The battle over "reasonable" gun regulations

[runrabbitrun]

This debate/discussion is pretty much over. IMHO

Good article by the OP and it generated some good posts here.
But it's over.

The people who feel some 'regulations' or 'more' are need have failed to provide
factual reasons as to why we need to continue down this unconstitutional path.

All that's left is to undo the BAD things past BAD legislation has done.
(Hopefully, with-out having to fire a single shot)...

Maybe, we should round up the critters who violated their oath
to uphold the Constitution and put them on trial for treason?
So the next batch understands, YOU CAN'T just circumvent the Constitution.

 

[Lou McGopher]

Take any proposed "reasonable" restrictions on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and translate it into "reasonable" restrictions on Freedom of the Press and see how it flies. For example, should reporters be licensed?

Broadcasters must be licensed.

And you've never seen those Press badges, required to get access to certain events? You think they give those out to just any ol' reporter or blogger?

Should people acting as reporters without a license be sent to jail?

Try broadcasting without a license, or accessing one of those restricted events without a Press badge.

Should certain types of newspaper or TV articles be prohibited?

You mean like the restrictions on radio and TV ads during election season? Or campaign contributions and so-called "soft money"? Or like advertisements for cigarettes, alcoholic beverages, pharmaceuticals, and dietary supplements? Or speech that contains libel, slander, hate speech, or obscenity? Or holding up a sign that reads "Bong hits for Jesus?" Or criticizing Scientology?

Should "assault articles" be banned?

You mean like speech that contains "fighting words" or language deemed to provoke "imminent lawless action," or is in violation of the Smith Act?

Should reporters have to check with the FBI each time they file a story?

Part of section 215 of the Patriot Act states, “No person shall disclose to any other person (other than those persons necessary to produce the tangible things under this section) that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained tangible things under this section.”

That means if the FBI has requested or received any information or evidence - library records, medical records, customer records, etc, - and you are aware of this, you are not allowed to tell anyone else about it. You can't whisper it to your spouse, or mention it to your pastor, or blog about it on Facebook.

Those are all unreasonable restrictions. Reasonable restrictions on the 1stA include penalties for libel, slander, and the distribution of child pornography. Those things can and have passed a strict-scrutiny test, the same high standard that should be applied to 2ndA jurisprudence.

The problem with "reasonable gun control" lies with the way the anti's have tried to use the word "reasonable" to cover things that are not at all reasonable.

First, the words "reasonable restriction" does not appear anywhere in the First or Second Amendments. The real problem is that what constitutes "reasonable" is highly subjective.

It is absolutely imperative we take a zero-tolerance stance toward the infringement of ANY of our liberties.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Broadcasters must be licensed.

That's the transmitter, not the reporter.

And you've never seen those Press badges, required to get access to certain events? You think they give those out to just any ol' reporter or blogger?

Yes. Although space may limit the number of attendees, there are pools established for those who cannot attend personally.

 

[Strings]

>If such articles could blow my brains out from a mile away, then I'd look closely at restrictions on them. <

Oh... so you've never seen the damage that can be done to someone via press coverage? Google "Joe the Plumber"...

>And you've never seen those Press badges, required to get access to certain events? You think they give those out to just any ol' reporter or blogger?<

That's something handled by the coordinators of said events. Quick newsflash: not every event (regardless of how newsworthy) allows ANY press in: does that mean the 1A is dead?

 

[ArfinGreebly]

"Reasonable" Restrictions

They have a thing called a "sterile environment" where everyone who enters is screened. Everyone. Except certain special exempt people (like the guards, the judge, and so on) who are supposed to be -- by definition -- trustworthy.

In an environment like that, a courtroom for example, where a murder trial is underway, it would be reasonable to restrict the carry and use of weapons. The family of the victim can be so emotionally distraught that they want to administer justice personally, and that's simply not on. The friends and family of the accused may want to take advantage of the venue to break their guy out, and that also is not on. So we hire some guys, subject them to absurd background checks, appoint them as guards, and we allow them to carry and we allow the judge to carry (had a customer who was a criminal court judge, and he'd actually been attacked in his own courtroom).

