The battle over "reasonable" gun regulations

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.

Click to expand...

You mean like all of us here in the US did before 1968?

Like that you mean? When the gun crime rate was lower?

Yeah, that's fantasy land.....

You do know that before 1968 all of the things you say are necessary did not exist right?

There were no Federal Firearms dealers, there was no background check, you could mail order long guns and handguns to your home.

History and facts are not on your side. Care to address the facts at all or are you going to continue going on "feelings"?

The "feelings" thing is a big problem. You are making the same argument the anti's make, wanting to pass gun laws and believing restrictions are needed because of some gut feeling you have.

For your historical reference you have cited one small town in one particular year, which is what people do when the general statistics don't back up their beliefs.

As a whole, the gun crime rate in the US was lower when anyone who wanted one could buy a gun, that's a fact.

Now, what you can argue is the REASON that might be true. It might be any number of things including a general difference in societal beliefs, but it doesn't change the fact that back when you could order a pistol through the mail from Sears to your house there was a lower gun crime rate in this country.

So if that's the case then you can't make the argument that all these gun laws are needed. Something else has changed, and it's NOT the issue of guns.

This is not now and has NEVER been about guns. It's about control, it's about societies problems, and it's about how we deal with those problems.

Blaming guns, drugs, aliens, or bad television are just cop outs and scapegoats.

TexasRifleman said:

You mean like all of us here in the US did before 1968?

Like that you mean? When the gun crime rate was lower?

Yeah, that's fantasy land.....

You do know that before 1968 all of the things you say are necessary did not exist right?

There were no Federal Firearms dealers, there was no background check, you could mail order long guns and handguns to your home.

History and facts are not on your side. Care to address the facts at all or are you going to continue going on "feelings"?

Click to expand...

What's your point, Sir. I've already stated that I think all federal restrictions ala' 1968, 1984, 1989, ad nausium on firarms is illegal and unjust. Are you advocating that all young children should be allowed to purchase a gun as easy as a stick of gum? Are you saying that you'll go to bat for a convicted murderer who killed his children the right to own a firearm? You make a lot of trite comments and people seem to hold your opinions in high regard but what exactly is your position on restriction. Do you feel that a gun owner has the right to enter any private property with his weapon irregardless of what the owner's policy is? Where do you stand on these issues, I'd really like to know.

Where do you stand on these issues, I'd really like to know.

Click to expand...

Again, you list things that are not gun issues, they are society issues. You want to pretend somehow that if we have enough regulations about guns the other problems will disappear.

A convicted murderer who killed his children for example should not be out of prison for me to NEED to argue his right to own a gun. If he is out of prison for that crime that's a CRIMINAL JUSTICE issue not a GUN issue. If we as a society are letting those people out of prison the LAST thing we should be arguing about is whether or not they should have a gun but rather what the hell they are doing out in the first place.

Children (under 18) have long been held to not have the same rights as an adult, so the fact that there might be no restrictions or gun laws for adults has nothing to do with children buying guns. That was never allowed anyway. It was for the parents to exercise that right on behalf of their children. You use the strawman argument of kids buying guns at wal mart, which is not now and has never been suggested, legal, or rational. You use that because it makes me sound "crazy" to suggest that there should be no gun laws.

Private property rights, and the carrying of guns on private property is, AGAIN, not a gun issue. Replace the carrying of a flashlight, book, or shoes with gun as it relates to private property rights. Does a private property owner have the right to keep me from carrying a book on his property? Why is a gun any different as far as the property rights issue goes?

You keep wanting to make gun debates out of issues that don't really involve a gun.

THAT is what the anti's do, make it appear that the gun itself is the problem.

The gun is not the problem at all.

Where do you stand on these issues, I'd really like to know.

Click to expand...

That's the point, where I stand on these matters isn't important since they are not GUN related issues and this is a gun forum.

All of the things you bring up are important and should be dealt with by a society, but it's not about the guns or gun laws and that is my point in all of this. These are not gun control issues yet we allow the anti's to make them into gun control issues.

