[Vision2020] Happy gun violence day!
Donovan Arnold
donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com
Mon Jan 21 09:58:47 PST 2013
Paul,
Are you trying to say that the words, " a well-regulated militia," written in the 1780s didn't mean anyone regardless of ability or competence can own any type of weapon they can afford to purchase and use it? Now, that is just crazy talk! Obviously our forefathers, genius that they were, could not have held the belief that any type of government regulation of weapons, armament, or a civilian militia was necessary and that any regulation would be clearly a complete violation of the most sacred of human rights, unlimited firepower.
Donovan J. Arnold
From: Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>
To: Ron Force <rforce2003 at yahoo.com>; Moscow Vision2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2013 3:13 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Happy gun violence day!
I disagree with the idea that if it wasn't around in 1780, it should be illegal now. This is the "right to bear muskets" argument. We generally gloss over the "well-regulated militia" part of the 2nd amendment today, especially since it's my understanding that the Supreme Court already weighed in on that issue and declared weapons kept by individuals to meet that criteria. I don't have a reference to this, so I don't know what their reasoning was.Anyway, in their view, which had a lot to do with enabling the populace to be able to use arms to regulate their government as they had just done to England, I don't think the founding fathers would have claimed that bazookas or LAWs or tanks or whatever could not be used by "well-regulated militias". We don't really have such a beast today, although I remember one local attempt being widely ridiculed on this list. Why shouldn't we allow communities to get together and buy some non man-portable weapons
to use in the defense of their property if they are going to be part of an actual well-regulated militia?This "well regulated" wording is what (in my opinion) gives teeth to gun safety legislation. If the going assumption is that privately owned arms are considered to be part of a nation-wide well regulated militia, then we should be able to penalize people for not securing weapons properly when not in use, and requiring people to be trained in their use and requiring them to demonstrate that fact every so often. Not something that I think the NRA is very keen on, but it makes sense to me.I can see banning nuclear weapons for militias, since the weapon is too powerful to use in such a situation. If some enemy is attacking Moscow, should we really be using a nuke to defend ourselves? That weapon, pretty much alone, is a weapon that can really only be fielded at the national level.
Paul
I just looked up what the Supreme Court had to say about the "well regulated militia" part of the Second Amendment. The court was ruling on the legality of transporting sawed off shotguns across State borders. Here is a quote from the court opinion written by Justice James C. McReynolds:
"U.S. Supreme Court (1939): In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense."
This reasoning would actually make "assault weapons" *more* reasonable under the Second Amendment than not, since the more like military equipment they are and the more they could contribute to the "common defense", the more related they are to the "preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia", according to this ruling.
When the Washington D.C. ban on handguns was challenged in 2007, it ended up going before the Supreme Court (District of Columbia vs. Heller). The court ruled that the right to bear arms extended to the individual who was not part of a militia, instead of just being limited to those serving in a well regulated militia.
Paul
From: Ron Force <rforce2003 at yahoo.com>
To: Moscow Vision2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2013 2:09 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Happy gun violence day!
Isn't this the discussion? What are the limits? Anton Scalia:
“So yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed," Scalia said. "What they are will depend on what the society understood were reasonable limitations at the time."
The conservative justice notably authored the Supreme Court's 2008 opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, which ruled that the Second Amendment protects a person's right to bear arms and struck down a D.C. ban on handguns. The court also ruled, though, that "the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited."
Scalia pointed out Sunday that that the Second Amendment "obviously" doesn't apply to weapons that can't be hand-carried, and modern-day weapons like "hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes" weren't factored in at the time of the writing of the Constitution.
“My starting point and probably my ending point will be what limitations are within the understood limitations that the society had at the time,” he said. “They had some limitations on the nature of arms that could be borne. So we’ll see what those limitations are as applied to modern weapons.”
Or, from another commentator (Ridenbaugh Press):
Packin’ nuclear? Why not?
by Randy Stapilus under Stapilus.
RANDY
STAPILUS
The View
from Here
Boise attorney John Runft has addressed a point that ought to be put to gun advocates coast to coast. But did he address it as they would – and has he thought through the implications?
