Bitter clinger shoots TV after Bristol Palin performance

posted at 2:36 pm on November 17, 2010 by Cubachi

According to Wisconsin authorities, Steven Cowan, a 67-year-old man originally from Vermont, shot his television set after watching Bristol Palin perform on “Dancing with the Stars.” The police were contacted and it led to a 15-hour standoff until Cowan finally was convinced to come out of the house.

Is this what it comes down to? BDS (Bristol Derangement Syndrome)?

I never seen such a level of attack on this young woman for appearing on a dancing show. This certainly dispels the notion that conservatives are “bitter clingers to their guns.”

Cowan was charged second-degree reckless endangerment and could be sentenced to up to 10 years in prison if convicted. Authorities say he has bipolar disorder.

He may have a mental illness, but the man was drunk according to his wife. Though she doesn’t attribute it to this outburst. So is this a case of an angry liberal?

According to the Smoking Gun the complaint reads:

Cowan “jumped up and swore, saying something to the effect of “the  —-ing politics.”The complaint added,  “Steven was upset that a political figure’s daughter was dancing on this particular show when Steven did not think she was a good dancer.”

Cross-posted at www.cubachi.com


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Promise me that you will continue to comment here in mid November of 2012.

Proud Rino on November 17, 2010 at 3:10 PM

Woops, wrong quote. Meant to quote this:

Hmmmm, am I the only one disturbed by the fact that despite all of our “common sense” gun laws, a Bi-Polar man was able to purchase a handgun?

crr6 on November 17, 2010 at 3:24 PM

Inevitable:

The Taiwanese animators will take on the issue

and

Someone will make a newly-subtitled “Hitler Upset that Palin Advances” video

wildweasel on November 17, 2010 at 3:25 PM

This is getting to the point where I have to shake my head and wonder what is the water of so many Lefties.

If Bristol wins, the streets will run red and grey from the cranial explosions of bitter clingers. If her mom ever becomes POTUS, expect the grape flavored cyanide sales to go through the roof in the collective villages of San Francisco, Los Angeles, Georgetown, some parts of Chicago, some portions of Tulsa, and much of Austin. :P

I don’t follow the show, but I know of many who do, and they tell me that Bristol’s continuing improving performances are worth the watch.

itzWicks on November 17, 2010 at 2:59 PM

Yup, this is how they’ll envision it too.

mizflame98 on November 17, 2010 at 3:25 PM

Yeah. From Heller:

crr6 on November 17, 2010 at 3:22 PM

Little problem with that. The notion of mental illness excluding one from firearms ownership was introduced well before two out of three people were diagnosed with some sort of mental issue. The sheer number of people diagnosed with some form of depression would make the second amendment a right of the minority.

MadisonConservative on November 17, 2010 at 3:26 PM

Hmmmm, am I the only one disturbed by the fact that despite all of our “common sense” gun laws, a Bi-Polar man was able to purchase a handgun?

crr6 on November 17, 2010 at 3:24 PM

the day that a medical diagnosis is all that is required to restrict handgun purchases (presuming that this lib purchased it legally) will be the same day that many of us are diagnosed as being crazy.

ted c on November 17, 2010 at 3:26 PM

Good Lord, Wisconsin. You produce some real winners…

*cough*

Bee on November 17, 2010 at 3:27 PM

If it was good enough for ELVIS it is good enough for Steven Cowan,TV the curse of Sarnoff and Marcoini with pictures no less.

Col.John Wm. Reed on November 17, 2010 at 3:28 PM

Todd Palin on Survivor?

Hmmm I forgot. Mark Burnett should have his eyes on him already. Did you see how fast he climbed that mountain? (Granted, he saw the right path to go up with plenty of time ;D)

“Hold on tight, spider monkey!” (quote from Edward Cullen, Twilight)

ProudPalinFan on November 17, 2010 at 3:28 PM

Todd Palin as the new host of Man VS Wild.

mizflame98 on November 17, 2010 at 3:28 PM

So not-uncommon psychological problems nullify civil rights? The hell?

MadisonConservative on November 17, 2010 at 3:18 PM

Maybe not minor ones, but if it’s as severe as this man’s, maybe it should.

Esthier on November 17, 2010 at 3:28 PM

Authorities say he has bipolar disorder.

I’ve met people who say they have that.

As near as I can tell, it’s just a synonym for the word “liberal.”

logis on November 17, 2010 at 3:29 PM

Little problem with that. The notion of mental illness excluding one from firearms ownership was introduced well before two out of three people were diagnosed with some sort of mental issue. The sheer number of people diagnosed with some form of depression would make the second amendment a right of the minority.

MadisonConservative on November 17, 2010 at 3:26 PM

Yeah because Heller’s like 2 years old I doubt there’s any case law on that. I’d imagine one could make a workable test where dangerous disorders can disqualify you, but more innocuous ones (like say, ADD) can’t.

crr6 on November 17, 2010 at 3:30 PM

I have an acquaintance on Facebook who is a friend from long ago (and long out of touch with her). She apparently hates Sarah Palin so much that she felt compelled to post a comment on her Facebook page ripping up Bristol Palin for some perceived offense committed by going on this stupid show.

Her position was that much better performers were getting worse scores than Bristol, or something.

What a fu*king idiot. Get a life.

Jaibones on November 17, 2010 at 3:32 PM

“Authorities say he has bipolar disorder.”
This happens when you live to close to the North Pole?
Next thing the “scientific community”will blame this on Sarah along with every other thing that crosses their twisted minds.Don’t give em ideas.

