Althouse: "The filed complaint—the numbered paragraphs give it an oddly religious feeling, like theses nailed to a church door

১ জানুয়ারী, ২০১৫

"The filed complaint—the numbered paragraphs give it an oddly religious feeling, like theses nailed to a church door—"

Writes Adam Gopnik in The New Yorker's "The Newtown Lawsuit and the Moral Work of Gun Control."

"All complaints and other pleadings have numbered paragraphs. This is not normally considered to convey religious symbolism." Writes John Hinderaker at Power Line.

৫৯টি মন্তব্য:

Michael K বলেছেন...: The religious feel is that of the piece which relys on faith rather than facts. The left is all about feeling good about themselves.; ১/১/১৫, ৬:৫৫ PM
Gabriel বলেছেন...: Gell-Mann effect:

Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them.
In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.; ১/১/১৫, ৭:০০ PM
MathMom বলেছেন...: I was raised Lutheran. My husband was raised Methodist. He checks my purse for a hammer every time we go to a Methodist church.

Our joke.; ১/১/১৫, ৭:০১ PM
B বলেছেন...: The New Yorker is seeing Jesus in a piece of burnt toast. This is religious for them.; ১/১/১৫, ৭:১৩ PM
D. বলেছেন...: >like theses nailed to a church door<

where's the "church" of global warming located?; ১/১/১৫, ৭:১৬ PM
rhhardin বলেছেন...: Oddly religious is almost a Tom Swifty.; ১/১/১৫, ৭:১৭ PM
rhhardin বলেছেন...: Software infringement complaints start the numbering with 0.; ১/১/১৫, ৭:১৯ PM
Be বলেছেন...: Give me a few bars; I'll pick it up.

http://youtu.be/e4q6eaLn2mY; ১/১/১৫, ৭:২০ PM
Sam L. বলেছেন...: Forget it, Jake; it's the NEW YORKER.
(h/t, Chinatown); ১/১/১৫, ৭:২৪ PM
Richard Dolan বলেছেন...: Know your audience. Gopnik and the NYer surely do. Not obvious that Althouse fits in?; ১/১/১৫, ৭:২৫ PM
Danno বলেছেন...: Just how does Adam Gopnik believe the Newtown lawsuit is comparable to Luther's 95 theses? He didn't demonstrate this either.

Maybe we should all buy Bushmaster AR-15s to show him what we think of his gun control fantasies.; ১/১/১৫, ৭:৫৭ PM
sean বলেছেন...: On a more substantive level, it's funny to hear a journalist complain about the gun industry having unique legal protections. (Hint: other industries have to answer for their negligent acts.) Then again, fish think that lungs are unique, while gills are just the way of the world.; ১/১/১৫, ৮:০২ PM
নামহীন বলেছেন...: I have to start with the caption of the photo that identifies a teacher "that was killed" not "who was killed". In the Fucking New Yorker!

Next came the (probably false) assertion that the Bushmaster is only useful for killing people quickly, not for hunting.

Doesn't everyone (who presumes to write on this subject, at least) know that the Supreme Court upheld a ban on sawed-off shotguns BECAUSE they have no military use?

There is no right to hunt in the Constitution, but there is one to keep and bear arms. Arms -- the kind that help to create a well regulated militia -- are weapons of the type issued to the militia (which we now call the National Guard). To someone reading the Second Amendment without a political agenda, arms should obviously include the weapons that are routinely issued to the National Guard, or to the average infantryman of whatever time is applicable. So that means at least a fully automatic M-16 , AK-47 or equivalent.; ১/১/১৫, ৮:০৮ PM
jeff বলেছেন...: "Doesn't everyone (who presumes to write on this subject, at least) know that the Supreme Court upheld a ban on sawed-off shotguns BECAUSE they have no military use?" Not exactly true. The other side didnt show up for court so the anti-shotgunner won by default and the sawed off not only has significant military value but has been used in war for decades.; ১/১/১৫, ৮:২০ PM
Ambrose বলেছেন...: Just a random thought - do you think Luther knew he was creating a metaphor that would last at least 500 years?; ১/১/১৫, ৮:৩১ PM
James Pawlak বলেছেন...: HISTORICAL NOTE: In Luther's time the nailing of such documents to church doors was commmon.; ১/১/১৫, ৮:৩৪ PM
SJ বলেছেন...: A legal complaint that feels like a religious statement...