Now, THAT is a so-called "sterile" environment. Within the bounds of what's physically possible, all access to the venue is controlled. Nobody but the bailiff, the guards, and the judge can be armed. It's their show, and it's a completely controlled environment.

Now, I would say that it is, in fact, reasonable to restrict access to weapons in that venue.

That, in my eyes, is a "reasonable" restriction.

Now, outside that sterile venue? It's no longer controlled. The safety that can be "practically" guaranteed inside the venue cannot be guaranteed at all outside. So outside, on the street, in the mall, at the movies, at your place of business or work, in your car, at a restaurant, in your home, hiking in the woods, and so on: the safety and security of your person and of your family is entirely your job, so it makes no sense to have restrictions on access to weapons there.

Schools are not a "sterile" environment. Hospitals are not a "sterile" environment. Museums are not a "sterile" environment.

I'm of two minds about being armed in the seat of the legislature . . .

The point is, when someone proposes to disarm you, they assume responsibility for your safety. If they can't -- or won't -- ensure your safety, they have no business at all trying to disarm you.

The primary objective of "gun control" is disarmament.

The people who intend disarmament dare not say it that way, as it will gain them unwanted attention and wrath.

So, with disarmament in mind, what's the best way to "sell" the idea to an unsuspecting populace?

Pretend it's about fighting crime. Everyone hates crime, right?

So, gradually (and with care, 'cuz we don't want to wake anyone) we stress again and again how crime and guns are "inextricably" tied together, and how guns are used by criminals, and how guns cause death, and how -- at long last -- guns are crime.

And, since guns are crime, it only "makes sense" to regulate them, right?

Everyone hates crime, right?

And, eventually, if we just keep at it, and use our control of the school curricula as an I.V. drip into the minds of our students, we can get to the point where "guns are bad" and the Second Amendment is a "constitutional error" that must be corrected with laws controlling guns (guns are bad, m'kay?) -- alternatively that the Second Amendment is "obsolete" as we are "much more civilized" nowadays, and it really should go away now that we have "other ways" to protect us from bad people.

I am reminded of the Chancellor -- one of the Skeksis in The Dark Crystal -- pleading his case to the Gelflings that he wants to "make peace." There's probably a YouTube of that scene that will convey the "feel" of it.

In the context of gun control, "reasonable" means simply "reasons I think I can get you to accept and believe." Not real or true reasons, just plausible reasons.

If I can get you to believe them, it doesn't matter if they're true.

And once I have you disarmed, it doesn't matter what you believe.

 

[runrabbitrun]

And once I have you disarmed, it doesn't matter what you believe.

Powerful, true and WOW.

(No MOD BK... OK?

 

[eqfan592]

"The point is, when someone proposes to disarm you, they assume responsibility for your safety. If they can't -- or won't -- ensure your safety, they have no business at all trying to disarm you."

WOW, SLAM DUNK RIGHT THERE!

Can we take your entire post and sticky it somewhere? It's laid out perfectly IMHO. And would you mind if I used the above quoted text as a sig line?

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

FrankInFL made the following comments over at Dave Workman's article:

The function of government is to protect our rights: "...to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving..."

When government doesn't protect our rights we are instructed to dump it: "whenever any government becomes destructive of these ends it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it..."

The function of the 2nd amendment, therefore, must be to assist us when we abolish the government.

Allowing the government to say which arms are appropriate to abolishing itself is nuts. Thus, the --absolute-- prohibition: "shall not be infringed".
June 30, 9:31 AM

Upon reading FrankInFL's comment, the following question is begged: "So why aren't we dumping it?" My response is that we can still alter(restore) it. But, we must not allow our arms to be diminished lest we need them if we have to abolish(dump) it and encounter resistance along the way. Far too many in government wish to disarm us to the point that we can't abolish or alter(restore) it.

