MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus:         Newsletters 
Thursday, October 2, 2014 |  Madison, WI: 64.0° 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 » Thu Jun 20, 2013 9:57 pm

I don't get it. The Constitution can put relatively simple mechanical objects into a special category, but cannot do so with more complicated ones? Come on. That's not an argument for anything.

I would like to know how we arrived at our system for licensing and ID'ing cars. I think it's a perfectly good system, but was it started to deter theft and track stolen vehicles, to make sure cars on public roadways met minimum safety standards, to collect taxes for road maintenance, or what?

Incidentally, the licensing of cars is entirely separate from the licensing of drivers, and that is not unlike what could be done regarding guns.

I don't know if we could make a good analogy, historically speaking, with gun licensing being similar to car licensing or not. Reasons for gun licensing might include (but not be limited to) deterring theft and tracking stolen guns, limiting legal gun ownership to certain persons (not wife-beaters, felons, or whoever), limiting the types of guns civilians may legally own, maybe even collecting taxes to run safety classes, compensate gunshot victims, or other projects.

Hey, I never thought of that before. Maybe it's a big reason the pro-gun heavies are so much against licensing. Taxes!

You read it here first.
snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 11546
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby penquin » Thu Jun 20, 2013 11:13 pm

They didn't start off by banning marijuana. First they licensed the plant, then they heavily taxed it and then they banned it. But the ultimate goal was to ban it.

*shrug*


Anywhos...I mean no dis-respect at all (for real, I wish we were talking rather than typing, 'cause these words read a lot harsher than I truly intend them to be) but it is pretty obvious that a lot of folks simply refuse to accept that there is a basic right to bear arms, while others beleive it is as much of a right as free speech and the right to worship are...and that is the biggest disconnect in this discussion. Ya'll don't understand why Second Amendment Defenders are upset about these restrictions ('cause anyone who wants a drivers license has to do almost the same thing, so why not do it also with a gun?) while we can't take ya seriously 'cause rights keep being compared to privileges rather than other rights.

Also, I ain't saying that basic rights can't have some limitations: Banning folks from shouting "Movie!!" in a crowded firehouse is a reasonable law....but banning any&all felons, for life, from exercising their right to free speech goes way overboard.

And, don't know about anyone else but "the founders wrote it back in the 1700s and it should stand, unchangeable, until the Amendment is repealed or modified" would be my actual opinion. And I feel that way about all of the Bill of Rights, not just the Second.
penquin
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 589
Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 3:19 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby Francis Di Domizio » Fri Jun 21, 2013 6:39 am

penquin wrote:Also, I ain't saying that basic rights can't have some limitations: Banning folks from shouting "Movie!!" in a crowded firehouse is a reasonable law....but banning any&all felons, for life, from exercising their right to free speech goes way overboard.

And, don't know about anyone else but "the founders wrote it back in the 1700s and it should stand, unchangeable, until the Amendment is repealed or modified" would be my actual opinion. And I feel that way about all of the Bill of Rights, not just the Second.


You do realize that these two paragraphs that you wrote in sequence are contradictory, right?
Francis Di Domizio
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2475
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:11 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Re: The gun thread

Postby wack wack » Fri Jun 21, 2013 8:26 am

penquin wrote:They didn't start off by banning marijuana. First they licensed the plant, then they heavily taxed it and then they banned it. But the ultimate goal was to ban it.


Do you know why? Your statement suggests you might not.

penquin wrote:Anywhos...I mean no dis-respect at all (for real, I wish we were talking rather than typing, 'cause these words read a lot harsher than I truly intend them to be) but it is pretty obvious that a lot of folks simply refuse to accept that there is a basic right to bear arms, while others beleive it is as much of a right as free speech and the right to worship are...and that is the biggest disconnect in this discussion.


Rights granted by a Constitution written by your ancestral countrymen with mechanisms to allow change when change was necessary built right in. Contrary to the claims of Second Amendment defenders, the right to arms is NOT given by God.

penquin wrote:And, don't know about anyone else but "the founders wrote it back in the 1700s and it should stand, unchangeable, until the Amendment is repealed or modified" would be my actual opinion. And I feel that way about all of the Bill of Rights, not just the Second.


Foolish, seeing as it is completely antithetical to the purposes and desires of the men who wrote it.

if you do some actual study of Thomas Jefferson (not just enough to grab a convenient quote) you'll learn that his comments regarding "revolution every twenty years" weren't a call for blood in the streets, but reflected an understanding that each generation should be allowed to govern itself according to its own needs and principles, not restricted by the past.
wack wack
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3154
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2003 5:32 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby Dangerousman » Fri Jun 21, 2013 3:41 pm

snoqueen wrote:I don't get it. The Constitution can put relatively simple mechanical objects into a special category, but cannot do so with more complicated ones? Come on. That's not an argument for anything.


