The battle over "reasonable" gun regulations

The current system is a morass of regulation and restriction that at the very least needs reform, not just more regulation.

Montrosities such as the NFA and GCA certainly ought to be repealed if honestly and objectively evaluated in terms of their efficacy in deterring crime and criminals.

That's exactly what I meant when I said:

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

Click to expand...

And in trying to foist off that false premise on us by circumventing the 2nd Amendment, they have shown the way to circumvent all of the Bill of Rights.

To the antis, I say, don't ever complain about some new law that "violates the Constitution." The government is simply driving through the hole you left in the Bill of Rights when you ripped out the 2nd Amendment."

It`s a known fact...........when you break ranks, the battle is lost.
Stand fast. United we stand....Divided we fall.

yokel said:

The current system is a morass of regulation and restriction that at the very least needs reform, not just more regulation.

Montrosities such as the NFA and GCA certainly ought to be repealed if honestly and objectively evaluated in terms of their efficacy in deterring crime and criminals.

Click to expand...

I agree with evey word you posted, Yokel. But there needs to be a system in place to insure that some people don't have easy access to firearms. Unsupervised children, certified mentally insane, violent felons. There should NOT be restrictions on types of firearms owned or registration of firearms. Property rights come into play also. Does the rights of a property owner trump the rights of a gun owner to carry on said property? Or is the reverse true? We already know that the antis will use the reasonable restriction clause to try and beat gun rights into the ground so it's a moot point. Hell, that's their job. Our fight is at the reasonable restriction level and it will always be. If our position is that NO Restriction of any kind is the only reasonable stance, then we will ultimately paint ourself into a corner and become irrelevant. Those who say that the wording of the 2nd. is all that is necessary should realize thet the nation is set up in such a way that SCOTUS has the responsibility to interpret the constitution and the Bill of rights. Their decision is the law of the land. They have stated that reasonable restrictions are constitutional. Until they change that wording, reasonable restrictions are here to stay. Our fight is to counter those unreasonable restrictions through protests and the legal system.

But there needs to be a system in place to insure that some people don't have easy access to firearms. Unsupervised children, certified mentally insane, violent felons.

Click to expand...

WHY is this needed? Speak from reality, not from emotion OK? And be intellectually honest.

Before 1968 none of these restrictions existed in the US and the gun crime rate was not much different than it is today. In fact the gun crime rate is a little higher now.

Given that absolutely documented fact, why do you state that these things are needed?

Remember, no emotional stuff; just facts and logic.

It`s a known fact...........when you break ranks, the battle is lost.
Stand fast. United we stand....Divided we fall.

Click to expand...

And the antis know that. That's why we're seeing so many trolls and trojan horses on gun boards these days asking questions about "reasonable gun control." That's why they've created organizations like the American Hunters and Shooters Association -- a phantom organization funded by the likes of George Soros to pretend to speak for us.

Gawds, but I hate these discussions...

If Joe Burgler has served his sentence, paid whatever restitution he owes, and has finished his probation, why shouldn't he have full rights? Or, to put it more simply, if we can't trust him with a gun, why is he out in public in the first place?

We've already seen this slippery slope in action: the Lautenberg amendment. Sounded noble: we're gonna keep guns away from wife-beaters. Yet, it's done nothing but remove rights from a great many people, often without due process.

Do we REALLY want to allow more of the same?

But there needs to be a system in place to insure that some people don't have easy access to firearms. Unsupervised children, certified mentally insane, violent felons.

Click to expand...

Seems to me that none of the three types of people listed above should be allowed to run loose and unsupervised at any time anyway, so therefore wouldn't have access to anything dangerous.

But once again, some people want to attack the object, not the person or the behavior.

Oh, and regarding unsupervised children... since they don't tend to have sense enough to have access to guns, why do we turn 16 year-old children that don't even have a whole brain or good judgment yet loose with high-speed killing machines weighing thousands of pounds? Machines that have a proven record of causing more deaths annually than firearms?

You would think that all the people wanting to restrict firearms for "the sake of the children" would be clamoring for a higher age limit on getting a drivers license, if their goal was really to keep children ( and adults ) safe from unnecessary hazards.



J.C.

