A reasonable regulation? What could one be?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Only a farcical joke of a Second Amendment would not encompass widespread private ownership of heavy machine guns, grenade launchers, man-portable anti-tank and anti-aircraft guns and missile launchers, recoilless rifles, and mortars(the tools of conventional war).

The strength of military forces is no longer measured by the number of men under arms. Today, military forces are measured by the number--and warfighting capabilities--of their weapon systems.

Our various rifles, shotguns, carbines and handguns are adequate for handling common street criminals and crazies, however, an effective and credible conventional warfighting capability is flat-out essential.
 
maybe a yearly qualification of the most basic sort with at least one of each basic type of firearm you own. Rifle, shotgun, pistol.
 
The strength of military forces is no longer measured by the number of men under arms. Today, military forces are measured by the number--and warfighting capabilities--of their weapon systems.

Perhaps you are right...or perhaps 4th gen/assymetric warfare can make a $50 million dollar stealth fighter useless and thus worthless.

Again...I'm not talking about equipping soldiers for conventional wars with other armies. I am talking about civilian firearms ownership. If you think that private citizens can and should own rocket launchers and anti-tank weapons how do you manage that process by law? What do you require of a good citizen before they can own such a device?

...nothing but the $$ in their wallet?

...training?

...accountability to a local, regional or state militia?
 
There should be restrictions on some types of military weapons. I don’t think vehicle mounted belt fed machineguns should be legal. I’m not sure about RPGs or hand grenades either. A near miss could be hard on the neighborhood.

None of that is important. Respect property rights and civil rights and you have your answer. If you are too dangerous to have a gun, then you should be in jail or dead. If your crime was so heinous that you are denied the vote, then you should still be in jail or dead. If you violate others' property rights by blowing up your neighborhood, you are in jail or dead. If you violate personal rights, kill your neighbor during said RPG launching, you are in jail or dead. It isn't complicated, quite making it so hard. Reasonable regulation, in all spheres of life, means punishing those who violate others' rights. Yelling fire in a theater shouldn't be a crime, however causing someone to be trampled to death in a mad dash for the exits should. Big difference, your option is an invitation to government abuse.

The real question the OP is asking is, "I'm scared of what other people might do with their freedom, how can I alienate my fear while acting like I'm concerned about something grander that is easier to sell based on emotion?" Again, the answer is simple, punish people when their actions violate rights, otherwise, manage risk and quit trying to run other peoples' lives.
 
Last edited:
Again...I'm not talking about equipping soldiers for conventional wars with other armies. I am talking about civilian firearms ownership. If you think that private citizens can and should own rocket launchers and anti-tank weapons how do you manage that process by law? What do you require of a good citizen before they can own such a device?

...nothing but the $$ in their wallet?

...training?

...accountability to a local, regional or state militia?

Naturally, private ownership would have to be accompanied by mandatory training in weapons and tactics as well as their safe storage and transfer.

If a war comes to our shores, the people must be prepared to defend against the threat that foreign or domestic aggressors will confiscate or destroy domestic property and destroy lives.

The finest tools available today deliver what the 21st Century warfighter needs.
 
The regulation of handguns and machineguns is only for the safety of the politicians, or their failed politics would have them killed, they fear. Gun regulations are not about the safety of the people. If they were, then why do politicians support a system where violent criminals are released from prison faster than they got in? Politicians don't care about the safety of the people, they only care about the safety of themselves. Those ****ing politicians... And Obama. What an idiot. Of course he fears any gun! Because he knows what he has in mind for the American people...
 
disgust

Once upon a time this community believed unequivocally in the right of the individual to keep and bear arms. Period.

Hell, we even finally have a Supreme Court decision that backs that up and NOW we're all falling over ourselves to find a "safe" and/or "comfortable" way to capitulate to the antis?


The High Road is a shadow of its former self.

:rolleyes: :( or :cuss: ... I haven't made my mind up yet.
 
A people who doesn't believe in the importance of self defense will first and foremost be ***-***** by their own politicians, more so than any foreign army would care to do. Look at how the Democrats have the people bend over in Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, etc, etc. Do any of you think Castro would go to such extremes?
 
