Recent Entries

Entry tags:

Chilling effects, prior restraint, and the RKBA

Chilling effects and prior restraint are most often associated with free speech issues, but (inspired by an IRC discussion of the recent CT bill mandating weapon registration), I've been wondering whether they had been applied to weapon registration requirements as well, or could reasonably be. (Note to maintainer: can you add tags for topic: us: 1st amendment and theme: chilling efects ?)

Current Mood: cheerful

Well that was fast

According to an article in today's Buffalo News, the lawsuit I talked about in my post below has been withdrawn "after careful consideration" by the widow.

I wonder what made her change her mind, but I'm happy for the homeowner.

Current Mood: annoyed
Current Location: Kenmore, NY

Follow-up on earlier posts

Last year I wrote two posts about a local homeowner who shot and killed an intruder in his house. I'll briefly recap:

A man and his wife were sleeping in their bed. A stranger (who later was eventually discovered to be a very drunk elementary school teacher from Albany attending a party at a neighbor's house) entered their house via a door that the homeowner's thought was locked. The man called 911 and while waiting for the police to arrive, warned the intruder repeatedly that he was armed and to not move, but the intruder continued to move about the house and approached the staircase. At this point the homeowner fired his weapon and killed the intruder.
After a review of the details a grand jury decided not to file charges against the homeowner. Not many details of the incident are available - it is known that the intruder had a BAC of 0.18. Why the intruder entered the home is unknown or not released to the public.

Today there was an article in the Buffalo News about this case. The wife of the intruder has filed a wrongful death suit against the homeowner. The lawsuit accuses the homeowner of "willful, intentional, malicious" slaying of Park, and acting "without just cause [or] provocation." It was unclear how much in damages she is seeking. The lawsuit also claims that the death resulted from negligence on the part of the homeowner, "without any negligence on the part of Park contributing thereto".

I have some serious issues with this. The lawsuit is claiming that the intruder bears absolutely no responsibility for his death. Apparently, the fact that he was drunk enough to enter a strange house and ignore cautions to stop or be shot are entirely the homeowner's fault. I'm interested to see how this turned out. The entire situation is tragic, but that doesn't mean it anyone's fault.

Any thoughts?

Entry tags:

(no subject)

I have a couple ideas for entries I hope to post eventually. Meanwhile, have some Kipling.

Capital Punishment

Things are slow around here, and I enjoy the conversations we have.

I am against the death penalty. Not because I think there are moral failings with the idea that someone should die for certain heinous crimes. The fact is we get it wrong way too often, and unless and until we can get it together we shouldn't be condemning innocent people.

But my opposition actually comes from a more utilitarian point. If a person has done something truly worthy of death, it makes sense to me that they should be kept alive and suffering for the remainder of their natural years, and then die. Death is too easy a way out. It's also much more easily reversed in the event of a mistake.

I also don't care for the policy of some countries where the death sentence date is not told to the condemned until the time of execution. This inspires a soldieresque mentality, those who are ready to die without notice, and live their lives accordingly.

I'm open to discussing any of these points, and hopefully some that you come up with as well.

Current Mood: pleased

Entry tags:

McDonald vs Chicago

The United States Supreme Court decided today, in a 5-4 decision (who's surprised it was 5-4? not me), that the Second Amendment is incorporated to the states, under the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

( debates on the 14th Amendment referred to the right to keep and bear arms; also the 2nd Amendment should not be singled out, among other constitutional rights, for especially unfavorable treatment. )

Entry tags:

2 dimensions or 3? (elaborating on a comment I wrote elsewhere)

I've always reacted poorly to people who base their worldviews and their perception of politics (and their judgment of others' political stances) on a single axis (usually conservative-to-liberal, for whichever exact definitions of those they consider relevant). I tend to view those along two dimensions instead: specifically, government involvement/intervention in economic issues and government involvement/intervention in social or personal issues. However, I never gave much thought to other dimensions or how they might combine with the two I've been considering.

This was brought home by a comment elsewhere that mentioned the fiscal axis as another dimension to look at political systems along. I never gave much thought to that axis or how positions along it might combine with positions along the two I mentioned above (or along others I haven't considered either), mostly, I suspect, because I only considered fiscal aspects as a means toward the "how to get enough money to implement our goals wrt govt. involvement in the social and economic areas" end, not an end in itself, or even a way to implement social leveling, without having a specific need or use for the money thus moved to government pockets. Anyone has thoughts (or links) on that topic?

Current Mood: contemplative
Current Location: Kenmore NY

Update on an earlier post

I had posted an article previously to this community about a shooting by a homeowner that lead to the death of a teacher from the Albany area.

More details have emerged from the incident, including the fact that the intruder was drunk (0.18 BAC).

According to this article in the Buffalo News the homeowner has been cleared by a grand jury and will face no charges.

Arizona's Immigration Mess

...is a mess we all share. I'm pretty sure everyone on both sides of the aisle agree on this. And... that the government at all levels is getting it ass-backwards.

