Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, September 12, 2017

A Tennessee woman is charged with attempted murder after she shot a homeless man who asked her to move her Porsche, police have said. Gerald Melton told police he was trying to sleep on the pavement in Nashville when loud music and exhaust fumes coming from the SUV disturbed him. Katie Quackenbush, 26, allegedly fired two shots as they argued near Music Row at 03:00 a.m. local time.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

FTA: "Gerald Melton told police he was trying to sleep on the pavement in Nashville when loud music and exhaust fumes coming from the SUV disturbed him. Mr Melton, 54, suffered a critical abdominal wound and was in hospital.
He told police the suspect got back into her luxury car and fled the scene."

#1 | Posted by madscientist at 2017-09-12 06:21 PM | Reply

"Your Honor, I Was In Fear Of My Life,"

#2 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-09-12 06:31 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

If Katie was in fear of her life, perhaps she could have, I dunno, DRIVEN HER CAR AWAY FROM THE HOMELESS MAN ON FOOT.

#3 | Posted by rcade at 2017-09-12 10:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters," Trump said at a campaign rally here.

It'a rich people perk.

#4 | Posted by Corky at 2017-09-12 10:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"Quackenbush"

Seriously?

I mean...seriously?

I always assumed it was a tawdry slur.

#5 | Posted by TheTom at 2017-09-13 01:53 AM | Reply

#4

If only he tried it.

Sure as hell didn't work for Ms. Quackenbush.

Best Paul Harvey voice, "the rest of the story." www.tennessean.com

#6 | Posted by et_al at 2017-09-13 02:52 AM | Reply

Another instance of near fatal warning shots.

#7 | Posted by Zed at 2017-09-13 08:22 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Quackenbush?
Whats a New York "swamp dweller" doing in Tennessee?

#8 | Posted by HanoverFist at 2017-09-13 08:36 AM | Reply

Obviously this is a case of 2 people arguing when there was no reason to. She should have left.

That being said, all effort should be made to punish Quack. At no time should ANY gun owner say they shot any shot with their eyes closed. That should be immediate felony and loss of gun privileges for life. When we punish for the right reasons, responsible gun ownership can be controlled without having to legislate control.

#9 | Posted by humtake at 2017-09-13 11:50 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

This ought to be interesting.

#10 | Posted by fresno500 at 2017-09-13 01:24 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Advertisement

Advertisement

When we punish for the right reasons, responsible gun ownership can be controlled without having to legislate control.

#9 | Posted by humtake

Punishing someone AFTER they kill someone is a regulatory failure.

Good regulation would help prevent wackjobs from having guns in the first place.

#11 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-09-13 01:36 PM | Reply

No that's called due process. Commit crime, fair trial, if convicted then there is punishment.

#12 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-09-13 01:47 PM | Reply

What "responsible" gun owner closes their eyes when they fire their weapon?

#13 | Posted by 726 at 2017-09-13 01:50 PM | Reply

No that's called due process. Commit crime, fair trial, if convicted then there is punishment.

#12 | Posted by sitzkrieg a

Maybe we should take that approach with motor vehicles too then?

Anyone gets to drive until they kill someone, regardless of sanity or competence.

#14 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-09-13 02:05 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Anyone gets to drive until they kill someone, regardless of sanity or competence.

#14 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

You do realize that hoops must be jumped through before a person can legally acquire a firearm, yes?

#15 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-09-13 02:31 PM | Reply

You do realize that hoops must be jumped through before a person can legally acquire a firearm, yes?

Posted by JeffJ at 2017-09-13 02:31 PM | Reply

Not at gun shows.

#16 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-09-13 02:33 PM | Reply

"You do realize that hoops must be jumped through before a person can legally acquire a firearm, yes?"

Not really. Not compared to a driver's license or a hot dog cart license.

Do you realize that?

#17 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-09-13 02:35 PM | Reply

This is the process for Michigan:

www.wikihow.com

#18 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-09-13 02:39 PM | Reply

My point is Speaks was suggesting that literally anyone can legally purchase a firearm and that is simply not the case.