Col.John Wm. Reed on November 17, 2010 at 3:34 PM

If Bristol The Cleveland Browns win the Super Bowl, the streets will run black and gold red and grey from the cranial explosions of bitter clingers.Ed and myself.

FIFF (fixed it for fun)

ProudPalinFan on November 17, 2010 at 3:34 PM

Go here and see the comments people are making. You have to click “Dancing with The Stars + Others”

“Like” the Pages and have fun. It’s been a blast.

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/dancingwiththestars

GoodBoy on November 17, 2010 at 3:36 PM

Vermont? Explains it all.

This is why liberals are so crazy about gun control. They assume that everyone will lose it and begin shooting.

disa on November 17, 2010 at 3:36 PM

A half hour into his 15 minutes of fame.

TimBuk3 on November 17, 2010 at 3:37 PM

Her position was that much better performers were getting worse scores than Bristol, or something.

What a fu*king idiot. Get a life.

Jaibones on November 17, 2010 at 3:32 PM

Did you call her out on her idiocy on FaceBook?

portlandon on November 17, 2010 at 3:37 PM

Oops Try this instead to see the Facebook page.

GoodBoy on November 17, 2010 at 3:38 PM

Jaibones on November 17, 2010 at 3:32 PM

That’s actually not true. The judges have always given her terrible scores, and even when she does well they consciously give everybody else a point or two bump. She has always been at the bottom of the scoreboard. She’s there purely because the voting audience likes her.

alwaysfiredup on November 17, 2010 at 3:39 PM

Hmmmm, am I the only one disturbed by the fact that despite all of our “common sense” gun laws, a Bi-Polar man was able to purchase a handgun?

crr6 on November 17, 2010 at 3:24 PM

Decades ago the wish to leave the Soviet Union was “proof” that an individual was insane, therefore giving the authorities the right to lock them in an institution. I don’t object with keeping weapons out of the hands of the those with extreme mental disorders. However I have no doubt that some psychiatrist will come up with the notion that wanting to purchase a gun is the sign of a mental disorder and thereby ruling the ownership of a gun as a sign of mental illness.

itsspideyman on November 17, 2010 at 3:39 PM

LOL

Instead of Alice’s Restaurant we’ll be listening to the ballad of Steven’s Television.

So what were you arrested for kid?

“Littering”. And they all moved away from me on the bench there until I said, “Littering bullets at my TV to shoot Bristol Palin”. And then they all came back, shook my hand and we had a great time on the bench talking about crime, Obamacare mandating, Palin hating and all kinds of groovy things we was talking about on the bench.

ButterflyDragon on November 17, 2010 at 3:40 PM

crr6 on November 17, 2010 at 3:30 PM

So what other basic human rights should one be deprived of due to mental illness?

And how do you avoid the invertible slippery slope when doing so?

Chip on November 17, 2010 at 3:42 PM

Hmmmm, am I the only one disturbed by the fact that despite all of our “common sense” gun laws, a Bi-Polar man was able to purchase a handgun?

crr6 on November 17, 2010 at 3:24 PM

itsspideyman on November 17, 2010 at 3:39 PM

Just a head’s up, I was quoting Fighton there. Those aren’t my words.

crr6 on November 17, 2010 at 3:42 PM

Now we know that some liberals can’t hold their booze or hold their fire…

rich801 on November 17, 2010 at 3:42 PM

Bee on November 17, 2010 at 3:27 PM

Need a lozenge? :P

MadisonConservative on November 17, 2010 at 3:43 PM

I never seen such a level of attack on this young woman for appearing on a dancing show.

If I had nickle for everytime I heard that…

jeffn21 on November 17, 2010 at 3:47 PM

Yeah because Heller’s like 2 years old I doubt there’s any case law on that. I’d imagine one could make a workable test where dangerous disorders can disqualify you, but more innocuous ones (like say, ADD) can’t.

crr6 on November 17, 2010 at 3:30 PM

90 years ago low school grades and criminals in the family were enough to subject innocent people to compulsory sterilization. It’s hardly a stretch to think that anti-gun activists wouldn’t make an argument that those with depression are suicide risks and therefore should not be allowed to own weapons. How about Asperger’s? What about antisocial personality disorder or social phobia? The state of psychiatry in modern day makes the precedent for revoking the right to self-defense based on mental disorder a frightening prospect.

MadisonConservative on November 17, 2010 at 3:48 PM

What man gets drunk and watches a freaking dancing show with a shotgun?

You can’t make this stuff up.

garry on November 17, 2010 at 3:49 PM

Maybe libs should be banned from having guns.

Once he gets out, he’ll have to pay for a new set. Unless he hit’s up the DNC for a donation. Seeing as he’s a “victim”.

GarandFan on November 17, 2010 at 3:50 PM

I don’t object with keeping weapons out of the hands of the those with extreme mental disorders.

itsspideyman on November 17, 2010 at 3:39 PM

What is “extreme”? Multiple personality disorder? Autism? They need to tread very lightly before enacting legislation that really does establish certain people as “second-class citizens”.

