Gun not at fault for Belcher's acts

[TheRifleman]

The burning embers of the Twin Towers had a way of being invoked when a particularly dicey part of the Patriot Act needed selling 11 years ago.

This was the smart play. Watering down constitutional rights is not easily undertaken. So scaring Americans and then using that fear to explain why this egregious assault on their rights is for their own good is genius. This is exactly why the right protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures of Americans is no longer absolute, thanks to the Patriot Act, and a right to a speedy and public trial by jury was only days ago finally reaffirmed in the Senate, with Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) so eloquently arguing, “If we relinquish our rights because of fear, what is it exactly, then, we are fighting for?”

Yes, tragedy is a dangerous time for the Bill of Rights because somebody is always there to wave a flag or an orphaned baby and use that to explain why we need to voluntarily give up rights our Founding Fathers so wisely gave to us. And so it is with this Jovan Belcher tragedy.


The Kansas City Chiefs linebacker gunned down his girlfriend — the mother of his baby — and then killed himself, leaving a 3-month-old girl without parents. That this is a tragedy is inarguable. That this is some sort of referendum on the Second Amendment and our right to bear arms is absurd.

My esteemed colleague, Jason Whitlock, argued just that in a very thoughtful column, noting “What I believe is, if (Belcher) didn’t possess/own a gun, he and Kasandra Perkins would both be alive today.” NBC analyst Bob Costas used this as a jumping off point to proselytize during halftime of “Football Night in America” about perspective in sports and the dangers of guns.


The problem with intelligent, impassioned, well-reasoned arguments is how seductive they are. It is easier to blow off the crazy guy screaming “ban all guns” than journalists such as Whitlock or Costas who are arguing rather convincingly how the Second Amendment threatens our liberty rather than enhances it.

What I know for sure is the distinguished senator from Kentucky is right. And his impassioned defense of the Sixth Amendment on the Senate floor last week needs to be Googled and viewed by everybody calling for a gun ban in response to the Belcher tragedy.

[TheRifleman]

“We have nothing to fear that should cause us to relinquish our rights as free men and women,” Paul said. “I urge my colleagues to reject fear, to reject the siren call for ever more powerful government.”
This is not simply about guns. This is about rights. It is a slippery slope from doing something in the interest of public safety to giving up what we hold dear. The slope is greased with fear, with a self-righteous belief that we know better than the framers of the Constitution. And it is all based on informal fallacy.
The idea that if we just ban all guns Kasandra Perkins does not die and a 3-month-old baby is not orphaned is the very essence of a stated premise that fails to support its proposed conclusion. Yes, guns are dangerous and people such as Belcher sometimes use them to do awful things. What I believe in my heart is Jovan Belcher was going to find a way to wreak havoc that day whether he had a gun or a knife or only his fists. And even the potential to stop him is not justification for willingly handing over rights guaranteed to us.
If this makes me a gun nut or a wing nut or a preachy PITA, I am OK with those labels. Although, I prefer Constitutionalist.

There are not a lot of us left — not absolutists, at least.


Conservatives argue for limiting the right to a speedy trial because terrorists are dangerous. Liberals argue for taking away my right to bear arms because people like Belcher use them in unspeakably horrific ways. Hell, the mayor of New York wants to take away my right to buy a big cup of Coke while in his city because obesity has become such an epidemic. Where does it end? Taking away free speech, freedom of the press? Restricting our right to peaceably assemble? Whittling away our very liberty?


Democracy means the majority decides what rules govern us. Liberty is the idea that we all have certain rights that cannot be taken away, not even by a majority. These are the “inalienable rights” of the Declaration of Independence, and when we give them up voluntarily, for whatever reason no matter how altruistic, what we find is all we have done is given more rights to the government that were intended for us.

Doing so makes us less safe, not more.


So I absolutely believe in “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” just as I do the right to a trial by jury and freedom of religion. And as tragic as this Belcher murder-suicide story is, as much as my heart breaks for that little girl, the answer is not taking away or willingly giving up the right of Americans to bear arms.

Because if we give up our liberty for the mirage of safety, what really have we won?

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/kansas-city-chiefs-jovan-belcher-suicide-murder-no-reason-to-take-away-rights-120512

[Emily_Haines]

Yes gun was at fault.

Obama needs to take guns away from all right wing extremists

[Henry-Lilly]

Yes gun was at fault.

Obama needs to take guns away from all right wing extremists

So, Belcher was a right wing extremist? Did you eat paint chips as a child?

[Holtgetsback]

Thank you Rifleman, I agree whole heartedly.

I appreciate what you do hear.

[mcduggly]

Yes gun was at fault.

