I'm "trying to wish away what the Constitution says"? Isn't this just another way of saying that you think the Constitution says something different? Why would I wish the Constitution said something different than it says? I'm very happy with what it DOES say. And I've given a pretty good argument for my interpretation of it. I haven't heard any argument from your side, for your radical interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.<br>
<br>And for Christ's sake PLEASE stop attributing to me the view that I want to ban guns. I have not said I wanted to ban anything, not even semiautomatics. In fact, I've ONLY been talking about the Constitutional interpretation issue and the ONLY point I've consistently made on this topic is that the 2nd Amendment DOES NOT allow you the right to buy whatever gun you wish; rights can't possibly have this kind of universal extension since no one has the right to do wrong. <br>
<br>ALL that means is that we CAN and should TALK about banning semi-automatics, or pretty much ANY gun, as I see it. But we are going to have to muster up some pretty good reasons in support of such a ban. Gun rights suggest that unless a VERY good reason can be given, we should not ban guns, or types of guns. But it allows for the banning of types of guns provided adequate reasons are given. I've never said anything about banning this gun or that, though admittedly I don't much care whether or not semiautomatics are banned. I don't see any use for those guns by private citizens. That doesn't mean I want to ban them.<br>
<br>I don't have a dislike of guns -- in fact, I actually LIKE guns very much (though this is recent) -- and the fact that you keep trying to fit every liberal into the same hole makes it very difficult to talk with you about this issue.<br>
<br>Getting back to my point and your misunderstanding of it, saying that ALL rights CAN be curtailed is not the same as saying that "you can curtail it however you want." Speech can be curtailed. You cannot curtail speech however you want. In this way, it is different from (say) smoking crack. We can curtail ALL instances of smoking crack but not all instances of speech. There is no right to smoke crack. That is what having a right does: it gives you a kind of presumptive entitlement; it doesn't give you universal entitlement. That is absurd. If we have no universal entitlement to speech, then we have no universal entitlement to anything. And I've already made the point about speech.<br>
<br>You might wonder: How does your owning a gun interfere with my rights? Well, it COULD do so in many ways. Consider that a great many guns are stolen each year; a great many of those are used in crimes. You could be as careful as you wish but no matter how careful you are, some gun that you buy COULD be used to kill ME. So in theory at least we already have a situation where one set of rights (your right to own a gun) is being weighed against another set of rights (my right to life). The situation is absurd since the likelihood some gun that you own being used to kill me is small. But all that means is as the likelihood of threat to life (or harm to interests) rises, the more a consideration of these kinds of issues matter when determining whether or not your right can be curtailed.<br>
<br>But this is NOT an argument for banning guns! This is an argument that even though we have gun rights, we can ban guns just the same. In other words, the NRA interpretation -- your interpretation -- is a bad one, an absurd interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. <br>
<br>But I take all rights seriously. We'd have to have a damn good reason to ever ban any gun.<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 5:22 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>
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.<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
Paul</font></span><div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
On 02/02/2013 04:28 PM, Joe Campbell wrote:<br>
</div></div></div><div><div class="h5">
<blockquote type="cite">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><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
Paul</font></span>
<div>
<div><br>
<br>
On 02/02/2013 01:54 PM, Joe Campbell wrote:<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<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>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br>