[Vision2020] Gun Talk
Sunil Ramalingam
sunilramalingam at hotmail.com
Sat Feb 2 17:29:39 PST 2013
Paul,
Should you be allowed to go to the store and buy a fully-automatic weapon, say an M-16, with the same paperwork you would need to buy a bolt-action .22?
Does the law that prevents you from doing so violate the Constitution?
Sunil
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2013 17:22:59 -0800
From: godshatter at yahoo.com
To: philosopher.joe at gmail.com
CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Gun Talk
Oh, I'm listening. I just think you're trying to wish away what
the Constitution says. What good is a Right if you can curtail it
however you want? MY Right to bear arms should not be infringed
because some other a-hole with an AR15 and a couple of screws
loose caused a tragedy. If he had survived, and was convicted in
a court of law, then his freedom would have been taken away, if
not his life. I still have that right to arm myself that was very
clearly laid out in the text of the Bill of Rights.
I'm not saying that my right to bear arms should override your
right to walk around in public without getting shot by me. I am
saying that your dislike of guns and/or wish that no one had them
does not override my right to bear arms. This seems very clear to
me. We're talking about where rights collide. But for rights to
collide, you have to have them in the first place. The First
Amendment analogy would be to take away your right to post freely
on the Internet because some a-hole on a forum somewhere libeled
me.
Paul
On 02/02/2013 04:28 PM, Joe Campbell wrote:
I've told you this before but you don't seem to be
listening: any right can be violated for the right reason; there
is NO right to do X regardless; all rights have limitations given
their nature. You can't allow people the right to violate the
rights of others, for instance. Thus, when rights bump up against
each other, one of them has to give.
And it says "the right of the people ... shall not be violated"
not "folks can own whatever kind of gun they wish, and for
whatever reason or purpose." Curtailing my speech by prohibiting
me from slanderous public comments is not a violation of my rights
since I never had the right to harm your interests in the first
place. I can speak freely ... up to a point. Essentially a right
is something you can do so long as it doesn't bump up against the
rights and interests of others. Because NO ONE has a right to do
wrong.
This point seems very clear. I've made it over and over. If you
could spot the flaw in the argument, I'd be interested to know
what it is. But you won't even talk about. You just keep making
the same false claim about gun rights, over and over again.
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Paul
Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>
wrote:
My idea doesn't match the current narrative going around,
eh?
The Bill of Rights, of which the 2nd Amendment is one,
doesn't give us any rights. They are already ours. All
it does is limit what the government can do with regards
to those rights. For example, for the 1st Amendment, it's
"Congress shall make no law...". For the 4th Amendment
it's "The right of the people ... shall not be violated".
In the case of the 2nd Amendment, that limit is "the right
of the people ... shall not infringed". The well
regulated militia part is explanatory, a reason why the
"shall not infringe" part was put there.
I'm having a hard time reconciling the word "ban" with the
words "the right of the people ... shall not be
infringed". They appear to be diametrically opposed to
each other, to me. But then I guess I don't drink the
Kool-aid.
Paul
On 02/02/2013 01:54 PM, Joe Campbell wrote:
You have a faulty understanding of the notion of
a constitutional right.
On Feb 2, 2013, at 1:38 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>
wrote:
On 02/02/2013 01:09 PM, Joe Campbell wrote:
1/ ban those guns too maybe
If only there was some Constitutional backing for
that. If that still matters, anymore.
2/ and the drones.
I wouldn't "ban" them, necessarily. Better to use
drones that put boots on the ground. I'd simply
suggest that we stop using them as our President's
personal kill toy.
Someday I'd like to hear this story from the
perspective of one of the remote controllers of
the drones. How exactly does an average drone
assassination go down?
Paul
On Feb 2, 2013, at 10:55 AM, Paul Rumelhart
<godshatter at yahoo.com>
wrote:
You know, I could get behind these
attempts to portray people who are against
the assault weapons ban as sociopaths or
schizophrenics, if it weren't for the
following things:
1. If the proponents of these bans
weren't so disingenuous with their
wording. "Assault weapon" is a
look-and-feel definition, not a
usage-based one. A Ruger Mini 14 is just
as deadly in a spree shooting as an AR15,
but it's not considered an "assault
weapon" because it doesn't look enough
like a movie prop. I've both made this
kind of comment on this list before and
have seen it made here many times. I
haven't seen anyone answer it. What is
the use of banning a weapon based on how
military it looks? Why ban guns with
barrel shrouds? All they do is keep you
from burning yourself on the barrel. Or
bayonet mounts? Are we really worried
about the latest rash of gun stabbings?
My conclusion: it's only useful
politically.
2. If they weren't so intent to ride the
"think of the children" wave. If the
deaths of school children should be
driving our behaviors, then how about we
overhaul the drone program? Lots of
children are dying every day via drones,
all OK'd by our sitting President. I
posted an article about that a few days
ago, I think. So why is the outrage over
Newtown driving the assault weapons ban
but there is no outrage over
drone-killings? The only differences I
can see are that the Newtown angle has
been in the news non-stop while there is
very little reporting on personally
sanctioned assassinations by our President
and that the children killed by drones are
brown and not white. "Foreign" and not
"domestic", if that makes you sleep
better. Also, every new gun-related
incident gets center stage attention, as
if these kinds of tragedies haven't been
happening all the time. Suddenly, a
switch is thrown and we're all outraged
about them.
Now, I can get behind better background
checks. I'd like to see more focus on how
we can keep guns out of the hands of the
mentally ill as well, as long as we're
careful about people's rights so a random
Joe can't be suddenly labeled "mentally
ill" because he or she owns an AR15 or for
some other trumped up reason. Better
databases covering gun sales would also
make sense, though I can understand the
concerns that if they know about your guns
they can also come take them away. More
training on gun handling and safety would
also not go amiss.
But this push to ban "assault weapons" is
blatant political theater. The magazine
size restrictions are idiotic, as well.
It takes a second to swap a magazine if
you've practiced it a few times. Pick up
the magazine, release the current one and
let it drop, shove the new one home.
tl;dr version: gun control is currently
all about political expediency when it
should be all about actual effectiveness.
Paul
On 02/02/2013 09:26 AM, Moscow Cares
wrote:
<mime-attachment.jpg>
Seeya round town, Moscow, because .
. .
"Moscow Cares"
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 Feb 2, 2013, at 9:05 AM, Art Deco
<art.deco.studios at gmail.com>
wrote:
Understanding why we
need assault rifles:
<Tom Tomorrow Glib Guns
TMW2013-01-30colorKOS.png>
--
Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
art.deco.studios at gmail.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/20130202/b791732a/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list