[Vision2020] Dorner and Gun Control
Joe Campbell
philosopher.joe at gmail.com
Thu Feb 14 10:29:37 PST 2013
Wayne did tell you one part of his view, and it was in fact similar to
something I've been telling you over and over again; yet you seem deaf to
the point. I'll try again. (Some readers might want to turn on another
station since the story is the same.)
Your interpretation, the NRA interpretation is flawed. Specifically this
interpretation:
For the second amendment, it's pretty much wide open. "The right of the
people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is pretty
straight-forward. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the
security of a free state" is a reason that has been provided as to why the
right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed.
NO rights have in fact ever been interpreted as absolute; there are no
absolute rights. Sales of fire arms, for instance, have in fact been
restricted and will in fact be restricted at various times in the future.
There is no philosophical, historical, moral, or legal basis for your
interpretation.
Further, it would have been impossible for the founders to be clear in the
Bill of Rights about exactly "how [the right] shouldn't be infringed." It
doesn't say in the bill of rights for instance which kind of speech can or
cannot be infringed. It leaves it open for us to decide; it leaves it open
for us to discover new forms of harm that we might want to restrict, or new
ways in which we might want to promote public welfare (as Wayne has pointed
out).
The genius of the founding fathers is that they did not in fact produce a
document like the one you suggest that they produced, with an insane view
of rights, one that would allow us to continue to abuse our "rights" to the
detriment of others. That's why your interpretation, the NRA interpretation
is flawed.
That said, I'm leaning more toward thinking banning guns is not the way to
go; I'm uncertain as to whether it would have any positive impact. I'm
currently on the fence about the particular issue. My point is we could and
should (say) ban semiautomatics IF it would reduce violence and/or promote
public welfare. That is where we disagree. I think we need to talk about
banning guns, review the evidence, look at other cases in which guns have
been banned (Australia) and see whether it might work as well for us. In
the end, we might end up determining that gun bans will do no good. But we
don't know that now, prior to having this debate and conversation.
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 9:20 AM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>wrote:
> I'm more interested in what your opinion is. I googled "Google, what is
> your opinion on the second amendment?" and all it came back with was other
> people's opinions on the second amendments and a rash of claims that Google
> is censoring shopping results to remove guns from the lists, which I
> thought was interesting.
>
> Paul
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Art Deco <art.deco.studios at gmail.com>
> *To:* vision2020 at moscow.com
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 14, 2013 4:48 AM
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] Dorner and Gun Control
>
> Yours is only one interpretation of several different Second Amendment
> issues involved:
>
> Google: "Second Amendment" interpretation
>
> You will see others, and with a more refined search find how the U.S.
> Supreme Court's interpretation of the meaning of the Second Amendment has
> evolved to its present holding, which is likely to further evolve. Even
> more enlightening is how the interpretations of the Supreme Court's
> interpretations can differ radically.
>
> Here's another hint; one that Joe has made repeatedly: The phrase "shall
> not be infringed" is not interpreted as absolute as it sounds, like all
> other rights, conflict with other rights and constitutional language force
> changes and limitations.
>
> You can see this by Googling: Conflict Resolution "U.S. Constitution"
> or Googling some other similar phrase.
>
> Constitutional law, and the differing/evolving interpretations of the
> Constitution over time by the courts is a complex matter and not nearly and
> straight forward ir would appear to be. I recommend reading a primer on
> the subject as well as the above Googling to learn that saying "this is
> what the constitution means" is like saying "this is what
> Jesus/God/Mohammed/Allah/etc meant, though arguably not quite as convoluted.
>
> w.
>
> w.
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 9:39 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>wrote:
>
>
> The "well-regulated militia" part is an explanatory clause denoting one
> reason why the inherent right to keep and bear arms shouldn't be
> infringed. Doing so would take away from our ability to defend our country
> and ourselves.
>
> The idea of the Bill of Rights isn't to list the rights you do have, but
> to delineate exactly which rights the Federal government can limit and to
> what degree. For the second amendment, it's pretty much wide open. "The
> right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is pretty
> straight-forward. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the
> security of a free state" is a reason that has been provided as to why the
> right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed.
