Tuesday, June 13, 2006

Man swings bat... during baseball game

Maybe this is two-day old news but it is bothering me. I didn't hear a single news report about Portland Trailblazer Zack Randolph's incident the other day that didn't include this little bit:

Two handguns belonging to Randolph were also found in the car. However, because Randolph owns a firearms license, he was not cited.

So why is this news? Can you imagine this being part of the story:

A Bible belonging to Randolph was also found in the car. However, because of the free excercise clause in the consitution, he was not cited.

The media's endless suspicion of anything to do with guns shows very clearly in this story. Randolph has a concealed carry permit and owns guns. That isn't news and it doesn't affect this story at all. Except, I guess, in the minds of those who think that gun ownership itself should be a crime.

21 comments:

Bruce said...

We all know that to the secular progressive's point of view..THE BIBLE is much more dangerous than any gun or weapon of mass destruction on the planet today.

Kaelri said...

I identify myself as a secular progressive, and I believe the Bible is a fantastic lil' document. What I think are more dangerous than guns and nukes are the people who distort and exploit the Bible in word and spirit.

Kaelri said...

(And I'm sorry for the double-post, but I'd forgotten that I meant to respond to Daniel directly.) Given that the majority of Americans probably do not own firearms, and that firearms tend to be very much related to threatening and attacking people, it's more than relevant.

Think of it like this: most gun-owners aren't likely killers, but most killers are likely gun-owners.

Anonymous said...

looks as if if you were black you might have an easier time getting your guns.oh thats right your are an offendor so just go for the bible and pray.if your clean the facts are just that the facts!!

MAX Redline said...

"Think of it like this: most gun-owners aren't likely killers, but most killers are likely gun-owners."

This returns us to the original premise of Daniel's blog - legal vs. illegal.

While his blog largely is concerned with the detrimental effects of illegal aliens in the country, much the same applies to this brief discussion of guns.

Your comment, Kaelri, presents the same dichotomy: most gun-owners aren't killers, but a large percentage of killers use guns. This doesn't mean that they are gun owners; in a huge number of cases, the guns in question have been stolen.

Of course, to me, this raises the question of responsible ownership. It's highly unlikely that if properly stored when not being carried, that the weapon could be stolen.

Daniel said...

39% of people live in households with guns. Harris Poll

Most car owners aren't drunk drivers but most drunk drivers are car owners. I don't follow your causation.

As for your "very much related" comment I'm not even sure what you mean. A lot of people die in hospitals, does that mean that hospitals are involved in killing a lot of people?

As for the Bible, it's more than a "fantastic lil' document," it's the word of God.

And anonymous, what are you talking about? I'm not sure if you are agreeing with me or not. Care to clarify?

BEAR said...

kaelri, you have made some interesting assumptions. My wife and young son own no guns, but they can both hit a paper plate at 50 feet shooting from the hip, using MY guns. BTW, we use pictures of che and la raza posters for targets, too.

Shaky Louie said...

Why do I feel that refering to the the Holy Bible as a "fantastic lil' document" is a wee bit patronizing, if not downright disrespectful?

Now, I could take offence, and run amok while setting things on fire, claiming that my religion is being mocked. Calling for the beheading of those who dare print such an outrage! Boycott of blogs! Death to the unbeliever!

But I'm not muslum, so I won't be doing any of that.

So nice to live in a free society.
So nice to have a 2nd ammendment, which helps us live free.

Who was it that said: "An armed society is a polite society."?

Kaelri said...

I'd like to clarify my purpose in writing here: I'm simply explaining how the bit about Randolph's guns is a useful part of the story.

The fact that he owns guns is not remarkable. (And why he feels the need to travel with two is another matter.) It's interesting because of the circumstances: his involvement suggests that he is a potentially dangerous man, and people might want to know that such a man is armed with a tool that is designed (unlike hospitals, Daniel) to kill people. Given that, I'd say that the people have no more or less of a right to know about the guns than to know about the incident as a whole.

"As for the Bible, it's more than a "fantastic lil' document," it's the word of God."

That was a thing known as ironic understatement. By dismissing the Bible's significance in the context of the statement, I sought to make it very clear that, despite believing in secular government, I really don't have a problem with Christians being Christians of their own volition. In fact, for all those capable of having faith in such a God, I would encourage it.

"My wife and young son own no guns, but they can both hit a paper plate at 50 feet shooting from the hip, using MY guns. BTW, we use pictures of che and la raza posters for targets, too."

Er. Congratulations, then? I think shooting's a considerably more boring sport than sword dueling, for example, or even archery, but as long as you have no intention of using live targets then to each his own.

As for anonymous 12:13, I can say, as Daniel's adversary, that I have no earthly idea whose side anon is on. But I think he invoked your criminal record. So he probably doesn't deserve a paragraph's worth of your time.

Kaelri said...

Why do I feel that refering to the the Holy Bible as a "fantastic lil' document" is a wee bit patronizing, if not downright disrespectful?

I have a feeling it's the second word, the "lil'", that you have a problem with, so I'd be happy to clarify: the Bible is a compendium of documents that is the basis of the religion of one billion people and permeates every virtually layer of our society.