The issue is larger than black and white.

Click to expand...

I would submit that there is really nothing subtle about what's at stake. Whoever has the arms tends to win when it comes to self-defense and doesn't lose life or property. But if the tyrant/criminal has the gun, he has the upper hand.

Mohawk said:

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.

Click to expand...

You would give the Second Amendment no credence? Please note that this "reasonable restriction" you reference...


...would not be covered by the Second Amendment. The prohibition in the Second Amendment only applies to government and not private citizens and most enterprises. While you state you believe the feds should make no restrictions on gun ownership(if I'm reading your first sentence in your second paragraph correctly), you would support local municipalities having some gun control. Whether it would reduce violence is questionable, but there is no doubt that gun free zones create safe zones for criminals and crazies.

Mohawk said:

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.

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone here is advocating violent felons, the dangerously insane and unsupervised minors run around with arms. Some of us do, however, advocate keeping violent felons locked up or executed, the mentally unstable institutionalized or under 24/7/365 guardianship, and minors kept under the guardianship of their parents. These things are all constitutional and do not interfere with the rest of us exercising our right to keep and bear arms. The funny part of this is doing these three things would make life safer for all of us than life is now under these unconstitutional limits, restrictions, and background checks - including for the anti-gun-rights crowd!

Don't forget that these unconstitutional laws we are saddled with do not stop violent felons, the mentally unstable, and unsupervised juveniles - who are released upon society - from obtaining arms and wreaking their mayhem. But these unconstitutional laws do make it difficult and sometimes impossible for the law abiding to deal with this violence when it is brought upon them by these criminal, unstable, and irresponsible people.

I wrote all this before I read what Texas Rifleman wrote in Comments # 53 and #55, but it's all still relevant. Kudos, Tex.

Woody

I don't think anyone here is advocating violent felons, the dangerously insane and unsupervised minors run around with arms. Some of us do, however, advocate keeping violent felons locked up or executed, the mentally unstable institutionalized or under 24/7/365 guardianship, and minors kept under the guardianship of their parents.

Click to expand...

Hallelujah and can I get an AMEN from the cheap seats!

THIS is the point. If these issues were dealt with correctly we wouldn't be having the gun rights discussion.

In reality, asking for gun laws is an admission of failure of all the other parts of society.

Just my .02

1. Federal firearms laws are not going away, we either work within those parameters our we let those who would like to see the banning of all firearms control the debate.

2. You can indeed support some firearms laws regarding ownership and sales and still be a strong supporter of the 2ndA.

Last thread on this got ugly and childish to say the least. I hope this one does not go down that same road.

1) I would say instead: "they aren't going away anytime soon"

If an anti-gun stance is demonstrated consistently to be poisonous to a politician, there will cease to be a push towards such. After awhile, the tide can be pushed the other way (just like the antis got the silly laws in the first place: little by little)

2) Yeah, you sure can. You can support the rights of white, God-fearing Christians to own guns while agreeing that them coloreds and heathens shouldn't be allowed to own 'em.

That's where gun control got it's start: as a form of institutionalized racism. It's expanded since the "good ol' days", but that's what's at it's root: a method of keeping "undesirables" from being full citizens.

Again, I will say: if an adult can't be trusted with a gun, then why the hell are they out among the populace?

Story from many years ago: guy went to a gun shop, looking to buy a handgun. Spent LOTS of time, fondling many different weapons before deciding what he wanted. Turns out he was a prohibited person, so they denied the sale*. So he left the gun shop, went to a hardware store, and bought a couple hammers to kill his wife and kids.

The prohibitions helped... how, again?

Another example of this is someone I know, who did time for stealing from his employer. Got a felony conviction: yet he's reformed, is a perfectly productive member of society. Keeping him from possessing a weapon or voting helps society... how again?