Reasonable?!?

I do NOT believe in 'reasonable regulations' because I do not think that ANY of them are Constitutional and/or Reasonable.

Shall not be infringed means just that. Even if I lived in another country or still here in the states and there was no "SECOND" - my right to self defense should allow any OBJECT or TOOL and that includes firearms.

I think that ALL firearms should be LEGAL with NO restrictions.

I think that we should be ALLOWED to have any dang type of TOOL that we want to own. CITIZENS should be allowed to have ANY TOOL that the police or military own! EQUAL playing field you know! Just in case we need another 'tea party' to stop another king, tyrant, dictator, president, etc.

I think that MOST of the alphabet agencies need to be cut back and/or eliminated and one of them that should no longer exist should be the BATF. My guns are 'legal' and I do the right thing but I only do that because that is the BS 'law' even though I think that those over 20,000 laws are wrong/Unconstitutional and the agency should NO longer exist - grin. In other words, I filled out the FORMS and followed the law on all of my firearm purchases. Paperwork! Followed the BS law in NO CCW states too! UGH.

Who should care or give a rat's @@@, old saying, on WHAT ANY OBJECT LOOKS LIKE and that includes guns?!? Geesh. The Nazi laws, the power control freaks, politicos and NWO globalists in the R and D parties are WRONG when it comes to the old GUN laws, the present GUN laws and the new GUN laws coming down the road. DO I TELL PEOPLE what color or what style vehicle or bike that they should drive or ride on? Should anyone have the audacity to tell anyone such a thing? NO! That goes for any OBJECT including firearms!

If you are in an insane asylum or in jail - you should not be allowed to have firearms due to you being 'crazy' - in your asylum ROOM and/or serving your time in JAIL.

Once you are out of the nut house, no offense, completed your therapy and/or continue your therapy on the 'outside', free to ROAM the streets, return to work and NOT be on the $goobmint$ taxpayer funded dole, drive, walk, ride a bus, do the activities of a daily life with or without family, friends, co workers, etc. - you should be allowed to have a TOOL to protect yourself and that includes a firearm.

Once you are out of jail, served your DEBT to SOCIETY and do the 'right thing' as listed above in the other case only you are not a reformed patient but a reformed person who was in jail... you should be allowed to have a TOOL to protect yourself and that includes a firearm.

Both parties, the healed patient and reformed inmate should be allowed to vote, hunt, fish, etc.

If BOTH parties are let LOOSE and back into SOCIETY... they have served their medical time-healing time and their jail time-debt to society... asylum an/or jail. If they are NOT safe to be let LOOSE and back into society... they will have to wait.

If they are so vicious and killers like Manson and his ILK - put those dirty dogs down - the death penalty. DNA proof, admitting their guilt, trial, etc. - why should they be kept ALIVE on OUR TAXPAYERS MONEY?!? Stupid and wrong!

Catherine
 
Last edited:
"Strict Scrutiny" is a formal class of Judicial Review.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny

Strict scrutiny is the most stringent standard of judicial review used by United States courts reviewing federal law. Along with the lower standards of rational basis review and intermediate scrutiny, strict scrutiny is part of a hierarchy of standards courts employ to weigh an asserted government interest against a constitutional right or policy that conflicts with the manner in which the interest is being pursued. Strict scrutiny is applied based on the constitutional conflict at issue, regardless of whether a law or action of the U.S. federal government, a state government, or a local municipality is at issue. It arises in two basic contexts: when a "fundamental" constitutional right is infringed, particularly those listed in the Bill of Rights and those the court has deemed a fundamental right protected by the liberty provision of the 14th Amendment; or when the government action involves the use of a "suspect classification" such as race or national origin that may render it void under the Equal Protection Clause. These are the two applications that were anticipated in footnote 4 to United States v. Carolene Products.

To pass strict scrutiny, the law or policy must satisfy three prongs:

First, it must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of multiple individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections.

Second, the law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (over-inclusive) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest (under-inclusive), then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored.