You're right, it's not. And it's not any argument that I put forward either, so I don't know why you're stating it.

My argument about guns being mechanically simple compared to motor vehicles has nothing to do with the Constitution, but instead, why it makes more sense to have licensing for operating a motor vehicle than it does for operating a firearm. As I argued, a gun is closer to a bicycle-- something that requires no license or mandatory training to own or operate.

Of course, you're perfectly free to argue that bikes ought to be licensed and require mandatory instruction if you wish. Maintain that chainsaws, lawn mowers, and Rug Doctors ought to be licensed also if you feel inclined. If you can do that successfully you'll be a bit closer to arguing the same for guns. But until then, I don't think so. And then, you'd still have the separate Constitutional argument to overcome.

But I think I've explained why I believe your original comparison between guns and cars is not particularly persuasive.
Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI

Re: The gun thread

Postby jonnygothispen » Fri Jun 21, 2013 3:55 pm

Shirley, you can't be serious? Or should I say "Nancy?"

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... ding-party


I Built This AK-47. It's Legal and Totally Untraceable.

Forget 3-D-printed guns. Inside a "build party" where anyone can make a rifle that no cop will ever know about.
jonnygothispen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3155
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:53 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby Stebben84 » Fri Jun 21, 2013 3:58 pm

So because the gun is mechanically simple, we shouldn't mandate training?

Kyudo is the Japanese martial art of archery, an even simpler machine. Yet, people will spend years training before they even touch the bow. Yes, this is more of a mental exercise than a physical one, but I feel the same holds true for a gun.

Even though a car is mechanically complex, it is pretty damn easy to use. Brake, gas, steering wheel. Done. Sure there are other laws and rules and such, but so are there with guns as well. We're trained on more than just the fundamentals of the machine, but everything else associated with using one.

I venture to guess you are a good trainer. You are doing it, so you must believe there is some value in it. Why should we not mandate it and keep the classes small?
Stebben84
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 4871
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 12:59 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby Dangerousman » Fri Jun 21, 2013 4:38 pm

wack wack wrote:if you do some actual study of Thomas Jefferson (not just enough to grab a convenient quote) you'll learn that his comments regarding "revolution every twenty years" weren't a call for blood in the streets, but reflected an understanding that each generation should be allowed to govern itself according to its own needs and principles, not restricted by the past.


I suggest some real study about what Jefferson said and why he said it because it looks to me like you just conveniently put words into Jefferson's mouth without any basis for doing so, i.e., nonsense about "each generation should be allowed to govern itself according to its own needs and principles."

As far as I know Jefferson didn't say anything about a "revolution every twenty years." He was writing about Shay's Rebellion in Massachusetts-- an armed uprising that was motivated by hard economic times following the Revolutionary War-- and the effect it was having on the drafting of the new Constitution. Jefferson felt that the Federalists were using the rebellion as a reason to argue for a stronger central government whereas, Jefferson, an Anti-Federalist who opposed a strong central government, was not particularly concerned about the rebellion-- he welcomed it. When you read that pertinent passage, or the entire letter, you can see that Jefferson's comment is far removed from what you claim:

God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independent 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.
Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI

Re: The gun thread

Postby Dangerousman » Fri Jun 21, 2013 4:55 pm

Stebben84 wrote:I venture to guess you are a good trainer. You are doing it, so you must believe there is some value in it. Why should we not mandate it and keep the classes small?


I absolutely believe there's value in training-- training of people who are properly motivated, i.e., those who WANT to learn. Training that is done simply because it is mandatory is another matter. I believe responsible people acquire training without it being mandatory; plenty of them did long before concealed carry came to Wisconsin. Responsibility is something I can preach, not teach. It is something that each person must find within their own conscience or heart.

I don't think anyone argues that there are no benefits to having smaller classes. But DOJ's decision to mandate an arbitrary instructor/student ratio has no basis in the law. A big concern is, I believe, that if the DOJ is allowed to go unchallenged when it oversteps it's authority now it will create a bad precedent and set the stage for even worse mandates when a different (i.e., hostile to gun rights) administration or legislature sits in power.
Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI

Re: The gun thread

Postby jonnygothispen » Fri Jun 21, 2013 6:35 pm

The pro-guns types always whip out the phrase, "If you outlaw guns, only criminals will have them."

Good point. Anyone with a handgun outside of their home without a special permit would be a criminal and could be arrested immediately, eliminating any confusion...
jonnygothispen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3155
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:53 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby Henry Vilas » Sat Jun 22, 2013 2:03 pm

Republican state Rep. Michael Schraa wants to bar physicians from asking their patients if they own guns.

It’s one of those questions that’s become standard during a trip to the doctor — like finding out whether your kids use car seats and whether there are any smokers in the house.

