Gun-toting Pa. soccer mom, husband found shot dead

[scotchirish]

As an Aussie I do not understand the relevance of the right to bear arms in modern society.

It is an obvious fact that the more guns in a society the more deaths (suicide included)

The way it's been explained to me is that the second amendment, the right to state's militias, and at the time you had to own your own weaponry, is a check of the people against the government to prevent against a military state arising and trampling the rights of the people. For those who say this is an outdated concept, I don't think anyone who opposes the Patriot Act can say that that is not an example of the nation heading in exactly that direction.

 

[HazelGod]

The way it's been explained to me is that the second amendment, the right to state's militias

Then it was explained to you by someone with a questionable understanding of it.

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


Otherwise, you're spot-on. Militias were (and are) self-regulated units composed of volunteer citizens who brought their own armaments. Given that the American Revolution would have ended much differently without the contributions of many militiamen, the idea of disarming the general population was tantamount to lunacy in the eyes of our founding fathers. And if you read the Declaration of Independence, you'll understand they held no illusions about a federal government of their creation being beyond suspicion of tyranny as well.

 

[scotchirish]

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

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

context is always important when delivering facts, otherwise we're just like journalists and politicians.

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

I suppose my paraphrasing came out wrong, but my interpretation of the amendment is that it is advocating the establishment of militias over "everyone can have a gun or twenty" and since militias are comprised of volunteer citizens they must be able to own their own weaponry. With that as the basis how can this be a questionable understanding?

 

[B_VinylBoy]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

context is always important when delivering facts, otherwise we're just like politicians.

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

I suppose my paraphrasing came out wrong, but my interpretation of the amendment is that it is advocating the establishment of militias over "everyone can have a gun or twenty" and since militias are comprised of volunteer citizens they must be able to own their own weaponry. With that as the basis how can this be a questionable understanding?

Point taken. But does a "well regulated" Militia come to a child's soccer game strapped with a loaded weapon?

This is what some people are trying to talk about. It's not about whether or not people should have their Second Amendment Rights, but more about how we engage ourselves knowing that we have that freedom. At what point do we say someone's actions may be a bit excessive? Are anyone's lives REALLY in danger at a soccer game? At a town hall meeting? Do you really need to impose your will and/or authority on people by showing the world that you have a weapon that can essentially take someone's life away in a split second? The few people that I know who own guns would never be this brazen. Then again, I guess there's a different mentality in New York on this issue.

 

[scotchirish]

my point was mainly to poomoz as reason for the existence of the 2nd amendment in modern society. There is no reason to bring a weapon to a children's event and have it openly displayed if you're not in a full uniform with a government sanctioned badge authorizing such. I understand women wanting to carry a weapon for protection, but this woman just comes across as a NRA redneck nut.

 

[HazelGod]

context is always important when delivering facts, otherwise we're just like journalists and politicians.

I deliberately omitted the opening dependent clause for a reason: to illustrate that the amendment makes no mention of rights or powers afforded to militias. In fact, that entire clause can be dropped without changing the meaning or intent of the statute.

Your characterization of it as context is spot-on...it's just that, and nothing more. It provides context to explain why the founders believed it was important that the people not be disarmed.

There is no reason to bring a weapon to a children's event and have it openly displayed if you're not in a full uniform with a government sanctioned badge authorizing such.

Again, I feel you're missing the point of the amendment. The founding fathers were deeply mistrustful of centralized governments, and it was their intent to keep such power in check by force of popular arms as the line of last resort. The 2nd Amendment wasn't included for people to protect themselves against each other...it was to ensure that the people's rights as free citizens could not be forcibly usurped by a tyrannical government.

 

[scotchirish]

my comment of "government sanctioned badge" is just to say, in a realistic society police are the only civilians who have any reason to display a weapon

 

[HazelGod]

in a realistic society police are the only civilians who have any reason to display a weapon

That's your opinion, which I happen not to share.

 

[Rikter8]

It's not about whether or not people should have their Second Amendment Rights, but more about how we engage ourselves knowing that we have that freedom.

Amen.

 

[ZOS23xy]

it's very sad to lose such a vocal advocate for civil rights

Advocate? Don't really know this...?

The couple was having marital problems. Instead of discussions, he shot her. What does this advocate? More guns means less talking? We'll come to an understanding quicker because I have a 44. ?

 

[B_Mister Buildington]

Advocate? Don't really know this...?

The couple was having marital problems. Instead of discussions, he shot her. What does this advocate? More guns means less talking? We'll come to an understanding quicker because I have a 44. ?

