[Vision2020] Gun Talk

[Joe Campbell]

Paul wrote: How is my interpretation of the Second Amendment in any way
"radical"?  "Radical?"  Really?  "...the right of the people to keep and
bear arms shall not be infringed."  How is a government ban on a complete
class of guns (based almost solely on how military they look) not an
infringement of my right to keep and bear arms?  Doesn't it stop me from
buying an AR15, for example, not based on market forces or recalls based on
safety or popularity, but because the government told me I can't own one?
Doesn't that infringe on my right to keep and bear arms, if only by
restricting what I can keep and bear?  I don't see how this is "radical".

All rights may be infringed. Sorry. I don't want to try to figure out the
founding fathers meant -- likely, the right to ban what we call "arms"
cannot be infringed, which is reasonable -- but the idea that there are NO
restrictions on (what we now think of as) gun sales is crazy. You can
restrict speech so you sure as heck can restrict gun sales. Any view that
says that we can do X under ANY circumstances provided X is listed in the
Bill of Rights is a radical view.

Show me ONE other right that you think "shall not be infringed" in the way
that you supposed gun rights shall not be infringed? Again, it is
confusing. I would argue that circumstances in which your speech or
expression may be restricted (yelling fire in a crowded movie theater;
libel; slander; child pornography) is precisely the point at which your
rights end. Again, I have a hard time saying the government is violating
your right to free expression because it prohibits you from slandering Gary
Crabtree. You NEVER had that "right." You have the right to speech freely
... up to a point. That is just how rights work.

But of course I've already made this point!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20130203/40359d20/attachment.html>