The Constitutionlity of Gun Control

[Bill St. Clair]

Stinkyshoe:

I agree that age means nothing when it comes safety but are you saying that they should lower the age of purchasing shot guns, rifles and handguns? Should 12 year olds also be allowed to drive cars, or is the reasoning because the constitution doesn't say anything about cars, then it can be regulated?

I don't think there should be any legal minimum age for purchasing a firearm, just as there's no minimum age for purchasing a hammer or a screwdriver. It's a tool. If you abuse it, you suffer the consequences. No matter how old you are. That said, I would expect most vendors to hesitate should a five-year-old walk into the store and ask for an Uzi. Just as they'd likely refuse to sell a young kid poison. Liability problems...

It used to be (still is?) common in farm country for kids to drive tractors, sometimes into town. They're a bit easier to drive than a car, since the speed is usually lower, but the real problem with kids driving cars is reaching the pedals. If a kid is big enough to physically drive the car, and has demonstrated consistent safe driving, then I have no problem with it.

Personally, I consider driving licenses to have nothing whatsoever to do with how well people drive. I took a driving test in Wyoming when I was 16 and a motorcycle driving test in Boston at twenty-something (which I actually failed since I couldn't do a figure eight, but the cop passed me anyway). They check my vision when I renew my license. Does that mean I'm a safe driver at 47 in New York? I think the real reason for driving licenses, and car registrations, is to keep track of the herd.

 

[Tamara]

WildAlaska,

The problem with being reasonable and compromising on this is that we all know what the reasonable middle-ground compromise between "no registration" and "registration" is.

What's the proper compromise blend of beluga and botulinum for a good cracker spread, anyway?

 

[jimpeel]

Why is it that the Second Amendment is the only portion of the Bill of Rights that has an age limit to exercise that right? Rights are from birth, not a date certain.

I used to hitchhike with a Remington Nylon 66 when I was thirteen-years-old and never had anyone, including passing Sheriffs, think anything of it. This was when I lived in Calaveras County, CA.

 

[Wildalaska]

Tam

The problem with being reasonable and compromising on this is that we all know what the reasonable middle-ground compromise between "no registration" and "registration" is.

One could graft a constituional "gun control" scheme that would radically eliminate crime yet at the same time protect the rights of gun owners..in fact, later, I will float it for discussion..

It would entail however, still things like age limits and felon prohibtions...so probably would not be acceptable to the hard core who only apparently cosntitiute approximately 2/3 of 225 people on a gun board...I would conclude that the % is far less among the general populace.

WildieatfugubythewayAlaska

 

[biere]

So should we remove any restrictions on handling or disposal or radioactive material or hazardous waste? Punishment is nice, but wouldn't making sure they are handled safely to begin with be a better bet in the long run?

Above is a quote of a post from the previous page.


As for my being able to get the items, the night sites in my guns are listed with a half life so they must be a tad radio active. And the oil I drain from my car is also considered hazardous waste. I figure that once again it comes down to how I handle the items.

The 2nd part of the quote gets into trying to consider all guilty until they prove they are innocent.

I really can not ever accept this concept. One reason for this is that even with current 4473 useage there are still folks willing to do straw man purchases because they might actually not be honest when asked to fill out the form.

Or best of all, a criminal might steal a gun registered to someone. I believe this is how california has passed their lock up laws. In that state you are held partially responsable if your stolen gun is used in a crime because simply locking the doors and windows to your house is not acceptable. You must have a gun lock or an approved safe to prove you are a responsable gun handler.

Once someone proves they are not to be trusted, deal with the problem.

Do not drag me down to the lowest common denominator using laws just because you want to feel safe using words on paper.

This is sort of like trying to give the world the quality of life those in the USA have. No one can afford to do this, but by trying we are lowering our quality of life so that we are all closer to "equal".

 

[ksnecktieman]

ok, alaska, you are keeping us all in suspense here. What is your scheme, that has not been tried in the 20,000 laws we now have on the books?

I have a great one. If someone commits a crime while in possesion of a gun add ten years to his sentence, no plea bargain or parole or probation on this part of his sentence.

 

[Tamara]

WildAlaska,

I would conclude that the % is far less among the general populace.

I find myself unmoved by that argument as the percentage of folks among the general populace who seem to confuse COPS and Ally McBeal with edifying entertainment is quite high.

If popular consensus determined what's right and meet, you and I would both dine on pizza every night and we'd both be married to Mel Gibson (since women are a majority of the population...)

Thank Vishnu we have a Constitution to protect us from the tyranny of the majority, n'est ce pas?

 

[ksnecktieman]

Actuall I see the group in favor of no more gun control to be in excess of 95 percent here. I see the top three choices saying no more, and the top two saying none at all.

 

[tyme]

wildalaska,
[blockquote]It would entail however, still things like age limits and felon prohibitions...so probably would not be acceptable to the hard core who only apparently cosntitiute approximately 2/3 of 225 people on a gun board...I would conclude that the % is far less among the general populace.[/blockquote]
Wonderful. So explain why "far less" than 2/3 means that the idea is unreasonable. Appealing to us in the minority that such ideas are "unreasonble" is not going to get very far if you only use the percentage of supporters as evidence.

Cabals, of any size, are an enemy of the Republic. In order to make forward progress, you have to make a reasonable case that your cabal's beliefs comprise truth.

 

[Bruce H]

What I derive from this is the fact 65 some odd percent understand shall not be infringed.

 

[Dead]

WAY TO EASY FOR SOMEONE TO GET THEIR HANDS ON A KNIFE, A CAR, A TRUCK, A PLANE, A BASEBALL BAT, A SCREW DRIVER, A HAMMER........

A gun is just an item that CAN be Intentionally miused like most any other item to inflict harm, or kill.