[Vision2020] Gun Talk

[Paul Rumelhart]

On 02/03/2013 12:41 PM, Joe Campbell wrote:
> Paul wrote: How is my interpretation of the Second Amendment in any 
> way "radical"?  "Radical?"  Really?  "...the right of the people to 
> keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."  How is a government ban 
> on a complete class of guns (based almost solely on how military they 
> look) not an infringement of my right to keep and bear arms?  Doesn't 
> it stop me from buying an AR15, for example, not based on market 
> forces or recalls based on safety or popularity, but because the 
> government told me I can't own one?  Doesn't that infringe on my right 
> to keep and bear arms, if only by restricting what I can keep and 
> bear?  I don't see how this is "radical".
>
> All rights may be infringed. Sorry. I don't want to try to figure out 
> the founding fathers meant -- likely, the right to ban what we call 
> "arms" cannot be infringed, which is reasonable -- but the idea that 
> there are NO restrictions on (what we now think of as) gun sales is 
> crazy. You can restrict speech so you sure as heck can restrict gun 
> sales. Any view that says that we can do X under ANY circumstances 
> provided X is listed in the Bill of Rights is a radical view.

You keep saying that I'm advocating for NO restrictions on guns. Has 
someone else been using my email address or something?  There are lots 
of restrictions on guns that I think are worth while. Concealed carry 
permits, background checks, gun registration for the purpose of crime 
solving, extra restrictions for more dangerous guns such as actual 
assault rifles, maybe more.  Yet, when I look into the Second Amendment, 
I don't find any language that encourages the separation of guns into 
classes that the people should be allowed to arm themselves with and 
others that they should not.  Keep and bear arms is all I see, with an 
explanation that the arms mentioned should be useful in a militia in 
case of a security threat to a state.

So, why don't you tell me instead where you do find that right?  You are 
the one suggesting that an assault weapons ban should be on the table, 
so why not go the extra mile and tell me exactly where in the 
Constitution you find that the government has the right to do so?

> Show me ONE other right that you think "shall not be infringed" in the 
> way that you supposed gun rights shall not be infringed? Again, it is 
> confusing. I would argue that circumstances in which your speech or 
> expression may be restricted (yelling fire in a crowded movie theater; 
> libel; slander; child pornography) is precisely the point at which 
> your rights end. Again, I have a hard time saying the government is 
> violating your right to free expression because it prohibits you from 
> slandering Gary Crabtree. You NEVER had that "right." You have the 
> right to speech freely ... up to a point. That is just how rights work.

There are laws against slander, but there is not a ban on classes of 
speech that might lead to slander.  Gary and I have both tried to make 
this distinction clear.  I have the right to say what I want about 
Gary.  He has the right to sue me if he feels I've slandered him.  A 
court of law will determine if did or did not slander him during the 
lawsuit, and mete out any punishment if I was found to have done so.  
This is not equivalent to a ban on a class of guns, it's equivalent to 
laws against, for example, shooting a gun and damaging his property 
thereby.

>
> But of course I've already made this point!

And we've already countered it the same damn way each time with no 
recognition that we have even done so.

Paul