MadisonConservative on November 17, 2010 at 3:50 PM

That’s actually not true. The judges have always given her terrible scores, and even when she does well they consciously give everybody else a point or two bump. She has always been at the bottom of the scoreboard. She’s there purely because the voting audience likes her.

alwaysfiredup on November 17, 2010 at 3:39 PM

Yup, more than once the studio audience has booed the judges for giving Bristol and Mark low scores. They booed the hell out of Carrie Ann (the chick judge) Monday night. The old guy and the fruit liked Bristol’s performance.

They also booed the hell out of them when they gave Jennifer Grey and her partner David low scores (for them) That was the first time Sarah was there and the libtards swore the Gaia they were booing Sarah. Liberals are idiots.

Bristol embodies what the show is about. She deserves to win just as much as anyone else does.

The fact the libs are losing their mind over it is just deliciously delicious!

Can’t wait for Sarah to become President. That will be epic.

gary4205 on November 17, 2010 at 3:57 PM

on the bench.

ButterflyDragon on November 17, 2010 at 3:40 PM

On the “Group Dubya Bench.”

davidk on November 17, 2010 at 3:57 PM

This is the USA. You’d think shooting your own TV in your own home would be a protected right. I wonder if they can really prove “reckless endangerment”. He hit the TV he was shooting for, didn’t he?

taznar on November 17, 2010 at 2:54 PM

I think he could have gotten away with blasting his Sony, but pointing the loaded shotgun at his wife seemed to p*ss her off for some inexplicable reason…….

di butler on November 17, 2010 at 3:59 PM

On the “Group Dubya Bench.”

davidk on November 17, 2010 at 3:57 PM

Heh!

gary4205 on November 17, 2010 at 4:00 PM

I’ve said it before, I like the Bris, but she isn’t that hot a dancer. She has greatly improved, but this is a fraking tv show where people text votes. Will anyone remember/care who won in a month from now? Brandy was a primadonna, Jennifer is a drama queen, and that fat Kyle kid is just happy to be on tv. Who cares who wins?

di butler on November 17, 2010 at 4:02 PM

I don’t object with keeping weapons out of the hands of the those with extreme mental disorders.
itsspideyman on November 17, 2010 at 3:39 PM

What is “extreme”? Multiple personality disorder? Autism? They need to tread very lightly before enacting legislation that really does establish certain people as “second-class citizens”.
MadisonConservative on November 17, 2010 at 3:50 PM

There have been a number of Veterans that have been banned from being able to defend themselves because they receive assistance managing their financial affairs. 

Boozman Amendment Protects Veterans’ Second Amendment Rights

http://www.boozman.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=206589

Currently, the VA deems veterans and other VA beneficiaries “mentally defective” if they are appointed a fiduciary to act on their behalf and are then reported to the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which prevents individuals from purchasing firearms in the United States. 

 

Chip on November 17, 2010 at 4:05 PM

90 years ago low school grades and criminals in the family were enough to subject innocent people to compulsory sterilization. It’s hardly a stretch to think that anti-gun activists wouldn’t make an argument that those with depression are suicide risks and therefore should not be allowed to own weapons. How about Asperger’s? What about antisocial personality disorder or social phobia? The state of psychiatry in modern day makes the precedent for revoking the right to self-defense based on mental disorder a frightening prospect.

MadisonConservative on November 17, 2010 at 3:48 PM

SCOTUS deals with issues like this all the time. They’ll come up with some workable case law to guide lower courts on the subject. It’s their job. You’re acting as balancing constitutional rights against public safety is a completely novel idea. It’s not, and courts know how to do it (You can’t shout “fire” in a crowded theatre, etc)

Now that the right to bear arms has been held to be a “fundamental right,” restrictions of that right are subject to “strict scrutiny.” That means restrictions must be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling governmental interest. It’s a tough test to satisfy, so I’d imagine courts will allow bans only as to disorders which are clearly dangerous.

crr6 on November 17, 2010 at 4:07 PM

so they moved from shoes to guns….I see

unseen on November 17, 2010 at 4:09 PM

It’s a tough test to satisfy, so I’d imagine courts will allow bans only as to disorders which are clearly dangerous.
crr6 on November 17, 2010 at 4:07 PM

http://www.boozman.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=206589

Tough Test?

Currently, the VA deems veterans and other VA beneficiaries “mentally defective” if they are appointed a fiduciary to act on their behalf and are then reported to the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which prevents individuals from purchasing firearms in the United States. 

Chip on November 17, 2010 at 4:11 PM

90 years ago low school grades and criminals in the family were enough to subject innocent people to compulsory sterilization. It’s hardly a stretch to think that anti-gun activists wouldn’t make an argument that those with depression are suicide risks and therefore should not be allowed to own weapons. How about Asperger’s? What about antisocial personality disorder or social phobia? The state of psychiatry in modern day makes the precedent for revoking the right to self-defense based on mental disorder a frightening prospect.

MadisonConservative on November 17, 2010 at 3:48 PM

Kick-butt post!! Now let’s get that Cowan a good dose of backscatter X-ray scan and the new, enhanced junk patdown.

ProudPalinFan on November 17, 2010 at 4:11 PM

MadisonConservative on November 17, 2010 at 3:48 PM

So, Madison, do you believe there should be no restrictions based on mental illness?

Esthier on November 17, 2010 at 4:12 PM

Just drunk. The wife is clueless.

AnninCA on November 17, 2010 at 4:14 PM

You can’t shout “fire” in a crowded theatre, etc.

crr6 on November 17, 2010 at 4:07 PM

You can if there’s a fire! ba dum bum ching

alwaysfiredup on November 17, 2010 at 4:16 PM

Tough Test?

