Tiger Woods is in the rough. As a Republic in danger of losing itself continues ignoring important issues in favor of celebrity obsession, salacious and intrusive stories continue to dominate the headlines and captivate the increasingly prurient heirs of Liberty.
OK, but what does that have to do with "gun control"?
In the Woods case, there have been reports that wife Elin Nordegren assaulted him, scratching his face and going after him with a golf club. That's illegal--it's even a federal crime that can result in being designated a "prohibited person" as far as owning firearms are concerned. If the charges were to be proven, she would be in violation of the Lautenberg "domestic violence" edict, and thus forever barred from possessing the means of defense.
So while Lautenberg claims he wrote it "to protect women and children by keeping spousal and child abusers from owning guns," in this case, especially if the marriage were to dissolve, this woman and her children would be mandated to be defenseless.
True, Ms. Nordegren can well afford the finest security money can buy, but most women don't have a potential $300 Mil settlement to factor into the equation.
So I have a question for you. If it could be proven that Elin Nordegren committed an act of domestic violence, should she be arrested, tried, convicted and forever barred from gun ownership--just like someone of lesser wealth and status could be? Take today's poll and let me know what you think.
------------
A measly buck
That's all Jim Deakin is asking for in his latest campaign email:
Help Jim Deakin defeat John McCain.
The time has come to show all politicians we mean business. Do you want someone that has been bought and sold by Tarp companies, George Soros, or others? Or do you want someone that is solely answerable to YOU?
Mark your calendar: Monday December 7 2009 . The day to DONATE $1 to Jim Deakin
Then forward this...to your friends and relatives and encourage them to donate.
Why should you care?
Here's why. And you can learn more about Jim from his campaign website.
------------
No guns for you-know-who
Aaron Zelman, Executive Director of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, correctly chastises me that I blew an opportunity in my column on the National Black Police Association to remind readers of JPFO's excellent educational video, "No Guns for Negroes."
Guilty.
Click here to read my review.
Then click here for the free download and to share it with your friends.
And while you're on the JPFO site, don't forget to click here and help Aaron continue his great work. As my friend Max Lemus says, if not you, who?
------------
Speaking of Max Lemus
Don't forget--next Tuesday will be my live interview with the producer of "Not Without a Fight," where you get to ask questions. Be here--and tell a friend.
You've already seen it, right?
Comments
I voted "No," in the poll, but it wasn't easy. For consistency's sake, I was tempted to vote "Yes" (to paraphrase the old saying: "What's good for the gander is good for the goose"). I stuck with "No," though, because forcible disarmament isn't good for the gander OR the goose.
Of course I voted no; the only people who should be prohibited are those incarcerated because they pose a danger to others (not themselves; what they do to themselves is their own business), and only for the time of incarceration. If they're so dangerous that they can't be trusted with a defensive tool, they're too dangerous to be allowed to walk free.
No.
Depriving someone their Second Amendment right who does not represent a threat to society is unconstitutional.
Relying on the subjective politically motivated opinions of corrupt politicians and officers within the legal establishment is a recipe for disaster IMO.
I'm just not a poll-taker, myself, but I will offer this. To this question (and it's a great one, David, to get people thinking):
"...should she be arrested, tried, convicted and forever barred from gun ownership--just like someone of lesser wealth and status could be?"
I would respond thusly:
"Trick question. If she hurt someone through aggression, she should be called to answer for it and if possible to make restitution. If not, she walks, with an apology for the harrassment. No other details matter. What is so hard about this?"
Aggression, theft and fraud are the only real "crimes" there are. Everything else simply represents LUCRATIVE ENFORCEMENT OPPORTUNITIES. Opportunities, let's be clear, for a far worse perpetrator of real crime than anyone--*anyone*--it deigns to judge.
Aw, man, now I went and got myself on another list, didn't I? Nuts.
I voted No, because who is to say that she wasn't defending herself already. Tiger has been shown to have a temper on the Golf course (don't we all), so who knows what went on behind closed doors, and what precipitated her aledged actions, if in fact the rumours are true. As it emerges that he, like many, possibly couldn't keep it in their pants even though they made a commitment, (what goes on in Vegas, stays in Vegas), wasn't he putting her at risk of life by his actions in todays times with HIV possibilties, or will he becomes the new pitchman for some Condum company.
I wonder if Erin knows Lorena Bobbit?
Well, Zelman obviously didn't read the comments because I did mention that video and posted a link to it. :)
No. The only people who should be disarmed for any reason are those who are attacking someone right now, or any government employee.
This law is an outrage and should never have been passed. That being said, many, many average citizens are being prosecuted under this heinous law. Just because she is a celebrity and wealthy beyond belief is NO justification for her not to face the consequences. As for Marty, get real. According to every account I have read of this incident, if anyone was running for their life, it was Tiger.
Actually the only action I can see that would be justified is if she took golf lessons so that she may better control a 9 iron.
I think there were two questions in the poll:
1) Should she be treated like everyone else even though she is rich?
(i would be compelled to say "yes")
2) Should she be denied her constitutional rights becasue she might have broken her cheating husbands window with a gulf club?
(i would be compelled to say "no").
Pardon my off-topic post - but check this out:
I surfed to Tiger Woods' personal website, where he makes a statement. As of 5:34 P.M. today, there were 14,925 comments regarding his problem.
This goes right to the heart of the matter. With everything that's going on - the destruction of the economy, undeclared wars, terrorism, the coming crash of the dollar and world financial markets, possible worldwide disease, food riots, etc, destruction of the Bill of Rights, politicians violating their oaths of office, etc, etc, there are more people commenting on Tiger Woods personal life than have likely commented on all liberty oriented blogs combined in the last year.