So, by all means, someone tell me how these restrictions are helpful or "good". Not talking about "what can we actually push back to", or any of that: given enough time and dedicated people, we can push back to the gooberment issuing FA rifles to every citizen. But the argument has been presented that some restrictions are "good" and "acceptable". I'd like to know what those restrictions are...






*When I read the article, it was stated that the gentleman had committed enough crimes to be out away for a couple hundred years, before he ever left the shop. Wow... good job on society, keeping the violent person from getting a gun!

Private property rights, and the carrying of guns on private property is, AGAIN, not a gun issue. Replace the carrying of a flashlight, book, or shoes with gun as it relates to private property rights. Does a private property owner have the right to keep me from carrying a book on his property? Why is a gun any different as far as the property rights issue goes?

Click to expand...

Private property rights are one of the core rights. We have the right to be left alone, especially on our property. You betcha, if you carried a book, gun, or whatever, you'll leave my property when I said to, or I'd make you leave.

I answered every question the way a PRO-GUN/PRO-2nd Amendment person probably would. However; such an article and questions are freakin STUPID. I took a lot of statistics classes in college; and such an article and questions violated the #1 rule of surveys and such. Not asking leading questions. These questions are stated in such a way as to have a definitive PRO-CON stance on guns. And for that, those who managed and wrote the article should be castrated. All it did was provide a venue to FURTHER DIVIDE the pro and con gun crowds. If you answered ONLY what the question said and didn't read into it; then you're either an ultra conservative gun totin red neck or an ultra far left liberal who is anti-constitution.

The truth is: just as with ALL RIGHTS; some people either forfeit or should have certain rights taken away or curbed. And the only way to do that, is to have some method of checking out a person prior to the purchase of a gun. I.e. I definitely believe that a convicted child molester, rapist, or individual who has been convicted of committing physical harm to another person in an offensive manner that was not in the lines of self defense; should NOT be allowed to have a handgun. While a rifle or shotgun can still be used in a "Personal Crime"; they are less likely, and a truly repentant person (Paid their debt to society) should be allowed to have their right back in the form of being allowed a rifle and/or shotgun. Whether for sport, hunting, or home defense. But they don't need to be "Legally" allowed to CARRY a weapon. (Handgun). Then again; a non-repentant criminal doesn't respect the law anyway; so people have to remember that 100% of ALL laws are for the LAW ABIDING PERSON!!! The criminal doesn't care what Obama, congress, the senate, the mayor, governor, or anyone else makes a law for.

And the benefit of the doubt MUST BE GIVEN to a person's rights. That means that we don't need to license or restrict the private sale of weapons among friends/family. I do think that the inter-state sale of firearms going through an FFL license holder is a good idea. But that's as far as that should go. And we shouldn't have to have rules, laws, etc... for carrying concealed, magazine capacity, etc....

Unfortunately, this article and questions doesn't allow for this elaboration by those answering the questions. You're either a god fearing red neck or you're a far left Rodney King liberal who believes in; "Can't we all just get along". There's a lot of middle ground on this topic. And if those writing such articles and polls actually cared about the truth and making a better country instead of sensationalism and making headlines for themselves; then they'd find out and realize that MOST freedoms the far left could live with because there's some logical validations that the far right could live with. And both sides would realize that there can actually be cooperation whereby the "Law Abiding Citizen"; who are the ONLY people that laws actually apply to anyway; could actually NOT have their rights infringed on while at the same time, those with felony acts upon other citizens can be denied the LEGAL and more readily available means of a weapon that can pose a more convenient temptation as a tool to commit a future crime. But instead, the far left is going to create dissension and not allow cooperation; while the far right is going to continue only crying about their rights. Unfortunately, such narrow mindedness on both sides won't allow each side to realize that it IS POSSIBLE to control such a concern without ANY Law Abiding Citizen losing their rights.

Private property rights are one of the core rights. We have the right to be left alone, especially on our property. You betcha, if you carried a book, gun, or whatever, you'll leave my property when I said to, or I'd make you leave.