I have referred, in similar fashion, to the Constitution of the United States, as a "nagging little document," quoting Aaron Sorkin, in mockery of those who do seem to think that the foundation of our government is just getting in the way of things.

No offense meant in either case. But Louie:

"But I'm not muslum, so I won't be doing any of that."

Let me be the first to say that you've annihilated your ethos already when it comes to "patronizing" and "disrespectful."

BEAR said...

kaelri, my wife and son do not practice marksmanship for fun. They are trained to defend themselves and others against secular progressives, and other moral relativists who think it's o.k. to take things or people who don't belong to them. The word in our home is: If you point a weapon at someone, or some other varmint(or something good to eat), be intent on killing it. There is no other reason for learning safe and accurate gun handling. The "majority" of folks who you claim do not own guns depend on those of us who do to defend their lives, and our country. If this is "boring" or pointless to you, too bad. Most anti-americans agree with you.

Kaelri said...

"kaelri, my wife and son do not practice marksmanship for fun."

Yes, I know. My attempts at rhetorical humor seem to be consistently lost on you.

"They are trained to defend themselves and others against secular progressives, and other moral relativists who think it's o.k. to take things or people who don't belong to them."

A secular progressive who breaks into your home at night and tries to kidnap your son isn't doing it because he's a secular progressive.

"The word in our home is: If you point a weapon at someone, or some other varmint(or something good to eat), be intent on killing it. There is no other reason for learning safe and accurate gun handling."

I am somewhat familiar with measures of self-discipline.

"The 'majority' of folks who you claim do not own guns depend on those of us who do to defend their lives, and our country.

I'd be interested in any sort of factual support for that statement.

"If this is "boring" or pointless to you, too bad. Most anti-americans agree with you."

Just as most members of the Klan agree with you when it comes to secular progressives. You can't define a person by the people he agrees with.

Daniel said...

Kaelri, is there no consideration that Randolph wants to protect himself?

And why you, or anyone, would immediatly be suspicious of someone who excercises their constitutional right to bear arms is beyond me. You have a constitutional right to privacy in your own home. If you don't allow the authoritities to walk in any time they want is it because you have something to hide or are you just excercising your rights?

Kaelri said...

Completely agreed. Completely. It's healthy skepticism, my friend. The fact that he had guns is information, but the fact of its inclusion is not a conclusion. Better to report it and have it dismissed than never to have given it a fair trial.

Bob H. said...

Kaelri- how would you feel about this hypothetical situation? You are pulled over and because you are a public figure the following is broadcast to all the media.
Kaelri was also in the possession of a large amount of marijuana. However, since he has a medical marijuana card, he was not cited.
Also, what I think are more dangerous than people who distort and exploit the Bible in word and spirit are people who distort and exploit the Constitution to justify taking away those vary things that it protects.
This report is just another example of the liberal bias that the major media claim does not exist. What if it had said, another Black basketball player pulled over? Would that be just an example of a fact that adds to the report? If this incident does produce some kind of charge to Randolph, would you as a juror be able to weight the "facts" that you know of from this report with out thinking of the guns?
If a woman is claiming she was raped, should we concider how she was dressed at the time, what her sexual activity was prior to the incident, no, most of these "facts" are not admissable.

Kaelri said...

"Kaelri- how would you feel about this hypothetical situation? You are pulled over and because you are a public figure the following is broadcast to all the media:
'Kaelri was also in the possession of a large amount of marijuana. However, since he has a medical marijuana card, he was not cited.'"


I can't very well respond to that. My nature and personality doesn't enable me to become either a public figure or a pot smoker. But someone who could would, ideally, have a medical reason for a "medical marijuana card." So I think he'd be relieved that his medication was not confiscated.

"Also, what I think are more dangerous than people who distort and exploit the Bible in word and spirit are people who distort and exploit the Constitution to justify taking away those vary things that it protects."

Agreed.

"This report is just another example of the liberal bias that the major media claim does not exist."

Oh, come on. It's even more basic than that. It's another example of the media bias towards a culture that is insecure and uncomfortable with violence. In wouldn't matter who had the guns or in what context, fundamentally; the guns would still be reported. Guns make a story sexy, that's all they care about.

"What if it had said, another Black basketball player pulled over? Would that be just an example of a fact that adds to the report?"

Well, for one thing, it'd be a little weird. A news report would tend to use just his name, if at all possible; if people know who he is, they probably know that he's black. But if it were, in some case, included?

Good question.

"If this incident does produce some kind of charge to Randolph, would you as a juror be able to weight the "facts" that you know of from this report with out thinking of the guns?"

If I were a juror, I would be given the facts (no quotes necessary) by a court of law. In this case, I would be surprised if the guns were mentioned more than once; not that a prosecutor mightn't try, but it would take more time and creativity than it's worth to demonstrate relevancy.

"If a woman is claiming she was raped, should we concider how she was dressed at the time, what her sexual activity was prior to the incident, no, most of these 'facts' are not admissable."

First, there is absolutely no reason to put "facts" in quotes unless you perceive them to be questionable; since you've included them directly in your hypothetical, this is not the case. I would like us to be in agreement that truth is not conditional.