It's quite simple to say that if we were able to effectively control immigration and eliminate the illegal parts we'd restore jobs to people legally here. But that's not so. The jobs that illegals are filling are ones that lawful residents would never take, as a rule. When was the last time you heard of an illegal immigrant getting a white-collar job? I haven't.

This is a trap for illegals that is not only a severe breach of human rights, but bad for our economy as a whole. What happens when someone is brought into the country illegally is that all other laws suddenly no longer apply. Taxes aren't paid, working conditions are terrible, and if anyone ever gets the idea to rat ICE would be at their door, putting them in a prison system more cruel than the criminal one we have now (and giving Guantanamo Bay a run for its money), and ignominiously deporting them.

The root of the problem is the employers who do this to make a profit. They are skipping out on taxes and creating blights on our communities and give nothing in return for this - not even the benefits of a functional economy. Yes, what would happen if we eliminated illegal immigration would be the jobs would set up elsewhere. But these jobs are doing our economy no good, and if they were set up as imports we would be able to levy them appropriately, and not have the ill effects that come from having illegals in our country. These people result in burdens on our communal resources (use of roads and utilities, public health measures, etc.) without making any contribution, as well as not being able to more effectively contribute because they do not have access to things like education. They're trapped.

I believe that long prison sentences are in order for the people who intentionally harbor illegal immigrants for the purpose of cheap, inhumane labor. We also have to make a choice, and I'm neutral on this one because there's good arguments on both sides - we need to open our borders and allow people to come in legally, or we need to find a way to lock down. I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Current Mood: contemplative
Current Location: work

Castle Doctrine

Right now, one of the big news stories in my hometown (Buffalo, NY) is the fact that there was a fatal shooting on Saturday night. There has been little confirmed facts being published and there are tons of rumors/theories flying around. I can't permalink to any articles (they make them unavailable after a few weeks) but you can go to The Buffalo News for details. I'll summarize what has been revealed in the media so far.

On Saturday evening, there was a fatal shooting in a home in Amherst, NY. The victim was a school teacher from Albany, NY. The shooter was the homeowner. The victim was attending a "diaper party" in the area (I think it's supposed to be the male party that happens at the same time as a baby shower). He went outside of the house where the party was sometime in the evening. Around 1am the shooter heard the sounds of someone entering his home. Per the shooter (and his attorney, who specializes in these sorts of cases) he told his wife to call 911, grabbed his shotgun, told the person entering the house that he was armed and to stop. The person didn't stop, so he shot him.

According the shooter's attorney, in NYS a person has the right to shoot if they feel their house is being burglarized.

What no one is clear on is exactly what happened. Why was the victim trying to enter the house? Was he sleepwalking, drunk, did he just go in the wrong house? Was the house he entered locked or unlocked? None of these details have been released (and we may never know the answers to some)and it is causing rampant speculation.

More importantly it has sparked much debate about the homeowner. Did he have the right to shoot someone entering his home? Was the shooting justified? Will he/should he be charged? It is also sparking a discussion of castle doctrine as a whole.

I'm going to be very clear in my opinion. If he did warn the victim that he was armed and told him to stop, and the victim continued to enter the home I do feel the shooting was justified and that the homeowner should not face any charges. I'm a firm believer in the idea that if you have a legal gun in your house, you have the right to shoot someone posting a potential danger to your family or property. And I think a stranger entering your home at 1am is assumed to be a threat.

I'm posting this from work, so I can't go into a deeper discussion now, but I wanted to know what others thought.

Entry tags:

Mandatory health insurance?

so it looks (from what I saw) that the final (signed into law) health bill makes health insurance mandatory. I'm curious: setting aside the "why would anyone in their right mind *not* want health insurance" justification or justification attempt, what are the reasons invoked to make it mandatory? If someone wanted to opt out for some reason (if only because it's mandatory, benefits notwithstanding), what would be their options, and would you consider that wish reasonable?

ETA: should probably get "health insurance" and or "it's for your own good" topic tags, but I can't create new tags.

Entry tags:

Gun Control? Why yes, I have excellent gun control.

Guns. I'd like to talk about guns. It's part of the namesake of this community, isn't it?

I'm pretty decently to the left on a lot of things, but private ownership of firearms is one where I take a fairly conservative stance.

So, who among you thinks the legally insane should have guns? What about violent felons? Maybe some of the more hardcore libertarians, but I'm not among them. When some batshit psychopath blows someone's head off with a sawed-off 12 ga. people get this stupid idea that it's deer hunters in upstate NY who do this, and it's not. There are people that rightfully shouldn't have guns - kids too young to safely operate them, people fresh out of the loony bin, violent felons, idiots who have previously demonstrated wanton and careless disrespect with guns (someone actually using their shotgun at a wedding), and people who have no issue with beating their wives, children, animals, etc. None of these people would ever form a well-regulated militia.

( Cut to spare your reading list. But I hope well worth your time. )
Edit: To be more rules compliant, I have cleaned up my language a bit.

