[Vision2020] SHAME ON U.S. ! ! !

Fri Mar 22 10:06:21 PDT 2013

As I learn more, my viewpoint changes to accommodate the new information.  Something that others on this list might want to try out someday.  By "injure the user", do you mean lighting off a weapon that will have an immediate "incinerate to atomic particles" radius of several miles?  That's what I was talking about when I said that nuclear weapons should not be considered "arms" because you can't light one off without killing yourself and everything in the immediate vicinity, not to mention irradiating the area for hundreds of miles in every direction.

After reading more about the second amendment, I've come to the conclusion that the term "arms" was meant to cover what one citizen can use to defend themselves and their coutrymen in the advent of an insurrection or invasion, as a minimum.  Also, your average person should not need to demonstrate a need for a weapon, they have the inalienable right to keep and bear arms.  The government is in the position where they need a really good reason to infringe upon that right, because it's stated pretty clear that they don't have that mandate.

An "assault weapon", as defined by the recent assault weapons ban attempt, is not much different from your typical semi-auto hunting rifle.  AR-15s, for example, are used all the time as varmint guns, if you feel the owner of one somehow has to justify its purchase.

I don't get this split between what a police officer is allowed to carry and what you and I are allowed to carry.  If the police need that level of firepower to protect themselves or to control a situation, why wouldn't I, should I ever have the misfortune of ending up in a bad situation like that?

Paul

________________________________
 From: Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>
To: Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>; Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com> 
Cc: Moscow Vision 2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com>; Jeanne McHale <jeannemchale at hotmail.com>; Fritz Knorr <fritzknorr at gmail.com> 
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 9:18 AM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] SHAME ON U.S. ! ! !

Paul,

You even seem to have a changing definition of what "arms" means, and are criticizing others for not matching your own definition. There is no weapon that cannot also injure the user, be it a knife, gun, bomb, or missile. It is the nature of the weapon, and the user. Guns misfire, operators make errors.

My belief is that people should be allowed to defend themselves from reasonable threats or expected threats. I think if a person can demonstrate a need for a weapon and competence with it, they should get it. If they can't demonstrate a need for a weapon, or competence with it they should not. Most mature law abiding people can easily demonstrate a need for a rifle (hunting) or handgun (protection of self and property from intruders). I don't think most people can demonstrate a need and competence with an assault weapon, grenade, flamethrower, RP-Gs, or nuclear arms. 

The problem with allowing anyone to have a weapon that police have is that they may not have the competency to use it as proficiently as  highly selected and trained SWAT Teams, and may injure themselves and others attempting to fulfill that self-appointed role. It also always places the police officers trying to protect the public in a less armed and disadvantaged position then the those trying to harm them and the public if your guarantee them the minimum of what the police are allowed to carry.

Donovan J. Arnold

From: Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>
To: Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>; Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com> 
Cc: Moscow Vision 2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com>; Jeanne McHale <jeannemchale at hotmail.com>; Fritz Knorr <fritzknorr at gmail.com> 
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 1:30 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] SHAME ON U.S. ! ! !

I don't know what the definition of "arms" is in detail, but I imagine that weapons that you can't fire directly without killing yourself in the process can be ruled out.

The problem with the assault weapons ban was that the more a weapon looked like a weapon a militia might be able to realistically use, the more they wanted it banned.

Paul

From: Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>
To: Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>; Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com> 
Cc: Moscow Vision 2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com>; Jeanne McHale <jeannemchale at hotmail.com>; Fritz Knorr <fritzknorr at gmail.com> 
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 9:36 AM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] SHAME ON U.S. ! ! !

Paul,

Nuclear arms would be classified as "arms" ( I mean, its even in the name), upon which our rights to keep and bear them shall not be infringed, right?  This is your logic? 

Donovan J. Arnold

From: Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>
To: Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com> 
Cc: Moscow Vision 2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com>; Jeanne McHale <jeannemchale at hotmail.com>; Fritz Knorr <fritzknorr at gmail.com> 
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2013 2:06 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] SHAME ON U.S. ! ! !

Assault weapons would be classified as "arms", upon which our rights to keep and bear them shall not be infringed.  

Paul

From: Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com>
To: Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> 
Cc: Moscow Vision 2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com>; Jeanne McHale <jeannemchale at hotmail.com>; Fritz Knorr <fritzknorr at gmail.com> 
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2013 1:57 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] SHAME ON U.S. ! ! !

Where, in the US Constitution, does it give the right for citizens to possess assault weapons?

There are 2,000+ other arms available for a well organized militia to bear.

Seeya round town, Moscow, because . . .

"Moscow Cares" (the most fun you can have with your pants on)
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 Mar 20, 2013, at 1:22 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:

That's not an emotionally-derived argument at all.
>
>It's that damn Constitution again.  It keeps getting in the way.
>
>Paul
>
>
>
>
>
>From: Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com>
>To: Moscow Vision 2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com> 
>Cc: Jeanne McHale <jeannemchale at hotmail.com>; Fritz Knorr <fritzknorr at gmail.com> 
>Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2013 11:29 AM
>Subject: [Vision2020] SHAME ON U.S. ! ! !
>
>
><31890_10151353150886275_1690173681_n.jpg>
>
>
>Seeya round town, Moscow, because . . .
>
>
>"Moscow Cares" (the most fun you can have with your pants on)
>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
> 
> 
>=======================================================
>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
>=======================================================

=======================================================
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/20130322/17166320/attachment-0001.html>