The battle over "reasonable" gun regulations

[t165]

I have to ask this. Harve Curry...why did the founding fathers...the framers of the Constitution of the United States...the 2nd Amendment, infringe upon the 2nd Amendment? Why did they pass and practice gun control laws before and after the 2nd Amendment was adopted. Why were they so hypocritical? Did they not want the federal government regulating firearms? Was gun control the legal and exclusive domain of state government at that time? They did pass gun control laws at the state level back then. If the politicians of that time wanted unrestricted gun laws why did they ignore the 2nd Amendment. Why has it been ignored all through the history of the United States? I know this does not sit well with many but it is the truth. I'm just attempting to get factual answers.

 

[waterhouse]

Conctitutional Cowboy... If not the Constitution then where did your "right" to keep and bear arms come from?

Generally they are referred to as Natural Rights. John Locke was a big proponent of the concept, and Madison mentioned it in his speech to the 1st Congress when he was presenting the Bill of Rights.

In other words, in the minds of the Founding Fathers, we had certain natural rights just because we were humans walking the earth. The Bill of Rights did not grant us anything, it merely set limitation on what the government could do.

 

[AKElroy]

Cool! My 500th post. Much less wordy than my 499th.

 

[christcorp]

If they cannot be trusted to mingle unfettered in free society, then they dang well should not have been let out.

rbernie: In theory, this would be really nice; but the truth is: There are no guarantees that a criminal that has paid their debt to society will be rehabilitated. So there is no way you can determine whether to keep them in prison or not. They are sentenced at the time of their trial. You can't have a punishment that says: 15 years...... Unless we don't think you're rehabilitated. So, the question goes back to you. A person robs a liquor store. In cold blood, he shoots and kills 6 people. He is convicted and sentenced to 25 years in prison. He comes out of prison and he wants to go to the pawn shop and buy a gun. You're saying this is OK. The same with the man convicted of child molestation. Sentenced to 10 years. While in prison, he gets a college degree in education. Do you let him take a job at the local pre-school or elementary school?

Show facts, provably so, where gun laws have made society safer.

Considering that there's never been a time in our country's history where there wasn't some restrictions on the use of guns; this is a question that is purely a setup and can't be answered. Just like you can't say a time when there were no gun laws; so you can't claim that having no gun laws makes society safer.

Again; laws are not made in their own right just to make society safer. Many times, laws are made because there are differences of opinions between people on specific actions; and how these actions may affect them. So laws are also made as a means of setting rules and guidelines so all parties stay within them and reduce question as to who is right or wrong. Rules apply to everyone, but only law abiding people are expected to follow them. Criminals are expected to break laws; and they will be dealt with accordingly. The law abiding citizens use laws to maintain order and not allow anarchy.

As long as there are 2 or more people that have a different opinion or perspective about any action or expression that another individual does; then there will ALWAYS be a need for certain rules/guidelines/laws/policies concerning said actions or expressions. Maybe in a Rodney king world where "We all get along", we wouldn't need laws. But in the "Real World", laws are required to maintain order.

But this thread is about the battle over "Reasonable" gun regulations. While the Brady followers are definitely EXTREMISTS in their opinion; the Pro-2A side also has their EXTREMISTS. To believe that the 2nd amendment is absolute in it's meaning and that no laws or regulations need to be developed whatsoever; means the following examples are legitimate:
1. A 10 year old kid is allowed to walk into a pawn shop and buy a gun and ammunition.
2. A convicted killer or went into a high school and shot 15 students and teachers; and spent 20 years in prison, and was released; is allowed to go into a pawn shop and buy a gun.
3. A person who was admitted into a mental hospital because their wife left him with the kids; and he tried to kill himself and his ex-wife and their 5 year old daughter; is now released from the hospital. Should he be allowed to go buy a hand gun?

