The battle over "reasonable" gun regulations

[Ruggles]

"The line is where it always has been, generally non-crewed served weapons. However there are private citizens who do own tanks, helicopters, and jets. The law is already quite vague on this and it doesn't seem to cause "society" any harm, how can that be?. In reality, it doesn't really matter, regulation of these devices is simply the upkeep, expense, and logistical complications; IOW they are a PITA."

Point is that we all draw a line somewhere (those with .02 worth of common sense anyways) on this matter. The issues arise when my line is not draw as far out as some would like and your line is draw farther out than some would like. Founders saw this and put procedures in place to address it, not only in firearms but in many aspects of society.

 

[t165]

It would have been nice to actually witness the arguments between the representatives when they were hammering out the Constitution and again when the original Bill of Rights was passed. Nobody knows what was argued or the politics behind it all. We can guess...there is a lot of guessing on this thread.

This thread seems to center around one group who thinks it is "reasonable" to prohibit violent felons, the mentally ill and children from owning/posessing firearms. I'm in that group. And another group who wants no restrictions. There is not a single person on this forum who's individual voice means anything in the grand scheme of things. Our personal interpretations are just so much hot air.

But through politics, collective minds gathering in force, is where reality begins. And the reality is our nation has voted for gun control. Regardless of an individuals personal interperation of the 2nd amendment, gun control has always existed in America. Some of the extremists on this thread have admitted to certain class and race (black codes) based firearm restrictions. There were many throughout history which had absolutely nothing to do with class or race.

As a member of this forum I find comfort that the vast majority of Americans agree with me that violent felons, the mentally ill and young children should not have access to firearms. The argument of those who think along the same lines as me have already won..we have our way. Our real enemy...the side that actually have some power is the anti-gun crowd. The anti-gun crowd will try and color us with the same brush as the 2A extremists. If anti-gun collective are successful in that then the tide may swing against us.

 

[Ruggles]

Nice now we have people advocating the right to privately own nuclear weapons. I am glad those folks are not on my side of the debate.

 

[General Geoff]

Nice now we have people advocating the right to privately own nuclear weapons. I am glad those folks are not on my side of the debate.

It's no more absurd than the government owning a stockpile of them. In the end, the people who control them are still human, and are still fallible.

 

[SuperNaut]

Wow Ruggles, you rode that fallacy right to its inevitable, completely hypothetical and irrelevant, conclusion.

 

[Ruggles]

"It would have been nice to actually witness the arguments between the representatives when they were hammering out the Constitution and again when the original Bill of Rights was passed. Nobody knows what was argued or the politics behind it all. We can guess...there is a lot of guessing on this thread.

This thread seems to center around one group who thinks it is "reasonable" to prohibit violent felons, the mentally ill and children from owning/posessing firearms. I'm in that group. And another group who wants no restrictions. There is not a single person on this forum who's individual voice means anything in the grand scheme of things. Our personal interpretations are just so much hot air.

But through politics, collective minds gathering in force, is where reality begins. And the reality is our nation has voted for gun control. Regardless of an individuals personal interperation of the 2nd amendment, gun control has always existed in America. Some of the extremists on this thread have admitted to certain class and race (black codes) based firearm restrictions. There were many throughout history which had absolutely nothing to do with class or race.

As a member of this forum I find comfort that the vast majority of Americans agree with me that violent felons, the mentally ill and young children should not have access to firearms. The argument of those who think along the same lines as me have already won..we have our way. Our real enemy...the side that actually have some power is the anti-gun crowd. The anti-gun crowd will try and color us with the same brush as the 2A extremists. If anti-gun collective are successful in that then the tide may swing against us."

Well said, I too agree that 2nd A extremist do a great disservice to the 2nd A. In today's real world political climate they do even greater harm. They do not speak for me nor do they have the right to freely and unopposed call me anti gun or anti 2nd A because I support some firearms legislation.

 

[Ruggles]

"It's no more absurd than the government owning a stockpile of them. In the end, the people who control them are still human, and are still fallible."

Yeah I feel as worried about those nukes on the USS Benjamin Franklin as I am about some third world wanna be dictator / drug dealer having them.

 

[christcorp]

Since 1934 only 2 crimes have been committed by legally owned machine guns by the way.

TR: you should consider what you write prior to posting. In the quote above, you just made one HELL OF AN ARGUMENT for those wanting to ban firearms. Hell, we can argue among ourselves all we want; but let's not give the other side any more ammunition than they have.

Why should there be a line?

ALL actions on the planet; in human society; from the beginning of time until now; HAS A LINE. Stop being euphoric and think reality. Let the other side have their "Rodney Kings". How many times must people be reminded that all rights, privileges, actions, and expressions HAVE and MUST HAVE guidelines/limits/rules/laws/ or whatever the hell you want to call them. WHY? Because no 2 people on the planet think exactly the same. And because of that, there WILL, not maybe but WILL, have differences of opinion on where one person's Freedom to Exercise their rights crosses over to Infringing on Someone Else's Rights. That is why the 1st amendment has rules/limitations/laws/etc... concerning freedom of speech and freedom of religion. That is why numerous privileges like alcohol, driving, etc... have limits/rules/laws/etc... For some God only knows reason, there are quite a few people who like to continue to quote things such as: Gun laws don't reduce crime; and similar. Again; how many times does it have to be said, that laws are NOT necessarily made to reduce crime or to impact crime. Matter of fact, the vast majority of laws aren't even written with a criminal in mind. That's because a true criminal couldn't give a Rat's A$$ what the LAW says. The overwhelming majority of laws are written to arbitrate and to maintain order. That's why the individual who is EXERCISING his right to the Pursuit of Happiness by driving his Camaro at 125mph, isn't ALLOWED to do it on a public road. That's why the person who is exercising their right to Liberty, via the tool of free speech in the 1st amendment, isn't allowed to take their frustration out on another person and verbally assault and abuse them.

There is obviously limits on ALL actions and expressions. Even the ones you want to call "RIGHTS". And it MUST BE SO. It has been this way since creation in ALL SOCIETIES. Some may have been for repressive purposes, while other societies do it to maintain social order and minimize civil unrest. Either way, it is a necessity.

 

[rbernie]

Too much thread drift and snark.

If you don't think that it was said in the first 80 posts - you just haven't read them for comprehension.

This one is done.