Is there such a thing as reasonable gun control laws?


PDA






hi-impact
June 8, 2004, 02:36 PM
Given that the RKBA is a fundamental human right, are reasonable gun control laws an oxymoron? Are less laws better? Less strict laws better? Should certain felons be allowed to have guns, esp. if they have been rehabilitated?

If you ruled the world, what gun laws would you govern your land with or none at all?

Thanks

If you enjoyed reading about "Is there such a thing as reasonable gun control laws?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
WonderNine
June 8, 2004, 02:42 PM
are reasonable gun control laws an oxymoron?

Yes.

Should certain felons be allowed to have guns, esp. if they have been rehabilitated?

The revocation of basic rights like voting and firearms ownership is not what America is about. If they've done their time, their full rights should be restored upon walking out the prison gate. The reason we have so many repeat offenders (aside from the war on some drugs) is because felons are treated like outcasts of society. If I was a felon in today's society, I would see any reason to bother trying to go straight anymore....

Don't Tread
June 8, 2004, 02:44 PM
If the felon is "rehabilitated" enough to be let out of prison, then by all means they should be allowed to have guns

too bad that now days they let out many people who aren't "rehabilitated in the least

GigaBuist
June 8, 2004, 02:47 PM
Reasonable gun control laws? Yep, plenty of 'em.

Don't point it at anybody, unless they need stoppin'.

If you're drunk it shouldn't be in your hand.

If it's in your hand you'd better not be threatening anybody with it (brandishing).

If you do shoot it and hit something you shouldn't, you'll have to pay the price.

That's about it for me really.

WonderNine
June 8, 2004, 02:47 PM
too bad that now days they let out many people who aren't "rehabilitated in the least

But that's only a small part of the problem. And if they aren't rehabilited, why do some people believe that revoking their rights will be a solution to the problem? Idiots....Another small part is that some people can't be "rehabilitated". That's the price you must pay for a free society.

Bruce H
June 8, 2004, 03:02 PM
Given the wording of the 2nd ammemdment gun control laws aren't. In another vein how about if gun control laws are just why shouldn't term limits be just? Both would be for the same purpose of controlling a dangerous item because of careless use.

WonderNine
June 8, 2004, 03:10 PM
Both would be for the same purpose of controlling a dangerous item because of careless use.

:D :D :D

Sad thing is, if you mentioned that to the typical person on the street I could see that going right over their heads. :)

Standing Wolf
June 8, 2004, 07:15 PM
In another vein how about if gun control laws are just why shouldn't term limits be just? Both would be for the same purpose of controlling a dangerous item because of careless use.

Very well said!

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
June 8, 2004, 08:06 PM
Reasonable gun control laws would include, in my opinion:

-Adult supervision of younger children learning to use firearms.

-Keeping firearms out of the hand of the mentally incompetent (insanity, drug addiction, and senility).

-Convicted violent felons lose all rights to firearms for a long period.

-Buffer space restrictions on private firing ranges.

-Registration of modern canons, Civil War re-enactors would have no restrictions.

-Private businesses would have the right to ban weapons by posting notice.

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
June 8, 2004, 08:08 PM
In another vein how about if gun control laws are just why shouldn't term limits be just? Both would be for the same purpose of controlling a dangerous item because of careless use

We already have term restrictions, they are called elections.

What gives you the right to tell the foolish people of NY that they can't have Charles Schumer and Hillary Clinton as their Senators?

Bruce H
June 8, 2004, 09:04 PM
If term limits are good for the president then they should be good for everybody. No double standards. They can do far more damage than a president by themselves if they want to.

whm1974
June 8, 2004, 09:30 PM
If term limits are good for the president then they should be good for everybody. No double standards. They can do far more damage than a president by themselves if they want to.

Well said. The President is more a firgurehead that takes the blames when things go wrong.

Bill Meadows

sendec
June 8, 2004, 10:11 PM
Of course there can be reasonable gun control laws. It says "well regulated militia," which pretty much requires codification.

Too many people seem to think that total deregulation equals "good" and any control equals "bad." I do not think that it is that simple.

Detachment Charlie
June 8, 2004, 10:17 PM
I THINK THIS IS A MEMBER'S SIG LINE --

"Gun control laws are like trying to stop drunk driving by making it more difficult for sober people to buy cars."

Remember, one of the first recorded instances of people in America resisting moves by the government to control their firearms, was a fateful confrontation at a bridge in Concord.

Art Eatman
June 8, 2004, 11:28 PM
If I understand it correctly, the Anti-Federalist Papers were written by those favoring the Bill of Rights.

In the A-FP, it is stated in a discussion of the Second Amendment that possession of firearms would be denied to "the insane, and persons of ill repute". I take "ill repute" to mean the equivalent of "felon".

So, if "original intent" has any meaning, those in support of the Second Amendment did not intend that there be no restrictions whatsoever.