And you can't talk about what SHOULD happen to a convicted criminal going to prison for child molestation or murder. Because while they SHOULD stay in prison for life, many don't. Many are eventually allowed back out into society. And I don't think that they should automatically be allowed to own a weapon. They may break the law and get one on the black market; but that doesn't mean we should willingly allow them to have it.

 

[t165]

AKElory..I'm at 218 now. Before this thread is done I might make 500. Reports of me being on the ropes were fallacious!

John Locke...some do follow this philosopher's writings. IIRC correctly Locke preached the ideas of the common man rising up against tyranny. I can see why the founding fathers would read his work seeing as to how that is exactly what they did.

I've also heard the argument that the instinct of self preservation is related to the 2nd Amendment. To each their own. After all of the arguing is done it always seems to come down to the SCOTUS to tell us what "rights", if any, we have as far as the laws of man describe.

 

[General Geoff]

Just like you can't say a time when there were no gun laws; so you can't claim that having no gun laws makes society safer.

Pretty much every single gun law in this country was written after 1865. There were a few laws written before then that barred blacks (whether slaves or not) from owning or carrying weapons.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

False Solution

by Me

Look, a number of you keep forgetting something very, very important: gun registration, licensed gun dealers, background checks, all of that didn't exist before 1968. I grew up in that environment. Crime of all kinds was lower then.

by christcorp

This argument doesn't hold any water. You're trying to argue that less gun laws reduce crime; and therefor the reason we have more crime today, is because we have more gun laws.

That's a profound analysis failure.

The "argument" is a simple statement of fact.

You seem bent on finding a plausible way of ignoring the elephant on the coffee table.

In 1968 Congress enacted legislation to solve a problem that didn't exist.

It didn't exist.

It was an imaginary problem.

You're trying to argue that less gun laws reduce crime; and therefor the reason we have more crime today, is because we have more gun laws.

I am? FAIL.

I'm arguing nothing of the sort. I'm trying to tell you, and anyone who will understand the simplicity of this: in 1968 we didn't have a problem to solve.

Congress solved it anyway. That's flawed, broken, stupid, dishonest, . . . shall I go on? I'ts WRONG.

Can you not understand that you don't pass laws to deal with nonexistent problems?

The 1968 GCA was a false solution to a problem that didn't exist.

Now, you may not believe me. You may firmly believe that "gun crime" was rife in 1968. I can tell you with certainty it wasn't. I was there.

Gun control doesn't prevent crime. It never has.

It impairs the ability of the honest man to provide for his own defense.

It's never been about controlling crime.

It is now and has been about disarmament of the public.

 

[nelson133]

"Gun crime" increases as gun control laws increase because the criminal element gains an advantage when the honest citizen is disarmed. If the numbers from here don't convince you, just look at what has happened and is happening in Great Britain.
The citizenry is almost totally disarmed and the right of self defense doesn't exist, yet with each tightening of the gun laws, the gun crime rate has increased. The figures are published and are not refutable.
The profound stupidity of the idea that those who's living is made by breaking laws and treating their fellow citizens as livestock to be used for whatever strikes their fancy will somehow obey a law that makes it harder for them to do as they wish, is incomprehensible to me. Criminals don't obey laws, what could be plainer?

 

[Ruggles]

It's pretty clear that some believe that the proper answer would be to abolish most if not all existing firearm legislation and let human nature take it's course.

Absurd and shallow minded at best IMO. Thank God we live in a society that as a whole displays more real world common sense than that. The positions a number of you take do great harm to the gun rights of the rest of us when it comes to the debate with those who would like to outlaw all firearms.

Trying to push 40 year old statistics and laws is not going to move the gun debate one inch in our favor. The world of 40 years ago is so vastly different than our they have no relevance today in the real world. Using them as a example is silly and in fact counter productive as it tends to say we have nothing modern which to debate with.

