MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus on Twitter · Facebook · Flickr · Newsletters · Instagram 
Friday, August 29, 2014 |  Madison, WI: 65.0° F  A Few Clouds
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 Bludgeon » Thu Apr 04, 2013 9:23 pm

In other words, its a display of brazen insincerity. Progressives are very well aware that what they want is a series of drastic ownership impediments if not an outright ban. They don't give a damn if gun related injuries cost taxpayers a trillion (much less 3 billion); nor do they care if "liability insurance" covers a penny of it - after all to scrap our current state of government and start over is what they really want; in the mean time their goal is to hit everyone on the other side with whatever hurts the most. The entire purpose of this legislation is to further disincentivize gun ownership.

And - passing an insurance mandate just guarantees at least a certain level of gun confiscation. If a law exists that you have to have insurance to own a gun what happens when a gun owner without insurance comes in contact with police? The real goal - confiscation.
Bludgeon
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1291
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 2:27 am

Re: The gentrification of the second amendment.

Postby rabble » Thu Apr 04, 2013 9:38 pm

That makes it perfectly clear. The answer is more guns. Lots of them. Expensive ones. Big ones. Truckloads of great big fucking guns.

THAT'S the solution and everybody knows it.

Edit: I don't find much encouragement in the news these days but the final sentence in Wineke's column helps a little. Apologies if someone's posted it already.
But, as the arguments of those who oppose any gun control legislation grow shriller and nuttier, I think we might have some hope that reason will win.
rabble
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6109
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 7:50 pm

Re: The gentrification of the second amendment.

Postby Donald » Thu Apr 04, 2013 10:25 pm

Insurance provides a third-party, non-governmental approach to assessing and paying for risk. Insurance would benefit both a victim of a gun mishap and the insured. It also benefits taxpayers and gunowners since there will be less need for government bureaucracy and oversight over guns.

NRA could form a mutual insurance company to provide coverage. If owning a gun poses little risk, the NRA should be able to offer a premium that is reasonable. In order to decrease the premium NRA would also be able to direct people to its gun safety courses, and encourage responsible gun ownership.

Bludgeon argues that risks of owning a gun are so large, that even a pro-gun outfit like the NRA would refuse to provide cheap insurance. If that's the case, perhaps guns are something that a prudent and conservative person shouldn't own.
Donald
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2329
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2002 4:53 pm
Location: Madison

Re: The gentrification of the second amendment.

Postby snoqueen » Thu Apr 04, 2013 11:32 pm

The entire purpose of this legislation is to further disincentivize gun ownership.

And - passing an insurance mandate just guarantees at least a certain level of gun confiscation. If a law exists that you have to have insurance to own a gun what happens when a gun owner without insurance comes in contact with police?


The purpose of the legislation would be to help compensate victims, who in this case would be survivors of gunshots and their families if no survivors. It would be similar to (thought not exactly like) car insurance, where the medical bills of people in a wreck are partially covered.

No one in the government confiscates the cars of the uninsured. What is being imagined here (and I know you did not think it up, you're repeating something you heard) is way over the top, same as the idea enough guns in the hands of the citizenry could somehow repel the entire US Army.

Suggesting the NRA sell such insurance makes excellent sense and I can't see why they don't jump at the whole opportunity. It really shouldn't cost much if these weapons are so safe to have around the house, and should provide peace of mind to anyone concerned about liability lawsuits if the neighbor kids, for instance, come over and somebody gets hurt. I'd surely want that kind of insurance if I had guns. If you have a swimming pool you carry extra insurance, right?

Somehow, these far-fetched imaginations remind me of the belief we don't need to conserve our natural resources because a) we'll move to another planet once we run out; or b) the End Times will take care of the whole thing. The more you make such arguments the more moderates and undecideds you drive away, and the more it appears you've run out of reasonable suggestions to contribute.
snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 11425
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: The gentrification of the second amendment.

Postby Bludgeon » Fri Apr 05, 2013 6:40 am

What's not reasonable is to suggest that any part of the reputed $3.4 billion dollars that gun related injuries are suggested to cost tax payers, will be covered by liability insurance. Its a fine sounding argument, the Democrats pushing the legislation know you can make an argument on the face value of that argument, but they know, as everybody knows, that the vast majority of people committing gun violence in this country don't even have gun registration, much less are they apt to buy gun liability insurance. And they gun control advocates also know that the billions dollar price tag they refer to comprises costs that have nothing to do with liability insurance - police hours and court costs mainly. But liberals don't mind suggesting otherwise.

