[Vision2020] Happy gun violence day!
Paul Rumelhart
godshatter at yahoo.com
Mon Jan 21 23:35:51 PST 2013
Some thoughts below, for your perusal.
On 01/21/2013 09:55 PM, Rosemary Huskey wrote:
>
> Actually Paul, you have no idea what my “agenda” is. Let me help you
> to understand what would happen if I were Queen of the Universe.
>
> Rose’s Rules of Weapon Ownership. (And by the way there is a little
> jingo about guns that you probably don’t know because you were never
> in the Marine Corps. Delicacy prevents me from sharing it, but IMO
> the word weapon is actually a better choice of nouns in public discourse.)
>
I did time at Annapolis, I've heard it.
> 1.Proof of successful completion of a certified weapon safety class
> (probably at least twenty hours of class room instruction and at least
> ten hours on a firing range) for anyone who has not served on active
> duty in the military or graduated from a law enforcement academy
> prior to purchasing a weapon.
>
I like this one, depending on the details.
> 2.Universal background check for *all* weapon dealers and buyers
>
Sounds good in theory, but how do you stop your cousin Fred from selling
me a pistol? Assuming I'm on the naughty list, of course. What
incentive does he have to make sure I'm not a felon, or mentally unfit
to own a weapon?
> 3.Required bonds for all weapon owners on a graduated scale depending
> on the type and number of weapons and munitions owned. I’d called it
> a Liberty Levy.
>
So now someone gets to rake in the dough because I own something that
the Constitution itself says my ownership of cannot be infringed upon.
Who cashes my check? Now I'm in a position where I have to pay through
the nose to try to keep myself safe.
> 4.No legal magazines or clips can exceed five rounds.
>
Really, five rounds? What do you do with revolvers, plug one of the holes?
> 5.Proof of ownership of a weapon safe or sufficient trigger locks to
> disable the weapon when it is not in use. Any owner of a weapon used
> in a criminal act is liable for prosecution unless the gun owner can
> prove that he/she has filed a stolen weapon report prior to the
> commission of the crime in which it was used.
>
There are a lot of details to be hashed out here, but I like the idea of
encouraging safe weapon storage when they are not in use.
> 6.Prosecution of all private, unregulated weapon sales (seller and
> purchaser)
>
To be enforceable, that would require a database of all guns and their
current owners. Good luck going door to door asking to inspect people's
weapons. Not a job I'd want.
> 7.Mental health intervention for anyone who thinks a gun offers
> protection in a “dark and dangerous world” – which sounds more like a
> whine from a drug dealing, chaw-chewing, criminal in Harlan County
> (check out Justified tomorrow night) than a resident of Moscow, Idaho.
>
I distinctly remember hearing the sound of gunfire one night a few years
ago coming from the direction of the courthouse. Feel free to live in
your happy little world where people can't be hurt. With any luck at
all, you'll die a very old woman who has never had anything dangerous
happen to them and you will feel completely vindicated on your death
bed, secure in your knowledge that bad things only happen to other
people. Me, I'd rather hope for the best and prepare for the worst.
> 8.Every aspiring weapon owner and yada yada yada jackass who sprouts
> off about 2^nd amendment rights must demonstrate a clear understanding
> of District of Columbia vs. Heller
> <http://www.lawnix.com/cases/dc-heller.html> .
>
I didn't put the spin on it you were hoping for, apparently. So, tell
me, what gun control inspiring narrative do you take from that decision?
> Get over yourself. Now. I’m done with this pointless exchange.
>
Oh. Well, never mind then.
Paul
> Rose Huskey
>
> *From:*Paul Rumelhart [mailto:godshatter at yahoo.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, January 21, 2013 8:30 PM
> *To:* Tom Hansen
> *Cc:* Rosemary Huskey; Gary Crabtree; vision 2020
> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] Happy gun violence day!
>
>
> I wasn't trying to be cryptic. Your agenda is to ban guns, presumably
> out of a short-sighted attempt to save children's lives. I didn't say
> it was an evil agenda. In so doing, you would take away some of my
> ability to protect myself and my loved ones from a dark and dangerous
> world. It's short-sighted because it focuses on the wrong thing.
> It's not the gun that's the problem, it's the people willing to use
> one to kill children.
>
> And don't try to sell me the line that you aren't trying to ban all
> guns, just the evil military looking ones, because I'm not having it.
> You'd ban them all if you thought you had the political clout to do so.
>
> Was that enough dancing, for you?
>
> Paul
>
> On 01/21/2013 04:24 PM, Tom Hansen wrote:
>
> Mr. Rumelhart -
>
> Although you will certainly avoid answering my query or, at
> minimum, dance around any conceivable response . . .
>
> In addition to our tirelessly expressed desire of preventing the
> killing of innocents, what other "agenda" do you assign to us
> "tired old progressives" as we attempt to ban the possession
> and/or sale of semi-automatic assault rifles and/or high-capacity
> ammunition magazines; the tools applied in the aforementioned
> killing of innocents?
>
> What benefit would we "tired old progressives" realize in the
> pursuit of this imagined agenda?
>
> 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 Jan 21, 2013, at 4:02 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com
> <mailto:godshatter at yahoo.com>> wrote:
>
>
> Nobody is forcing progressives to keep military weapons in
> their homes. Their agenda is to keep others from keeping
> military weapons in *their* homes. That's the problem.
>
> Ignoring, of course, that most military weapons are actually
> illegal without hard to get permits. What the tired old
> progressives are trying to ban are weapons that resemble
> actual military weapons in outward appearance regardless of
> how they actually function.
>
> Paul
>
> On 01/21/2013 02:47 PM, Rosemary Huskey wrote:
>
> Darn that tired old progressive agenda that just doesn’t
> think military weapons are needed in American homes. What
> in the world are they thinking about?
>
> Rose Huskey
>
> *From:*vision2020-bounces at moscow.com
> <mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com>
> [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com] *On Behalf Of *Gary
> Crabtree
> *Sent:* Monday, January 21, 2013 2:44 PM
> *To:* Tom Hansen
> *Cc:* vision 2020
> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] Happy gun violence day!
>
> And in the link I posted a couple of weeks ago to an MSNBC
> news (as opposed to opinion) piece they said he did not.
> As to the incident in New Mexico according to CNN at 6:00
> AM this morning there was an AR present but they could not
> confirm that it was the weapon used.
>
> All of this is, of course, completely beside the point.
> Far more people are killed by blunt objects, sharp and
> pointy objects and flesh and bone objects then are killed
> by so called assault weapons. News stories such as the
> ones you cite are merely a convenient backdrop for the
> promotion of a long standing progressive agenda.
>
> g
>
> .
>
> . <http://tinyurl.com/assfaqu>
>
>
> .
>
>
>
>
> =======================================================
>
> 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/20130121/7542cb5d/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list