[Vision2020] Dorner and Gun Control
Paul Rumelhart
godshatter at yahoo.com
Wed Feb 13 18:39:27 PST 2013
The "well-regulated militia" part is an explanatory clause denoting one
reason why the inherent right to keep and bear arms shouldn't be
infringed. Doing so would take away from our ability to defend our
country and ourselves.
The idea of the Bill of Rights isn't to list the rights you do have, but
to delineate exactly which rights the Federal government can limit and
to what degree. For the second amendment, it's pretty much wide open.
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
is pretty straight-forward. "A well regulated militia being necessary
to the security of a free state" is a reason that has been provided as
to why the right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed.
Putting it in the Bill of Rights means that it is a right that the
founding fathers thought was important enough to be clear about how it
shouldn't be infringed.
That's the way I see it, anyway. Do you read it another way?
Paul
On 02/13/2013 04:53 PM, Art Deco wrote:
> I said nothing of the sort. I was discussing the problems of
> interpretation.
>
> The crazies I referred to are the groups running around in the woods
> in Idaho and other places calling themselves militia believing they
> are what the Constitution referred to.
>
>
> w.
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 4:56 PM, Matt Decker <mattd2107 at hotmail.com
> <mailto:mattd2107 at hotmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Art,
>
> So we shouldn't have any guns at all?
>
> "Crazies" like the 90% of gun owners who have postitive
> contributions to society? Like the numerous former military who
> like to have a few guns for fun.
>
> MD
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 16:08:11 -0500
> From: art.deco.studios at gmail.com <mailto:art.deco.studios at gmail.com>
> To: vision2020 at moscow.com <mailto:vision2020 at moscow.com>
>
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Dorner and Gun Control
>
> @Matt,
>
> The meaning of the Second Amendment is ambiguous. There are huge
> disagreements about what it means.
>
> Google: "Second Amendment" interpretation
>
> For example, the word militia is singular, not plural. This most
> likely means that the frames thought there be only one militia
> ostensibly under government control. Not a whole bunches of
> crazies running around on their own claiming to be sovereign bodies.
>
> w.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 3:48 PM, Matt Decker
> <mattd2107 at hotmail.com <mailto:mattd2107 at hotmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Joe,
>
> I can agree that guns can be dangerous, less likely in the
> right hands. Mistakes happen though. In the LAPD instance, a
> very bad one. I'm sure those officers will be punished. We
> agree if guns can be dangerous, should we remove all of
> them? If no, then why? Pistols are used in the majority of all
> gun related deaths. If yes, why? Should we really open up the
> can of worms against our founding fathers principles. Neither,
> then why?
>
> We agree gun violence is bad. Over 11,000 gun related
> homicides occurred in 2012. In my opinion, the type of
> gun used matters little. All assualt type weapons(AR15, AK47,
> etc), dad's hunting rifles, and all types of shotguns
> accounted for 8% of the 11,000 murders in 2012. Yet our
> President keeps pushing for common sense approach. Common
> sense this and that. I don't believe his approach will solve
> the problem. Banning the guns that look mean will have little
> to do with our homicide rate. A common sense arguement would
> be looking at the preferred weopon. Pistols.
>
> How do we solve this? Hell I don't know, but I feel that our
> society as a whole is turning to a darker page. It starts
> at home. Parents must raise their children to respect others
> and be held accountable. Not to point fingers or sue because
> they can. As parents we should all monitor are children on
> what they watch, play, or listen too. My kids are not allowed
> to watch R rated movies. I also teach them to be self
> dependant, not too rely on others. I feel that too many rely
> on the government too heavily. Use them when you need, but
> not as a crutch. People these days are too sensitive or PC.
> Say it like it is, but respect others while doing it. It
> starts from home. Single. I don't care. No dad? So what. How
> many gay female couples are raising their children properly
> without a dad. We as parents must raise our children properly.
> That means with guns as well. I own numerous guns, and my
> children know the do's and dont's.
>
> As I've stated before, gun control is a complex issue. I don't
> have all the answers, but I do think some ideas could help.
>
> -Harder back ground checks for purchases of guns, have a
> shared data network that works
> -Harder back ground checks for the applications of concealed
> weapons permit
> -Legalize weed
> -educate our youth on gun safety
> -enforce current laws, punish those who break the law
> -mental health is huge
>
> The former Marine that recently shot and killed hero Navy Seal
> Chris Kyle was at the VA twice for implying he would shoot
> others and kill himself should have been a pretty f'n big red
> flag that something is off. How Whitney Houston had flags at
> half mass and Kyle didn't is another indicator that our
> society has it's morales all messed up, that's another topic
> though. Back on track. Mental health needs to be addressed. As
> Art stated, we don't currently have the money for it. We
> should strive to make sure those people get help or are
> closely monitored. We have the ability in the military, so
> let's make sure our returning hero's come home mentally sound.
