[Vision2020] FW: Gun regulations

[Robert Dickow]

Yeah, I am in full agreement with the position that guns are a legitimate means of self defense. I think the issue I'm referring to is the legitimacy of society in placing certain limitations on rights because of other considerations. This process is long-standing one and is evidently well-accepted by us all anyway. Our rights are often limited in one way or another, and may need debated adjustments over time because of new developments.

For extra credit: The constitutions doesn't say much about what kinds of arms I can keep, but such restrictions already exist. I don't know what the current restriction on this might be, but I'll bet nobody would object to a possible limitation on my right to keep a US M-198 Howitzer in my garage. And for those who feel that it just might be ok to keep a Howitzer, let me up that to a B-72 Superfortress (I own a very big garage). And, if that is still ok for some people, consider my constitutional right to keep a 20 kiloton Uranium Gun 'Little Boy' class home-made nuclear device in my garage. Just in case of foreign invasion mind you. (Reductio ad absurdum. I'm pretty sure we can't in fact legally keep those things lying around the house. Somebody could get killed!)

Bob Dickow, troublemaker

-----Original Message-----
From: lfalen [mailto:lfalen at turbonet.com] 
Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 11:33 AM
To: dickow at turbonet.com; 'viz'
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Gun regulations

Bob
Guns also have the ability to keep me from being killed by a criminal.
Roger
-----Original message-----
From: "Robert Dickow" dickow at turbonet.com
Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2010 07:37:35 -0700
To: "'viz'" vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Gun regulations

> Scott, I'm not sure the analogy holds though. In the case of guns, I might
> more rightfully restrict someone else's rights because the guns owned by
> them have the potential to kill  ME. However, in the case of abortion, I
> don't have quite the same bargaining position, because it is difficult for
> someone to abort ME now that I am born. (Indeed, I've been an adult for eons
> it seems.)
> 
>  
> 
> Bob Dickow, troublemaker
> 
> ---------------------------------------
> 
> <Conservatives are all for constitutionality of laws . . .until they aren't
> for constitutionality for laws...?> True enough, but so are the Democrats.
> All you need to look at are those trying to restrict 2nd Amendment
> constitutional rights of gun ownership on the grounds that guns can be used
> as tools to kill people and compare them to those trying to restrict 14
> Amendment constitutional rights of abortion on grounds that it kills people.
> It's the identical mode of operation where folks feign to give up rights
> that they never plan to exercise in order to take away those same rights
> from others.
> 
> -Scott
> 
>   _____  
> 
> From: reggieholmquist at u.boisestate.edu
> Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 23:21:55 -0700
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Gun regulations
> 
> Conservatives are all for constitutionality of laws . . .until they aren't
> for constitutionality for laws...?
> 
> -Reggie
> 
> On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 11:01 PM, Robert Dickow <dickow at uidaho.edu> wrote:
> 
> >Shirley Ringo writes:
> 
> >"Gun safety is very important to me.  In the most recent session, 
> >the majority passed legislation stipulating that firearms manufactured 
> >exclusively in Idaho would be exempt from federal regulations.  I think
> that
> > is dangerous and irresponsible.  Our Attorney General said it was likely
> > unconstitutional.  My vote was one of the few against that legislation."
> 
> Bravo Shirley!
> 
> So, does this mean that when I rush out to buy that lusted-after
> Idaho-manufactured Uzi clone (just.. you know. for some fun shooting
> squirrels around the house), that it might misfire in my face due to a lack
> of its compliance with federal regs??!!
> 
> Bob Dickow, troublemaker
> 
>   
> 
> 
>