Currently, the VA deems veterans and other VA beneficiaries “mentally defective” if they are appointed a fiduciary to act on their behalf and are then reported to the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which prevents individuals from purchasing firearms in the United States.

Chip on November 17, 2010 at 4:11 PM

You’re annoying sometimes, because you’re just kind of lazy. If you stopped and thought for a few seconds you’d realize that your post has nothing to do with what MC and I are debating. Why, you ask?

Because that policy predates Heller, and (apparently) it’s never been challenged in Court. So the fact that it’s around isn’t proof that strict scrutiny isn’t a tough test. If it’s challenged in court, the court applies strict scrutiny, and it’s upheld then you might have a point. but none of those things have happened.

crr6 on November 17, 2010 at 4:18 PM

I was wondering how Bradky would react…

viking01 on November 17, 2010 at 4:21 PM

SCOTUS deals with issues like this all the time. They’ll come up with some workable case law to guide lower courts on the subject. It’s their job. You’re acting as balancing constitutional rights against public safety is a completely novel idea. It’s not, and courts know how to do it (You can’t shout “fire” in a crowded theatre, etc)

Now that the right to bear arms has been held to be a “fundamental right,” restrictions of that right are subject to “strict scrutiny.” That means restrictions must be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling governmental interest. It’s a tough test to satisfy, so I’d imagine courts will allow bans only as to disorders which are clearly dangerous.

crr6 on November 17, 2010 at 4:07 PM

The issue of reconciling “mental illness” with the right to keep and bear arms is a flashpoint. It’s an easily abused qualifier, especially, as I said, with the sheer amount of mental conditions diagnosed, either legitimately or fallaciously. Also, like any other issue, it varies from court to court. You chimed in with shock at a bipolar individual being able to purchase a firearm. Why? Bipolar disorder, or manic depression, has no inherent qualities that would tend to indicate that an individual is of significant risk to the public any more than an average person. You want to revoke someone’s rights? You better have a history of violence, otherwise you’re finding them guilty of pre-crime.

For the record, I am also in favor of repealing the ban on felons convicted for non-violent crimes owning firearms.

So, Madison, do you believe there should be no restrictions based on mental illness?

Esthier on November 17, 2010 at 4:12 PM

I believe there should be restrictions only if the persons involved have a history of violent activity. If not, what’s the problem?

MadisonConservative on November 17, 2010 at 4:22 PM

crr6 on November 17, 2010 at 4:07 PM

Look, I would concede that there has to be a line Somewhere, but we have to be very careful when it comes to depriving people of their basic human rights.

And it looks like we’re already on the infamous slippery slope.

Just remember what they used to do in the Old “Progressive” Soviet Union, using Mental illness to imprison dissidents.

Chip on November 17, 2010 at 4:23 PM

I never seen such a level of attack on this young woman for appearing on a dancing show.

To steal a line from our very own kingsjester: “Way to go Walt Whitman.”

darwin-t on November 17, 2010 at 4:25 PM

crr6 on November 17, 2010 at 4:18 PM

a law student such as yourself should realize that petty challenges to executive regulations wouldn’t be visible on Westlaw. So how do you know it’s never been challenged?

alwaysfiredup on November 17, 2010 at 4:26 PM

Is mental disorder is liberalism, not Bi-polar.

Daemonocracy on November 17, 2010 at 4:26 PM

Look, I would concede that there has to be a line Somewhere, but we have to be very careful when it comes to depriving people of their basic human rights.

Oh, now it’s not just a constitutional right, it’s a “basic human right.” Great. 30-40 years ago it was just a crazy idea held in a few righty law professors’ heads. How far we’ve come.

And it looks like we’re already on the infamous slippery slope.

Chip on November 17, 2010 at 4:23 PM

No, it doesn’t look like that. The federal right was recognized 2 years ago, and it was applied to the states this year. Relax.

crr6 on November 17, 2010 at 4:28 PM

So how do you know it’s never been challenged?

alwaysfiredup on November 17, 2010 at 4:26 PM

I didn’t even search it, I figured if it’s been challenged it’d be in the article he posted. It would have to have been in the last 2 years anyway, since Heller is so new.

crr6 on November 17, 2010 at 4:30 PM

I believe there should be restrictions only if the persons involved have a history of violent activity. If not, what’s the problem?

MadisonConservative on November 17, 2010 at 4:22 PM

So none based solely on the person’s mental health?

My uncle’s schizophrenic, and though he’s never once harmed anyone, he’s been locked up a few times without his consent. He’s already treated like a second class citizen. I don’t see how denying him a gun would be any worse.

The Virginia Tech guy had no history of violence, but he was declared mentally ill.

I don’t know. I personally don’t have a problem with people like those two being denied a weapon more dangerous than a steak knife. If we can legally lock someone up without his consent, then I think we should be able to legally prevent him from buying a gun.

Esthier on November 17, 2010 at 4:31 PM

I take issue with crazy guy with gun’s assessment of Bristol Palin’s dancing ability. She’s actually a very good dancer, very teachable, with excellent footwork and athleticism. What she lacks, according to some of the trained dancers of my acquaintance, is theatricality. That is, she isn’t particularly good at assuming the emotive persona–sultry, carefree, joyous, whatever–required by the performance. Bristol is at least as good as Ozzie Osbourne’s daughter, who I believe placed 2nd last season.

