MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus on Twitter · Facebook · Flickr · Newsletters · Instagram 
Friday, September 19, 2014 |  Madison, WI: 57.0° F  Fog/Mist
Collapse Photo Bar

The gun thread

If it's news, but not politics, then it goes here.

Re: The gun thread

Postby pjbogart » Sun May 05, 2013 9:07 am

Meet Jim Porter, lawyer for gun manufacturers, seditionist and the new President of the NRA.

“The NRA was started, 1871, right here in New York state. It was started by some Yankee generals who didn’t like the way my southern boys had the ability to shoot in what we call the “War of Northern Aggression.” Now, y’all might call it the Civil War, but we call it the War of Northern Aggression down south. But that was the very reason that they started the National Rifle Association—it was to teach and train the civilian in the use of the standard military firearm. And I am one who still feels very strongly that that is one of our most greatest charges that we can have today, is to train the civilian in the use of the standard military firearm, so that when they have to fight for their country they’re ready to do it. Also, when they’re ready to fight tyranny, they’re ready to do it. Also, when they’re ready to fight tyranny, they have the wherewithal and the weapons to do it.”


Meet Your New NRA President-A Man Still Fighting The Civil War From The Losing Side
pjbogart
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6151
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 4:57 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby Meade » Sun May 05, 2013 11:27 am

Seditionist?
Meade
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3341
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 6:26 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby snoqueen » Sun May 05, 2013 12:58 pm

Well worth a click.

We are now doing a replay of the Civil War, same as Europe is doing a replay of WWII -- the fronts have broken and moved, the sides are scrambled, but many of the same underlying fissures are once again visible. Ours are urban/rural, white/black, centralized/decentralized, past/various futures, and more. Europe's are not all that different when it comes to centralization of power, when you think about it. They even have their own race elements, though without our specific history of slavery. And on the whole, with the exception of some lunatic in Norway who found himself without allies (or maybe without an axis), they aren't as focused on guns.

Nobody's answered my question about "what action by the government would cause you to respond by using guns, and what's the overall strategy?" by the way. Maybe nobody wants to go on record as a seditionist, finding innuendo more comfortable. I'd like to see what the NRA's Jim Porter (see link) would say about it.

He looks (and likely talks) exactly like my grandfather, who was cut out of the same piece of cloth and born in 1875 in the south, ten years after the end of the Civil War. Our family has long generations. My grandfather never got over it and raised his son to be an excellent pistol marksman -- I've still got his military medal someplace. I see more than a century later lots of other people haven't gotten over it either, and are still working on their marksmanship. Kind of gives me the shivers, in a ghosty way.

"The past is never dead. It's not even past." That's William Faulkner, without whom we should not be surveying this territory.

--
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... rticles%29

Here, for when we need it next, is an account of how all the constitutional amendments (not skipping the Second) have been limited over the years.

Extra credit: who said this?

“What the opinion Heller said is that it will have to be decided in future cases. What limitations upon the right to bear arms are permissible. Some undoubtedly are, because there were some that were acknowledged at the time. For example, there was a tort called affrighting, which if you carried around a really horrible weapon just to scare people, like a head ax or something, that was I believe a misdemeanor. So yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed.”


If you answered Antonin Scalia, you're right.
snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 11498
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby BSH » Sun May 05, 2013 9:24 pm

pjbogart wrote:Meet Jim Porter, lawyer for gun manufacturers, seditionist...


Maybe you misunderstand what sedition is, or use it in the wrong context.

Without knowing what Jim Porter said or did that could be labeled seditious, let's get some insight on what is more properly considered appropriate political opposition to government excess and abuse.

Alexander Hamilton wrote:If a number of political societies enter into a larger political society, the laws which the latter may enact, pursuant to the powers intrusted [sic] to it by its constitution, must necessarily be supreme over those societies and the individuals of whom they are composed…. But it will not follow from this doctrine that acts of the larger society which are not pursuant to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such. (Federalist #33)

There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the constitution, can be valid.(Federalist #78)


Hamilton was a Federalist, and the one of the strongest proponents of a strong central government authority among the framers. He's here saying that acts of the government that exceed the written constitutional powers of government are de facto null and void. To put this in context, what Diane Feinstein so ardently desires ("turn'em in, Mr. & Mrs. America") is not and can never be legal under the constitution (unless we amend it). Not even if it's passed by Congress, signed by the President, and upheld by the Supreme Court. It is the constitution that is supreme, and any act which is plainly in opposition to the constitution is presumptively invalid. At least, that's what the framers said. I would tend to give their views on what they meant greater credence than more recent scholars. (BTW, there's an easy answer for the appropriate desire to make the constitution conform to our modern needs - it's found in article V.)

