MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus on Twitter · Facebook · Flickr · Newsletters 
Wednesday, April 23, 2014 |  Madison, WI: 34.0° F  Fair
Collapse Photo Bar

The gun thread

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

Re: The gun thread

Postby Henry Vilas » Mon Aug 13, 2012 1:26 pm

Dangerousman wrote: I think the Second Amendment protects the right to be sufficiently armed to make the establishment of a tyrannical government very difficult.

My, you like to dodge and weave. What arms are necessary to prevent the establishment of a tyrannical government? Can you ever answer a question directly?
Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 19165
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all

Re: The gun thread

Postby Dangerousman » Mon Aug 13, 2012 2:09 pm

Dangerousman wrote:
Henry, if you're being attacked by helicopters, tanks and artillery, are you really going to care what's legal to possess? Yes or no?


That was a simple question above. Got a direct answer to it?
Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2290
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI

Re: The gun thread

Postby fisticuffs » Mon Aug 13, 2012 2:10 pm

fisticuffs
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 7739
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 2:49 pm
Location: Slightly outside of Madison

Re: The gun thread

Postby Dangerousman » Mon Aug 13, 2012 2:13 pm

Henry Vilas wrote:
Dangerousman wrote: I think the Second Amendment protects the right to be sufficiently armed to make the establishment of a tyrannical government very difficult.

My, you like to dodge and weave. What arms are necessary to prevent the establishment of a tyrannical government? Can you ever answer a question directly?


Henry do the Syrian people have the right to comandeer tanks? Answer directly, please.

As for what is necessary to prevent the establishment of a tyrannical government? I don't know. Perhaps that's subject to a sliding scale based on how imminent of a threat there is. But at a minimum one needs to be able to have military capable weapons and not just sporting guns.
Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2290
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI

Re: The gun thread

Postby Henry Vilas » Mon Aug 13, 2012 2:16 pm

Dangerousman wrote:
Henry Vilas wrote:
Dangerousman wrote: I think the Second Amendment protects the right to be sufficiently armed to make the establishment of a tyrannical government very difficult.

My, you like to dodge and weave. What arms are necessary to prevent the establishment of a tyrannical government? Can you ever answer a question directly?


Henry do the Syrian people have the right to comandeer tanks? Answer directly, please.

The Second Amendment does not apply to Syrians in Syria. Quit diverting and man up.
Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 19165
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all

Re: The gun thread

Postby fisticuffs » Mon Aug 13, 2012 2:17 pm

But at a minimum one needs to be able to have military capable weapons and not just sporting guns.


So you are preparing for an armed revolution. All this time I thought it was for the zombie apocalypse.
fisticuffs
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 7739
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 2:49 pm
Location: Slightly outside of Madison

Re: The gun thread

Postby Henry Vilas » Mon Aug 13, 2012 2:20 pm

Dangerousman wrote: But at a minimum one needs to be able to have military capable weapons and not just sporting guns.

Are you advocating for the establishment of private militias with military grade weaponry capable of taking out tanks, helicopters, etc.?
Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 19165
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all

Re: The gun thread

Postby jman111 » Mon Aug 13, 2012 2:35 pm

Dangerousman wrote:Weapons of different types don't present a greater risk due to the nature of the weapon.

Wow. Do you really believe this? You think that, despite all the other variables out there, more destructive weapons don't increase the overall risk? Is there no greater potential risk in my possession of a small stone than in my possession of a rifle? Now, one can argue that there is no increased risk if the weapon isn't used; however, the potential use of a weapon is just one of the many variables that must be considered. All other things being equal, I think it's clear that weapons of different types present different levels of risk. And you think MY thinking is confused?
Dangerousman wrote:But if there is one thing that could not conceivably be needed or used to prevent establishment of a tyrannical government it is a nuke.

Dangerousman wrote:I think the Second Amendment protects the right to be sufficiently armed to make the establishment of a tyrannical government very difficult.

So that's how you would draw the line? Is this the criteria for arms upon which you would base applicability of 2nd amendment rights? Really?
Last edited by jman111 on Mon Aug 13, 2012 2:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
jman111
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2773
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 12:43 pm
Location: Dane County

Re: The gun thread

Postby snoqueen » Mon Aug 13, 2012 2:38 pm

What arms are necessary to prevent the establishment of a tyrannical government?


If that's now the reasoning behind trying to get as many Americans armed as possible, we're in major hot water. The US military budget is the largest in the world by far, larger than the entire budget of many other countries (though it's nearly impossible to find out exactly how large it is due to off-budget and classified funding).