I was not actually referring to the murderer, but the law-abiding citizen that he happened to be married to.

She wasn't a MLK Jr. or Gandhi or anything, obviously. But she did teach a lot of people about their constitutional rights, and got people talking. You may not agree with her methods, but she was standing up for our rights.

 

[houtx48]

you think her and her hubby had a shootout or her sneaked in and got the drop on her?

 

[B_Mister Buildington]

He got the drop on her, it says so in the article. Her gun was in a backpack at the front door. She should have remained armed inside the home, obviously.

 

[Pendlum]

I've found that people who own guns (not just your standard pistol in a lockbox, but more) for protection, are paranoid. Which isn't a good combination at all.

Her permit was taken away rightfully imo. It is a CONCEALED weapons permit. She should've kept it concealed. And the lawsuit? Although moot now, SHE is the one that made it public knowledge that she carries a loaded gun around, and obviously in her house. She brought her own damages.

However, it is a shame that she was killed. She didn't do anything to warrant her being killed, and those children still depended on her.

 

[ZOS23xy]

The whole issue is that people will use guns to settle an argument or reach a decision. This isn't the only family that has ended because of marital problems, loss of job, misunderstanding and having a gun around the house and a single moment of "having lost it", and there is no turning back once that idea has been framed and carried out.

It isn't enough to say she "educated" people about their rights. That's sounds fairly hollow when you know she died from her own husband's hand. So what did we really learn?

 

[B_Mister Buildington]

I've found that people who own guns (not just your standard pistol in a lockbox, but more) for protection, are paranoid. Which isn't a good combination at all.

Her permit was taken away rightfully imo. It is a CONCEALED weapons permit. She should've kept it concealed. And the lawsuit? Although moot now, SHE is the one that made it public knowledge that she carries a loaded gun around, and obviously in her house. She brought her own damages.

However, it is a shame that she was killed. She didn't do anything to warrant her being killed, and those children still depended on her.

In Pennsylvania, persons 18 years of age and older whom are not prohibited by law from owning firearms may openly carry a handgun in plain sight with no license except in vehicles*, cities of the first class** (Philadelphia) and where prohibited specifically by statute.
Ref.: Title 18, ch.61, Subchapter A. Uniform Firearms Act & Commonwealth v. Ortiz
* Open carry in a vehicle requires a valid PA License to Carry Firearms (LTCF) or a carry license from ANY other state. Ref: Title 18 §6106
** Open carry in a city of the first class requires a valid PA LTCF or a carry license from a reciprocal state. Ref: Title 18 §6108, Title 18 §6106
Carrying concealed (with LTCF) or openly in establishments that serve alcohol is allowed in Pennsylvania.
There is no stipulation in neither the PA code nor case law that a PA LTCF holder must carry concealed. Furthermore, lawful open carry of a firearm is NOT grounds for revocation of a PA LTCF as it is neither an illegal nor dangerous act.



tl;dr? Having a concealed carry permit has nothing to do with open carry. You don't NEED a license to open carry, and it makes no sense that you should have your concealed carry permit revoked for practicing your constitutional rights.

 

[B_Mister Buildington]

The whole issue is that people will use guns to settle an argument or reach a decision. This isn't the only family that has ended because of marital problems, loss of job, misunderstanding and having a gun around the house and a single moment of "having lost it", and there is no turning back once that idea has been framed and carried out.

It isn't enough to say she "educated" people about their rights. That's sounds fairly hollow when you know she died from her own husband's hand. So what did we really learn?

Sounds to me that you don't have so much an issue with open carrying as you do with the right to gun ownership in general.

 

[ZOS23xy]

I have an issue with stupid people owning guns. Emotionally upset people. People who see ghosts. People who see conspiracies. People who think I'm trying to outlaw guns. People with mental illness. Former criminals. Is there anything wrong with what I've mentioned?

 

[midlifebear]

It's amazing how tragedies like this underline in bold letters the pithiness of sayings such as "Live by the sword, die by the sword."

Thinning the herd, indeed. According to The Dog Whisperer there are no bad dogs, only dogs not given enough attention and correct training.

 

[HazelGod]

I have an issue with stupid people owning guns. Emotionally upset people. People who see ghosts. People who see conspiracies. People who think I'm trying to outlaw guns. People with mental illness. Former criminals. Is there anything wrong with what I've mentioned?

Funny...I have a problem with stupid people holding the reins of society. People who believe in invisible sky daddies and similarly disdain reason and sensibility, in positions of power making decisions for all of us...