<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Tahoma
}
--></style></head>
<body class='hmmessage'><div dir='ltr'>
So what you're proposing would be: Step 1) Agree on a precise specification the armor (material, thickness, temperature, anything else that would affect its pierceability) as well as the distance from muzzle to nearest surface plus atmoshperic conditions, etc. 2) Ensure that the law restricting this type of armor piercing ammo passes Constitutional muster otherwise it will be struck down.<br><br>Correct?<br><br>-Scott<br><br><div><div id="SkyDrivePlaceholder"></div>> Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 18:13:50 -0700<br>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] A Liberal<br>> From: philosopher.joe@gmail.com<br>> To: scooterd408@hotmail.com<br>> CC: thansen@moscow.com; vision2020@moscow.com<br>> <br>> This is a slippery-slope argument, a fallacy. You can use the argument<br>> to undermine any exception -- indeed it can be used whenever there is<br>> vagueness -- since (one might argue) everything is like something<br>> else, which is like something else, and eventually everything is like<br>> everything else (if one is not tracking the logic well enough, if one<br>> is not being precise).<br>> <br>> A better solution is to make the definition of "armor piercing"<br>> precise. No vagueness, no slippery-slope. And if there's an expression<br>> that could be made precise, I would think "armor piercing" would be<br>> it. Not everything is armor; not everything counts as piercing armor.<br>> I'm not afraid of fallacious arguments. Study logic long enough and<br>> you can find ways to defeat those arguments.<br>> <br>> Not all liberals are out to take away all guns. Some of us just want a<br>> safer world which doesn't allow for an "exceptionless" understanding<br>> of the 2nd amendment. Look, if we can find reasonable exceptions to<br>> the use of words and restrictions to the 1st amendment, we should be<br>> able to do the same with regard to the 2nd amendment.<br>> <br>> Do you really think that ANY word has the potential to harm you -- and<br>> take away your right to life -- more than an armor piercing bullet? I<br>> don't. And if we have reasonable exceptions to the 1st amendment -- of<br>> which there are many already in place -- it follows that we should be<br>> able to construct reasonable exceptions to the 2nd amendment. That is<br>> one purpose of the law. To add precision and logic to discussions that<br>> are driven by fear and emotion.<br>> <br>> On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 5:22 PM, Scott Dredge <scooterd408@hotmail.com> wrote:<br>> > The trouble with making exceptions like banning 'armor piercing bullets' is<br>> > then that those against guns and ammo use that to tag 90+ percent of bullets<br>> > as 'armor piercing'. I'd be more apt to listen to armor wearers who most at<br>> > risk of being in the line of fire (police, swat teams) what they think about<br>> > such a ban and using what metrics to determine what is allowed / not<br>> > allowed. After that it's up to the courts to decide if such a ban can pass<br>> > Constitutional muster. The only armor I have is flesh and bone so I might<br>> > be able to stop a paint ball on my own.<br>> ><br>> >> CC: scooterd408@hotmail.com; vision2020@moscow.com<br>> >> From: thansen@moscow.com<br>> ><br>> >> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] A Liberal<br>> >> Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 15:02:18 -0700<br>> >> To: philosopher.joe@gmail.com<br>> ><br>> >><br>> >> As I have stated in the past in words to the affect . . .<br>> >><br>> >> I totally support the letter and spirit of the second amendment. However,<br>> >> I draw the line somewhere after skeet shooting and looooooonnnnng before<br>> >> somebody drives a fully loaded M2 Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle down<br>> >> Main Street.<br>> >><br>> >> Seeya round town, Moscow.<br>> >><br>> >> Tom Hansen<br>> >> Moscow, Idaho<br>> >><br>> >> "If not us, who?<br>> >> If not now, when?"