and penalties for misuse. Speaking is not a God-Given right. It is given in the Constitution. Without the Constitution, you don’t have it. This should be obvious.]
    There is nothing special about Texas and it’s ability to counter terrorism or defend themselves. You may recall, the Fort hood shooting? That was in Texas. The Lubbies massacre? Killeen, Texas (right outside Ft Hood). Even the grand daddy of such things, the University of Texas clock tower shooting? TEXAS.

    Compared to some states, no there is nothing special about Texas. Compared to some other states and their laws and attitudes, yes. We have a streak of the frontier spirit still running through the state. Our laws — especially 2nd Amendment related, still reflect some of this. [Texas is better than some and not as good as others. But Texas is riding the trend, not leading it. For all the people who claim their frontier spirit in Texas, you have an equal number of urbanites in your cities and suburbanites in your suburbs. The mentality and bahaviors of those people are no different than similar people in other states.]
    The Fort Hood Shooting — FEDERAL restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms applied, not state laws. The Luby’s Massacre — it was one of the events that lead to the passage of Concealed Carry in the State. The University of Texas clock tower shooting? Austin police borrowed firearms from the citizens in order to keep the murderer pinned down. [Just three examples that demonstrate Texas is NOT unique. In each of those cases, there were Texas citizens, unarmed and helpless, and not fighting back. Just like would have been the case if those events had happened at Fort Knox, Radcliff KY, or Columbine]

    Contrast that with some states (Illinois, Maryland,etc) where you need state approval to even own a firearm. Yeah, there is something different about Texas – we do take our rights seriously and don’t want to kowtow to any religious extremists. [ You don’t even know what rights are, how can you take them seriously? Nor can you claim to speak for all Texans. As a group, Texans are every bit as ignorant, slavish, bootlicking, and government teat-suckling as the citizens of the other states. Just look at your voting rolls. Look at the demographic shift thanks to immigration and people fleeing from economic catastrophe in the Blue states. You think your Red status is assured forever? I live in Virginia and I can tell you it is not. All of us independent minded people here became a permanent minority in our own state in only ten years. The same thing can happen to you.]

    And don’t forget the cop who was working was a Texas citizen- unlike the cops in France — he believed in the right to be armed. He exercised that right and the skills associated with it. So the last meme is just trying to point out that [It is easy for police to exercise the “right” to bear arms. The law supports their doing so even in places like DC, Chicago and NYC. Cops are not exercising the right of free citizens to bear arms. They are exercising a granted priveledge that is superior to the right of citizens. You can’t compare the two. The cop was not there on his own time. He was hired to be there, with his gun, to act as security. That is fundimentally the exact opposit of free men, bearing arms and acting in self defense.]

    You seem very offended by the fact that people are pointing out that we are not going to be cowed by someone’s demand we bend to their beliefs. Is it just the bad analogy or do you not like the Right to Keep and Bear Arms?
    [Not at all. I am offended by shallow reporting. I am offended by people making unsupported claims and claims that are directly contradicted by the facts. I am offended by false bravado. The facts are very evident. Most of these types of attacks are successful because most of the targets are indeed undefended and totally unpreparred, even in Texas. Even police are often completely unpreparred for this type of situation. In this one situation, we got LUCKY. The cop with a gun was in the right place to see what was happening and not looking the other way or at the bathroom. He was close enough to have effective vectors of return fire. The first shots by the bad guys were shooting at someone else. The cop had trained effectively on how to use his gun. Any one of these things could have resulted in a totally different outcome. But everything happened just right, just this one time. Not because “TEXAS”, or “We shoot back”, or “GUNS”. But because we got lucky.]

    Bob S.

    [I hope the longer explanation helps]

    Like

  2. 3boxesofbs says:

    Wow. I don’t get the idea of editing my comments to reflect your response. It makes it difficult to respond to and unnecessarily clutters my reply.

    But let’s take apart your beliefs — and since you cite no evidence — that is all your words are.

    this is already clearly establish legally in your jusrisdiction and it has NOTHING at all to do with what you say and everything to do with the threat being offered.

    So help me understand this — what is being said is irrelevant but the people making the threat are only doing so because OF what is being said –but you say it has nothing to do with that I say?

    That doesn’t make a lick of sense.

    As a police officer, using a police issued weapon, the police man is exempt from all of the state laws restricting firearms to average Joe Citizen. He represents the state, not the citizen as a model of exercising armed force in self defense.

    Sorry but not true. The officer enjoys considerable immunity from prosecution if properly executing his lawful duty but he is not exempt from all the laws restricting firearms. For example, he may carry select fire weapons on duty but that does not mean he is free to negligently discharge that weapon.