 

[TexasRifleman]

I have to ask this. Harve Curry...why did the founding fathers...the framers of the Constitution of the United States...the 2nd Amendment, infringe upon the 2nd Amendment? Why did they pass and practice gun control laws before and after the 2nd Amendment was adopted. Why were they so hypocritical? Did they not want the federal government regulating firearms? Was gun control the legal and exclusive domain of state government at that time? They did pass gun control laws at the state level back then. If the politicians of that time wanted unrestricted gun laws why did they ignore the 2nd Amendment. Why has it been ignored all through the history of the United States? I know this does not sit well with many but it is the truth. I'm just attempting to get factual answers.

Because they were racists and classist elitist snobs.

They might have been very smart men in many ways but they believed that though all "men" were created equal that not all humans were men.

They did not believe that Blacks were men, that non property owners were men, or that women were "men" in the category of being created equal.

These same groups of people could not vote either. They were denied many rights back then.

But that does not make the fundamental argument of the Second Amendment wrong, it makes the people that wrote it bigots.

The fact that there have been gun laws in this country since it's founding is another argument I don't quite get the point of. What does that have to do with anything?

The Second Amendment, as does the rest of the Bill of Rights, does not describe things the government gives away. It describes a belief that certain things are given by nature/God/Universe/Whatever to men born on Earth and says that this new government will respect those pre-existing rights.

Certainly all of them have been infringed on at one time or another, but that doesn't make it OK. The document itself is not flawed, the ideas themselves are not flawed.

If that same government has a flawed definition of "men" then it doesn't work.

Over time that definition changed to one that made more sense. Today that definition of "men" still doesn't include non-citizens for the most part. The rights exist for non-citizens but it is the policy of this government not to recognize most of those rights.

None of that changes the fact that the right of one to preserve one's own life by tools such as firearms is inherent in being born human and the Second Amendment recognizes that.

Just like you can't say a time when there were no gun laws; so you can't claim that having no gun laws makes society safer.

This is another quote that doesn't seem to make any sense.

If you believe that these rights exist simply being human then there has to be some weight on a government to have a very good reason to infringe those rights.

One way that is done is to require a government to prove the necessity of the infringement.

Just because a government "feels like" gun laws help doesn't mean it's true.

If you want to pass a law restricting a natural right you should have to prove that the good far outweighs the bad. That is not the case with gun laws.

It's a well proven fact that gun crime hasn't significantly changed with the passing of all these laws.

This quote says "you can't claim that having no gun laws makes society safer". No, you can't claim that, but it doesn't matter. The burden is on the government to prove that HAVING gun laws makes us safer. If they cannot prove that, then the laws should not be there.

This is very similar to the idea of being innocent until proven guilty. You're arguing for the reverse by saying that gun laws don't have to prove their value to exist, that it's OK to pass laws based on "gut feelings".

ETA:

Trying to push 40 year old statistics and laws is not going to move the gun debate one inch in our favor. The world of 40 years ago is so vastly different than our they have no relevance today in the real world. Using them as a example is silly and in fact counter productive as it tends to say we have nothing modern which to debate with.

Thank you for making my point. Gun laws exist and become more necessary when other society programs have failed.

Your statement that we need gun laws more now because "the world is different" is exactly the problem. Focusing on gun laws does not fix the real problem.
All the 40 year old statistics show is that a 40 year old gun law didn't have much impact so let's not pass any more.

That is what we're saying here. No one is lobbying Congress to get rid of all gun laws, we know that's not going to happen. What we are saying here is that with all the gun laws in place we still have a crime rate that's basically unchanged so stop passing more gun laws and look into fixing the actual problem.

The gun is not the problem and more gun laws don't solve anything.

 

[waterhouse]

You can't have a punishment that says: 15 years...... Unless we don't think you're rehabilitated. So, the question goes back to you. A person robs a liquor store. In cold blood, he shoots and kills 6 people. He is convicted and sentenced to 25 years in prison.

