Saturday, April 11, 2015

There Oughta Be a Law

"Anyone who can't be trusted with a gun can't be trusted without a custodian." [More]
Thank you, John. Most cool of you to do this.

I do have a suggested edit: The statement is merely a truism, and does not go on to recommend a further action on the part of anyone -- any misconception otherwise is probably due to conflicts or confusion attributable to the way I've presented it.

If the response to the truism is to incarcerate an individual, he still has a right to fight off prison beatings and rapes  --  that is, failures of custodians to properly fulfill their obligations. That opens up a door into a whole 'nother room about what "we" should do about people who can no more be trusted to roam freely among us than we could trust a man-eating lion.  In any case, what John has designated "Codrea's Law" is silent on a "solution."

Now jump over to another point I frequently make -- that "illegal aliens" being given a "pathway to citizenship" will result in a majority that will allow for government evisceration of the right to keep and bear arms. While I definitely have strong opinions on the subject of immigration, "legal" and otherwise, my observation alone comes with no recommendation on "what to do about it" (aside from properly considering political actions supporting it to be "anti-gun" in effect). It merely states that based on all observable data, and without significant presently unknown factors altering outcomes, that will be the result. That's why I keep issuing my (unanswered to date) challenge to those who maintain otherwise to give us more than wishful thinking, anecdotes and platitudes, something that can be independently validated. Without it, all we're left with to guide an appropriate course are probabilities.

But back to Mr. Comeau's post, and lightening up a bit: When I read the title, my first thought involved a fantasy voice-over introduction to it. Realizing the extreme unlikelihood of that ever happening, my second thought went to an old Firesign Theater bit. And again.

10 comments:

John Otis Comeau said...

thanks, David. unfortunately urbandictionary doesn't provide an edit capability. I should have gotten your input first, but it was a beer-inspired spur-of-the-moment thing.

one way to correct/improve it would be for you or another reader to make an alternative definition.

and I can see my pop culture education is decidedly lacking.

David Codrea said...

I guess I'm not smart enough to figure out how to do that. I signed in using a gmail account and it wanted me to decide if an image of what looks like a guy in shorts clipping an Arab woman's toenails was safe for work! Then it wanted me to decide if "dat ass" should be admitted. Seriously lost figuring out an intuitive way to navigate...

Mack said...

Very nice to see this.

I grew up watching Burke's Law.

Now maybe you could do a riff on Bat Masterson -- now that was Justice!

David Codrea said...

I do believe this would be the only edit needed: Gun rights author and activist David Codrea frequently uses this to point out someone not moral, competent and rational enough to be trusted with a gun presents too much of a danger to freely interact with those who are.

John Otis Comeau said...

hmm. once you're logged in, and looking at a term that you didn't already define, there should be a big blue "+ Add your own" rectangular button under and to the right of any existing definitions.

I'm really sorry I botched this. the intent was to have an online resource for the definition to which I could point people in discussion threads. I'll see if I can get someone to add the definition as you worded it.

Paul Bonneau said...

"That's why I keep issuing my (unanswered to date) challenge to those who maintain otherwise to give us more than wishful thinking, anecdotes and platitudes, something that can be independently validated."

I will take you up on that. How should the mechanics of the debate work out?

David Codrea said...

Paul Bonneau, you are free to post whatever you like saying whatever it is you believe constitutes proof.

Paul Bonneau said...

No, I was thinking something more substantial. Why make the effort to do a lengthy comment on a blog post that is going to roll off the page in a day or two? I envision multiple exchanges...

David Codrea said...

State your case or don't. Do it in a comment or not. Be as "substantial" as you like. No one is stopping you from writing your own essay somewhere and sharing the link.

Paul Bonneau said...

No thanks. I was looking for the opportunity for an exchange of views, not an essay. Just forget it.