Interviewed on KIVI-TV in Nampa, he was enthusiastic in his discussion of the Second Amendment, saying there was even an “anti-government” aspect built into it. (I’d love to find the specific validation for that argument.)
But he also acknowledged something that some gun advocates seem not to, that there are limits even to the Second Amendment: “Do you have the right to bear a bazooka? The right to bear an atomic bomb? Absolutely not.”
No argument on that here. But I would argue this: Bazookas (defined in Wikipedia: “a man-portable recoilless rocket antitank weapon, widely fielded by the US Army”) and nuclear weapons clear are “arms”. (Remember the nuclear arms race.) Not much question about that either.
So: By Runft, it is okay to ban some arms. Next question: If we can ban bazookas from private use, why not semi-automatic weapons? From where comes the private constitutional right to possess one but not the other?
A question, then, posed to any and all gun advocates: Should weaponry such as nuclear weapons and bazookas be allowed for private ownership in the United States? If not, why not, if your argument that a right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?
Ron ForceMoscow Idaho USA
From: Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>
To: Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
Cc: "vision2020 at moscow.com" <vision2020 at moscow.com>; "rhayes at frontier.com" <rhayes at frontier.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2013 1:51 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Happy gun violence day!
So what's an example of gun control legislation that you feel would not violate the 2nd Amendment?Paul
From: Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
To: Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>
Cc: "rhayes at frontier.com" <rhayes at frontier.com>; "vision2020 at moscow.com" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2013 12:47 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Happy gun violence day!
I think we're talking passed one another. For one thing, I don't remember saying anytime recently that I was in favor of banning assault rifles, though I have discussed some arguments for or against it. For instance, in the post below the point is that gun control is not necessarily a violation of the 2nd amendment; that the NRA view is an absurd view. Yet it seems that no matter what I say, or how careful I am to say it, you and others read into it some desire to ban guns. But it is consistent for one to think that (a) some forms of gun control are OK (in theory), even given our 2nd amendment rights, and (b) no particular form of gun control makes practical sense (for instance, assault rifles figure in a relatively small number of acts of gun violence, so banning them won't have a relevant impact). In fact, I have leanings toward (b), but it is a complex issue. I lot of the stuff that Saundra and others have said makes me think more about it. In any
event, (b) is logically unrelated to (a), though bad arguments against gun control confuse the two. As for (b), whether or not a particular form of gun control makes practical sense would need to be discussed on a case by case basis. Joe
On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 7:21 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
Let's see. 1. When the Constitution was written, we'd just finished a war in which we rebelled against those in authority and claimed our independence as a nation for ourselves.2. Shortly after that, we wrote our own Constitution, which describes the ways in which government is limited. No more royal decrees for us.3. When adding the Bill of Rights, the restriction against infringing on our right to bear arms was added as the second such amendment, right after freedom of speech.4. One assumes from this that the right to bear arms was indeed important to our forefathers. And not because they wanted us to hunt.Given all that, I think it's reasonable to assume that the right in question shouldn't be infringed upon on a whim. Events like Newtown are rare, and each one gets splashed across the news for a month or more because it's very dramatic. I don't like seeing children die either, but reducing magazine sizes to 10 rounds and removing
scary-looking rifles while leaving just-as-functional rifles alone isn't going to stop the next spree shooting, even if it actually makes it's way into law. Klebold was on this tenth 10-round magazine when he killed himself. This guy that did Newtown would have had just as easy access to his mothers AR-15, since there is no way in hell they will pass something that will make people have to turn them in. An ineffective law passed only because people are riled up about kids getting shot isn't worth weakening the 2nd amendment, in my opinion.I can get behind better background checks, well thought-out restrictions on people suspected of being mentally ill (that's a whole other can of worms when we are talking about people's rights, but we should start the conversation), better data collection, and incentives to keep weapons secured and safe. Banning assault weapons, though, is a farce. It's a political ploy that's using people's fear and anger to
pass something that makes it look like they are doing something that will help.I'm not a member of the NRA, and I think they go way overboard sometimes. Still, I haven't seen them or anyone else trying to claim that gun ownership should be unrestricted. We already have gun registration, background checks, cooling off periods, and restrictions against actual assault weapons (i.e. fully automatic weapons).PaulOn 01/19/2013 02:01 PM, Joe Campbell wrote:
>How is the second amendment under threat?