Obama needs to take guns away from all right wing extremists

Stupid. If he didn't own a gun, he would have grabbed a knife or shovel and committed the same actions, just in a different way. If you're messed up enough to do it with a gun, you are messed up enough to do it with any other weapon or object that is able to.

[riffraff24]

Thank you Rifleman, I agree whole heartedly.

I appreciate what you do hear.

A conservative not knowing the difference between here and hear? You don't say...

[riffraff24]

Stupid. If he didn't own a gun, he would have grabbed a knife or shovel and committed the same actions, just in a different way. If you're messed up enough to do it with a gun, you are messed up enough to do it with any other weapon or object that is able to.

She'd still be dead. He would probably still be alive. A lot harder to kill yourself with a knife or by hanging yourself than with a gun. Trust me...Ive done all 3 before!

[Holtgetsback]

A conservative not knowing the difference between here and hear? You don't say...

Forgive me for not proof reading every post I make on a gambling forum. Let's pray they don't strip me of my finance degree from the Kelley School of Business.

[Kermit]

The woman was going to die regardless, the gun just made it a bit quicker. Taking guns away from citizens will produce more crime as criminals will have less to fear when committing them.

[TheMoneyShot]

Stupid. If he didn't own a gun, he would have grabbed a knife or shovel and committed the same actions, just in a different way. If you're messed up enough to do it with a gun, you are messed up enough to do it with any other weapon or object that is able to.

Psychologically shooting a bullet at someone... isn't as personal as the act of stabbing someone. I know it sounds rather humorous. But think about it for a second. Meaning... yes we all have kitchen knives and sharp objects etc... but most wouldn't resort to that. Not saying he wouldn't of stabbed her. What I'm saying is... in most shooting deaths... (or murders) typically the suspect wouldn't resort to a "personal" stabbing... than a shooting. So in all essence... guns should be banned. Most people aren't savage beasts... they just get caught up in the moment emotionally and have a quick trigger finger.

[riffraff24]

Forgive me for not proof reading every post I make on a gambling forum. Let's pray they don't strip me of my finance degree from the Kelley School of Business.

I'll trade you my MBA from the Marshall School of Business .

[infamousbacardi]

Guns serve an important function in our society and have been around for a long time. I have owned a gun or been around guns almost my entire life and I've never come close to killing someone with one of them.

It's a choice this person made, twice....and a very sad and tragic decision he made on both counts. Don't diminish the loss of these two by pushing some ignorant agenda.

[riffraff24]

Guys. Gun Control does not mean No More Guns. Stricter gun laws/regulations would not be a bad idea. But of course shitty things will still happen.

[chilidog]

I'd love to see Rifleman write something intelligent, instead of just mindlessly copy/pasting.

[GUMMO77]

If there only some stat that said less guns, or even stricter gun laws, produced less homicides.

If only we had something like that. A country or countries where these harsher gun laws apply.

[riffraff24]

If there only some stat that said less guns, or even stricter gun laws, produced less homicides.

If only we had something like that. A country or countries where these harsher gun laws apply.

if only

[mcduggly]

Guns serve an important function in our society and have been around for a long time. I have owned a gun or been around guns almost my entire life and I've never come close to killing someone with one of them.

It's a choice this person made, twice....and a very sad and tragic decision he made on both counts. Don't diminish the loss of these two by pushing some ignorant agenda.

Contradictory? They serve a great purpose, but you have never come close to using one?

[mcduggly]

Psychologically shooting a bullet at someone... isn't as personal as the act of stabbing someone. I know it sounds rather humorous. But think about it for a second. Meaning... yes we all have kitchen knives and sharp objects etc... but most wouldn't resort to that. Not saying he wouldn't of stabbed her. What I'm saying is... in most shooting deaths... (or murders) typically the suspect wouldn't resort to a "personal" stabbing... than a shooting. So in all essence... guns should be banned. Most people aren't savage beasts... they just get caught up in the moment emotionally and have a quick trigger finger.

I definitely agree with you, I was just trying to say that just because guns are unavailable doesn't mean people won't go to other methods of killing someone/themselves. I think if guns are taken out of the equation, sure homicides might go down (we don't even know that much), but theft and other crimes will rise.

[infamousbacardi]

Contradictory? They serve a great purpose, but you have never come close to using one?

I'd recommend you take a course on reading comprehension.

I clearly said, I've owned, used and been around guns my entire life and I've never come close to or even imagined using them for killing a human being or anything of that sort.

The problem with this issue and with the country of ours as a whole is that NO ONE takes or associates responsibility for individual actions to the proper source anymore. Free will and autonomy should be and ought to be staples in our society, and personal responsibility could go a long way toward solving many of our current problems.