If we the people are up against that, the notion of arming everybody in response is a lost cause. A modern army runs on continually evolving (and costly) technology that simply cannot be duplicated by the rabble. ('scuse me, rabble)

A better idea: making sure the military is of, by, and for the people, that members of the military, from the bottom to the top, are sufficiently dedicated to defending the US that they would never turn on their own people, and to their own commander in chief so that we are not at risk of mutiny.

If dissent in the military ranks is truly an issue, the way to deal with it is through established methods of discipline, not by having a bunch of armed civilians run riot and take matters into their own hands.

We aren't Syria, as mentioned a few days ago on this topic. We're an established democracy and the way to keep it that way is to keep our democracy healthy, not fragment ourselves into official and unofficial armed factions so mutually distrustful they're preparing to fight it out.

Because, given the power, technology, and money disparity I mentioned at the top, you know which way that one will go. The indigenous Afghani warriors are tough as nails, have a tribal structure, a brutal enforcement system, and loyalties unparalleled in western countries. They have geographic advantages including mountains so wild nobody knows where the boundaries run, and have been at war against outsiders for generations. They're shaking off the US occupation and will likely go back to whatever lifestyle they had before we arrived. I somehow doubt the indigenous Wisconsin warriors would be similarly effective.

We earlier agreed we aren't at that point yet, and we all hope we never will be. If we start feeling threatened by our own armed forces (not rogue individuals) I'm sure TDPF is not the first place we'll hear about it.
snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 10960
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby Dangerousman » Mon Aug 13, 2012 2:40 pm

Henry Vilas wrote:The Second Amendment does not apply to Syrians in Syria. Quit diverting and man up.


I didn't ask if the Second Amendment applies to Syrians. I asked if the people have the right to the tanks and other weapons they're possessing in their fight against the al-Assad regime. For the third time, do they?
Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2290
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI

Re: The gun thread

Postby Dangerousman » Mon Aug 13, 2012 2:48 pm

Henry Vilas wrote:
Dangerousman wrote: But at a minimum one needs to be able to have military capable weapons and not just sporting guns.

Are you advocating for the establishment of private militias with military grade weaponry capable of taking out tanks, helicopters, etc.?


Private militias? Not at all. Those seem to be people who like playing army too much. Fine, whatever floats your boat. I played enough army in the real Army. Obviously they have the right to organize a "militia" group if they wish, but it's nothing I advocate.
Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2290
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI

Re: The gun thread

Postby jman111 » Mon Aug 13, 2012 2:57 pm

Dangerousman wrote:I think the Second Amendment protects the right to be sufficiently armed to make the establishment of a tyrannical government very difficult.
Dangerousman wrote:Private militias? Not at all.
So, the Second Amendment serves to advocate an arms race between the collective armed forces of our nation and the general citizenry as individuals? And yet you think that a nuke wouldn't be necessary for an individual to fight the establishment of a tyrannical government?
jman111
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2773
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 12:43 pm
Location: Dane County

Re: The gun thread

Postby Dangerousman » Mon Aug 13, 2012 2:59 pm

snoqueen wrote:We aren't Syria, as mentioned a few days ago on this topic. We're an established democracy


As were numerous other countries that later became dictatorships. Your point? That it cannot happen here, for whatever reason? I think much of the Bill of Rights was intended to make it as unlikely as possible. Don't you agree? Free speech and press? Due process? The right to keep and bear arms? No unreasonable searches and seizures? The right to assemble? No quartering of troops without consent? The right to a public trial?

In other words, operating in a manner that is directly resistant to the methods used by tyrannical governments to gain and maintain control? Is that not how you understand the Bill of Rights?
Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2290
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI

Re: The gun thread

Postby Dangerousman » Mon Aug 13, 2012 3:01 pm

jman111 wrote:
Dangerousman wrote:I think the Second Amendment protects the right to be sufficiently armed to make the establishment of a tyrannical government very difficult.
Dangerousman wrote:Private militias? Not at all.
So, the Second Amendment serves to advocate an arms race between the collective armed forces of our nation and the general citizenry as individuals? And yet you think that a nuke wouldn't be necessary for an individual to fight the establishment of a tyrannical government?


Where did I advocate an arms race? Presumably the armed forces of the country and the citizenry are all on the same side. You don't see it that way?
Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2290
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI

Re: The gun thread

Postby Dangerousman » Mon Aug 13, 2012 3:04 pm

So jman, since Henry is apparently running away as fast as he can, let me ask you the question that I directed to him. Do the Syrian people have a right to take the tanks and artillery they've been taking to fight al-Assad?
Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2290
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


FacebookcommentsViewedForum
  ISTHMUS FLICKR

Promotions Contact us Privacy Policy Jobs Newsletters RSS
Collapse Photo Bar