>>
>>The NRA interpretation of the 2nd amendment is absurd. It is in fact so absurd that neither you nor anyone else would try to defend it in a public setting. Which is why this post will be followed by silence from you and others.
>>
>>The idea that the right to own guns is UNRESTRICTED is absurd. NO rights are unrestricted. If speech can be restricted, then so can the sale and purchase of guns. And speech is and can be restricted.
>>
>>If the NRA position has something to do with RIGHTS, then you should be able to name another right that is similarly unrestricted. But you can't. The NRA position has nothing to do with rights. It has to do with gun sales.
>>
>>
>>On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>The nerve of those people! Having a rally in support of one of the amendments to the Constitution! How despicable! How un-American!PaulOn 01/19/2013 09:32 AM, rhayes at frontier.com wrote:
>>>Happy Gun Violence day today everyone! Hope you have a bang!
>>>>From: mailto:vision2020-request at moscow.com mailto:vision2020-request at moscow.com
>>>>To: vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>>Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2013 6:06 AM
>>>>Subject: Vision2020 Digest, Vol 79, Issue 205
>>>>Send Vision2020 mailing list submissions to vision2020 at moscow.comTo subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/vision2020or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to vision2020-request at moscow.comYou can reach the person managing the list at vision2020-owner at moscow.comWhen replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specificthan "Re: Contents of Vision2020 digest..."Today's Topics: 1. Saturday is "National Gun Appreciation Day" (Ron Force) 2. Re: Saturday is "National Gun Appreciation Day" (Tom Hansen) 3. Caturday (January 19, 2013) (Tom Hansen)----------------------------------------------------------------------Message: 1Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 20:40:44 -0800 (PST)From: Ron Force <rforce2003 at yahoo.com>To: Moscow Vision2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com>Subject: [Vision2020] Saturday is "National Gun Appreciation Day"Message-ID:
<1358570444.77938.YahooMailNeo at web162701.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fWHFMQ8Wlk?Ron ForceMoscow Idaho USA-------------- next part --------------An HTML attachment was scrubbed...URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20130118/083e8bc1/attachment-0001.html>------------------------------Message: 2Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 20:59:17 -0800From: Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com>To: Ron Force <rforce2003 at yahoo.com>Cc: Moscow Vision2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Saturday is "National Gun Appreciation Day"Message-ID: <CD416371-3602-4B0A-8D55-2B2508E88FB8 at moscow.com>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"Gun Rally Planned This Weekend in Coeur d'Alenehttp://tinyurl.com/agnm5kjCOEUR D'ALENE, Idaho (AP) - Gun advocates in northern Idaho are planning a rally and encouraging participants to openly carry weapons as allowed by Idaho law. The Coeur
d'Alene Press reports (http://bit.ly/WdqSJr) that the Second Amendment rally and gun appreciation event is planned for 1 p.m. Saturday at Black Sheep Sporting Goods in Coeur d'Alene. Organizers say guest speakers include state lawmakers.--------------------------------------Seeya round town, Moscow, because . . ."Moscow Cares"http://www.moscowcares.com/ Tom HansenMoscow, 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 LennonOn Jan 18, 2013, at 8:40 PM, Ron Force <rforce2003 at yahoo.com> wrote:> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fWHFMQ8Wlk> > Ron Force> Moscow Idaho USA> =======================================================> 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/20130118/7250b146/attachment-0001.html>------------------------------Message: 3Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2013 06:06:20 -0800From: Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com>To: Moscow Vision 2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com>Subject: [Vision2020] Caturday (January 19, 2013)Message-ID: <62F5B94C-846B-409E-9683-39CFBE887204 at moscow.com>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"Courtesy of Mail Online (London, England) at:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2263604/Tiny-obese-kitty-loses-HALF-body-weight-finds-new-home.html?printingPage=true-------------------------------------Now that's something to purr about! Tiny the (very) fat cat loses HALF his body weight and finds a new homeTiny started out at 30.2lbs - about three times the size of average catHe was put on strict calorie-controlled