Finally, the law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest. More accurately, there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest, but the test will not fail just because there is another method that is equally the least restrictive. Some legal scholars consider this 'least restrictive means' requirement part of being narrowly tailored, though the Court generally evaluates it as a separate prong.

Legal scholars, including judges and professors, often say that strict scrutiny is "strict in theory, fatal in fact," because popular perception is that most laws subject to this standard are struck down. However, an empirical study of strict scrutiny decisions in the federal courts, by Adam Winkler, found that laws survive strict scrutiny over thirty percent of the time. In one area of law, religious liberty, laws survived strict scrutiny review in nearly sixty percent of applications.
 
In my opinion we should have a national militia and as members of that militia we could own the above weapons. How else could we ever defeat a rogue government, which is one of the rights that is given to us from the framers.I guess that's off topic though.
 
lysander

It seems to me you havn't the slightest clue what the second ammendment is about or why it is there. We are so far down the slippery slope, I don't know how to ever undo the damage the safey nazis have done to us. NOt only have they made a joke of our constitution, they've rotted the minds of our citizenry. If I am misunderstanding your words, I apologize in advance.

There isn't supposed to be a professional army. You and I are supposed to be it. We have been reduced to fighting to preserve a ghost of a constitution.

"Those who would trade freedom for safety are deserving of neither."-ben franklin(i think)


Now I'm through with my rant.

The more advanced weapons, like land mines and heat seeking missiles, poison gas, and such, probably shouldn't be at the checkout lane at your local shopNsave supermarket. But someone should have them somewhere for distribution to certain qualified individuals. How that system should be organized, I have no idea. But the current system of gun control is NOT even legal! So I don't see any need to express my dislike for the current system.

At a very miniscule minimum, all common weapons carried by the most basic army infantry grunt should be available to every voting taxpaying citizen regardless of age, sex, ability, religion, or political affiliation. Not only should it be available without restriction, it should be mandatory.

This basic equipment would include: 3 round burst m16, kevlar body armor, helmet, 200 rounds of ammo, and gear to carry all of it. I could see allowing people the option of something else if it is more suitable to their location and abilities. Old people with poor eyesight maybe would choose a street sweeper style shotgun. People in densely populated cities might prefer a mac10 or an MP5 or uzi. Some might want a long range 308 rifle, maybe even a 50 cal.


But something relevant to modern day warfare should be available to the general public.
 
The real question the OP is asking is, "I'm scared of what other people might do with their freedom, how can I alienate my fear while acting like I'm concerned about something grander that is easier to sell based on emotion?" Again, the answer is simple, punish people when their actions violate rights, otherwise, manage risk and quit trying to run other peoples' lives.

I thought the question I asked was bolded out in the first post. ;)

The regulation of handguns and machineguns is only for the safety of the politicians, or their failed politics would have them killed, they fear. Gun regulations are not about the safety of the people. If they were, then why do politicians support a system where violent criminals are released from prison faster than they got in? Politicians don't care about the safety of the people, they only care about the safety of themselves. Those ****ing politicians... And Obama. What an idiot. Of course he fears any gun! Because he knows what he has in mind for the American people...

Orange_Magnum: I agree with you. Throughout history, civilian disarmament is/was/has always been about control. It doesn't matter if we are talking about Feudal Japan, Feudal Europe, Medieval Scotland, Turkey at the turn of the 19th century, or Nazi Germany. That being said...I'm trying to keep this discussion alive and I would kindly ask that you refrain from dragging real politicians into my hypothetical...it is only asking for trouble. :D

Hell, we even finally have a Supreme Court decision that backs that up and NOW we're all falling over ourselves to find a "safe" and/or "comfortable" way to capitulate to the antis?

I'm not asking people to capitulate to anyone...I'm just trying to explore our side of this issue. I have given you tabula rasa to make Zundfolge's Happy Gun Kingdom...tell me how you do it.

I see where your going with the gun question.

