MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus on Twitter · Facebook · Flickr · Newsletters 
Wednesday, April 23, 2014 |  Madison, WI: 47.0° 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 Ned Flanders » Fri Apr 19, 2013 2:43 pm

Henry Vilas wrote:Your obsession with sexual imagery, especially gay sex, is very telling. Come out of the closet, Ned.

Come to me you big, sexy bear. The heart wants what the heart wants.
Ned Flanders
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 13042
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2001 2:48 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby Henry Vilas » Fri Apr 19, 2013 2:47 pm

Meade wrote:Is that paranoia, Hen?

I was commenting about Ned's paranoia when he stated he needed rapid fire weapnry to fight a tyrannical government. Try to keep up.
Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 19166
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all

Re: The gun thread

Postby fisticuffs » Fri Apr 19, 2013 2:48 pm

Meade wrote:
Henry Vilas wrote:Or paranoia.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: "And I told the story about two conversations I had. The first conversation was when Michelle came back from doing some campaigning out in rural Iowa. And we were sitting at dinner, and she had been to like a big county, a lot of driving out there, a lot of farmland. And she said, if I was living out in a farm in Iowa, I'd probably want a gun, too. If somebody just drives up into your driveway and you're not home -- you don't know who these people are and you don't know how long it's going to take for the sheriffs to respond. I can see why you'd want some guns for protection. That's one conversation."

Is that paranoia, Hen?


If Michelle, the hypothetical Iowa farmer's wife, wanted some guns --to protect her children and herself from robbery, kidnapping, homicide, rape, or assault -- would you deny her high capacity, rapid fire weapons, whether they be long guns or hand guns?


Oh I see the problem now. Meade doesn't understand the difference in having a hand gun or shotgun in the home for protection and buying semi-automatic rifles at a gun show and carrying it with you into Walmart.

would you deny her high capacity, rapid fire weapons, whether they be long guns or hand guns?


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

Re: The gun thread

Postby Meade » Fri Apr 19, 2013 2:52 pm

fisticuffs wrote:
would you deny her high capacity, rapid fire weapons, whether they be long guns or hand guns?


Yes.

Thank you, Michael "Fisticuffs" Dukakis. Please keep representing your party on gun control.
Meade
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3341
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 6:26 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby wack wack » Fri Apr 19, 2013 2:52 pm

Ned Flanders wrote:
wack wack wrote:
BSH wrote:So everything should be banned unless people can show they justifiably need it?


Not everything, just things that are designed to kill.

Like knives, fertilizer and pressure cookers?


Those things are not designed to kill.
wack wack
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3007
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2003 5:32 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby Meade » Fri Apr 19, 2013 2:54 pm

Henry Vilas wrote:I was commenting about Ned's paranoia.

Oh, is that what you big burly bears call it these days -- "commenting"?
Meade
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3341
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 6:26 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby Henry Vilas » Fri Apr 19, 2013 2:58 pm

Meade wrote:
Henry Vilas wrote:I was commenting about Ned's paranoia.

Oh, is that what you big burly bears call it these days -- "commenting"?


Meade wrote:In fact, show me a comment of mine that was "off-topic" and I will remove it myself.
Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 19166
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all

Re: The gun thread

Postby Ned Flanders » Fri Apr 19, 2013 2:59 pm

wack wack wrote:Those things are not designed to kill.

Have you tried my mother-in-law's beef stew?
Ned Flanders
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 13042
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2001 2:48 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby DCB » Sun Apr 21, 2013 11:16 am

SlayerDave wrote:
david cohen wrote:The point is to use their NRA endorsement against them electorally:) Especially tools like Rand Paul who called the Newtown survivor families "Props". Yeah, like all those Iraq and Afghanistan War Vet "props". Sickening.


No, I understand your point. My point is, that's pretty hard to do.
...
If Dems actually cared about gun control, they'd primary the red state Dems who voted against it yesterday. But here's betting they won't.