It is obvious the intent of our Founding Fathers is that we be armed at least as well if not better than any armed forces of the Union. We the People are supposed to be the most formidable force in the Union - by design! Article I Section 8, Clauses 11 through 17 point that out:

Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power ...

... To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; ...​

I can see that it is the aim of far too many in government to disarm us to the point that a revolt(abolishment) can't take place. What those in government should be doing instead of trying to prevent revolution is to act in a manner such that revolution never becomes necessary: In other words, act in accord with the Constitution. Protect our rights instead of infringe upon them. It is, after all, to the benefit of those in government, in order that our union and the several states be secure, to have an armed populace that can rise to the task and prevail against any and all enemies, foreign and domestic. It appears to me that many in government are on a path to make themselves Domestic Enemy Number One instead!

What "reasonable restrictions" would - or did - the Founding Fathers place upon us? None! If anyone wishes to place restrictions on our Right to keep and Bear Arms, the Founding Fathers left an open avenue for you in Article V of the Constitution. Pursue that avenue and all your arguments will be heard. "Till then, your arguments fall on deaf ears and encourage enemies of the Constitution to pass unconstitutional laws to the detriment of the security of the United States, the several states, and THE ABILITY OF WE THE PEOPLE TO DEFEND OURSELVES from criminals, despots, and tyrants.

Woody

If you want security, buy a gun. If you want longevity, learn how to use it. If you want freedom, carry it. There is nothing worth more than freedom you win for yourself. There is nothing more valuable to that end than the tools of the right that make it possible. B.E.Wood

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

They have a thing called a "sterile environment" where everyone who enters is screened. Everyone. Except certain special exempt people (like the guards, the judge, and so on) who are supposed to be -- by definition -- trustworthy.

In an environment like that, a courtroom for example, where a murder trial is underway, it would be reasonable to restrict the carry and use of weapons. The family of the victim can be so emotionally distraught that they want to administer justice personally, and that's simply not on. The friends and family of the accused may want to take advantage of the venue to break their guy out, and that also is not on. So we hire some guys, subject them to absurd background checks, appoint them as guards, and we allow them to carry and we allow the judge to carry (had a customer who was a criminal court judge, and he'd actually been attacked in his own courtroom).

Even this can be made unnecessary with a secure courtroom, partitioned off with bullet proof glass and other barriers that will still allow a trial to proceed unencumbered yet safe for all regardless of who is armed and how they feel.

Woody

 

[eqfan592]

I'd hate to think of how much a bullet proof court room would cost, and it still wouldn't offer the same protections to family members in the court room (potential hostage situations and family retaliations could still be a huge problem).

 

[Lou McGopher]

Broadcasters must be licensed.

That's the transmitter, not the reporter.

What's the difference? What if they required licensing for printing? Would you apply the same logic and say "That's the printer, not the reporter?"

And you've never seen those Press badges, required to get access to certain events? You think they give those out to just any ol' reporter or blogger?

Yes. Although space may limit the number of attendees, there are pools established for those who cannot attend personally.

I get that they can't let everybody in all at once. But you can bet that for government functions (e.g. press conferences), they're going to be highly selective about whom they pick. And I don't mean for security purposes; I'm referring to those who are critical of them. They'll let in some "critics," but generally only those of whom they can expect to be critical in the usual way.. who may question policy but not authority... critics who play along with the game... critics who only put up the appearance of being critical.

If we permit one transgression against one of our freedoms, we've lost the argument against further transgressions against our other freedoms. It's an all-or-nothing deal. Either we refuse all attempts to infringe upon our liberty, or we will lose all of our liberty, slowly but surely.

There are no reasonable restrictions on speech. There are no reasonable restrictions on the right to self-defense.

 

[Lou McGopher]

They have a thing called a "sterile environment" where everyone who enters is screened. Everyone. Except certain special exempt people (like the guards, the judge, and so on) who are supposed to be -- by definition -- trustworthy.

In an environment like that, a courtroom for example, where a murder trial is underway, it would be reasonable to restrict the carry and use of weapons. The family of the victim can be so emotionally distraught that they want to administer justice personally, and that's simply not on.

