[Vision2020] Gun Talk
Tom Hansen
thansen at moscow.com
Sun Feb 3 18:47:32 PST 2013
Has anybody here even glanced at the proposed legislation, let alone read it?
NOWHERE in the proposed legislation is the phrase "military looking" used. The bill lists specific characteristics, as well as specific weapons, to be banned.
I could copy and paste the 122-page bill, sponsored by Senator Diane Feinstein, here on the Viz, but why deprive you guys of a free education.
The proposed legislation.
http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve/?File_id=9a9270d5-ce4d-49fb-9b2f-69e69f517fb4
Seeya round town, Moscow, because . . .
"Moscow Cares"
http://www.MoscowCares.com
Tom Hansen
Moscow, Idaho
"There's room at the top they are telling you still
But first you must learn how to smile as you kill
If you want to be like the folks on the hill."
- John Lennon
On Feb 3, 2013, at 6:07 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> OK, that all make sense. Now, imagine that they banned anything that looked like a lock picking tool, for example, regardless of whether or not it could actually function as one. Things like chopsticks, plastic hangers, toothpicks, etc. Then you would start to realize what we are talking about when we say "military looking" weapons vs. "militarily useful" ones. Basically, weapons that look like movie props but are only slightly easier to use than other ones that look more like normal WWII weapons or hunting rifles. Not that I have any doubts that Gary could pick a lock with nothing but a toothpick...
>
> Actual assault rifles are currently banned. Those that fire in full-auto mode. The cleverly named "assault weapons" ban doesn't ban those real assault rifles you see in SWAT takedowns of 12-year olds sharing Taylor Swift songs, they ban ones that are made to *look* like them instead. Except that they are semi-automatics like a billion other guns out there, from your .45 Colt to your .22 target rifle.
>
> I'd love to get one of you to address this point, but I haven't seen anyone address it so far. Even if I was convinced that a ban on certain calibers of semi-automatics was a good idea (which I'm not), I still wouldn't support the current assault weapons ban because it's all frosting and very little cake.
>
> Paul
>
> On 02/03/2013 05:20 PM, Art Deco wrote:
>> 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
>>>>> Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2013 2:56 PM
>>>>> To: Gary Crabtree
>>>>> Cc: Paul Rumelhart ; 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
>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2013 12:41 PM
>>>>>> To: Paul Rumelhart
>>>>>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> =======================================================
>> 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/20130203/ce51b859/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list