Kansas recently passed a law making certain Federal enforcement acts inside Kansas a state crime. If those enforcement acts exceed the authority of the constitution, Kansas is right, and Eric Holder is wrong. Is that seditious? No, according to Alexander Hamilton, but yes according to some modern commentators.
BSH
Senior Member
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 6:32 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby Meade » Sun May 05, 2013 9:34 pm

snoqueen wrote:http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... ights.html
"Every time I write a column on guns, the howl arises that I am talking about a right that is enshrined in the Constitution, buddy, and I better watch myself. The howl then transmutes into an extended harangue that this right is absolute, and no libtard fascist, whether me or the Satanesque Dianne Feinstein, is going to limit the right in any way. The first soldier to charge across this rhetorical veld is followed by hundreds harrumphing their assent."

First, I feel sorry for anyone who finds any of that article to be an example of good writing. And second, the writer's argument is an informal fallacy. So it's no surprise that readers like Aunt Sally Snoqueen fall for it. Tell me, where does the NRA state that the second amendment is "absolute" or "enshrined" in the constitution? It doesn't. And neither does any reasonable person believe that any constitutional right is absolute.

Gun control advocates would do themselves a big favor by being absolutely honest: Background checks are not enough. Gun control is not enough. They want nothing less than for the government to have the power to take any firearm away from any citizen. For that to happen, they need to repeal the second amendment. Until gun control advocates are absolutely honest about that, no one not on their side of the debate will ever trust them and they will continue to lose.
Meade
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3341
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 6:26 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby BSH » Sun May 05, 2013 10:12 pm

rabble wrote:It's funny you should put it that way. I wanted to find out if the gun enthusiasts had any logical reasons for no [new, right?] background checks.


Aside from the fact that none of the proposals considered in Congress would have prevented any of the recent major shootings? Isn't that enough of a reason in itself?

Based on what we've seen in numerous other governments, the slippery slope doctrine in strongly in play. Loads of Democrats have made hundreds of public comments calling for total gun bans and confiscation. That is the ultimate goal for many Democrats, to be pursued stepwise and incrementally, never letting a crisis go to waste. This in itself is strong motivation to oppose any of those increments.

"Violent crime rates in the U.S. are reaching historic lows" ABC News, last June.

The FBI released preliminary 2012 crime stats in January, and absolutely nobody paid attention. For the first half of the year, murders were down 1.7% from 2011, when the US set a 50-year low in the homicide rate.
Washington Post wrote:“We’re at as low a place as we’ve been in the past 100 years,” says Randolph Roth, professor of history at Ohio State University and author of this year’s “American Homicide,” a landmark study of the history of killing in the United States.
Link. Meanwhile, the UK looks like they're never going to have a rate as low as they had in the 60's, despite enacting the strictest gun controls in Europe, and their record highest homicide rates came well after the gun bans were enacted. Probably because gun laws don't affect homicide rates.

If it could be demonstrated that a given law would have a measurable effect on homicide rates, then let's have it (amending the constitution, if necessary). If there's no effect, then obviously (to me) the law is pointless, and should be opposed. Arguing we should ban this or restrict that on an entirely speculative basis is unreasonable by definition.
BSH
Senior Member
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 6:32 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby pjbogart » Sun May 05, 2013 10:48 pm

I'm not even sure that those count as strawmen. They're more like dustbunny men. The fake arguments that you guys are inserting into the debate are so out of line with reality that you might as well just say that Democrats are cannibals and you oppose cannibalism.

Yeah, me too. Dopes.
pjbogart
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6151
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 4:57 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby DCB » Mon May 06, 2013 8:07 am

snoqueen wrote:Nobody's answered my question about "what action by the government would cause you to respond by using guns, and what's the overall strategy?" by the way.

I don't think the wingnuts and gun fetishists have a coherent answer, other than: "when the Negro tries to take our guns away, we meet at American Legion hall".

