Boston Terrorist Thoughts

Boston Terrorist

As I read the back and forth on this site about Miranda vs. no Miranda for the surviving Boston Terrorist and the intellectual and practical struggles to answer the question of “What should be done?”, I noticed an interesting dilemma that this incident gives rise to, as all other terrorist incidents in America have.

I’ve watched with little surprise that the knee jerk reaction of many, especially the supposed protectors of liberty on the left, and they are saying that this happened because we just don’t have enough darn laws to ban such behavior…and, surprise, surprise, we must pass more.

Nanny Bloomberg wants to rewrite the Constitution:

In the wake of the Boston Marathon bombings, Mayor Michael Bloomberg said Monday the country’s interpretation of the Constitution will “have to change” to allow for greater security to stave off future attacks.

“The people who are worried about privacy have a legitimate worry,” Mr. Bloomberg said during a press conference in Midtown. “But we live in a complex word where you’re going to have to have a level of security greater than you did back in the olden days, if you will. And our laws and our interpretation of the Constitution, I think, have to change.”

MSNBC’s Thomas Roberts thinks that the fact that the bombers possessed illegal guns this means we just need more gun control:

Leave it to Thomas Roberts to not let a tragedy go to waste.  Appearing on his daily MSNBC show on April 22, Roberts felt it appropriate to use last Monday’s deadly terrorist bombing in Boston to push for federal gun control legislation.

Speaking with Patricia Maisch, survivor of the Tucson shooting which critically wounded former Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-Ariz.), Roberts noted that the brothers Tsarnaev, residents of Massachusetts, did NOT legally own the firearms they used in a shootout with police last Thursday.

Roberts followed this up by wildly speculating about the connection between this and new gun control legislation asking Ms. Maisch, “Do you think this terror attack would put a new heat on lawmakers for tighter gun laws?” Maisch responded as such:

I hope so. It’s kind of — the bombs are a reach from the gun legislation. But they did have guns. I don’t know if they were illegal or legal. But we are not Pollyannas. We know that not every gun violent issue and incident will be stopped by a background check.

A “right” is an entitlement to something, whether to concepts like justice and due process, or to ownership of property or some interest in property, real or personal.

In the American concept of laws and jurisprudence, rights have legal force. For example, when a person owns a home and property, he has the right to possess and enjoy it free from the interference of others, who are under a corresponding duty not to interfere with the owner’s rights by trespassing on the property or breaking into the home. This essentially means that with every right, there is a “flip side” or a corresponding duty for others not to interfere with activities conducted as part of my “rights”.

In Constitutional Law, rights are classified as natural, civil, and political:

  • Natural rights are those that are understood to grow out of the nature of the individual human being and depend on her personality, such as the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
  • Civil Rights are those that belong to every citizen of the state, and are not connected with the organization or administration of government. They include the rights of property, marriage, protection by law, freedom to contract, trial by jury, and the like. These rights are capable of being enforced or redressed in a civil action in a court.
  • Political rights entail the power to participate directly or indirectly in the establishment or administration of government, such as the right of citizenship, the right to vote, and the right to hold public office.

Some will say that privacy is a natural right, I do not agree with that. I believe that a person has the right to be left alone in pursuit of natural rights but “privacy” is a legal concept that is more akin to a civil right. While I do not have the right to peek into your home all hours of the day or night, I also cannot be prevented from looking at you when you are outside.

If I have a right to live, there is a corresponding requirement on everybody else not to kill me, in essence to deprive me of my life.

So what if we cannot prevent someone, like the Boston Terrorists – or any one for that matter – from violating the right to life? What remedy do I have as an individual to a situation like that? In our legal system, rights are protected by laws – but laws are retroactive, fear of punishment will deter a person from compromising the rights of others and will provide recourse after those rights are violated but in the case of an individual determined to compromise another’s rights, there is no physical barrier.

