MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus:         Newsletters 
Saturday, November 1, 2014 |  Madison, WI: 24.0° F  Fair
Collapse Photo Bar

The gentrification of the second amendment.

Races for the Senate, U.S. House, etc. and other issues of national importance.

Re: The gentrification of the second amendment.

Postby Stebben84 » Wed Apr 03, 2013 4:27 pm

Bludgeon wrote:And progressives' solution since they object to the concept, is just to price everybody out of the market - the market of exercising their own constitutional rights.


What if you're poor and can't afford a gun or ammo. Are you blaming the gun industry for pricing them too high and out of their constitutional rights? If not, what's the difference.

I'm sure you won't answer this as you didn't answer other questions, but I thought I'd have some fun anyhow.
Stebben84
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 4983
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 12:59 pm

Re: The gentrification of the second amendment.

Postby Bludgeon » Wed Apr 03, 2013 4:50 pm

Hey, I do work, yknow?

Your argument: If people can't afford much, how is making sure they really, really can't afford it bad?

Breakdown: gun - one time purchase; ammo - rare purchase for most gun owners.

Disambiguation: most people, poor or not, can afford a one time purchase of a high ticket item like a gun; and they can afford the intermittent purchase of a relatively affordable item such as a box of ammo.

What people in financial crisis can often not afford is the addition of another monthly bill and mandate that over time will cost tens/hundreds of times more than the weapon itself.

Especially when the entire purpose of such a mandate is to discourage gun ownership altogether by pricing people out of the market of their own constitutional rights. "You can have the right, you just can't afford to exercise it."

Further, if you're an intellectually honest person, you shouldn't try to pass it off as if the intention is anything other than a gun prohibition by use of financial disincentive.

Add: I am not even a gun person. Still.
Bludgeon
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1291
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 2:27 am

Re: The gentrification of the second amendment.

Postby ArturoBandini » Wed Apr 03, 2013 5:37 pm

snoqueen wrote:Repealing worked with Prohibition. You can repeal something without rewording it.
What's your point here? Prohibition of alcohol was a tragic failure. We were and are better off accepting the risks of allowing alcohol to be legally owned and consumed, and worse off trying to prevent the purchase and use of this dangerous and risky product that admittedly ruins tens of thousands of lives annually. Now apply this lesson to guns and gun accessories.
ArturoBandini
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2251
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 11:54 pm
Location: near west

Re: The gentrification of the second amendment.

Postby Dangerousman » Wed Apr 03, 2013 5:53 pm

Henry Vilas wrote:My real problem with the Second is that two hundred years after it was ratified, the Supreme Court reinterpreted it to exclude the opening clauses. To wit, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" and instead said it means guns for all. Although they did say reasonable restrictions are still OK.

Somehow, many in the NRA controlled Congress think background checks and limits on high capacity firearms aren't reasonable. The American public disagrees.


As usual, nonsense. How is it even logically possible to say the court said the 2nd Amendment means "guns for all" and at the same time "although... reasonable restrictions are still OK?" Clearly the court did not make this bald-faced contradictory ruling. Nor did the court "exclude the opening clause." Rather, it went to fairly considerable length to explain it.

Have you actually read the court's opinion or do you just rely on the shit you've been fed?
Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI

Re: The gentrification of the second amendment.

Postby Stebben84 » Wed Apr 03, 2013 5:58 pm

Bludgeon wrote:Your argument: If people can't afford much, how is making sure they really, really can't afford it bad?


No, it's not.

Your argument is that adding liability insurance forces some people from not owning guns. I am saying the actual cost of guns forces some people to not own guns, thereby making it a luxury for people to own guns. But wait, it's a constitutional right so it's not a luxury, right? You say guns are cheap, but what if I want a fancy semi-automatic gun that costs a couple hundred bucks and I can't afford it. After all it's my "right" to own that gun, but I can't because I can't afford it. This is the NRA's central talking point that owning a semi-automatic is a "right," yet that right cannot be obtained by those who can't afford it.

Bludgeon wrote:What people in financial crisis can often not afford is the addition of another monthly bill and mandate that over time will cost tens/hundreds of times more than the weapon itself.


