MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus on Twitter · Facebook · Flickr · Newsletters · Instagram 
Friday, July 25, 2014 |  Madison, WI: 71.0° F  Overcast
Collapse Photo Bar

The gun thread

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

Re: The gun thread

Postby snoqueen » Mon May 06, 2013 4:04 pm

http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/w ... 4723e.html

Steven Elbow has been doing some good reporting on the gun issue, and here's his latest for the Cap Times. From the article:

A recent PublicMind poll from Fairleigh Dickinson University found that 29 percent of voters think an armed revolution is possible in the next few years.

As if on cue, radio host Adam Kokesh is organizing a July 4 march on Washington, D.C., by what he hopes to be thousands of pro-gun activists with loaded rifles, a clear violation of local law.

"This is an act of civil disobedience, not a permitted event," reads a message on the event's Facebook page. "We will march with rifles loaded & slung across our backs to put the government on notice that we will not be intimidated & cower in submission to tyranny. We are marching to mark the high water mark of government & to turn the tide. This will be a non-violent event, unless the government chooses to make it violent."


I encourage you to click the link in SE's article and read the poll, too. It'll surprise nobody that a significant chunk of gun fans think Sandy Hook was faked, for example.

Still, nobody's answering the big (and extremely obvious) question I posted, which is "what action by the government would be such using a gun would be appropriate, and what is the general strategy?"

So far it's just "we're going to act as provocatively as possible and see what happens." Civil disobedience is old news and the civil rights movement beat you to it by decades.

I've got a second request. Please point to a situation where you see people in the US intimidated and cowering in submission to tyranny.

So far all this is hot air and it's being used to pump people up without any specific strategy, plans or even definitions. The civil rights movement succeeded because it had all three, and because the general public was moved by the courage of demonstrators in the face of fire hoses, dogs, lynching, and all the rest. I'm not quite seeing that here, even if I squint.
snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 11291
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby DCB » Mon May 06, 2013 4:42 pm

Dangerousman wrote: 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?

Loads of Democrats have made hundreds of public comments calling for total gun bans and confiscation. That is the ultimate goal for many Democrats,


and so on. I don't know which would be more pathetic: making a bullshit statement like that with nothing to back it up? or actually trying to back it up.
DCB
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2573
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 5:08 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby Francis Di Domizio » Mon May 06, 2013 4:44 pm

snoqueen wrote:Still, nobody's answering the big (and extremely obvious) question I posted, which is "what action by the government would be such using a gun would be appropriate, and what is the general strategy?"


Seems like a pretty simple. If the government activly threatens or takes the lives of any of it's citizens without due process, then acting in self defense would be justifed.

I don't think passing laws to prevent sales of a type of weapon would meet that criteria. On the other hand, I think there is a reasonable arguement to be made that the government has already crossed the above stated threshold.

As for strategy:
We practice selective annihilation of mayors
and government officials
for example to create a vacuum
Then we fill that vacuum
as popular war advances.
Peace is closer

of course
Last edited by Francis Di Domizio on Mon May 06, 2013 8:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Francis Di Domizio
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2183
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:11 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Re: The gun thread

Postby DCB » Mon May 06, 2013 4:53 pm

wack wack wrote:
Meade wrote:Seditionist?


Without question.


Also, a grifter:
Porter, 64, whose father was NRA president from 1959-1961, is part of the small, Birmingham, Ala., law firm of Porter, Porter & Hassinger. The firm's website notes its expertise in defending gun manufacturers in lawsuits.


Charles Pierce wrote:When they say it's not about the money, it's always about the money.

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/n ... ney-050613
DCB
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2573
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 5:08 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby pjbogart » Mon May 06, 2013 11:37 pm

DCB wrote:
Dangerousman wrote: 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?

Loads of Democrats have made hundreds of public comments calling for total gun bans and confiscation. That is the ultimate goal for many Democrats,


and so on. I don't know which would be more pathetic: making a bullshit statement like that with nothing to back it up? or actually trying to back it up.


Hey, thanks for the definition of strawman arguments, Dangerousman. Unfortunately, I didn't see your comment until DCB reposted it because I've never actually read anything you've posted that had even a hint of honesty to it, which is why I have your banal propaganda blocked.

