MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus:         Newsletters 
Thursday, December 25, 2014 |  Madison, WI: 40.0° F  Mostly Cloudy
Collapse Photo Bar

Wouldn't it be great if everybody had a gun?

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

Re: Wouldn't it be great if everybody had a gun?

Postby peripat » Fri May 02, 2014 2:02 pm

Francis Di Domizio wrote:Besides this thread is about guns, and I think we can all agree that a woman who finds herself infested with fertilized eggs should not be attempting to remove said infestation herself using firearms.


And the firearm non pregnancy related equivalent would be to shoot through your own head to get the people on your porch- if you are the person with the gun - which most also do not agree with.

So was there some sort of point there or is it just that you find conversations about guns to be more moral that conversations about women?
peripat
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1051
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 1:59 am

Re: Wouldn't it be great if everybody had a gun?

Postby Francis Di Domizio » Fri May 02, 2014 2:22 pm

peripat wrote:So was there some sort of point there


Didn't you read what Rabble said? It was a public service message.
Francis Di Domizio
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2682
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:11 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Re: Wouldn't it be great if everybody had a gun?

Postby Gentle Man » Fri May 02, 2014 2:40 pm

Well that was strange tangent that this thread just went through. Can't say I read it word-for-word, as there was no need to because Stand Your Ground would have no application to abortions. It only applies to instances of self-defense. Self-defense only refers to using threats or force against another person who is interfering with you in an unlawful manner. A fetus does not unlawfully do anything. There are other legal privileges other than "self-defense" that one may invoke at times, e.g., coercion and necessity. But stand your ground does not apply to those privileges.

It is easy to understand this if you realize that protecting yourself against an animal attack isn't self-defense, technically, unless the owner intentionally used the animal as a weapon. An animal isn't breaking a law when it attacks you, although the owner, if there is one, may be breaking a law by failing to have their animal under control. Defending against a random animal attack I guess would probalby come under the privilege of "necessity.

Necessity. Pressure of natural physical forces which causes the actor reasonably to believe that his or her act is the only means of preventing imminent public disaster, or imminent death or great bodily harm to the actor or another and which causes him or her so to act, is a defense to a prosecution for any crime based on that act, except that if the prosecution is for first-degree intentional homicide, the degree of the crime is reduced to 2nd-degree intentional homicide
.
Gentle Man
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 415
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 2:39 pm

Re: Wouldn't it be great if everybody had a gun?

Postby penquin » Fri May 02, 2014 4:08 pm

Francis Di Domizio wrote:Car accidents kill a lot of people.


Some folks have said that those deaths are irrelevant 'cause cars aren't designed to kill people.
penquin
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 663
Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 3:19 pm

Re: Wouldn't it be great if everybody had a gun?

Postby Francis Di Domizio » Fri May 02, 2014 4:19 pm

penquin wrote:
Francis Di Domizio wrote:Car accidents kill a lot of people.


Some folks have said that those deaths are irrelevant 'cause cars aren't designed to kill people.



No, people have said that regulating cars is different than regulating guns because the express purpose of cars is to transport people and objects from one location to another (or multiple locations), while the only function of guns when operated is to create holes in the plant, animal or object towards which they are pointed often resulting in the destruction of same. If the only function cars were capable of was to put a hole in things where previously there were no holes the comparison would be more fitting.

On the other hand the comparison of a zygote forming in a woman's body and driving a car which is the comparison I was making is more apt. Both can lead to death, but neither are the primary purpose, and the deaths caused are almost always unintentional.
Francis Di Domizio
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2682
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:11 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Re: Wouldn't it be great if everybody had a gun?

Postby Henry Vilas » Fri May 02, 2014 4:33 pm

I also agree that it is a false equivocacy, as regulations on cars and trucks have decreased the dealth rate from vehicular crashes, while the death rate from mostly unregulated firearms has not. Some are even against expanding constitutional background checks because of their paranoia that such a widely popular move will result in the government taking away their guns. Same with the opposition to smart guns (see my prior post).

Unfortunenty the minority of gun nuts, who make death threats to those who dare sell smart guns, now rule the day. All the name of FREEDOM!
Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 20282
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all

Re: Wouldn't it be great if everybody had a gun?

Postby penquin » Fri May 02, 2014 7:57 pm

Francis Di Domizio wrote:No


Excuse me, but yes...

jonnygothispen wrote:Cars are not designed to kill people. Driving over someone with a car isn't the first thing I think about when someone attacks me.


viewtopic.php?f=35&t=53046&p=663096#p663096

That said, I agree that ya really can't compare driving a vehicle on a public road to bearing arms. One is a protected Constitutional right and the other is a privilege; when looking at restricting a right, it should be compared to other rights. (Which is the same thing I said when others claimed that we get a license to drive on the road so why not get a permit to sing in the Capitol...)

Also...my main concern against universal background checks is not government seizure (tho only an extremely naive person would think that such a thing is an impossible occurrence), and I haven't seen anyone on this forum say that is what they were worried about.
penquin
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 663
Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 3:19 pm

Re: Wouldn't it be great if everybody had a gun?

Postby Francis Di Domizio » Fri May 02, 2014 8:18 pm

Yes a purely literal translation of the second amendment says you have a right to keep and bear arms because a well regulated militia is "necessary to the security of a free state"

You know what the 2nd amendment doesn't say? Anything about buying a gun. zip, nada, zilch. Perhaps the framers figured that well regulated militia would be responsible for making sure we were all armed.

Apparently, they forgot to set up funding for that afterwards (the first unfunded mandate perhaps). So yes, you do have a constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. But since were considering the bill of rights to be the final say so on what a right is I guess, you have no more right to buy a gun than you do to buy a car.