#19 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-09-13 02:40 PM | Reply

en.wikipedia.org

Gun show loophole, gun law loophole, Brady law loophole (or Brady bill loophole), private sale loophole, and private sale exemption are political terms in the United States referring to sales of firearms by private sellers, including those done at gun shows, dubbed the "secondary market".[1] The term refers to the concept that a loophole in federal law exists, under which "[a]ny person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of the state where they reside, as long as they do not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms".[2][3][4]

Under federal law, private-party sellers are not required to perform background checks on buyers, whether at a gun show or other venue. They also are not required to record the sale, or ask for identification. This requirement is in contrast to sales by gun stores and other Federal Firearms License (FFL) holders who are required to record all sales and perform background checks on almost all buyers, regardless of whether the venue is their business location or a gun show. Access to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) is limited to FFL holders and FFLs are not issued to persons that only sell firearms at gun shows.[n 1

#20 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-09-13 02:45 PM | Reply

#14 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2017-09-13 02:05 PM | REPLY

If I spell out due process to you in crayola, would that help?

#21 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-09-13 03:04 PM | Reply

If I spell out due process to you in crayola, would that help?

#21 | Posted by sitzkrieg

If I cite gun death statistics from countries with tighter gun restrictions would it help you?

#22 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-09-13 03:27 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

This is not about guns, its about white privilege and a life of entitlement.

#23 | Posted by fresno500 at 2017-09-13 07:51 PM | Reply

This is not about guns, its about white privilege and a life of entitlement.

#23 | POSTED BY FRESNO500 AT 2017-09-13 07:51 PM | REPLY

Why not both?

#24 | Posted by cbob at 2017-09-13 08:52 PM | Reply

#22 | Posted by SpeakSoftly
More people in the US. are now killed by self induced drugs than not only firearms but also auto accidents. Last time I checked heroin was illegal.
Laws prevent nothing. They deal with the aftermath.

#25 | Posted by Federalist at 2017-09-13 09:27 PM | Reply

"My point is Speaks was suggesting that literally anyone can legally purchase a firearm and that is simply not the case."

Speaks said "Good regulation would help prevent wackjobs from having guns in the first place."

He didn't say legally, and he didn't say purchase.

You can't even address what he said. So you twist it.

The closest you'll get is that the Second Amendment prevents good regulation. But you don't like admitting that. You might not even believe that "good regulation" can exist when it comes to guns.

#26 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-09-13 09:57 PM | Reply

Rcade couldn't be more right. She was in no sense afraid for her well-being, she exited the car planning to threaten him with that gun if not just straight-up murder him.

I bet they don't even try her for attempted murder. She's rich female and relatively good looking plus her victim is a homeless man.

#27 | Posted by Tor at 2017-09-13 10:07 PM | Reply

"Quackenbush"

Seriously?

I mean...seriously?

I always assumed it was a tawdry slur.

#5 | Posted by TheTom at 2017-09-13 01:53 AM | Reply | Flag:

If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck...

#28 | Posted by cbob at 2017-09-13 10:40 PM | Reply

Speaks said "Good regulation would help prevent wackjobs from having guns in the first place."
He didn't say legally, and he didn't say purchase.
You can't even address what he said. So you twist it.

Which regulations that are compliant with the 2nd Amendment are going to prevent whack jobs from acquiring guns in the first place?

His words were a fallacy so I focused on reality - as long as the 2nd Amendment exists gun ownership will be prevalent in this country. That is reality.

#29 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-09-13 10:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Which regulations that are compliant with the 2nd Amendment are going to prevent whack jobs from acquiring guns in the first place?"

You're making my point for me.
"The Second Amendment prohibits good regulation" is the argument you just advanced.

#30 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-09-13 10:52 PM | Reply

As long as the 2nd Amendment exists gun violence will be prevalent in this country. That is reality too.

Apparently it's not a reality you have any desire to make go away.

#31 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-09-13 10:55 PM | Reply

If I cite gun death statistics from countries with tighter gun restrictions would it help you?

#22 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2017-09-13 03:27 PM | FLAG:

Sure. Start with Mexico, because that's the closest one to me and the most culturally aligned with where I live.

#32 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-09-13 10:59 PM | Reply

You're making my point for me.
"The Second Amendment prohibits good regulation" is the argument you just advanced.

#30 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

"Good regulation" is a POV on this issue. It's not a fact.

As long as the 2nd Amendment exists gun violence will be prevalent in this country. That is reality too.
Apparently it's not a reality you have any desire to make go away.

#31 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

I'd love to see ALL violence go away, be it gun or otherwise. I am also a realist. Doing what you and Speaks would like to see done requires a repeal of the 2nd Amendment. I don't see that ever happening (do you realize how many liberals own guns?).

So, I deal in reality. The kinds of regulations you and Speaks favor can't be squared with the 2nd so it's kind of pointless to talk about these proposals IMO.

#33 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-09-13 11:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Good regulation" is a POV on this issue. It's not a fact.

