MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus on Twitter · Facebook · Flickr · Newsletters · Instagram 
kayaks
Friday, August 1, 2014 |  Madison, WI: 65.0° F  Thunderstorm Light Rain
Collapse Photo Bar

The gun thread

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

Re: The gun thread

Postby jonnygothispen » Tue Apr 09, 2013 5:56 pm

It's obvious that the NRA has adopted a "winner takes all" philosophy to see how far they can go, and then any compromise would tend to lean in their direction.

It almost goes without saying that the purpose of an organization primarily funded and run by gun and ammo manufacturers would do almost anything to promote gun and ammo sales.

D-man will probably never address the true intention of the 2nd amendment because he knows his goose is cooked.

as far as thinking it through, D-man submits a quick "fail" since licensed dealers buy more guns when they sell more guns. It's easier to sell more guns when the law allows easy access for everyone regardless of the danger they present to the rest of society...
jonnygothispen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3021
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:53 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby Dangerousman » Tue Apr 09, 2013 6:10 pm

jonnygothispen wrote:as far as thinking it through, D-man submits a quick "fail" since licensed dealers buy more guns when they sell more guns. It's easier to sell more guns when the law allows easy access for everyone regardless of the danger they present to the rest of society...


How in any way would the proposed legislation effect licensed dealers who already are required to conduct these background checks? It doesn't make them run it twice, or to charge more for doing it once.
Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2290
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI

Re: The gun thread

Postby Dangerousman » Tue Apr 09, 2013 6:13 pm

jonnygothispen wrote:D-man will probably never address the true intention of the 2nd amendment because he knows his goose is cooked.


Johnny believes only he has divined the "true intention of the 2nd Amendment" and anyone who doesn't agree with his interpretation is simply wrong or in denial. He is high-larious.
Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2290
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI

Re: The gun thread

Postby snoqueen » Tue Apr 09, 2013 6:36 pm

Dangerousman wrote:... that's where you go wrong if you interpret the primary purpose as being "to take on the US military" or to overthrow the US government. I believe the primary purpose is to act as a prophylactic-- to prevent the rise of conditions where the people would be at war with the government. It is like barbed wire atop a surrounding wall: When it does it's job of deterrence you won't have to go in a toe-to-toe fight, and you're unaware of how many battles have been avoided due to it's presence.


We can agree it's impossible to know (beyond estimating) what has been avoided by an action taken, but I can't figure out what you're talking about in the rest of this paragraph.

If you believe we are trying to prevent the rise of conditions where people would be at war with the government, this would be because Congress is refraining from passing certain laws because they are afraid of armed people.

I would need an example before I could move anywhere near believing this.

Clearly, supporters of the gun lobby wish they could intimidate Congress into passing (or not passing) legislation according to their wishes, but here we are tonight facing a Senate filibuster of background check legislation and I do not see a) the Senate acting in fear of an armed mob; or b) anyone who is totally sure the filibuster will work to the gun lobby's liking.

So if legislation so intensely disliked by the gun lobby is not causing armed threats toward the Senate, doesn't that show the whole idea of the threat of armed people preventing undesired legislation is sort of imaginary?

Are there other situations where this would be more likely to happen? If so we need particulars, because right now I can't figure out under what conditions the threat of armed people keeps the government in line. As I pointed out, immigrant communities haven't been protecting their families by holding off ICE at gunpoint, and as of right now they're probably the most threatened communities in terms of government actions. I guess the internment of Japanese citizens during WWII could have been resisted at gunpoint, but do you think the country would have been better off if this had taken place? (that's a question that could be debated by thoughtful people from either side)

I suppose criminal gangs selling drugs, laundering money, doing human trafficking, and the like have sort of created their own ongoing subculture where the government is not really in charge, or is controlling the situation only partially. But the feeling I get from the pro-gun lobby is, so far, that they are not controlled by criminal gangs. Maybe I am wrong. Actually, this whole gun thing would make more sense if I WAS wrong and the whole thing really WAS to protect a criminal enterprise, but we'd need examples and evidence to leap to that conclusion.

