<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>It is my strong belief that our founding fathers designed the constitution to be flexible, to be interpreted in a manner suitable for the times as our country continues to evolve. What may have been right at one time, may be wrong at another (i.e. Plessy v. Ferguson of 1896).</div><div><br></div><div>For the largest part, the US Supreme Court has been held responsible for interpreting the constitution. Appointment to the US Supreme Court is a lifetime appointment (talk about job security). So, as vacancies on the Supreme Court occur, the POTUS designates a candidate to fill that vacancy. That candidate goes before a confirmation hearing.</div><div><br></div><div>I explained my opinion in such detail because, as I understand it . . . there may be two vacancies during President Obama's current administration. I don't see President Obama appointing a Scalia-type justice.</div><div><br></div><div>Regardless of which gun-control legislation eventually becomes reality, a case (found to be in violation of that new law) will go before the nine justices of the US Supreme Court. For those who do not wish to see gun-control, it would be favorable to them if this case went to the Supreme Court prior to President Obama's appointment(s).<br><br><div>Seeya round town, Moscow, because . . .</div><div><br></div><div>"Moscow Cares"</div><div><a href="http://www.MoscowCares.com">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; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.292969); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); ">There's room at the top they are telling you still</span><span style="font-size: medium; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.292969); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); "> </span></div><span style="font-size: medium; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.296875); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); ">But first you must learn how to smile as you kill </span><br style="font-size: medium; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.296875); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); "><span style="font-size: medium; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.296875); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); ">If you want to be like the folks on the hill."</span></div><div><font size="3"><span style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.292969); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469);"><br></span></font></div><div><font size="3"><span style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.292969); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469);">- John Lennon<br></span></font><div> </div></div></div><div><br>On Feb 5, 2013, at 8:29 AM, Art Deco <<a href="mailto:art.deco.studios@gmail.com">art.deco.studios@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div><div><div><div>@Paul:<br><br></div>I am unable to make a point beyond suggesting education to someone arguing, for example, about the Special Theory of Relativity who doesn't understand rudimentary calculus or physics.<br>
<br></div>Constitutional law is a complex subject and the evolution of U.S, Supreme decisions on this matter is complex and filled with many twists and turns.<br><br></div>If you are unwilling to educate yourself on the various applications of the "to promote the general welfare" clause in the last half of the 20th century by doing a little Googling, that is your problem, not that of the rest of V2020 forum.<br>
<br></div>Just to get a taste of how twisty, turny, backsliding, precedent reversing, etc and complex constitutional law can be, try following the easily accessible on Goggle the evolution of criminal procedure since the original <i>Miranda</i> ruling. <br>
<br></div>I do not know what the U.S. Supreme Court will do in the future with the meaning and limits of the 2nd Amendment, but given its history, for example, in reacting to the civil rights movement, it would be not unusual for it to reverse some of its present holding in the light of developments like mass murders by assault weapon wielding assassins and the intensity and breath of public sentiment, not to mention changes that may occur with changes in the court's membership. If changes occur, it would not be surprising in view of the court's 20th century decisions to find some justification for change using the "promote the general welfare" clause.<br>
<br>w.<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 2:06 AM, Scott Dredge <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:scooterd408@hotmail.com" target="_blank">scooterd408@hotmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div><div dir="ltr">
My sense is that Congress will just debate this and it won't actually make it to law. And if it does, then there will be a flurry of challenges up to the supreme court. If the bans survive that, then parallel to Paul's post, manufacturers will slightly tweak the designs to make pseudo-semi-automatic weapons that skirt the ban. This sort of things happens all the time. Several years ago I had 5-speed Camaro that shifted 1st to 4th in order to meet an EPA rating. It was easy to over ride unless you were accelerating / shifting in the manner that the EPA test was run. We'll see how this all plays out.<br>
<br>-Scott<br><br><div><div></div><hr>Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 19:00:33 -0800<br>From: <a href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com" target="_blank">godshatter@yahoo.com</a><br>To: <a href="mailto:art.deco.studios@gmail.com" target="_blank">art.deco.studios@gmail.com</a><br>
CC: <a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank">vision2020@moscow.com</a><div><div class="h5"><br>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Gun Talk<br><br>
<div><br>
Now, I might be a fucking idiot, and you're right, I'm not a
constitutional law scholar, and I'm still fuzzy on this whole
"debate" thing... but I could have sworn it was your job to back
up whatever point you're trying to make. I'm pretty sure it's not
mine.<br>
<br>
Also, are you under the delusion that the legislation Mr. Hansen
politely provided a link for is in anyway going to affect the
numbers of mass murders? Sure, they won't be by "assault
weapons". They'll just use something that acts pretty much the
same but doesn't meet the definition exactly. Like the Ruger Mini
14 I keep talking about that I doubt even one of you has googled
yet. Unless, of course they have access to a grandfathered rifle.
The magazine restrictions will potentially help them. The Aurora
shooter tried to use a 100-round drum magazine and it jammed on
him. Harris brought thirteen ten-round clips for his Hi-point 995
Carbine and managed to fire off 96 rounds before killing himself.