I answered yes to one thing... and not because I'm die hard up for seeing it happen. I would answer yes to always requiring the NCIS check... just because that wouldn't bother me. If I do private party transfers, I want either a pistol permit, CCW license, or go to an FFL... even if I'm only transferring a rifle. Hate me for it. Flame me for it. I would feel at least in part responsible if I sold an AR15 to someone who has a history of violence and used that weapon in a crime.

I would feel at least in part responsible if I sold an AR15 to someone who has a history of violence and used that weapon in a crime.

Click to expand...

Would you feel the same if you sold them a car and they got drunk and drove through a school yard full of children?

If so what proposal do you make to make sure people who drink and drive don't buy cars?

Again, you guys keep focusing on the tool or item of crime/violence as somehow being the problem. It is not.

If you would not require the same thing for car purchases then you're being intellectually dishonest about the reasons for wanting background checks etc. for guns.

It's "feelings" and "emotion" I see at work here, not logical thinking.

I would answer yes to always requiring the NCIS check... just because that wouldn't bother me. If I do private party transfers, I want either a pistol permit, CCW license, or go to an FFL... even if I'm only transferring a rifle. Hate me for it. Flame me for it. I would feel at least in part responsible if I sold an AR15 to someone who has a history of violence and used that weapon in a crime.

Click to expand...

The ten thousand people each year that are NICS-denied and successfully appeal (weeks/months later) really are taking one for the team, just so you can feel better, huh?

<sigh>

I guess that it doesn't really matter what the collateral issues are, so long as YOU feel better about yourself....

If I sold someone a car, and they ran over a pedestrian with it, is that my fault?

What if they had a prior DUI? Or just liked to drink and drive?

Its not the tool, its the person.

EDIT: Our resident legal scholar, TexasRifleman beat me to it.

Our resident legal scholar, TexasRifleman beat me to it.

Click to expand...

LOL thanks for the compliment but it's hardly scholarly.

These are 3rd grade logic exercises which is why I am always surprised to see supposedly "pro gun" people falling into these traps of thinking.

don't agree in the slightest. OH, I agree that they (NFA and GCA) don't deter crime, but you're falling into a trap, and a false one, at that. Crime isn't the issue.

Click to expand...

I'm well aware that public safety and crime prevention is but a mere pretext.

Nonetheless, it's not difficult to knock the legs out from under the ostensible reason, motive, or aim.

Alas, it seems apparent that over the years and decades a not insignificant number of folks who would like to think of themselves as supportive have become inured to at least some regulations and restricitions.

I agree that the current battle is to define 'reasonable' before the opposition defines it FOR us. Everyone should buy an AR. The more they are in 'common use', the more difficult it is to restrict them.

My idea of compromise is that this year, we will only drop HALF of the useless, ineffective gun laws on the books. Next year, we'll look at the other half.

We lost a LOT of ground over the last 70 years by allowing ourselves to be defined my the opposition. We must aggressively push the other direction.

Guns neither cause nor prevent crime. Crime is a socio-economic problem, not a gun problem.

Seems to me that none of the three types of people listed above should be allowed to run loose and unsupervised at any time anyway, so therefore wouldn't have access to anything dangerous.

Click to expand...

Nor should they be allowed to vote. A man who can't be trusted with a bullet should not be trusted with a ballot.

But all who can vote can bear arms -- and that's where I stand.

"reasonable" is a scary code-work for gun control.

An "anti" can use it to bait and condemn gunowners. If you are against "reasonable" gun regulations, wouldn't that make you "unreasonable"?

MOHAWK - "Speaking of the matter of the first ammendment comparison to the second, you can't yell "fire" in a movie theater."

Click to expand...

False!!

Of course you can shout "FIRE!!" in a crowded theater, any time you wish.

But there are legal consequences if you do so. The only way you could not shout "FIRE!!" in a crowded theater, would be for a government official to stand at the theater entrance with a knife to cut out the tongue of every person entering the theater, in order to prevent anyone from shouting "FIRE!!" in that theater, crowded or not. Afterall, someone might shout "FIRE!!" in that theater. Better safe than sorry, huh?

That is called "Prior Restraint." Acting against a person(s) because he or she might abuse his or her First Amendment Right.

The "reasonable" gun laws so sacrosanct to the NeoLibs, are "Prior Restraint" laws, because some gun owner might abuse his Second Amendment Right, therefore punish ALL gun owners or wannabee gun owners.

