<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>You are assuming that any ban is frivolous. Why assume that? Certainly banning guns just to make people feel better is wrong. But presumably there are reasons offered in supporting some guns that are not frivolous.</div><div><br>On Feb 2, 2013, at 8:03 PM, "Gary Crabtree" <<a href="mailto:jampot@roadrunner.com">jampot@roadrunner.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>
<meta content="text/html;charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="MSHTML 8.00.7601.18021">
<div>"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. "</div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Calibri"></font> </div>
<div><font face="Calibri">A similar restriction on firearms use is already in
place. It is illegal to use your second amendment right to harm others in almost
every instance save self defense. To ban certain weapons arbitrarily due to
their potential for misuse is akin to banning the publication,
distribution, and possession of newspapers, magazines, and pamphlets because
they occasionally violate the rights of others by committing libel or
defamation.</font></div>
<div><font face="Calibri"></font> </div>
<div><font face="Calibri">Rights are rights. Laws define their misuse. A right
that can be taken away from one group to make another group feel better is no
right at all.</font></div>
<div><font face="Calibri"></font> </div>
<div><font face="Calibri">g</font></div>
<div><br><br><br></div>
<div style="FONT: 10pt Tahoma">
<div><br></div>
<div style="BACKGROUND: #f5f5f5">
<div style="font-color: black"><b>From:</b> <a title="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com
CTRL + Click to follow link" href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com">Joe Campbell</a> </div>
<div><b>Sent:</b> Saturday, February 02, 2013 4:28 PM</div>
<div><b>To:</b> <a title="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com
CTRL + Click to follow link" href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">Paul Rumelhart</a> </div>
<div><b>Cc:</b> <a title="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com
CTRL + Click to follow link" href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</a> </div>
<div><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Vision2020] Gun Talk</div></div></div>
<div><br></div>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 title="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com
CTRL + Click to follow link" href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com" target="_blank">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class="gmail_quote">
<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>
<p>
</p><hr>
<p></p>=======================================================<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>=======================================================
</div></blockquote></body></html>