[Vision2020] Gun Talk

Sun Feb 3 08:36:48 PST 2013

Well, I think you are wrong, Wayne.

The 9th Amendment protects rights against other rights. But it doesn't give
us a guideline about how to choose between conflicts of rights. Certainly
there is no presumption in favor of gun rights stated in the 9th Amendment.
Also, it is wrong to think that gun rights which are not given in the 2nd
Amendment might be found in the 9th Amendment. The fact is, whatever gun
rights you have are found in the 2nd Amendment. And if they ain't there,
there are no such rights. (I'm taking "rights" in the legal sense here, not
the moral sense.)

On Feb 2, 2013, at 8:07 PM, Wayne Price <bear at moscow.com> wrote:

"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 <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 <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 <Vision2020 at moscow.com>
=======================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20130203/49e7a5e5/attachment-0001.html>