MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus:         Newsletters 
Friday, October 31, 2014 |  Madison, WI: 47.0° F  Overcast
Collapse Photo Bar

The gun thread

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

Re: The gun thread

Postby jman111 » Mon Aug 13, 2012 9:07 am

Dangerousman wrote:
jman111 wrote:Next up, where do we draw that line? Obviously, prohibition of possession of nukes could be justified based on some type of increased risk to society or greater danger to other individuals resulting from the possession of nukes (similar to the justification for free speech limits on things like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater when no fire exists). There must be some sort of weighing exercise that measures the right to bear the arm against the increased "harm" (or the potential thereof) caused by the bearing of the arm.

Following this logic, limitations on other types of arms could be deemed perfectly constitutional if weighed against the same or similar criteria, right?


Yes, but that's not the logic I followed when I said nukes aren't protected by the 2nd Amendment. If we followed your logic, i.e. "justified based on some type of increased risk to society or greater danger to other individuals" one might go down the slippery slope and say that there are no arms that are protected by the 2nd Amendment, because any form of arms represents a greater danger to somebody. And logically that can't be the case because the 2nd Amendment clearly is intended to protect at least some arms. Logic dictates you cannot have both a constitutional amendment protecting the keeping and bearing of arms AND yet have no actual arms that are protected. That's clearly a self-defeating line of reasoning.

But, see, you seem to have missed (or ignored) the part about the judicial weighing exercise that balances the right against the risk, that protects us from that slippery slope. I know you're familiar with the concept, because you used it to justify restrictions on certain individuals' rights to bear arms:

Dangerousman wrote:I've stated more than once that I don't have a problem with the concept of prohibitions against gun possession by felons convicted of certain types of crimes, or by people who have been found by a court to be so mentally ill that it would present a higher risk if that person was allowed to have a gun.

So, what "logic" were you following when you discussed nukes? The only thing I can find is this:
I don't think one needs nukes to counter the formation of a tyrannical government.
jman111
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3050
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 12:43 pm
Location: Dane County

Re: The gun thread

Postby O.J. » Mon Aug 13, 2012 10:32 am

Dangerousman wrote: either the guy overestimated the odds of an attack occurring during the showing he attended and consequently more fearful than warranted, or maybe he has some sort of hero fantasy, or maybe he's just into thinking like a bodyguard


It usually rubs me the wrong way when someone refers to himself in the third person, but I applaud this exercise in introspection. Bravo, Dman, bravo.
O.J.
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2992
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 10:13 am

Re: The gun thread

Postby Henry Vilas » Mon Aug 13, 2012 11:05 am

Dangerousman wrote:I don't think one needs nukes to counter the formation of a tyrannical government.

So what would be needed to counter attack helicopters, tanks and heavy artillery? IEDs are prohibited under the destructive weapons act. Is that law unconstitutional (in your mind)?
Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 20039
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all

Re: The gun thread

Postby Ned Flanders » Mon Aug 13, 2012 11:12 am

Used a sweet Weatherby shotgun for clays on Saturday morning and then Mrs. Ned and I went the pistol range on Saturday afternoon at did 100 rounds with her Charles Daly 1911.
Ned Flanders
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 13420
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2001 2:48 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby Dangerousman » Mon Aug 13, 2012 11:23 am

O.J. wrote:
Dangerousman wrote: either the guy overestimated the odds of an attack occurring during the showing he attended and consequently more fearful than warranted, or maybe he has some sort of hero fantasy, or maybe he's just into thinking like a bodyguard


It usually rubs me the wrong way when someone refers to himself in the third person, but I applaud this exercise in introspection. Bravo, Dman, bravo.


If you think I'm the guy in Ohio that's pretty funny. But I will admit to "thinking like a bodyguard" because I both advocate and teach it.

I neither over nor underestimate the odds of an attack. I keep pretty good tabs on reality. Try it!

Nor am I more fearful than warranted. Any fear of becoming a crime victim is mild and then only occurs in response to something happening that ought to raise any reasonable person's level of awareness.

Trust me, in the whole realm of fantasies a person can experience, there are far better ones to enjoy than becoming a "hero." There are also better fantasies than your fantasy that you are clever. Try them!
Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI

Re: The gun thread

Postby Dangerousman » Mon Aug 13, 2012 11:32 am

jman111 wrote:But, see, you seem to have missed (or ignored) the part about the judicial weighing exercise that balances the right against the risk, that protects us from that slippery slope. I know you're familiar with the concept, because you used it to justify restrictions on certain individuals' rights to bear arms:

Dangerousman wrote:I've stated more than once that I don't have a problem with the concept of prohibitions against gun possession by felons convicted of certain types of crimes, or by people who have been found by a court to be so mentally ill that it would present a higher risk if that person was allowed to have a gun.


But a huge difference is that the restrictions I am willing to accept only have an effect on criminals and crazies, whereas the restrictions you presumably would support affect the rights of sane law-abiding people. There's something wrong with you if you have the same regard for sane law-abiding people that you do for criminals and certifiably crazy people.
Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI

Re: The gun thread

Postby Dangerousman » Mon Aug 13, 2012 11:35 am

Henry Vilas wrote:
Dangerousman wrote:I don't think one needs nukes to counter the formation of a tyrannical government.

So what would be needed to counter attack helicopters, tanks and heavy artillery? IEDs are prohibited under the destructive weapons act. Is that law unconstitutional (in your mind)?