But as long as we're having a conversation, I've largely kept out of the gun thread because it's like smashing my head against a wall, and let's face it, if it's a contest over whose head is thicker, you're going to win.

But perhaps you could tell us if you're proud that the new NRA spokesman refers to the Civil War as the "War of Northern Aggression." Do you hate Black people, Dangerousman? Are you stockpiling weapons because you're preparing for the next Civil War, that is, the war that's going to correct the outcome of the first Civil War? Just how dangerous are you, anyway? Are you dangerous enough that people sitting on their couch watching the NBA playoffs should worry that you want to put a bullet through their head?

I used to laugh at the anti-government conspiracy theorists, but I'm starting to think they might be on to something. Ironically, it seems like sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy. They've whipped themselves into such an anti-government frenzy that perhaps they've actually become the danger that they claimed they were mistaken for.

I think the government would be wise to keep a list of NRA members, particularly after the comments of the new President. Perhaps removing the guns from some "cold, dead hands" wouldn't be such a bad thing.
pjbogart
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6095
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 4:57 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby Meade » Tue May 07, 2013 7:37 am

pjbogart wrote:I think the government would be wise to keep a list of NRA members, particularly after the comments of the new President. Perhaps removing the guns from some "cold, dead hands" wouldn't be such a bad thing.

No due process. No freedom of association. A "list" kept by "the government".

How is it not reasonable that many Americans perceive that the ultimate goal for many Democrats is total gun bans and confiscation?
Meade
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3341
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 6:26 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby snoqueen » Tue May 07, 2013 8:34 am

^^ How to create a straw man, lesson one ^^

Oh Meade, you're such a latecomer to the gun-nut world it's not funny. And it's latecomers who are always the most eager to prove their cred.
snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 11291
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby Ned Flanders » Tue May 07, 2013 9:38 am

Meade wrote:
pjbogart wrote:I think the government would be wise to keep a list of NRA members, particularly after the comments of the new President. Perhaps removing the guns from some "cold, dead hands" wouldn't be such a bad thing.

No due process. No freedom of association. A "list" kept by "the government".

How is it not reasonable that many Americans perceive that the ultimate goal for many Democrats is total gun bans and confiscation?

The left always ends up here: Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot. It defined the 20th century.

Lots of lists, record keeping and murder. All in order to "protect" the "working people".
Ned Flanders
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 13247
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2001 2:48 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby wack wack » Tue May 07, 2013 9:50 am

Ned Flanders wrote:The left always ends up here: Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot. It defined the 20th century.

Lots of lists, record keeping and murder. All in order to "protect" the "working people".


Something is missing here... oh, right: Clinton's penis.
wack wack
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3080
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2003 5:32 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby Ned Flanders » Tue May 07, 2013 10:06 am

wack wack wrote:
Ned Flanders wrote:The left always ends up here: Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot. It defined the 20th century.

Lots of lists, record keeping and murder. All in order to "protect" the "working people".


Something is missing here... oh, right: Clinton's penis.

Image
Ned Flanders
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 13247
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2001 2:48 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby Detritus » Tue May 07, 2013 2:01 pm

Ned Flanders wrote:The left always ends up here: Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot. It defined the 20th century.

Lots of lists, record keeping and murder. All in order to "protect" the "working people".

You left out Nixon.
Detritus
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2352
Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 9:42 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby Ned Flanders » Tue May 07, 2013 2:22 pm

Detritus wrote:
Ned Flanders wrote:The left always ends up here: Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot. It defined the 20th century.

Lots of lists, record keeping and murder. All in order to "protect" the "working people".

You left out Nixon.

Image
Ned Flanders
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 13247
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2001 2:48 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby doppel » Tue May 07, 2013 2:40 pm

Wow! 101 page circle jerk. Let's see if Henry, his friends and enemies can make 200! Here's a couple of pages worth of "discussion" from our friends at the BBC...

"Gun homicides in the United States have fallen sharply since peaking in 1993, two studies have found.
The federal Bureau of Justice Statistics said firearms-related homicides had dropped to 11,101 in 2011 from 18,253 - a reduction of 39%.
Meanwhile, the Pew Research Center found gun homicides per 100,000 people fell to 3.6% in 2010 from 7% in 1993.
The Bureau of Justice Statistics, an office of the justice department, found that non-fatal firearms crimes dropped by 69% from 1.5 million to 467,300 during the period under study."

