<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
If the point were potential of harm, then the argument that the
assault weapons ban is a ban on "military looking" weapons as
opposed to "militarily useful" ones would gain more traction. <br>
<br>
This is probably because the real "assault rifles" actually are
banned, the fully-automatic ones. At least, those made since 1986
unless you are the police, the military, or a government agency.<br>
<br>
By the way, does anyone know if there have been any challenges to
that legislation (the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986) that
have gone before the Supreme Court?<br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<br>
On 02/03/2013 03:33 PM, Joe Campbell wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:B292430F-63D2-49FF-ADA7-7515864E8326@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div>The point is potential of harm</div>
<div><br>
On Feb 3, 2013, at 3:09 PM, "Gary Crabtree" <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:jampot@roadrunner.com">jampot@roadrunner.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="MSHTML 8.00.7601.18021">
<div><font face="Calibri">You continue to conflate outcomes
with the equipment by which they are brought about.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Calibri">Child porn is illegal, photographic
equipment is not.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Calibri">Shooting people is illegal,
owning semi automatic firearms is not. (and should remain
that way)</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Calibri">g</font></div>
<div style="FONT: 10pt Tahoma">
<div><br>
</div>
<div style="BACKGROUND: #f5f5f5">
<div style="font-color: black"><b>From:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
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> Sunday, February 03, 2013 2:56 PM</div>
<div><b>To:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
title="jampot@roadrunner.com"
href="mailto:jampot@roadrunner.com">Gary Crabtree</a>
</div>
<div><b>Cc:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
title="godshatter@yahoo.com"
href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">Paul Rumelhart</a>
; <a moz-do-not-send="true"
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>
We do in fact ban TYPES of print: child pornography, for
instance. We ban types of speech, as well. That is different
from banning types of guns exactly how?<br>
<br>
Again, I'm not advocating any specific ban. Just that it is
absurd to claim as you claim, as Paul claims, and as the NRA
claims, that the 2nd amendment should be understood as
prohibiting the banning of guns altogether.<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 2:44 PM, Gary
Crabtree <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:jampot@roadrunner.com" target="_blank">jampot@roadrunner.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 style="PADDING-LEFT: 10px; PADDING-RIGHT: 10px;
PADDING-TOP: 15px" name="Compose message area">
<div><font face="Calibri">You keep making apples to
oranges comparisons.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Calibri">In a effort to deter that
which is undesirable </font><font face="Times New
Roman">(yelling fire in a crowded movie theater;
libel; slander; child pornography) </font><font
face="Calibri">we punish the occurrences. We do not
try to take away the means by banning magazines,
(six words or greater) newspapers, internet,
photography, or surgical removal of the tongue.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Calibri">g</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div style="FONT: 10pt Tahoma">
<div><br>
</div>
<div style="BACKGROUND: #f5f5f5">
<div><b>From:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
title="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com
CTRL + Click to follow link"
href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com"
target="_blank">Joe Campbell</a> </div>
<div><b>Sent:</b> Sunday, February 03, 2013 12:41 PM</div>
<div><b>To:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
title="godshatter@yahoo.com"
href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com"
target="_blank">Paul Rumelhart</a> </div>
<div><b>Cc:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
title="vision2020@moscow.com"
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"
target="_blank">vision2020@moscow.com</a> </div>
<div><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Vision2020] Gun Talk</div>
</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Paul wrote: How is my interpretation of
the Second Amendment in any way "radical"?
"Radical?" Really? "...the right of the people to
keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." How is a
government ban on a complete class of guns (based
almost solely on how military they look) not an
infringement of my right to keep and bear arms?
Doesn't it stop me from buying an AR15, for example,
not based on market forces or recalls based on safety
or popularity, but because the government told me I
can't own one? Doesn't that infringe on my right to
keep and bear arms, if only by restricting what I can
keep and bear? I don't see how this is "radical".<br>
<br>
<div>All rights may be infringed. Sorry. I don't want
to try to figure out the founding fathers meant --
likely, the right to ban what we call "arms" cannot
be infringed, which is reasonable -- but the idea
that there are NO restrictions on (what we now think
of as) gun sales is crazy. You can restrict speech
so you sure as heck can restrict gun sales. Any view
that says that we can do X under ANY circumstances
provided X is listed in the Bill of Rights is a
radical view.<br>
<br>
Show me ONE other right that you think "shall not be
infringed" in the way that you supposed gun rights
shall not be infringed? Again, it is confusing. I
would argue that circumstances in which your speech
or expression may be restricted (yelling fire in a
crowded movie theater; libel; slander; child
pornography) is precisely the point at which your
rights end. Again, I have a hard time saying the
government is violating your right to free
expression because it prohibits you from slandering
Gary Crabtree. You NEVER had that "right." You have
the right to speech freely ... up to a point. That
is just how rights work. <br>
<br>
But of course I've already made this point!<br>
</div>
</div>
<hr>
=======================================================<br>
List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.fsr.net" target="_blank">http://www.fsr.net</a><br>
mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank">Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>
=======================================================
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>