    Just three examples that demonstrate Texas is NOT unique. In each of those cases, there were Texas citizens, unarmed and helpless, and not fighting back. Just like would have been the case if those events had happened at Fort Knox, Radcliff KY, or Columbine]

    Just three example where the response was different from other states — look at California for example. Their response to mass shootings was to enact even more restrictive laws; in Texas the response was to increase liberty. In many other places, say New Jersey, California, etc the average citizen wouldn’t have firearms in their cars like they did at the Clock Tower shooting. Your examples are bad illustrations, the very thing you rail against in this post !!

    It does not exist in most of the world nor in most of human history. It exists in the USA because it is a CONSTITUTIONAL right, not a pre-existing moral right.

    Well, I would agree with you but then we would be both wrong. Sorry bub the courts have clearly stated — I’ll use the Heller decision for the connection — as an example that the 1st Amendment is in fact a pre-existing right.
    .
    c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment . We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment , like the First and Fourth Amendment s, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876) , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed … .”16

    So perhaps before you start lecturing others on what they know or don’t know — you remove the plank from your own eye, eh?

    You can’t compare the two. The cop was not there on his own time. He was hired to be there, with his gun, to act as security. That is fundimentally the exact opposit of free men, bearing arms and acting in self defense.

    This is a case where I may not have been very clear. Obviously he was there acting in an official capacity. But so were the cops at Charlie Hebdo, so were many other cops in anti-gun environments like New York City — you remember the case where two cops shot at one person and wounded 9 innocent bystanders?
    It isn’t about the rights it is about the attitude. The Cop started shooting at 20 yards — dropping one bad guy. That is good shooting and you don’t get that way just going to the range for yearly/semi-annual qualification. That is the difference in states; that is the difference in attitude many cops are really poor shots. The Garland officer wasn’t. How did he get good?

    I’ll bet he practiced on his own time with his own money with his own firearms. And that is a person exercising their 2nd Amendment Rights.

    But because we got lucky.]

    No amount of luck will overcome orders not to fire. No amount of luck will overcome a culture where jeopardizing the life of criminals is discouraged. Those cultures exist around the world. That is displayed in places like the U.K. and in France — the officer didn’t just get lucky. The officer had a skill set supported by the free exercise of the right to keep and bear arms, supported by a department that didn’t impose restrictive rules of engagement. That is what separates Texas from other areas. No, we aren’t unique in that — but it is worth noting and showing the results of that.

    Bob S.

    Like

    • No One says:

      When you make multiple points in a single comment, like you did, I found the interspered comment eeasier to track. That’s OK. I can adapt so as not to confuse you unnecessarily. This is a complex topic that requires careful attention.

      1. Beliefs? OK. Whatever. Do I really need to enumerate that in the entirety of human existence, everywhere and at every time, there has NEVER been a total right to freedom of speach? EVER? It is a crime in this country for example to give too much money to a political cause. It is a crime for a church (if it takes tax deductable contributions) to make an political endorcement. It is a civil tort to say or print libelous or slanderous remarks that cause another person harm. Throughout most of the history of Christianity, blasphemy was a punishable criminal offense. And in the entire Islamic world, it is illegal to blaspheme their religion. I can absolutely lose my job today if I happen to say something politically incorrect. You can absolutely get a larger penalty if you kill someone and call him a Nigger while he is dying than if you just kill him. Zero of the ten commandments in Bible say, “Say whatever thou wilt”. I will accept your very narrow idea that if 5 out of 9 Justices on the Supreme court agree on something it must be true because I understand how common that idea is. But I look at this empiracally and can find no evidence for a right to freedom of speech anywhere in history apart from the Constitution. Saying it is so, doesn’t make it so.

      2. So help me understand this — what is being said is irrelevant but the people making the threat are only doing so because OF what is being said –but you say it has nothing to do with that I say?

      That doesn’t make a lick of sense
      Sure it does. Remember, “sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me?” In US law, there are no fighting words that justify or mitigate you beating a man to death. He has a right to life no matter what he says. The laws on this are quite clear and well tested. The only time his words matter is if he is using his words to offer the threat of violence against you. If you believe them, you can use that as mitigation at your trial. He does not have an absolute right to threaten violence. It is illegal and punishable by law in every state, despite the 1st amendment.

      3. Planks don’t seem to be relevant to the discussion. You are clinging to a modern legal opinion to pin your hopes that your right to speech predates the Constitution. I am looking at before the constitution and not finding any evidence of it. A universal right applies to everyone. This one quite clearly does not.

      4. I will agree with you that the cop in Texas had commendable attitude and preparation. AND LUCK. Not all Texas cops are this skilled or preparred. There is nothing in the Texan’s Code that makes them special in thier attitude. i meet guys and gals like this every day in Virginia and on the Internet. This was one guy, being exceptional, and getting lucky. Something as simple as if he had been looking the other way when the attack happened, he would have been the second victim instead of the hero.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s