What is the suggestion here? That the inner city violence that accounts for the vast majority of these injuries, will be covered by such insurance? No one honestly believes that young gang members are going to go out and register their weapons and pay monthly premiums - that is what's far fetched. They're going to go on shooting each other just like they always have; the people who are going to be affected are the hunters in the northwoods who the DNR will be free to harass. They might be killing five people a week in Birmingham or Detroit, but so long as the government is harrassing innocent, hard working, deer hunting white people, the left can live with that.

That's the purpose of the legislation. Bad people are killing people so harrass the good people who are just trying to feed their families, because it makes the urban elitists feel good about themselves even though, like most snake oil, it does nothing to solve the problem.
Bludgeon
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1291
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 2:27 am

Re: The gentrification of the second amendment.

Postby Bludgeon » Fri Apr 05, 2013 6:52 am

snoqueen wrote:... same as the idea enough guns in the hands of the citizenry could somehow repel the entire US Army.

Y'know, this ^ really is the silk hankercheif of liberal conceits about gun control.

This is how I put it: the suggestion is not, that if you could go back in time and arm every single Jew in Germany, that their struggle to resist tyranny would be any less futile. But its not about the ultimate futility - it's about the individual and his or her power to resist the harbingers of tyrants.

Arming every Jew might not have stayed the force of a mobilized German army - but the point is, if more Jews had guns, more Jews would have lived. And we in the civilized world would be better for their presence.
Bludgeon
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1291
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 2:27 am

Re: The gentrification of the second amendment.

Postby nutria » Fri Apr 05, 2013 7:23 am

Bludgeon wrote:Arming every Jew might not have stayed the force of a mobilized German army - but the point is, if more Jews had guns, more Jews would have lived. And we in the civilized world would be better for their presence.


Drink!

We're almost there --- the trump card of all right-wing rationalizations: If you are for even modest gun control legislation, you are an anti-Semite.
nutria
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 581
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2004 9:53 am

Re: The gentrification of the second amendment.

Postby wack wack » Fri Apr 05, 2013 7:47 am

Bludgeon wrote:
snoqueen wrote:... same as the idea enough guns in the hands of the citizenry could somehow repel the entire US Army.

Y'know, this ^ really is the silk hankercheif of liberal conceits about gun control.


Liberal conceit? Check your delusion, Sparky.

When the United States government wants to get you, they will use an army of zeros and ones to empty your bank accounts and reallocate the rest of your assets during the middle of the night. You will wake up a nobody with nothing, and have no recourse.

No amount of firepower will protect you from the black helicopters that never come.
wack wack
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3139
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2003 5:32 pm

Re: The gentrification of the second amendment.

Postby snoqueen » Fri Apr 05, 2013 9:02 am

...its not about the ultimate futility - it's about the individual and his or her power to resist the harbingers of tyrants.


That's right: it's all about the individual, and about only a small group of individuals at that. Nothing about others -- not about inner city families with dead little kids, not about people killed in domestics and street disputes, not about keeping guns out of the hands of repeat criminals and the mentally ill, not really about gun safety, not about any rational efforts to know who has a gun, who they are and what is their personal record, not about reasonable efforts to track the movement of guns through various parts of society, not about sensible efforts to bring the country more in line with other, safer developed countries around the globe. Just about you, and your overinflated imaginations of how guns keep you safe from rare-to-nonexistent threats while greatly increasing the risk to other people.

And "feeding our families" is a pretty pathetic addition to "protecting our families." Those who hunt so they can have a freezer full of deer meat all winter -- whose activities are respectable, helpful, and totally legal -- are not necessarily one of you, and it's a shame to use them as a front. A great many of them are becoming disenchanted with the NRA line.

(And I'm not real sure what you think harbingers means, but I worked around it.)
snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 11425
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: The gentrification of the second amendment.

Postby Bludgeon » Fri Apr 05, 2013 9:29 am

snoqueen wrote:(And I'm not real sure what you think harbingers means, but I worked around it.)


Herald; representative; in the historical sense the harbinger would be the SS rep (example) who knocks on the door of a Polish household seeking signs or rumors of hidden Jews; or other various and sundry reasons (they were locking up anyone for anything near the end). At face value SS rep was there on 'official business', but his very presence in this capacity is a portent of what was to come.

FYI I am not a gun person; nor a radio listener. I am however at work, sorry I can't reply to more of your post at the moment.
Bludgeon
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1291
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 2:27 am

Re: The gentrification of the second amendment.

