MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus:         Newsletters 
Thursday, October 30, 2014 |  Madison, WI: 46.0° F  Light Rain
Collapse Photo Bar

The gun thread

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

Re: The gun thread

Postby Dangerousman » Sun Jun 23, 2013 3:59 pm

Aw, what's the matter? You didn't like that I showed that your earlier comment about Jefferson was baloney?

It's easy to put words in the mouth of a dead man, right? I went back and showed his actual words, not some made up interpretation like yours.

I don't know about a "new Constitution" but I'm sure he'd be leading the charge for a new government-- perhaps one that had some respect for the old Constitution.
Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI

Re: The gun thread

Postby Prof. Wagstaff » Sun Jun 23, 2013 4:35 pm

Dangerousman wrote:It's easy to put words in the mouth of a dead man, right? I went back and showed his actual words, not some made up interpretation like yours.
Well, some of his words, anyway.

Here's a lot more.

I'm not sure why anyone thinks Jefferson's opinion on the matter should carry any weight in 2013 (besides being long-dead, he had nothing whatsoever to do with the making of The Constitution -- he was serving as an ambassador to France when it was drafted) but he was certainly not a fan of The Constitution being some unchangeable dictate from on high. And considering even he knew The Louisiana Purchase was outside the scope of the President's powers as written, suggesting he would be upset by people not respecting The Consitution is a pretty tough case to make.
Prof. Wagstaff
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 8987
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2002 6:35 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby Henry Vilas » Fri Jul 05, 2013 6:06 pm

Mo. gov. vetoes bill to nullify federal gun laws

Missouri's Democratic governor vetoed legislation Friday that sought to make federal gun laws unenforceable in the state.

In a carefully worded statement that prominently addressed his pro-gun bona fides in a state Mitt Romney carried 54% to President Obama's 44% in 2012, Gov. Jay Nixon argued that the legislation violated a provision in the U.S. Constitution called the Supremacy Clause. The Supremacy Clause gives preference to federal laws over state laws.

He probably didn't want to waste Missouri taxpayers money defending a proposed law that would certainly be ruled unconstitutional.
Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 20039
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all

Re: The gun thread

Postby BSH » Tue Jul 09, 2013 3:55 pm

jonnygothispen wrote:The pro-guns types always whip out the phrase, "If you outlaw guns, only criminals will have them."

Good point. Anyone with a handgun outside of their home without a special permit would be a criminal and could be arrested immediately, eliminating any confusion...


Yet, there is no basis for doing so that serves a legitimate public interest (never mind the constitution). Such a law certainly does not enhance public safety. See Chicago, DC where your proposal is indeed law. Does it lead to reduced homicide rates or less violent crime? No. So given that it does not serve the public interest, and is highly questionable on constitutional grounds, why would anyone support such a law?
BSH
Senior Member
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 6:32 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby BSH » Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:00 pm

wack wack wrote:if you do some actual study of Thomas Jefferson (not just enough to grab a convenient quote) you'll learn that his comments regarding "revolution every twenty years" weren't a call for blood in the streets, but reflected an understanding that each generation should be allowed to govern itself according to its own needs and principles, not restricted by the past.


Quite right. Article V of the constitution clearly lays out the proper method by which any gun ban must be enacted. We absolutely ought to bend government to our modern needs, but if we are to be a nation of laws, we must follow the prescribed processes. Anything else is illegitimate.
BSH
Senior Member
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 6:32 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby jonnygothispen » Wed Jul 10, 2013 9:57 am

BSH wrote:
jonnygothispen wrote:The pro-guns types always whip out the phrase, "If you outlaw guns, only criminals will have them."

Good point. Anyone with a handgun outside of their home without a special permit would be a criminal and could be arrested immediately, eliminating any confusion...


Yet, there is no basis for doing so that serves a legitimate public interest (never mind the constitution). Such a law certainly does not enhance public safety. See Chicago, DC where your proposal is indeed law. Does it lead to reduced homicide rates or less violent crime? No. So given that it does not serve the public interest, and is highly questionable on constitutional grounds, why would anyone support such a law?
No basis for doing so? Japan. There would be no confusion as to the intent of a person who illegally carries a gun.

Chicago's gun ban was kinda like banning water in an ocean.

Since the 2nd amendment was designed to provide for the safety and security of the people, I would agree that it is highly questionable on constitutional grounds to allow unregulated gun sales without proper background checks.
jonnygothispen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3187
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:53 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby Francis Di Domizio » Fri Jul 12, 2013 2:03 pm

Apparently the CC classes aren't covering "Don't get in a rolling gun fight on the freeway". We definitely need to make sure the DoJ doesn't put any requirements on that class.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/crime/pair ... 67661.html

Only 1 of the two gunman has been charged with first-degree reckless endangering safety, which may be due to the fact that he said he was
shooting out the window with his left hand while driving and using the phone with his right hand


While driving on the freeway
Francis Di Domizio
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2550
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:11 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Re: The gun thread

Postby Stebben84 » Fri Jul 12, 2013 2:14 pm

The best line from that story:

Both men admitted they were in a gunfight but said the other had fired the first shot.


