[Vision2020] Gun Talk
Paul Rumelhart
godshatter at yahoo.com
Mon Feb 4 19:00:33 PST 2013
Now, I might be a fucking idiot, and you're right, I'm not a
constitutional law scholar, and I'm still fuzzy on this whole "debate"
thing... but I could have sworn it was your job to back up whatever
point you're trying to make. I'm pretty sure it's not mine.
Also, are you under the delusion that the legislation Mr. Hansen
politely provided a link for is in anyway going to affect the numbers of
mass murders? Sure, they won't be by "assault weapons". They'll just
use something that acts pretty much the same but doesn't meet the
definition exactly. Like the Ruger Mini 14 I keep talking about that I
doubt even one of you has googled yet. Unless, of course they have
access to a grandfathered rifle. The magazine restrictions will
potentially help them. The Aurora shooter tried to use a 100-round drum
magazine and it jammed on him. Harris brought thirteen ten-round clips
for his Hi-point 995 Carbine and managed to fire off 96 rounds before
killing himself. Harris's gun wasn't even one that was banned by the
previous assault weapons ban, though it's pistol grip would make it one
under the current legislation.
Anyway, I'll be curious to find out if the General Welfare clause can
override the Bill of Rights.
Paul
On 02/04/2013 05:16 PM, Art Deco wrote:
> Stop trying to argue constitutional law without a rudimentary
> understanding of how the U.S, Court has used the "promote the general
> welfare" clause in deciding case of constitutional law. It is not my
> intention to present a treatise on the issue; Google for it. Educate
> yourself so that you can see how the issue the constitutionality of
> ownership of assault weapons could be argued and possibly decided in
> the age of the increasing numbers of mass murders by assault weapons.
>
> w.
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 8:03 PM, Joe Campbell
> <philosopher.joe at gmail.com <mailto:philosopher.joe at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> One question is what they meant by that.
>
> On Feb 4, 2013, at 3:07 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com
> <mailto:godshatter at yahoo.com>> wrote:
>
>> It talks about "arms" in there, somewhere, though. Both "assault
>> weapons" and semi automatics fall under that category.
>>
>> Paul
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *From:* Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com
>> <mailto:philosopher.joe at gmail.com>>
>> *To:* Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com
>> <mailto:godshatter at yahoo.com>>
>> *Cc:* Gary Crabtree <jampot at roadrunner.com
>> <mailto:jampot at roadrunner.com>>; "<vision2020 at moscow.com
>> <mailto:vision2020 at moscow.com>>" <vision2020 at moscow.com
>> <mailto:vision2020 at moscow.com>>
>> *Sent:* Monday, February 4, 2013 2:29 PM
>> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] Gun Talk
>>
>> The Constitution says nothing about assault weapons, nothing
>> about semi automatics. It won't guide us on this issue. That's my
>> view.
>>
>> On Feb 4, 2013, at 1:27 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com
>> <mailto:godshatter at yahoo.com>> wrote:
>>
>>> Why don't YOU tell me WHERE you think the right to ban assault
>>> weapons can be found IN THE CONSTITUTION. That's the go-to
>>> document for determining what our rights actually are. Start
>>> there. The poor things been abused enough lately, we don't need
>>> to ignore it again.
>>>
>>> That would be a great start. That would make it a legal option
>>> that we could then set on the table for discussion.
>>>
>>> Paul
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> *From:* Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:philosopher.joe at gmail.com>>
>>> *To:* Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com
>>> <mailto:godshatter at yahoo.com>>
>>> *Cc:* Gary Crabtree <jampot at roadrunner.com
>>> <mailto:jampot at roadrunner.com>>; "<vision2020 at moscow.com
>>> <mailto:vision2020 at moscow.com>>" <vision2020 at moscow.com
>>> <mailto:vision2020 at moscow.com>>
>>> *Sent:* Monday, February 4, 2013 12:38 PM
>>> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] Gun Talk
>>>
>>> You are not tracking the conversation. Why not have a similar
>>> situation with guns: you can buy what you want, as long as
>>> you're ready to face the consequences? The point is you seem
>>> happy with the libel law in place.
>>>
>>> On Feb 4, 2013, at 8:57 AM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com
>>> <mailto:godshatter at yahoo.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I do tend to follow the "innocent until proven guilty" and
>>>> "assumed innocent especially when nobody has done anything,
>>>> yet" schools of thought. You may have the makings of a bomb in
>>>> your house right now, cleverly hidden away in otherwise
>>>> innocent household items. If someone gets a warrant and enters
>>>> a residence and it contains bomb-making equipment and it's all
>>>> laid out ready to be made into a bomb, that's one thing. It
>>>> makes sense that certain items be restricted, too, but if you
>>>> want to make a bomb you don't need exotic materials. Read
>>>> through the Anarchist's Cookbook sometime. I don't suggest
>>>> trying anything in there, though, you'd probably lose a limb or
>>>> something.
>>>>
>>>> I don't feel like defending the U.S's War on Drugs at this
>>>> point in time.
>>>>
>>>> As for your point about you saying something that MIGHT harm my
>>>> reputation, you can say anything you like as long as you are
>>>> prepared to face the consequences if I take you to court.
>>>> What's the alternative? Muzzle you?
>>>>
>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>>> On 02/04/2013 08:23 AM, Joe Campbell wrote:
>>>>> What do you say about drugs? It is OK to have them in your
>>>>> possession, you just can't use them. Is that your view? Do you
>>>>> think it is fine to have all the makings for an Oklahoma-type
>>>>> bomb, or all the ingredients for large batches of
>>>>> methamphetamine, so long as you don't mix them together? Can I
>>>>> say lies that MIGHT harm your reputation and wait and see if
>>>>> it actually does harm it before you'll want to step in with
>>>>> sanctions?
>>>>>
>>>>> I think I've made my point, and really Art made the main
>>>>> point. Busy week!
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 4:06 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 <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/20130204/8006993e/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list