Get more at:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22443441. Have at it children.
doppel
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 576
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 9:30 pm
Location: varies

Re: The gun thread

Postby BSH » Tue May 07, 2013 2:53 pm

DCB wrote:and so on. I don't know which would be more pathetic: making a bullshit statement like that with nothing to back it up? or actually trying to back it up.


So just because you don't know about something, it must be made up BS? That's an interesting way to approach the world.

Here is a selected sample of quotes. There are loads more, including many more recent ones.

"I do not believe in people owning guns. Guns should be owned only by [the] police and military. I am going to do everything I can to disarm this state."
Michael Dukakis

"If someone is so fearful that they are going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, it makes me very nervous that these people have weapons at all."
U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman

"I do think the Second Amendment does provide for the right to bear arms. I'm one of the few civil libertarians I know who believes that. I hate guns. If I could press a button and make every gun disappear, I would do it. I hate guns with a passion. I would never have a gun in my home. I just hate guns."
M. Alan Dershowitz, Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard University

"I know it's in the Constitution. But you know what? Enough! I would like to sayy, I think there should be a law--and I know this is extreme--that no one can have a gun in the U.S. If you have a gun, you go to jail. Only the police should have guns. It's ridiculous."
Rosie O'Donnell during interview with Carolyn McCarthy as quoted in the Ottawa
Sun, April 29, 1999, at 55

"Ban the damn things. Ban them all. You want protection? Get a dog."
Molly Ivins, columnist, 7/19/94

"I don't believe anybody has a right to own any kind of a firearm. I believe in order to obtain a permit to own a firearm, that person should undergo an exhaustive criminal background check. In addition, an applicant should give up his right to privacy and submit his medical records for review to see if the person has ever had a problem with alcohol, drugs or mental illness . . . The Constitution doesn't count!"
John Silber, former chancellor of Boston University and candidate for Governor of Massachusetts. Speech before the Quequechan Club of Fall River, MA. August 16, 1990

"I think you have to do it a step at a time and I think that is what the NRA is most concerned about. Is that it will happen one very small step at a time so that by the time, um, people have woken up, quote, to what's happened, it's gone farther than what they feel the consensus of American citizens would be. But it does have to go one step at a time and the banning of semiassault military weapons that are military weapons, not household weapons, is the first step."
Mayor Barbara Fass, Stockton, CA

"Handguns should be outlawed. Our organization will probably take this stand in time but we are not anxious to rouse the opposition before we get the other legislation passed."
Elliot Corbett, Secretary, National Council For A Responsible Firearms Policy (interview appeared in the Washington Evening Star on September 19, 1969)

"My own view on gun control is simple: I hate guns and I cannot imagine why anybody would want to own one. If I had my way, guns for sport would be registered, and all other guns would be banned."
Deborah Prothrow-Stith of the Office of Government and Community Programs and the Community Violence Prevention Project at the Harvard School of Public Health

"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe."
Senator Diane Feinstein, 1993

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them... "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in," I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."
U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) CBS-TV's "60 Minutes," 2/5/95

"Banning guns is an idea whose time has come."
U.S. Senator Joseph Biden, 11/18/93, Associated Press interview

"Assault weapons... are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully-automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons --anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun -- can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons."
"Assault Weapons: Analysis, New Research and Legislation" Josh Sugarmann,
March 1989

"The thought that average citizens will somehow be better able to successfully defend themselves more effectively than our nation's trained professionals is absurd."
Official Statement of Handgun Control Incorporated (HCI)

"Yes, I'm for an outright ban (on handguns)."
Pete Shields, Chairman emeritus, Handgun Control, Inc., during a 60 Minutes interview.

"[NRA] claimed that they vigorously fought [the Brady bill] at every turn and every step...because it was the nose of the camel [under the tent]....Today we would like to tell you what the rest of the camel looks like."
HCI President Richard Aborn, Dec. 8, 1993

"We must be able to arrest people before they commit crimes. By registering guns and knowing who has them we can do that. If they have guns they are pretty likely to commit a crime."
Vermont State Senator Mary Ann Carlson

"I am one who believes that as a first step, the United States should move expeditiously to disarm the civilian population, other than police and security officers, of all handguns, pistols, and revolvers... No one should have the right to anonymous ownership or use of a gun."
Professor Dean Morris, Director of Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, stated to the U.S. Congress

"I feel very strongly about it [the Brady Bill]. I think - I also associate myself with the other remarks of the Attorney General. I think it's the beginning. It's not the end of the process by any means."
William J. Clinton, 8/11/93

"The purpose of government is to rein in the rights of the people."
William J. Clinton on "MTV" 1993

"The Brady Bill is the minimum step Congress should take...we need much stricter gun control, and eventually should bar the ownership of handguns, except in a few cases."
U.S. Representative William Clay, quoted in the St. Louis Post Dispatch on May 6, 1991.