You can't have a punishment of 15 years and make it longer, but why can't you have an initial sentence that is longer. If a person robs a liquor store and kills 6 people in cold blood, there is no reason why he should ever be free again. He can remain in jail until he dies of natural causes, or in some states he could be given the death penalty.

I think what TR is getting at is that your example shows a flaw in the crime and punishment area, not the gun area. Due to too few jail cells and too many spaces being taken up for mandatory sentences for non violent drug crimes (and a slew of other reasons) we are letting violent people out of prison. This should not be a gun issue. The issue is letting murderers and rapists and child molesters out of prison. Fix that issue.

Considering that there's never been a time in our country's history where there wasn't some restrictions on the use of guns; this is a question that is purely a setup and can't be answered. Just like you can't say a time when there were no gun laws; so you can't claim that having no gun laws makes society safer.

The question is not purely a setup. Imagine in 1776 there were 100 gun laws. Then in the 1870s there were 500 gun laws. Then in 1934 and 1968 they threw in a bunch more gun laws, and now today there are many thousands of gun laws. Each of these laws was in theory aimed at making society safer.

It doesn't matter how many we started with, each new set of laws was supposed to make society safer. He asked you to:

Show facts, provably so, where gun laws have made society safer.

You can't say that we've always had some restrictions and therefore the question is unanswerable. We now have many more restrictions. Either crime rates have increased, decreased, or stayed the same since those new restrictions were added. He asked you to prove that the crime rates have decreased. That's all.

Just like you can't say a time when there were no gun laws; so you can't claim that having no gun laws makes society safer.

I'd have to reread, but I don't think anyone said no laws makes society safer. I think they said that the laws in place have not made society safer, and therefore they serve no purpose but to waste tax dollars and make people feel good without actually accomplishing anything. There need to be real, valid reasons for any laws to be enacted, and certainly even more scrutiny for laws that counter freedoms guaranteed in our founding documents. If the laws are not making society safer, and they are infringing on guaranteed rights, does it not make sense to do away with them?

 

[christcorp]

Just not buying it. The "Natural Rights" are "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". The Bill of rights is simply the limitations on the government in how they interact with us in our exercising of our rights. But that isn't what's important. What is important is that ALL ACTIONS that mankind has engaged in while interacting within a society, has ALWAYS had a set of rules. This has been true since the beginning of time. And that's because a society of people must have boundaries in the actions and expression when interacting inside of a society. There are rules/laws concerning every "Right" you want to speak of. They've existed forever. Some were written and some were implied. And whenever there's been a conflict between the actions or expressions of 2 or more individuals, it's been these rules/laws that maintained social order.

To believe that a person can interact in a society with actions and expressions without boundaries is naive. It can't happen, and it has NEVER happened. Whether it was firearms, speech, religion, property, etc... they all have and have always had boundaries. In one side of the argument, people mention that those who break laws and go to prison should be allowed all their rights back after serving their sentence. And if they aren't trustworthy enough to get their rights back, then they aren't worthy enough to be released from prison. Yet in order to have been tried and sent to prison, the individual must have violate the laws or socially accepted norms of society. Which IS a set of rules/laws.

However; the same people argue that there don't need to be rules/laws concerning guns. And the main argument is that there should be laws/rules for the actions, but not for the tool used. And then the argument goes on to use examples that there aren't laws concerning the purchase of a hammer, length of chain, and other common items that are also used to commit crimes. I understand and appreciate the concept of criminalizing the act and the person committing the act; and not criminalizing the tool used. I can definitely appreciate that rational. The problem however is that inanimate objects that have or potentially have an impact on the society and the safety of, as a whole, have had and do have such restrictions, laws, and limitations on their use. The PRIMARY use of a hammer, piece of chain, piece of pipe, etc... are uses that do not effect the safety of society. However; a gun's PRIMARY use is to cause death. There may be a lot of other uses; but it's primary use is to cause death. There are also many other objects who's primary use also directly impacts society and it's citizens. Automobiles, alcohol, airplanes, medication/drugs, uranium, etc.... These all have different types of limitations, rules, laws, etc... attached to their use. The ONLY argument people can truly make is that because firearms are specifically mentioned in the 2nd amendment of the constitution as an area where the government can not forbid the citizens from keeping and bearing; that it's a protected inanimate object that shouldn't have any rules/laws in it's use of.

