<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
I do tend to follow the "innocent until proven guilty" and
"assumed innocent especially when nobody has done anything, yet"
schools of thought. You may have the makings of a bomb in your
house right now, cleverly hidden away in otherwise innocent
household items. If someone gets a warrant and enters a residence
and it contains bomb-making equipment and it's all laid out ready
to be made into a bomb, that's one thing. It makes sense that
certain items be restricted, too, but if you want to make a bomb
you don't need exotic materials. Read through the Anarchist's
Cookbook sometime. I don't suggest trying anything in there,
though, you'd probably lose a limb or something.<br>
<br>
I don't feel like defending the U.S's War on Drugs at this point
in time.<br>
<br>
As for your point about you saying something that MIGHT harm my
reputation, you can say anything you like as long as you are
prepared to face the consequences if I take you to court. What's
the alternative? Muzzle you?<br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<br>
On 02/04/2013 08:23 AM, Joe Campbell wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+fbP8xQ=fdNjASAge0fd+DPDCS++BD-TjW+VvMKA1ZtxyWOfQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">What do you say about drugs? It is OK to have them in
your possession, you just can't use them. Is that your view? Do
you think it is fine to have all the makings for an Oklahoma-type
bomb, or all the ingredients for large batches of methamphetamine,
so long as you don't mix them together? Can I say lies that MIGHT
harm your reputation and wait and see if it actually does harm it
before you'll want to step in with sanctions?<br>
<br>
I think I've made my point, and really Art made the main point.
Busy week!<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 4:06 PM, Paul
Rumelhart <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
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 text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div><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?<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
Paul</font></span>
<div>
<div class="h5"><br>
<br>
On 02/03/2013 03:33 PM, Joe Campbell wrote:<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="h5">
<blockquote type="cite">
<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"
target="_blank">jampot@roadrunner.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<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><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
2:56 PM</div>
<div><b>To:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
title="jampot@roadrunner.com"
href="mailto:jampot@roadrunner.com"
target="_blank">Gary Crabtree</a> </div>
<div><b>Cc:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
title="godshatter@yahoo.com"
href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com"
target="_blank">Paul Rumelhart</a> ; <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
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>
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>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>