There was no physical barrier to protect the dead and maimed in Boston last week, no Buck Rodgers/Star Trek force field that gets thrown up in time to contain a blast, a bullet or even a pair of hands wrapped around someone’s neck.

If an individual has the ultimate power to violate any law at any time and thereby immediately compromise the rights of any other individual, does it not also follow that an individual should be able to exert, at exactly the same time and of equal or greater force necessary to prevent the compromise of that right? In the most primitive level of existence, if I am met with another individual or group of individuals Hell bent on depriving me of my life; does it not seem logical that I should be able to resist that action immediately and not be expected to cede the protection of my life to someone who is not present at the time of the incident?

I have great respect for the police and the military but if I am out of town and someone breaks into my home at 2 am and attempts to assault my wife, why should she be expected to allow herself to be raped while she waits for help to come? Why should she not be able to protect herself with a handgun, an AR-15 or a trebuchet if that is her choice of weapon?

The Trebuchet: The Ultimate In Home Defense

The Trebuchet: The Ultimate In Home Defense
Void Where Prohibited
Not Available In New York State

Eliminating all guns forever seems to liberals to be the answer but what about hands? If I am stronger than you, I can still deprive you of life by beating you to death with my fists, choking you to death or kicking you. Do we then cut off everyone’s hands and feet to eliminate that possibility? Of course not, the reality is that guns are but a tool, the same as a pair of hands or feet. In a one on one situation, we can never eliminate the possibility of an individual compromising another’s right to life…but we can level the playing field – and that is what a gun does.

With the grant of any right to an individual, there is a corresponding duty expected from other individuals in society. With any violation of a right, there is a corresponding duty of the individual to prevent it. If you choose deprive me of life by shooting me or blowing me up, you have just given me permission to act to prevent you from doing so.

Rights are like a coin. They cannot exist without both sides.

That is the Second Amendment debate reduced to the lowest common denominator.

28 thoughts on “Boston Terrorist Thoughts

  1. Throw in the “searches” of citizen’s homes in Watertown by the SWAT teams (view the video of the green house being searched – filmed by a neighbor, currently on the internet) and it makes you wonder where the 4th Amendment went as well. The video shows a SWAT team member banging on the door repeatedly until someone comes to the door. Then the residents are forced out with the SWAT team screaming at them to put their hands over their heads as male, female, and children are literally chased from the home. All of this in the name of “martial law”?

    http://news.yahoo.com/watertown-door-door-search-bombing-suspects-violation-fourth-140043137.html?bcmt=1366730585082-7bdae5e1-cdda-4ed7-bd18-94538e80acd7&bcmt_s=u#mediacommentsugc_container

  2. Well written, but guns should be restricted somehow this is not the Wild West, and just because you own a gun it does not mean you have the HEART to kill someone, the people who kill and maim would do so a lot of times with your OWN gun…IMHO

    • If I own a gun but do not have the “heart” to kill, why is that a problem for society? If I do, why is it your right to prevent me from doing so if I choose to defend myself?

      You may say to me,”You can’t take the law into your hands”. My reply would be “Why not?” If my natural rights are being violated, who is better to stop it at the point of impact than I am? It is being done to me, it is happening in real time and at a specific location. The police cannot offer that level of currency…they cannot be everywhere at all times for all people.

      The purpose of a police force is for the maintenance of order for society and the investigation of events after they happen, they were never designed to prevent the behavior of an individual.

      There is always this argument that we must disarm in a “civil society” while history is filled with the constancy of people who commit uncivil acts. I understand the desire to disarm those who commit uncivil acts but disarming civil people at the same time cannot be the answer. This does nothing to level the playing field, it actually tips it in favor of the uncivil minority by removing the ability of the civil to protect themselves.

      I would agree that “it’s not the wild west” as a general statement of society over large periods of time but within smaller, more focused periods of time in very specific places, it is…and worse. Sure, the finish line at the Boston Marathon was not the “wild west”, it was an active war zone for a day and Boston was a police state for about a week.