"I don't believe gun owners have rights."
Sarah Brady, Hearst Newspapers Special Report "Handguns in America", October 1997

"We must get rid of all the guns."
Sarah Brady, speaking on behalf of HCI with Sheriff Jay Printz & others on "The Phil Donahue Show" September 1994

"I don't care about crime, I just want to get the guns."
Senator Howard Metzenbaum, 1994

"No, we are not looking at how to control criminals, we are talking about banning the AK47 and semi-automatic guns!"
Senator Metzenbaum (D-OH) during Constitution Subcommittee 2/10/89

"We're here to tell the NRA their nightmare is true..."
U.S. Representative Charles Schumer, quoted on NBC, 11/30/93

"We're going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy! We're going to beat guns into submission!"
U.S. Representative Charles Schumer (D-NY) on NBC, 12/8/93

"My bill ... establishes a 6-month grace period for the turning in of all handguns."
U.S. Representative Major Owens, Congressional Record, 11/10/93

"We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily, given political realities, going to be very modest. Our ultimate goal, total control of handguns in the United States, is going to take time. The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered, and the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns, and all handgun ammunition illegal."
Nelson T. Shields of Hangun Control, Inc. as quoted in `New Yorker' magazine July 26, 1976. Page 53f

"Our goal is to not allow anybody to buy a handgun. In the meantime, we think there ought to be strict licensing and regulation. Ultimately, that may mean it would require court approval to buy a handgun."
President of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence Michael K. Beard, Washington Times 12/6/93 p.A1

"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal."
U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, December 1993

"Gun registration is not enough."
U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno on "Good Norning America" 12/10/93

"There is no individual right to bear arms in the Bill of Rights."
USA Today - Richard Benedetto, "Gun Rights Are A Myth", December 28, 1994.

"Law-abiding Americans have no unconditional right to firearms access."
New York Post - "Time For Gun Control" - August 12, 1999

"The sale, manufacture, and possession of handguns ought to be banned...We do not believe the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual the right to keep them."The Washington Post - "Legal Guns Kill Too" - November 5, 1999

"There is no Constitutional guarantee for private ownership of firearms."
Austin American Statesman - "A History of the Second Amendment" - April 3, 2000

"There is no reason for anyone in the country, for anyone except a police officer or a military person, to buy, to own, to have, to use, a handgun. The only way to control handgun use in this country is to prohibit the guns.
USA Today - Michael Gartner - Former president of NBC News - "Glut of Guns: What Can We Do About Them?" - January 16, 1992

"The Second Amendment...protects only the right to "bear arms" for the purpose of service in the "militia," and..not..firearm ownership unrelated to militia service."
United States v. Timothy Joe Emerson (5th Cir.1999)(No.99-10331) - Brief for an Ad Hoc Group of 52 Law Professors and Historians as Amici Curiae at 3
BSH
Senior Member
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 6:32 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby Dangerousman » Tue May 07, 2013 4:07 pm

DCB wrote:
Dangerousman wrote: 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?

Loads of Democrats have made hundreds of public comments calling for total gun bans and confiscation. That is the ultimate goal for many Democrats,


and so on. I don't know which would be more pathetic: making a bullshit statement like that with nothing to back it up? or actually trying to back it up.


Hey, maybe you watch too much MSNBC or something, but if you are going to quote something I wrote, and then add below it some other person's comment to make it look like both statements are attributable to me, that's not cool. Not only is it not cool, it's dishonest. Got that?
Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2290
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 3 guests

moviesmusiceats
Select a Movie
Select a Theater


commentsViewedForum
  ISTHMUS FLICKR

Promotions Contact us Privacy Policy Jobs Newsletters RSS
Collapse Photo Bar