Hot on the heels of Scalia stabbing the Republicans in the back, comes this gem -
Was Mapes brandishing a firearm?
A right is only a right as long as it does not interfere with others rights. Put another way, you do not have a right to be protected from risk as the 'right' presupposes the right to remove unwanted behavior from others. For instance, you should be free to paint your house neon yellow as long as it doesn't interfere with another individual's rights. (Note - There is no right to possess value.)
In this instance, all of the individuals 'effected' were projecting their desire to not have scary guns around them over Mapes' right to protect himself if the possibility of assault by a gunmen were to occur. (Consider for a moment that fear was sufficient cause to project a right. Does Mapes' right to not be afraid of being unarmed supersede the fear of others at him carrying a weapon?) Yes, it is frightening to see individuals projecting power, but that is the consequence of the actions of the Batman shooter not Mapes.
The police also perpetrated the ruse that Mapes had no rights, despite the enumerated defense of the Second Amendment to the supreme law of the land, by arresting him for "caus(ing) alarm and fear for others". That arrest reason is nothing but pure garbage perpetrated by cowards who are afraid to do their sworn duty as peace officers and uphold all individual rights, not just those who complain the loudest.
The correct solution to this is for the theater owner to ask Mapes, through the police if necessary, to leave the premises. Through the right of voluntary association this situation could have been completely diffused.
Further, how will this look on Mapes' (cough) permanent record? Will he be denied employment because he was 'arrested for causing alarm and fear in others with a firearm'? Will he be denied other opportunities because he is now a menace to society?
Chilling ideas to consider when the conservative wing of the Supreme Court is floating the concept of disarming the people.
Some would argue that this is not the time to bring a gun into a theater. But police said James Mapes told them it is exactly the time, telling authorities he brought a gun into a Thornton movie theater Sunday for his own protection.Remember the 'Theme for 2012'? Are we responsible for our own actions? Let's apply this theme here.
His handgun was strapped to his waist — he was wearing it so others could see it.
A cell phone video captures Mapes being arrested for possession of a weapon in a liquor and beer establishment, a misdemeanor. Police said he was cooperative and emphasized his right to bear arms.
Technically, police said Mapes was arrested because he was carrying his weapon in a way that caused alarm and fear for others. He received a summons and was later released.
Once theater managers learned of the gun, they quickly evacuated several theaters in the building. About 30 people were affected. Witnesses said it was a frightening ordeal with the Aurora shooting still fresh in their minds.
Was Mapes brandishing a firearm?
Brandishing - Wave or flourish (something, esp. a weapon) as a threat or in anger or excitement.Nope, that wasn't the case here. In reality, others were afraid of his Constitutionally upheld right to carry a firearm, so they complained to the theater owner in order to 'protect' themselves. The theater owner likewise acted to 'protect' his business from the fear of a gun by calling the police. What no one sought to protect was Mapes' right to protect himself from a demonstrated threat that exists in the form of gunmen performing mass shootings in theaters.
A right is only a right as long as it does not interfere with others rights. Put another way, you do not have a right to be protected from risk as the 'right' presupposes the right to remove unwanted behavior from others. For instance, you should be free to paint your house neon yellow as long as it doesn't interfere with another individual's rights. (Note - There is no right to possess value.)
In this instance, all of the individuals 'effected' were projecting their desire to not have scary guns around them over Mapes' right to protect himself if the possibility of assault by a gunmen were to occur. (Consider for a moment that fear was sufficient cause to project a right. Does Mapes' right to not be afraid of being unarmed supersede the fear of others at him carrying a weapon?) Yes, it is frightening to see individuals projecting power, but that is the consequence of the actions of the Batman shooter not Mapes.
The police also perpetrated the ruse that Mapes had no rights, despite the enumerated defense of the Second Amendment to the supreme law of the land, by arresting him for "caus(ing) alarm and fear for others". That arrest reason is nothing but pure garbage perpetrated by cowards who are afraid to do their sworn duty as peace officers and uphold all individual rights, not just those who complain the loudest.
The correct solution to this is for the theater owner to ask Mapes, through the police if necessary, to leave the premises. Through the right of voluntary association this situation could have been completely diffused.
Further, how will this look on Mapes' (cough) permanent record? Will he be denied employment because he was 'arrested for causing alarm and fear in others with a firearm'? Will he be denied other opportunities because he is now a menace to society?
Chilling ideas to consider when the conservative wing of the Supreme Court is floating the concept of disarming the people.
No comments:
Post a Comment