The gun thread

If it's news, but not politics, then it goes here.
jman111
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 4183
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 12:43 pm
Location: Dane County
Contact:

Re: The gun thread

Postby jman111 » Mon Aug 06, 2012 12:52 pm

In both cases, there exist reasonable restrictions. These restrictions have been upheld as constitutional.

Who defines these "instuments of speech"? If I claim that shitting in the road is protected expression (it would certainly send a message), does that mean that the gov't cannot restrict such "speech"?
The supreme court has decided that exceptions to our constitutional rights make them limited rights, not unconditional rights. While Rastas participate in "reasonings" in expression of their faith, that "instrument" (ganja) is restricted here. Are their religious rights being trampled? Is marijuana prohibition unconstitutional?

Do you honestly believe that an individual's right to keep and bear arms is absolute and not subject to reasonable limitations? Do you honestly believe that the only limits to types of permissible "arms" should be the individual's purchasing power or the technological limits at any given point in time?

Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: The gun thread

Postby Dangerousman » Mon Aug 06, 2012 1:03 pm

Henry Vilas wrote:
Dangerousman wrote: Do you think limitations on the instruments of speech and press would be good public policy, or constitutional?

You're the one making a comparison between 1st and 2nd Amendment limitations. Despite your reliance on it, there's really NO comparison is there?

Bullhorn use is already limited with regulations concerning time and place. They are constitutional. Yet you think citizens should be allowed to possess chemical and biological weapons.


You only think you know what I think. Are there prohibitions on owning the bullhorn? Are there models of bullhorns you're not allowed to own? Are you restricted to one bullhorn a month? Do you think all bullhorn sales should be conducted only by licensed bullhorn dealers? Again, certain activities concerning speech and press are prohibited, but not the instruments used. Admit it, your comparison of 1st and 2nd Amendment restrictions is as weak as it can possibly be.

I'll agree to some time and place gun restrictions: e.g., using a gun to rob a liquor store, using a gun to shoot people in a theater.

And you still have not answered the question.

Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: The gun thread

Postby Dangerousman » Mon Aug 06, 2012 1:11 pm

jman111 wrote:In both cases, there exist reasonable restrictions. These restrictions have been upheld as constitutional.

Who defines these "instuments of speech"? If I claim that shitting in the road is protected expression (it would certainly send a message), does that mean that the gov't cannot restrict such "speech"?
The supreme court has decided that exceptions to our constitutional rights make them limited rights, not unconditional rights. While Rastas participate in "reasonings" in expression of their faith, that "instrument" (ganja) is restricted here. Are their religious rights being trampled? Is marijuana prohibition unconstitutional?

Do you honestly believe that an individual's right to keep and bear arms is absolute and not subject to reasonable limitations? Do you honestly believe that the only limits to types of permissible "arms" should be the individual's purchasing power or the technological limits at any given point in time?


There are reasonable limitations on the use of arms. For example it is illegal to hold up a bank with a gun or knife, or to fire randomly into a crowd, or to shoot out your neighbor's TV when it's playing too loudly. Perfectly reasonable limitations. Beyond prohibiting these sorts of illegal activities, the "reasonableness" becomes much more uncertain.

And like Henry, you just won't answer the question from before. Last call.

rabble
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 9320
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 7:50 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby rabble » Mon Aug 06, 2012 1:23 pm

So kids, remember: if you don't like an answer, just pretend it isn't an answer and claim victory. This can be repeated as many times as the viewing public will allow.

jman111
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 4183
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 12:43 pm
Location: Dane County
Contact:

Re: The gun thread

Postby jman111 » Mon Aug 06, 2012 1:26 pm

Dangerousman wrote:There are reasonable limitations on the use of arms.
Wait, I thought the right to keep and bear arms was protected, not the right to use arms. Restricting the "instruments" utilized for expressing your rights (keeping or bearing arms) would be restrictions to things like gun safes (keeping) or shoulder straps (bearing). You're getting cornfused, I think.

