[Vision2020] Gun Talk
Joe Campbell
philosopher.joe at gmail.com
Sun Feb 3 08:27:04 PST 2013
I'm "trying to wish away what the Constitution says"? Isn't this just
another way of saying that you think the Constitution says something
different? Why would I wish the Constitution said something different than
it says? I'm very happy with what it DOES say. And I've given a pretty good
argument for my interpretation of it. I haven't heard any argument from
your side, for your radical interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.
And for Christ's sake PLEASE stop attributing to me the view that I want to
ban guns. I have not said I wanted to ban anything, not even
semiautomatics. In fact, I've ONLY been talking about the Constitutional
interpretation issue and the ONLY point I've consistently made on this
topic is that the 2nd Amendment DOES NOT allow you the right to buy
whatever gun you wish; rights can't possibly have this kind of universal
extension since no one has the right to do wrong.
ALL that means is that we CAN and should TALK about banning
semi-automatics, or pretty much ANY gun, as I see it. But we are going to
have to muster up some pretty good reasons in support of such a ban. Gun
rights suggest that unless a VERY good reason can be given, we should not
ban guns, or types of guns. But it allows for the banning of types of guns
provided adequate reasons are given. I've never said anything about banning
this gun or that, though admittedly I don't much care whether or not
semiautomatics are banned. I don't see any use for those guns by private
citizens. That doesn't mean I want to ban them.
I don't have a dislike of guns -- in fact, I actually LIKE guns very much
(though this is recent) -- and the fact that you keep trying to fit every
liberal into the same hole makes it very difficult to talk with you about
this issue.
Getting back to my point and your misunderstanding of it, saying that ALL
rights CAN be curtailed is not the same as saying that "you can curtail it
however you want." Speech can be curtailed. You cannot curtail speech
however you want. In this way, it is different from (say) smoking crack. We
can curtail ALL instances of smoking crack but not all instances of speech.
There is no right to smoke crack. That is what having a right does: it
gives you a kind of presumptive entitlement; it doesn't give you universal
entitlement. That is absurd. If we have no universal entitlement to speech,
then we have no universal entitlement to anything. And I've already made
the point about speech.
You might wonder: How does your owning a gun interfere with my rights?
Well, it COULD do so in many ways. Consider that a great many guns are
stolen each year; a great many of those are used in crimes. You could be as
careful as you wish but no matter how careful you are, some gun that you
buy COULD be used to kill ME. So in theory at least we already have a
situation where one set of rights (your right to own a gun) is being
weighed against another set of rights (my right to life). The situation is
absurd since the likelihood some gun that you own being used to kill me is
small. But all that means is as the likelihood of threat to life (or harm
to interests) rises, the more a consideration of these kinds of issues
matter when determining whether or not your right can be curtailed.
But this is NOT an argument for banning guns! This is an argument that even
though we have gun rights, we can ban guns just the same. In other words,
the NRA interpretation -- your interpretation -- is a bad one, an absurd
interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.
But I take all rights seriously. We'd have to have a damn good reason to
ever ban any gun.
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> 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 <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 <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 <Vision2020 at moscow.com>
>> =======================================================
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20130203/5d9939d1/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list