Postby wack wack » Fri Apr 05, 2013 9:43 am

Bludgeon wrote:
snoqueen wrote:(And I'm not real sure what you think harbingers means, but I worked around it.)


Herald; representative; in the historical sense the harbinger would be the SS rep (example) who knocks on the door of a Polish household seeking signs or rumors of hidden Jews; or other various and sundry reasons (they were locking up anyone for anything near the end). At face value SS rep was there on 'official business', but his very presence in this capacity is a portent of what was to come.


Sooo... you need to be able to shoot government officials who come to your house asking questions?

Perhaps I was wrong, maybe you do need to worry about black helicopters. You won't be able to shoot more than one G-man at your door before you are eliminated; no amount of personal firepower will help you. Then you'll be mocked in the news as just another gun nut who killed some guy innocent just trying to do his job.

Not a hero, not a patriot, just a nut.
wack wack
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3139
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2003 5:32 pm

Re: The gentrification of the second amendment.

Postby Donald » Fri Apr 05, 2013 9:51 am

Bludgeon has a point. A prudent insurer, even someone as pro-gun as the NRA, would have a hard time risking its money on people with the sorts of fantasies that he exhibits. What the black helicopter crowd secretly fantasizes about is what it claims to be most afraid of--a war with the government. When you have those fantasies, you aren't a good risk.

I knew some of these types in the West. Really, most of them are living on the edge of going under financially and emotionally. They view most everything as a threat to them, including some threats that even lefties would find reasonable. Many self-medicate, because being constantly afraid is stressful. While they probably have a right to a gun, they are also just on the edge of losing sanity, if only for brief outbursts. Relationships suffer and they end up on a downward spiral. Some end up crossways with an otherwise conservative county sheriffs and prosecutors, and people in the community start shunning them. They end up associating with groups of like-minded paranoids who stoke each others' fears and fantasies.

I guess I see both gentrification and this sort of cuckoo fantasy world as going hand in hand. When young males are shut out of feeling they are productive members of society, they tend to gravitate to something, even a fantasy, that makes them feel bigger than they are.

Sad.
Donald
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2329
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2002 4:53 pm
Location: Madison

Re: The gentrification of the second amendment.

Postby Leroy Gates » Fri Apr 05, 2013 10:53 am

Donald wrote: Really, most of them are living on the edge of going under financially and emotionally. They view most everything as a threat to them, ... Many self-medicate, because being constantly afraid is stressful. While they probably have a right to a gun, they are also just on the edge of losing sanity, if only for brief outbursts. Relationships suffer and they end up on a downward spiral. Some end up crossways with ... county sheriffs and prosecutors, and people in the community start shunning them. They end up associating with groups of like-minded paranoids who stoke each others' fears and fantasies.


Perfect description of the mob that occupied the State Capitol building during the Walker Recall Follies.
Leroy Gates
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 162
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2013 11:09 pm

Re: The gentrification of the second amendment.

Postby Henry Vilas » Fri Apr 05, 2013 11:02 am

Yes, assembling and petitioning the government for grievences is the same as stockpiling firearms to use against government.
Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 19756
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all

Re: The gentrification of the second amendment.

Postby HawkHead » Fri Apr 05, 2013 11:05 am

Bludgeon wrote:What's not reasonable is to suggest that any part of the reputed $3.4 billion dollars that gun related injuries are suggested to cost tax payers, will be covered by liability insurance. Its a fine sounding argument, the Democrats pushing the legislation know you can make an argument on the face value of that argument, but they know, as everybody knows, that the vast majority of people committing gun violence in this country don't even have gun registration, much less are they apt to buy gun liability insurance. And they gun control advocates also know that the billions dollar price tag they refer to comprises costs that have nothing to do with liability insurance - police hours and court costs mainly. But liberals don't mind suggesting otherwise.



If there are 350 million guns in America you could charge $20 per gun per year for insurance. The insurance companies bring in $7.0B and pay out $3.4B with another $3B for court costs and other fees and bring in a nice $600,000,000 profit.

$20 is less than an ID costs to get to vote that the Rs wanted so badly.
HawkHead
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 779
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 1:29 pm

PreviousNext

Return to National Politics & Government

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

moviesmusiceats
Select a Movie
Select a Theater


commentsViewedForum
  ISTHMUS FLICKR

Promotions Contact us Privacy Policy Jobs Newsletters RSS
Collapse Photo Bar