> PTSD is a huge upcoming problem for us and we need to make
> sure our prior military get all the help they need.
>
> For me though Joe it starts at home.
>
> Take care,
>
> Matt
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 00:40:26 -0800
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Dorner and Gun Control
> From: philosopher.joe at gmail.com <mailto:philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
> To: mattd2107 at hotmail.com <mailto:mattd2107 at hotmail.com>
> CC: vision2020 at moscow.com <mailto:vision2020 at moscow.com>
>
>
> Thanks for the comments -- Jeff (which I agree with totally)
> and Matt. As Jeff suggested, I'd have been better off leaving
> out the gun control issues, so I'll do that for now!
>
> My apologies to the LAPD. I didn't mean to demean them. My
> point was -- rather -- even skilled, respected officers can
> make mistakes. Thus, guns are dangerous. It is really so hard
> to accept that guns are dangerous? Can we all just accept that
> and continue the debate from that point? Or do I have to argue
> that guns are dangerous?
>
> Certainly how folks are raised and mental health have
> something to do with gun violence, too. But how much control
> do we have over how people are raised? Do you want to pass
> laws to ensure that parents raise their children correctly?
> That seems wrong. Should we incarcerate the insane? Fine. Get
> the taxes to fund it. Democrats can't. Maybe we can put the
> insane in prison. We seem to be willing to pay for that.
> You've spotted the problems, perhaps, but what is the solution?
>
> Either you think gun violence is a problem or you don't. I
> think it is a problem. Then the matter is how to deal with it.
> You say the problem is bad parenting or insanity. Others say
> video games. But does that tell us how to deal with it? Can we
> keep the number and accessibility of guns the same, but get
> rid of video games, and then the problem will go away? Of
> course you don't think that. Nor did you suggest it. But what
> did you suggest? How do you think we should solve this social
> problem of gun violence? Or do you think it is not a problem?
>
> Thanks and hope you are well Matt -- and Jeff.
>
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 12:08 AM, Matt Decker
> <mattd2107 at hotmail.com <mailto:mattd2107 at hotmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Granted it's late, but a couple of thoughts Joe.
>
> -LAPD? Really? I have a couple of good friends on the
> force down there. To imply that the majority of the boys
> in blue are nothing but humble and unselfish is downright
> degrading.
>
> -Any gun in the wrong hands creates mayhem. It doesn't
> matter what type.
>
> -what guns? Pistols? Or the AR 15s that killed about 300
> last year. 11,000 killed last year.
>
> -When will we look at society and how we are raised
> instead of blaiming everyone else. Raise your kids proper.
>
> -Mental health
>
> -Just imagine if a pissed off ex-cop can do this, what
> would a battalion of former Marines do when they get
> pissed? Lack of VA support and taking away the rights they
> fought for.
>
> -How is it that no one on this site ever talked about
> Chris Kyle? The guy is a hero and yet not one post?
> Whitney Houston gets half mass, but not Kyle?
>
> Granted Joe, not all these are addressed to you but just
> venting.
>
>
> That's it for now.
>
> MD
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 22:02:18 -0800
> From: philosopher.joe at gmail.com
> <mailto:philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
> To: vision2020 at moscow.com <mailto:vision2020 at moscow.com>
> Subject: [Vision2020] Dorner and Gun Control
>
>
> I'm watching the Dorner episode unfold and reading the
> V2020 posts, and it is pretty clear no one knows what is
> happening at this point. Is he dead? Not clear now,
> according to CNN.
>
> Keep in mind that this one man with a few guns worked
> skilled, trained police officers into a frenzy. How many
> innocent victims were shot? I don't remember.
>
> But what I do know is that skilled, trained police
> officers with guns are a menace -- under the right
> unfortunate circumstances. People blame the cops but what
> would you do? How would you react to a situation in which
> you were a target? I'm guessing, not very well. Me either.
>
> And you say guns are safe? If they are in the right hands?
> What hands are those? Not the LA police.
>
> Guns are always a risk. That's why gun control is worthy
> of consideration. Even skilled, trained police officers
> can be a menace if the circumstances are unforgiving.
>
> =======================================================
> 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 <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/20130213/5618f2d8/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list