So this distraught family member of the victim wouldn't consider shooting the suspected perpetrator outside of the courtroom? Do such people become immediately more rational and calm when they are outside of the courtroom?

If someone wants to shoot the defendant, would it be preferable for them to try it out in the street, where they may go unseen and escape, or for them to attempt it where they are surrounded by others, certain to be caught, and more likely to be thwarted by someone nearby?

 

[Truthseeker]

ArfinGreebly,

Remarkable post. I compliment you. Brilliant.

 

[eqfan592]

genius, use logic. Sure, it is possible the person would be willing to try something outside of the courtroom, but the courtroom is the only area where you KNOW for a fact that the family member will come in contact with the person in question. This is a very emotionally charged environment and situation, and to not take some basic precautions not only puts at risk the defendant, but every single person in the court room.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Sterile Environment

Sufficiently motivated, I'm sure the defendant could be shot in jail.

That kind of wasn't the point. (And Woody is quite correct; it's possible to solve the problem another way.)

It was simply an example of an environment where it could reasonably be claimed off limits to arms.

The actual point wasn't that there can be such a thing as a "reasonable" restriction.

The point was that The primary objective of "gun control" is disarmament.

I'm really not going to engage in ever-more-contorted exercises to see if I can construct the perfect "reasonable restriction" scenario.

I wasn't trying to make the case for "reasonable restrictions" but merely to give a possible example.

Gun control is disarmament.

Crime is a straw man.

People who wish to have uncontested control put up the "crime" straw man, and then knock it down with legislation that not only doesn't accomplish its stated obectives, it encroaches ever more on the liberties of the populace in the name of "keeping them safe."

Actual logic has pretty much nothing to do with it.

As a case in point, take the Brady Bill and the Clinton AWB.

The driving impetus behind the Brady Bill, and to some degree the AWB, was the attempt on Reagan's life. He was shot with a .22 calibre revolver, a gun that had belonged to Hinckley for years.

So, what was the "logical" consequence?

Laws imposing waiting periods. Background checks. Laws banning "high" capacity magazines. Laws banning certain "evil-looking" rifles. Caliber restrictions.

Wait . . . what?

Doesn't matter that the entire thrust of the "DO SOMETHING!" legislation was a complete non-sequitur.

They had an emotionally plausible excuse to pass irrelevant -- but harmful -- legislation.

However, here's a thought: not a single one of the weapons listed in the ban was ever used to assassinate or used in an assassination attempt on a president. None.

However, a surprising number of them might have been useful in the hands of a citizenry defending itself from a government's tyranny.

They didn't ban the weapons most commonly used in crimes.

They banned the weapons that might be most useful in resisting oppression.

It was probably just a clerical error, though.

I'm sure they didn't mean it that way.

 

[Tamlin]

I guess I'm stirring the pot again - but something that Mohawk said early in this thread is true: SCOTUS has said that "reasonable restrictions" will be permitted. Do most of us agree with this? NO! But right now, this is the way it is. SCOTUS has spoken. What I took from Mohawk's posts was that if we don't go on the offensive, trying to make our own views of "reasonable restrictions" the predominantly accepted views, we'll lose a lot more because then the Bradys will be the only ones trying to define what "reasonable" means.

Here are facts for all of you people wanting facts: The Second Amendment says what it says - it's in black and white text, so what's the problem, right? Pro gunners believe that "shall not be infringed" means just that - NO infringements. Anti gunners STILL believe, even post-Heller (eg, Ted Kennedy), that it's tied to the militia, and that there is no individual right. The FACT is, both sides will never agree. The FACT is, SCOTUS has made a binding interpretation - for good and bad. The FACT is, we are stuck with "reasonable restrictions" until another SCOTUS court changes that. I'm willing to bet that won't be anytime in our lifetimes. The FACT is, Scalia's Reasonable Restrictions include persons and places. We can dig our heels in all we want, pound our chests and scream "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!" until we turn blue. We can be right as rain, but it doesn't change the FACT that there WILL BE restrictions. I would much rather concede "no guns in courthouses / no guns for violent felons" - to get SCOTUS to agree with us and end it there.

