MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus on Twitter · Facebook · Flickr · Newsletters · Instagram 
Tuesday, September 30, 2014 |  Madison, WI: 44.0° F  Overcast
Collapse Photo Bar

The gun thread

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

Re: The gun thread

Postby Detritus » Wed Apr 03, 2013 7:34 pm

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

No, I don't think so. But if it is, I'm sure you can do more than link to a definition of petitio principii--demonstrate it.
Detritus
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2396
Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 9:42 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby snoqueen » Wed Apr 03, 2013 7:42 pm

I'm with Detritus here. I don't see why owning one item of personal property -- guns -- should be constitutionally protected while none others are.

If it was MY constitution, I'd put in the right to enough to eat, medical care, and housing at the very least, along with some form of privacy rights as are evolving in Europe at this time. If those are property -- or are even a kind of surrogate property -- I'd want to protect the right to have them. Housing in a way IS protected, in that the government may not quarter soldiers in your house.

I might even add rights to clean air and water.

But I don't get why guns.
snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 11538
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby Henry Vilas » Wed Apr 03, 2013 7:49 pm

At one time property rights including chattel slavery, until the Constitution was amended. A war was fought over that right.
Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 19917
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all

Re: The gun thread

Postby rabble » Wed Apr 03, 2013 10:14 pm

I'm wondering if there should be a separate thread on the aryan brotherhood, or if belongs here, or if we should just not talk about it.
rabble
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6208
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 7:50 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby snoqueen » Thu Apr 04, 2013 10:12 am

Maybe we need a separate thread about Texas.
snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 11538
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby Dangerousman » Thu Apr 04, 2013 1:56 pm

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

No, I don't think so. But if it is, I'm sure you can do more than link to a definition of petitio principii--demonstrate it.


Demonstrate it? You don't think it's obvious that your conclusion (guns should be treated like all other property) is based on your premise (that guns are no different than any other property)? That's circular reasoning my friend. You need to substantiate your premise by showing that guns are no different than other property. If you can't do that, then your argument is circular and "begging the question."

It's pretty clear that the framers and ratifiers of the Constitution believed that arms (not only guns) aren't simply "like other property." Evidently they believed it was property that had a connection that was essential to maintaining a free state, therefore it was afforded special protection.

By the way, your other property is also constitutionally protected: from unreasonable searches and seizures, and requiring due process to deprive you of your property. These protections are also being threatened and eroded along with the 2nd Amendment protections if you haven't noticed.
Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI

Re: The gun thread

Postby Stebben84 » Thu Apr 04, 2013 2:28 pm

Dangerousman wrote:Evidently they believed it was property that had a connection that was essential to maintaining a free state, therefore it was afforded special protection.


Little did they know that guns would end up being used to kill many, many people for no reason and not really be used to keep a free state. Huh, funny how that worked out.
Stebben84
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 4863
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 12:59 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby DCB » Thu Apr 04, 2013 2:36 pm

What Digby said:
This is why I'm in favor of gun regulation: way too many of the people who own them are meatheads. It's just not safe for anyone when yahoos like this are waving around deadly weapons, especially in public.
Wearing an NRA hooded sweatshirt, he had his left foot in a cast because he accidentally shot a bullet last week while cleaning his Glock handgun.


This particular yahoo is
a licensed National Rifle Association instructor who leads training classes in pistol and rifle use


DailyKos has a whole series of reports under the label #GunFail.
DCB
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2670
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 5:08 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby Dangerousman » Thu Apr 04, 2013 2:52 pm

Stebben84 wrote:
Dangerousman wrote:Evidently they believed it was property that had a connection that was essential to maintaining a free state, therefore it was afforded special protection.


Little did they know that guns would end up being used to kill many, many people for no reason and not really be used to keep a free state. Huh, funny how that worked out.


At times it is for good reasons and at times for bad, but I'm fairly certain that it would be rare for a gun to be used to kill someone for "no reason." I highly doubt "they" believed that they should protect the keeping and bearing of arms if they believed there could never come a day such arms would be needed to be used.

