The battle over "reasonable" gun regulations

[Dave Workman]

Gun Rights activists, prohibitionists battle over what is "reasonable" regulation of guns.

The Seattle Gun Rights Examiner asks some probing questions and how you answer will determine which side of this battle you are on.

http://www.examiner.com/x-4525-Seatt...-is-reasonable

If that doesn't work, try this:

http://tinyurl.com/lvx7tu

[TexasRifleman]

Seems to me like the Second as written is pretty reasonable.

Guess that's as much regulation as I'm OK with.

What is interesting is that many THR posters and others who call themselves "pro gun" are OK with many of the things in the article.

That always saddens me.

I like your article. Good food for thought.

[rbernie]

Sadly, despite decades of evidence to the contrary, many gun owners still believe that 'common sense, reasonable gun regulations' actually have merit in reducing violent crime.

<sigh>

[Mohawk]

“Reasonable restrictions” is really where the rubber meets the road as far as the Heller decision is concerned. If we as gun rights supporters advocate children, mentally incompetents, felons convicted of violent crimes and those convicted of spousal abuse to carry weapons then we will never have the mainstream public on our side. Society will never accept these conditions. It then becomes a matter of degree concerning reasonable restrictions. The fight for what is reasonable will go on as long as there are guns. But make no doubt that reasonable restrictions are here to stay. The anti-gun faction and the pro gun faction will argue over the degree of reasonable restrictions for centuries to come IMO.

Great article, by the way.

[Walkalong]

Sadly, despite decades of evidence to the contrary, many gun owners still believe that 'common sense, reasonable gun regulations' actually have merit in reducing violent crime

Yep, it is a shame. I just cringe when I hear, I am pro gun, but.....................

[Jim Keenan]

Somewhere I have a pamphlet urging a total ban on all guns, with the summary execution of everyone who ever owned any kind of a gun or ammunition, and his or her family. ("Love of guns" was supposed to be a genetic defect, hence the need to stop the spread of the horrible gun gene.)

The outfit, one "Citizens Against Guns" described their program as "a reasonable and responsible first step toward real gun control."

Any more questions about what the insane left considers "reasonable"?

Jim

[SuperNaut]

In politics "reasonable" is a word used by those in a weak position.

[Mohawk]

Originally Posted by Jim Keenan

Somewhere I have a pamphlet urging a total ban on all guns, with the summary execution of everyone who ever owned any kind of a gun or ammunition, and his or her family. ("Love of guns" was supposed to be a genetic defect, hence the need to stop the spread of the horrible gun gene.)

The outfit, one "Citizens Against Guns" described their program as "a reasonable and responsible first step toward real gun control."

Any more questions about what the insane left considers "reasonable"?

Jim

You cite an extreme example of the far left philosophy. An extreme example of the far right philosophy would be the right to walk into any bank with an assault weapon at the ready and expect a warm welcome. After all, "it's your second ammendment right" to have any type of weapon you want, any place you choose. I suspect that many gun owners subscribe to this logic and will keep the mainstream of society viewing us as "gun nuts" for decades to come. The second ammendment is not an open checkbook to carry any gun, any time, anywhere you want under all circumstances. There are certain people who should not own guns, ever. Are you saying that all people irregardless of age, mental capacity or previous personal history should always be allowed to own and buy any type of gun they want, anywhere, anytime, under all circumstances? I disagree. I hope and pray I'm not the only gun owner who does so.

[TexasRifleman]

f we as gun rights supporters advocate children, mentally incompetents, felons convicted of violent crimes and those convicted of spousal abuse to carry weapons then we will never have the mainstream public on our side.

If these people are dangerous with a firearm they would be just as dangerous with a kitchen knife or a car or can of gasoline and a lighter would they not?

I get the point of public perception, but the reality is that if someone is a danger to others it matters little what tool they have access to and it's not possible to really make the argument otherwise without going into "feelings" and emotions.

[Vern Humphrey]

Take any proposed "reasonable" restrictions on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and translate it into "reasonable" restrictions on Freedom of the Press and see how it flies. For example, should reporters be licensed? Should people acting as reporters without a license be sent to jail? Should certain types of newspaper or TV articles be prohibited? Should there be "reasonable limits" on the length of stories or the number of times they are run? Should "assault articles" be banned? Should there be a federal tax on certain types of stories? Should reporters have to check with the FBI each time they file a story?

