Quote of the Day: Zoned Out Edition

Cleveland Councilman Matt Zone and Gordon (courtesy toledoblade.com)

“The right to bear arms does not trump the right of our citizens to live safe lives.” – Councilman Matt Zone, quoted in Cleveland mayor aims for mandatory reporting for unlicensed gun sellers [via cleveland.com]

 

comments

  1. avatar El Mac says:

    Yes actually, it does.

    1. avatar James R says:

      And even if it didn’t, this quote is under the assumption that restricting guns would make people more safe.

      COMMENT MDOERATED

      1. avatar Daniel S. says:

        I read that as “The right to bear arms does not trump the right to bear arms.”

    2. avatar Chas says:

      Absolutely correct. My copy of the Bill of Rights doesn’t mention anything about the so-called right to “live safe lives”. It does, however, specify my right to own and carry a firearm.

    3. avatar JasonM says:

      I would disagree.
      My rights to X, don’t trump your rights to Y, or vice versa.
      The flaw in Mr. Zone’s reasoning is the assumption that gun rights are inflicting harm on the people of Cleveland. People do have a right to purchase, own, and carry guns for any nonaggressive purposes they choose. They do not have a right to initiate violence against others, with or without guns. Mr. Zone doesn’t appear to understand that crucial distinction, or chooses to ignore it, because, as RF would say: Guns!

      And to those who frame this as a Bill of Rights issue: the Bill of Rights doesn’t grant rights, is not exclusive, and only applies to the government. Your right to live your life in peace, as you see fit (with as many guns as you choose to buy) comes from nature, God, or whatever you choose to call it. And that right is protected from government intrusion by the 9th (the catch all for anything not explicitly mentioned in the first eight) and 10th (the restriction of federal control to enumerated powers) Amendments.

      1. avatar Henry Chinery, III says:

        Except the Federal Government has been ignoring the Tenth Amendment (and every other right) for quite some time now. Seems they don’t like to be limited, especially the current Executive Branch.

  2. avatar Shire-man says:

    Can a resident of Cleveland sue the city, mayor and PD for the crime that takes place? The city is violating that residents right to live a safe life.

    1. avatar B says:

      But then they’d just say thats not the city’s fault, its the criminals fault. And then our heads would freaking explode at the hypocrisy. I like my head like I like my women, on top of my shoulders and unexploded.

    2. avatar JasonM says:

      Nope. The supreme court in its infinite(simal) wisdom ruled that the police are in no way responsible for protecting the people from crime, nor liable when they fail to do so.

  3. avatar EagleScout87 says:

    It most certainly does.

  4. avatar Steve says:

    And the point is?

  5. avatar John E> says:

    Does he have the right to that Pit Bull?

    1. avatar Shire-man says:

      Assault dog. lol

    2. avatar Anonymoose says:

      A very good question. At least here in Cleveland Heights you have to register “vicious dogs” such as pit bulls with the city.

      1. avatar Anonymous says:

        Maybe he should care about his neighbors’ right to safety living around his dangerous dog. I’d be far more worried about living around that type of dog than I would about guns.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          But I’d be a bit less worried if I could carry a big gun.

        2. avatar JasonM says:

          Dogs bred to fight in pits are innocent creatures that would never harm anyone.

          Guns are evil sentient devices that use sorcery to corrupt the minds of their wielders, convincing them to murder innocent people and drink the blood of babies.

          Oops! I think I just blew my sarcasm regulator valve.

    3. avatar Alpo says:

      That’s a valid point. According to the CDC:
      •About 4.5 million people are bitten by dogs each year.
      •Almost one in five of those who are bitten, about 885,000, require medical attention for dog bite-related injuries; half of these are children.
      •In 2012, more than 27,000 people underwent reconstructive surgery as a result of being bitten by dogs.

      Pitbulls (and similar dogs, like the Dogo Argentino) account for:
      81% of attacks that induce bodily harm
      76% of attacks to children
      87% of attack to adults
      72% of attacks that result in fatalities
      81% that result in maiming
      Embody 9.2%+ of the total dog population

      1. avatar Kyle in CT says:

        How many Chihuahua and Shih-Tzu bites go unreported? And how many drug dealers use pits and pit-type dogs as pseudo-protection dogs for their stash houses? It’s the same argument the antis use against guns, i.e “Look at all the gun violence!”, without looking at the context.

