[Vision2020] The Petition
Wayne Price
bear at moscow.com
Thu Dec 20 12:14:56 PST 2012
Paul,
I agree with you. Specifically the "kind" of firearms they were
talking about we those that duplicated those carried by the "military"
of the era, so IF there would have been
a weapon capable of being a revolutionary war equivalent of an
M-16/15, they would have been in favor of a free citizenry carrying
them, owning them etc etc.
And do we really want to hold these "founding fathers" up to close
scrutiny? Remember, the firearms and powder that the farmers in
Lexington and Concord were "protecting" belonged to
THE BRITISH ARMY and were stored in the local magazine, the equivalent
of a modern day armory! So, holding these folks up as an example, the
citizens have a right to go and seize them?
I'd love to see how that one plays out in court!
And as far as just what the 2nd Amendment means today, the 2008 HELLER
decision covers it: "The Second Amendment protects an individual right
to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use
that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense
within the home."
Wayne
On Dec 20, 2012, at 11:39 AM, Paul Rumelhart wrote:
> I'm pretty sure that they would have used them themselves if the
> tech had been developed at that time. They might have come in handy
> while they were fighting for our independence as a nation.
>
> Paul
>
>
> From: Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com>
> To: Andy Boyd <moscowrecycling at turbonet.com>
> Cc: vision 2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 11:02 AM
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] The Petition
>
> Also . . .
>
> Did our founding fathers foresee semi-automatic assault rifles and
> high-capacity ammunition magazines?
>
> Seeya round town, Moscow, because . . .
>
> "Moscow Cares"
> http://www.MoscowCares.com
>
> Tom Hansen
> Moscow, Idaho
>
>
> On Dec 20, 2012, at 10:54 AM, "Andy Boyd" <moscowrecycling at turbonet.com
> > wrote:
>
>> It’s funny, my understanding of the constitution’s second amendment
>> is that ownership of arms was for a well-trained militia. At the
>> time of our forefathers, they had no plan to have a standing army
>> so making sure that citizens had arms and were trained was vital to
>> our nation’s defense. As you know this is no longer the case. You
>> can argue the intent of the founding fathers but what we have now
>> is not what was ever intended, in my humble opinion.
>>
>> As far as the NRA is concerned, for its first 120 years of
>> existence or so, they favored gun control legislation. After the
>> 1970’s takeover of the organization by more ‘radical ‘ members, no
>> gun control whatsoever became the motto. It would be better if
>> more level heads prevailed there.
>>
>> Andy Boyd
>>
>> From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com
>> ] On Behalf Of Paul Rumelhart
>> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 9:21 AM
>> To: Sunil Ramalingam
>> Cc: vision 2020
>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] The Petition
>>
>> There are underlying problems that cause these shootings that are
>> being shunted aside in favor of gun control legislation. Why,
>> exactly, did this guy do what he did? If we knew that, we might be
>> able to answer the question of whether or not he would have done it
>> in the absence of freely-available guns, as well as to start
>> looking for solutions that would stop these kinds of events before
>> they start. I doubt it was simply the availability of guns. I
>> doubt his motivation was that he was bored, here was a nifty AR15,
>> "might as well make use of it".
>>
>> For example, the Columbine shootings appear to have been motivated,
>> at least in part, by bullying from other students. Yet the focus
>> on the national stage was never "stop bullying!", it was "ban
>> guns!". I'm doubtful that if they didn't have access to guns that
>> they wouldn't have done something.
>>
>> Guns are real, physical objects for which we already have laws
>> covering their use. Many of these laws could be tightened to some
>> degree, which makes them an easy scapegoat. Focusing solely on
>> them, however, will do little to solve the actual problems at
>> hand. The real problem is that the best solutions are *hard*. For
>> example, you mention controlling access to "folks that shouldn't
>> have them". How, exactly, do you determine who should and who
>> shouldn't have access to them, given that the right to have access
>> to them is spelled out in the Constitution?
>>
>> Paul
>>
>>
>> From: Sunil Ramalingam <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com>
>> To:
>> Cc: vision 2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 6:55 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] The Petition
>>
>>
>> Paul,
>>
>> Just like Roger you are building your argument on a defective
>> premise or on assumptions. You don't know how much planning 'they'
>> put in. You say, 'If the people that commit these atrocities
>> didn't have guns readily available, they would have stolen them or
>> bought them on the black market.'
>>
>> How do you know? How do you know it would happen every time? Let's
>> pretend one could not legally buy an AR15 variant (or any other
>> high capacity semi-automatic). Would this kid's mother have gone
>> out and bought one illegally? You don't know that. And in this
>> world I just made, these guns are going to be a whole lot more
>> expensive on the black market. How many of 'them' are going to be
>> priced out of that market?
>>
>> How do you know they're going to make car bombs? It's a lot easier
>> to pick up the gun in the other room, or to take it our of the
>> safe, than it is to build a car bomb.
>>
>> Why should we accept your assumption, 'If these guys had really
>> wanted to make their statements or whatever they thought they were
>> doing, they could have made pipe bombs or a few molotov cocktails
>> from common household chemicals. They could have ran their victims
>> over with a vehicle. They could have terrorised them with a
>> chainsaw, or set the school on fire.'