Kind of like a car, right? But wait, a car is a luxury not a right, and guns are a right and not a luxury, but they cost money that some can't afford. Ugh, I'm confused. Since when should a right cost money? There's the license and training and ammo. Oh, ammo that won't be used often.

Bludgeon wrote:ammo - rare purchase for most gun owners.


Really? I'd ask Dman to interject what "most" gun owners pay for ammo. I'm going to speculate many bring their guns to ranges and go hunting often enough that they purchase ammo more frequently then you assume. But, maybe I'm wrong.

Bludgeon wrote:Especially when the entire purpose of such a mandate is to discourage gun ownership altogether by pricing people out of the market of their own constitutional rights.


Do you have proof that this was the intent of the legislation or are you spewing talking points. Is the intent of insurance for anything to price people out of the market? I believe insurance is to cover your ass when something goes wrong, not to discourage making a purchase.

Bludgeon wrote:Further, if you're an intellectually honest person, you shouldn't try to pass it off as if the intention is anything other than a gun prohibition by use of financial disincentive.


Well, you can say that but:

An insurance program for firearms would help shift the cost of gun violence onto gun owners and away from all other taxpayers and victims. Right now, taxpayers — be it those who responsibly own gun, those who recklessly do, or those who have never even touched a firearm — take on the financial burden of guns: violent crimes are estimated to cost taxpayers $3.7 billion every year.


It's from your link and I don't think I need to bold the part where they talk about taxpayers taking on the burden. I'm surprised conservatives wouldn't be on the cheer leading squad for saving taxpayers money.
Stebben84
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 4983
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 12:59 pm

Re: The gentrification of the second amendment.

Postby Bludgeon » Wed Apr 03, 2013 6:17 pm

You honestly mean to tell me that you expect that any of the inner city violence in Milwaukee, Chicago, Birmingham, Houston, is going to end up being covered by mandatory liability insurance?

"Hey, let's go get in a gang fight!"

"Wait, who has the guns?"

"ME - come on boys, these babies are insured!"


This ^ is what you're postulating.
Bludgeon
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1291
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 2:27 am

Re: The gentrification of the second amendment.

Postby wack wack » Wed Apr 03, 2013 6:19 pm

Bludgeon wrote:So your real problem with the second amendment is that you don't like what it says, or the intention with which it was written.

And progressives' solution since they object to the concept, is just to price everybody out of the market - the market of exercising their own constitutional rights. Because gentrification is bad.. I mean good?


My real problem is that it is written in a language and references things which are completely irrelevant to our time, and do nothing other than to allow room for goofs like you to keep the argument going.
wack wack
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3158
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2003 5:32 pm

Re: The gentrification of the second amendment.

Postby Bludgeon » Wed Apr 03, 2013 6:21 pm

wack wack wrote:
Bludgeon wrote:So your real problem with the second amendment is that you don't like what it says, or the intention with which it was written.

And progressives' solution since they object to the concept, is just to price everybody out of the market - the market of exercising their own constitutional rights. Because gentrification is bad.. I mean good?

My real problem is that it is written in a language and references things which are completely irrelevant to our time, and do nothing other than to allow room for goofs like you to keep the argument going.

i.e., your real problem with the second amendment is what it says.
Bludgeon
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1291
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 2:27 am

Re: The gentrification of the second amendment.

Postby wack wack » Wed Apr 03, 2013 6:28 pm

Bludgeon wrote:
wack wack wrote:
Bludgeon wrote:So your real problem with the second amendment is that you don't like what it says, or the intention with which it was written.

And progressives' solution since they object to the concept, is just to price everybody out of the market - the market of exercising their own constitutional rights. Because gentrification is bad.. I mean good?

My real problem is that it is written in a language and references things which are completely irrelevant to our time, and do nothing other than to allow room for goofs like you to keep the argument going.

i.e., your real problem with the second amendment is what it says.


Are you being pedantic? In that case, the Second Amendment doesn't say anything.
wack wack
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3158
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2003 5:32 pm

Re: The gentrification of the second amendment.

Postby Stebben84 » Wed Apr 03, 2013 6:36 pm

Bludgeon wrote:You honestly mean to tell me that you expect that any of the inner city violence in Milwaukee, Chicago, Birmingham, Houston, is going to end up being covered by mandatory liability insurance?


