[Vision2020] Gun Talk

[Art Deco]

Again ignorance of the law raises its ugly rear.

In many states ownership of drug paraphernalia is banned; so is ownership
of certain burglary tools; except for licensed and certified locksmiths
ownership of lock picking tools is banned; except for those licensed
ownership of certain kinds of explosive is banned, etc.

w.


On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 7:06 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> If the point were potential of harm, then the argument that the assault
> weapons ban is a ban on "military looking" weapons as opposed to
> "militarily useful" ones would gain more traction.
>
> This is probably because the real "assault rifles" actually are banned,
> the fully-automatic ones.  At least, those made since 1986 unless you are
> the police, the military, or a government agency.
>
> By the way, does anyone know if there have been any challenges to that
> legislation (the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986) that have gone
> before the Supreme Court?
>
> Paul
>
>
> On 02/03/2013 03:33 PM, Joe Campbell wrote:
>
> The point is potential of harm
>
> On Feb 3, 2013, at 3:09 PM, "Gary Crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com> wrote:
>
>   You continue to conflate outcomes with the equipment by which they are
> brought about.
>
> Child porn is illegal, photographic equipment is not.
>
> Shooting people is illegal, owning semi automatic firearms is not. (and
> should remain that way)
>
> g
>
>  *From:* Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Sunday, February 03, 2013 2:56 PM
> *To:* Gary Crabtree <jampot at roadrunner.com>
> *Cc:* Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> ; vision2020 at moscow.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] Gun Talk
>
>  We do in fact ban TYPES of print: child pornography, for instance. We ban
> types of speech, as well. That is different from banning types of guns
> exactly how?
>
> Again, I'm not advocating any specific ban. Just that it is absurd to
> claim as you claim, as Paul claims, and as the NRA claims, that the 2nd
> amendment should be understood as prohibiting the banning of guns
> altogether.
>
> On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 2:44 PM, Gary Crabtree <jampot at roadrunner.com>wrote:
>
>>  You keep making apples to oranges comparisons.
>>
>> In a effort to deter that which is undesirable (yelling fire in a
>> crowded movie theater; libel; slander; child pornography) we punish the
>> occurrences. We do not try to take away the means by banning magazines,
>> (six words or greater) newspapers, internet, photography, or surgical
>> removal of the tongue.
>>
>> g
>>
>>
>>
>>  *From:* Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
>> *Sent:* Sunday, February 03, 2013 12:41 PM
>> *To:* Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>
>> *Cc:* vision2020 at moscow.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] Gun Talk
>>
>>  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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> But of course I've already made this point!
>>  ------------------------------
>> =======================================================
>>  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
> =======================================================
>



-- 
Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
art.deco.studios at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20130203/89095bd6/attachment.html>