So I'm not getting your point.

And I can't get your point until I get a picture of what sort of disagreeable government agency or action would provoke an armed uprising of enough armed people to seriously threaten the stability of the US government. Remember the discussion we had last year of a Rocky Mountain community some guy wanted to form where everybody had to carry a gun all the time? Until that thing gets off the ground, it's hard to support the idea a majority of Americans want to live that way and form an armed resistance to the US government.

And if it's never a majority, but always a minority who want to enforce their will at the point of a gun, is that something you really, really want to be associated with? You've acted reasonable on this forum and I appreciate it's in part a way of appearing so you can discuss with people who are opposed to your beliefs. You might be far less reasonable in person (I don't know or care). If you really think being part of a minority planning on overthrowing the government by armed force is who you want to be, what's the point of coming on here and arguing with us?

...there are at least around ten or more civilian gun owners for every soldier, marine, airman or sailor, including the reserves: be they infantrymen, cooks, mechanic, clerks, truck drivers. Throwing every sworn federal and local law enforcement officer (whose support of a tyrannical government would also be doubtful) into the mix would barely change things. If you haven't noticed, over 300 sheriffs across the country have already said publically that they wouldn't enforce certain potential federal gun control legislation should it be passed. That's not an insignificant number.

Now, if you could somehow reduce that balance of power to the point where the military and police actually held the upper hand in the amount of potential violent power then the conditions for a tyrannical government could arise.


So we are to believe the reason you're hoping more people will arm up is to balance the power of wingnuts who are already armed up?

But earlier I got the impression we were trying to arm up against the government doing something we don't like.

Now we've got the general public arming up against the righty wingnuts and against the government?

I appreciate your trying to elucidate this belief system, but it doesn't hold together if you look at it too hard. And I've got to add there are some courageous DAs in Texas who are risking their own lives to do their jobs and keep this country one where we have the rule of law, not rule by guns and intimidation. Their assassins may have a few allies, but I do not think they'll collect enough of a mob to take over Texas. And if you can't do it there, you can't do it.
snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 11323
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby jonnygothispen » Tue Apr 09, 2013 8:03 pm

Dangerousman wrote:
How in any way would the proposed legislation effect licensed dealers who already are required to conduct these background checks? It doesn't make them run it twice, or to charge more for doing it once.
First of all, why are you against making it harder for potential psychos or criminals to get guns?

Second, obviously requiring background checks for all sales, public and private, and enforcing it (I think you'll see a jump in enforcement and an increase in stiffer penalties as more mass murders occur) makes it harder for a quick, hassle-free sale where not even an ID check is required.

I don't know you, but why do you act like Jethro Bodine whenever the conversation gets this far after playing Socrates when it's something that favors guns?
jonnygothispen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3021
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:53 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby jonnygothispen » Tue Apr 09, 2013 8:06 pm

Dangerousman wrote:
Johnny believes only he has divined the "true intention of the 2nd Amendment" and anyone who doesn't agree with his interpretation is simply wrong or in denial. He is high-larious.
What's "divine" about understanding that the founders gave people the right to bear arms for their own safety and security?

... although the 2nd specifies the "safety and security of a free state," but we'll use your watered down NRA definition and go from there...
jonnygothispen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3021
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:53 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby Detritus » Tue Apr 09, 2013 9:19 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?

Since d-man has apparently thrown in the towel after failing to actually read the post, I open the floor.

Anyone?
Detritus
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2352
Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 9:42 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby pjbogart » Tue Apr 09, 2013 10:20 pm

Detritus wrote: Why aren't the regular protections of ownership and use of private property sufficient for guns as well?


For all intents and purposes, they are. Property rights are often described as a "bundle of sticks" and if I would have paid better attention in Property Law (or taken it within the last 15 years), I could probably tell you when confiscation officially violates the takings clause (last sentence of the 5th Amendment). Suffice it to say that reasonable restrictions on your private property are generally tolerated, as you are not deemed to have had your property "taken for public use, without just compensation."