This argument could hold water except that the same people arguing this point, don't seem to have a problem with there being rules/laws assigned to the 1st amendment. And yes, you DO accept certain laws/rules on the 1st amendment as being legitimate. You DON'T accept a person using the "N" word when referring to black individuals. You DON'T accept a church being able to sacrifice animals they see on the street and hanging them up in the trees in the city park. And I'm sure that we all agree that a 10 year old shouldn't be allowed to walk into a liquor store and purchase a bottle of whiskey or a pack of cigarettes for their own consumption without permission of their parents.

So, the ONLY reason people argue about any rules/laws being set upon guns, is because it's personal to them and they have a passion for it. Just like a smoker will have a different perspective on rules/laws concerning smoking compared to a non-smoker; so will a gun owner/user have a different perspective compared to a non-gun user. Having a "RIGHT" doesn't mean that the particular "Right" is 100% unmonitored and free to the recipient. That just isn't true. It NEVER has been; nor will it EVER BE. All rights come with responsibilities. Some times these responsibilities are written down; and some times they are implied. But they do exist. And guns/2nd amendment is no different. The 2nd amendment simply says the government will not infringe on your being allowed to keep and bear arms. In that context, it means that without logical reason; the government basically can't say NO if you want to keep and bear arms in the defense of your life or property against civil crime or tyranny. But no where in the 2nd amendment does it say that the Keeping and Bearing of arms can't be regulated to ensure public safety and the rights of others. Just like the 1st amendment and every other amendment has certain rules/laws/regulation/policies/etc... in their exercise of; so does the 2nd amendment.

Now; if you don't agree; which I doubt some of you will, with this argument; then my question is quite simple. Why should some "Rights" such as the 1st amendment be allowed to have limitations, restrictions, rules, guidelines, boundaries, etc.... and others such as the 2nd amendment shouldn't????

Unless of course your argument is that NONE of the amendments should have any regulations, rules, restrictions, guidelines, etc... assigned to them. In which case, you wouldn't have any problem with people being allowed to publicly slander, use obscenities, use racial slurs, etc....? You wouldn't have any problem with the local church sacrificing a dog or cat once a week and hanging it on the tree at city hall? Remember; the bill of rights isn't 10 rights the people have. Matter of fact, only the first 2 can the citizens physical make an action with. 3-10 are simply limitations on the government. (As is the 1st two). But I think it's obvious. All rights, privileges, actions, etc.... require a set of rules/laws/policies/etc... that set boundaries in exercising said actions. Without a set of "Rules", individuals would be free to invade other people's right to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness". And the lame cliche of "Your Rights end where Mine Begin" is indeed lame. But as lame as it is; that is the WHOLE REASON for having rules/laws/policies/etc.... in our actions and expressions. So that there is a clearer line of where the 2 people's rights meet. Again; you can't argue for no rules/laws/etc... for the 2nd amendment when you support rules/laws/etc.... for the 1st amendment and others.

 

[christcorp]

Because of overlap: I wanted to say that I definitely agree that we have too many laws. Many of these laws restate what other laws state. I definitely believe many of these laws are unnecessary. But as I've already mentioned; in order to fix this or any other problems with the system, we need the 2nd amendment to MEAN the same thing in all 50 states. We need a supreme court decision that is precedent for all 50 states. (No, Heller didn't do that, because Washington D.C. is NOT a state, and therefor it isn't precedent. In other words, the 50 states don't have to follow the ruling. States are given certain powers. Washington D.C. is NOT given certain powers. That's why the Supreme court had to get involved).