So you have a POV on what "Good Regulation" is.
Fine, we can start from that POV.
Can this conversation continue or has it already ended?

#34 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-09-13 11:17 PM | Reply

"Sure. Start with Mexico"

He said "countries."
So you have at least one more cherry to pick!

#35 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-09-13 11:21 PM | Reply

I know that most atates already have "good regulations" as it pertains to gun ownership.

I know that the proposed regulations in the aftermath of a mass-shooting, when emotions are sky-high, would not have prevented the shooting but would have turned some otherwise lawful gun-owners into criminals.

As for this conversation continuing or ending....it depends. It depends on the willingness to discuss the issue within the parameters of political reality.

Political reality is that the 2nd is here to stay for the foreseeable future thus discussing regulations that don't square with it is akin to pissing in the wind - it's counter-productive IMO.

#36 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-09-13 11:23 PM | Reply

"I know that most atates already have "good regulations" as it pertains to gun ownership."

I thought we had agreed As long as the 2nd Amendment exists gun violence will be prevalent in this country. That is reality too."

So naturally this discussion is about eliminating, or greatly reducing, gun violence.

This should be the POV from which "good regulations" are being spotted, amidst the laboratories of democracy.

I thought you had that POV, but now I think you're just talking mush.

Which states have better regulations when better regulation means less violence from guns?

#37 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-09-13 11:25 PM | Reply

"Political reality is that the 2nd is here to stay for the foreseeable future thus discussing regulations that don't square with it is akin to pissing in the wind - it's counter-productive IMO."

Oh, so we're just leaving it at

"As long as the 2nd Amendment exists gun violence will be prevalent in this country. That is reality too."

But you bristled when I said

"Apparently it's not a reality you have any desire to make go away."

But then you said what I quoted at the top.
You don't want to piss into the wind, as it were.
The headwinds are just too strong.
Better off hoping you just don't get shot.
Keep your head down!

#38 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-09-13 11:30 PM | Reply

So naturally this discussion is about eliminating, or greatly reducing, gun violence.

This should be the POV from which "good regulations" are being spotted, amidst the laboratories of democracy.

The problem is that if the elimination of gun violence results in an increase of overall violence, it's not even a desired end.

Also, even the laboratories of democracy have some limitations in terms of what they can do. Outright gun bans, or something close to it, have been tried and have failed to pass Constitutional-muster in the courts.

IMO the only way to feasibly achieve the types of regulations you and Speaks favor must start with repealing the 2nd. Since that is not politically-feasible right now, it doesn't make much sense to discuss it. It makes sense from the political argument of building a case to repeal the 2nd but that's about it.

#39 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-09-13 11:34 PM | Reply

"As long as the 2nd Amendment exists gun violence will be prevalent in this country. That is reality too."
But you bristled when I said
"Apparently it's not a reality you have any desire to make go away."

Propose a viable path to repealing the 2nd and I'll be very willing to consider some of what you are advocating.

#40 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-09-13 11:35 PM | Reply

Propose a viable path to repealing the 2nd...

No such thing. Amendments are a thing of the past.

#41 | Posted by REDIAL at 2017-09-13 11:38 PM | Reply

No such thing. Amendments are a thing of the past.

#41 | POSTED BY REDIAL

Sadly, I agree.

Over 2+ centuries our civic-process has slowly worn down. WAY too much power in the courts and the bureaucracy. It's MUCH easier than consensus-building and going through the compromise of sausage-making known as legislating.

#42 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-09-13 11:44 PM | Reply

You two should get a room.
The 2ed Amendment is here to stay.

#43 | Posted by Federalist at 2017-09-13 11:44 PM | Reply

The 2ed Amendment

Is that like 2 Corinthians?

#44 | Posted by REDIAL at 2017-09-13 11:55 PM | Reply

"The problem is that if the elimination of gun violence results in an increase of overall violence, it's not even a desired end. "

Clearly this is an "if" you could tabulate from existing data.

Should I wait?

#45 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-09-14 02:14 AM | Reply

"Propose a viable path to repealing the 2nd"

How about we talk about state regulations that work, albeit not as well as they could if there were no Second Amendment?

Or is your belief that since we can't repeal the Second Amendment, it's not even worth investigating what Second Amendment compliant legal remedies might work?

#46 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-09-14 02:15 AM | Reply

no second amendment = the biggest and the baddest or the mob get to naked the rules. See pretty much any EU State is seeing thus now. As is Chicago.

#47 | Posted by bogey1355 at 2017-09-14 07:41 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2017 World Readable

Drudge Retort