If the country is really going to hell, we have a system to address it. We have elections, and a constitution with checks and balances. Right now that system isn't working so well, largely because of the influence of money.

Stockpiling assault weapons isn't going to do you much good against a tyrannical government that controls the world's most powerful military. You're better off supporting Move to Amend, now, before its too late.
DCB
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2648
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 5:08 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby wack wack » Mon May 06, 2013 8:10 am

Meade wrote:Seditionist?


Without question.
wack wack
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3147
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2003 5:32 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby wack wack » Mon May 06, 2013 8:27 am

And here's more sedition for you:

Gun rights group hopes to arm Chicago, other major U.S. cities

Building the Army of Seditious Americans, one shotgun at a time.
wack wack
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3147
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2003 5:32 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby fisticuffs » Mon May 06, 2013 8:29 am

Loads of Democrats have made hundreds of public comments calling for total gun bans and confiscation.


False.
That is the ultimate goal for many Democrats, to be pursued stepwise and incrementally, never letting a crisis go to waste.


Lies.

Probably because gun laws don't affect homicide rates.


Not at all?
The NRA lies to you to sell more guns.
fisticuffs
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 7800
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 2:49 pm
Location: Slightly outside of Madison

Re: The gun thread

Postby snoqueen » Mon May 06, 2013 9:34 am

They want nothing less than for the government to have the power to take any firearm away from any citizen. For that to happen, they need to repeal the second amendment. Until gun control advocates are absolutely honest about that, no one not on their side of the debate will ever trust them and they will continue to lose.


You are simply stating your own beliefs mirror-image.

"We want nothing less than for the government not to have the power to take any firearm away from any citizen" -- even those who are plainly unbalanced, even a threat to civil order or national security, even when children or a spouse in a home are threatened.

"For that to happen, we need no limits at all on the second amendment." True enough, but altogether a stupid way to run a society and the cause of many, many avoidable deaths every day/week/year. Do you give a shit? Nope. They don't matter if they were too dumb to make it. Maybe we're better off without 'em.
snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 11498
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby Dangerousman » Mon May 06, 2013 1:33 pm

fisticuffs wrote:
Probably because gun laws don't affect homicide rates.


Not at all?
The NRA lies to you to sell more guns.


You can debate all you want and believe what you want about whether gun laws affect homicide rates, but what isn't subject to debate are certain statistical facts, e.g., during all the year that the Washington D.C. handgun ban was in effect it's murder rate averaged over 70% higher than it did prior to the ban, while the nations overall murder rate dropped 11%.
Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI

Re: The gun thread

Postby Dangerousman » Mon May 06, 2013 1:37 pm

pjbogart wrote:I'm not even sure that those count as strawmen. They're more like dustbunny men. The fake arguments that you guys are inserting into the debate are so out of line with reality that you might as well just say that Democrats are cannibals and you oppose cannibalism.

Yeah, me too. Dopes.


And that's what you say when you have no real response. Just call it a "straw man" argument, don't bother demonstrating how it is so. I don't believe you even understand what that term means. A straw man argument involves misrepresenting the other person's argument in a way that makes it easily shot down. Tell us, how was your argument misrepresented by the posts to which you replied?
Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI

Re: The gun thread

Postby Dangerousman » Mon May 06, 2013 2:54 pm

Meet The 'Liberator': Test-Firing The World's First Fully 3D-Printed Gun

http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/05/05/meet-the-liberator-test-firing-the-worlds-first-fully-3d-printed-gun/

The digital blueprints for that so-called Wiki Weapon, as Wilson imagined it, could be uploaded to the Web and downloaded by anyone, anywhere in the world, hamstringing attempts at gun control and blurring the line between firearm regulation and information censorship. “You can print a lethal device.


Seems like a lot of bother and expense to get a single shot gun-- something you can build now for under 10 dollars with a trip to the hardware store and doesn't require a printer that cost $10,000 - $50,000. If you want to print "a lethal device" make a plastic knife, similar to the one's already on the market. But even that is probably an expensive knife compared to those that retail for a few dollars.
Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI

PreviousNext

Return to Headlines

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

moviesmusiceats
Select a Movie
Select a Theater


commentsViewedForum
  ISTHMUS FLICKR

Promotions Contact us Privacy Policy Jobs Newsletters RSS
Collapse Photo Bar