This question?
Do you think limitations on the instruments of speech and press would be good public policy, or constitutional?

As I've already said, I think such limitations already exist and have been found to be constitutional.

Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: The gun thread

Postby Dangerousman » Mon Aug 06, 2012 2:03 pm

jman111 wrote:
Dangerousman wrote:There are reasonable limitations on the use of arms.
Wait, I thought the right to keep and bear arms was protected, not the right to use arms. Restricting the "instruments" utilized for expressing your rights (keeping or bearing arms) would be restrictions to things like gun safes (keeping) or shoulder straps (bearing). You're getting cornfused, I think.

This question?
Do you think limitations on the instruments of speech and press would be good public policy, or constitutional?

As I've already said, I think such limitations already exist and have been found to be constitutional.


No, that's not the question I meant. But since you brought it up, give some examples of the legal limitations on the instruments of speech and press. Is there any sort of printing press you're not allowed to own? Computer? Need an background check when you buy paper? Tell us!

I was referring to my question about what defense you thought was available to the people in the Aurora theater. You ridiculed my comment about them being defenseless against a guy with a gun. Of course they could spit or throw their popcorn at him, but I'm talking about an effective defense. What is it?

jman111
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 4183
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 12:43 pm
Location: Dane County
Contact:

Re: The gun thread

Postby jman111 » Mon Aug 06, 2012 2:23 pm

Dangerousman wrote:...give some examples of the legal limitations on the instruments of speech and press. Is there any sort of printing press you're not allowed to own? Computer? Need an background check when you buy paper? Tell us!

Simply because there are restriction on SOME instruments of speech, it does not follow that there must be restrictions on all instruments of speech. A lack of restrictions on specific computers does not negate the presence of restrictions on other instruments (as I've already discussed). You're losing your touch, Dman.

You've argued the "defenseless" thing in circles. What we've already heard from you is that business owners who place limitations on the possession of weapons on their property leave their patrons defenseless/helpless.
It is hard to have respect for those property owners, such as the theater owners, who have policies that create ideal conditions for mass murders--- a virtual guarantee of large numbers of defenseless people.

I'm claiming that if there had been the legal option for someone present to have been armed in those placers, perhaps the victims would have had a fighting chance and the perpetrators would not have had a virtually guaranteed mass of helpless people.

They're meant to leave good people helpless and their fate in the hands of criminals. In this case, it worked.

You, however, are not helpless without a gun. So maybe you should tell us.
I'm not helpless without a gun, but like anyone I would have fewer options available if things went very badly.

Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: The gun thread

Postby Dangerousman » Mon Aug 06, 2012 5:36 pm

Jman I can't accuse you of "losing your touch" when you've never had a touch.

Simply because there are restriction on SOME instruments of speech, it does not follow that there must be restrictions on all instruments of speech.


You haven't named a single restriction of an instrument of speech, perhaps because there are none. But I'm still waiting for you to identify some.

You conveniently overlook the portion of my statement that says
I'm not helpless without a gun, but like anyone I would have fewer options available if things went very badly.


No, I'm not helpless because if one's mind is one's primary weapon, unlike you, I'm not unarmed in that department.

So thanks for showing you're unable to answer my question without looking like a total douche bag.

jonnygothispen
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 4633
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:53 pm
Contact:

Re: The gun thread

Postby jonnygothispen » Mon Aug 06, 2012 6:06 pm

Dangerousman wrote:
jonnygothispen wrote:
Dangerousman wrote:
Only in your... what you frightfully call... "logic."
Concession accepted. Thanks again.


Yeah, unfortunately it's "logic" only to you. Gibberish to the rest of the world. Pay attention to the words "only" and "your" in my statement.
You seem like a sensitive little boy in an adult body, or at least trying to act like an adult, who conveniently ignores the truth, then tries to draw people into personal attacks when you can't answer a question. It's the pattern you choose whenever your well versed "logic" is uprooted.

So what... You have the same exact psychological pattern as my alcoholic neighbor.

Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 23330
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all
Contact:

Re: The gun thread

Postby Henry Vilas » Mon Aug 06, 2012 6:10 pm

Dangerousman wrote:You haven't named a single restriction of an instrument of speech, perhaps because there are none.

You have not cited a single death directly attributed to an instrument of speech (whatever that means). You want to compare apples to oranges.

jman111
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 4183
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 12:43 pm
Location: Dane County
Contact:

Re: The gun thread

Postby jman111 » Mon Aug 06, 2012 6:10 pm

Dangerousman wrote:No, I'm not helpless because if one's mind is one's primary weapon, unlike you, I'm not unarmed in that department.
Yet, unlike you, all those poor patrons are rendered defenseless (helpless, even) without a gun. You're a legend in your own mind, D.

And, kindy testy today, huh?
Dangerousman wrote:...total douche bag

Just remember...
Dangerousman wrote:Always nice to see when arguments are reduced to insults and personal attacks. It means you got nothing.

jman111
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 4183
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 12:43 pm
Location: Dane County
Contact:

Re: The gun thread

Postby jman111 » Mon Aug 06, 2012 6:14 pm

Henry Vilas wrote:
Dangerousman wrote:You haven't named a single restriction of an instrument of speech, perhaps because there are none.

You have not cited a single death directly attributed to an instrument of speech (whatever that means). You want to compare apples to oranges.

His last gasp attempt at defending absolute gun-toting rights is this false construct of "instrument of speech."
Restrictions in kind exist for both speech and arms-bearing. He's flailing.

jonnygothispen
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 4633
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:53 pm
Contact:

Re: The gun thread

Postby jonnygothispen » Mon Aug 06, 2012 6:24 pm

Dangerousman wrote:..

I wouldn't mind direct answers to my questions for once.
What you actually dislike is the actual meaning and reason for the 2nd amendment. What you like is creating a new definition out of thin air that doesn't exist anywhere in the 2nd amendment. You've sold yourself to the big lie. Whole heartedly believing in the big lie like you do is exactly why you feel the need to convince others of your belief. If the words were there, if the meaning was there in black and white, you could maturely accept what other people think. Instead you have this childish need to control how other people think about it.

It's pretty clear in the context of the times that the founders thought it advantageous to have a fast acting militia in case of attack, "security of a free state" and all that. Even w/o that, since you choose to revise the second amendment before you even begin to talk about it, the obvious need for weapons is for the safety and security of the people or the individual. Given that requirement, it's clear to anyone with a stitch of common sense that regulations that provide for that security, whether for the people in general or the individual, are 100% constitutional.

Instead you've chosen straw men to divert attention, or you run and hide behind a few new insults.

pjbogart
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 7154
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 4:57 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby pjbogart » Mon Aug 06, 2012 6:40 pm

I don't really see the point in arguing with Dangerousman about gun laws. I mean, he's essentially an NRA spokesman, whether he's paid to be so or not. It really doesn't matter what horrific incident arises, Dangerousman will always side with his guns. Six dead? Twelve dead? Seventy-seven dead? Doesn't matter... he'll be on here tomorrow telling you how great it is to own guns.

Cornbread
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 688
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 5:48 pm
Location: Various places
Contact:

Re: The gun thread

Postby Cornbread » Mon Aug 06, 2012 7:43 pm

Dangerousman wrote:Alright jman. You have no weapons on you. A guy is shooting at you with a gun from across the room. What defense does ninJaMan pull out of his bag of tricks?


:D Don't rain on the internet fallacy he wants to impose on all the rest of us peeples, not as edumacated as he be.

Last two act out shootings, in both cases an (unarmed) person tried to bum rush the shooter.
Results? 2 dead, shooter kept on, well, shooting and killing other unarmed people.

Is there anyone that the leftists can call or elect to make reality better fit their isolated fantasies? So far their only option is to have other innocent people become murder victims.


Return to “Headlines”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 6 guests