        The broader point, however, is valid. I’d be willing to bet that this same guy would blow his top if someone tried to take his dog away for the exact same reasoning. And rightfully so, because it would be equally stupid.

        1. avatar KCK says:

          When locked in its kennel my gun has NEVER escaped and harmed someone.
          It has no ability to act on its own.

        2. avatar Accur81 says:

          I got bit by a little terrier in my neighbor’s house. The bite was bad enough to draw blood. We settled over a couple of beers. Not that big of a deal really. I’ve been bit by hamsters and clawed by hermit crabs, too. Life goes on.

      2. avatar JasonM says:

        With a name like Alpo, can we really trust you to be unbiased when it comes to dogs biting things?

      3. avatar Jus Bill says:

        I seem to recall that if these statistics are gleaned from news reports thay are seriously flawed. The media suffers from the malady of calling any dog that is stocky and involved in a bite a “Pit Bull” when in fact they are usually an entirely different breed. Much the same as calling any rifle an “AR 15” even after subsequent correct identifications to the contrary.

        We unmasked this charade in Maryland recently in overturning a court decision branding Pit Bulls as an “Inherently Vicious Breed.” I call BS.

    4. avatar Col. Angus says:

      It ate his pussy(cat)……

  6. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    “Despite the hard work of the Cleveland Division of Police and their law enforcement partners, we continue to face situations where convicted felons are using guns to murder, rob and assault people in our community,” Jackson said.

    Really?
    Why there ought to be a law agai…..

    Oh wait.

    1. avatar JR says:

      Whenever I hear politicians like this say crap like this…one of my first thoughts is “you should ride a shift on patrol on a Saturday night.” Or ride the truck with the EMT’s.

      The reality is not just a bunch of numbers on a city expense report or budget request for the upcoming year.

      People that have been sheltered their whole lives from the realities of the world have no business making rules and statements about how others “should live” or what is needed “to feel safe.”

      It was Zone 8 in the town where I used to live. All the politicians saw in that area was what could be bull dozed to “redevelop” the town. The people that lived there did not matter. They did not matter when the beat and killed each other, and it did not matter what happened to them as the city pursued increasing tax revenue by turning “residential” areas into “shopping districts.”

      “Feeling Safe” is just a metaphor anyway.

      1. avatar Anonymous says:

        A metaphor for what? I don’t think that means what you think it means.

        1. avatar JR says:

          I know exactly what the word metaphor means. Why don’t you THINK a little bit and try to figure out on your own the metaphor I was hinting at and stow the intellectually lazy attempt at an insult.

          But, just in case that’s beyond your present ability, here’s a hint: “feel safe” reminds one of being coddled. See if you can suss it out, now.

      2. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

        My wife’s friend, who is well-to-do and has lived an extremely sheltered life, said in regard to self protection, and I quote, “I have more faith in humanity…”

        My wife’s response, “You should watch the local news more…”

  7. avatar the ruester says:

    Again, this story exists solely to suggest that there is an army of legal gun owners pumping out guns to criminals. One question I have is; if you don’t even try to check the serials on the stolen guns you “buy back” what good would a record of legal private sales do?

    1. avatar JasonM says:

      It sure would make confiscating all the legally owned guns a hell of a lot easier.

  8. avatar Alpo says:

    Actually, the RKBA is what protects the safety of our citizens.

    More importantly, people’s *desire* to *feel* safe never trumps anyone’s *actual* natural, civil, constitutionally protect *rights*.

    Not ever.

    The fact that some people operate on emotion, ignorance and reliance on false information is their problem, not mine. And it certainly is not the type of problem that should (or even can) be solved by attacking the Bill of Rights.

    1. avatar Anonymoose says:

      I couldn’t have said it better.

    2. avatar Rich Grise says:

      “Actually, the RKBA is what protects the safety of our citizens. ”

      Exactly what I was going to say, but you beat me to it!

    3. avatar JasonM says:

      I’d say that the fact that over 95% percent of us are civilized, respectful people is the most significant factor in our safety. Our gun rights are what protect us when we encounter a member of the remaining 5%.

