<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>