[Vision2020] Gun Talk

Joe Campbell philosopher.joe at gmail.com
Sun Feb 3 08:47:51 PST 2013 

Actually I agree with you to an extent. There are two issues:

1/ CAN we ban (say) semiautomatics?

2/ SHOULD we ban (say) semiautomatics?

I have argued "Yes" to (1). But I agree with you that if our ONLY reason to
ban (say) semiautomatics is because it is an "ineffective balm for the
few," then of course the answer to (2) would be "No." We would need a MUCH
better reason to ban semiautomatics. So this much we are in agreement.

You seem to think that the answer to (1) is "No," that having gun rights
makes any form of gun control unconstitutional. That is the NRA view. That
view strikes me as crazy for reasons I've stated. Why think it is correct?

On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 6:51 AM, Gary Crabtree <jampot at roadrunner.com> wrote:

> **
> I don't recall frivolity or the lack thereof being mentioned in the
> constitution as a mitigating factor for the depravation of a right for a
> whole group of law abiding citizens.
>
> An individual can have a right denied for cause (felons, lunatics, and the
> feeble minded) but to deprive the many as an ineffective balm for the few
> should be fought tooth and nail.
>
> g
>
>  *From:* Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Saturday, February 02, 2013 10:09 PM
> *To:* Gary Crabtree <jampot at roadrunner.com>
> *Cc:* Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> ; <vision2020 at moscow.com><vision2020 at moscow.com%3E>
> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] Gun Talk
>
> You are assuming that any ban is frivolous. Why assume that? Certainly
> banning guns just to make people feel better is wrong. But presumably there
> are reasons offered in supporting some guns that are not frivolous.
>
> On Feb 2, 2013, at 8:03 PM, "Gary Crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com> wrote:
>
>  "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. "
>
>
> A similar restriction on firearms use is already in place. It is illegal
> to use your second amendment right to harm others in almost every instance
> save self defense. To ban certain weapons arbitrarily due to their
> potential for misuse is akin to banning  the publication, distribution, and
> possession of newspapers, magazines, and pamphlets because they
> occasionally violate the rights of others by committing libel or defamation.
>
> Rights are rights. Laws define their misuse. A right that can be taken
> away from one group to make another group feel better is no right at all.
>
> g
>
>
>
>
>  *From:* Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Saturday, February 02, 2013 4:28 PM
> *To:* Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>
> *Cc:* vision2020 at moscow.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] Gun Talk
>
> 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>
>> =======================================================
>>
>>
>>
>>
>  ------------------------------
>
> =======================================================
>  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/20130203/8190aeeb/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Vision2020 mailing list