[Vision2020] And just something to think about......

Sun Dec 23 23:06:19 PST 2012

It could be obvious to folks on the viz that your reading comprehension skills are far superior to mine, but must you lord that over me?  JEESH!

CC: jampot at roadrunner.com; bear at moscow.com; vision2020 at moscow.com
From: thansen at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] And just something to think about......
Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2012 15:39:13 -0800
To: scooterd408 at hotmail.com

No, Mr. dredge.  I DID NOT liken the criminalization of the manufacture of semi-automatic weapons to banning abortion or prohibition.  I created an analogy of YOUR suggested compensation to gun manufacturers of semi-automatic weapons and compensating abortion physicians' loss of potential revenue.
It is an analogy concerning compensation that YOU BROUGHT UP!
FYI:  My proposal, that you feel you so craftily discredited, is the very same proposal that Senator Feinstein will submit, in the form of a bill, before the U.S. Senate in January.
JEESH!  You really are struggling with sixth-grade English comprehension, huh?

Seeya round town, Moscow, because . . .
"Moscow Cares"http://www.MoscowCares.com  Tom HansenMoscow, Idaho 
On Dec 23, 2012, at 3:20 PM, Scott Dredge <scooterd408 at hotmail.com> wrote:

Tom,

Since you're only one so far on v2020 who has suggested enacting laws that ban 'manufacture and/or possession of semi-automatic rifles and high capacity ammunition magazines' and further have now likened such bans to 1) the 'banning of abortion' (which has already been tried and failed) and, 2) the 'prohibition of alcohol' (a ban which was 100% constitutionally bullet proof and yet somehow no longer is in place), can you perhaps connect the dots with your own parallels to see the end game of your ban proposal?

Joe - should we now eliminate Tom' proposal along with the NRA's and move on to some other ideas?  Or should both of these still be kept on the table for further vetting?

-Scott

CC: jampot at roadrunner.com; bear at moscow.com; vision2020 at moscow.com
From: thansen at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] And just something to think about......
Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2012 14:47:59 -0800
To: scooterd408 at hotmail.com

What I am simply stating is that, if manufacture of semi-automatic weapons is criminalized, gun manufacturers of semi-automatic weapons should not be compensated for loss of potential revenue.  That is where the analogy begins and ends.
Should physicians who perform abortions be compensated for loss of potential revenue if Roe v. Wade is overturned?
Seeya round town, Moscow, because . . .
"Moscow Cares"http://www.MoscowCares.com  Tom HansenMoscow, Idaho 
On Dec 23, 2012, at 2:38 PM, Scott Dredge <scooterd408 at hotmail.com> wrote:

Tom - are you deadly serious about this or is your parallel to prohibition intended to be a gutbustingly funny joke.  If the latter, I'll echo Sunil's 'bravo'.

-Scott

CC: scooterd408 at hotmail.com; bear at moscow.com; vision2020 at moscow.com
From: thansen at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] And just something to think about......
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2012 20:06:12 -0800
To: jampot at roadrunner.com

1. Were you planning on compensating the owners of all of the legally purchased firearms, magazines and associated accessories?
No.
------------------------------- 2. What are your plans for all the companies that you plan on putting out of business? I can think of two dozen manufactures just off the top of my head, I'm sure there are more.Lets not forget sporting goods stores and ammunition makers. I assume that you will be compensating these owners/stockholders for their loss.
Those companies will simply have to increase manufacture of legal firearms.  No compensation.   (I feel fairly certain that taverns and alcohol producers were not compensated when prohibition became law).
The criminalization of high capacity ammunition magazines does NOT criminalize possession of ammunition.
------------------------------- 3. What will you criminalize, do away with, make illegal when the next tragedy occurs with a shotgun (like yours) or a 10 round or less handgun?
The criminalization, concerning weapons, is limited to manufacture and/or possession of semi-automatic rifles and high capacity ammunition magazines. 
------------------------------- 4. What do you propose be done with all the newly created felons who refuse to obey such a blatantly unconstitutional edict?
Charge them and prosecute them.
------------------------------- 5. Are you struck by the irony that every time someone like you seriously proposes measures such as these gun sales and NRA memberships climb precipitously?
No.
-------------------------------
Seeya round town, Moscow, because . . .
"Moscow Cares"http://www.MoscowCares.com  Tom HansenMoscow, Idaho 
On Dec 22, 2012, at 7:36 PM, "Gary Crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com> wrote:

1. Were you planning on compensating the owners of all 
of the legally purchased firearms, magazines and associated accessories? Where 
will that money come from?

2. What are your plans for all the companies that you 
plan on putting out of business? I can think of two dozen manufactures just off 
the top of my head, I'm sure there are more.
Lets not forget sporting goods stores and ammunition 
makers. I assume that you will be compensating these owners/stockholders for 
their loss.

3. What will you criminalize, do away with, make illegal 
when the next tragedy occurs with a shotgun (like yours) or a 10 round or less 
handgun? 

4. What do you propose be done with all 
the newly created felons who refuse to obey such a blatantly unconstitutional 
edict?

5. Are you struck by the irony that every time 
someone like you seriously proposes measures such as these gun sales and 
NRA memberships climb precipitously? 		 	   		  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20121224/4c5a9876/attachment-0001.html>