>
> Putting it in the Bill of Rights means that it is a right that the
> founding fathers thought was important enough to be clear about how it
> shouldn't be infringed.
>
> That's the way I see it, anyway. Do you read it another way?
>
> Paul
>
>
> On 02/13/2013 04:53 PM, Art Deco wrote:
>
> I said nothing of the sort. I was discussing the problems of
> interpretation.
>
> The crazies I referred to are the groups running around in the woods in
> Idaho and other places calling themselves militia believing they are what
> the Constitution referred to.
>
>
> w.
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 4:56 PM, Matt Decker <mattd2107 at hotmail.com>wrote:
>
> Art,
>
> So we shouldn't have any guns at all?
>
> "Crazies" like the 90% of gun owners who have postitive contributions to
> society? Like the numerous former military who like to have a few guns for
> fun.
>
> MD
>
> ------------------------------
> Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 16:08:11 -0500
> From: art.deco.studios at gmail.com
> To: vision2020 at moscow.com
>
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Dorner and Gun Control
>
> @Matt,
>
> The meaning of the Second Amendment is ambiguous. There are huge
> disagreements about what it means.
>
> Google: "Second Amendment" interpretation
>
> For example, the word militia is singular, not plural. This most likely
> means that the frames thought there be only one militia ostensibly under
> government control. Not a whole bunches of crazies running around on their
> own claiming to be sovereign bodies.
>
> w.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 3:48 PM, Matt Decker <mattd2107 at hotmail.com>wrote:
>
> Joe,
>
> I can agree that guns can be dangerous, less likely in the right hands.
> Mistakes happen though. In the LAPD instance, a very bad one. I'm sure
> those officers will be punished. We agree if guns can be dangerous, should
> we remove all of them? If no, then why? Pistols are used in the majority of
> all gun related deaths. If yes, why? Should we really open up the can of
> worms against our founding fathers principles. Neither, then why?
>
> We agree gun violence is bad. Over 11,000 gun related homicides occurred
> in 2012. In my opinion, the type of gun used matters little. All assualt
> type weapons(AR15, AK47, etc), dad's hunting rifles, and all types of
> shotguns accounted for 8% of the 11,000 murders in 2012. Yet our President
> keeps pushing for common sense approach. Common sense this and that. I
> don't believe his approach will solve the problem. Banning the guns that
> look mean will have little to do with our homicide rate. A common sense
> arguement would be looking at the preferred weopon. Pistols.
>
> How do we solve this? Hell I don't know, but I feel that our society as a
> whole is turning to a darker page. It starts at home. Parents must raise
> their children to respect others and be held accountable. Not to
> point fingers or sue because they can. As parents we should all monitor are
> children on what they watch, play, or listen too. My kids are not allowed
> to watch R rated movies. I also teach them to be self dependant, not too
> rely on others. I feel that too many rely on the government too
> heavily. Use them when you need, but not as a crutch. People these days are
> too sensitive or PC. Say it like it is, but respect others while doing
> it. It starts from home. Single. I don't care. No dad? So what. How many
> gay female couples are raising their children properly without a dad. We as
> parents must raise our children properly. That means with guns as well. I
> own numerous guns, and my children know the do's and dont's.
>
> As I've stated before, gun control is a complex issue. I don't have all
> the answers, but I do think some ideas could help.
>
> -Harder back ground checks for purchases of guns, have a shared data
> network that works
> -Harder back ground checks for the applications of concealed weapons permit
> -Legalize weed
> -educate our youth on gun safety
> -enforce current laws, punish those who break the law
> -mental health is huge
>
> The former Marine that recently shot and killed hero Navy Seal Chris Kyle
> was at the VA twice for implying he would shoot others and kill himself
> should have been a pretty f'n big red flag that something is off. How
> Whitney Houston had flags at half mass and Kyle didn't is another indicator
> that our society has it's morales all messed up, that's another topic
> though. Back on track. Mental health needs to be addressed. As Art stated,
> we don't currently have the money for it. We should strive to make sure
> those people get help or are closely monitored. We have the ability in the
> military, so let's make sure our returning hero's come home mentally sound.