And sure, there is the fan vote and there are, no doubt, a great many Sarah Palin fans who want Bristol to do well, but the fan vote is available for all contestants. She enjoys no unfair advantage.

troyriser_gopftw on November 17, 2010 at 4:31 PM

To add a pinch of intrigue, it so happens that Mr. Cowan is an elected public official–a supervisor of the Town of Vermont, WI.

Barnestormer on November 17, 2010 at 4:31 PM

He may just be a rabid fan of the show. I know a couple of big DWTS fans who are upset because they think Bristol should have been eliminated, and is being kept on by political fans of Sarah calling in to vote for her. These people take DWTS pretty seriously.

mbs on November 17, 2010 at 4:32 PM

30-40 years ago it was just a crazy idea held in a few righty law professors’ heads.

crr6 on November 17, 2010 at 4:28 PM

What. The. F**k.

MadisonConservative on November 17, 2010 at 4:33 PM

The issue of reconciling “mental illness” with the right to keep and bear arms is a flashpoint. It’s an easily abused qualifier, especially, as I said, with the sheer amount of mental conditions diagnosed, either legitimately or fallaciously. Also, like any other issue, it varies from court to court. You chimed in with shock at a bipolar individual being able to purchase a firearm. Why? Bipolar disorder, or manic depression, has no inherent qualities that would tend to indicate that an individual is of significant risk to the public any more than an average person. You want to revoke someone’s rights? You better have a history of violence, otherwise you’re finding them guilty of pre-crime.

For the record, I am also in favor of repealing the ban on felons convicted for non-violent crimes owning firearms.

MadisonConservative on November 17, 2010 at 4:22 PM

Those are all fair points. I guess we’ll see what happens.

Just out of curiosity, and I know this is OT,but do you think felons should be denied the right to vote? What about legal permanent residents?

crr6 on November 17, 2010 at 4:33 PM

I wonder if Meggie Mac thinks she’s got a chance on the show.

The princess will get booted out in the first round cause nobody’s rooting for her.

Sir Napsalot on November 17, 2010 at 4:34 PM

30-40 years ago it was just a crazy idea held in a few righty law professors’ heads. How far we’ve come.

crr6 on November 17, 2010 at 4:28 PM

The idea that gun ownership is a right? That’s the crazy idea?

Esthier on November 17, 2010 at 4:35 PM

What. The. F**k.

MadisonConservative on November 17, 2010 at 4:33 PM

That was pretty much the reaction of SCOTUS way back in the day when people tried to argue it was an individual right. The argument simply wasn’t taken very seriously until relatively recently. It was a fringe idea held by Federalist society-ish professors before it was even cool to be a Federalist society-ish professor.

Now that’s not to say the Founders didn’t think it was important, and that’s not to say the states didn’t think it was important too (indeed, many of them put the individual right to bear arms in their own state constitutions). But whether they thought it was important is a whole different matter from actually choosing to enshrine that right in the Federal Constitution.

crr6 on November 17, 2010 at 4:38 PM

My uncle’s schizophrenic, and though he’s never once harmed anyone, he’s been locked up a few times without his consent. He’s already treated like a second class citizen. I don’t see how denying him a gun would be any worse.

On what basis should he be denied his second amendment rights? What threat does he pose?

The Virginia Tech guy had no history of violence, but he was declared mentally ill.

And how many other people with the same diagnosis don’t go on shooting sprees?

I don’t know. I personally don’t have a problem with people like those two being denied a weapon more dangerous than a steak knife. If we can legally lock someone up without his consent, then I think we should be able to legally prevent him from buying a gun.

Esthier on November 17, 2010 at 4:31 PM

So we should have denied the VA tech shooter a gun on the basis that he might carry out a shooting? Again, you’re setting a dangerous precedent. Suppose a judge decides that identifying with certain political movements indicate aggression and violent tendencies. Suppose someone can testify that you spoke of violent takeover of government. Should you be denied a weapon based on the perception that you are a threat because of your “mental disorder”?

MadisonConservative on November 17, 2010 at 4:38 PM

The problem with mandating someone’s weapons be removed when they are diagnosed with a mental disorder is that people will then decline to go get treatment when they need it.

When this person was diagnosed as bi-polar, the family took the handguns out of the house but not the shotgun. Still, it wouldn’t have stopped the guy from grabbing a kitchen knife or a baseball bat to go after the TV and his wife.

pt on November 17, 2010 at 4:40 PM

30-40 years ago it was just a crazy idea held in a few righty law professors’ heads. How far we’ve come.

crr6 on November 17, 2010 at 4:28 PM

The idea that gun ownership is a right? That’s the crazy idea?

Esthier on November 17, 2010 at 4:35 PM

A federal right to gun ownership, yeah.

Like I said, a lot of states obviously thought it was a right, since they put it in their Constitutions. And there’s always been a common law right to self-defense. But again, that doesn’t mean the Founders intended to enshrine a federal individual right in the Constitution.

crr6 on November 17, 2010 at 4:40 PM

30-40 years ago it was just a crazy idea held in a few righty law professors’ heads. How far we’ve come.

crr6 on November 17, 2010 at 4:28 PM

That’s because 40-50 years ago communists infiltrated the judiciary and started to take it into their hands to regulate gun ownership.

darwin-t on November 17, 2010 at 4:43 PM

Just out of curiosity, and I know this is OT,but do you think felons should be denied the right to vote? What about legal permanent residents?

crr6 on November 17, 2010 at 4:33 PM

I think citizens should have the right to vote, including felons. I have no idea why people who served time for a crime should not have any say as to the direction in which their country is going. Look up David Olofson, currently serving time because a rifle of his malfunctioned at a gun range, and never malfunctioned again. He’s a felon. Why shouldn’t he have the right to vote for whoever he thinks could possibly change circumstances for those like him?