  9. avatar Charles5 says:

    **Sigh** So much fail, I don’t even know where to begin.

  10. avatar Hannibal says:

    What he means is the right to “feel” safe.

  11. avatar S.CROCK says:

    I don’t feel safe in LA traffic so……. what ya gunna do about that?

    1. avatar Anonymous says:

      Then move out of California, Leftist! Sorry, this is TTAG, so that was required.

      1. avatar S.CROCK says:

        Why would traffic be safer outside of CA (LA)? When I was visiting friends near Phoenix there was still traffic and I still saw some smashed cars on tows trucks.

        1. avatar Fler says:

          I was joking, which is why I added “Sorry, this is TTAG, so that was required”, since the answer to everything on TTAG is to move out of California and label everyone there a Leftist.

    2. avatar Rich Grise says:

      Car safety is trivial. Look in front of the car. If there’s something there, don’t go there.

    3. avatar Accur81 says:

      I feel your pain, sir.

      Clearly the only recourse is to ban traffic. If it saves the life of one child, then it’ll be worthwhile.

      1. avatar DickG says:

        Just ONE life.
        .
        For the Children!
        .

  12. avatar Danny Griffin says:

    What? Ohio has preemption. He can’t do anything.

    1. avatar DaveL says:

      …and the impotent rage of petty, mindless authoritarians like him is like a beautiful symphony to my ears.

    2. avatar John says:

      This is all I could think as I read that article.

    3. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Up north there they do try to make it rough on fellow Ohioans. Written law is one thing but how some of these cities and towns react when a law abiding citizen carries a gun is sometimes miles apart from lawful. I suspect that they will continue to obstruct while we drag them; kicking, screaming, and sniveling into modern times. It is a PITA but they eventually lose.

  13. avatar Charles says:

    I am not sure what’s up with that background image but it looks like something made from a Halloween gift wrap. Anyway, I am not positive that it states anywhere in the constitution or the declaration of independence, that we are guaranteed to be safe at all times from anyone or anything. I believe that is actually the RESPONSIBILITY of the person to make themselves and their family safe. If you don’t want to own a gun and would rather wait for the police to show up and hopefully diffuse the situation before someone get’s killed, that is entirely up to you. However, there are those of us that would rather take a more “proactive” approach to our own safety, therefore we own guns, as it IS guaranteed in the constitution that we have a right to do. How long that lasts, is only up to the people that have the guts to fight for it.

  14. avatar tdiinva says:

    Actually you don’t have right to feel safe or even be safe because there is authority who can guarantee these rights. Anybody and anything can make you unsafe in a heartbeat and there is nothing that can be done be about.

    1. avatar racer88 says:

      Well… hmmm….. I believe the closest thing to a “guarantee of safety” could only be provided by ME. Same for you and everyone else. Of course, it’s not a true, 100%, guarantee. But, it’s the best we’ll get. Certainly, it can’t come from another entity or the government.

      1. avatar tdiinva says:

        i see you used the descriptor “closest” which confirms my assertions.

    2. avatar JasonM says:

      Not at all true. We all have the right to feel safe. We have the right to feel or do anything we can think of, as long as we don’t infringe on the rights of others (such as their rights to purchase, own, or carry guns). We had rights before government (what I assume you mean by “authority”) and our rights are external to government. Government is merely a tool some people thought could be trusted to protect our rights. Man were they wrong…

      1. avatar tdiinva says:

        I hope you are being sarcastic because rights can be enforced by public agency. Safety can be improved but cannot be guaranteed. Since feelings are subjective, there is no way that “feeling safe” can be enforced by collective action. Feeling safe is a mental state that has only a loose connection to actually being safe.

        1. avatar Rich Grise says:

          Another question is, safe from what? The Butthurt-industrial complex seems to think that words can break bones.

        2. avatar JasonM says:

          Why would you think I’m being sarcastic?

          People have a right to feel safe, just like they have a right to be happy. But as I said before, that doesn’t mean they can force their views on the rest of us to create a feeling of security.

          They can, however, make improvements to their lives to actually be safer, or even just to feel safer, like moving to a better neighborhood, driving a Volvo, carrying guns, or only going to establishments that have “no guns” signs.