Once "reasonable" Prior Restraint laws are passed against the Constitutional Rights of the individual, it is always only a short step to then pass more and more and more "reasonable" laws against same.

NeoLibs who seek the eventual banning and confiscation of all firearms from us, never, ever disengage, and their standard tactic is always, "We just want a few reasonable, common sense" gun control laws. Then more, and more, and more, and more..........

L.W.

I posted the following in the comments at Dave Workman's article:


The problem has never been the proliferation, class, or magnitude of arms, but the misuse of arms and government's failure to adequately deal with the misusers.

Woody

"Charge the Court, Congress, and the several state legislatures with what to do with all the violent criminals who cannot be trusted with arms. We law abiding citizens shouldn't be burdened with having to prove we are not one of the untrustworthy just because those in government don't want to stop crime by keeping violent criminals locked up." B.E. Wood

5WHISKEY - "I would answer yes to always requiring the NCIS check... just because that wouldn't bother me. If I do private party transfers, I want either a pistol permit, CCW license, or go to an FFL... even if I'm only transferring a rifle."

Click to expand...

So, Whiskey 5, you believe that crime will be diminished if every gun owner in the United States were to be required by Government politicians and a Federal Law, to never sell, trade, gift, or transfer any firearm to another person, without permission from Big Brother??

That would mean any person who violated that edict would be thrown in Federal prison, or be shot and killed by Government Police Gun Enforcers, if he or she "made a furtive move," or "resisted" when the Gun Enforcers came to arrest them.

Take a look at a map of the United States of America. Then please explain to us just how such a law as you want, "NICS Forever, For Everyone," would work, logistically, and logically.

Think of the unintended consequences of such a law in this country, with 80,000,000 gun owners scattered all over this country, from remote cabins in the backwoods, to huge cities.

Think it through, beginning, middle, and end.

L.W.

Mohawk, are you saying that whether we like it or not, the fact is that we *are* stuck with the "reasonable restriction" issue, or are you saying that we *ought* to have "reasonable restrictions"? I ask because at various points in the thread, it sounds like you're on one side, then elsewhere sounds like you're on the other.

If it is the second, why do the "reasonable restrictions" belong under the purview of the legislative process? If Billy Bob is at the gun counter on a fine Saturday morning and a person comes in wanting to buy a gun while talking to his boots, why is it not sufficient for Billy Bob to use his common sense and not sell him a gun? Keep in mind that the would-be customer can walk out the door and buy FTF from another citizen (without common sense) if he wishes to anyway (in many states). Why the faith that the legislative process will provide some fail-safe that normal common sense cannot?

IOW, 'taint the government's business to do this.

Jan

I"m on the first side of the issue. The less restriction on gun control the better off we are. Someone else posted a very good point. If we don't define reasonable restriction the anti gunners will do it for us. I guess you would call me a realist. The fact that private property owners, weather private business or private property can restrict firearms on their property is a reasonable restriction as far as I'm concerned. As I stated in my first post on the subject it's all a matter of degree. There are reasonable restrictions in place right now and there are very many unreasonable restrictions we need to get overturned. Those who speak in absolutes that no restriction of any sort is permissable are fooling themselves and doing the gun community a great disservice. The issue is larger than black and white. Each type of proposed restriction should be judged on it's own merits and countered with clear concise arguements.
For the record I don't believe that any federal restriction on gun control is legal or just, for all the reasons many in this thread have stated. Gun ownership is a great responsibility shared by all of us. If your next door neighbor has been getting into violent fights with his wife and has been beating on her for the past two weeks and he comes over and wants to buy that glock you have for sale and you refuse, then you are exercising "reasonable restrictions". Local munincipalities should have the right to restrict gun use as they see fit up to a point. In Prescott, Az. back in the 1870s they banned guns in the bars along Whiskey Row because all the cowboys were getting drunk and killing each other. After the ban the killings were reduced greatly. I do not believe that the right of self defense can be restricted by banning guns en mass as they did in Washington, DC and the Supreme court agrees with me on that issue.
If we as a gun rights group advocate ownership of guns by certified mentally deficient individuals, small children and violent felons then we stand to lose all. some restrictions are necessary, society as a whole demands it. Anyone who thinks otherwise is living in a fantasy world.