Entry tags:

Direct Democracy

Daniel Hannan is one of the bright young things of the Conservative Party here in the UK. He is also something of a radical (yes, it is possible to be both conservative and radical) and is well known as a lively and outspoken proponent of more direct democracy.

His latest blog post on localism may be of interest to members. It raises some interesting points about what limits can and should be put on localism - and what should not.

The example he discusses is an intriguing one - of giving local people the ability to deny developments that are locally unwelcome but nationally necessary, such as power stations or waste disposal facilities, but at the same time bribing them by letting them share in the profits.

This has been tried on a small scale in this country with some wind generators. Wind generators are a hugely contentious topic since they are considered an eyesore, need to be sighted in open and hence valuably attractive areas, and are of doubtful value in generating electricity. Yet the Labour government has altered the planning laws to make them very hard to block because it is desperate for their contribution, however small, to reducing our carbon footprint. However there have been one or two cases where local people are entitled to a share of the profits from the turbines, and are far more accommodating as a result.

Hannan mentions A similar system works successfully in a number of US states. Does anyone have any thoughts or direct experience of this?

I would also be interested to hear what people thought of Hannan's use of the word 'localism' to describe his beliefs. A quick glance at the Wikipedia article shows that the word is more generally used by the left wing and green movements as part of their opposition to capitalism.

N.B. When he refers to a 'Sir Humphrey' he means a senior civil servant who is resistant to any erosion of his own powers.

ETA the tags don't seem to display for some reason. They should be:

country: britain
topic: *:direct democracy
topic: *:power generation

Entry tags:

McDonald vs Chicago (2nd Amendment)

The transcript of the oral arguments from the first submission of McDonald vs Chicago before the Supreme Court is available:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-1521.pdf

I read through this last night and have some thoughts on the process. First up, to summarize, the issue at hand seems to be whether or not the Second Amendment should be incorporated, which is the process whereby one of the amendments can get applied to State governments. (The Bill of Rights is only applicable to the Federal Government, it seems, to apply it at lower levels of government you need to incorporate it.)

The oral arguments say a lot about what's going on. Some things that stuck out to me...

This was the first time I've ever read a transcript of Supreme Court proceedings. It seems either very hostile or very no-nonsense -- and I'm surprised at how often the justices interrupted and stomped over the counsel. This could be really entertaining to listen to live!

Maybe it's bias, but it feels like Mr. Gura (pro-incorporation) has a stronger case, although I'm worried about the "privileges or immunities" approach he seems to be taking. That part of the 14th has been basically ignored for 100+ years, and to open it up and give it some force seems dangerously unpredictable (a Pandora's box type thing).

Does anybody know or understand why he approached it that way? The justices (Scalia in particular) seemed quite surprised and against it, and tried to get him to drop it later and approach the issue from a position of substantive due process. Which, if I understand it correctly, would be a saner approach for things in the long-term. (Of course, I admit that this isn't an area I'm particularly strong with, and would appreciate any clarifications or corrections.)

The response by Mr. Feldman didn't strike me as anything particularly noteworthy. "The laws as they exist are good enough. Really, nobody is going to ban all guns, you have nothing to worry about." That particular argument "nobody is ever going to go too far" just seems laughable as the basis of a position to begin with, but it's also not true -- I think Chicago has gone too far. (But how far is 'too far' is something that will be very individual...)

Anyway. Anybody been following this issue? I'm curious what your thoughts are on the issue, whether it be on the particular case here, or the greater issue of the 2nd Amendment. (And if you come across any really interesting articles, or write anything, feel free to post it top level to the community. Would love to get more discussion going.)

Personally, I would be for incorporation of the 2nd with the interpretation of it as an individual right to bear arms. I think that it is a right of citizens in this country (and I'd argue that it is one of those rights that's inherent to being human, not just American) to defend themselves from aggression in ways they see fit. If they wish to own and carry a firearm, go for it.

I haven't yet delved into issues of gun registration, excessive force laws, requirements for gun safes, open carry, concealed carry, etc etc... I want to see how this plays out, first.

(And I'm playing with tags. I've tagged this post with a location/relevancy tag so you can find things relevant to your country, a topic tag, and a city tag. Note that the topic and non-country location tags include the country [domain code] in them so that it's easy to disambiguate. Thoughts?)

Entry tags:

readme

Welcome!

Welcome to

the_2nd. This is a community I've been wanting to create for discussion of political issues. In particular, though, I want a community where those of us with conservative leanings (or people interested in conservative ideals) can get together and discuss things. Given that much of the Internet (especially on Dreamwidth and similar sites) seems to consist of endless liberal discuss, it seems like a good idea to have a place for conservatives to get together and discuss things.

There are some rules up in the bio of the community. Please read them. I will not be happy if people come in here and try to cause trouble. I believe that Dreamwidth is the kind of place where people can get together and discuss things in a way that is constructive, informative, and interesting. Even for those of us who don't necessarily follow the majority opinion.

Thanks for reading. I'll post some actual content here in a bit, I already know what I want to talk about first, but it might take me a little while to find the right article and put together my thoughts on the matter.