[Vision2020] Gun Talk
Sunil Ramalingam
sunilramalingam at hotmail.com
Sat Feb 2 21:36:50 PST 2013
Wayne,
So are you saying the second amendment right is limitless? So should either of us be allowed to buy an automatic weapon?
Should a felony bar possession of firearms?
Sunil
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Gun Talk
From: bear at moscow.com
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2013 20:07:23 -0800
CC: sunilramalingam at hotmail.com; vision2020 at moscow.com
To: godshatter at yahoo.com
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
If the nay sayers argue the language in the 2nd Amendment refers to only weapons being a right based on "A well regulated militia" , I'd argue that the 9th Amendment prevents Congress or any other governmental branch from banning privately owned weapons or parts there of, as that would be a right retained by the people.
I can find no where in the Constitution where Congress, or any other branch of the government has the right, granted to it by the people, to ban privately owned weapons or parts of weapons. This is just the type of government action that the 9th Amendment bans.
WP
On Feb 2, 2013, at 6:57 PM, Paul Rumelhart wrote:
Taking more of my information down in order to purchase a
different class of weapon makes sense to me. That's how it works
now. It doesn't infringe upon my right to bear arms. I'm OK with
paying $200 to license each fully-automatic weapon, provide photos
of myself, give fingerprints, etc. I don't know if you have to
now, but I'd be OK with mandatory training and some proof that I
have secured some means of securing the weapon when it's not in
use. And, of course, the assumed background checks.
I'm not so happy with the automatic weapons ban on weapons made
later than 1986, though. It makes trying to buy a fully-automatic
weapon a pointless exercise unless you have a few tens of
thousands lying around to buy a quality pre-1986 weapon and are
prepared to buy hard-to-find parts to service it with.
Paul
On 02/02/2013 05:29 PM, Sunil Ramalingam wrote:
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
:
=======================================================
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/c523c89c/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list