MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus:         Newsletters 
Saturday, October 25, 2014 |  Madison, WI: 58.0° F  Fair
Collapse Photo Bar

The gun thread

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

Re: The gun thread

Postby penquin » Wed Apr 03, 2013 11:56 am

If you could replace the Second Amendment, how would you word it?
penquin
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 626
Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 3:19 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby wack wack » Wed Apr 03, 2013 12:02 pm

penquin wrote:If you could replace the Second Amendment, how would you word it?


Here's my response, from the other thread:

wack wack wrote:Let's clarify and modernize things. Including the concepts of self-defense, sport and responsibility while eliminating things like "militia" and "keep and bear" would be a good start.
wack wack
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3157
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2003 5:32 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby penquin » Wed Apr 03, 2013 12:06 pm

kurt_w wrote:I just looked at the FBI Uniform Crime Reports for Kennesaw, GA. They only have data back to 1985, and a few years are missing. But ... it's true. The overall crime rate (property + violent crimes) fell by about 50%, or more, from 1985 to 2010.


Thanks for verifying the data, as well as your other comments.

Just to make it clear, I'm not saying that mandatory ownership automatically results in overall lower crime rates rather I included the info in order to answer the question that was asked. Tho, if such a law was well-publicized (as this one was) then it stands to reason that property crimes...especially home break-ins...would decrease, no?

I've heard it said that more guns = more suicide, but wasn't able to find any data for Kennesaw regarding that.
penquin
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 626
Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 3:19 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby penquin » Wed Apr 03, 2013 12:13 pm

wack wack wrote:Let's clarify and modernize things. Including the concepts of self-defense, sport and responsibility while eliminating things like "militia" and "keep and bear" would be a good start.


How would you word such a thing?

Hunting, sport-shooting and self-defense being necessary in a free state, the right of the people to borrow arms shall not be infringed

(if we can't "keep and bear" 'em, I ain't sure what else there is other than to borrow)
penquin
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 626
Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 3:19 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby wack wack » Wed Apr 03, 2013 12:34 pm

penquin wrote:
wack wack wrote:Let's clarify and modernize things. Including the concepts of self-defense, sport and responsibility while eliminating things like "militia" and "keep and bear" would be a good start.


How would you word such a thing?

Hunting, sport-shooting and self-defense being necessary in a free state, the right of the people to borrow arms shall not be infringed

(if we can't "keep and bear" 'em, I ain't sure what else there is other than to borrow)


The entire idea that you need to have weapons to defend yourself against a despotic state is the very first thing that needs to go. Your personal firearms are no longer relevant in the securing of a free state.
wack wack
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3157
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2003 5:32 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby Stebben84 » Wed Apr 03, 2013 12:40 pm

wack wack wrote:
penquin wrote:
wack wack wrote:Let's clarify and modernize things. Including the concepts of self-defense, sport and responsibility while eliminating things like "militia" and "keep and bear" would be a good start.


How would you word such a thing?

Hunting, sport-shooting and self-defense being necessary in a free state, the right of the people to borrow arms shall not be infringed

(if we can't "keep and bear" 'em, I ain't sure what else there is other than to borrow)


The entire idea that you need to have weapons to defend yourself against a despotic state is the very first thing that needs to go. Your personal firearms are no longer relevant in the securing of a free state.


The problem is also in the interpretation no matter how you write it. Here's an amazing case in point:

Even Glenn Beck got in the action on this one as he oddly pondered should Stevie Wonder be able to pack heat? As Beck argued:

“Inalienable rights” mean that they’re rights that come from God and cannot be taken from you. The right to bear arms is about protecting yourself and self?defense as long as you are a law?abiding citizen. It’s not about shooting sports but self?defense. Is there any reason to believe that Stevie Wonder is not a law?abiding citizen or insane? Who are you to take the right that was given by God away from somebody who is law?abiding and a responsible citizen?


http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/comm ... g-handguns

We're fucked no matter how it's written because of assholes like this.
Stebben84
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 4948
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 12:59 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby penquin » Wed Apr 03, 2013 12:45 pm

wack wack wrote:The entire idea that you need to have weapons to defend yourself against a despotic state is the very first thing that needs to go. Your personal firearms are no longer relevant in the securing of a free state.


I think I understand (not agree, but understand) what you wish to accomplish, but I still don't get how you'd like the amendment to actually be worded.
penquin
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 626
Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 3:19 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby jman111 » Wed Apr 03, 2013 12:48 pm

penquin wrote:[Tho, if such a law was well-publicized (as this one was) then it stands to reason that property crimes...especially home break-ins...would decrease, no?

No. It stands to reason that property crimes...especially home break-ins...would increase, assuming guns are a target for burglars. The requirement to own a gun increases the odds of a gun being there for the taking.
I find it more reasonable to argue that personal or violent crimes may decrease, not property crimes.
Last edited by jman111 on Wed Apr 03, 2013 12:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
jman111
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3041
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 12:43 pm
Location: Dane County

Re: The gun thread

Postby Stebben84 » Wed Apr 03, 2013 12:49 pm

penquin wrote: but I still don't get how you'd like the amendment to actually be worded.


I would replace "well regulated militia" with well regulated arms or something to that nature. But, then again, I'm writing this shit on an internet forum for an alt weekly , so I don't see some Senator knocking on my door to get my opinion when it comes to constitutional wording.
Stebben84
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 4948
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 12:59 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby wack wack » Wed Apr 03, 2013 12:58 pm

penquin wrote:I think I understand (not agree, but understand) what you wish to accomplish, but I still don't get how you'd like the amendment to actually be worded.


I don't know how to word it, I'm not a lawyer or statesman, but I'll tell you this: I don't think simply replacing words and phrases in the original 18th century text would be effective. It should be written as new, not amended or modified.
wack wack
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3157
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2003 5:32 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby Prof. Wagstaff » Wed Apr 03, 2013 1:10 pm

"The second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed."

Done.
Prof. Wagstaff
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 8960
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2002 6:35 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby Dangerousman » Wed Apr 03, 2013 4:07 pm

Speaking of assholes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xm4xJktTAc

During the discussion, Congresswoman Diana Degette (D-CO), revealed how little she really understands about the guns she (and other Democrats) want to regulate out of existence.
Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI

Re: The gun thread

Postby Dangerousman » Wed Apr 03, 2013 4:13 pm

Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI

Re: The gun thread

Postby Detritus » Wed Apr 03, 2013 4:42 pm

Assume that the Second Amendment didn't exist and we were debating adding it now. The burden of the argument would rest on those who think the ownership of guns rises to a constitutional standard to justify that idea. We own cars, houses, pets, computers, and cell phones without that ownership being specifically named in the constitution. Yet we have legal ownership of those things and that ownership (and use) appears to enjoy considerable protection. Guns are simply another form of private property. Why aren't the regular protections of ownership and use of private property sufficient for guns as well?
Detritus
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2434
Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 9:42 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby Dangerousman » Wed Apr 03, 2013 5:38 pm

Detritus wrote:Assume that the Second Amendment didn't exist and we were debating adding it now. The burden of the argument would rest on those who think the ownership of guns rises to a constitutional standard to justify that idea. We own cars, houses, pets, computers, and cell phones without that ownership being specifically named in the constitution. Yet we have legal ownership of those things and that ownership (and use) appears to enjoy considerable protection. Guns are simply another form of private property. Why aren't the regular protections of ownership and use of private property sufficient for guns as well?


That's a pretty good example of petitio principii (begging the question.)

when a proposition which requires proof is assumed without proof


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

Try again.
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