      Gun possession is an individual issue, not a corporate one. When it becomes corporate, we are in a societal state of war.

      In the annals of history, there has only ever been one “one size fits all” solution…and it even has two components: individual freedom supported by a moral society. No ban, law or regulation will ever work as long as any one individual has the free will to violate them and as long as there is, there will be a need to defend against those actions.

        • What I know is this: if you would defend the rights YOU cherish, you must be willing to stand in defense of those rights others cherish. Hence the notion:

          “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

          Well, this goes doubly so for those who wish to retain their right to self-defense, especially when you understand that is mostly defense against people telling you that you do not and should not have the right to self-defense (i.e. govt, but also individuals) 😉

          • Joe trust me I am with you, you seem to be a stable person I have no problem with you been armed but I will be damned if I agree that ALL people should be armed just because, that is insanity…..

            • Daniella,

              I understand. The problem — as I see it — is that we have to trust people UNTIL they prove they are not trustworthy.

              Yes, there is risk in this: but then, liberty is not safety. The way we can all feel safer is to stop keeping me from being able to carry my weapon. I can assure you, if I am there when some nut case decides to go rogue, he had best drop me with his FIRST round or he will not get off another. And yes, watching what is down range behind my target is second nature, but then, inside 100 yards, I can’t remember the last time I even needed sights to hit a 3 inch target.

              Now, just imagine how much safer we would all be if you let all our vets and retired cops open carry? Heck, if you want, I’ll carry a holster with my eagle globe and anchor on it so people can know I was a Marine. All I know is this: if we lived as we once did, EVERYONE would be safer — and society would be a bit more polite, too 😉

            • BTW: even if we say everyone CAN be armed, there are many — probably most of us — who would chose not to carry. Only the competent and the nuts would do so, which helps those of us who are NOT a threat see those who “might” be. 😉

              • Seriously though Joe …. your experience would be invaluable to TRAIN those who are competant and sane be able to “Carry” with even more effectiveness, You and other vets …..

                out at the range the Vets and LEO give good advice …..

                • I have been asked to help a VERY famous LEO teach his CCW classes. You guys would know him if I told you who he is. He made national news in a BIG way a couple years ago and has been on TV many times since in connection to the incident. Maybe I’ll take him up on his offer? I do have my PMI certificate from the Marines.

  3. daniellajoe,

    Guns are already restricted. The more you restrict them the more it will become like the WIld West. All you have to do for proof is look at cities like Chicago, Washington DC, Los Angeles, and most other Blue controlled cities. Remember 99% of guns do no harm in this country. You don’t restrict the 99% to punish the 1% that do not give a rats rear end about what the laws are.

    If anyone convicted of a violent gun crime was incarcerated for life or given the death penalty, effectively removed from society, then we would not need to have this conversation.

    I have no problem with the vermin being hung by the neck until dead.

  4. I think it would be helpful if we start being a bit more on the selective side with whom we allow in to this country.

    Guess you found out that I was photographing you outside of your home in the Pines……….. or the Oaks….I can’t remember the name of where you live now. I’m glad I have that freedom; those are some great shots.

  5. The Woodlands is a master-planned community and a census-designated place (CDP) in the U.S. state of Texas within the Houston–The Woodlands-Sugar Land metropolitan area. The population of the CDP was 93,847 in 2010,[4] an increase of 68.6% over its population of 55,649 at the 2000 census.[5]
    The Woodlands is located 32 miles (51 km) north of Houston along Interstate 45. Though it began as a suburban development and a bedroom community, it also has attracted corporations to the area. As a result, the area features several corporate campuses, most notably Chevron Phillips, Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, Woodforest National Bank, Baker Hughes, CB&I, McKesson Corporation, Hewitt Associates, Maersk Line, and Safmarine. The development won a Special Award for Excellence in 1994 from the Urban Land Institute.

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.