Anyway; until I can buy, sell, use, carry, etc... a firearm the same in Wyoming that I can in Florida, Texas, New Jersey, and Arizona; we won't be able to fix and eliminate many of the excess laws on the books.

However; there is a contingent in this thread that believe that the 2nd amendment SHOULDN'T have ANY rules/laws. That's a totally different argument. I agree; there are way too many laws. Many are redundant. Many are simply micro-management. They need to be fixed. But to say there shouldn't be ANY laws/rules is ridiculous.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

To those who think it's OK to infringe upon the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in disregard to the Constitution: How can you expect us to obey laws you create or support in disregard of the Constitution? To disrespect the Constitution is to think little of We the People. Don't forget: We the People wrote and ratified the Constitution.

More tonight.

Woody

 

[texas bulldog]

Since reading numerous posts by both ContitutionCowboy and TexasRifleman, I will refrain from adding anything other than this; I would like to fully associate myself with their comments. I bow to your collective superior wordsmithyness. Well done--

i'll concur with that. i've been reading this thread for days now without posting. (each morning, i expect it to be locked, BTW, though i'm glad it isn't.) i've wanted to add to it, but anything i would have said is already well-covered by TXrifleman, constitution cowboy, arfin, and rbernie. keep up the good work, fellas.

I can tell you one fact, no one is going to change their minds on this matter based on this or any other thread.

FALSE. a few years ago, i would have argued in favor of restrictions on ownership for felons, mentally ill, and so forth. my reading on THR has convinced me otherwise. the fact that these restrictions have no provable benefit and that they are actually ineffective ways of trying to resolve the failure of our criminal justice and education systems has convinced me that they are not now and never were needed.

frankly, i get disappointed when i read the words of some here on THR...

 

[TexasRifleman]

Now; if you don't agree; which I doubt some of you will, with this argument; then my question is quite simple. Why should some "Rights" such as the 1st amendment be allowed to have limitations, restrictions, rules, guidelines, boundaries, etc.... and others such as the 2nd amendment shouldn't????

Apparently you're just not reading all the posts.

No one is arguing for the revoking of all gun laws. That's simply not going to happen. We are saying that out of all the gun laws currently in place not a single one has had a provable benefit to society.

If that is the case, and provably true, why should we tolerate ANY more gun laws?

And, if we can identify a few laws that are particularly "overboard" we should fight to get those removed as well. Heller left the door wide open for many of those, including returning machine guns to the market.

That has been the fundamental question and none of you guys want to answer it, you want to go off on tangent discussions about how there have always been laws, about how the founding fathers didn't really believe what they wrote etc.

None of that matters.

Here we are in 2009 with literally thousands and thousands of gun laws, none of which have a provable benefit for society.

Do we really need any more?

I've seen many in this thread suggest just that, that another law here or there will make things "better". It's never happened before, what makes you think it will start now?

 

[Old Fuff]

But we still come back to the question, what does the language in the 2nd. Amendment, "shall not be infringed,” mean, or what was it meant to mean?

It should be noted that no other article or amendment in the constitution specifically imposes what would seem to be such an absolute restriction on what the government can do.

If in these modern times we reject what would seem to have been the framer’s clear intent, and impose statutes designed to deliberately infringe, it would seem reasonable to inquire as to how affective the restrictions are in achieving the intended purpose – supposedly barring criminals and other prohibited persons from obtaining arms. Clearly the problem is not the machine, but the way some people use them. Therefore should not the focus be on the user and not the device?

Would requiring teetotalers to undergo background checks before they could obtain a drivers license have any impact on drunk driving? Should we presume that drunken driving would become a thing of the past if those that imbibe couldn’t get a drivers license? Since lesser measures haven’t seemed to solve the problem I propose a constitutional amendment that would absolutely outlaw beverages that contain an alcoholic content. Pussyfooting around doesn’t work!