<br>> >><br>> >> - Unknown<br>> >><br>> >><br>> >><br>> >> On Jul 16, 2012, at 14:53, Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe@gmail.com> wrote:<br>> >><br>> >> > There is also Amendment IX: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of<br>> >> > certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others<br>> >> > retained by the people." Thus, we can restrict rights precisely when<br>> >> > they "deny or disparage" other rights. Or in other words: no one has<br>> >> > the right to do wrong. I think the idea that the 2nd amendment<br>> >> > "protects" the "right" to purchase, say, armor piercing bullets is<br>> >> > wrong headed. Joe<br>> >> ><br>> >> > On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 11:41 AM, Scott Dredge <scooterd408@hotmail.com><br>> >> > wrote:<br>> >> >> Sure...there are some extreme cases where restrictions make sense (e.g.<br>> >> >> falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater). I suppose there may even<br>> >> >> be<br>> >> >> some extreme case limiting access to abortion (e.g. doctors recommend<br>> >> >> terminating a pregnancy to save the life of an incapacitated woman<br>> >> >> who's<br>> >> >> husband, parents, children, and close friends all truthfully testify in<br>> >> >> legal depositions that the woman would not want such a pregnancy<br>> >> >> terminated).<br>> >> >><br>> >> >> There are always extreme corner case scenarios that you can dream up<br>> >> >> and<br>> >> >> even harder to believe ones that occur in real life that necessitate<br>> >> >> some<br>> >> >> safeguarding limitations.<br>> >> >><br>> >> >> -Scott<br>> >> >><br>> >> >>> CC: scooterd408@hotmail.com; vision2020@moscow.com<br>> >> >>> From: philosopher.joe@gmail.com<br>> >> >>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] A Liberal<br>> >> >>> Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 11:21:50 -0700<br>> >> >>> To: thansen@moscow.com<br>> >> >><br>> >> >>><br>> >> >>> Me too. I think the view that gun rights can NEVER be restricted is<br>> >> >>> false.<br>> >> >>> All rights can be restricted. If free speech can be restricted than<br>> >> >>> gun<br>> >> >>> rights can be restricted. Joe<br>> >> >>><br>> >> >>><br>> >> >>><br>> >> >>> On Jul 16, 2012, at 10:51 AM, Tom Hansen <thansen@moscow.com> wrote:<br>> >> >>><br>> >> >>>> I own a shotgun myself. I believe in, and support, the second<br>> >> >>>> amendment.<br>> >> >>>><br>> >> >>>> Seeya round town, Moscow.<br>> >> >>>><br>> >> >>>> Tom Hansen<br>> >> >>>> Moscow, Idaho<br>> >> >>>><br>> >> >>>> "If not us, who?<br>> >> >>>> If not now, when?"<br>> >> >>>><br>> >> >>>> - Unknown<br>> >> >>>><br>> >> >>>><br>> >> >>>><br>> >> >>>> On Jul 16, 2012, at 10:44, Scott Dredge <scooterd408@hotmail.com><br>> >> >>>> wrote:<br>> >> >>>><br>> >> >>>>> I'd say it's not inconsistent then that a Liberal can also support<br>> >> >>>>> 2nd<br>> >> >>>>> Amendment gun ownership rights to - among other things - protect<br>> >> >>>>> property<br>> >> >>>>> and person. :-)<br>> >> >>>>><br>> >> >>>>> From: thansen@moscow.com<br>> >> >>>>> Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 10:39:41 -0700<br>> >> >>>>> To: vision2020@moscow.com<br>> >> >>>>> Subject: [Vision2020] A Liberal<br>> >> >>>>><br>> >> >>>>><br>> >> >>>>><br>> >> >>>>> Seeya round town, Moscow.<br>> >> >>>>><br>> >> >>>>> Tom Hansen<br>> >> >>>>> Moscow, Idaho<br>> >> >>>>><br>> >> >>>>> "If not us, who?<br>> >> >>>>> If not now, when?"<br>> >> >>>>><br>> >> >>>>> - Unknown<br>> >> >>>>><br>> >> >>>>><br>> >> >>>>><br>> >> >>>>> ======================================================= List<br>> >> >>>>> services<br>> >> >>>>> made available by First Step Internet, serving the communities of<br>> >> >>>>> the<br>> >> >>>>> Palouse since 1994. http://www.fsr.net mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<br>> >> >>>>> =======================================================<br>> >> >>>>> =======================================================<br>> >> >>>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>> >> >>>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br>> >> >>>>> http://www.fsr.net<br>> >> >>>>> mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<br>> >> >>>>> =======================================================<br>> >> >>>><br>> >> >>>> =======================================================<br>> >> >>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>> >> >>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br>> >> >>>> http://www.fsr.net<br>> >> >>>> mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<br>> >> >>>> =======================================================<br></div> </div></body>
</html>