Is that supposed to be a good thing?

If so, why?

In comparison: suppose someone uses a Ford Mustang to run over a few cops. (Or a few protestors who are holding "Kill a Cop" signs...)

Can the victims sue Ford Motor Company because a criminal inflicted harm with a Ford Mustang?

If not, how does this suit against Bushmaster differ?; ১/১/১৫, ৮:৩৬ PM
RecChief বলেছেন...: Michael K said it well. First post.; ১/১/১৫, ৮:৩৮ PM
RecChief বলেছেন...: I;ve shot coyotes with a rifle similar to a bushmaster. But then, I've also shot them with a Ruger 77 chambered for .17 Hornady magnum too.; ১/১/১৫, ৮:৪২ PM
JAORE বলেছেন...: Anyone who believes the "only" use for AR type guns is to kill lots of people quickly is ignorant about the many uses for guns. Of course that they pursue this path in an effort to get such guns banned shows they are also ignorant of the Second Amendment.

And..... "If a carmaker made a car that was known to be wildly unsafe". Well all cars are potential weapons with 30-40,000 victims per year. It is the misuse of cars through bad driving, driving while impaired, road rage or other reasons that cause many of these deaths. Same with a gun. Find one that causes the owner to kill and I'll champion the lawsuit.; ১/১/১৫, ৮:৫০ PM
Big Mike বলেছেন...: "Stupid is as stupid does."; ১/১/১৫, ৮:৫৬ PM
Jeff Hall বলেছেন...: Well, I presume that anyone who was both a member of Opus Dei and the NRA would feel that the filed complaint was very much like Luther's theses. Maybe this is the audience Gopnik was aiming for.; ১/১/১৫, ৯:১৫ PM
n.n বলেছেন...: এই মন্তব্যটি লেখক দ্বারা সরানো হয়েছে।; ১/১/১৫, ৯:২৯ PM
Chef Mojo বলেছেন...: The Colt AR-15 platform in semi-auto has been available and marketed as a hunting rifle since 1964. That's 3 years before the U.S. Army formally adopted the platform in full auto as the M-16. The civilian use of the semi-auto variants of the AR-15 has always been a given.

This lawsuit is going nowhere in the long run.; ১/১/১৫, ৯:৩১ PM
roger বলেছেন...: The news that the parents of the children massacred two years ago in Sandy Hook, near Newtown, Connecticut, by a young man with a Bushmaster semi-automatic rifle, were undertaking a lawsuit against the gun manufacturer was at once encouraging and terribly discouraging. The encouraging part is that those parents, suffering from a grief that those of us who are only witnesses to it can barely begin to comprehend, haven’t, despite the failure to reinstate assault-weapons bans and stop the next massacre, given way to despair.

What level of command of the English language is required for one to write for the New Yorker? This is painful to read.; ১/১/১৫, ৯:৪৪ PM
roger বলেছেন...: The filed complaint—the numbered paragraphs give it an oddly religious feeling, like theses nailed to a church door—is worth reading in full, however painful that might be, not only because of the unbelievable suffering and cruelty it details on that terrible morning but also because it offers, in neatly logical fashion, an indisputable argument: the gun manufacturer is guilty of having sold a weapon whose only purpose was killing a lot of people in a very short time.

That was allegedly one sentence. Its like herding cats reading this stuff.; ১/১/১৫, ৯:৪৭ PM
n.n বলেছেন...: The sole intent and purpose of a gun is to propel a small projectile. The sole intent and purpose of premeditated abortion is to terminate a wholly innocent human life.

The gun control advocates lose credibility with their mistaken priorities. More human lives are lost in planned parenthood rituals through lethal injection, decapitation, and dismemberment than during capital punishment, wars, Islamic State terrorism, and mass shotings combined over the same period.

Gopnik loses credibility when he demonstrates an illogical understanding of risk management. Premeditated abortion carried out in a back-alley, where the mother faces the same risk of mortality as her child, would reduce the number of premeditated abortion cases. Effectively, nature acts in self-defense on behalf of the unarmed child.