  15. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

    My right to bear arms IS my right to live a safe life…

    My individual rights aren’t to protect you, they exist to protect me. And, vice versa.

  16. avatar DrVino says:

    What is an “unlicensed gun seller”?

    1. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

      Currently, an Attorney General.

      1. avatar Accur81 says:

        Sad, but true. I would also add the US government. We’ve shipped a lot of guns to a lot of people over the years.

        Of course, the transactions are all *legal* because they are performed by the government. With taxpayer money.

        1. avatar DickG says:

          Actually, no.
          .
          The law states that the international sale of guns must be approved by THE STATE DEPARTMENT. not the Attorney General.
          .
          They violated Federal law.
          .
          Perhaps someone knows what the penalties are for its’ violation.
          .

  17. Watch this.

    “The right to assemble does not trump the right of our citizens to live safe lives.”

    “The right to speech does not trump the right of our citizens to live safe lives.”

    “The right to religion does not trump the right of our citizens to live safe lives.”

    When I say it like that, it sounds silly to everyone.

    1. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

      To some people that sounds like Utopia…

    2. avatar Wendy says:

      “The right to be secure in one’s person, house, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures does not trump the right of our citizens to live safe lives.”

      “The right not to be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb does not trump the right of our citizens to live safe lives.”

      “The right not to be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself does not trump the right of our citizens to live safe lives.”

      “The right not to be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law does not trump the right of our citizens to live safe lives.”

    3. avatar JasonM says:

      “The right to live safe lives does not trump the right of our citizens to live safe lives.”

  18. avatar launchpadmech says:

    I can see the DNC has their $$%% fired up. I guess we’ll just have to ignore them, until they leave.

  19. avatar Kyle in CT says:

    “The proposal is part of a broader legislative initiative meant to curb gun violence by felons and reduce the number of firearms that fall into young hands, Jackson said.”

    Replace young, with black, and you have what this is really about. Cleveland city limits are incredibly restricted. Unlike most cities, which have had their borders grow to include richer (and generally whiter, sorry, but it is what it is) suburbs, Cleveland’s borders have remained highly restricted to the city proper. What this means is that what this is really aimed at is the black community. Make no mistake, while the greater Cleveland area has a large white population (around 75%), the city of Cleveland is majority black (53%). This is just the most recent example of closet racism. It never ceases to amaze me how the same people talk on and on about how “they don’t see skin color”, then support policies which are blatantly directed at black or other minority communities.

  20. avatar Steve says:

    The two are not mutually exclusive…

    1. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

      I was in a relationship that wasn’t mutually exclusive, she just didn’t know about it.

  21. avatar racer88 says:

    Nobody NEEDS a pit bull, eh? 😉

  22. avatar danthemann5 says:

    Cleveland is a magical place. The “leadership” here isn’t really concerned with silly things like “state laws” or “rights”.

  23. avatar EATENG says:

    I believe Mr. Noir already addressed this.

    1. avatar JasonM says:

      Too bad he wasn’t wearing a hat from a Cleveland sports team when he did. That would have been more apropos.

  24. avatar DocHendo says:

    So let me get this right… He is concerned about his safety because someone might own a gun, an individual right granted us by the 2A, and what protects his 1A. Yet his photo is him sitting while holding a pitbull, the most notorious breed of dog out there, infamous for attacking people and other animals without provocation. My guns have never attacked anyone on their own. Can’t say the same about pitbulls.

    1. avatar danthemann5 says:

      A small point of contention with your statement:

      Our right to bear arms is granted to us by virtue of our very existence, not by the Second Amendment.. The Second Amendment (theoretically) protects that right from infringement by our government.

      Rights exist because we exist, they can only be taken away (not granted) by other people.

      Of additional note, I think pit bulls are illegal in Cleveland. Or maybe it’s one of the suburbs, I can’t remember.

  25. avatar Henry Bowman says:

    He looks and poses like a cigarette?

    EDIT: Dangit, RF, now my reply is just hanging out there all by it’s lonesome.

    1. avatar JasonM says:

      Or a bundle of wood?

      I think I know what the deleted comment said.