Henry, if you're being attacked by helicopters, tanks and artillery, are you really going to care what's legal to possess? Yes or no?
Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI

Re: The gun thread

Postby Henry Vilas » Mon Aug 13, 2012 11:50 am

You are the one worrying about overthrowing a tyrannical government, not me. So why not answer my questions directly?
Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 20039
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all

Re: The gun thread

Postby wack wack » Mon Aug 13, 2012 12:04 pm

Isn't the concept of revolution to overthrow a tyrannical government a bit quaint at this point in our history? The country is divided enough that any "anti-government" action would incite civil war, not revolution.
wack wack
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3157
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2003 5:32 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby jman111 » Mon Aug 13, 2012 12:39 pm

Dangerousman wrote:But a huge difference is that the restrictions I am willing to accept only have an effect on criminals and crazies, whereas the restrictions you presumably would support affect the rights of sane law-abiding people.

That's just not true. You are willing to allow a ban on nukes for everyone, regardless of criminal record or mental status. Why?

The restrictions in either case are based on the "higher risk" that results from the bearing of arms. You apparently acknowledge that there may be an increased risk when "criminals and crazies" possess any arms, correct? So there must be some way of measuring, or weighing, that criminality or craziness, right? And the risks of allowing those deemed sufficiently "criminal" or "certifiably crazy" to bear arms outweighs those individuals' rights to bear arms.
Why would it not be prudent to utilize a similar comparison of risks vs rights for types of arms?

You say that is not how you arrived at your nuke conclusion. Again, I'm curious, upon what do you base your belief that a nuke ban is constitutional, if not the increased risk of harm to others?
jman111
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3050
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 12:43 pm
Location: Dane County

Re: The gun thread

Postby Dangerousman » Mon Aug 13, 2012 12:39 pm

Henry Vilas wrote:You are the one worrying about overthrowing a tyrannical government, not me. So why not answer my questions directly?


You're jumping the gun, if you pardon the expression. One would overthrow a tyrannical government only if there is one to overthrow. The 2nd Amendment is designed to prevent one from ever being established in the first place. Need I remind you that tyrannical governments have been established in other Western industrialized countries within recent history? And the democratic process was used to a certain extent to establish those tyrannical governments. I'm pretty certain there was nothing remotely like the 2nd Amend in any of those countries.
Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI

Re: The gun thread

Postby Dangerousman » Mon Aug 13, 2012 12:53 pm

jman111 wrote:Why would it not be prudent to utilize a similar comparison of risks vs rights for types of arms?


Here's the key to your confused thinking right there. You're taking the risk associated with certain types of people and trying to apply it to inanimate objects. Weapons of different types don't present a greater risk due to the nature of the weapon. The element of "risk" is affected by who it is that has the weapon. People aren't at greater risk when you or I hold a knife, but you can't say that's true when it's Richard Speck holding the knife or John Hinckley, Jr. holding a gun. Same principle applies in a lot of other areas too: a box of matches is not risky normally, but you wouldn't want it in the hands of a 3-year old child or a pyromaniac. Likewise, a person has to have driving violations or some physical condition affecting their ability to drive safely in order to not be allowed to drive. Makes sense. But we don't deny the healthy non-violators the right to drive or have a vehicle, do we?
Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI

Re: The gun thread

Postby Henry Vilas » Mon Aug 13, 2012 12:54 pm

Dangerousman wrote:
Henry Vilas wrote:You are the one worrying about overthrowing a tyrannical government, not me. So why not answer my questions directly?


You're jumping the gun, if you pardon the expression. One would overthrow a tyrannical government only if there is one to overthrow. The 2nd Amendment is designed to prevent one from ever being established in the first place.

How does that work in 2012? Are Second Amendment absolutists like you sufficeintly armed to overthrow a tyrannical government? If not, what do you need?
Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 20039
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all

Re: The gun thread

Postby Dangerousman » Mon Aug 13, 2012 1:12 pm

jman111 wrote:
Dangerousman wrote:But a huge difference is that the restrictions I am willing to accept only have an effect on criminals and crazies, whereas the restrictions you presumably would support affect the rights of sane law-abiding people.

That's just not true. You are willing to allow a ban on nukes for everyone, regardless of criminal record or mental status. Why?


I don't believe there's an increased risk from nukes when they're in the hands of sane law-abiding people. And trust me the people who are in physical possession of the nukes in this country have pretty high standards of saneness and non-criminality.

But if there is one thing that could not conceivably be needed or used to prevent establishment of a tyrannical government it is a nuke. But if you feel that is incorrect, feel free to argue for the constitutionality of owning a nuke. I don't think Stalin ever used nukes or even the threat of them against the Soviet people to maintain his tyrannical rule.
Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI

Re: The gun thread

Postby Dangerousman » Mon Aug 13, 2012 1:17 pm

Henry Vilas wrote:
Dangerousman wrote:
Henry Vilas wrote:You are the one worrying about overthrowing a tyrannical government, not me. So why not answer my questions directly?


You're jumping the gun, if you pardon the expression. One would overthrow a tyrannical government only if there is one to overthrow. The 2nd Amendment is designed to prevent one from ever being established in the first place.

How does that work in 2012? Are Second Amendment absolutists like you sufficeintly armed to overthrow a tyrannical government? If not, what do you need?


Again, you missed my point. I think the Second Amendment protects the right to be sufficiently armed to make the establishment of a tyrannical government very difficult. If you have a tyrannical government already established, you don't have an issue of rights, you have an issue of battle.

I'd love to see you go to Syria and try tell those people that they "do not have the right" to commandeer that tank.
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 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