dietLost half his body weight, now clocking in at 16lbsAdopted by foster parent Nancy GaronTiny the formerly obese cat has a lot to purr about these days.Not only has he lost half his body weight, the orphaned feline has found a new home.The pudgy pet was dumped outside the Fredericton SPCA in New Brunswick, Canada, just over a year ago weighing a whopping 30lbs.But, after sticking to a strict diet, the ironically-named feline is now fit and healthy and has been officially adopted by foster parent, Nancy Garon.Garon even threw an adoption party for Tiny on Saturday, dressing the noticeably more slender cat in a sparkly bow tie.'It was a nice way to celebrate all the work, dedication and time that went into Tiny,' LeeAnn Haggerty, the director of education at the shelter.'She's really bonded with him and it's nice for everyone to know that he'll be doing well in Nancy's care.'The animal has a penchant or bow ties, which are made by some of the many
volunteers who have tracked his weight loss progress on Facebook.Donations and sales of Tiny's Ties have already raised $10,000 for the Fredericton SPCA, Today reported.Tiny now ways 16 pounds and the weight loss has transformed his life.'As soon as he lost the first six pounds you could start to see the changes,' Haggerty said. To not be able to groom yourself must've been pretty frustrating. When he walked, he used to take a few steps, but now he runs all over the place. He is a very playful cat.'In August, the cat had lost more than 10 pounds, weighing in at 19.1lbs. Haggerty said back then that it had taken a lot of hard work to bring Tiny's weight down to that point.'When he came to the shelter, we knew this weight was a medical emergency, really that obesity in pets can be fatal; his weight was quite a concern,' she told CBS News.Tiny, who at that point was about three times the size of an average house cat, was taken to Dr Nicole Jewett at Valley
Veterinary Hospital, who created a special calorie-controlled weight-loss plan for him at a foster home.The drastic weight loss has been accompanied by a significant improvement in Tiny?s appearance and well-being, according to his veterinarian.When the pet first arrived at the center, his coat and eyes were dull, and he could only make a few steps at a time before he would have to lie down. Thanks to his new svelte physique, however, Tiny has become more playful and active. 'He runs, he plays ? it's amazing,' Haggerty said.Another fringe benefit that came as a result of Tiny's impressive slim-down is popularity.Fans send in fabric to the SPCA, which they use to make the signature Tiny ties and sell them on the site Etsy.com to raise medical funds for animals.According to Haggerty, about 40-60 per cent of North American pets are overweight, and in cats, it can lead to diabetes, arthritis, organ issues and even death.--------------------Fat cat: When
Tiny arrived at the Fredericton SPCA, he weighed in at 30.2lbs, or about three times the size of an average house cat --------------------New life: Tiny, pictured, the formerly obese cat has found a new home after losing half his body weight--------------------Festive feline: Tiny, pictured, over the holidays is far more active now he's dropped the weight-------------------------------------Seeya round town, Moscow, because . . ."Moscow Cares"http://www.moscowcares.com/ Tom HansenMoscow, Idaho-------------- next part --------------An HTML attachment was scrubbed...URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20130119/cb4f2026/attachment.html>-------------- next part --------------A non-text attachment was scrubbed...Name: article-2192346-14A7C8AC000005DC-71_306x423.jpgType: image/jpegSize: 48122 bytesDesc: not availableURL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20130119/cb4f2026/attachment.jpg>-------------- next
part --------------A non-text attachment was scrubbed...Name: article-2263604-16FB2940000005DC-332_634x522.jpgType: image/jpegSize: 42544 bytesDesc: not availableURL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20130119/cb4f2026/attachment-0001.jpg>-------------- next part --------------A non-text attachment was scrubbed...Name: article-2263604-16FB294D000005DC-350_634x360.jpgType: image/jpegSize: 42846 bytesDesc: not availableURL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20130119/cb4f2026/attachment-0002.jpg>------------------------------=======================================================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=======================================================End of Vision2020 Digest, Vol 79, Issue 205*******************************************
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>=======================================================
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
>>>=======================================================
>>>
>>=======================================================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==============================================================================================================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/20130121/b3c7bcec/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list