Uh, does it really matter? Is that going to make you any less dangerous for engaging in the gun fight on the goddamn freeway.
Stebben84
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 4983
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 12:59 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby O.J. » Fri Jul 12, 2013 2:15 pm

Francis Di Domizio wrote:Apparently the CC classes aren't covering "Don't get in a rolling gun fight on the freeway". We definitely need to make sure the DoJ doesn't put any requirements on that class.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/crime/pair ... 67661.html

Only 1 of the two gunman has been charged with first-degree reckless endangering safety, which may be due to the fact that he said he was
shooting out the window with his left hand while driving and using the phone with his right hand


While driving on the freeway


He was clearly in imminent danger from the car that was speeding away from him. What's a guy supposed to do?
O.J.
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2992
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 10:13 am

Re: The gun thread

Postby snoqueen » Fri Jul 12, 2013 2:20 pm

Stand his ground, obviously.

Just put down the damn phone.
snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 11660
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby DCB » Fri Jul 12, 2013 4:17 pm

snoqueen wrote:Stand his ground, obviously.

Just put down the damn phone.

Huh? how is he supposed to take pictures of himself kicking ass?
DCB
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 5:08 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby Francis Di Domizio » Fri Jul 12, 2013 4:32 pm

DCB wrote:
snoqueen wrote:Stand his ground, obviously.

Just put down the damn phone.

Huh? how is he supposed to take pictures of himself kicking ass?


Because if you are going to tell a police officer how you violated the law, it's best to have pictures!
Francis Di Domizio
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2550
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:11 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Re: The gun thread

Postby BSH » Fri Jul 12, 2013 5:40 pm

jonnygothispen wrote:]No basis for doing so? Japan. There would be no confusion as to the intent of a person who illegally carries a gun.

Chicago's gun ban was kinda like banning water in an ocean.

Since the 2nd amendment was designed to provide for the safety and security of the people, I would agree that it is highly questionable on constitutional grounds to allow unregulated gun sales without proper background checks.


Several pages back, I think I listed the differences between the US and Japan that explain differences in homicide rates. Gun laws are not relevant.

Chicago's gun laws did exactly as was suggested: create a situation in which any person seen carrying a gun in the city could be presumed a criminal. It did not help. In fact, the gun laws were again irrelevant. This is likely because Chicago does not catch criminals - less than 25% of murderers in 2012 faced charges, and less than 5% of shooters in non-fatal shootings. With stats like that, no gun law anywhere can possibly make a difference.

You also misstate the purpose of the 2nd amendment. It is to secure a free state. Safety has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

That being said, I would agree that it serves the purpose of properly regulating the militia to ensure that those bearing arms are not criminals, and have not been adjudged mentally unsound with due process.
BSH
Senior Member
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 6:32 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby snoqueen » Fri Jul 12, 2013 7:34 pm

BSH wrote:
jonnygothispen wrote:]... the 2nd amendment was designed to provide for the safety and security of the people...

You... misstate the purpose of the 2nd amendment. It is to secure a free state. Safety has nothing whatsoever to do with it.


Interesting contrast here.

So BSH thinks securing a free state -- which sounds to me like something defending government at some level, possibly the state level and not the federal, though I don't know what he really means -- is more important than keeping the citizens safe and secure.

In that reasoning, the citizens are less important than the state.

Most people if pressed would put their own safety and security above that of some "state," however you define that.

Are you sure you want to go there?

I personally wouldn't be interested in dying for the state, though under certain circumstances I might be willing to risk dying to help another person in imminent danger if I thought I could do any good. Those are two totally different things.

I suppose if you join the military and offer to die for your country, that's putting the state above the individual. Not everyone makes that choice, and yet they remain still citizens in good standing.

I would like a clarification of what you mean by "securinging a free state" and how you feel it is not the same as providing for people's safety and security.
snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 11660
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby jonnygothispen » Sat Jul 13, 2013 11:12 am

BSH wrote:
Several pages back, I think I listed the differences between the US and Japan that explain differences in homicide rates. Gun laws are not relevant.

Chicago's gun laws did exactly as was suggested: create a situation in which any person seen carrying a gun in the city could be presumed a criminal. It did not help. In fact, the gun laws were again irrelevant. This is likely because Chicago does not catch criminals - less than 25% of murderers in 2012 faced charges, and less than 5% of shooters in non-fatal shootings. With stats like that, no gun law anywhere can possibly make a difference.

You also misstate the purpose of the 2nd amendment. It is to secure a free state. Safety has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

That being said, I would agree that it serves the purpose of properly regulating the militia to ensure that those bearing arms are not criminals, and have not been adjudged mentally unsound with due process.
Gun laws are based on the people's values. In Japan, they value peace. It's a matter of choice, isn't it? Maybe we should change our values and attitudes about guns.

Banning guns in Chicago makes as much sense as banning water in an ocean. You'd have to pull the drain on the ocean (a nationwide ban) before such a ban would be effective, and I think it'd take a decade or so for the results to show up.

States only exist because of the people in them. I thought you knew that?
jonnygothispen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3187
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:53 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Headlines

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 2 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