I've told you this before but you don't seem to be listening: any right can be violated for the right reason; there is NO right to do X regardless; all rights have limitations given their nature. You can't allow people the right to violate the rights of others, for instance. Thus, when rights bump up against each other, one of them has to give. <br>
<br>And it says "the right of the people ... shall not be violated" not "folks can own whatever kind of gun they wish, and for whatever reason or purpose." Curtailing my speech by prohibiting me from slanderous public comments is not a violation of my rights since I never had the right to harm your interests in the first place. I can speak freely ... up to a point. Essentially a right is something you can do so long as it doesn't bump up against the rights and interests of others. Because NO ONE has a right to do wrong. <br>
<br>This point seems very clear. I've made it over and over. If you could spot the flaw in the argument, I'd be interested to know what it is. But you won't even talk about. You just keep making the same false claim about gun rights, over and over again.<br>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Paul Rumelhart <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com" target="_blank">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div><br>
My idea doesn't match the current narrative going around, eh?<br>
<br>
The Bill of Rights, of which the 2nd Amendment is one, doesn't
give us any rights. They are already ours. All it does is limit
what the government can do with regards to those rights. For
example, for the 1st Amendment, it's "Congress shall make no
law...". For the 4th Amendment it's "The right of the people ...
shall not be violated". In the case of the 2nd Amendment, that
limit is "the right of the people ... shall not infringed". The
well regulated militia part is explanatory, a reason why the
"shall not infringe" part was put there.<br>
<br>
I'm having a hard time reconciling the word "ban" with the words
"the right of the people ... shall not be infringed". They appear
to be diametrically opposed to each other, to me. But then I
guess I don't drink the Kool-aid.<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
Paul</font></span><div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
On 02/02/2013 01:54 PM, Joe Campbell wrote:<br>
</div></div></div><div><div class="h5">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>You have a faulty understanding of the notion of a
constitutional right.</div>
<div><br>
On Feb 2, 2013, at 1:38 PM, Paul Rumelhart <<a href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com" target="_blank">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div>On 02/02/2013 01:09 PM, Joe
Campbell wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>1/ ban those guns too maybe</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
If only there was some Constitutional backing for that. If
that still matters, anymore.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>2/ and the drones. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I wouldn't "ban" them, necessarily. Better to use drones that
put boots on the ground. I'd simply suggest that we stop
using them as our President's personal kill toy.<br>
<br>
Someday I'd like to hear this story from the perspective of
one of the remote controllers of the drones. How exactly does
an average drone assassination go down?<br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><br>
On Feb 2, 2013, at 10:55 AM, Paul Rumelhart <<a href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com" target="_blank">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div><br>
You know, I could get behind these attempts to portray
people who are against the assault weapons ban as
sociopaths or schizophrenics, if it weren't for the
following things:<br>
<br>
1. If the proponents of these bans weren't so
disingenuous with their wording. "Assault weapon" is
a look-and-feel definition, not a usage-based one. A
Ruger Mini 14 is just as deadly in a spree shooting as
an AR15, but it's not considered an "assault weapon"
because it doesn't look enough like a movie prop.
I've both made this kind of comment on this list
before and have seen it made here many times. I
haven't seen anyone answer it. What is the use of
banning a weapon based on how military it looks? Why
ban guns with barrel shrouds? All they do is keep you
from burning yourself on the barrel. Or bayonet
mounts? Are we really worried about the latest rash
of gun stabbings? My conclusion: it's only useful
politically.<br>
<br>
2. If they weren't so intent to ride the "think of
the children" wave. If the deaths of school children
should be driving our behaviors, then how about we
overhaul the drone program? Lots of children are
dying every day via drones, all OK'd by our sitting
President. I posted an article about that a few days
ago, I think. So why is the outrage over Newtown
driving the assault weapons ban but there is no
outrage over drone-killings? The only differences I
can see are that the Newtown angle has been in the
news non-stop while there is very little reporting on
personally sanctioned assassinations by our President
and that the children killed by drones are brown and
not white. "Foreign" and not "domestic", if that
makes you sleep better. Also, every new gun-related
incident gets center stage attention, as if these
kinds of tragedies haven't been happening all the
time. Suddenly, a switch is thrown and we're all
outraged about them.<br>
<br>
Now, I can get behind better background checks. I'd
like to see more focus on how we can keep guns out of
the hands of the mentally ill as well, as long as
we're careful about people's rights so a random Joe
can't be suddenly labeled "mentally ill" because he or
she owns an AR15 or for some other trumped up reason.
Better databases covering gun sales would also make
sense, though I can understand the concerns that if
they know about your guns they can also come take them
away. More training on gun handling and safety would
also not go amiss.<br>
<br>
But this push to ban "assault weapons" is blatant
political theater. The magazine size restrictions are
idiotic, as well. It takes a second to swap a
magazine if you've practiced it a few times. Pick up
the magazine, release the current one and let it drop,
shove the new one home. <br>
<br>
tl;dr version: gun control is currently all about
political expediency when it should be all about
actual effectiveness.<br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<br>
On 02/02/2013 09:26 AM, Moscow Cares wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><mime-attachment.jpg><br>
<br>
<div>Seeya round town, Moscow, because . . .</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>"Moscow Cares"</div>
<div><a href="http://www.MoscowCares.com" target="_blank">http://www.MoscowCares.com</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>
<div>Tom Hansen</div>
<div>Moscow, Idaho</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>"<span style="font-size:medium">There's room at the top they
are telling you still</span><span style="font-size:medium"> </span></div>
<span style="font-size:medium">But first you must learn how
to smile as you kill </span><br style="font-size:medium">
<span style="font-size:medium">If you want to be like the
folks on the hill."</span></div>
<div><font size="3"><span><br>
</span></font></div>
<div><font size="3"><span>- John Lennon<br>
</span></font>
<div> </div>
</div>
</div>
<div><br>
On Feb 2, 2013, at 9:05 AM, Art Deco <<a href="mailto:art.deco.studios@gmail.com" target="_blank">art.deco.studios@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">Understanding why we need assault
rifles:<br>
<br>
<Tom Tomorrow Glib Guns
TMW2013-01-30colorKOS.png><br clear="all">
<div><br>
-- <br>
Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)<br>
<a href="mailto:art.deco.studios@gmail.com" target="_blank">art.deco.studios@gmail.com</a><br>
<br>
<img src="http://users.moscow.com/waf/WP%20Fox%2001.jpg"><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><span>=======================================================</span><br>
<span> List services made available by First Step
Internet,</span><br>
<span> serving the communities of the Palouse
since 1994.</span><br>
<span> <a href="http://www.fsr.net" target="_blank">http://www.fsr.net</a></span><br>
<span> <a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</a></span><br>
<span>=======================================================</span></div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<br>
<pre>=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<a href="http://www.fsr.net" target="_blank">http://www.fsr.net</a>
<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</a>
=======================================================</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><span>=======================================================</span><br>
<span> List services made available by First Step
Internet,</span><br>
<span> serving the communities of the Palouse since
1994.</span><br>
<span> <a href="http://www.fsr.net" target="_blank">http://www.fsr.net</a></span><br>
<span> <a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</a></span><br>
<span>=======================================================</span></div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br>