 

[christcorp]

Unfortunately; Heller dealt with Washington D.C.; which is NOT a state. As such; many states don't consider the Heller decision to be precedent; nor does it apply to states which are given power by the constitution whereby Washington D.C. does not. Also; if the 2nd amendment was a black and white and crystal clear that many pro-2nd amendment folks would like to believe; then we wouldn't have 50 individual states with different levels of "Infringement" concerning permits, licenses, wait times, CC requirements, etc... Obviously, it ISN'T CLEAR or Black and White.

Also; the "Bill of Rights" is NOT a list of rights that the people have. The "Bill of Rights" is a list of things the GOVERNMENT IS PROHIBITED from doing to the people in THE PEOPLE'S QUEST for enjoying their Rights of "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". What many consider to be rights in the "Bill of Rights" are simply the TOOLS we as citizens have to ensure that we can ensure our Rights of "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". Basically; the people should be allowed to do ANYTHING that they wish to do, because it demonstrates their pursuit of happiness. Obviously, what a person decides to do has to be tempered with the effect they have on another citizen. This however is the basis for all other arguments. Just because one person doesn't like it or is offended by it, does that mean another person shouldn't be allowed to do/exercise such an action? Physical actions are pretty obvious. If what a person physically does, does not directly affect another person, then there is nothing that should be restricted. However; thoughts, words, religion, etc... can be a lot more vague.

But we are concerned with the 2nd amendment. The reason we have guns primarily, is to defend ourselves against personal and property crimes against us, as well as against tyranny. Even though the states have ratified the government's restrictions on the people in the constitution and bill of rights; they've allowed the states to reserve the right of interpretation on what it considers to be an infringement on the people. And THAT is the problem. Vermont can say that as a state, the people aren't required to have a concealed weapons permit, because the 2nd amendment says you can have a gun and doesn't restrict HOW you carry that gun. Yet; a state like New Jersey believes that they aren't restricting or infringing on the rights of the people, because they don't believe they are saying NO to the citizens owning guns; just setting requirements for possessing said guns. And while I think they are going over board and are infringing, there is an argument that can be made for their position.

Do the tools/actions that we call the bill of rights; and including the true rights of "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" exist for ALL AMERICANS? Maybe it's ONLY for those above 18 years old??? Why??? When first established, it DIDN'T apply or exist for women or Blacks. But no matter how you look at it, our country and states restrict and infringe. Should a 10 year old boy be allowed to own a gun because it's his 2nd amendment right to preserve his LIFE and Liberty? If so; why do we allow the state and federal government to set age limits. We set limits on privileges such as driving, drinking, etc.... Yet, in the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS, are we not restricting a 17 year old from HAPPINESS by saying they aren't allowed to go out drinking alcohol. (Simplify it and don't include the dangers of driving and drinking). There are a lot of things in our country/culture that a person can claim "MAKES THEM HAPPY". Yet, we restrict and infringe on their happiness by regulating or even criminalizing certain activities. Alcohol, Drugs, Sex, and many other activities are regulated and restricted. I know that some will simply call these activities privileges and NOT RIGHTS. Well again; our RIGHTS are to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. The bill of rights are simply the tools that we have; that the GOVERNMENT SHALL BE RESTRICTED ON, so that we can exercise our pursuit of happiness. I.e. the 2nd amendment isn't there because it makes us HAPPY and it's fun. It's there so we can protect ourselves so the government/0thers don't take away our life or liberty and in turn our ability to pursue happiness. But it has become acceptable that when a person is NOT considered "Responsible"; that their "Rights" can be infringed on. A 12 year old has their rights infringed on by age limits, by parent's permission, and by other authorities such as the education system.

