[Vision2020] Gun Talk
Tom Hansen
thansen at moscow.com
Tue Feb 5 09:09:35 PST 2013
It is my strong belief that our founding fathers designed the constitution to be flexible, to be interpreted in a manner suitable for the times as our country continues to evolve. What may have been right at one time, may be wrong at another (i.e. Plessy v. Ferguson of 1896).
For the largest part, the US Supreme Court has been held responsible for interpreting the constitution. Appointment to the US Supreme Court is a lifetime appointment (talk about job security). So, as vacancies on the Supreme Court occur, the POTUS designates a candidate to fill that vacancy. That candidate goes before a confirmation hearing.
I explained my opinion in such detail because, as I understand it . . . there may be two vacancies during President Obama's current administration. I don't see President Obama appointing a Scalia-type justice.
Regardless of which gun-control legislation eventually becomes reality, a case (found to be in violation of that new law) will go before the nine justices of the US Supreme Court. For those who do not wish to see gun-control, it would be favorable to them if this case went to the Supreme Court prior to President Obama's appointment(s).
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 5, 2013, at 8:29 AM, Art Deco <art.deco.studios at gmail.com> wrote:
> @Paul:
>
> I am unable to make a point beyond suggesting education to someone arguing, for example, about the Special Theory of Relativity who doesn't understand rudimentary calculus or physics.
>
> Constitutional law is a complex subject and the evolution of U.S, Supreme decisions on this matter is complex and filled with many twists and turns.
>
> If you are unwilling to educate yourself on the various applications of the "to promote the general welfare" clause in the last half of the 20th century by doing a little Googling, that is your problem, not that of the rest of V2020 forum.
>
> Just to get a taste of how twisty, turny, backsliding, precedent reversing, etc and complex constitutional law can be, try following the easily accessible on Goggle the evolution of criminal procedure since the original Miranda ruling.
>
> I do not know what the U.S. Supreme Court will do in the future with the meaning and limits of the 2nd Amendment, but given its history, for example, in reacting to the civil rights movement, it would be not unusual for it to reverse some of its present holding in the light of developments like mass murders by assault weapon wielding assassins and the intensity and breath of public sentiment, not to mention changes that may occur with changes in the court's membership. If changes occur, it would not be surprising in view of the court's 20th century decisions to find some justification for change using the "promote the general welfare" clause.
>
> w.
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 2:06 AM, Scott Dredge <scooterd408 at hotmail.com> wrote:
>> My sense is that Congress will just debate this and it won't actually make it to law. And if it does, then there will be a flurry of challenges up to the supreme court. If the bans survive that, then parallel to Paul's post, manufacturers will slightly tweak the designs to make pseudo-semi-automatic weapons that skirt the ban. This sort of things happens all the time. Several years ago I had 5-speed Camaro that shifted 1st to 4th in order to meet an EPA rating. It was easy to over ride unless you were accelerating / shifting in the manner that the EPA test was run. We'll see how this all plays out.
>>
>> -Scott
>>
>> Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 19:00:33 -0800
>> From: godshatter at yahoo.com
>> To: art.deco.studios at gmail.com
>> CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
>>
>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Gun Talk
>>
>>
>> Now, I might be a fucking idiot, and you're right, I'm not a constitutional law scholar, and I'm still fuzzy on this whole "debate" thing... but I could have sworn it was your job to back up whatever point you're trying to make. I'm pretty sure it's not mine.
>>
>> Also, are you under the delusion that the legislation Mr. Hansen politely provided a link for is in anyway going to affect the numbers of mass murders? Sure, they won't be by "assault weapons". They'll just use something that acts pretty much the same but doesn't meet the definition exactly. Like the Ruger Mini 14 I keep talking about that I doubt even one of you has googled yet. Unless, of course they have access to a grandfathered rifle. The magazine restrictions will potentially help them. The Aurora shooter tried to use a 100-round drum magazine and it jammed on him. Harris brought thirteen ten-round clips for his Hi-point 995 Carbine and managed to fire off 96 rounds before killing himself. Harris's gun wasn't even one that was banned by the previous assault weapons ban, though it's pistol grip would make it one under the current legislation.
>>
>> Anyway, I'll be curious to find out if the General Welfare clause can override the Bill of Rights.
>>
>> Paul
>>
>> On 02/04/2013 05:16 PM, Art Deco wrote:
>> Stop trying to argue constitutional law without a rudimentary understanding of how the U.S, Court has used the "promote the general welfare" clause in deciding case of constitutional law. It is not my intention to present a treatise on the issue; Google for it. Educate yourself so that you can see how the issue the constitutionality of ownership of assault weapons could be argued and possibly decided in the age of the increasing numbers of mass murders by assault weapons.
>>
>> w.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 8:03 PM, Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com> wrote:
>> One question is what they meant by that.
>>
>> On Feb 4, 2013, at 3:07 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> It talks about "arms" in there, somewhere, though. Both "assault weapons" and semi automatics fall under that category.
>>
>> 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 2:29 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Gun Talk
>>
>> 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
>> =======================================================
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> =======================================================
>> 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 =======================================================
>
>
>
> --
> 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
> =======================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20130205/42b7b033/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list