[Vision2020] Gun Talk
Joe Campbell
philosopher.joe at gmail.com
Sun Feb 3 12:42:26 PST 2013
I'd like to know too. I do not think that we have a bow-violence problem.
We seem to have a gun-violence problem though. Joe
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Saundra Lund <v2020 at ssl1.fastmail.fm>wrote:
> Seriously, Wayne: what on earth is wrong with your cognitive function
> that you find it appropriate to trivialize gun violence, and that you fail
> to recognize the difference between THE TOPIC and these specious examples
> you continue to trot out?****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:
> vision2020-bounces at moscow.com] *On Behalf Of *Wayne Price
> *Sent:* Sunday, February 03, 2013 11:46 AM
>
> *To:* Paul Rumelhart
> *Cc:* vision2020 at moscow.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] Gun Talk****
>
> ** **
>
> When will the horror end? How many people, civilians, soldiers and native
> americans have to die before these killing machines are BANNED!****
>
> And there is NO Constitutional protection against it!****
>
> ** **
> NJ Man Charged With Bow and Arrow Killing****
>
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> BERLIN, N.J. January 30, 2013 (AP)****
>
> ** **
>
> Authorities say Canfield admitted to dumping the bow and arrows in a
> wooded area in nearby Winslow. He is being held at the Camden County
> Jail.They say Paulsen was shot in the stomach and died after the arrow tore
> through a vein in his pelvis.After the fight broke up, authorities say
> Paulsen was outside the home and Canfield followed him with a compound bow
> and a quiver of arrows.Twenty-five-year-old Timothy Canfield of Berlin
> was charged Tuesday.Authorities say Canfield was at his home when another
> resident got into a fistfight Monday night with 25-year-old Kereti Paulsen
> of Cape May Court House.A southern New Jersey man is charged with murder
> after authorities say he used a bow and arrow to kill another after a
> fistfight.****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> On Feb 3, 2013, at 11:13 AM, Paul Rumelhart wrote:****
>
>
>
> ****
>
> On 02/03/2013 08:27 AM, Joe Campbell wrote:****
>
> 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.****
>
>
> 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".
>
>
> ****
>
>
> 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. ****
>
>
> When I mentioned the superficial differences between an AR15 and a mini 14
> that makes the latter not fall under the "assault weapon" nomenclature,
> your suggestion was to ban mini 14's too. So, I don't know how I ever got
> it into my head that you were for the banning of assault weapons. Oh, and
> you haven't responded to my apparently invisible response to your "no one
> has the right to do wrong" idea. That was namely that if you have the
> right in the first place, then it's up to the law to determine the bounds
> of it. You don't have the right to libel me, but the fact that you libeled
> me can only be determined after it has happened. Preemptively removing my
> right to post to an Internet forum because someone somewhere libeled
> someone is not anymore justified than banning a type of gun because someone
> somewhere committed a massacre with one.
>
> How do you propose to stop people from doing wrong? Do you have an agenda
> to ban every activity that could possibly lead to such an outcome?
>
>
> ****
>
>
> 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.****
>
>
> This is where I get the "wishing away the Constitution" bit from. You
> don't give a damn about semiautomatics, so let's talk about banning them.
> I don't give a damn about philosophers as a group, so why not take away
> their right to a speedy trial? You have to look to the Constitution first,
> to see what the government is even allowed to do. Then you can take the
> conversation from there.
>
>
> ****
>
>
> 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.****
>
>
> That's great. I don't have a great like of guns, to me they are a tool.
> They can be fun to target practice with, but I'm not fanatical about them.
>
>
> ****
>
>
> 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.****
>
>
> It's too bad there's no document out there that we could refer to that
> would tell us exactly and in what ways our rights can be curtailed by the
> government. We could then refer to that document when the subject of a
> specific right comes up.
>
>
> ****
>
>
> 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.****
>
>
> That's why we have laws that govern the misuse of firearms. You don't get
> to inhibit my right to do something solely because I could do something bad
> with that right if I chose. When you have a Right, you have a Duty to
> exercise it responsibly. Consequences for not doing so fill our law
> books. Banning something because it might be used in a bad way is more
> akin to thought-crime. No one has done anything bad yet, so why are they
> being punished for it?
>
>
> ****
>
>
> 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. ****
>
>
> I'm not a member of the NRA, mainly because they flip out on this stuff
> and do lots of harm, in my opinion. Still, I'd like you to explain how a
> ban on a class of guns is not an infringement on my right to keep and bear
> arms. The logic that since you can control guns in some manner already
> that you should then be able to ban them as well doesn't hold up. There
> are restrictions on speech already, so should we be able ban classes of
> speech simply because we've already allowed ourselves other ways in which
> we can restrict speech? The existence of obscenity laws justifying the
> banning of negative speech about the government? As I've said before, we
> have a document already that lays all this out for us. The onus is on
> those wanting to restrict a right further to provide some kind of
> Constitutional basis for it.
>
>
> ****
>
>
> But I take all rights seriously. We'd have to have a damn good reason to
> ever ban any gun.****
>
>
> Well, I'm glad you're not for just banning them on a whim.
>
> Paul
>
>
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> 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>
> =======================================================****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> =======================================================
> 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
> =======================================================
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20130203/41e5e182/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 2642 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20130203/41e5e182/attachment-0001.gif>
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list