  26. avatar Feesh says:

    Balancing of interests does not apply to the Bill of Rights – the 2nd Amendment is your right to safety.

  27. avatar Jim says:

    Councilman Matt Zone. Shouldn’t his name be Twilight?

  28. avatar former water walker says:

    Nope it doesn’t. I read the whole article. Yuck. Reminds me of Chicago. Yep a whole lot of us think your pit bull is worse than my legal gun. YMMV

  29. avatar Joe R. says:

    People need to think longer-term. The right, of U.S. citizens, to have a vote in what comes after America (as insured by each individual who maintains their own arms) trumps everything else.

  30. avatar AJ Peyerson says:

    “The right to bear arms does not trump the right of our citizens to live safe lives”

    That’s funny. I thought the right to bear arms was the basis of the right of the citizens to live safe, and free, lives.

  31. avatar Jack Brown says:

    My specifically enumerated right does indeed trump your made up right. Because safe is a guarantee nobody can make. Or the alternate formulation often used “a right not to live in fear”. Now you do have a right to life and if someone interferes with it, we will arrest, prosecute, convict, imprison and sometimes even execute them, that’s how precious your life is but my owning a gun does not deprive you of anything.

  32. avatar Pashtun6 says:

    Not all put bulls are bad gents, they are pretty good dogs most of the time.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      When they’re good, they’re very, very good — and when they’re bad, they’re horrid.

  33. avatar Garrison Hall says:

    Given the historic quality of Cleveland’s political class, the good mayor’s decision doesn’t come as a great surprise. In a particularly telling series of videos, Reason Magazine talked at length with Cleveland’s nomenklatura. I wonder if this guy really thinks ole’ Pooky and Ray Ray will pay much attention to his edicts. Bottom feeders all . . . .

  34. avatar Bob says:

    Like a gun owner is responsible for their gun, a dog owner is responsible for their dog. I see no reason to disparage a group of people because they own a certain breed of dog. Let’s not stoop to their idiotic level.

    1. avatar Julian says:

      Exactly! Typically the arguments against Pits are the same arguments against guns. I happen to thoroughly enjoy both.

  35. avatar WI Patriot says:

    And without the “right to bear arms” there would be no safety for ANY citizen, anywhere…

  36. Come on, somebody had fun with this guy and photoshopped in that shirt and background in his picture. Right?

    I hope.

  37. avatar Ralph says:

    The RKBA doesn’t trump my right to live a safe life, it enhances it.

    And why does every one of these wingnuts look like someone who spent his high school years hiding in the toilet so the tough kids wouldn’t steal his lunch money?

  38. avatar Don Prather says:

    “We cannot let a minority of people…hold a viewpoint…”

  39. avatar Excedrine says:

    You don’t even have a right to safety, Mr. Zone. If you did, which you don’t, the police would be absolutely required to and be held responsible for the individual safety of every citizen they (are supposed to) serve — which they aren’t. Never have been, never will be.

    Hell, there’s not even a right to live spelled out anywhere in any law.

  40. avatar esitue says:

    Nice PJs pajama boy but why are you fondling that dog’s arms?

  41. avatar Jus Bill says:

    “The right to bear arms reinforces the ability of our citizens to live safe lives.”

    Fixed it for him. Dullard.

  42. avatar Tyler says:

    Um, I believe the constitution has already settled this one, and yes, it does. Although to be honest, my right to own guns has nothing to do with your safety. Unless you plan on attacking me.

  43. avatar Dona says:

    I think we should make murder a crime so everyone can feel safe……oh I forgot it already is!

  44. avatar Jeff says:

    The right for people who have phobias to dogs, especially pitbulls which “ARE KNOWN” to bite faces off of children, to feel safe, trumps his privelege to have that pet. So he should surrender it and have it put to sleep.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Can’t the State just put him to sleep and leave the puppy alone? The dog is easier to train, more intelligent, more useful, and loyal. The dog is less a danger to society than he.

      I’ve never had a dog piss down my leg and try to tell me that it is raining. 😉

  45. avatar hopper says:

    I use to live in this guys district when his father was councilman then his mother was appointed and elected later now he is in there it is a joke both the district and the way they have allowed it to be un-livable with their involvement I moved away 15 years ago and i must say I seen it coming !

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email