Your pet is your property, often termed "chattel" yet you can't treat it cruelly without suffering legal consequences, therefore one of your "sticks" has been removed. Your real property is yours to do with as you please, but you can't build a 100 story skyscraper or fill in a protected wetlands without first getting approval, therefore some of your "sticks" have been removed.

And clearly in the case of the 2nd Amendment, your right to possess nuclear, chemical or biological weapons is severely restricted. Once again, an acceptable number of sticks have been removed.

I think the gun rights advocates' argument is generally that they have a right to the rest of their sticks. Background checks would be another stick... most seem willing to surrender that stick, but the NRA/Republican position seems to be that if they surrender that stick, the government is sure to ask for more. Rather than watching their rights whittled away, they choose to stand their ground and protect the rest of their sticks.

It's not really an unreasonable position. In fact, I think they're right that people are trying to steal too many of their sticks. There are certainly gun control advocates who would like to take all of the sticks. And as soon as they start surrendering more sticks, the 2nd Amendment seems somehow neutered and irrelevant. If democratic process can deprive you of your sticks, then the right to bear arms is no longer fundamental and there's no clear limit to the number of sticks which can be confiscated.

That's how I view the push-pull, anyway.
pjbogart
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6120
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 4:57 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby DCB » Tue Apr 09, 2013 10:46 pm

Dangerousman wrote:Here's a better question: Why does the no-big-friend-of-the-Second Amendment ACLU oppose universal background checks?

Trick question: They don't!

I know that must be shocking news if all you know comes from one "Daily Caller" article endlessly repeated throughout the right-wing echo chamber. But what one guy actually saidwas:

The ACLU has no problem with universal background checks as long as the records are taken care of and privacy rights are preserved.

"If you're going to do a background check, it makes sense to do an effective background check," Calabrese said.


Personally, I'd be happy if Sen. Reid listened to the ACLU's recommendations. Because I'd like to have effective background checks.
DCB
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2580
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 5:08 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby Mad Howler » Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:19 pm

pjbogart wrote:Your real property is yours to do with as you please, but you can't ... fill in a protected wetlands without first getting approval, therefore some of your "sticks" have been removed.

Indeed, that one really set John Menard off. I find the results stunning on a local and national scale.

pjbogart wrote:And as soon as they start surrendering more sticks, the 2nd Amendment seems somehow neutered and irrelevant. If democratic process can deprive you of your sticks, then the right to bear arms is no longer fundamental and there's no clear limit to the number of sticks which can be confiscated.

That arguement oddly parrallels the (no so discussed on this board) fight regarding our social security service system. Did ya all notice that Mr. Norquist is proud NRA board member? I am seeing subterfuge in all of this sickening drama.
Mad Howler
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1276
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2012 8:36 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby wack wack » Wed Apr 10, 2013 8:14 am

Dangerousman wrote:
jonnygothispen wrote:D-man will probably never address the true intention of the 2nd amendment because he knows his goose is cooked.


Johnny believes only he has divined the "true intention of the 2nd Amendment" and anyone who doesn't agree with his interpretation is simply wrong or in denial. He is high-larious.


Did anyone catch Vice, the new HBO news magazine over the weekend?

One of the stories they presented was about the child suicide bombers of Afghanistan. The most interesting part of the story was learning over and over that the terrorists, adults as well as the children, had no real understanding of the Quran, as they'd never read it; all of their knowledge came from what the mullahs told them.

It was impossible to watch this and not think of the NRA's Second Amendment re-education campaigns and policies. Suffice to say, it is certainly not Johnny or those who think like him who are guilty of the belief that they've "divined the 'true intention of the 2nd Amendment.'"
wack wack
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3088
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2003 5:32 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby penquin » Wed Apr 10, 2013 10:26 am

If they demonstrate a lack of knowledge on any aspect of an issue, they should be immediately removed from the discussion?


