[Vision2020] Gun Talk

[Gary Crabtree]

You continue to conflate outcomes with the equipment by which they are brought about.

Child porn is illegal, photographic equipment is not.

Shooting people is illegal, owning semi automatic firearms is not. (and should remain that way)

g


From: Joe Campbell 
Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2013 2:56 PM
To: Gary Crabtree 
Cc: Paul Rumelhart ; vision2020 at moscow.com 
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Gun Talk


We do in fact ban TYPES of print: child pornography, for instance. We ban types of speech, as well. That is different from banning types of guns exactly how?

Again, I'm not advocating any specific ban. Just that it is absurd to claim as you claim, as Paul claims, and as the NRA claims, that the 2nd amendment should be understood as prohibiting the banning of guns altogether.


On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 2:44 PM, Gary Crabtree <jampot at roadrunner.com> wrote:

  You keep making apples to oranges comparisons.

  In a effort to deter that which is undesirable (yelling fire in a crowded movie theater; libel; slander; child pornography) we punish the occurrences. We do not try to take away the means by banning magazines, (six words or greater) newspapers, internet, photography, or surgical removal of the tongue.

  g




  From: Joe Campbell 
  Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2013 12:41 PM
  To: Paul Rumelhart 
  Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com 
  Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Gun Talk


  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!



------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  =======================================================
   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/cbad0596/attachment.html>