[Vision2020] The N.R.A. at the Bench

[Joe Campbell]

Speech is constitutionally guaranteed. But not in EVERY instance. There are
restrictions on speech when speech leads to harm (libel, for instance).
What "gun rights" advocates are asking for is not for the same freedoms
with have with other constitutionally guaranteed rights, but for privileges
that apply to no other right that I know of. Why should we be able to
restrict speech yet not the sale of firearms? I don't get it.

Again, I'm not sure banning firearms -- and to repeat, we're talking about
semiautomatics -- is the right answer. But whether we should or not should
be part of the discussion.

On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Gary Crabtree <moscowlocksmith at gmail.com>wrote:

> I think that your rhetoric is a tad overblown.
>
> Not that I'm a huge fan of the patriot act but, how exactly does it
> "infringe on your rights every day?"
>
> In what way does the infringement equal having legally purchased and held
> property confiscated and a constitutionally guaranteed right revoked?
>
> g
>
> On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Andy Boyd <moscowrecycling at turbonet.com>wrote:
>
>> Ok, last post on this for me too.****
>>
>> The only thing I would like to add is that our rights are infringed upon
>> every day, for example the patriot act, that is an abomination.****
>>
>> Limiting firearm ownership to guns and rifles seems a plenty.****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Andy Boyd****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> *From:* Gary Crabtree [mailto:moscowlocksmith at gmail.com]
>> *Sent:* Friday, December 28, 2012 1:58 PM
>>
>> *To:* Andy Boyd
>> *Cc:* Art Deco; vision2020 at moscow.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] The N.R.A. at the Bench****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> I really don't know why I persist in this discussion. It's not as though
>> these types of rifle are going to be wished out of existence by the earnest
>> ideologue who believes in his heart of hearts that it would make any real
>> difference but, here goes.****
>>
>> Need. Do people need ANY firearm? Probably not. After all it's not
>> mandatory that we hunt or protect ourselves or our loved ones much less
>> shoot for recreation. Of course we don't need automobiles either. Taking
>> public transportation would be  adequate to get to and fro. We don't need
>> steak and wine and lobster etc. a nice gruel enhanced with all the vitamins
>> and minerals we require would be sufficient to meet our nutritional needs.
>> We most assuredly don't need all the variety in clothing available, a one
>> piece coverall in what ever color was cheapest to produce would really be
>> enough protect from the elements (this assumes that you really need to be
>> protected from the elements) And then there is housing. All the different
>> houses, apartments and condominiums are a waste. Government provided
>> tenements or barracks would give everyone a place to sleep and store their
>> totally unnecessary belongings.****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> The better question would really have to be who decides what other people
>> need. Do you want me to decide for you what you should and shouldn't have?
>> I think we know the answer to that one.****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> g****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> g****
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Andy Boyd <moscowrecycling at turbonet.com>
>> wrote:****
>>
>> Ok, research does show a decrease in violent crimes using AW starting
>> with the gun ban and continuing after it was lifted.****
>>
>> That being said I would still like to know why someone would need this
>> type of weapon.****
>>
>> Of all ‘developed’ nations we have more violent gun crime then all other
>> developed nations combined so how do you suggest limiting these types of
>> crimes?  Will arming teachers help? More guns equals less crime?****
>>
>> Andy Boyd****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> *From:* Gary Crabtree [mailto:moscowlocksmith at gmail.com]
>> *Sent:* Friday, December 28, 2012 11:31 AM
>> *To:* Andy Boyd
>> *Cc:* Art Deco; vision2020 at moscow.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] The N.R.A. at the Bench****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> "Since the assault weapons ban has been lifted, there have been more
>> violent crimes."****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> I can't speak to "violent crimes" over all as I don't know how it's
>> defined but gun violence is down. The assault weapons ban had zero effect
>> on gun crime.****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> "I don’t wish to take away all guns. And I don’t imagine the benefits,
>> they are real."****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> Since you are willing to take away many thousands of guns to solve a
>> problem that reflects less than two percent of gun violence, how many guns
>> would you be willing to ban to prevent over sixty two percent? Suicide by
>> firearm only requires but a single shot. Why would any sane American
>> believe that once one class of firearm was made illegal that others
>> wouldn't soon follow? People such as yourself will always have a
>> rationalization for taking away the rights of others****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> g****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> g****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 8:58 AM, Andy Boyd <moscowrecycling at turbonet.com>
>> wrote:****
>>
>> Since the assault weapons ban has been lifted, there have been more
>> violent crimes.****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>
>
> =======================================================
>  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/20121228/e2f740c9/attachment.html>