No precedent between a derringer and a howitzer.

driftpin: What I am asking is: What does your definition of "gun" encompass? Does it go from a cap and ball revolver all the way to a Phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range? Insofar as possession is concerned I am asking the same kind of question. In your home? In your car? etc., etc.,

I think that MOST of the alphabet agencies need to be cut back and/or eliminated and one of them that should no longer exist should be the BATF. My guns are 'legal' and I do the right thing but I only do that because that is the BS 'law' even though I think that those over 20,000 laws are wrong/Unconstitutional and the agency should NO longer exist - grin. In other words, I filled out the FORMS and followed the law on all of my firearm purchases. Paperwork! Followed the BS law in NO CCW states too! UGH.

So write your own laws. That is the point of this exercise. :p
 
There should be NO restictions of any kind--unless you're doing time IN JAIL!!
Once our government "knows" they have the power over "us", things WILL change!!
The party in power at the time WILL take control.
"Similar weapons" as "our standing Army has"---That's the ONLY way we can keep our government in control!!
Look at what has happened everywhere else....Once we lose our 2A "rights" we'll lose the rest of our "rights".

I realize that IF they took "ALL" restriction away,,,,there would be a few people that would take advantage of "anything goes", but it wouldn't take long to weed them out, but who in our government would even vote for anything like that????

"WE" don't hold our "government" responsible for our "future" & safety anymore.

UJ
 
Quote:

Quote and a snippet by Catherine:
I think that MOST of the alphabet agencies need to be cut back and/or eliminated and one of them that should no longer exist should be the BATF. My guns are 'legal' and I do the right thing but I only do that because that is the BS 'law' even though I think that those over 20,000 laws are wrong/Unconstitutional and the agency should NO longer exist - grin. In other words, I filled out the FORMS and followed the law on all of my firearm purchases. Paperwork! Followed the BS law in NO CCW states too! UGH.