As to legal permanent residents, I would say no. Citizenship is not an unreasonable requirement. I understand that the process is bogged down in bureaucracy, however, the answer to that is not to extend the sphere of voting rights, but to make the citizenship process more efficient.

MadisonConservative on November 17, 2010 at 4:44 PM

But again, that doesn’t mean the Founders intended to enshrine a federal individual right in the Constitution.

crr6 on November 17, 2010 at 4:40 PM

Dead from the neck up you meathead.

darwin-t on November 17, 2010 at 4:45 PM

Oh, now it’s not just a constitutional right, it’s a “basic human right.” Great. 30-40 years ago it was just a crazy idea held in a few righty law professors’ heads. How far we’ve come.

Do you believe that you have the basic human right of self defense?

And it looks like we’re already on the infamous slippery slope.
Chip on November 17, 2010 at 4:23 PM

No, it doesn’t look like that. The federal right was recognized 2 years ago, and it was applied to the states this year. Relax.
crr6 on November 17, 2010 at 4:28 PM

And from other posting, it looks like that isn’t the case.
Veterans have been denied the basic human right of self defense.

Chip on November 17, 2010 at 4:46 PM

30-40 years ago it was just a crazy idea held in a few righty law professors’ heads. How far we’ve come.

crr6 on November 17, 2010 at 4:28 PM

To be totally fair, that’s where it would have stayed if the lefties hadn’t tried to fix what wasn’t broken. |-[

Dark-Star on November 17, 2010 at 4:48 PM

crr6 on November 17, 2010 at 4:38 PM

40-50 years ago the court’s views on the rights of minorities and women were rather stilted, as well. I don’t see that as a validation of those views.

MadisonConservative on November 17, 2010 at 4:48 PM

Dead from the neck up you meathead.

darwin-t on November 17, 2010 at 4:45 PM

Is that any better than being dead from the neck down, whacko?

Dark-Star on November 17, 2010 at 4:49 PM

Veterans have been denied the basic human right of self defense.

Chip on November 17, 2010 at 4:46 PM

I saw that. If that isn’t a travesty and injustice of the most monumental proportions, I don’t know what is.

MadisonConservative on November 17, 2010 at 4:53 PM

On what basis should he be denied his second amendment rights? What threat does he pose?

The same basis that allows my father to check him into a clinic without his consent. Is your argument that it should be easier to lock someone up than it should be to prevent them from owning a gun?

And how many other people with the same diagnosis don’t go on shooting sprees?

How many of them purchase guns?

Should you be denied a weapon based on the perception that you are a threat because of your “mental disorder”?

MadisonConservative on November 17, 2010 at 4:38 PM

Madison, we’re already deciding that people like him and my uncle are threats to the safety of society. That’s why we lock them up. And from what I understand, the standard (at least concerning my uncle) is the reasonable assumption that he might harm someone. He never has, so this obviously isn’t based on his past behavior but rather an analysis of his current attitude. One example I’ve heard is that he believed there was a robot down the hall that was trying to do something to him. He was about to get released from the hospital until he told my father that.

But just seeing the devil in peoples’ eyes wasn’t enough. For that, my parents brought him home but didn’t sleep a wink – my brother and I were very young at the time.

Esthier on November 17, 2010 at 4:54 PM

40-50 years ago the court’s views on the rights of minorities and women were rather stilted, as well. I don’t see that as a validation of those views.

MadisonConservative on November 17, 2010 at 4:48 PM

Well the difference is I don’t think anyone uses historical or “original intent” type argument to validate Brown, cause the Founders (and the Framer’s of the 14th amendment) almost certainly wouldn’t have approved of it. So it’s justified based on other arguments.

But I always see gun rights advocates making original intent and historical arguments, which is ret*rded, mostly because if they were right, it wouldn’t have taken until 2008 to recognize the individual right to bear arms. And there wouldn’t be sh*tloads of older decisions implying the right is just related to maintaining a well-regulated militia.

The worst is when they bring up all these quotes that allude to the fact that Founders thought it was awesome and important to own a gun. Who cares? Just cause they thought it was important doesn’t mean they put it in the freakin Constitution.

Annnnnd I’m done with that rant for now.

crr6 on November 17, 2010 at 4:55 PM

Do you believe that you have the basic human right of self defense?

Chip on November 17, 2010 at 4:46 PM

Yeah, and that’s recognized at common law and in most (if not all, I really don’t know) state Constitutions. I just don’t think the Founders meant for it to be in the federal Constitution.

crr6 on November 17, 2010 at 4:57 PM

The same basis that allows my father to check him into a clinic without his consent. Is your argument that it should be easier to lock someone up than it should be to prevent them from owning a gun?

Your father making a decision on behalf of his brother is rather a bit different than the United States government determining that your uncle is denied one of his rights.

How many of them purchase guns?

What difference does that make? Are you claiming that the only thing holding back lots of shooting sprees is the fact that these people, for whatever reason, have not yet purchased weapons?