Both lose credibility if they believe that government and criminals will not maintain access to guns. The latter simply because they ignore proscriptive measures. It is ridiculous to grant them an exclusive right to enjoy this leverage. The first responders are the people on the scene, usually the intended victims, not governments agents.

Shooting has multiple intents, that do not necessarily included committing murder. Premeditated abortion has only one intent: to torture or murder a human life. Even while fighting wars, there is a concern for causing collateral damage. While premeditated abortion has only one intent and purpose: to cause collateral damage. That is to say, premeditated abortion has the sole intent and purpose to terminate a wholly innocent human life with a sincerely held prejudice (e.g. "burden").

As for Newtown, the guy first murdered his mother, then he claimed possession of her guns, and finally he committed mass murder. The mother did not perceive the risk posed by her son; neither did his psychiatrist. Unfortunately, gun control would not have stopped her son from taking possession of his dead mother's licensed guns and then running amuck.; ১/১/১৫, ১০:০৩ PM
Jason বলেছেন...: Numbered paragraphs give a legal document an "oddly religious feeling, like nailing theses to a church door."

You know what else has numbered paragraphs, hmmm?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFvKjIVb6HA; ১/১/১৫, ১০:২৩ PM
furious_a বলেছেন...: A legal complaint that feels like a religious statement..

...like the verdict against Joan of Arc or the edict against Galileo. Okay, then.; ১/১/১৫, ১১:৫১ PM
Skeptical Voter বলেছেন...: Well to be fair a legal complaint--at least one seeking damages--usually has a prayer. [That's the part at the end that says how much dough the plaintiff is asking for.]

And then some lawsuits don't have a prayer of succeeding.

I'm trying to help Gopnik here--he obviously needs some since he doesn't have a clue. But he may be into numerology since numbers mean something "oddly religious" to him.; ২/১/১৫, ১২:৪৯ AM
chickelit বলেছেন...: Fight The Power!; ২/১/১৫, ১২:৪৯ AM
নামহীন বলেছেন...: "And thusly the climate change accord will move forward, therein huddled a raft of all races and peoples, gathered in righteousness, swiftly agreeing upon the amended protocols."

**Applause, a woman starts sobbing: 'Bless the UN, bless the health-care workers, bless us all.'

Organ notes disperse softly in the air.

"I want to thank everyone for this week's caption submissions for what's come to be known as "Wall Street Cat With Ennui'."

"Folks, we WILL have a winner by the time you leave here today!"

Scattered applause, light laughter.

The organ notes disperse softly in the air.

"And now we move to Brother Adam, who has some important news from the gun control front"

"Brother Adam, step-up here and bear witness and use the bullhorn, Brother. Let them hear your voice!"; ২/১/১৫, ৪:১০ AM
Jaq বলেছেন...: Kurt Vonnegut wrote a short story about a world where all human beings were kept safe from harm at all times. Humans were all locked in padded cells by robots who tended to our needs. Humans were allowed no sharp objects. This arose from a part of the robot programming which forbid them to cause any human harm. Like lawyers then expanded on this clause until it was interpreted to mean that failure to protect from harm was to cause harm. Next thing you knew, the whole human race is locked up.; ২/১/১৫, ৬:৪৯ AM
Bob Ellison বলেছেন...: Gabriel, thanks for the reminder of Chrichton's description of the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. I keep trying to describe that to others in conversation and forgetting that there's an excellent description handy. I've bookmarked it, because I have the Bob Bad Memory effect.; ২/১/১৫, ৬:৫০ AM
Freeman Hunt বলেছেন...: Is using Excel a numinous or ecstatic experience?; ২/১/১৫, ৮:১০ AM
Fernandinande বলেছেন...: Funny that they'd reference a proto-Nazi in writing about banning guns.; ২/১/১৫, ৮:৪৩ AM
Jaq বলেছেন...: Can I just say that I might be convinced to support a modification of the 2nd amendment through the constitutionally delineated democratic method, but I in no way support perverse readings of the constitution as a way to restrict gun rights.

