[Vision2020] Happy gun violence day!

[Joe Campbell]

Paul,

I want to bring something up from a while ago.

Your complaint against gun control below is particular: "It's not the gun
that's the problem, it's the people willing to use one to kill children."
This is not a general complaint -- you are not appealing to the 2nd
amendment, for instance -- it is particular and leaves it open that IF
there is evidence that in fact GUNS are a significant part of the
"problem," then you'd be OK with gun control. Your point is that there is
no such evidence.

Part of this was the point I was trying to make. It does no good to simply
appeal to the 2nd amendment against some form of gun control. That is a
given. For if the GUN is a significant problem, that may trump the right --
just as potential financial harms trump the right of free speech in cases
of libel. The Bill of Rights does not secure absolute rights, for no rights
are absolute. The NRA view is both incorrect and unhelpful.

I'll only add that whether or not some particular form of gun control
solves or improves upon a "problem" is an empirical question and will vary
depending upon the form of gun control and the "problem."

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 8:30 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>wrote:

>
> 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> 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 <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 <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/20130122/c6008e0a/attachment.html>