Click to expand...

And I never said otherwise. What I said was it isn't a GUN issue. The gun is not the central piece of the property rights argument, it's incidental.

"1) I would say instead: "they aren't going away anytime soon"

If an anti-gun stance is demonstrated consistently to be poisonous to a politician, there will cease to be a push towards such. After awhile, the tide can be pushed the other way (just like the antis got the silly laws in the first place: little by little)

2) Yeah, you sure can. You can support the rights of white, God-fearing Christians to own guns while agreeing that them coloreds and heathens shouldn't be allowed to own 'em.

That's where gun control got it's start: as a form of institutionalized racism. It's expanded since the "good ol' days", but that's what's at it's root: a method of keeping "undesirables" from being full citizens.

Again, I will say: if an adult can't be trusted with a gun, then why the hell are they out among the populace?

Story from many years ago: guy went to a gun shop, looking to buy a handgun. Spent LOTS of time, fondling many different weapons before deciding what he wanted. Turns out he was a prohibited person, so they denied the sale*. So he left the gun shop, went to a hardware store, and bought a couple hammers to kill his wife and kids.

The prohibitions helped... how, again?

Another example of this is someone I know, who did time for stealing from his employer. Got a felony conviction: yet he's reformed, is a perfectly productive member of society. Keeping him from possessing a weapon or voting helps society... how again?

So, by all means, someone tell me how these restrictions are helpful or "good". Not talking about "what can we actually push back to", or any of that: given enough time and dedicated people, we can push back to the gooberment issuing FA rifles to every citizen. But the argument has been presented that some restrictions are "good" and "acceptable". I'd like to know what those restrictions are..."

See what I meant about these threads getting childish and ugly. I am not attacking you in anyway yet you feel the need to equate me and my views to racism, elitism or classism and then implying that my positions are not thought out because you do not agree to them.

I am not your foe on this matter, just because we do not see eye to eye on the details of how to get there does not mean we do not have the same destination in mind.

Trying to say that current gun laws have no positive effect at all on crime is an position that can not be defended against basic common sense. To say that if a law (in this case firearm legislation) is not fully successful in stopping the action it was intended to stop it should be abolished is silly.

Again I am on your side, I own a number of firearms that are of the type many antis would love to ban. Implying (at least that is how I read into your post) that I am not a true supporter of the 2ndA because I do not interpret it the exact same way you do is incorrect and insulting and IMO exactly how the "other side" would want it.

The fight over the right to own firearms is going to be a long and hard one. If we on the pro side try to stand on principal (i.e. the 2ndA says....) alone with no thought to real world politics and mindsets of the typical American we will lose and we will lose big. It might be a ugly truth but it is a truth non the less. I am for one am glad that the leaders in this debate on the pro side recognize that.

"There's a lot of middle ground on this topic."

Exactly.

The fight over the right to own firearms is going to be a long and hard one. If we on the pro side try to stand on principal (i.e. the 2ndA says....) alone with no thought to real world politics and mindsets of the typical American we will lose and we will lose big. It might be a ugly truth but it is a truth non the less. I am for one am glad that the leaders in this debate on the pro side recognize that.

Click to expand...

You will notice though that the recent wins have moved from the ballot box to the courtroom so you may be wrong in assuming the leaders of the pro gun movement are worried about mindset of the typical American.

Heller, and the incorporation cases coming behind it, will (if they go our way) do more for gun rights than the last 30 years of politicking have done and it requires no opinion or input from the typical American.

TexasRifleman said:

And I never said otherwise. What I said was it isn't a GUN issue. The gun is not the central piece of the property rights argument, it's incidental.

Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree. It’s all about the gun. If a property owner does not want a gun on his premise he has the right to ban them. He’s not concerned about the person but the gun. This is reasonable restriction in my eyes, As I’ve stated in my posts over and over, It’s all about degree”. If you can accept one reasonable restriction then all restrictions are possible. Of course the gun banners will think that reasonable restriction means all guns should be banned. We as a group need to agree on what is reasonable and fight like hell against the restrictions that are not reasonable. But taking a stand that all restrictions are unreasonable will not further our cause. JMHO
I understand the purity of your convictions but I also understand the reality of the tug of war between the absolute gun banners and the totally unregulated, unrestricted gun ownership faction. I just don/t think either position is relevant.
Now somebody drape themselves in the flag, get up on the soapbox and say I’m calling the BOR irrelevant.

Mohawk and Ruggles;

Why do you evade keeping violent felons locked up or executed, the mentally unstable institutionalized or under 24/7/365 guardianship, and minors kept under the guardianship of their parents? That's how it used to be, worked fine, and didn't infringe upon the rights of the law abiding. Does it not fit into your agenda?

Mohawk said:

I respectfully disagree. It’s all about the gun. If a property owner does not want a gun on his premise he has the right to ban them. He’s not concerned about the person but the gun.

Click to expand...

If the person was Jeffery Damer would that property owner feel the same? The gun doesn't pull its own trigger. I'll answer for you. Yes, he'd feel the same. He'd feel the same because he feels rather than thinks. So, think about violent people being kept locked up, the unstable institutionalized, and kids properly parented. What danger does the rest of us law abiding citizens pose to society that we need to jump through hoops and comply with unconstitutional law in order to keep and bear arms?

Woody

ConstitutionCowboy said:

Mohawk and Ruggles;

Why do you evade keeping violent felons locked up or executed, the mentally unstable institutionalized or under 24/7/365 guardianship, and minors kept under the guardianship of their parents? That's how it used to be, worked fine, and didn't infringe upon the rights of the law abiding. Does it not fit into your agenda?



If the person was Jeffery Damer would that property owner feel the same? The gun doesn't pull its own trigger. I'll answer for you. Yes, he'd feel the same. He'd feel the same because he feels rather than thinks. So, think about violent people being kept locked up, the unstable institutionalized, and kids properly parented. What danger does the rest of us law abiding citizens pose to society that we need to jump through hoops and comply with unconstitutional law in order to keep and bear arms?

Woody

Click to expand...

We already have the largest percentage of the general population locked up. More than any country in the world. Look it up. We are not a "warehouse society" we attempt to rehabilitate social misfits. That's what parole boards are all about. England tried what you suggest back in the 1800s. Steal a loaf of bread and you get shipped off to Australia. You want society to change to fit your gun rights agenda. I'm afraid that isn't going to happen anytime soon.

He’s not concerned about the person but the gun. This is reasonable restriction in my eyes

Click to expand...

You quoted that from a Brady brochure didn't you.....

Do you realize how out of it that sounds, to suggest that the inanimate object itself is a danger rather than the person?

Seriously, that's just silly. You are placing the source of potential problems on an inanimate object.

Think about what you just said there.

If the person doesn't matter let me ask you this. Would you allow these same property owners to ban guns if they are worn by the police?

If not, why? You just said it's the gun not the person but I suspect that's not really the case is it? Which is why I maintain this is not a gun issue at all.

Should a store in the mall be allowed to put up a sign that says "NO COPS". Why not "NO BLACKS"? See what the reaction of the "typical American" is then.

And I understand your point of "soft selling" this stuff out of fear of the reaction of the typical American. But, as I posted earlier, the advances we are making are happening in the court room, not the ballot box so to a large extent the need for placating the typical American doesn't help us anyway.

Doing that since 1968 is what got us here.

First it was gun dealers and limitations on sales.
Then it was Hughes, no more NFA machineguns, a gun not used in a single crime since 1934.
Then it was Brady and waiting periods, followed by the background checks.
Then it was Clinton crime bill and 10 year bans on guns based on 'looks'.

I'd propose that worrying about the "typical American" is what got us to this point in the first place; more gun laws than most dreamed possible with no impact on gun crime.

Maybe doing things the same way we've been doing them isn't such a good idea?