>>
>> Well, maybe some of those things might happen, but I think it's
>> more unlikely than not.
>>
>> I'm not advocating banning gun ownership, but I think we need to be
>> thinking intelligently about how to control access to them by the
>> folks who shouldn't have them. I don't think we can absolutely
>> prevent all such access, but we can certainly improve on what we're
>> doing now. And I think part of thinking about it intelligently is
>> by not accepting bad premises for arguments.
>>
>> Sunil
>> Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 23:04:42 -0800
>> From: godshatter at yahoo.com
>> To: philosopher.joe at gmail.com
>> CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] The Petition
>>
>> These shootings don't just happen spur of the moment. They are
>> planned and prepared for for a long time beforehand. If the
>> people that commit these atrocities didn't have guns readily
>> available, they would have stolen them or bought them on the black
>> market. If these guys had really wanted to make their statements
>> or whatever they thought they were doing, they could have made pipe
>> bombs or a few molotov cocktails from common household chemicals.
>> They could have ran their victims over with a vehicle. They could
>> have terrorised them with a chainsaw, or set the school on fire.
>>
>> The sad fact is that the price we would have to pay to truly
>> protect ourselves from these kinds of incidents is just too damned
>> big. We would have to give up too many of our liberties for too
>> little gain. Meanwhile, orders of magnitudes more people will die
>> from cancer, heart attacks, traffic accidents, and other common
>> causes.
>>
>> The same thing goes for protecting ourselves from terrorists. It's
>> too costly, both in money and in civil liberties, and all we've
>> done is made it worse.
>>
>> I don't know what the answer is. I just have an ugly feeling that
>> whatever gestates from this current climate of fear and outrage
>> will be worse than the current situation. The Law of Unintended
>> Consequences is real and should be given due respect. We shouldn't
>> just jump at the nearest boogie man, whether it's assault weapons
>> or large magazines, without giving it the careful thought it
>> requires. I doubt we are in a position to have that conversation
>> on a national stage right now.
>>
>> In both cases (school shootings and terrorist attacks) the root
>> causes are complex and are for the most part being ignored.
>> Another sad fact is that in this world of sound bites and instant
>> Internet memes no politician is going to look at the real causes.
>> They will look for the low-hanging fruit, and pretend it's more
>> than just putting a bandaid on a gaping wound.
>>
>> Paul
>>
>> On 12/18/2012 09:20 PM, Joe Campbell wrote:
>> Matt,
>>
>> This sounds sensible. Again, I don't have a "plan" about what to
>> do. More interested in exploring solutions -- and this does just
>> that. I like the idea of stronger background checks.
>>
>> Note too that if you think of the latest episodes of gun violence
>> -- the ones we've all heard about at least -- gun theft did not
>> play a role. Most of the shooters were young, as well. In general,
>> the school shooters were young and required their guns from family
>> members, or purchased them themselves. These are not folks who are
>> stealing guns.
>>
>> Joe
>> On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 9:06 PM, Matt Decker
>> <mattd2107 at hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Joe,
>>
>> I believe some want to ban these guns but allow current owners to
>> be grandfathered in. This could allow these guns to be on the
>> streets for years to come. I agree with stronger regulation into
>> the future owners of guns. Maybe a longer waiting period along with
>> stronger background checks. Classes or prior military would help as
>> well.
>>
>> Matt
>>
>> From: philosopher.joe at gmail.com
>> Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 20:06:10 -0800
>> To: donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com
>> CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] The Petition
>> This makes no sense. Just to use an example, if you banned assault
>> rifles, no one could steal them. I'm not saying that's what we
>> should do. But we should look at ALL possible solutions. Again,
>> research Australia and gun control. Best, Joe
>>
>> On Dec 18, 2012, at 7:58 PM, Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com
>> > wrote:
>> They steal the guns. So I don't think the laws would change the
>> situation, unless you ban their production.
>>
>> Donovan J. Arnold
>>
>> From: Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
>> To: Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>
>> Cc: Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com>; Moscow Vision 2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com
>> >
>> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 7:49 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] The Petition
>>
>> Some form of gun control has got to be part of the solution. And I
>> believe all the guns used in recent shootings were legally
>> purchased. That's why some form of gun control has got to be part
>> of the solution. Australia did it, so can we
>>
>> On Dec 18, 2012, at 7:11 PM, Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com
>> > wrote:
>> Gun laws are not the answer to this problem. Not allowing for the
>> public release of the gunman's name would go further then gun laws,
>> as they usually do it for fame. Education of staff, students, and
>> community members, and better protection of schools would also
>> help. This kid did not get the guns legally, and no reasonable
>> restrictive gun law would have prevented it. There are a host of
>> other things that would have helped though.
>>
>> Donovan J. Arnold
>>
>> From: Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com>
>> To: Moscow Vision 2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 6:54 PM
>> Subject: [Vision2020] The Petition
>>
>> <image.jpeg>
>>
>>
>> Seeya round town, Moscow, because . . .
>>
>> "Moscow Cares"
>> http://www.MoscowCares.com
>>
>> Tom Hansen
>> Moscow, Idaho
>>
>> =======================================================
>> 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
>> =======================================================
>>
>>
>>
>> =======================================================
>> 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
>> =======================================================
>> =======================================================
>> 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/20121220/5fb9cb4a/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list