Besides, I think it is a good thing for these wannabee revolutionaries wandering around NYC and other cities shutting down traffic to have to think twice about trying to foment an actual revolution on account of their despised enemies in the rest of the country are so well armed.; ২/১/১৫, ৯:১৬ AM
Bruce Hayden বলেছেন...: Should be flushed on preliminary motions. Federal statute prevents just this sort of case. Gun grabbers whine about this sort of statute, because they claim that it provides special status for guns. But the analogies they tend to use involve product liability for defective products. And, you can still sue for defective guns. You just can't sue for guns operating correctly. You can sue the gun user, just not the manufacturer unless it operated in a defective manner. Which is the same as other products - you can sue the driver of the car that hit you, just not the manufacturer unless the car can be shown to have been manufactured defectively.

The reason for this statute was that gun grabbing states like CA, NY, NJ, etc, were heading in the direction of making gun manufacturers liable for their products operating as designed. The express intent was to bankrupt these companies, drying up the supply of guns nationally. That was partly because there was no attempt to limit the cumulative damages to those caused by that brand of guns in that state, but rather, the only real limits were the assets of the entire company. So CA could have put all these companies out of business with just lawsuits from people suing in its courts.; ২/১/১৫, ৯:১৬ AM
Bruce Hayden বলেছেন...: My view on the Miller case is that it essentially flipped with Heller and McDowell. The Supreme Court did not reverse Miller's conviction because there was no evidence that a sawed off shotgun was a weapon in use by the military. Yes, in fact, it had been in use by the military in the trench warfare of WW I. But that is legally irrelevant, since there was no evidence in the court record to that effect, and that is what is legally relevant. And we can probably be glad, with perfect 20/20 hindsight, that this was the case. The newly enacted NFA was enacted to counteract the gangsters like Clyde Barrow, Machine Gun Kelly, St Valentines Day Massacre, and many believe that the Supreme Court would have validated the law one way or another.

Back to my original point - Miller was seen, pre-Heller, as a ceiling on what is Constitutionally protected (guns like those used by the military). Now, I think it is more a floor on what is protected, or, maybe what can be regulated. The fact that the closest analogue to the main battle rifle of the US for the last 50 years is the AR platform makes it hard to ban this sort of firearm, since usage of this firearm furthers the militia clause of the 2nd Amdt.; ২/১/১৫, ৯:৩৪ AM
grackle বলেছেন...: Maybe we should all buy Bushmaster AR-15s to show him what we think of his gun control fantasies.

In effect we already are. The AR-style platform is the most popular type of rifle sold in the USA.

http://tinyurl.com/lkhpks3

Can the victims sue Ford Motor Company because a criminal inflicted harm with a Ford Mustang?

They could try but they would only have an effective suit to bring IF and only IF the harm was inflicted because of malfunction due to design flaws. As with autos it's the same with guns. Unless they malfunction or are designed with flaws which cause harm the gun manufacturers have the same legal protection as the auto makers – or any manufacturer of any other product – from coffeemakers to elevators.

My Christmas gift to myself was a Sig Sauer SP2022 pistol. Over a 1,000 rounds through it without a single stovepipe or failure to feed. At one point I "limp-wristed" while firing it in an attempt to get it to stovepipe. Nothing. It's not picky about ammo types, either; hollowpoints, fmj, all kinds of cheap ammo were run through it. For me at 20 yards it's a tack-driver. It has become my favorite carry pistol.

My next purchase will be either a pump shotgun or a 9mm carbine. Kel-Tec has a nifty fold-up carbine that I have my eye on. I'm not looking for an AR-type – I'm not a hunter or a competition shooter so for me there is no pressing need.; ২/১/১৫, ৯:৫০ AM
Beldar বলেছেন...: And yet Gopnik is what passes in the media elites as a well-educated, well-informed consultant on legal affairs. He's one of the 1%er go-to analysts, definitely part of the first team.

And he couldn't find his butt with both hands and a road map.; ২/১/১৫, ১০:০৪ AM
Bruce Hayden বলেছেন...: I have opined on this before.

The Bushmaster at issue is an AR type firearm, named after the AR-15 (and earlier versions) that was the predecessor of the M16s that our military have been using for 50 years now as their main battle rifle. I would suggest that AR type rifles and carbines scare the left so much because of this fact, and we now have 50 years of war movies and cop shows featuring firearms that look like AR-15 variants. The difference, of course, is that AR variants like that Bushmaster are semiautomatic, and military grade assault rifles like the M16 and M4 Carbine are select fire.