Little wonder were heading up an excrement polluted tributary without proper means of propulsion.
Fewer people apparently care about liberty than a pro golfer's personal problems.
While I wrote this another 41 comments were posted.
Crap.
"I voted "No," in the poll, but it wasn't easy. For consistency's sake, I was tempted to vote "Yes" (to paraphrase the old saying: "What's good for the gander is good for the goose"). I stuck with "No," though, because forcible disarmament isn't good for the gander OR the goose. "
I agree with Mr. Hoffman, and voted the same.
I voted yes, because the law is the law, whether I agree with it or not, and I think the quickest way to get attention for BS laws is to be sure they get enforced on public figures, no matter how rich or good looking or political they are. Once the exhalted class has to suck it up with the rest of the peons, things have a better chance of changing, IMO.
I agree with Ned. (Of course I would - I married him because he's so smart! Plus, we think alike...)
As a woman, I had to vote no, even though philosophically I agree with Ted that we need to put celebrities and other "luminaries" at the effect of the execrable Lautenberg-esque anti-Bill-of-Rights laws they so profligately visit upon us.
BTW - I remind everyone that Bill of Rights Day - December 15th - is fast approaching, and I urge as many folks as possible to go to the website of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (jpfo.org), to search for "Bill of Rights Day" and to write letters to editors of newspapers and Congresscritters urging them to support Bill of Rights Day... and the actual Bill of Rights itself. In fact, I'm all for passing a law that would severely punish all represenatives if and when they violate their oath of office to defend and protect the Constitution, which, of course, includes the Bill of Rights. String 'em up when they violate their oath.
Ned, you are totally on topic.
I am a proponent of disobeying every law that is repugnant to the constitution. The "law is the law" is exactly what the Nazis used to excuse their genocidal murders, each and every one of them was legal under German law. So the "law is the law" doesn't get it for me. I understand your sentiments about the famous and powerful being held to the same laws as everyone else, but it doesn't work that way, never has, never will. Therefore the ordinary citizen has only his diobedience of illegitimate law to rely upon backed up by his willingness to do violence if necessary..
thus it has always been since before we learned to walk upright.
Dave Codrea, I voted NO. Two things here: First, it's a potential MISDEMEANOR domestic violence conviction, not a felony. Secondly, I think that every woman is a potential target for sexual assault - from the 3-year old little girl toddler, to the 85-year-old wheelchair-bound senior. She should not be stripped of her second amendment rights - she may need them in the future.
What if some Tiger Woods fan were to blame her for his troubles, and come looking for her, stalking her, as a hunter stalks a deer? What if he was armed with a gun or knife, or both?
To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, "No free woman should ever be debarred the use of arms".
I agree with Just A Thought's observation. She should not be afforded special treatment because of celebrity status, in which case one could argue in favor of her placement on the prohibited persons list in Mr. Codrea's scenario. That being said, I disagree with the premise behind such a list, in which case I could argue that she should not be barred from legal gun ownership forever. Regrettably, if she were convicted and manages to retain her right to keep and bear arms, I am confident it will be a result of her wealth and social status and not a result of anyone's principled defense of the Bill of Rights.
Lus,
The "Gun Ban for Individuals Convicted of a Misdemeanor Crime of Domestic Violence", Pub.L. 104-208,[1] 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9) was specifically passed to apply to MISDEMEANOR domestic violence convictions. Perhaps the most notorious aspect of this law was the fact that it applied ex post facto; Citizens convicted prior to the law's enactment were required to permanently disarm.
U.S. v. Skoien
The government has done almost nothing to discharge this burden. Instead, it has premised its argument almost entirely on Heller’s reference to the presumptive validity of felon-dispossession laws and reasoned by analogy that § 922(g)(9) therefore passes constitutional muster. That’s not enough. Accordingly, we vacate Skoien’s conviction and remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
NO!
No
Shall not be infringed is just that.
However I do feel all should be treated the same, justice should indeed be blind to ones station in life and serve all equally.
Tiger woods as shown that he is a typical celebrity that can’t keep it in his pants.
I voted NO because I believe he should have a golf club rapped around his neck and then shoved up his rear.
Yes I noticed how more people are concerned for Tiger than they are for their Country.
Bloomberg is reporting that Bankers (Goldman Sachs) are buying guns because their afraid of repercussions from the coming collapse.
Lautenberg’s law should be repealed.
The only people that should be bared from owning a firearm are those in prison and in mental hospital.
And women like tigers wife shouldn’t marry beneath themselves.
Apologies for the double post. I refreshed the page to see new posts after the computer sat idle overnight and posted again.
Anyways - there were close to 18,000 posts re: Tiger's personal indiscretions when I last checked.
This poll needs to have the question tweaked a little. The reason being that I don't think that someone should be automatically barred from owning the means to self defence for ANY misdemeanor. But if you are asking if I think she should be treated like everybody else in that position then yes. She should be dealt with like you or I would be, without $300mil!!
Dave,
Great article. I developed the Misdemeanor Domestic Violence theme a few days ago at Knoxville Gun Rights Examiner.
By stating that this woman and her children would be mandated to be defenseless, you are guilty of outrageous hyperbole. You know that a gun is just one way a person can defend themselves, so why lie and claim that if guns weren't available they be defenseless?
Maybe it's just as well she attacked him with a golf club rather than a gun. It appears she was somewhat out of control (perhaps understandably) and people in that state of mind and guns aren't a good mix.
Tell that to the student nurses, Pottering, you idiot.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!