My sense is that Congress will just debate this and it won't actually make it to law. And if it does, then there will be a flurry of challenges up to the supreme court. If the bans survive that, then parallel to Paul's post, manufacturers will slightly tweak the designs to make pseudo-semi-automatic weapons that skirt the ban. This sort of things happens all the time. Several years ago I had 5-speed Camaro that shifted 1st to 4th in order to meet an EPA rating. It was easy to over ride unless you were accelerating / shifting in the manner that the EPA test was run. We'll see how this all plays out.
-Scott
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 19:00:33 -0800
From: godshatter at yahoo.com
To: art.deco.studios at gmail.com
CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Gun Talk
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>
wrote:
One question is what they meant by that.
On Feb 4, 2013, at 3:07 PM, Paul Rumelhart <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>
To:
Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>
Cc:
Gary Crabtree <jampot at roadrunner.com>;
"<vision2020 at moscow.com>"
<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>
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>
To:
Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>
Cc:
Gary Crabtree <jampot at roadrunner.com>;
"<vision2020 at moscow.com>"
<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>
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> 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> 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
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
=======================================================
=======================================================
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
=======================================================
--
Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
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/20130205/80de3d9c/attachment-0001.html>