Why though are AR-15 type semiautomatic (and even single shot) rifles and carbines so popular. One part probably that we now have 50 years of military veterans trained on its select fire analogue. But probably more important is that it is modern. Gun grabbers at least want to push back the technology available to civilians to the pre-AR-15 days, over 50 years ago. Modern AR-15 type guns are built of modern materials, with modern engineering, ergonomics, and technology. Which makes them lighter, more rugged, more accurate (over relevant distances), with less recoil, and far more capacity, than the guns they replaced. Moreover, they are highly modular, with everything from caliber to barrel length to butt stock being easily replaced. Plus, all of the accessories that can be easily added, removed, and replaced. The type of gun a tinkerer would love.; ২/১/১৫, ১০:২০ AM
Bruce Hayden বলেছেন...: Let me add that I was using AR variant because there are trademark issues with "AR-15". I think it is Colt that owns that trademark - though I suspect that mark is rapidly approaching genericide. A lot of different companies, including Bushmaster and Colt make AR variants, and, indeed, individuals can make their own (lower receiver blocks), and if kept for private use, they don't need a serial number. They have a common look and a lot of the parts are interchangeable.

Ostensibly an IP attorney, I need to respect the AR-15 trademark. But the reality that most do not is why I expect the mark to soon lose protection through genericide.; ২/১/১৫, ১০:৩৩ AM
SJ বলেছেন...: @FreemanHunt,

I would posit that Excel is closer to ecstatic than numinous.

Though not all uses of Excel promote ecstasy.

(That "numinous", which doesn't have etymological connections to "numerate/enumerate/numeracy". Even though modern pronunciation of these words sounds similar, the English spelling gives hints to the different origins of these words.); ২/১/১৫, ১০:৫২ AM
jaed বলেছেন...: Premeditated abortion carried out in a back-alley, where the mother faces the same risk of mortality as her child

Point of information: "back-alley abortion" doesn't mean "carried out in an alley". (If you think about it, it doesn't make sense: why would anyone do an abortion outdoors or in an alley? Surely there is some indoor location.)

An old-fashioned urban doctor's office would typically be located on the first floor of a building, with a front entrance, and then a service entrance in back, off an alley. If such a doctor did illegal abortions, he would wait until evening, after his office staff had gone home. Then the woman or girl seeking the abortion would come, as prearranged. To avoid anyone seeing her enter the office and wondering what was going on at the late hour, she would go around to the back and enter by the alley entrance, and later leave by the alley door.

That's what "back-alley abortion" means. A clandestine abortion, performed after-hours in a doctor's office.; ২/১/১৫, ১০:৫৩ AM
n.n বলেছেন...: jaed:

I should have wrote "back-alley" in quotes. It's an abortion committed outside the normal stream of society, which is not limited to a clandestine visit to a doctor's office; and often incurred greater risk to the mother's life. That said, why is the distinction you describe significant?; ২/১/১৫, ১১:২৪ AM
Birches বলেছেন...: I dislike guns. Never touched my spouse's--don't think that I ever will. I don't buy the argument that I will ever need to learn to use the gun in self defense. It's a numbers game and I think I'll play the odds on that point.

However, I completely recognize guns and shooting is a sport and a hobby--one that I have no interest in, but a sport and a hobby nonetheless. And this sport and hobby is relatively safe.

If more gun control people understood this, they'd probably be able to write more intelligible, reasoned arguments for better gun control, but since they suspect everyone who owns an AR-15 secretly wants to kill a small city, they get nowhere.; ২/১/১৫, ১২:০৪ PM
The Cracker Emcee Refulgent বলেছেন...: "Blogger grackle said...
Maybe we should all buy Bushmaster AR-15s to show him what we think of his gun control fantasies.