> PTSD is a huge upcoming problem for us and we need to make sure our prior
> military get all the help they need.
>
> For me though Joe it starts at home.
>
> Take care,
>
> Matt
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 00:40:26 -0800
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Dorner and Gun Control
> From: philosopher.joe at gmail.com
> To: mattd2107 at hotmail.com
> CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
>
>
> Thanks for the comments -- Jeff (which I agree with totally) and Matt. As
> Jeff suggested, I'd have been better off leaving out the gun control
> issues, so I'll do that for now!
>
> My apologies to the LAPD. I didn't mean to demean them. My point was --
> rather -- even skilled, respected officers can make mistakes. Thus, guns
> are dangerous. It is really so hard to accept that guns are dangerous? Can
> we all just accept that and continue the debate from that point? Or do I
> have to argue that guns are dangerous?
>
> Certainly how folks are raised and mental health have something to do with
> gun violence, too. But how much control do we have over how people are
> raised? Do you want to pass laws to ensure that parents raise their
> children correctly? That seems wrong. Should we incarcerate the insane?
> Fine. Get the taxes to fund it. Democrats can't. Maybe we can put the
> insane in prison. We seem to be willing to pay for that. You've spotted the
> problems, perhaps, but what is the solution?
>
> Either you think gun violence is a problem or you don't. I think it is a
> problem. Then the matter is how to deal with it. You say the problem is bad
> parenting or insanity. Others say video games. But does that tell us how to
> deal with it? Can we keep the number and accessibility of guns the same,
> but get rid of video games, and then the problem will go away? Of course
> you don't think that. Nor did you suggest it. But what did you suggest? How
> do you think we should solve this social problem of gun violence? Or do you
> think it is not a problem?
>
> Thanks and hope you are well Matt -- and Jeff.
>
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 12:08 AM, Matt Decker <mattd2107 at hotmail.com>wrote:
>
> Granted it's late, but a couple of thoughts Joe.
>
> -LAPD? Really? I have a couple of good friends on the force down there. To
> imply that the majority of the boys in blue are nothing but humble and
> unselfish is downright degrading.
>
> -Any gun in the wrong hands creates mayhem. It doesn't matter what type.
>
> -what guns? Pistols? Or the AR 15s that killed about 300 last year. 11,000
> killed last year.
>
> -When will we look at society and how we are raised instead of blaiming
> everyone else. Raise your kids proper.
>
> -Mental health
>
> -Just imagine if a pissed off ex-cop can do this, what would a battalion
> of former Marines do when they get pissed? Lack of VA support and taking
> away the rights they fought for.
>
> -How is it that no one on this site ever talked about Chris Kyle? The guy
> is a hero and yet not one post? Whitney Houston gets half mass, but not
> Kyle?
>
> Granted Joe, not all these are addressed to you but just venting.
>
>
> That's it for now.
>
> MD
> ------------------------------
> Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 22:02:18 -0800
> From: philosopher.joe at gmail.com
> To: vision2020 at moscow.com
> Subject: [Vision2020] Dorner and Gun Control
>
>
> I'm watching the Dorner episode unfold and reading the V2020 posts, and it
> is pretty clear no one knows what is happening at this point. Is he dead?
> Not clear now, according to CNN.
>
> Keep in mind that this one man with a few guns worked skilled, trained
> police officers into a frenzy. How many innocent victims were shot? I don't
> remember.
>
> But what I do know is that skilled, trained police officers with guns are
> a menace -- under the right unfortunate circumstances. People blame the
> cops but what would you do? How would you react to a situation in which you
> were a target? I'm guessing, not very well. Me either.
>
> And you say guns are safe? If they are in the right hands? What hands are
> those? Not the LA police.
>
> Guns are always a risk. That's why gun control is worthy of consideration.
> Even skilled, trained police officers can be a menace if the circumstances
> are unforgiving.
>
> ======================================================= 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=======================================================
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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 <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/20130214/bf237250/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list