<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px; font-family: sans-serif; ">"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px; font-family: sans-serif; "><br></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px; font-family: sans-serif; ">If the nay sayers argue the language in the 2nd Amendment  refers to only weapons being a right based on  "</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px; ">A well regulated militia" ,  I'd argue that the 9th Amendment prevents Congress or any other governmental branch from banning privately owned weapons or parts there of, as that would be a right retained by the people. </span></div><div><br></div><div> I can find no where in the Constitution where Congress, or any other branch of the government has the right, granted to it by the people,  to ban privately owned weapons or parts of weapons. This is just the type of  government action that the 9th Amendment bans.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>WP</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="sans-serif"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;"><br></span></font></div><div><div><div>On Feb 2, 2013, at 6:57 PM, Paul Rumelhart wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">
  
    <meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
  
  <div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
      Taking more of my information down in order to purchase a
      different class of weapon makes sense to me.  That's how it works
      now.  It doesn't infringe upon my right to bear arms.  I'm OK with
      paying $200 to license each fully-automatic weapon, provide photos
      of myself, give fingerprints, etc.  I don't know if you have to
      now, but I'd be OK with mandatory training and some proof that I
      have secured some means of securing the weapon when it's not in
      use.  And, of course, the assumed background checks. <br>
      <br>
      I'm not so happy with the automatic weapons ban on weapons made
      later than 1986, though.  It makes trying to buy a fully-automatic
      weapon a pointless exercise unless you have a few tens of
      thousands lying around to buy a quality pre-1986 weapon and are
      prepared to buy hard-to-find parts to service it with.<br>
      <br>
      Paul<br>
      <br>
      On 02/02/2013 05:29 PM, Sunil Ramalingam wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote cite="mid:BAY155-W2607A0CA0D6C210ADA6FE2BD020@phx.gbl" type="cite">
      <style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Tahoma
}
--></style>
      <div dir="ltr">
        Paul,<br>
        <br>
        Should you be allowed to go to the store and buy a
        fully-automatic weapon, say an M-16, with the same paperwork you
        would need to buy a bolt-action .22?<br>
        <br>
        Does the law that prevents you from doing so violate the
        Constitution?<br>
        <br>
        Sunil<br>
        <br>
        <div>
          <hr id="stopSpelling">Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2013 17:22:59 -0800<br>
          From: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</a><br>
          To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com">philosopher.joe@gmail.com</a><br>
          CC: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>
          Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Gun Talk<br>
          <br>
          <div class="ecxmoz-cite-prefix"><br>
            Oh, I'm listening.  I just think you're trying to wish away
            what the Constitution says.  What good is a Right if you can
            curtail it however you want?  MY Right to bear arms should
            not be infringed because some other a-hole with an AR15 and
            a couple of screws loose caused a tragedy.  If he had
            survived, and was convicted in a court of law, then his
            freedom would have been taken away, if not his life.  I
            still have that right to arm myself that was very clearly
            laid out in the text of the Bill of Rights.<br>
            <br>
            I'm not saying that my right to bear arms should override
            your right to walk around in public without getting shot by
            me.  I am saying that your dislike of guns and/or wish that
            no one had them does not override my right to bear arms. 
            This seems very clear to me.  We're talking about where
            rights collide.  But for rights to collide, you have to have
            them in the first place.  The First Amendment analogy would
            be to take away your right to post freely on the Internet
            because some a-hole on a forum somewhere libeled me.<br>
            <br>
            Paul<br>
            <br>
            On 02/02/2013 04:28 PM, Joe Campbell wrote:<br>
          </div>
          <blockquote cite="mid:CA+fbP8x_3WHCmBQQ+1Svzfed5U3VTkc7BVdtBuqWod0fo70v2g@mail.gmail.com">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="ecxgmail_quote">On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 2:40 PM,
              Paul Rumelhart <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>></span>
              wrote:<br>
              <blockquote class="ecxgmail_quote" style="border-left-width: 1px; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-style: solid; padding-left: 1ex; position: static; z-index: auto; ">
                <div>
                  <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="ecxHOEnZb"><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>
                        <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 moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>>


                          wrote:<br>
                          <br>
                        </div>
                        <blockquote>
                          <div>
                            <div>On 02/02/2013 01:09 PM, Joe Campbell
                              wrote:<br>
                            </div>
                            <blockquote>
                              <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>
                              <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>
                              <div><br>
                                On Feb 2, 2013, at 10:55 AM, Paul
                                Rumelhart <<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>>

                                wrote:<br>
                                <br>
                              </div>
                              <blockquote>
                                <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>:<br>
                                  </div>
                                  <blockquote>
                                    <div><br></div></blockquote></div></blockquote></blockquote></div></blockquote></blockquote></div></div></div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div></div>
      <pre wrap="">=======================================================
 List services made available by First Step Internet,
 serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
               <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.fsr.net/">http://www.fsr.net</a>
          <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</a>
=======================================================</pre>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
  </div>

=======================================================<br> List services made available by First Step Internet,<br> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br>               <a href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</a><br>          <a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>=======================================================</blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>