Actually I agree with you to an extent. There are two issues:<br><br>1/ CAN we ban (say) semiautomatics?<br><br>2/ SHOULD we ban (say) semiautomatics?<br><br>I have argued "Yes" to (1). But I agree with you that if our ONLY reason to ban (say) semiautomatics is because it is an "ineffective balm for the few," then of course the answer to (2) would be "No." We would need a MUCH better reason to ban semiautomatics. So this much we are in agreement.<br>
<br>You seem to think that the answer to (1) is "No," that having gun rights makes any form of gun control unconstitutional. That is the NRA view. That view strikes me as crazy for reasons I've stated. Why think it is correct?<br>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 6:51 AM, Gary Crabtree <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jampot@roadrunner.com" target="_blank">jampot@roadrunner.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<u></u>
<div style="PADDING-LEFT:10px;PADDING-RIGHT:10px;PADDING-TOP:15px" dir="auto" name="Compose message area">
<div><font face="Calibri">I don't recall frivolity or the lack thereof being
mentioned in the constitution as a mitigating factor for the depravation of a
right for a whole group of law abiding citizens.</font></div>
<div><font face="Calibri"></font> </div>
<div><font face="Calibri">An individual can have a right denied for cause (felons,
lunatics, and the feeble minded) but to deprive the many as an ineffective balm
for the few should be fought tooth and nail.</font></div>
<div><font face="Calibri"></font> </div>
<div><font face="Calibri">g</font></div>
<div style="FONT:10pt Tahoma">
<div><br></div>
<div style="BACKGROUND:#f5f5f5">
<div><b>From:</b> <a title="philosopher.joe@gmail.com" href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com" target="_blank">Joe Campbell</a> </div>
<div><b>Sent:</b> Saturday, February 02, 2013 10:09 PM</div>
<div><b>To:</b> <a title="jampot@roadrunner.com" href="mailto:jampot@roadrunner.com" target="_blank">Gary Crabtree</a> </div>
<div><b>Cc:</b> <a title="godshatter@yahoo.com" href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com" target="_blank">Paul Rumelhart</a> ; <a title="vision2020@moscow.com" href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com%3E" target="_blank"><vision2020@moscow.com></a> </div>
<div><div class="h5">
<div><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Vision2020] Gun Talk</div></div></div></div></div><div><div class="h5">
<div><br></div>
<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" target="_blank">jampot@roadrunner.com</a>>
wrote:<br><br></div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<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><b>From:</b> <a 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> 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" target="_blank">Paul Rumelhart</a> </div>
<div><b>Cc:</b> <a title="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com
CTRL + Click to follow link" 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>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><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>
<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" target="_blank">http://www.fsr.net</a><br>
<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>=======================================================
</div></blockquote></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br>