MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus:         Newsletters 
Friday, December 19, 2014 |  Madison, WI: 26.0° F  Overcast
Collapse Photo Bar

The gun thread

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

Re: The gun thread

Postby fisticuffs » Mon Aug 13, 2012 3:06 pm

Do the Syrian people have a right to take the tanks and artillery they've been taking to fight al-Assad?


Legal right? or inalienable human right?
fisticuffs
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 7855
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 2:49 pm
Location: Slightly outside of Madison

Re: The gun thread

Postby Henry Vilas » Mon Aug 13, 2012 3:09 pm

Dangerousman wrote:Presumably the armed forces of the country and the citizenry are all on the same side. You don't see it that way?

Only if the draft is reinstated (and without all the deferments granted in the past.)
Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 20261
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all

Re: The gun thread

Postby snoqueen » Mon Aug 13, 2012 3:13 pm

...In other words, operating in a manner that is directly resistant to the methods used by tyrannical governments to gain and maintain control? Is that not how you understand the Bill of Rights?


Of course, at least in general theory.

But that doesn't change what I said about arming everybody being a pretty desperate and doomed approach to keeping this country a good place to live. We have to do better, and arming up against our own army is not the place to start.

But I didn't say anything couldn't happen here -- that would be one of those "never" statements I think we all have to be cautious about. Is there a significant risk at this point in time? I don't see it. And I don't see your plan as the best way to keep it from happening, either.

Good point by HV directly above this post, BTW. The alternative to an all-draft or obligatory-service army is, in due time, a mercenary army. Not good.
snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 11821
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby Dangerousman » Mon Aug 13, 2012 3:15 pm

fisticuffs wrote:
Do the Syrian people have a right to take the tanks and artillery they've been taking to fight al-Assad?


Legal right? or inalienable human right?


Any kind of right? Presumably they have few, if any legal rights-- that's kind of one of the symptoms that you're living under a despotic government. So, try an inalienable human right? Your opinion?
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 3:22 pm

snoqueen wrote:
...In other words, operating in a manner that is directly resistant to the methods used by tyrannical governments to gain and maintain control? Is that not how you understand the Bill of Rights?


Of course, at least in general theory.

But that doesn't change what I said about arming everybody being a pretty desperate and doomed approach to keeping this country a good place to live. We have to do better, and arming up against our own army is not the place to start.

But I didn't say anything couldn't happen here -- that would be one of those "never" statements I think we all have to be cautious about. Is there a significant risk at this point in time? I don't see it. And I don't see your plan as the best way to keep it from happening, either.

Good point by HV directly above this post, BTW. The alternative to an all-draft or obligatory-service army is, in due time, a mercenary army. Not good.


My plan? I have plan? Who called for arming everyone? If you say I did you're pulling that out of nothing.

A mercenary army? Where in hell did that come from?

All these countries in blue have mercenary armies?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription
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 3:24 pm

As a side note, the Confederacy considered their fight to be against a tyrannical federal government.
Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 20261
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all

Re: The gun thread

Postby jman111 » Mon Aug 13, 2012 3:29 pm

Dangerousman wrote:
jman111 wrote:
Dangerousman wrote:I think the Second Amendment protects the right to be sufficiently armed to make the establishment of a tyrannical government very difficult.
Dangerousman wrote:Private militias? Not at all.
So, the Second Amendment serves to advocate an arms race between the collective armed forces of our nation and the general citizenry as individuals? And yet you think that a nuke wouldn't be necessary for an individual to fight the establishment of a tyrannical government?


Where did I advocate an arms race? Presumably the armed forces of the country and the citizenry are all on the same side. You don't see it that way?

I didn't say you did. But you seem to be ascribing an arms race mentality to the 2nd by indicating that it protects the right of an individual "to be sufficiently armed to make the establishment of a tyrannical government very difficult".
Well, the tyrannical government could be a derivation of our own, right? I would argue that, in our case, the scenario of a "tyrannical government" is more likely to arise from within (and, thus, control our military) than from outside. Would you disagree? If we are to have a fighting chance, we would need to possess arms that effectively defeat whatever forces are attempting to form this hypothetical tyrannical government. Sounds like an arms race to me.

But if the 2nd is only intended to protect from outside threats (as you presume), why would we need to arm individuals when we already have the armed forces?
jman111
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3121
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 12:43 pm
Location: Dane County

Re: The gun thread

Postby Dangerousman » Mon Aug 13, 2012 3:53 pm

Henry Vilas wrote:As a side note, the Confederacy considered their fight to be against a tyrannical federal government.


And that's important why?

Thanks for telling us that though, now what about Syrians?
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 3:59 pm

Dangerousman wrote:
Henry Vilas wrote:As a side note, the Confederacy considered their fight to be against a tyrannical federal government.


And that's important why?

Thanks for telling us that though, now what about Syrians?

