[Vision2020] Gun Talk
Paul Rumelhart
godshatter at yahoo.com
Sun Feb 3 18:07:22 PST 2013
OK, that all make sense. Now, imagine that they banned anything that
looked like a lock picking tool, for example, regardless of whether or
not it could actually function as one. Things like chopsticks, plastic
hangers, toothpicks, etc. Then you would start to realize what we are
talking about when we say "military looking" weapons vs. "militarily
useful" ones. Basically, weapons that look like movie props but are
only slightly easier to use than other ones that look more like normal
WWII weapons or hunting rifles. Not that I have any doubts that Gary
could pick a lock with nothing but a toothpick...
Actual assault rifles are currently banned. Those that fire in
full-auto mode. The cleverly named "assault weapons" ban doesn't ban
those real assault rifles you see in SWAT takedowns of 12-year olds
sharing Taylor Swift songs, they ban ones that are made to *look* like
them instead. Except that they are semi-automatics like a billion other
guns out there, from your .45 Colt to your .22 target rifle.
I'd love to get one of you to address this point, but I haven't seen
anyone address it so far. Even if I was convinced that a ban on certain
calibers of semi-automatics was a good idea (which I'm not), I still
wouldn't support the current assault weapons ban because it's all
frosting and very little cake.
Paul
On 02/03/2013 05:20 PM, Art Deco wrote:
> Again ignorance of the law raises its ugly rear.
>
> In many states ownership of drug paraphernalia is banned; so is
> ownership of certain burglary tools; except for licensed and certified
> locksmiths ownership of lock picking tools is banned; except for those
> licensed ownership of certain kinds of explosive is banned, etc.
>
> w.
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 7:06 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com
> <mailto:godshatter at yahoo.com>> wrote:
>
>
> 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>
>>> =======================================================
>>>
>>>
>
>
> =======================================================
> 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>
> =======================================================
>
>
>
>
> --
> Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
> art.deco.studios at gmail.com <mailto: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
> =======================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20130203/0b8885f0/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list