[Vision2020] Gun Talk

[Paul Rumelhart]

If the point were potential of harm, then the argument that the assault 
weapons ban is a ban on "military looking" weapons as opposed to 
"militarily useful" ones would gain more traction.

This is probably because the real "assault rifles" actually are banned, 
the fully-automatic ones.  At least, those made since 1986 unless you 
are the police, the military, or a government agency.

By the way, does anyone know if there have been any challenges to that 
legislation (the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986) that have gone 
before the Supreme Court?

Paul

On 02/03/2013 03:33 PM, Joe Campbell wrote:
> The point is potential of harm
>
> On Feb 3, 2013, at 3:09 PM, "Gary Crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com 
> <mailto:jampot at roadrunner.com>> wrote:
>
>> 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 <mailto:philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
>> *Sent:* Sunday, February 03, 2013 2:56 PM
>> *To:* Gary Crabtree <mailto:jampot at roadrunner.com>
>> *Cc:* Paul Rumelhart <mailto:godshatter at yahoo.com> ; 
>> vision2020 at moscow.com <mailto: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 
>> <mailto: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 <mailto:philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
>>     *Sent:* Sunday, February 03, 2013 12:41 PM
>>     *To:* Paul Rumelhart <mailto:godshatter at yahoo.com>
>>     *Cc:* vision2020 at moscow.com <mailto: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 <mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com>
>>     =======================================================
>>
>>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20130203/68aa2976/attachment-0001.html>