Madison, we’re already deciding that people like him and my uncle are threats to the safety of society. That’s why we lock them up. And from what I understand, the standard (at least concerning my uncle) is the reasonable assumption that he might harm someone. He never has, so this obviously isn’t based on his past behavior but rather an analysis of his current attitude. One example I’ve heard is that he believed there was a robot down the hall that was trying to do something to him. He was about to get released from the hospital until he told my father that.

But just seeing the devil in peoples’ eyes wasn’t enough. For that, my parents brought him home but didn’t sleep a wink – my brother and I were very young at the time.

Esthier on November 17, 2010 at 4:54 PM

Again…given no history of violence, and no violent tendencies, why should he be treated as a violent individual?

MadisonConservative on November 17, 2010 at 5:00 PM

I think citizens should have the right to vote, including felons. I have no idea why people who served time for a crime should not have any say as to the direction in which their country is going. Look up David Olofson, currently serving time because a rifle of his malfunctioned at a gun range, and never malfunctioned again. He’s a felon. Why shouldn’t he have the right to vote for whoever he thinks could possibly change circumstances for those like him?

Yeah I agree with that.

As to legal permanent residents, I would say no. Citizenship is not an unreasonable requirement. I understand that the process is bogged down in bureaucracy, however, the answer to that is not to extend the sphere of voting rights, but to make the citizenship process more efficient.

MadisonConservative on November 17, 2010 at 4:44 PM

I guess that’s fair enough. But I think with a length-of-residency requirement, I’d support giving LPR’s the vote. As many people should have a seat at the table as possible.

crr6 on November 17, 2010 at 5:00 PM

Founders intended to enshrine a federal individual right in the Constitution.

crr6 on November 17, 2010 at 4:40 PM

And yet, the put this in the Constitution:

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It’s insane that we live in a world where penumbras are more respected.

Esthier on November 17, 2010 at 5:00 PM

And yet, the put this in the Constitution:

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

There’s a pretty important clause before that.

crr6 on November 17, 2010 at 5:01 PM

You know who is ‘hurting’ (gnashing their teeth) the most at the moment?

Levi Johnston.

Sir Napsalot on November 17, 2010 at 5:02 PM

crr6 on November 17, 2010 at 4:55 PM

I think a lot of this comes down to the fundamental discomfort a sheltered, naive society has with addressing the fact that the Second Amendment was intended to allow citizens to violently revolt if the government became tyrannical. So many people recoil in shock at the notion of doing that in modern day that it really makes one wonder if the experiment started 234 years ago is officially a failure.

However…it’s not unthinkable.

MadisonConservative on November 17, 2010 at 5:03 PM

There were people on DWTS forum last night trying to play the race card because Brandy went home and one person even tried to use Nazi Germany as a comparison?!!

ohellno on November 17, 2010 at 5:03 PM

Your father making a decision on behalf of his brother is rather a bit different than the United States government determining that your uncle is denied one of his rights.

The United States government is allowing my father to make decisions like that for his adult uncle. Seems like a distinction without a difference to me. Or would you find it acceptable if my father could make it so that my uncle couldn’t own a gun?

What difference does that make? Are you claiming that the only thing holding back lots of shooting sprees is the fact that these people, for whatever reason, have not yet purchased weapons?

No. I’m asking a question. You ask about statistics. So am I? How many of them who own guns have used them illegally? I honestly don’t know the answer. And would it make a difference anyway? Your argument seems to be that even if you have reason to believe someone might be violent, if it’s not based on an actual history of violence, it’s worthless. So even if the stat was that 100% of those people who owned guns used them to kill someone, what would have have to do with anything in your argument?

Again…given no history of violence, and no violent tendencies, why should he be treated as a violent individual?

MadisonConservative on November 17, 2010 at 5:00 PM

He already is. That’s my point. He’s been locked up repeatedly because he’s already been considered a danger. Why is that acceptable but not letting him own a gun isn’t?

Esthier on November 17, 2010 at 5:06 PM

I guess that’s fair enough. But I think with a length-of-residency requirement, I’d support giving LPR’s the vote. As many people should have a seat at the table as possible.

crr6 on November 17, 2010 at 5:00 PM

Disagree on the bolded part. The United States is a sovereign nation, not a world community. We should not be trying to spread the vote around as much as possible. It should be restricted to those who choose to participate in the governing of our laws, i.e. citizens. That may make it sound like a private country club, but for all intents and purposes, it is.

I could go along with the LPR possibility, if the timespan were at least 20 years.

MadisonConservative on November 17, 2010 at 5:08 PM

There’s a pretty important clause before that.

crr6 on November 17, 2010 at 5:01 PM

The Supreme Court disagrees.

Esthier on November 17, 2010 at 5:11 PM

originally from Vermont

Say nothing more

ToddonCapeCod on November 17, 2010 at 5:11 PM

Disagree on the bolded part. The United States is a sovereign nation, not a world community. We should not be trying to spread the vote around as much as possible.

I’m not advocating giving it to aliens, or illegal immigrants. Just LPR’s and all citizens.

It should be restricted to those who choose to participate in the governing of our laws, i.e. citizens.

Not sure what you mean by “choose to participate in the governing of our laws,” but if you mean those who are subject to and obey our laws, then surely LPR’s fit that description as well.

That may make it sound like a private country club, but for all intents and purposes, it is.

Eh, I don’t think so. I’m admittedly a bit more radical than the normal person when it comes to this issue, mostly because I just despise the idea of someone living in and substantively contributing to our society without having the opportunity to have a say in how it’s governed. But I’m not as out there as you may think. LPR’s could vote in many states until around the turn of the 20th century.