Harris's gun wasn't even one that was banned by the previous
assault weapons ban, though it's pistol grip would make it one
under the current legislation.<br>
<br>
Anyway, I'll be curious to find out if the General Welfare clause
can override the Bill of Rights.<br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<br>
On 02/04/2013 05:16 PM, Art Deco wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Stop trying to argue constitutional law without a
rudimentary understanding of how the U.S, Court has used the
"promote the general welfare" clause in deciding case of
constitutional law. It is not my intention to present a
treatise on the issue; Google for it. Educate yourself so
that you can see how the issue the constitutionality of
ownership of assault weapons could be argued and possibly
decided in the age of the increasing numbers of mass murders
by assault weapons.<br>
<br>
</div>
w.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
<br>
<div>On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 8:03 PM, Joe
Campbell <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com" target="_blank">philosopher.joe@gmail.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote style="border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="auto">
<div>One question is what they meant by that.</div>
<div>
<div>
<div><br>
On Feb 4, 2013, at 3:07 PM, Paul Rumelhart <<a href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com" target="_blank">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote>
<div>
<div>It talks about
"arms" in there, somewhere, though. Both
"assault weapons" and semi automatics fall under
that category.<br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<div><span><br>
</span></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr"> <font face="Arial">
<hr size="1"> <b><span style="font-weight:bold">From:</span></b>
Joe Campbell <<a href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com" target="_blank">philosopher.joe@gmail.com</a>><br>
<b><span style="font-weight:bold">To:</span></b>
Paul Rumelhart <<a href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com" target="_blank">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>>
<br>
<b><span style="font-weight:bold">Cc:</span></b>
Gary Crabtree <<a href="mailto:jampot@roadrunner.com" target="_blank">jampot@roadrunner.com</a>>;
"<<a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank">vision2020@moscow.com</a>>"
<<a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank">vision2020@moscow.com</a>>
<br>
<b><span style="font-weight:bold">Sent:</span></b>
Monday, February 4, 2013 2:29 PM<br>
<b><span style="font-weight:bold">Subject:</span></b>
Re: [Vision2020] Gun Talk<br>
</font> </div>
<br>
<div>
<div>
<div>The Constitution says nothing about
assault weapons, nothing about semi
automatics. It won't guide us on this
issue. That's my view.</div>
<div><br>
On Feb 4, 2013, at 1:27 PM, Paul
Rumelhart <<a rel="nofollow" href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com" target="_blank">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote>
<div>
<div>Why
don't YOU tell me WHERE you think
the right to ban assault weapons
can be found IN THE CONSTITUTION.
That's the go-to document for
determining what our rights
actually are. Start there. The
poor things been abused enough
lately, we don't need to ignore it
again.<br>
<br>
That would be a great start. That
would make it a legal option that
we could then set on the table for
discussion.<br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<div><span><br>
</span></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr"> <font face="Arial">
<hr size="1"> <b><span style="font-weight:bold">From:</span></b>
Joe Campbell <<a rel="nofollow" href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com" target="_blank">philosopher.joe@gmail.com</a>><br>
<b><span style="font-weight:bold">To:</span></b>
Paul Rumelhart <<a rel="nofollow" href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com" target="_blank">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>>
<br>
<b><span style="font-weight:bold">Cc:</span></b>
Gary Crabtree <<a rel="nofollow" href="mailto:jampot@roadrunner.com" target="_blank">jampot@roadrunner.com</a>>;
"<<a rel="nofollow" href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank">vision2020@moscow.com</a>>"
<<a rel="nofollow" href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank">vision2020@moscow.com</a>>
<br>
<b><span style="font-weight:bold">Sent:</span></b>
Monday, February 4, 2013
12:38 PM<br>
<b><span style="font-weight:bold">Subject:</span></b>
Re: [Vision2020] Gun Talk<br>
</font> </div>
<br>
<div>
<div>
<div>You are not tracking
the conversation. Why
not have a similar
situation with guns: you
can buy what you want,
as long as you're ready
to face the
consequences? The point
is you seem happy with
the libel law in place.</div>
<div><br>
On Feb 4, 2013, at 8:57
AM, Paul Rumelhart <<a rel="nofollow" href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com" target="_blank">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote>
<div>
<div><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>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>On Sun, Feb 3,
2013 at 4:06 PM,
Paul Rumelhart <span dir="ltr"><<a rel="nofollow" href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com" target="_blank">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote>
<div>
<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><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
Paul</font></span>
<div>
<div><br>
<br>
On 02/03/2013
03:33 PM, Joe
Campbell
wrote:<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<blockquote>
<div>The point
is potential
of harm</div>
<div><br>
On Feb 3,
2013, at 3:09
PM, "Gary
Crabtree" <<a rel="nofollow" href="mailto:jampot@roadrunner.com" target="_blank">jampot@roadrunner.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote>
<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>
<div><br>
</div>
<div style="background:#f5f5f5">
<div><b>From:</b>
<a rel="nofollow" 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 rel="nofollow" title="jampot@roadrunner.com" href="mailto:jampot@roadrunner.com" target="_blank">Gary
Crabtree</a> </div>
<div><b>Cc:</b>
<a rel="nofollow" title="godshatter@yahoo.com" href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com" target="_blank">Paul
Rumelhart</a>
; <a rel="nofollow" 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>On Sun,
Feb 3, 2013 at
2:44 PM, Gary
Crabtree <span dir="ltr"><<a rel="nofollow" href="mailto:jampot@roadrunner.com" target="_blank">jampot@roadrunner.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote>
<div style="padding-left:10px;padding-right:10px;padding-top:15px">
<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>
<div><br>
</div>
<div style="background:#f5f5f5">
<div><b>From:</b>
<a rel="nofollow" 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 rel="nofollow" title="godshatter@yahoo.com" href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com" target="_blank">Paul
Rumelhart</a>
</div>
<div><b>Cc:</b>
<a rel="nofollow" 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>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 rel="nofollow" href="http://www.fsr.net/" target="_blank">http://www.fsr.net</a><br>
mailto:<a rel="nofollow" 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>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
=======================================================<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>
=======================================================<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br clear="all">
<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>
<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>
<br>=======================================================
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>
mailto:<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank">Vision2020@moscow.com</a>
=======================================================</div></div></div> </div></div>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><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></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">http://www.fsr.net</a></span><br><span> <a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</a></span><br><span>=======================================================</span></div></blockquote></body></html>