I don't recall the Bill of Rights saying: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall only be reasonably infringed.

The Bill of Rights was written as a set of absolutes. A citizens rights to due process, free speech and religion are not subject to reasonable restrictions because the framers realized how critical to liberty those things were and to give the government any wiggle room would be disastrous.

The only gun law I'd accept under the second amendment would be the NICS background check as it does not infringe upon a citizens right to bear arms. It merely keeps firearms out of the hands of felons (who forfeited some of their constitutional rights by committing the crimes they did).

Wow... first time I've ever had a post quoted in it's entirety. Should I feel honored?

Was NOT trying to paint the view of anyone in this discussion as anything: was illustrating a point. The fact that my post was quoted, in it's entirety, suggests that I might have hit a nerve.

The power to restrict a right is the power to destroy a right. If we define "acceptable restriction" as anyone "underage, mentally incompetent, or violent", we open a gate...

What happens when a belief in Scripture is considered a sign of mental instability? Not as far fetched as you might think...

That makes two examples (or three, if you go by "Christian, Heathen, Black" as different groups) of people infringed upon (or that could be). And again: if you don't think it could happen, take a look at how you can loose your 2A rights in some states just for divorcing your spouse (or her filing for a divorce)...

You all wish to discuss restricting a tool, putting restraints on the tool. How about we try and concentrate on actions, and the societal causes of such? We let the other side frame the argument as being about the tool, then we've already lost...

TexasRifleman said:

You quoted that from a Brady brochure didn't you.....

Do you realize how out of it that sounds, to suggest that the inanimate object itself is a danger rather than the person?

Seriously, that's just silly. You are placing the source of potential problems on an inanimate object.

Think about what you just said there.

If the person doesn't matter let me ask you this. Would you allow these same property owners to ban guns if they are worn by the police?

If not, why? You just said it's the gun not the person but I suspect that's not really the case is it? Which is why I maintain this is not a gun issue at all.

Should a store in the mall be allowed to put up a sign that says "NO COPS". Why not "NO BLACKS"? See what the reaction of the "typical American" is then.

And I understand your point of "soft selling" this stuff out of fear of the reaction of the typical American. But, as I posted earlier, the advances we are making are happening in the court room, not the ballot box so to a large extent the need for placating the typical American doesn't help us anyway.

Doing that since 1968 is what got us here.

First it was gun dealers and limitations on sales.
Then it was Hughes, no more NFA machineguns, a gun not used in a single crime since 1934.
Then it was Brady and waiting periods, followed by the background checks.
Then it was Clinton crime bill and 10 year bans on guns based on 'looks'.

I'd propose that worrying about the "typical American" is what got us to this point in the first place; more gun laws than most dreamed possible with no impact on gun crime.

Maybe doing things the same way we've been doing them isn't such a good idea?

Click to expand...

Well now you want to brand me as a Brady bunch individual. Ain't that cute. Is that all you got? So you believe that a gun owner has the right to carry on private property even when the owner forbids it? First off, big guy, stay on message and don't degenerate to personal attacks. I, personally don't give a hoot how big a Kahuna you are on this site. I react to your posts. Second, this is the High Road, You need to realize that all 2nd. ammendment supporters don't think exactly like you. If a property owner doesn't want guns on his property it's as simple as that. Reasonable restriction. Try telling him your obtuse theory about the gun having nothing to do with the situation as he runs your ass off. Or shoot him for taking offense at your transgression on his property. See how you come out in court.

>We already have the largest percentage of the general population locked up. More than any country in the world. Look it up. We are not a "warehouse society" we attempt to rehabilitate social misfits. That's what parole boards are all about. England tried what you suggest back in the 1800s. Steal a loaf of bread and you get shipped off to Australia. You want society to change to fit your gun rights agenda. I'm afraid that isn't going to happen anytime soon.<

hmmmm... how about looking at what most of the people in prison are there for?

