[Vision2020] Gun Talk

Sat Feb 2 20:07:23 PST 2013

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

If the nay sayers argue the language in the 2nd Amendment  refers to only weapons being a right based on  "A well regulated militia" ,  I'd argue that the 9th Amendment prevents Congress or any other governmental branch from banning privately owned weapons or parts there of, as that would be a right retained by the people. 

 I can find no where in the Constitution where Congress, or any other branch of the government has the right, granted to it by the people,  to ban privately owned weapons or parts of weapons. This is just the type of  government action that the 9th Amendment bans.

WP

On Feb 2, 2013, at 6:57 PM, Paul Rumelhart wrote:

> 
> Taking more of my information down in order to purchase a different class of weapon makes sense to me.  That's how it works now.  It doesn't infringe upon my right to bear arms.  I'm OK with paying $200 to license each fully-automatic weapon, provide photos of myself, give fingerprints, etc.  I don't know if you have to now, but I'd be OK with mandatory training and some proof that I have secured some means of securing the weapon when it's not in use.  And, of course, the assumed background checks. 
> 
> I'm not so happy with the automatic weapons ban on weapons made later than 1986, though.  It makes trying to buy a fully-automatic weapon a pointless exercise unless you have a few tens of thousands lying around to buy a quality pre-1986 weapon and are prepared to buy hard-to-find parts to service it with.
> 
> Paul
> 
> On 02/02/2013 05:29 PM, Sunil Ramalingam wrote:
>> Paul,
>> 
>> Should you be allowed to go to the store and buy a fully-automatic weapon, say an M-16, with the same paperwork you would need to buy a bolt-action .22?
>> 
>> Does the law that prevents you from doing so violate the Constitution?
>> 
>> Sunil
>> 
>> Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2013 17:22:59 -0800
>> From: godshatter at yahoo.com
>> To: philosopher.joe at gmail.com
>> CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Gun Talk
>> 
>> 
>> Oh, I'm listening.  I just think you're trying to wish away what the Constitution says.  What good is a Right if you can curtail it however you want?  MY Right to bear arms should not be infringed because some other a-hole with an AR15 and a couple of screws loose caused a tragedy.  If he had survived, and was convicted in a court of law, then his freedom would have been taken away, if not his life.  I             still have that right to arm myself that was very clearly laid out in the text of the Bill of Rights.
>> 
>> I'm not saying that my right to bear arms should override your right to walk around in public without getting shot by me.  I am saying that your dislike of guns and/or wish that no one had them does not override my right to bear arms.  This seems very clear to me.  We're talking about where rights collide.  But for rights to collide, you have to have them in the first place.  The First Amendment analogy would be to take away your right to post freely on the Internet because some a-hole on a forum somewhere libeled me.
>> 
>> Paul
>> 
>> On 02/02/2013 04:28 PM, Joe Campbell wrote:
>> I've told you this before but you don't seem to be listening: any right can be violated for the right reason; there is NO right to do X regardless; all rights have limitations given their nature. You can't allow people the right to violate the rights of others, for instance. Thus, when rights bump up against each other, one of them has to give. 
>> 
>> And it says "the right of the people ... shall not be violated" not "folks can own whatever kind of gun they wish, and for whatever reason or purpose." Curtailing my speech by prohibiting me from slanderous public comments is not a violation of my rights since I never had the right to harm your interests in the first place. I can speak freely ... up to a point. Essentially a right is something you can do so long as it doesn't bump up against the rights and interests of others. Because NO ONE has a right to do wrong. 
>> 
>> This point seems very clear. I've made it over and over. If you could spot the flaw in the argument, I'd be interested to know what it is. But you won't even talk about. You just keep making the same false claim about gun rights, over and over again.
>> 
>> On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> 
>> My idea doesn't match the current narrative going around, eh?
>> 