Are you serious? You don't think this is a free state? Has the 2nd Amendment failed and a tyrannical government been put in power? It must be a phantom or very insipid bunch of oppressors of which you speak, because I still enjoy the keeping and bear of my guns and other arms.

Do you not see anywhere in today's world where people are using arms to resist an oppressive and tyrannical government? Do you not have TV or read the news?
Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI

Re: The gun thread

Postby Stebben84 » Thu Apr 04, 2013 3:11 pm

Dangerousman wrote:Do you not see anywhere in today's world where people are using arms to resist an oppressive and tyrannical government?


I'm pretty sure we're talking about 'Merica here.

Dangerousman wrote:Are you serious? You don't think this is a free state? Has the 2nd Amendment failed and a tyrannical government been put in power?


I do think we're a free state, and do you really think our owning guns will keep a tyrannical government from taking over. And, if a tyrannical government DID take over, do you thing the citizens owning guns could stop it?

The only thing that could stop it is our military turning on that government. Our military which is a regulated militia and, hey, wait...is our military the well regulated militia they were referring to? In any case, good luck overthrowing a tyrannical government in the US with the guns you have.
Last edited by Stebben84 on Thu Apr 04, 2013 4:31 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Stebben84
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 4863
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 12:59 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby jonnygothispen » Thu Apr 04, 2013 3:42 pm

Dangerousman wrote:...

By the way, your other property is also constitutionally protected: from unreasonable searches and seizures, and requiring due process to deprive you of your property. These protections are also being threatened and eroded along with the 2nd Amendment protections if you haven't noticed.
It's true that the 2nd has eroded (I'm glad you noticed!). From being an amendment that was tailor made to provide for the safety and security of the people or the state, to a free-for-all for to increase profits for the gun and ammo manufacturers that run the NRA.

I hope someday you'll join us in defending the intention of the 2nd amendment, D-man.
jonnygothispen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3154
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:53 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby Henry Vilas » Thu Apr 04, 2013 3:50 pm

DMan thinks the Second was proposed and ratified so that rebels could (attempt to) overthrow the federal government. Like in the Civil War.
Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 19917
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all

Re: The gun thread

Postby Detritus » Thu Apr 04, 2013 3:59 pm

Dangerousman wrote:It's pretty clear that the framers and ratifiers of the Constitution believed that arms (not only guns) aren't simply "like other property."

It's pretty clear that you didn't read my post, or if you did, you didn't comprehend it. Go back and read the first sentence.
Detritus
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2396
Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 9:42 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby jonnygothispen » Thu Apr 04, 2013 4:50 pm

Henry Vilas wrote:DMan thinks the Second was proposed and ratified so that rebels could (attempt to) overthrow the federal government. Like in the Civil War.
It's a peculiar theory given that the 2nd amendment references the right to bear arms in defense of the state. And even more peculiar if D-man thinks that the state militias were set up to prevent a tyrannical federal government, since Article 2, Section 8, Subsection 16 of the Constitution gives the feds nearly total control of the state militias including when and where they can be deployed.

"John Boehner and Harry Reid announced today that they are deploying state militias/National Guard to overthrow the US Federal Government because 'We're not doing our jobs!' "

If it wasn't such a tragic collection of windbags, the NRA would be as good as the Onion.
jonnygothispen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3154
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:53 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby BSH » Mon Apr 08, 2013 9:56 am

Stebben84 wrote:And, if a tyrannical government DID take over, do you thing the citizens owning guns could stop it?


See Libya, Syria, Egypt, Tunisia, to name a few in just the most recent era. Gadafi should have been safe - not only did the state have a monopoly on force, but had mercenaries from outside who would not be swayed by domestic sentiments. Assad should have been safe - the Syrian military was strong, sizable, and well-equipped. The consent of the governed is the basis of government legitimacy, and that's no mere theory or philosophical construct. Once a government is rejected by a critical mass of its population, no military can save it. Genocide would, of course, but then there would be no country left to govern either economically or politically. And yes, both a tyrannical government, and a successful revolution could happen here. I would not speculate on the likelihood of either, but the realm of what is possible is wider than most can imagine.
BSH
Senior Member
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 6:32 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Headlines

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