As for the rape victim: her clothes and history are, in fact, not relevant. The fact that the basketball player's black is only statistically relevant. The fact that Randolph had a gun is relevant. Not directly to what happened, but as a matter of public interest, that a potentially dangerous man is potentially more dangerous than we thought.

(Note that, in this post, I have distinguished why I think the media should have reported it, and why it actually did. I think they've done the right thing for the wrong reasons, quite simply.)

Shaky Louie said...

Daniel I don't want to hijack your blog but I need to answer Kaleri

Kaelri, you pointed out my:

"But I'm not muslum, so I won't be doing any of that."

and said:
Let me be the first to say that you've annihilated your ethos already when it comes to "patronizing" and "disrespectful.

You're right - I have no respect for a "religion" that practices Female Genital Mutilation, or trains their children to become homicide bombers, or proclaimes that Jews are decendants of pigs and monkeys. A religion who's founder took a 6 year old for a wife, and had sex with her when she was nine. Yes, I can be disrespectful of that.

You'll probably remind me that Christianity has a dark past. You'd be right, but Christianity has moved into the 21st century where Islam has not.

Daniel said...

Shaky Louie, the comments section is open for everyone. The conversation doesn't need to be led by me or even include me. You make some good points.

Kaelri said...

"You're right - I have no respect for a "religion" that practices Female Genital Mutilation..."

Read.

"...or trains their children to become homicide bombers..."

Suicide bombers; don't succumb to newspeak. And please feel free to disrespect destructive perversions of Islam, that's partly the point. Just don't forget to make that distinction. Not every child is raised to throw away his own life at the first opportunity - not even most - not even many, given the one fifth of the human race that is, believe it or not, capable of simultaneously worshipping Allah and tolerating the existence of the other four-fifths who don't.

"...or proclaimes that Jews are decendants of pigs and monkeys..."

Islam's approach to Judaism and Christianity is much more intriguing than that: it holds that Moses and Jesus were the first two of three prophets, while the third, Muhammad, brought to man the perfection of God's word. In this historical philosophy, the Qur'an could sort of be called a "Third Testament." You may further be interested to know that Muhammad married a Jew. The ones who proclaim rhetorically that Jews Aren't People are members of the aforementioned perversion. It is dangerous to assume otherwise. Muslim extremists cannot represent their civilization; they are incapable. The majority of the Arab world reviles al Qaeda almost as much as we do, and usually only open up to them once the United States and our allies does something stupid that validates bin Laden's libel.

"A religion who's founder took a 6 year old for a wife, and had sex with her when she was nine."

She was probably nine when the marriage was consummated; other investigations put her between 14 and 18.

Now, let me remind you of what it was that you said:

"I could take offence, and run amok while setting things on fire, claiming that my religion is being mocked. Calling for the beheading of those who dare print such an outrage! Boycott of blogs! Death to the unbeliever! But I'm not muslum [sic], so I won't be doing any of that."

Which you think makes you different from 1.2 billion human beings who would?

"You'll probably remind me that Christianity has a dark past. You'd be right, but Christianity has moved into the 21st century where Islam has not."

Ah, alright, so you can expect to respect Islam in 600 years? Fantastic. Lemme know if it happens.

Shaky Louie said...

Kaleri,
OK, I read the article about FGM. So? It is still being practiced. I trust you are familier with the term taqyia, or kitman?

No disrespect meant here, but if you are relying on wikipedia for some of your information, i.e. Casio, I'm disappointed in you. US Intel - which I admit I know little about, probably has reasons for suspecting Mid-Eastern men caught on the field of battle wearing technology known to be used to activate bombs.

Islam is"...capable of simultaneously worshipping Allah and tolerating the existence of the other four-fifths who don't."

Let me give you this quote: "As anyone who has been paying attention to the Middle East for the last fifty years can see, Islam is a prime persecutor of other religions, especially Christians. In many Muslim countries, even "moderate" nations like Saudi Arabia, renouncing Islam is a capital crime. Religions other than Islam are formally suppressed by the governments of most Muslim nations. For instance, in Sudan, Christians and animists in the South are enslaved and sold north by Muslim (mostly Arab) radicals, and this goes on with the knowledge and promotion of the Sudanese government. It is little wonder that Muslim nations routinely top all the lists of human rights abusers."
__ Source: http://www.studytoanswer.net/
myths_ch8.html#ch8-3

Try to bring a Bible into Saudi Arabia. Not gonna happen.

I don't want to get into a flame war with you, you sound reasonably intelligent, but you must know that the Imams do preach that, according to Islamic beliefs Sharia law MUST be the ultimate rule for the entire world. (A "Caliphate", if you will.)
Islam (meaning 'submission') is not a "religion of peace".

And - your last little shot: "Ah, alright, so you can expect to respect Islam in 600 years? Fantastic. Lemme know if it happens."
OK, You'll be the first person I call. A'right? ;-)

I'm getting tired now. Worked hard all day. Need nap.

Anonymous said...

you guys need to read Chomsky. seriously, you need to. bad.