The battle over "reasonable" gun regulations

"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."

...because the SC Justices who decided that case had nothing to do with politics, I mean their appointing was strictly politics free.....which of course means the votes to put those who appointed those justices in office had nothing to do with it....which by default means the typical American had nothing to do with it.

That is your fatal mistake, trying to separate the politics from this.

Let me see if I can restate what you just said, and see if we can agree...

>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 I also think that many restrictions in place are nanny state mandates that should be repealed.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.<

How about this:

"We need to recognize that certain restrictions are going to be with us for awhile. Our job at present is to prioritize those, to deal with having them struck down in an order that is possible"

Can you agree with the above?

Strings said:

Let me see if I can restate what you just said, and see if we can agree...

>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 I also think that many restrictions in place are nanny state mandates that should be repealed.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.<

How about this:

"We need to recognize that certain restrictions are going to be with us for awhile. Our job at present is to prioritize those, to deal with having them struck down in an order that is possible"

Can you agree with the above?

Click to expand...

Yes!

...because the SC Justices who decided that case had nothing to do with politics, I mean their appointing was strictly politics free.....which of course means the votes to put those who appointed those justices in office had nothing to do with it....which by default means the typical American had nothing to do with it.

That is your fatal mistake, trying to separate the politics from this.

Click to expand...

Umm, Souter was appointed by Reagan.

Your argument that party politics has much to do with the voting direction of the Supreme Court falls pretty flat if you look at the voting records.

Counting on a good judicial appointment from politics is dangerous. I don't remember the Second Amendment coming up directly in any Justices confirmation hearings.

Counting on the typical American voter to help gun owners has simply not worked. From that we got the Clinton ban and the Brady Law at a Federal level.

What major pro gun legislation have we had since FOPA?

"Quote:
...because the SC Justices who decided that case had nothing to do with politics, I mean their appointing was strictly politics free.....which of course means the votes to put those who appointed those justices in office had nothing to do with it....which by default means the typical American had nothing to do with it.

That is your fatal mistake, trying to separate the politics from this.
Umm, Souter was appointed by Reagan.

Your argument that party politics has much to do with the voting direction of the Supreme Court falls pretty flat if you look at the voting records."

You right of course, politics and political parties have almost nothing to do with the SC nor how it is likely to vote. We all know that Presidents would never nominate judges just because they share their views on such matters.

I mean I am just as comfy with Obama filling the next 2-3 seats on the SC as I would be with McCain doing so..........should have no impact on future firearm cases in the SC.

You fellas have fun at this, this is by far a topic that is more than pointless to debate.

I for one am finished.

I remain a supporter of 2nd A rights who favor some firearms legislation.

You should check out the AHSA.

You right of course, politics and political parties have almost nothing to do with the SC nor how it is likely to vote. We all know that Presidents would never nominate judges just because they share their views on such matters.

Click to expand...

Again, you mean like Souter.

Counting on politics alone is what got us here.

I get your point but you're wanting to depend on something that has failed us in the past. We have a court seated today that has ruled on Heller in our favor and would likely rule for state incorporation of the Second Amendment.

That is reality, today. If that happens we'll have made more progress than in the last 3 or 4 decades.

And, if guns were in the voting public's mind we wouldn't be facing the Obama choices anyway. So, counting on the voters failed us there as well.

"reasonable" gun regulations... is when there is no gun regulation at all!
But severe punishment for those who use guns in crimes/assaults and not the one defending his/her life.

I feel that the background checks are reasonable. I have posted this before and some **** called me liberal for it. Oh well. Its how I feel.
I don't like the waiting period, or ban of open carry. I live in GA and if the dice fall right this fall, I will be able to carry at school, and have a lifetime permit instead of renewing it.

I agree with Strings BTW. IF a private citizen says keep off my property if you are carrying, and you stay on, you are a criminal trespasser at this point. That ain't got nothin to do with liberal or not. Hell, I could tell you to get off my lawn for wearing a hat, and if you didn't your trespassin.
Anyone who says that I can't enforce what I want on my own turf is out of their mind.

You fellas have fun at this, this is by far a topic that is more than pointless to debate.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

But at the least it confirms what the OP says in his article, that we'll sit here and battle over what is reasonable as we watch the whole thing slip away.

That's why incorporation is so important.

You guys that want lots of reasonable restrictions can live in Illinois and New York and those of us that don't want any at all can live in Texas, Alaska, and Montana.

I'm OK with that, but at least get it out of the hands of the Fed.

yea ok, because in texas you can walk into court with your gun. same with alaska and montana. GA must be so liberal! That isn't a reasonable restriction!

Every adult citizen of the United States of America should be able to own the exact same weapons carried by our Armed Forces.

Anyone who is guilty of a crime so heinous that they cannot be trusted with a firearm, should be hanging from a tree or in jail.

That is as reasonable as I get.

Background checks are a symptom of a disease that has nothing to do with guns. It has to do with our broken judicial system that lets predators out amongst their prey.

so if i steal a car I should be hanged. or be put in jail for life. Or better yet, go to jail and then be hung after I serve my sentence.
you sure are reasonable about this.
A background check has nothing to do with guns? Lets look at some common sense here. The current law is that to get one you need a background check. So, at the moment, it has everything to do with getting one legally. if you want to split hairs and say personal transactions fine, whatever. So, just because you think it shouldn't have anything to do with it, doesn't mean it doesn't.

TexasRifleman, is it possible that the 1968 law did not have an appreciable impact on gun violence because of the underground illegal gun trade? If so, is it not possible then that if this illegal gun trade were brought under control, that the 1968 laws would then appear to make more sense? I believe the stat is around 95% of all gun related crimes are committed with illegally purchased firearms, but I can't remember for sure.