Remember, "The pen is mightier than the sword."

[rbernie]

Are you saying that all people irregardless of age, mental capacity or previous personal history should always be allowed to own and buy any type of gun they want, anywhere?

Prior to a certain point in US history, this was absolutely true. The crime statistics from the period do not suggest that this was an actual problem.

So while age, mental capacity, and personal history may SOUND like reasonable yardsticks, history records very faithfully that they are largely irrelevant. More of a concern is how such 'reasonable' (yet ineffective) measures always seem to lead to additional 'reasonable' restrictions.

[Deltaboy]

The 2nd admendment covers it for me. I want the SC to overturn NFA and the 1968 GC act. I should be able to own a FA Thompson with no more paper work. Just like it was when my Great Grandpa was a young man.

Per the Papers test

12) Last and not least, which statement best describes you:

a) I own guns for protection, target shooting, hunting and for no reason at all; it’s none of your business or the government’s business why I own guns, what kinds of guns, how many or where I keep them.

[Vern Humphrey]

Are you saying that all people irregardless of age, mental capacity or previous personal history should always be allowed to own and buy any type of gun they want, anywhere?

Anyone who can vote should have exactly that right. If you don't think someone should be allowed to own a gun, for heaven's sake, revoke his right to the ballot as well.

[Mohawk]

Speaking of the matter of the first ammendment comparison to the second, you can't yell "fire" in a movie theater. This is reasonable restriction on the first. Regulating reporters and media outlets is unreasonable restrictions and is the result of a "nanny state" mentality.

As far as historical precedent concerning owning guns there are many examples of towns banning guns in the city limits and saloons requiring an individual to check their firearm at the bar before getting drunk. This was common practice in towns where cattle were driven to be shipped by train to the big cities. Kept the cowboys from killing each other. This is reasonable restriction.

A I stated in my previous posts the fight for gun rights will always revolve around "what is reasonable?". The far right will always demand total, unrestricted gun ownership and the far left will always go for the most restricted, liciensed, regulated, controlled position they can ram through, including total confiscation. It's the "nature of the beasts" if you will. Somewhere in the middle is the answer. The fight over "reasonable restrictions" will always be one of degree.

[yokel]

I've never believed the opposition when they claim they're only interested in just one more "sensible" or "reasonable" gun-control law. They ultimately want a total ban on weapons and only make incremental claims to disguise their real aims.

The unfortunate truth is that our obstinate opponents loathe the Second Amendment, and loathe the people who seek to exercise their rights under the Second Amendment.

[Phatty]

So while age, mental capacity, and personal history may SOUND like reasonable yardsticks, history records very faithfully that they are largely irrelevant.

Before there were a ridiculous number of laws regulating everyone and everything, people used their own common sense to deal with these issues. If an obviously crazy person walked into a general store and tried to buy a pistol, the store owner probably would simply refuse. Not because it would violate some law, but because it wouldn't be safe -- for himself or his community. Same thing for children. If a six-year-old boy walked into the store and tried to buy a pistol, the store owner would likely ask him where his parents were and not sell him the gun until the store owner had assurances that the parents consented.

[Mohawk]

Originally Posted by Vern Humphrey

Anyone who can vote should have exactly that right. If you don't think someone should be allowed to own a gun, for heaven's sake, revoke his right to the ballot as well.

people who are convicted felons and dishonorably discharged from the military are already prohibited.

[TexasRifleman]

Speaking of the matter of the first ammendment comparison to the second, you can't yell "fire" in a movie theater. This is reasonable restriction on the first.

That argument doesn't necessarily work and it gets old in a way.

That "don't yell fire in a theater" isn't as much a restriction on free speech itself as it is a restriction on YOUR right to "screw with" MY life.

By shouting FIRE in a theater you potentially put MY life in danger or at the very least you interrupt MY right to be left alone to watch the movie.

Has nothing to do with free speech in that way. Think of it this way. If you are the only person in the theater and you shout FIRE, is that a problem?
Of course not.

So, if you make that analogy to guns, as long as MY use of guns does not put YOUR life in danger or interfere with YOUR enjoyment of life then there is no need for a restriction.