[Emily_Haines]

Stupid. If he didn't own a gun, he would have grabbed a knife or shovel and committed the same actions, just in a different way. If you're messed up enough to do it with a gun, you are messed up enough to do it with any other weapon or object that is able to.

All you right wing extremists are about as pathetic as it gets.

Constantly living in fear of everything.

By your miss guided logic it would have been OK for the chick to obtain a gun and preemptively shoot the dude because she was in fear for her life.

How sad, you idiots make me sick.

[infamousbacardi]

All you right wing extremists are about as pathetic as it gets.

Constantly living in fear of everything.

By your miss guided logic it would have been OK for the chick to obtain a gun and preemptively shoot the dude because she was in fear for her life.

How sad, you idiots make me sick.

Good one. How about your hypothetical at least fit the facts of your opposing view point. That is to say, what if she lawfully owned and was in possession of a firearm herself and was able to defend her own life by shooting J. Belcher after he pulled a gun on her and before he shot her?

Is this such a sad and awful concept that makes you sick? That a 22 year old victim of murder could have been trained and been able to defend her life from her would-be killer?

And these "idiots" make YOU sick?? Imagine how everyone who has to read the insane things you write must feel.

[Emily_Haines]

Good one. How about your hypothetical at least fit the facts of your opposing view point. That is to say, what if she lawfully owned and was in possession of a firearm herself and was able to defend her own life by shooting J. Belcher after he pulled a gun on her and before he shot her?

Is this such a sad and awful concept that makes you sick? That a 22 year old victim of murder could have been trained and been able to defend her life from her would-be killer?

And these "idiots" make YOU sick?? Imagine how everyone who has to read the insane things you write must feel.

She would not be dead if Belcher did not have a gun.

Always dramatic what if scenario's from you morons.

How about you take your gun to Iran? after all there about to kill us all.

[infamousbacardi]

She would not be dead if Belcher did not have a gun.

Always dramatic what if scenario's from you morons.

How about you take your gun to Iran? after all there about to kill us all.

Unfortunately you may be correct about Iran, that's the real sad part about the way your naivety works.

It's a rather bold statement to attempt to predict what a murderer would or wouldn't have done, and that is beyond speculation at best. If you could properly speculate everything like you think you have with this you'd be wasting your time ever writing anything on a forum of any sort, that is certain.

Name calling is probably something you should resort to as well, as you have, as it certainly helps fit your persona you've tried so hard to create.

[Emily_Haines]

Unfortunately you may be correct about Iran, that's the real sad part about the way your naivety works.

It's a rather bold statement to attempt to predict what a murderer would or wouldn't have done, and that is beyond speculation at best. If you could properly speculate everything like you think you have with this you'd be wasting your time ever writing anything on a forum of any sort, that is certain.

Name calling is probably something you should resort to as well, as you have, as it certainly helps fit your persona you've tried so hard to create.

Yes, I resort to name calling especially when it comes to people that support the GOP. For one thing they are morons. Always on the wrong side of history on just about every social issue. First ones to start wars and first ones to take away benefits. You would think after you got your ass kicked in the civil war things might change. But they have not changed one iota. Should have finished you idiots off when we had the chance. Hopefully you put up a fight when Obama takes your guns that way we can knock you off one by one.

[infamousbacardi]

Yes, I resort to name calling especially when it comes to people that support the GOP. For one thing they are morons. Always on the wrong side of history on just about every social issue. First ones to start wars and first ones to take away benefits. You would think after you got your ass kicked in the civil war things might change. But they have not changed one iota. Should have finished you idiots off when we had the chance. Hopefully you put up a fight when Obama takes your guns that way we can knock you off one by one.

It's actually pretty ironic....for someone who claims to despise "right wing extremism", you tend to sound an AWFUL lot like them in your criticism of these very people.

Keep up the great work sir.

[flyingillini]

Let people kill each other if they want, who cares.

[ACoochy]

Someone with the username of the rifleman telling us that guns aren't bad is like saying that there is no sugar in twinkies

[stevenash]

Yes, I resort to name calling especially when it comes to people that support the GOP. For one thing they are morons. Always on the wrong side of history on just about every social issue.

You're an idiot.

Was Abe Lincoln on the wrong side of history?

God you are stupid, ignorance can be cured, but stupid is forever.
You are stupid.

[The Kraken]

Guns arent the problem, republicans are

Get rid of them and this whole issue resolves itself.

[Andy117]

I'd love to see Rifleman write something intelligent, instead of just mindlessly copy/pasting.

Not gonna happen.