I could go along with the LPR possibility, if the timespan were at least 20 years.

MadisonConservative on November 17, 2010 at 5:08 PM

It’d be more like 3-5 for me. I think 20 is actually kind of weird, cause at that point you start to wonder why they haven’t naturalized…

crr6 on November 17, 2010 at 5:14 PM

There’s a pretty important clause before that.

crr6 on November 17, 2010 at 5:01 PM

The Supreme Court disagrees.

Esthier on November 17, 2010 at 5:11 PM

Ha, yeah they do. Scalia gave this completely twisted argument as to why the “prefatory clause” doesn’t “limit” the following clause.

crr6 on November 17, 2010 at 5:16 PM

The United States government is allowing my father to make decisions like that for his adult uncle. Seems like a distinction without a difference to me. Or would you find it acceptable if my father could make it so that my uncle couldn’t own a gun?

Yes. Families infringe on each others’ rights all the time. The government doing it is another thing entirely.

No. I’m asking a question. You ask about statistics. So am I? How many of them who own guns have used them illegally? I honestly don’t know the answer. And would it make a difference anyway? Your argument seems to be that even if you have reason to believe someone might be violent, if it’s not based on an actual history of violence, it’s worthless. So even if the stat was that 100% of those people who owned guns used them to kill someone, what would have have to do with anything in your argument?

If that stat were a fact, it would be well known. And yes, if you have no evidence that someone IS violent, why should they be denied their rights based on your assumption that they might commit violence? That’s pre-crime conviction. Moreover, suppose someone attacks them, and they’re unable to defend themselves. Are you prepared to accept the outcome of that situation based on your assumption?

He already is. That’s my point. He’s been locked up repeatedly because he’s already been considered a danger. Why is that acceptable but not letting him own a gun isn’t?

Esthier on November 17, 2010 at 5:06 PM

Has he actually been violent or not? If not, then why is he considered a danger? If he has, then I’ve stated it makes sense to deny him the right to possess a firearm, just as with convicted violent criminals.

MadisonConservative on November 17, 2010 at 5:16 PM

Not sure what you mean by “choose to participate in the governing of our laws,” but if you mean those who are subject to and obey our laws, then surely LPR’s fit that description as well.

I was referring to the fact that in this country, the citizens are the government. Hence, citizens participate in the governing of our laws.

Eh, I don’t think so. I’m admittedly a bit more radical than the normal person when it comes to this issue, mostly because I just despise the idea of someone living in and substantively contributing to our society without having the opportunity to have a say in how it’s governed. But I’m not as out there as you may think. LPR’s could vote in many states until around the turn of the 20th century.

It’s definitely a grey area. I don’t think it’s “out there”, but then I also agree with the push to reduce immigration rates drastically. If you haven’t seen this video, watch it.

It’d be more like 3-5 for me. I think 20 is actually kind of weird, cause at that point you start to wonder why they haven’t naturalized…

crr6 on November 17, 2010 at 5:14 PM

Bingo. I’m wondering why after five years, barring citizenship attainment difficulties, they haven’t naturalized yet. Hence why I’m less prone to see a reason to allow LPRs to vote.

MadisonConservative on November 17, 2010 at 5:20 PM

Gotta run. Seriously though, what an awesome thread. This is why I love Hotair.

crr6 on November 17, 2010 at 5:20 PM

The worst is when they bring up all these quotes that allude to the fact that Founders thought it was awesome and important to own a gun. Who cares? Just cause they thought it was important doesn’t mean they put it in the freakin Constitution.

crr6 on November 17, 2010 at 4:55 PM

On the other hand, just because they it was important probably means they did put it in the Consitution.

darwin on November 17, 2010 at 5:35 PM

This is clearly a hate crime.

Jocundus on November 17, 2010 at 5:54 PM

Yes. Families infringe on each others’ rights all the time. The government doing it is another thing entirely.

Not with the help of the government. I can beat my brother up if I want, but the government can’t can’t hold him down while I do so.

If that stat were a fact, it would be well known.

I’m sure it would, but I don’t see how it would change your argument.

Moreover, suppose someone attacks them, and they’re unable to defend themselves. Are you prepared to accept the outcome of that situation based on your assumption?

As much as I am allowing them to be locked up without committing a crime.

Has he actually been violent or not? If not, then why is he considered a danger? If he has, then I’ve stated it makes sense to deny him the right to possess a firearm, just as with convicted violent criminals.

MadisonConservative on November 17, 2010 at 5:16 PM

He hasn’t, but it is the reasonable assumption that he might be that gets him locked up. If that’s enough for someone else (it doesn’t have to be his brother) to get him locked up by the government, why isn’t it enough for him to be denied a gun?

Esthier on November 17, 2010 at 6:05 PM

Gotta run. Seriously though, what an awesome thread. This is why I love Hotair.

crr6 on November 17, 2010 at 5:20 PM

You do seem to be coming around to us more lately. Night.

Esthier on November 17, 2010 at 6:06 PM

I wonder if Meggie Mac thinks she’s got a chance on the show.

The princess will get booted out in the first round cause nobody’s rooting for her.

Sir Napsalot on November 17, 2010 at 4:34 PM

Meh; they will never find her a partner strong enough to handle her weight.

slickwillie2001 on November 17, 2010 at 6:24 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3