 

[SuperNaut]

Exactly TR and OF.

I mentioned this very thing on page one of this thread. What is the number and combination of gun laws that will suddenly, magically cause criminals to obey? 10? 100? 1000? 10,000? 100,000? Maybe if we pass forty laws that say the same thing it will be way, way, more seriouser. All the hypothetical scenarios one can dream up fail in the face of the stark reality that criminals, by definition, do not obey the law. To believe that we are going to stumble upon the magic combination of words on paper that cause criminals to suddenly say "gosh, I better obey those words" is pure fantasy.

That people "feel" that these laws are needed doesn't mean jack. You want to feel good? Go get a massage.

 

[DHJenkins]

Making the punishments harsher for those who steal, straw-buy or unlawfully possess would work better than more regulations - no matter how reasonable.

Right now, as far as I'm aware, guns are simply treated as property. You steal one, it's not that big of a deal. You get caught unlawfully possessing one, it's no big deal unless you're on parole or probation.

Now, I know, criminals don't obey the laws, but for the most part it's because there's really no reason to. It's like vehicle break-ins. Unless someone steals $5k worth of stuff out of your car, the police don't even come out; it's all handled over the phone. Basically, there's no investigation, so there's absolutely no deterrent to the people who are doing the break-ins; what's in your vehicle is pretty much "free stuff" for anyone who's got a car, a brick and 30 seconds.

I think if stealing/etc... firearms were somehow placed into a seperate category of crime, with say - mandatory prison time, it would remove guns from a lot of the "because I can get away with it" crowd of criminals. Obviously I'd want this sort of legislation at the state level to keep the BATFE out of the picture, but you get the idea.

 

[Lou McGopher]

But we still come back to the question, what does the language in the 2nd. Amendment, "shall not be infringed,” mean, or what was it meant to mean?

It means what it says. It's plain English, and the meaning of those words have not changed since they were written.

If you have any other questions on the meaning of other parts of the Second Amendment, a good analysis was done by English usage expert Roy Copperud, here: http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/unabridged.2nd.html

Should there be any laws concerning guns?
I don't think so. But I'm one of those people who believes one should be allowed to do as one pleases, so long as one does not harm anyone else.

 

[Mohawk]

Bingo! I think we have a winner! All those arguing on the side of reasonable restrictions seem to agree that no new restrictions are needed and that many restrictions in place should be overturned. Those who argue that any gun law does not address the real problems, have stated that they are not lobbying for a total rollback of every restriction. (See Texas Rifleman’s post just above this one). Constitutional Cowboy has posted the actual wording by Justice Scalia which specifically mentions “reasonable restrictions” concerning mentally deficient, violent criminals and children. He passed the buck and left these issues for future court actions to decide on the veracity of these situations. I think we are all on the same page here. (at least reading the same book) We just don’t see it because we are sitting in opposite corners of the same room; so to speak.

So what is the solution? The next step is to identify which gun laws are reasonable considering the guarantees afforded by the 2nd. And actively fight for the overturn of the rest using the legal system that Scalia pointed us to. As I’ve stated earlier, “We need to own the reasonable restriction debate” to achieve our aims of minimal gun control and stricter adherence to the 2nd By Federal, state and local governments. This is the most important challenge and task we as organized gun owners have; post Heller decision. The path has been clearly laid out by the SC and whether we realize it or not we are basically in agreement as far as reasonable restriction is concerned. Best I can tell, nobody on the far right of this debate wants total anarchy and nobody on the left of this argument want more restrictions or even acceptance of most restrictions already in place.

Boy oh boy, Dave Workman sure got his money’s worth with this thread. Great thread by the way. If nothing else it shows how diverse elements of gun owners are all united in principal but divided by perspective.

 

[CoRoMo]

Again if you do not like NICs base you disagreement on facts other than it's success or failure. Neither it's success or it's failure can be proven statistically.