You may be right. But I think its more about the money.

A sensible-gun-control candidate will face bogus attack ads funded by the gun lobby and various Koch-funded groups (e.g. AFP). The ads will attack their patriotism and manliness, but won't disclose their real goal: to sell more guns, and put more crazy right-wingers in congress, respectively.

The sensible-gun-control candidate will receive some about 1/10th the funding, mostly from middle-class citizens are actually concerned.

its not a fair fight.
DCB
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2458
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 5:08 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby BSH » Mon Apr 22, 2013 8:56 am

DCB - yes, that NIJ report, but also the one that they did studying the effects of the 1994 ban, where they found no measurable effect.

Henry Vilas wrote:What legitimate use is there for civilians to possess high capacity, rapid fire weapons, whether they be long guns or hand guns?


Because the police have no duty to protect the people, and sometimes don't even try, as in LA 1992.

Again, the legal and civil structure of our system of government demands that government action be justified by serving a public good. Restrictions on constitutional rights are even more strictly confined by requiring that restrictions be as narrowly tailored as possible to serve a public good. I don't have to justify why people should be able to own something. The government has to justify why they should be able to ban it. This is not the Soviet Union (yet).
BSH
Senior Member
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 6:32 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby Henry Vilas » Mon Apr 22, 2013 9:03 am

Because of something the LA cops did or didn't do over two decades ago, ordinary citizens should be allowed to possess high capacity, rapid fire weaponry.

Do you realize how facile that argument sounds?
Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 19166
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all

Re: The gun thread

Postby BSH » Mon Apr 22, 2013 9:04 am

DCB wrote:The sensible-gun-control candidate will receive some about 1/10th the funding, mostly from middle-class citizens are actually concerned.

its not a fair fight.


There's no basis for agreeing on what is "sensible" or "reasonable." You think a ban on scary-looking rifles is sensible. I think a ban on weapons used in 1% (or less) of homicides is absurd and unjustifiable. I think it would help if we could stop trying to bias the debate by presuming that my view is "reasonable" and therefore by definition you are being unreasonable. That kind of sophistry is part of what makes your opponents take offense.
BSH
Senior Member
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 6:32 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby BSH » Mon Apr 22, 2013 9:07 am

Henry Vilas wrote:Because of something the LA cops did or didn't do over two decades ago, ordinary citizens should be allowed to possess high capacity, rapid fire weaponry.

Do you realize how facile that argument sounds?


I posted a policy fact - that police have no legal obligation to defend the lives and safety of the people - and cited an example where it happened. There are other examples, that was the first that came to mind. I'm not going to cite every single one, and it's facile to expect it. It would further the discussion by addressing the principle and the policy, rather than the specific example, but you chose not to.
BSH
Senior Member
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 6:32 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby wack wack » Mon Apr 22, 2013 9:09 am

BSH wrote:
DCB wrote:The sensible-gun-control candidate will receive some about 1/10th the funding, mostly from middle-class citizens are actually concerned.

its not a fair fight.


There's no basis for agreeing on what is "sensible" or "reasonable."


Here's a clue: when you decide what you want, then work backwards to collect evidence in support of your desires, where you arrive is exactly opposite of sensible or reasonable.

And it's the only way one can arrive at the conclusions to which you've arrived.
wack wack
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3007
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2003 5:32 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby Stebben84 » Mon Apr 22, 2013 9:16 am

BSH wrote: It would further the discussion by addressing the principle and the policy, rather than the specific example, but you chose not to.


So are you suggesting we arm up with high capacity weapons as a defense against the police? You cited a case where a jury found the police not guilty. Because of this you allege that the police have no LEGAL obligation? That is asinine. I can cite many cases where police were held accountable for their actions. Are those just anomalies?
Stebben84
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 4546
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 12:59 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


FacebookcommentsViewedForum
  ISTHMUS FLICKR

Promotions Contact us Privacy Policy Jobs Newsletters RSS
Collapse Photo Bar