The first thing that needs to be corrected is that the bill of rights that limits the government infringements to the people, need to be made universal throughout our country. The "Rules" need to be the same in Texas, Vermont, New Jersey, California, and Florida. We need to be able to purchase, sell, carry, etc... equally in all states. A citizen should be able to go on vacation from one state to another and sell/buy/carry a weapon. If we can get this organized, I believe the rest of the rules, limitations, etc... will be obvious and will fall into place.,

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

I guess I'm stirring the pot again - but something that Mohawk said early in this thread is true: SCOTUS has said that "reasonable restrictions" will be permitted.

Truth be told, Mohawk is wrong about this. I'll 'splain it tonight. Antinon Scalia was very clever how he wrote about this in the opinion.

Woody

 

[yokel]

It is absolutely imperative we take a zero-tolerance stance toward the infringement of ANY of our liberties.

Which would involve shaking off the old skin of much too much submissive and unquestioning acceptance of the status quo.

I fervently hope that we all have the means within us to free ourselves from the constraints of decades of negative conditioning via mass media, society, peers, parents, etc.

Please do not believe in anything merely on the authority of our politicians and the judges they appoint. But after observation and analysis, when you find anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.

This absence of any connection between belief and truth is very important – and very easily forgotten. If we believe whatever we are told without testing its veracity, we are surely asking for trouble. Most of us probably think we are much more sensible than that. But, if you watch your own mind carefully, I think you will sometimes notice a belief you cannot account for.

If a belief is clearly false, but is not shaken by evidence to that effect, it is commonly called a delusion. In a person who is not mentally ill, such a delusion might be the result of self-deception, or deception by a third party, or sometimes a combination of the two.

 

[ilbob]

What is interesting is that many THR posters and others who call themselves "pro gun" are OK with many of the things in the article.

I have made my peace with the many restrictions on the RTKBA. I can't do much personally about them, so I accept they are there and that is about it.

Thats does not mean I think they are a good idea, or constitutional. Just that they exist, and I have little choice but to abide by them.

 

[yokel]

Feelings of powerlessness and isolation lead to cynicism, which further subjects us to the very forces that control our lives. We begin to accept our enslavement as just the way things are and there’s nothing a person can do about it. By adopting an attitude that “this is just the way things are and can’t be changed,” we further enslave ourselves. And we fail to take action to change the system.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

I'm an old skydiver -- I started jumping in the early '60s, when we used military surplus parachutes with panels cut out for steerability. Most jumps were from light aircraft -- we'd remove the right door, the right seat and controls, and seat two jumpers in back and one on the floor by the open door.

Now I won't deny that it's scary to sit flat on the floor beside that open door, while the plane rocks and shakes it's way into the air. How do you deal with that?

I used to sit there and watch the altimeter strapped to my chest parachute and wait for the needle to pass the thousand foot mark. Then I'd tell myself, "I'm ok now. The engine can quit, the wings fall off, or old Thud Wilson in the pilot's seat can have a hebephrenic fit -- I can get down by myself."

And that's how I look at life. I want to be in control of my own fate. Come what may, I want to rely on myself, not on the government, not on some police department that may or may not respond, but on myself. And I want the tools I'll need when the chips are down.

 

[Mohawk]

I guess I'm stirring the pot again - but something that Mohawk said early in this thread is true: SCOTUS has said that "reasonable restrictions" will be permitted. Do most of us agree with this? NO! But right now, this is the way it is. SCOTUS has spoken. What I took from Mohawk's posts was that if we don't go on the offensive, trying to make our own views of "reasonable restrictions" the predominantly accepted views, we'll lose a lot more because then the Bradys will be the only ones trying to define what "reasonable" means.

Here are facts for all of you people wanting facts: The Second Amendment says what it says - it's in black and white text, so what's the problem, right? Pro gunners believe that "shall not be infringed" means just that - NO infringements. Anti gunners STILL believe, even post-Heller (eg, Ted Kennedy), that it's tied to the militia, and that there is no individual right. The FACT is, both sides will never agree. The FACT is, SCOTUS has made a binding interpretation - for good and bad. The FACT is, we are stuck with "reasonable restrictions" until another SCOTUS court changes that. I'm willing to bet that won't be anytime in our lifetimes. The FACT is, Scalia's Reasonable Restrictions include persons and places. We can dig our heels in all we want, pound our chests and scream "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!" until we turn blue. We can be right as rain, but it doesn't change the FACT that there WILL BE restrictions. I would much rather concede "no guns in courthouses / no guns for violent felons" - to get SCOTUS to agree with us and end it there.