When we buy cars we have to register them to their owner, seems fair that another product with the same capability for destruction gets registered too.
Francis Di Domizio
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2682
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:11 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Re: Wouldn't it be great if everybody had a gun?

Postby Gentle Man » Mon May 05, 2014 12:30 pm

Henry Vilas wrote:I also agree that it is a false equivocacy, as regulations on cars and trucks have decreased the dealth rate from vehicular crashes, while the death rate from mostly unregulated firearms has not.


You might be right, other than the fact that you're wrong.

Firearms are regulated, and overly so. Plus deaths from firearms have decreased, but then you never were one to let the facts get in the way.
Gentle Man
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 415
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 2:39 pm

Re: Wouldn't it be great if everybody had a gun?

Postby Gentle Man » Mon May 05, 2014 12:34 pm

Francis Di Domizio wrote:Yes a purely literal translation of the second amendment says you have a right to keep and bear arms because a well regulated militia is "necessary to the security of a free state"

You know what the 2nd amendment doesn't say? Anything about buying a gun. zip, nada, zilch. Perhaps the framers figured that well regulated militia would be responsible for making sure we were all armed.

Apparently, they forgot to set up funding for that afterwards (the first unfunded mandate perhaps). So yes, you do have a constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. But since were considering the bill of rights to be the final say so on what a right is I guess, you have no more right to buy a gun than you do to buy a car.

When we buy cars we have to register them to their owner, seems fair that another product with the same capability for destruction gets registered too.


Hilarious line of "reasoning."

Hey, guess what? The Bill of Rights also says you have a right to practice your religion, but they won't be funding your church. Won't be buying you a printing press either.

You have a right to be secure in your house, papers and effects. But the government isn't going to buy you a house, or, even a safe for your papers.

And just because cars are registered... most things you buy are NOT.
Gentle Man
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 415
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 2:39 pm

Re: Wouldn't it be great if everybody had a gun?

Postby Francis Di Domizio » Mon May 05, 2014 12:42 pm

Nothing you just said disputes my point Gman. The right to keep and bear does not include a stated right to buy.

And most things you buy can't cause catastrophic damage to people or property. Thank you for pointing out how cars and guns are different from most things you can buy.
Francis Di Domizio
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2682
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:11 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Re: Wouldn't it be great if everybody had a gun?

Postby Gentle Man » Mon May 05, 2014 1:17 pm

Francis Di Domizio wrote:Nothing you just said disputes my point Gman. The right to keep and bear does not include a stated right to buy.

And most things you buy can't cause catastrophic damage to people or property. Thank you for pointing out how cars and guns are different from most things you can buy.


Well you have things turned around. You seem to believe one's rights are only those that are specifically enumerated. I suggest that you read the 9th and 10th Amendments and think again.

According to you, nobody has a right to buy anything. Anything! Given that the Founding Fathers were huge on property rights in general, that's absurd. It's absurd even without the Founding Fathers.

So you think cars are registered because of their potential to cause catastrophic damage? Hard not to laugh out loud, if you're serious. Most states have no gun registration... certainly not this one. But every state has vehicle registration.
Gentle Man
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 415
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 2:39 pm

Re: Wouldn't it be great if everybody had a gun?

Postby Gentle Man » Mon May 05, 2014 1:22 pm

[quote="Henry Vilas"] mostly unregulated firearms [quote]

How about that mostly unregulated right to vote, Henry? Wow, don't even have to show ID, let alone a background check or waiting period. You don't want a prohibited felon from getting a gun, but have no problem if one voted?
Gentle Man
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 415
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 2:39 pm

Re: Wouldn't it be great if everybody had a gun?

Postby Francis Di Domizio » Mon May 05, 2014 1:55 pm

Gentle Man wrote:Well you have things turned around. You seem to believe one's rights are only those that are specifically enumerated. I suggest that you read the 9th and 10th Amendments and think again.


Actually I'm countering Penguin's assertion that car ownership is a privilege, not a right. As you point out the 9th and 10th guarantee rights that are not specifically spelled out in the bill of rights.

Gentle Man wrote:According to you, nobody has a right to buy anything. Anything! Given that the Founding Fathers were huge on property rights in general, that's absurd. It's absurd even without the Founding Fathers.


The right to buy and sell property is as you say central to the rights the founders believed in, however they never spelled it out specifically. I believe the 9th and 10th cover that right just fine, but Penquin does seem to think only spelled out rights exist. Since the 2nd Amendment doesn't actually spell out a right to buy arms, there is a bit of a flaw in his logic.

Gentle Man wrote:So you think cars are registered because of their potential to cause catastrophic damage? Hard not to laugh out loud, if you're serious. Most states have no gun registration... certainly not this one. But every state has vehicle registration.


I am serious and don't... wait, no. Try not to hurt yourself laughing too loud. It's one of several reason, not the only reason. And thank you for pointing out the flaw in most states laws.
Francis Di Domizio
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2682
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:11 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Re: Wouldn't it be great if everybody had a gun?

Postby Francis Di Domizio » Mon May 05, 2014 1:57 pm

Gentle Man wrote:
Henry Vilas wrote: mostly unregulated firearms


How about that mostly unregulated right to vote, Henry? Wow, don't even have to show ID, let alone a background check or waiting period. You don't want a prohibited felon from getting a gun, but have no problem if one voted?


Cause we all remember the damage that happened in 2010 when the GOP went on that voting spree.
Francis Di Domizio
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2682
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:11 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI

PreviousNext

Return to Headlines

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

moviesmusiceats
Select a Movie
Select a Theater


commentsViewedForum
  ISTHMUS FLICKR
Created with flickr badge.

Promotions Contact us Privacy Policy Jobs Newsletters RSS
Collapse Photo Bar