The point is to remind people of the importance of keeping guns and ammo locked up, because there are these statistics, you see, that have long shown the more likely you are to have guns in your home, the more likely you are to get shot.

A meta-analysis, or study of studies, in the February 2011 issue of the American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine, for example, found that childhood firearms-related deaths were from 2.5 to 12.1 times higher in states where more people had guns in the home than in states where fewer people did.

Firearms have long been a favorite way for Americans to kill themselves and others, accounting for 17.5 percent of injury-related deaths in 2010, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Put these two uncontroversial facts together and you can see why the medical and public health establishments would be asking patients about gun ownership. Protecting folks from bullet-itis is a reasonable concern for those in the health industry to have.

Schraa, though, contends that firearm ownership “has nothing to do with your physical health” and worries that gun owners might feel “intimidated or harassed by their physicians over the exercise of a constitutional right.”

Yet Schraa voted to require ultrasounds for women wanting a legal abortion. No intimdation or harassment there.
Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 19923
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all

Re: The gun thread

Postby snoqueen » Sat Jun 22, 2013 4:30 pm

I absolutely believe there's value in training-- training of people who are properly motivated, i.e., those who WANT to learn.


Makes sense to me. The training should make them better gun owners and users.

Converse: Without the training, they're more likely to be worse gun owners and users.

Do we really want poor (as in uninformed and irresponsible, not impoverished) gun owners and users out there? Seems like a couple times a week we see in local news the damage that mentality can cause.

We shouldn't even TRY to do something about this? After all, we have mandatory classes for people caught DUI, and from what I hear some attenders get something out of it. Obviously a few ignore the whole thing, but if we can pound some sense into half or a third of 'em, isn't it worthwhile?

Same with gun training.

This, it seems to me, is the same sort of weird fatalism that lets a Texas town have a fertilizer plant right next to houses and residential care facilities, and entire states in Tornado Alley with no tornado shelters or basements.
snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 11546
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby DCB » Sat Jun 22, 2013 6:39 pm

Dangerousman wrote:I don't think anyone argues that there are no benefits to having smaller classes. But DOJ's decision to mandate an arbitrary instructor/student ratio has no basis in the law.


That's ridiculous. Do you really think it makes sense for the law to spell out every single detail?
Dangerousman wrote:A big concern is, I believe, that if the DOJ is allowed to go unchallenged when it oversteps it's authority now it will create a bad precedent and set the stage for even worse mandates when a different (i.e., hostile to gun rights) administration or legislature sits in power.

Now setting a class size is a violation of your precious rights? You're really outdoing yourself.
DCB
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2671
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 5:08 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby Dangerousman » Sun Jun 23, 2013 1:27 am

DCB wrote:That's ridiculous. Do you really think it makes sense for the law to spell out every single detail?


Well the language of the law implies that it is spelling out every single detail as to what is required.

So before declaring it ridiculous, why don't you take a moment to read what the law says? I quoted it earlier in the thread and it says that DOJ "may not impose conditions, limitations, or requirements that are not expressly provided for in this section on the issuance, scope, effect, or content of a license."

If you believe my position is ridiculous, then why don't you explain what you think that line in the law means?

There is no instructor-to-student ratio expressly provided, or even implicitly expressed in "this section" of the law. And while it isn't part of Wisconsin Carry's lawsuit, the newly added DOJ requirements that training must include stuff about gun transport laws, use of deadly force, techniques for avoiding and controlling violent encounters and a number of other things are not expressly provided in the law either. Wisconsin Carry's concealed carry course already happens to include those things so probably they couldn't argue they incur any damage by having to include them and have left that out of the lawsuit. But certainly some other organization or instructors who teach only a pistol course or firearms safety course would now find that those previously accepted courses are no longer acceptable under the new administrative rules and they would also have grounds for a lawsuit.


Now setting a class size is a violation of your precious rights? You're really outdoing yourself.


I didn't say it was "a violation of my precious rights." I said it's a violation of the law. I wouldn't say you're really outdoing yourself by misrepresenting my position. But you're simply being yourself by doing so.
Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI

Re: The gun thread

Postby wack wack » Sun Jun 23, 2013 7:52 am

Dangerousman wrote:
I suggest some real study about what Jefferson said and why he said it because it looks to me like you just conveniently put words into Jefferson's mouth without any basis for doing so, i.e., nonsense about "each generation should be allowed to govern itself according to its own needs and principles."


Nonsense? Your opinions based on your per-determined preferred outcomes are lacking and dangerous. I'd guess you know nothing of Jefferson other than that which might support your desire for completely unfettered arms possession. That's real nonsense.

It is clear from analysis of extensive writing by and about Jefferson that he believed strongly in the constant renewal of government. Were he here today, he'd be leading the charge for a new Constitution.

If you don't get this from your real study of Jefferson, you're not doing it right.
wack wack
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3154
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2003 5:32 pm

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