I'm just putting this out there because you really seem to have your ducks in a row and I'm interested to hear what you have to say on the issue.

TEXAS RIFLEMAN - "Umm, Souter was appointed by Reagan."

Click to expand...

No, he wasn't.

Souter was appointed by Prez Bush The Elder.

L.W.

eqfan: you're talking about an impossibility. Saying "If the illegal trade in guns was discontinued" is playing a "what if?" game that gets us nowhere.

One unfortunate fact of human life: anything desired can be had, for a price. So long as prohibited folks want to get weapons, they'll find a way to do so.

kyo: one point I'm been trying to make (and badly, it seems), is that we need to revamp a BUNCH of things in our criminal justice system. Hopefully, to work better with reality...

One group to "pick on" here: sexual predators. It's been proven fairly conclusively that a true SP is impossible to rehabilitate. Such folks should be executed, as quickly and humanely as possible: not as punishment, but to protect society. Same for repeat offenders on murder...

For all other "felony" offenses, there should be some way for a person to regain their rights. Serve their time, make it through probation, pay restitution (whatever), and you can apply to have your rights reinstated. If we can't trust that person to legally own a gun, then why should we trust them to be among the citizenry?

Under the current system (commit felony, serve time, be forever branded as "untrustworthy"), there really isn't much reason for a felon to really try. Perhaps, if having served their time their record was sealed outside of the court (and their full rights restored), more who make mistakes when younger could learn from them and better themselves (and thereby become contributing citizens)...

So, to cut to the chase, here;

"How many angels can sit on the point of a needle?"


isher

I want the basis for any laws or regulations to be based on fact, not emotion. Thats the fault I find with Mohawk's arguments. He is arguing that we need such laws, when the facts have demonstrated that the more heavily regulated guns have been, the higher the crime rate has risen. He has been unable to substantiate exactly WHY we need them, but rather only that we do, and that they are here to stay. He is trying to confuse the issue by bringing private property rights into the equation, which is completely irrelavent. The 2nd Amendment only offers protection from the govt, not private individuals. He is unable to demonstrate how any of the regulations he's resigned to accecpt actually affect crime to any measureable degree. In the end, its an emotion-based argument, which will always fall flat when approached by logic, as TexasRifleman has repeatedly pointed out. I've yet to see gun control policies that actually work in this country, and far more regulations and laws that make no sense whatsoever. I suggest that all cuurent gun laws are reviewed, and what laws prevented what crimes made public. Those that have not been shown to effectively serve their purposes would be scrapped. If a law doesn't have a clear purpose, or the purpose of the law has been shown to be ineffective, the law would be scrapped. That process alone would rid the books of thousands of pointless, needless laws and regulations designed to protect us from ourselves and each other, without sacrifcing the emotions of those that believe that gun laws keep us safer. After all, ONLY laws shown to not have a significant impact on gun crime would be removed.....effective (if there IS such a thing) laws remain, ineffective ones get flushed. Everyone wins

so if i steal a car I should be hanged. or be put in jail for life. Or better yet, go to jail and then be hung after I serve my sentence.

Click to expand...

Don't be rediculous.

If you steal a car, you should be punished and that punishment should include a stiff prison term. You should not be allowed to vote or have a firearm while being punished. If you keep stealing cars, you should be kept in prison.

"Reasonable" is a catch word used by those who would utterly destroy the Second Amendment to make them sound "reasonable" and marginalize those who oppose them. Anyone with even a single working brain cell can quickly figure out that no gun law stops a single crime.

Replace the word "reasonable" with the word "effective" and I am on board with that. Someone come up with an EFFECTIVE gun control law and I will sign on. But it won't happen because GUNS are not what need to be controlled, it's the criminals.

TexasRifleman, is it possible that the 1968 law did not have an appreciable impact on gun violence because of the underground illegal gun trade? If so, is it not possible then that if this illegal gun trade were brought under control, that the 1968 laws would then appear to make more sense? I believe the stat is around 95% of all gun related crimes are committed with illegally purchased firearms, but I can't remember for sure.

I'm just putting this out there because you really seem to have your ducks in a row and I'm interested to hear what you have to say on the issue.

Click to expand...

First, never seen any research on that angle but....

Listen to what you just said, and think about it a bit.

"the reason the gun law didn't work is because people kept breaking other laws".

THAT is the point my friend. Criminals will always be criminals. They don't tend to obey laws.

Those danged criminals. If they would just stop breaking those laws we'd see how much the law helped. We should pass another law

If we just keep passing more laws eventually they will start obeying them right? We just need ONE more... OK, now ONE more.

OK, well we said one more before but now we're sure... just ONE more... OK we lied, sorry, one more then we're done. Well wait.....

Replace the word "reasonable" with the word "effective" and I am on board with that. Someone come up with an EFFECTIVE gun control law and I will sign on.

Click to expand...

EFFECTIVE gun control is what Rosie O'Donnell wants ("If you have a gun, you should go to jail.")

We don't want effective gun control, we want effective CRIME PREVENTION. And we want the metrics and reporting system embedded in the law, so we can SEE if the law, whatever it is, is actually reducing crime. And we want a sunset provision, so if it isn't effective, it goes away.

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.

Click to expand...

Because the intentions of the law are more important than its effectiveness? That's a purely emotional stance. What's silly is holding dear to ineffective laws for no logical reason. Continuing to do the same thing over and over, while expecting different outcomes is silly.

What harm to society did the NICS check undo?

Point to the proof of its wisdom.

Please, please show us what massive evidence justifies that system.