>> The Bill of Rights, of which the 2nd Amendment is one, doesn't give us any rights.  They are already ours.  All it does is limit what the government can do with regards to those rights.  For example, for the 1st Amendment, it's "Congress shall make no law...".  For the 4th Amendment it's "The right of the people ... shall not be violated".  In the case of the 2nd Amendment, that limit is "the right of the people ... shall not infringed".  The well regulated militia part is explanatory, a reason why the "shall not infringe" part was put there.
>> 
>> I'm having a hard time reconciling the word "ban" with the words "the right of the people ... shall not be infringed".  They appear to be diametrically opposed to each other, to me.  But then I guess I don't drink the Kool-aid.
>> 
>> Paul
>> 
>> 
>> On 02/02/2013 01:54 PM, Joe Campbell wrote:
>> You have a faulty understanding of the notion of a constitutional right.
>> 
>> On Feb 2, 2013, at 1:38 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> 
>> On 02/02/2013 01:09 PM, Joe Campbell wrote:
>> 1/ ban those guns too maybe
>> 
>> If only there was some Constitutional backing for that.  If that still matters, anymore.
>> 
>> 
>> 2/ and the drones. 
>> 
>> I wouldn't "ban" them, necessarily.  Better to use drones that put boots on the ground.  I'd simply suggest that we stop using them as our President's personal kill toy.
>> 
>> Someday I'd like to hear this story from the perspective of one of the remote controllers of the drones.  How exactly does an average drone assassination go down?
>> 
>> Paul
>> 
>> 
>> On Feb 2, 2013, at 10:55 AM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> You know, I could get behind these attempts to portray people who are against the assault weapons ban as sociopaths or schizophrenics, if it weren't for the following things:
>> 
>> 1.  If the proponents of these bans weren't so disingenuous with their wording.  "Assault weapon" is a look-and-feel definition, not a usage-based one.  A Ruger Mini 14 is just as deadly in a spree shooting as an AR15, but it's not considered an "assault weapon" because it doesn't look enough like a movie prop.  I've both made this kind of comment on this list before and have seen it made here many times.  I haven't seen anyone answer it.  What is the use of banning a weapon based on how military it looks?  Why ban guns with barrel shrouds?  All they do is keep you from burning yourself on the barrel.  Or bayonet mounts?  Are we really worried about the latest rash of gun stabbings?  My conclusion: it's only useful politically.
>> 
>> 2.  If they weren't so intent to ride the "think of the children" wave.  If the deaths of school children should be driving our behaviors, then how about we overhaul the drone program?  Lots of children are dying every day via drones, all OK'd by our sitting President.  I posted an article about that a few days ago, I think.  So why is the outrage over Newtown driving the assault weapons ban but there is no outrage over drone-killings?  The only differences I can see are that the Newtown angle has been in the news non-stop while there is very little                                     reporting on personally sanctioned assassinations by our President and that the children killed by drones are brown and not white.  "Foreign" and not "domestic", if that makes you sleep better.  Also, every new gun-related incident gets center stage attention, as if these kinds of tragedies haven't been happening all the time.  Suddenly, a switch is thrown and we're all outraged about them.
>> 
>> Now, I can get behind better background checks.  I'd like to see more focus on how we can keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill as well, as long as we're careful about people's rights so a random Joe can't be suddenly labeled "mentally ill" because he or she owns an AR15 or for some other trumped up reason.  Better databases covering gun sales would also make sense, though I can understand the concerns that if they know about your guns they can also come take them away.  More training on gun handling and safety would also not go amiss.
>> 
>> But this push to ban "assault weapons" is blatant political theater.  The magazine size restrictions are idiotic, as well.  It takes a second to swap a magazine if you've practiced it a few times.  Pick up the magazine, release the current one and let it drop, shove the new one home. 
>> 
>> tl;dr version: gun control is currently all about political expediency when it should be all about actual effectiveness.
>> 
>> Paul
>> 
>> :
>> 
>> =======================================================
>>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>                http://www.fsr.net
>>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>> =======================================================
> 
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               http://www.fsr.net
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20130202/a196558f/attachment-0001.html>