[Vision2020] Gun Talk

Paul Rumelhart godshatter at yahoo.com
Sun Feb 3 19:42:03 PST 2013


Is this the actual legislation they are going to try to pass? Because 
it's about as ludicrous as the old ban but appears to be much stricter.

Mr. Hansen, and others that are/were in the military or are otherwise 
knowledgeable, a couple of questions:

Could you tell me the reasoning behind banning barrel shrouds is? Don't 
they just protect you from burning yourself on an over-heated barrel?  I 
mean, they look cool, but would the lack of a barrel shroud affect a 
spree shooter in any noticeable way?

What about threaded barrels?  Isn't it enough to simply ban or regulate 
sound suppressors, as they already appear to be?

Pistol grips.  Is this really going to help much?  The only reason to 
ban these that I could see would be to stop someone from being able to 
shoot the rifle one-handed.  Is that really an issue in spree 
shootings?  Same with forward grips.  Doesn't a forward grip just make 
it more comfortable with respect to the recoil when firing many rounds?  
I can see wanting these on a weapon you are going to use day-in and 
day-out, but I don't think spree shooters are looking that far ahead.

I can understand about the collapsible stocks.  If you have to sneak the 
weapon in, this could be a deal breaker.  Or at least make you go with 
pistols instead.

I'll spot you all grenade and rocket launcher attachments.

And last, but not least, wouldn't a Ruger Mini 14, which looks like a 
normal carbine or hunting rifle with a detachable magazine, work just as 
well for all intents and purposes as a rifle with two or more of the 
above items?

This seems to me to be more show than anything else, at least with 
regards to the semi-automatic rifle guidelines.  But I'm not an expert 
rifleman.

Paul

On 02/03/2013 06:47 PM, Tom Hansen wrote:
> Has anybody here even glanced at the proposed legislation, let alone 
> read it?
>
> NOWHERE in the proposed legislation is the phrase "military looking" 
> used.  The bill lists specific characteristics, as well as specific 
> weapons, to be banned.
>
> I could copy and paste the 122-page bill, sponsored by Senator Diane 
> Feinstein, here on the Viz, but why deprive you guys of a free education.
>
> The proposed legislation.
> http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve/?File_id=9a9270d5-ce4d-49fb-9b2f-69e69f517fb4
> 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 3, 2013, at 6:07 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com 
> <mailto:godshatter at yahoo.com>> wrote:
>
>>
>> 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
>>> =======================================================
>>
>> =======================================================
>> 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/20130203/2853f1d5/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Vision2020 mailing list