In effect we already are. The AR-style platform is the most popular type of rifle sold in the USA. "

There are at least 5 households on my quiet upper-middle class street that I know have an AR-style rifle. There's probably more but I know of five for certain. They belong to a trucking magnate, an ER doc, a contractor, a collection agency owner, and myself.
In Gopnik's fevered imaginings only militia crazies and wannabe active shooters own such a weapon but it just isn't so.; ২/১/১৫, ১২:৪৮ PM
jaed বলেছেন...: why is the distinction you describe significant?

It obviously doesn't make what's happening any more or less terrible, but there is a certain frisson of horror that comes from the mental picture of a woman lying on the ground in an alley having an abortion. I believe pro-abortion activists take advantage of this mental image when using the term "back-alley abortion", to make listeners recoil at the idea of making abortion illegal. The idea being that if it is illegal, women will end up lying in a dirty alley, etc.

It is a rhetorical trick that I think should have the sails taken out of it.; ২/১/১৫, ৮:৪৭ PM
Alan বলেছেন...: I guess Gopnik is clinging to his "guns and religion".; ৩/১/১৫, ৭:৪৫ AM
Tucanae Services বলেছেন...: "-- are weapons of the type issued to the militia (which we now call the National Guard)."

The NG was envisioned by its designers to be that artifact, but legally, by formation and in principle it is not. As the Founders defined it the Militia was the entire body politic of the nation between the ages of 18-45 called into service.; ৩/১/১৫, ৭:৫৩ AM
Bob Loblaw বলেছেন...: It's always painful to read anti-gun articles by people who obviously don't know anything about guns and feel compelled to render opinions without doing a few minutes of research.

He's not much of a writer, either, which doesn't make it any easier. You don't get much coherent argument from the New Yorker, but you used to get good writing.; ৩/১/১৫, ৮:০২ AM
Fox2! বলেছেন...: Software infringement complaints start the numbering with 0.

And go ... 9, A, B, C, D, E, F; ৩/১/১৫, ১১:১১ AM
Fox2! বলেছেন...: The NG was envisioned by its designers to be that artifact, but legally, by formation and in principle it is not

IIRC, the National Guard Act specifically states that the Guard is not the militia.; ৩/১/১৫, ১১:১৩ AM
Fox2! বলেছেন...: The Supreme Court did not reverse Miller's conviction because there was no evidence that a sawed off shotgun was a weapon in use by the military.

Miller became moot because Miller died before the decision was issued.

His defense counsel should have subpoenaed the crustiest Marine NCO he could find, a veteran of Belleau Wood, and asked him to describe a "trench broom." Extra points if he had The Medal hanging on his neck.; ৩/১/১৫, ১১:২২ AM
Unix-Jedi বলেছেন...: I'm always dismayed at how many lawyers (and apparently all the sitting USSC justices) misquote US v Miller.

Miller wasn't an appeal of a conviction. It was an appeal of a preliminary decision.

Miller was a previously convicted felon, but the case at hand was dismissed at the initial stages, and that appeal was remanded back to the lower court to hold a hearing (which never was held, natch) to see if short-barrelled shotguns indeed had military value.

I really have to wonder what is taught in law school, ever lawyer gets that wrong. When it's pretty simple and easy to check, at least for non-lawyers.; ৩/১/১৫, ১১:৪০ AM
Narniaman বলেছেন...: People, people, people. . .

The primary purpose of a gun is not to shoot people. . . and furthermore, the primary use of most guns is not to propel a small projectile with a great deal of speed and accuracy towards a specific target.

The primary use of guns in civil society is for behavior modification. That can be achieved with the gun being displayed -- an not fired -- by even the smallest, weakest person in time of need. . . and also can be accomplished without the gun even being seen, in the instance of a uniformed policeman.; ৩/১/১৫, ১১:৫১ AM
Bruce Hayden বলেছেন...: I don't think that you can say that Miller,was mooted because he died - it is still being cited nearly 80 years later. A truly mooted case would probably not be percentile, and Miller was cited many times as controlling precedent.; ৩/১/১৫, ৮:০৮ PM
নামহীন বলেছেন...: "the sawed off not only has significant military value but has been used in war for decades. "

Turns out there was some ambiguity about whether the Geneva Convention banned shotguns. They got used in the jungles of the South Pacific regardless, which effectively settled the issue. But Miller was before then.; ৪/১/১৫, ৬:০৬ PM