Art

DMF
June 8, 2004, 11:46 PM
So, if "original intent" has any meaning, those in support of the Second Amendment did not intend that there be no restrictions whatsoever. Now Art, talk like that will just upset the "true believers." ;)

CEShooter
June 9, 2004, 12:04 AM
Besides the fact that "reasonable" is highly subjective, I have nothing wrong with minimal gun control. And since the the statements are already rolling in about infringing on rights I will back up my argument with this: I also have the right to free speech. However, this right does not allow me to go around slandering others without consequences. For those of you that say any infringement is too much, then I hope that attitude applies to all 10 rights in the BOR and you wouldn't mind and would support me buying a billboard in downtown New York, putting a picture of your husband/wife on there and making claims that they sleep around, are child molesters, and so on. With every right we have there is responsibility and because some people choose to ignore that responsibility there must be some laws that do reign in our rights for the betterment of the general populus.

Standing Wolf
June 9, 2004, 12:29 AM
Maybe we should try no so-called "gun control" laws for a decade or so, and see if things get worse. I'd be extremely surprised if they did.

kwelz
June 9, 2004, 12:39 AM
I do not believe that Felons should have the right to own firearms. In fact I don't believe that felons should have any rights like Voting, etc.

Outside of that no I really don't see any good firearms laws.

Monkeyleg
June 9, 2004, 12:48 AM
"For those of you that say any infringement is too much, then I hope that attitude applies to all 10 rights in the BOR and you wouldn't mind and would support me buying a billboard in downtown New York, putting a picture of your husband/wife on there and making claims that they sleep around, are child molesters, and so on."

CEShooter, there are already laws against such behavior. They fall under categories such as slander, defamation of character, libel, and a whole host of other prohibitions. What you're describing is not a strict interpretation of the First Amendment, but rather a violation of both the spirit and language of the law that any strict constitutionalist judge would convict upon. The laws against what you describe are just and fall within the realm of what are reasonable restrictions. To cite an old, worn-out saying: your right to your First Amendment freedoms ends when your fist meets my face.

What we have with gun-control laws meets none of the above criteria. It's already against the law to threaten someone, injure someone, or kill someone. Doesn't matter what the weapon is--knife, fist, baseball bat, Aunt Lilly's ceramic Lassie commemoritive, or an MP5. It's the same criminal act. The wily politicians, though, have used the last thirty years to elevate a gun crime into something special. So, if I get "up close and personal" with a guy's grey matter using a Louisville Slugger--as opposed to shooting him with a .38--I'm less of a criminal.

Really, does that make sense to you?

Years back, I bought into the notion that some "reasonable" gun control laws were acceptable. Problem is, I can't find any "reasonable" gun control laws that have affected anyone except the law-abiding.

The 1994 "Assault Weapons" ban went after a group of guns that merely looked like something they were not. The Brady Law subjected law-abiding gun owners to a waiting period, but the purchase of illegal firearms by criminals increased by 16% (per BATF). The number of gun suicides decreased after the Brady Law, but the number of suicides by any cause remained unchanged (New England Journal of Medicine). The rate of gun ownership skyrocketed during the 1990's, yet the number of accidental firearms deaths declined to the lowest levels since recordkeeping began in the earliest part of the last century.

In 1968, congress enacted the most sweeping gun-control law in our nation's history. Never had guns--with the exception of full-autos--been regulated by federal law. Gone were the days of buying a 10/22 by mail, kids going to the hardware store with a note from their dads for the .22 they wanted...everything I knew as a teen was wiped out. And with what result? The national homicide rate skyrocketed from 4.5 per 100,000 in 1967 to 11 per 100,000 in 1973.

And even the 1934 restriction on full-autos was a joke. At that time, few people--except gangsters--could afford full-autos. What's more, Auto Ordinances' own sales records show that the public just wasn't interested. Their sales of Tommyguns fell far short of expectations. Yet we had a law enacted that put a $200 tax, which at that time was a couple of months' income, if not more--to restrict the sale. The result? Gangsters still used them, and the only criminal use of a legally-owned full auto since that time was by a police officer.

I'm all in favor of gun control laws that work. Problem is, I've never seen one. And I know I never will.

GigaBuist
June 9, 2004, 12:57 AM
I do not believe that Felons should have the right to own firearms. In fact I don't believe that felons should have any rights like Voting, etc.

I once thought the same way, until I got a bit older and I found out who was felon around me. There's more than you think and they're not bad people.

Carry a knife that's over 3" long in Michigan? Well, you just might be a felon depending on who the cops are and who the judge is. Run that one past the founders and see what they think.

Carrying a gun in your glove box? Well, you're a felon. At least you were 20 years ago here. If you did it then you lost your RKBA (a natural right we all presume) and you also lose CCW privledges if you ever got RKBA back from the state AG.

Now, would a founding father be OK with the loss of RKBA for, well, exercising RKBA? Heck no.

What is a "felon" today was most likely a petty crime, if any crime at all, back in the days of the founding fathers. Felons lose their RKBA without spending a single week in prison now.