So write your own laws. That is the point of this exercise.

~~~~~

Lysander,

Trust me if I could... I would CUT out those laws. I sincerely DOUBT that I would want to WRITE or PASS even MORE LAWS!

That is the POINT of MY exercise. Grin. You asked the question in your first post and I replied to you.

Feel free to pass this essay along. ANY R or D - anti gun or ones for only some guns - liberal or neo con artist type should LEARN from this essay. I am a PRO Constitution lady not a neo con in case some people can't figure that out. Look at what the H happened to the OLD fashioned R party - same deal that happened to the OLD fashioned D party! UGH.

Gun control = CONTROL. Period!

http://www.lneilsmith.org/whyguns.html

Why Did it Have to be ... Guns?

by L. Neil Smith
[email protected]

Over the past 30 years, I've been paid to write almost two million words, every one of which, sooner or later, came back to the issue of guns and gun-ownership. Naturally, I've thought about the issue a lot, and it has always determined the way I vote.

People accuse me of being a single-issue writer, a single- issue thinker, and a single- issue voter, but it isn't true. What I've chosen, in a world where there's never enough time and energy, is to focus on the one political issue which most clearly and unmistakably demonstrates what any politician -- or political philosophy -- is made of, right down to the creamy liquid center.

Make no mistake: all politicians -- even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership -- hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because it's an X-ray machine. It's a Vulcan mind-meld. It's the ultimate test to which any politician -- or political philosophy -- can be put.

If a politician isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash -- for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn't your friend no matter what he tells you.

If he isn't genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody's permission, he's a four-flusher, no matter what he claims.

What his attitude -- toward your ownership and use of weapons -- conveys is his real attitude about you. And if he doesn't trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him?

If he doesn't want you to have the means of defending your life, do you want him in a position to control it?

If he makes excuses about obeying a law he's sworn to uphold and defend -- the highest law of the land, the Bill of Rights -- do you want to entrust him with anything?

If he ignores you, sneers at you, complains about you, or defames you, if he calls you names only he thinks are evil -- like "Constitutionalist" -- when you insist that he account for himself, hasn't he betrayed his oath, isn't he unfit to hold office, and doesn't he really belong in jail?

Sure, these are all leading questions. They're the questions that led me to the issue of guns and gun ownership as the clearest and most unmistakable demonstration of what any given politician -- or political philosophy -- is really made of.

He may lecture you about the dangerous weirdos out there who shouldn't have a gun -- but what does that have to do with you? Why in the name of John Moses Browning should you be made to suffer for the misdeeds of others? Didn't you lay aside the infantile notion of group punishment when you left public school -- or the military? Isn't it an essentially European notion, anyway -- Prussian, maybe -- and certainly not what America was supposed to be all about?

And if there are dangerous weirdos out there, does it make sense to deprive you of the means of protecting yourself from them? Forget about those other people, those dangerous weirdos, this is about you, and it has been, all along.

Try it yourself: if a politician won't trust you, why should you trust him? If he's a man -- and you're not -- what does his lack of trust tell you about his real attitude toward women? If "he" happens to be a woman, what makes her so perverse that she's eager to render her fellow women helpless on the mean and seedy streets her policies helped create? Should you believe her when she says she wants to help you by imposing some infantile group health care program on you at the point of the kind of gun she doesn't want you to have?

On the other hand -- or the other party -- should you believe anything politicians say who claim they stand for freedom, but drag their feet and make excuses about repealing limits on your right to own and carry weapons? What does this tell you about their real motives for ignoring voters and ramming through one infantile group trade agreement after another with other countries?

Makes voting simpler, doesn't it? You don't have to study every issue -- health care, international trade -- all you have to do is use this X-ray machine, this Vulcan mind-meld, to get beyond their empty words and find out how politicians really feel. About you. And that, of course, is why they hate it.

And that's why I'm accused of being a single-issue writer, thinker, and voter.

But it isn't true, is it?

Permission to redistribute this article is herewith granted by the author -- provided that it is reproduced unedited, in its entirety, and appropriate credit given.

You are here: Webley Page > Lever Action > Why Did it Have to be ... Guns?


Catherine - Armed and Female
Montana Territory

Just say NO to the police state. Say NO to Obama and to McCain!
No more of the NWO globalist control freaks. America, wake up and smell the coffee. You think that there will be 'change'? Ha ha, lose your gun rights on one hand and lose your country while we have the same old repeated mess from the Bush Cabal. Lose your LIBERTIES in other issues not only in guns. They both STINK! Keep your powder dry!
 
Last edited:
What part of 'shall not be infringed' do you have a problem understanding?

As far as nukes and WMD's go, I believe that any weapon that cannot be entrusted to citizens, certainly cannot be entrusted to governments...look at their record with weapons.

All weapons,in the end, are controlled by individual human beings. Some of whom may be nuttier than a fruitcake. I don't much care for my neighbor across the street. He might be psychotic. I'd rather see him in control of nuclear weapons than Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, or Richard Nixon for that matter.
 
Thank you.

Right on Byron!

That is my exact point among my other points!

Catherine

"If ye love wealth better than liberty,
the tranquility of servitude
better than the animating contest of freedom,
go home from us in peace.
We ask not your counsels or your arms.
Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.
May your chains set lightly upon you,
and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."

Samuel Adams
 
What is reasonable? Reasonable is a subjective term. Its meaning varies from one person to the next.

We are not a nation governed by subjective laws. We are a nation governed by objective laws. We like specific, tangible, non-morphing laws. This even applies to Constitutional laws and restraints on governments.

". . . shall not be infringed."

That's specific.

I'm going to reiterate what has been said before: Stop making it harder than it is.
 
None. When the right to keep and bear arms is infringed upon it leaves the power in the hands of criminals and tyrants.
When the right to keep and bear arms is not infringed upon it leaves the balance of power in the hands of We The People where it belongs.

As long as gun owners continue to compromise we will continue to be compromised.
 
"regulation" meant to the Founding Fathers "facilitate the efficient mutual exercise of the right" - far from today's "practical prohibition".

Ergo, "reasonable regulation" would be something like "gov't facilitation of all citizens learning & acquiring the M16 select-fire rifle". This in contrast with the usual "nobody but active National Guard and up get real M16s", which is not "regulation", but "prohibition".

I submit that the OP's premise is deeply flawed, asking about "regulation" when he means "prohibition".
 
Bingo to Tall Pine about fuel, fertilizer, etc. Thank you.

PM sent to you about the control freaks in another matter since it is not allowed on this board.

Yours in liberty,

Catherine
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top