Thank God! Somebody actually read and got my posts. I stopped posting in this thread about page 3 because the absolutists slid out the soapboxes and it turned into another "preach to the choir session" and "If you don't agree with me, you are a Brady bunch, anti 2nd, troll."
Remaining consistant with my previous posts, I reiterate. I an not for any new restrictions on firearm ownership. I feel that most restrictions currently in place are unreasonable. But the concept of absolutely NO restrictions is a fantasy that will never be acheived. Just like the banning of all firearms by the absolutists on the left is fantasy.
To counter the arguement of the "no restrictions, ever are acceptable" crowd I used the example of private property rights verses the right to carry, anology as a reasonable restriction. The sterile courtroom scenario is another good example of a "reasonable restriction". You can't ignore the 800 pound elephant in the room. That is that society will never accept mentally deficient, small children and violent/pedophile, criminals have unlimited access to guns. Although I do agree with the arguements that none of the restrictions concerning guns are gun problems but are society's problem you have to take into account the fact that society demands a background check even though it is a feel good measure that has no impact on crime, statisticly. So, those who proclaim loudly that no restrictions of any sort are acceptable, even after evaluating the private property issue/courtroom issue paint our cause into a corner. IMHO
We as a group must identify what restrictions are reasonable and fight to overturn the ones that are not and do it as a unified group. We need to own the debate concerning reasonable restrictions. Right now the left own the debate because we are so intractable in our stance. Once we define what is reasonable from our point of view then we can attack the rest of the restrictions as nanny state feel good measures that do not have their intended purpose.

Anyone reading the Heller decision will come away with the overall impression that the SC has declared that the ownership of firearms is an individual right, not to be infringed but subject to reasonable restrictions.(I'm sure the internet lawyers will cite some minutae locked away in small print and interpreted to disprove this impression). I would expect many lawsuits springing from this decision challenging various federal and local laws as being unreasonable using the same arguements that Texas Rifleman and Vern have used in this thread. This is a good thing and how we do things in America. The arguements are all valid and provide a good base to legally fight the many restrictions in place.
But until we stand together and acknowledge that, "yes there are some cases where reasonable restriction applies" we will never win the fight against antis. The gun banners will own the debate. It will be death by 1000 knfe cuts.

 

[christcorp]

Vern; I agree with you 1000%. The only problem is; we don't live on an island by ourselves. So how do you control other people wanting to be in control of their own fate when their journey crosses your journey and there is a conflict. We live in a world/society that can't be as simply as "Common Sense". In theory it could; but in reality it can't. That is the "Main" reason for laws. Is because at one time or another; 2 or more people had a conflict where 1 person believed a certain action by another person was infringing on their right to control their fate/life. And the other person believed that they were in control of their fate and wasn't affecting the other person. Well, once upon a time; this would be resolved by the 2 different people duking it out. Even countries went to war because of differences of opinions and view points. That is the whole reason for rules, laws, cooperation, etc... It doesn't mean one side gives up their rights. It means that the 2 or more sides find a DEFINITION that they both agree upon and can live within.

Granted; the bad guys/criminals will never care what the "Accepted Definition" of what's right/wrong/acceptable/etc... is. They will react strictly off of self greed. But the accepted laws/rules/policies/etc... are so that the majority of individual can agree upon the definition. Will all sides ALWAYS agree? Probably not. But without rules (Laws); there's anarchy. Even the simplest of games must have rules. You can't have a game of soccer where one person picks up a ball with their hands and starts running down the field and throws the ball in the goal. Not unless both teams agree on that behavior as being acceptable.

