[Vision2020] Gun Talk

Mon Feb 4 14:29:52 PST 2013

The Constitution says nothing about assault weapons, nothing about semi automatics. It won't guide us on this issue. That's my view.

On Feb 4, 2013, at 1:27 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Why don't YOU tell me WHERE you think the right to ban assault weapons can be found IN THE CONSTITUTION.  That's the go-to document for determining what our rights actually are.  Start there.  The poor things been abused enough lately, we don't need to ignore it again.
> 
> That would be a great start.  That would make it a legal option that we could then set on the table for discussion.
> 
> Paul
> 
> 
> From: Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
> To: Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> 
> Cc: Gary Crabtree <jampot at roadrunner.com>; "<vision2020 at moscow.com>" <vision2020 at moscow.com> 
> Sent: Monday, February 4, 2013 12:38 PM
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Gun Talk
> 
> You are not tracking the conversation. Why not have a similar situation with guns: you can buy what you want, as long as you're ready to face the consequences? The point is you seem happy with the libel law in place.
> 
> On Feb 4, 2013, at 8:57 AM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> I do tend to follow the "innocent until proven guilty" and "assumed innocent especially when nobody has done anything, yet" schools of thought.  You may have the makings of a bomb in your house right now, cleverly hidden away in otherwise innocent household items.  If someone gets a warrant and enters a residence and it contains bomb-making equipment and it's all laid out ready to be made into a bomb, that's one thing.  It makes sense that certain items be restricted, too, but if you want to make a bomb you don't need exotic materials.  Read through the Anarchist's Cookbook sometime.  I don't suggest trying anything in there, though, you'd probably lose a limb or something.
>> 
>> I don't feel like defending the U.S's War on Drugs at this point in time.
>> 
>> As for your point about you saying something that MIGHT harm my reputation, you can say anything you like as long as you are prepared to face the consequences if I take you to court.  What's       the alternative?  Muzzle you?
>> 
>> Paul
>> 
>> On 02/04/2013 08:23 AM, Joe Campbell wrote:
>>> What do you say about drugs? It is OK to have them in your possession, you just can't use them. Is that your view? Do you think it is fine to have all the makings for an Oklahoma-type bomb, or all the ingredients for large batches of methamphetamine, so long as you don't mix them together? Can I say lies that MIGHT harm your reputation and wait and see if it actually does harm it before you'll want to step in with sanctions?
>>> 
>>> I think I've made my point, and really Art made the main point. Busy week!
>>> 
>>> On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 4:06 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
>>>>> =======================================================
> 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20130204/fd526623/attachment-0001.html>