The Syrians have never known democratic rule. They have always been under a tyrant. Just like the American colonialists in 1776.

The United States has never been despotic against the citizenry in the two centuries since. That is, unlesss you agree with the Confederacy.
Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 20261
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all

Re: The gun thread

Postby Dangerousman » Mon Aug 13, 2012 4:15 pm

jman111 wrote:
But if the 2nd is only intended to protect from outside threats (as you presume), why would we need to arm individuals when we already have the armed forces?


If I said anything to suggest that I believe the threats to liberty are primarily external in nature, then you've misread me.

I think it's to fight both internal and external threats to liberty, equally. There's no need for what you call "an arms race" unless there's an increasingly imminent threat. But without that imminent threat people would have little practical desire to arm up to a great degree--- but that shouldn't alter their right to do so when the time's appropriate.

Why would we need armed individuals when we have an armed forces? Ummm... I'll tell you what, I'll give you a partial list of countries that were occupied by Germany and you tell us which ones did not have military armed forces in 1938 and 1939:

Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Estonia, France, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Yugoslavia, various areas of the USSR.... When you're finished I can give you a list of Italian-occupied countries and you can do the same.
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 4:25 pm

Henry Vilas wrote:
Dangerousman wrote:
Henry Vilas wrote:As a side note, the Confederacy considered their fight to be against a tyrannical federal government.


And that's important why?

Thanks for telling us that though, now what about Syrians?

The Syrians have never known democratic rule. They have always been under a tyrant. Just like the American colonialists in 1776.

The United States has never been despotic against the citizenry in the two centuries since. That is, unlesss you agree with the Confederacy.


That's a bit exaggerated, the French were tyrannical? Syria did have a period of democratic government, although it has had a long series of military coups over the past 60 years roughly.

Of course the US hasn't had a despotic government. We got the 2nd Amendment (and other constitutional) protections setting us apart from all of those other countries that have had despotic governments. Thanks for making that clear!

But what about the Syrian people.... 5th time I'm asking. Do they have any right to have those weapons?
Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI

Re: The gun thread

Postby jman111 » Mon Aug 13, 2012 4:28 pm

Dangerousman wrote:
jman111 wrote:
But if the 2nd is only intended to protect from outside threats (as you presume), why would we need to arm individuals when we already have the armed forces?


If I said anything to suggest that I believe the threats to liberty are primarily external in nature, then you've misread me.

Well, there was this:
Dangerousman wrote:Presumably the armed forces of the country and the citizenry are all on the same side. You don't see it that way?
jman111
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3121
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 12:43 pm
Location: Dane County

Re: The gun thread

Postby jman111 » Mon Aug 13, 2012 4:34 pm

Dangerousman wrote:Answer my question: tell us where you think the line should be drawn. And some reasoning to support it would be nice, unless you concede it is an arbitrarily drawn line.

Can YOU answer your question?
Dangerousman wrote:I think the Second Amendment protects the right to be sufficiently armed to make the establishment of a tyrannical government very difficult.

Dangerousman wrote:There's no need for what you call "an arms race" unless there's an increasingly imminent threat. But without that imminent threat people would have little practical desire to arm up to a great degree--- but that shouldn't alter their right to do so when the time's appropriate.

Is YOUR line arbitrarily drawn?
jman111
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3121
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 12:43 pm
Location: Dane County

Re: The gun thread

Postby Dangerousman » Mon Aug 13, 2012 4:51 pm

jman111 wrote:
Dangerousman wrote:
jman111 wrote:
But if the 2nd is only intended to protect from outside threats (as you presume), why would we need to arm individuals when we already have the armed forces?


If I said anything to suggest that I believe the threats to liberty are primarily external in nature, then you've misread me.

Well, there was this:
Dangerousman wrote:Presumably the armed forces of the country and the citizenry are all on the same side. You don't see it that way?


Yeah, and if the military-- for whatever reason-- sided with a despotic government, then we'd wouldn't be on the same side. But that's not the case presently.
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 4:54 pm

jman111 wrote:
Dangerousman wrote:Answer my question: tell us where you think the line should be drawn. And some reasoning to support it would be nice, unless you concede it is an arbitrarily drawn line.

Can YOU answer your question?
Dangerousman wrote:I think the Second Amendment protects the right to be sufficiently armed to make the establishment of a tyrannical government very difficult.

Dangerousman wrote:There's no need for what you call "an arms race" unless there's an increasingly imminent threat. But without that imminent threat people would have little practical desire to arm up to a great degree--- but that shouldn't alter their right to do so when the time's appropriate.

Is YOUR line arbitrarily drawn?


I wasn't aware I had drawn any line other than concerning nukes, and that wasn't arbitrary at all.

So, tell everyone. What is it about my question regarding the right of Syrian people to have tanks and other weapons that has you and Henry too afraid to tackle?

It's a simple question. Only takes a yes or a no to answer it, but of course you are free to explain your "yes" or "no."
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 0 guests

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