The 2nd amendment unfortunately happens to be the one main right/tool that can't seem to be agreed upon by enough people on the meaning and how to apply it. If there was a consensus, we'd have the same meaning throughout the country. Just about all other "Rights"/amendments in the constitution are somewhat universally accepted throughout the country. Religion, free speech, search and seizure, etc... are all pretty much understood and treated the same from Maine to Florida and Georgia to California. But the 2nd amendment seems to have too many different meanings and positions on. I believe that the majority of the country believes the same as to the meaning that the citizens have the right to Keep and bear arms. The conflict seems to be with

WHO: criminal, law abiding, 12 year old, 21 year old, sane, mentally disturbed, etc... And if we finally DO agree on who; how do we determine the eligibility?

WHERE: Many individuals/states believe that on your PRIVATE PROPERTY you have the right to keep and bear arms. But on Public Propert, you are not 100% the property owner. Therefor, the OTHER property owners have a stake and a vote on whether or not you should be allowed to keep and bear arms on "Shared Property - Public Property".

WHEN: The WHEN combines the Who and the Where. WHEN you reach a certain age??? When you are on your private property or property that is permitted? When there is No-Other means of provided security? What about when there's a conflict such as in the work place, where the individual believes there is no satisfactory level of safety for themselves, so they want to provide their OWN security; yet the business owner believes because it's THEIR property, they should have the say.

This is the reason there are laws, rules, policies, etc... Yes, we have rights. But we are not alone on the planet. There are many other people who also have rights. And their pursuit of happiness may not be on the same track as your pursuit. You being in control of your destiny is great; but it WILL cross the destiny of someone else eventually. It has to. I.e. entering private property that doesn't allow firearms, dogs, pets, etc... E.g. Renting an apartment that doesn't allow pets. Pets may be part of your PURSUIT of HAPPINESS. Why should the landlord restrict or infringe on that. Anyway; your Rights are going to cross over to other people's rights. And because of this, we have to have laws, rules, and policies that are acceptable to the mass. If not, then we go back to the days of duels, vigilante justice, mob violence, etc... And the people will believe THEY ARE RIGHT because it's "THEIR RIGHT". But the moment you have a 2nd person who believes their right is being affected by your right, there HAS to be a means of either compromising both parties or clarifying a definitive RIGHT AND WRONG.

That's why the most important thing we need to do first is "DEFINE THE RULES". The "GAME" (Bill of Rights - In this case the 2nd amendment); has already been agreed upon. However, the "Rules" aren't the same. We have different rules in different towns and states. Just like the EXERCISING of freedom of religion or speech is pretty much accepted the SAME all over the country; we need to have the EXERCISING of the right to Keep and Bear Arms to be accepted the SAME all over the country. Maybe the purpose of a CCW permit is to "Assure" the public that you ARE TRUSTWORTHY according to local, state, and federal agencies and aren't some convicted rapist or mental case with 12 split personalities and talks to gophers in the morning. Just like you don't need a license or permit to drive a car ON YOUR PROPERTY; but you need one when in public and "Potentially" at risk to others. This is just an example. But my point is; until the 2nd amendment; rather the EXERCISING of the 2nd amendment is defined the same in ALL states, we'll never get past where we're at. I don't we'll ever be able to have a time where there are NO background checks; NO form of identification required to purchase a weapon; or numerous other requirements. Why? Because even though you may disagree; there WILL be those that believe that IN PUBLIC; guns, carrying, and the use of, DOES AFFECT THEM. And the minute it is accepted that a certain action, belief, or similar has an affect on another individual; there MUST be some sort of rule, law, or policy in place that is acceptable to the mass on what is considered acceptable exercise. This isn't the GOVERNMENT infringing; it's the CITIZENS demanding. There's a BIG DIFFERENCE there. Anyway; it's a moot point until we get all 50 states to define and understand the 2nd amendment the same; and that all 50 states agree on the acceptable EXERCISE of that amendment.

 

[CoRoMo]

So how do you control other people wanting to be in control of their own fate...