And, since we have the entire US history before 1968 to look at (since that's the first time there were any actual restrictions on gun ownership) we can say that restrictions are not necessary and have no proven benefits since the gun crime rate was not changed at all by the 1968 Gun Control Act.

[Vern Humphrey]

Speaking of the matter of the first ammendment comparison to the second, you can't yell "fire" in a movie theater. This is reasonable restriction on the first.

It is reasonable if you are in a crowed theater that is not on fire. It is not reasonable if you are elsewhere. Stretching the anology is a violation of both civil rights and common sense.

Regulating reporters and media outlets is unreasonable restrictions and is the result of a "nanny state" mentality.

Same as restricting gun owners and stores.

As far as historical precedent concerning owning guns there are many examples of towns banning guns in the city limits and saloons requiring an individual to check their firearm at the bar before getting drunk.

As far as historical precident, cutting down young fruit trees once merited the death penalty. Injustice, however long standing, does not become justice.

This was common practice in towns where cattle were driven to be shipped by train to the big cities. Kept the cowboys from killing each other.

Prove it.

There is no more proof this prevented violent crimes than there is proof modern gun control prevents crime.

Somewhere in the middle is the answer.

No. The answer is in the Bill of Rights.

[SuperNaut]

Originally Posted by mohawk

The far right will always demand total, unrestricted gun ownership and the far left will always go for the most restricted, liciensed, regulated, controlled position they can ram through, including total confiscation. It's the "nature of the beasts" if you will. Somewhere in the middle is the answer. The fight over "reasonable restrictions" will always be one of degree.

The 2A isn't owned by the left or the right, would you use this argument for the 1A? Compromise on the 2A isn't a political exercise, it is meddling with one of the very foundations of our country. There is no middle on the BoR.

[benEzra]

Take any proposed "reasonable" restrictions on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and translate it into "reasonable" restrictions on Freedom of the Press and see how it flies. For example, should reporters be licensed? Should people acting as reporters without a license be sent to jail? Should certain types of newspaper or TV articles be prohibited? Should there be "reasonable limits" on the length of stories or the number of times they are run? Should "assault articles" be banned? Should there be a federal tax on certain types of stories? Should reporters have to check with the FBI each time they file a story?

Those are all unreasonable restrictions. Reasonable restrictions on the 1stA include penalties for libel, slander, and the distribution of child pornography. Those things can and have passed a strict-scrutiny test, the same high standard that should be applied to 2ndA jurisprudence.

The problem with "reasonable gun control" lies with the way the anti's have tried to use the word "reasonable" to cover things that are not at all reasonable.

[Mohawk]

Originally Posted by yokel

I've never believed the opposition when they claim they're only interested in just one more "sensible" or "reasonable" gun-control law. They ultimately want a total ban on weapons and only make incremental claims to disguise their real aims.

The unfortunate truth is that our obstinate opponents loathe the Second Amendment, and loathe the people who seek to exercise their rights under the Second Amendment.

What you say is basicly true. The ultimate goal of the gun rights opposition is the banning of all guns for everybody, everywhere. By the same token, the ultimate goal of the gun rights faction is the right of every swinging mary and dick in the country to carry any weapon they want, anywhere,(regardless of private property rights) under all circumstances. Neither position is based on reality. Reasonable restrictions are here to stay, the fight for gun rights will and does revolve around the question of "what is reasonable".

[Vern Humphrey]

The antis argument is based on a false premise -- that somehow gun control results in less crime. That has been disproven over and over.

There is a second false premise -- that the Constitution can be altered by opinion, mere laws and other subterfuges, without the need for going through the ammendment process. We can look around us and see the damage that idea has caused, as one right after another is infringed and vitiated.

[SuperNaut]

The unspoken thing is that reasonable restrictions already exist. Prohibitions against murder for example. I'd call that a reasonable restriction that is pretty well covered by thousands of laws. Is there a magic number of gun laws that are required for the laws to actually work? Should we keep passing new laws that duplicate old laws in hopes that the new shiny ones will suddenly cause criminals to obey?

[Vern Humphrey]

The unspoken thing is that reasonable restrictions already exist. Prohibitions against murder for example.

And the antis' premise is that a person who intends to commit murder would never violate a law prohibiting him from having a gun.