<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=text/html;charset=iso-8859-1 http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.7601.18021"></HEAD>
<BODY style="PADDING-LEFT: 10px; PADDING-RIGHT: 10px; PADDING-TOP: 15px"
id=MailContainerBody leftMargin=0 topMargin=0 CanvasTabStop="true"
name="Compose message area">
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri>You continue to conflate outcomes with the equipment by
which they are brought about.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri>Child porn is illegal, photographic
equipment is not.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri>Shooting people is illegal, owning semi automatic
firearms is not. (and should remain that way)</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 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> Sunday, February 03, 2013 2:56 PM</DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=jampot@roadrunner.com
href="mailto:jampot@roadrunner.com">Gary Crabtree</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Cc:</B> <A title=godshatter@yahoo.com
href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">Paul Rumelhart</A> ; <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>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 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><U></U>
<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><FONT face=Calibri></FONT> </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><FONT face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri>g</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt Tahoma">
<DIV><FONT size=3 face=Calibri></FONT><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> Sunday, February 03, 2013 12:41 PM</DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=godshatter@yahoo.com
href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com" target=_blank>Paul Rumelhart</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Cc:</B> <A 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>
<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>
mailto:<A href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"
target=_blank>Vision2020@moscow.com</A><BR>=======================================================
<P></P></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR></BODY></HTML>