You'll find that many are there for non-violent crimes (such as drug possession and dealing). It's gotten to the point that the purpose of the parole board is NOT to "judge the level of rehabilitation of the offender", but rather to make more room for more drug criminals...

Like I said: societal causes of crime. But it's not quick & easy, so people don't want to deal with it...

First off, big guy, stay on message and don't degenerate to personal attacks.

Click to expand...

That is not a personal attack. Your post states that the gun itself is the problem, not the person holding it.

That is the exact sentiment echoed by the Brady Campaign.

You may not like it, but it's absolutely true. You made the statement, I didn't.

? So you believe that a gun owner has the right to carry on private property even when the owner forbids it?

Click to expand...

Nowhere in my posts have I ever said that. Now you're just making things up. You seem confused on what we are talking about here.

We are talking about the Second Amendment. That is a restriction on what GOVERNMENTS may do. This has nothing to do with private property owners, which is why it isn't a gun issue. Private property owners can do whatever they want, but that has nothing to do with guns.

At some point you get to a debate about private property that is open to the public, businesses etc, and that gets into the Civil Rights argument, but that is a different issue than we're discussing here.

Strings said:

Wow... first time I've ever had a post quoted in it's entirety. Should I feel honored?

Was NOT trying to paint the view of anyone in this discussion as anything: was illustrating a point. The fact that my post was quoted, in it's entirety, suggests that I might have hit a nerve.

The power to restrict a right is the power to destroy a right. If we define "acceptable restriction" as anyone "underage, mentally incompetent, or violent", we open a gate...

What happens when a belief in Scripture is considered a sign of mental instability? Not as far fetched as you might think...

That makes two examples (or three, if you go by "Christian, Heathen, Black" as different groups) of people infringed upon (or that could be). And again: if you don't think it could happen, take a look at how you can loose your 2A rights in some states just for divorcing your spouse (or her filing for a divorce)...

You all wish to discuss restricting a tool, putting restraints on the tool. How about we try and concentrate on actions, and the societal causes of such? We let the other side frame the argument as being about the tool, then we've already lost...

Click to expand...

You are trying to paint a picture that I and others who have posted in this thread want restrictions. This is simply not true at all. I personally can not think of one new restriction I'd like to see. I also think that many restrictions in place are nanny state mandates that should be repealed. My only point in this whole thread is to point out that restrictions are real. They exist and we as a group have to recognize that fact and deal with each threat to our rights on an individual basis. We must identify which ones are relevant and vigourously fight the rest.

*sigh*

>Well now you want to brand me as a Brady bunch individual. Ain't that cute. Is that all you got? So you believe that a gun owner has the right to carry on private property even when the owner forbids it? First off, big guy, stay on message and don't degenerate to personal attacks. I, personally don't give a hoot how big a Kahuna you are on this site. I react to your posts. Second, this is the High Road, You need to realize that all 2nd. ammendment supporters don't think exactly like you. If a property owner doesn't want guns on his property it's as simple as that. Reasonable restriction. Try telling him your obtuse theory about the gun having nothing to do with the situation as he runs your ass off. Or shoot him for taking offense at your transgression on his property. See how you come out in court.<

That isn't a gun issue...

If I decide don't want you coming on my property for whatever reason, that is my right as the owner of that property.

That reason could be you carrying a gun, or wearing a religious symbol openly, or you refusing to make your wife wear a burkha. The reason doesn't matter...

Here, you're confusing what the Bill of Rights actually is (which is strictly a restraint on government).

Had a roommate that made a similar argument. He insisted that we did NOT have freedom of speech, because he couldn't just walk into a newsroom and get whatever diatribe he wanted to spout in print or on the 5 o'clock news. Took me a LONG time to get through his head that 1A did NOT mean that the local newspaper editor was required to print what YOU wanted him to. But you're making essentially the same argument...

What restrictions a private property owner decides to put on his private property is his business. It's only a BoR issue if the government tries to dictate what those restrictions will be...