I know, personally, three felons and one metally ill person that has no business owning a firearm. Two of the felons are reasonable people. They do not own firearms. One was convicted of having a firearm in his glove box one was, well, he stole a car. Not good. They don't own arms and won't so long as it's illegal. The other two? Well one's a crack dealing scum sucking low life (relative) that will own a gun no matter what. Who gets his guns for him? His mentally ill mother that doesn't even realize that her father is dead for 3 months. THEY own firearms. The guy with a pistol in his glove box 20 years ago doesn't though.

My cousin gets out of prison in about 6 months now. He shot two men last summer with an illegally owned pistol while already a convicted felon purchased by his drug addicted mother, illeaglly, over a drug deal gone bad. That's after conspiracy to comitt murder (plea bargained out of that one, breaking and entering, and driving a get away car for armed robbery. Those are seperate offenses that he has been caught for. God only knows what else this sick sucker has done.

Illegal or not, he can get his hands on a .357 wheelgun quicker than I can. No law will stop him.

sendec
June 9, 2004, 10:36 AM
Felons voluntarily cede their rights by breaking the social contract and committing crimes. They are be definition bad people. Maybe they can be rehabilitated, maybe not, but they have invariably displayed poor decision making skills and an inability or unwillingness to follow rules, so trusting them with a firearm would be chancey at best.

HankB
June 9, 2004, 11:12 AM
Felons voluntarily cede their rights by breaking the social contract and committing crimes. They are be definition bad people. . . . trusting them with a firearm would be chancey at best. There's no way I'd feel safe if I heard convicted felon Martha Stewart bought a .22 rifle. :rolleyes:

Coronach
June 9, 2004, 11:59 AM
I think it depends on what the definition of felon is. ;)

'Felon' in the old common-law sense? Sorry, no. No guns for you. One lifetime!

'Felon' in the modern sense, where someone failed to pay child support? I have more trouble buying that one.

I also have a problem with the ex post facto nature of some of the restrictions. Its one thing if the law is on the books prior to you committing the offense- it makes the permanent disability part of the punishment, and by doing the crime you're taking the risk of doing the time. It is another thing entirely if you toss it on later, a la Lautenberg.

Mike

dance varmint
June 9, 2004, 11:59 AM
Gun control laws are, among other things, just a palliative for cowards and morons.

WonderNine
June 9, 2004, 12:04 PM
So, if "original intent" has any meaning, those in support of the Second Amendment did not intend that there be no restrictions whatsoever.

If that's true they wouldn't have worded the 2nd the way they did.

And I don't think the equivalent of today's felon (Let's face it, you can commit a felony without even knowing it nowadays) would the same as the "person of ill repute" from back then.

DMF
June 9, 2004, 01:37 PM
Let's face it, you can commit a felony without even knowing it nowadays While it's remotely possible, it's certainly not probable that situation could exist. Most cases where non-violent offenders claim ignorance get plead down to misdemeanor, and the offender moves on. Why? Because prosecutors would rather not waste time on little cases. The ones that know they fouled up and roll the dice with whether the prosecutor will go to court, and whether eventually the jury will convict, well that was their gamble.

However, I've met a lot of felony suspects, who subsequently became felony convicts, and not one didn't know what they were doing was wrong. They may claim it was all a misunderstanding, but the evidence that the JURY used to convict them said otherwise.

Mr. Kook
June 9, 2004, 02:16 PM
Reasonable gun control:

1. Don't shoot anybody who isn't threatening you or others with immediate physical harm.

2. When practicing use a safe and sturdy backstop. Fire in a safe direction to prevent accidental injury and property damage down range.

3. In residential areas use of a silencer is recommended (not required) so as not to annoy the neighbors.

I think that pretty much sums it up.

artherd
June 9, 2004, 02:35 PM
Yeah, the four rules of gun safety.

That's it.

Desertdog
June 9, 2004, 03:57 PM
Maybe we should try no so-called "gun control" laws for a decade or so, and see if things get worse. I'd be extremely surprised if they did.
It worked pretty good for over 150 years.:neener:
First Federal regulation was 1934.

mercedesrules
June 9, 2004, 06:53 PM
I oppose all gun control legislation, but I reserve the right to refuse to sell a gun to any particular person - and for any reason.

MR

cloudkiller
June 9, 2004, 11:42 PM
I think age restrictions are in order, within reason. As are restrictions for the mentally ill, and perhaps certain types of felons.

I might support restrictions on certain types of weapons, primarily through special training and permitting.

I also might support setting aside areas where firearms aren't permitted, though these would be few and far between. Courtrooms perhaps.

Perhaps restrict hunting rifles in areas where conservation efforts are underway to limit poaching. Not restricting handguns in that instance.

I think that schools offering optional gun safety classes to young children WOULD be a good use of taxpayer money.

If you enjoyed reading about "Is there such a thing as reasonable gun control laws?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!