Watch as gun owner Bradley Turner initiates a physical altercation following a road rage incident, only to pull out a gun once the physical altercation doesn’t go his way.
Both Turner and his wife have been charged with multiple criminal charges as a result of his decision to discharge his firearm, a decision which resulted in a nearby home being hit by his gunfire.
Yow, I wouldn’t care to comment on the actions of either party in this video. Yet, it does bring a couple of matters to mind. One is the rule of law vs. vigilantism. To its credit, the 2nd Amendment, and of course, the entire foundation of the Constitution, was built upon the Rule of Law. You know, because the Rule of Law has this civilizing effect on rational people. The Constitution, contrary to beliefs in certain irrational circles which will go unnamed, was also founded on the idea of Government Protection – not only of happiness, rights, and liberties, but from ourselves – from the misdeeds humans commit against each other. Indeed, as James Madison contended:
“What is the situation of the weak compared with the strong in those stages of civilization in which the violence of individuals is least controlled by an efficient government?”
(note: I took the liberty of modernizing Madison’s archaic spellings of “Ye” and “controulled”)
With that in mind, the following article is of increasing interest:
http://www.salon.com/2013/03/27/cops_are_running_out_of_bullets_thank_the_nra/
And that article brings to mind Hamilton, once Madison’s ally in constructing an energetic and cohesive government, foe in terms of attaching capitalism to government.
Yet, as vigorous as Hamilton was with respect to capitalism, he viewed it only appropriate to advancing the national interest, not to run willy nilly at its own discretion. But most importantly, as capital a guy as he was, there was one sphere that he vehemently objected to ever entering private hands, one sphere that he insisted should always remain solely within the sphere of government: And that was weapon and ammunition manufacture.
With that in mind and with the Salon article in mind, might an effective solution be to remove all weapons manufacture from the private sector? As odious as it may seem, I find the more odious situation the one where weapons profiteering outweighs and effectively undermines law enforcement.
Looks like it was a good thing his wife brought the gun out the little turds were doing a pretty good job on him. He really needs to work on his aim thought how do you miss that close up?
Peter, did you miss the part where the man with the gun instigated the physical altercation?
Yeah, I’m sure you did.
Peter Bishop brings up a good point. The shooter missed, but he did not miss hitting a nearby house. Fortunately, no one was injured; no one died. Unfortunately, that’s not the case for another North Carolina gun owner who, on the same day, accidentally shot his 10 year old son in the head while wiping down his shotgun. The boy died. He was watching TV with his 8 year old sister.
As For Peter Bishop’s response to the posted video, how extraordinary it is that he would lament the road rage shooter missing his target. Peter Bishop seems to imply that shooting and subsequently killing one or both teens would somehow be justified. A moral dilemma.
Allegedly, the road rage shooter had pursued the teen driver aggressively for 40 minutes prior to the teen pulling off the road. Once the vehicles were parked, the road rage shooter approached the teen’s vehicle, the teen did not exit the vehicle, and the road rage shooter proceeded to strike the teen. The teen defended himself against his attacker and was assisted by his friend. Upon repelling the attacker, the teens backed away from the scene. It was after the teens had ended the fight when the road rage shooter’s wife handed him the gun. It was after the teens had retreated to their vehicle that the road rage shooter fired his weapon. At that point the teens had not threatened the road rage shooter with a firearm nor did they pose any physical threat.
The road rage shooter alleges that the teen whom he might have shot to death had run him off the road which led to the pursuit, then subsequent assault of the teen, the affray, and the discharging of the gun which hit a nearby house.
Peter Bishop’s comment implies a number of ethical questions: Would the road rage shooter have been justified in murdering, in cold blood, one or both teens because the teen driver may or may not have driven the road rage shooter off the road? Would the road rage shooter have been justified in murdering, in cold blood, one or both teens for subduing the road rage shooter in self defense? Is Peter Bishop implying the road rage shooter’s wife should have shot the teens while the altercation was still in progress?
Outside of the theoretical, the road rage shooter and his wife did engage in criminal behavior. Both are facing multiple charges, among them:
discharging a weapon into occupied property
two counts of assault by pointing a gun
assault and battery
bearing arms to the terror of the public
injury to personal property
A question for Peter Bishop: Criminal recklessness, defiance of the rule of law, irrational road rage, and vigilante murder would be the favored position to take in this instance – given what little we know. Would that be what you are implying?
Given that the Second Amendment’s explicit intent and purpose is for militia defense of the nation against foreign invaders – not for individual defense against fellow citizens (or offensive action against fellow citizens, which seems to be the case in the video) support for the actions of the road rage shooter and his wife would seem all the more dubious.
Peter Bishop, please elaborate on your rationale for taking the position you do. I’m intensely curious about your opinion given it seems so diametrically opposed to mine. Indeed, you’ve posed an interesting dilemma for rational, moral Americans to consider.