It is kinda like those who claim that being a homosexual is also being a pedophile and into bestiality. I ain't gonna say that they can't take part in a discussion, but it is hard to take such an ignorant opinion seriously.
penquin
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 509
Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 3:19 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby snoqueen » Wed Apr 10, 2013 10:37 am

And as soon as they start surrendering more sticks, the 2nd Amendment seems somehow neutered and irrelevant. If democratic process can deprive you of your sticks, then the right to bear arms is no longer fundamental and there's no clear limit to the number of sticks which can be confiscated.


I think you're right if this is meant to describe the attitude of present-day 2nd Amendment absolutists.

For those who think the "well regulated militia" part means anything at all, legislation to modify it (similar to existing legislation that modifies other parts of the Bill of Rights) is to be expected because of the very wording of the amendment. If we are to have a well regulated militia, first we need is some regulations.

We have not lived up to the expectations of the founders in this regard, I'd say.

If we wanted to adopt the tactics of the screamers, perhaps screaming about this would be the place to start. "Hey, where are our damn regulations? What part of regulated don't you understand?"

On the Second, both sides could play this absolutist game.
snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 11323
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby Detritus » Wed Apr 10, 2013 11:28 am

pjbogart wrote:I think the gun rights advocates' argument is generally that they have a right to the rest of their sticks. Background checks would be another stick... most seem willing to surrender that stick, but the NRA/Republican position seems to be that if they surrender that stick, the government is sure to ask for more. Rather than watching their rights whittled away, they choose to stand their ground and protect the rest of their sticks.

It's not really an unreasonable position. In fact, I think they're right that people are trying to steal too many of their sticks. There are certainly gun control advocates who would like to take all of the sticks.

I would disagree that it is an unreasonable position. That there are individuals who would like to see the disappearance of all firearms is hardly equivalent to "the gov't is coming to get my guns," any more than occasional target shooting = mass murder.

More to my point, I don't see anything special in there about arms--the use of the word "sticks" makes it clear that property is property. In the absence of the second amendment, the protections applying to any property would apply to firearms, correct? But they wouldn't have what we might call "special privileges" over other property--or rather, their manufacturers, sellers, and owners wouldn't have special privileges that the manufacturers, sellers, and owners of other property don't have.
Detritus
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2352
Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 9:42 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby DCB » Wed Apr 10, 2013 2:56 pm

jonnygothispen wrote:
Dangerousman wrote:
Johnny believes only he has divined the "true intention of the 2nd Amendment"
What's "divine" about understanding that the founders gave people the right to bear arms for their own safety and security?

Being pedantic, "divine" in this case means "discovering the meaning of ", not necessarily via supernatural means.

But I don't think the 'true intention' is as obvious as either of you assume. I mean, to me it seems that "well regulated" is straightforward, but the Supremes get the last word.

As I've said elsewhere, I support repealing the 2nd, in part because its poorly written, and its not clear what the "true intention" was. The people who wrote it are dead, so it really doesn't matter what they think.

But that's really besides the point. I don't think any of regulations being discussed right now(background checks, magazine size,etc.) are likely to be unconstitutional. The only real obstacle to making America safer is the gun lobby (aka the NRA). And our dysfunctional political system.
Charles Pierce wrote:Because we have defined "bipartisanship" on this deal as an agreement between a Tea Party whackaloon Republican, and a Democrat who actually filmed a commercial where he shot the cap-and-trade-bill with a rifle, the deal proposed today is now the left-most acceptable legislative position on the debate over background checks. The deal will now proceed to the Senate, where amendments will be allowed. ("Moderate" Republican windsock Susan Collins of Maine made that the quid for her quo of declining to join a filibuster.) I will make the Toby Ziegler bet — all the money in my pocket against all the money in your pockets — that every amendment offered will be from the pro-gun side, which means that all of them will reduce further even the half-a-loaf announced today. All the "movement" on this issue will be toward weakening the Manchin-Toomey "bipartisan compromise." Then, the bill will go to the House, the majority party in which contains a remarkable number of crazy people. God alone knows what will happen to it there, but it will be nothing good.

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/s ... eal-041013
DCB
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2580
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 5:08 pm

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

Promotions Contact us Privacy Policy Jobs Newsletters RSS
Collapse Photo Bar