It's quite obvious facts won't enlighten you one way or another. If ever there were a topic handily proven with facts, statistics and the like, the ineffectiveness, failure, and uselessness of NICS is it. You either have not read enough about that proof, or you obtusely choose to disregard it. That's a shame.

What is perpetually lacking is any whit of evidence contrary to the following statements.

...out of all the gun laws currently in place not a single one has had a provable benefit to society.

...the fact [is] that these restrictions have no provable benefit and that they are actually ineffective ways of trying to resolve the failure of our criminal justice and education systems has convinced me that they are not now and never were needed.

You never have, and you never will have anything you can submit that could possibly refute this.

 

[christcorp]

No one is arguing for the revoking of all gun laws. That's simply not going to happen. We are saying that out of all the gun laws currently in place not a single one has had a provable benefit to society.

What the heck does this mean. If ALL THE GUN LAWS CURRENTLY IN PLACE don't have a provable benefit; then that means you ARE IN FAVOR OF REVOKING ALL GUN LAWS. How can you say that you aren't in favor of revoking all gun laws, and then state that NOT ONE current law is of benefit.

I've already said that I believe that there are quite a few useless gun laws. That there's currently many that are redundant. I would have no problem with cleaning up the laws and better enforcement of those that are left. Unfortunately, there are PLENTY of people here who are arguing that ANY LAW is an infringement on their 2nd amendment right. But as I also mentioned earlier, I don't believe that we can clean up many of the gun laws until we all agree on what the 2nd amendment SAYS and what it MEANS. And people need to stop giving the canned cliche answer of:

It means what it says. It's plain English, and the meaning of those words have not changed since they were written.

It obviously DOESN'T means exactly what it says. Because there are too many people with too many interpretations of what it says. This is starting to sound like the Far Religious Right who "THINK" that the Bible is very clear in what IT says.

This is all a matter of perspective. In my state, I don't believe that the "Majority" of gun laws is restrictive or an infringement on my 2nd amendment right. I bet the same can be said by most people from Vermont. However; there are a lot of people from New Jersey or California who will differ. Yes, the 2nd amendment is very clear. But the 10th amendment is also clear; at least to SOME people; that the states have the right "Manage" the exercise of the 2nd amendment by it's citizens. As long as they don't say "NO" to the "Keeping and Bearing of Arms" by the people without cause; there is room for argument that the state reserves the right to manage the exercise of that right. Which could include permits, license, etc... (I'm not saying I AGREE with this; just that a strong argument can be made for the STATE to have the constitutional power to MANAGE the activities). The same as the 1st amendment is managed so that the citizens can't have total unobstructed "Freedom of Speech" or "Religion".

Now, if you want to back peddle and list SPECIFIC laws (Which are more than likely a STATE LAW) that needs to be gotten rid of; and list OTHER LAWS that are GOOD but need to be revamped; then that is probably an area that most people here could agree on. But it is quite clear by contextual comments in some posts, that there is indeed some people that believe that ANY LAW CONCERNING GUNS is an infringement on their 2nd amendment right and should be abolished.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

For decades, the Left has claimed to own the word "fair." Everything they like is "fair" or "more fair." Everything they oppose is "not fair."

So I got into the habit of asking them to define "fair." Give us an objective test we can apply to determine if something is "fair" or not. And guess what? They can't do it.

So I went out on a limb. The first (not the only. but the first) test of fairness is "fidelity to purpose." If something (like a law) does not accomplish its purpose, then it cannot be fair. If there is a law, for example, that says you have to wear a fur coat in August to keep from catching cold -- and people wearing fur coats catch cold at the same rate as people not wearing them, then that law is unfair. People are being forced to do something that doesn't achieve its purpose.

"Gun control" fails the First Test of Fairness.

 

[Sheldon J]

See now here is the problem there is no such thing as 'Reasonable gun regulations"