No. I see the issue with guns as a many tentacled beast that isn't left to just "giving people more guns" and then doing nothing else.

I also don't know enough about the proposed legislation to make a clear cut yay or nay about it. I'm just saying I don't see it as gentrification as you just clearly pointed out in the above statement. Many people don't have car insurance and we pay the price, but many people also have car insurance and we don't pay for their fuck ups. For me it's a proposal worthy of discussion and then go from there. Let's not just shit on the parade because the first float sucks.

Alas, soon JJ will get his undies in a bundle and add this to the gun thread where it will get swallowed up and we'll end up talking about concealed carry or something.
Stebben84
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 4983
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 12:59 pm

Re: The gentrification of the second amendment.

Postby snoqueen » Wed Apr 03, 2013 7:31 pm

Regarding my comment that precedent exists for repealing an amendment to the constitution:

What's your point here? Prohibition of alcohol was a tragic failure. We were and are better off accepting the risks of allowing alcohol to be legally owned and consumed, and worse off trying to prevent the purchase and use of this dangerous and risky product that admittedly ruins tens of thousands of lives annually. Now apply this lesson to guns and gun accessories.


If we repealed the Second and replaced it with a sensible network of legislation such as exists in plenty of other countries, we might end up with rational limits on the ownership and use of firearms -- a dangerous and risky product that ruins thousands of lives annually -- in line with what a majority of the US public wants now and/or in the future. This would represent acceptance of the risks along with acceptance of applicable limitations similar to what we have done with alcohol.
snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 11664
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: The gentrification of the second amendment.

Postby ArturoBandini » Wed Apr 03, 2013 8:31 pm

C'mon sno. You were my biggest ally in advocating the removal of whatever puritanical booze regulations still exist. Bring on the freedom (and another six-pack after 9pm)!

And intersecting with the topic - alcohol and other "sin" taxes are much higher than taxes on other goods. Has alcohol been gentrified? Do you think that cigarette taxes in NYC, for instance, are based in some part on motivations to make it financially burdensome for the poor to smoke?

For those of you advocating a full repeal or re-do of the Second Amendment - from those of us on the pro-freedom side, please openly adopt this politically-suicidal strategy.

edit: forgot to add the link
ArturoBandini
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2251
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 11:54 pm
Location: near west

Re: The gentrification of the second amendment.

Postby ArturoBandini » Wed Apr 03, 2013 8:40 pm

snoqueen wrote:rational limits on the ownership and use of firearms
Whoa, now. Correct me if I'm wrong, but very few people are arguing against limits on the use of firearms. It is already a crime to use a gun against another person in all but some well-defined situations (not perfectly defined, see Trayvon Martin). "Keeping and bearing" is not the same as "using", although "keeping and bearing" might have some usefulness as a passive deterrent.
ArturoBandini
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2251
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 11:54 pm
Location: near west

Re: The gentrification of the second amendment.

Postby pjbogart » Wed Apr 03, 2013 8:48 pm

I think the best way forward is to propose a lot of different types of gun regulations in order to get feedback, particularly on the internet where people just say what's on their mind. Then we pass the legislation and start rounding up the guns... from all the nuts on the internet who were talking about how much they love guns.

It's hard to find criminals because they're always hiding, but the gun-nuts should be easy to track down.
pjbogart
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6172
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 4:57 pm

Re: The gentrification of the second amendment.

Postby DCB » Wed Apr 03, 2013 9:29 pm

Bludgeon wrote:
My real problem is that it is written in a language and references things which are completely irrelevant to our time, and do nothing other than to allow room for goofs like you to keep the argument going.

i.e., your real problem with the second amendment is what it says.

Right. I don't think we need a constitutional amendment to authorize militias to capture escaped slaves anymore.

My only reservation about repealing the 2nd amendment (which is not going to happen in my lifetime) is that the gun nuts would start killing people.
DCB
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2719
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 5:08 pm

PreviousNext

Return to National Politics & Government

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

moviesmusiceats
Select a Movie
Select a Theater


commentsViewedForum
  ISTHMUS FLICKR
Created with flickr badge.

cron
Promotions Contact us Privacy Policy Jobs Newsletters RSS
Collapse Photo Bar