What are reasonable gun laws in your opinion?

[Officers'Wife]

Hi Yesit'sloaded,

The title of this thread makes me nervous as it reminds me of the so-called 'reasonable man' test. It's common knowledge that reasonable man is a contridiction in terms.

However, in my humble opinion a reasonable gun law is that if someone breaks the law using a gun he should be removed from society for a very very long time. Anything else is a sop by politicians to convince voters they are 'doing something.'

 

[S4Lee]

Ok, I'm kinda new around here, and have only taken an active interest in gun ownership recently, but I'll chime in.

1) Anyone that passes a basic mental and criminal background check should be able to own a gun and keep it in thier home or place of business on a shall-issue basis (denials have to be justified). Here in NJ you need an FID to buy a gun, and except for the time it takes to get one, I'm ok with that, but I don't advocate having to register your weapons or report new purchases. As long as the dealer can confirm your FID is valid at the time of purchase, you're good to go. Dealers caught selling to people w/o the FID should have thier licenses taken away (at a minimum). An FID holder who buys a weapon privately must do so from another FID holder and the buyer must record the sellers FID# and keep that record for as long as they have the firearm. An FID owner cannot buy an FID for a non-FID holder (family members living in the same residence would be exceptions). Basically, this would create a 'title' that is always with the firearm's owner (similar to a car title). If the title is lost, the owner can have a new 'title' issued by the local PD after they confirm the gun hasn't been used in a crime. If the current owner cannot produce the 'title' (warrant required, unless it was used in a crime), the firearm would be considered 'illegally obtained'. (If you're responsible enough to own a firearm, you're responsible enought to keep track of the title for it.)

2) Individuals are responsible for thier firearms. In the home, I don't care if you leave it on the coffee table with the safety off or lock it in a safe with a trigger lock. If someone, especially a kid, gets injured due to your negligence, there are laws for that kind of thing already (criminal negligence, child endangerment, etc...) that can be applied and #5 below can also be brought into play.

3) As long as you were not convicted of a violent crime and have paid your debt to society, you can still own a gun in your home.

4) Anyone that wants to carry should have some minimal formal training before being issued a carry permit. (Living in the most populus state in the Union, I do have some concerns about untrained people carrying.) Ex-cons can be evaluated on a case-by-case if they wish to carry.

5) Using a gun in a criminal act automatically extends the sentence. If it is shown that a gun was obtained illegally, the sentence is extended even more. (Note - this is for criminal offenses that are exagerated by using a gun, such as armed robbery or murder using a gun, not for a 'criminal' offense such as having possession of a gun in your home illegally.)

Huh... I actually wrote more than I was planning, flushing out some of my ideas as I went along, so I'm sure there are some holes in my thoughts....

 

[kludge]

As for who will pay for it, the prisoners should. It is only in recent history where people believed the government should be responsible for the price of the care of criminals. -really stirs pot-

I'm with you there Mak.

 

[IA_farmboy]

In reading this thread I become confused at the purpose of these "reasonable" restrictions on firearm ownership. Why are we attempting to keep firearms out of the hands of anyone? Under what legal concept does the government have the power to even control the trade and manufacture of firearms?

The current legal concept that the federal government uses to control the trade of firearms are the "interstate commerce" and "powers to levy taxes" clauses of the constitution. This has allowed them to ignore the second amendment to that same constitution.

I have come to realize that if we give an inch to the right to keep and bear arms there will be those that will take a light year. I don't think that a firearm is anything magical, it is a tool like any other and should be treated as such. Of all the potentially dangerous items one can obtain from a hardware store nothing is as regulated as a firearm, and I find that quite absurd.

There are those in this thread that claim there is such a thing as a "reasonable" restriction on the trade of firearms. I do not. What ever you claim as reasonable is open for abuse. Let's take for example a short list of "reasonable" restrictions debated so far in this thread.

- must be 18 years of age or older
- must have taken a firearm safety course
- must not have been declared mentally unfit by a judge/court
- must not have been convicted of a felony

Let's take them one by one...
Reasonable restriction:
Must be 18 years of age or older.

Potential for abuse:
Law is passed that one must present to the sheriff's office, on Wednesdays between 1:00 and 4:00 PM, two documents that prove age, and two documents that prove identity. Fingerprints will be taken to verify identity against the FBI fingerprint database. Costs for any documents and the fingerprinting will be borne by the applicant. Once all documents are received and photos taken (even more $$) the sheriff will have 30 days to verify the identity and age of the applicant and a license will then be issued. The license to purchase and carry a firearm must be renewed every year (more $$) to remain valid. Carrying or attempting to purchase a firearm without the firearm ownership permit and a state issued ID or driver license would be considered a felony.

Reasonable restriction:
Must have taken a firearm safety course.

Potential for abuse:
This is a tough one since it seems few here believe that such a simple requirement could be abused, but this is certainly not out of the realm of abuse. One example is the California microstamp legislation, it was passed as a "safety" measure since it seems that a firearm that is not capable of placing an identifier on the fired casing must be considered "unsafe".

First place for abuse is the topics of the safety course. An anti-gun lawmaker could place so many restrictions on what must be studied by an applicant that it would take a week long course of study for all the material and ends in a four hour testing session. Topics would include hunting laws, firearm storage and transport laws, proper cleaning and care of a firearm, and so on just to make the course difficult and expensive for someone that wishes to purchase a firearm.

Then the lawmakers could require marksmanship testing as a "safety" measure. The marksmanship could be made so difficult that few could pass. Range time would have to be paid by the applicant, as well as study materials, and instructor time.

Even if the instructor is not a government employee and the classes are offered by an independent organization the government would still be creating the curriculum and testing standards.

Reasonable restriction:
Must not have been declared mentally unfit by a judge or court.

Potential for abuse:
Since it is difficult to prove a negative this can be bent into a judicial procedure where one must prove themselves mentally fit. This would be done by first signing waivers so that the sheriff's office can view all of your medical and criminal records. Then the sheriff's office can take their time poring over your life to see if you did the least bit of a screw-up. If they see that you have a clean record then you can schedule an appointment with a state approved (appointed, not elected) psychological examiner. The examiner would ask a bunch of questions to see why you feel you need to purchase a firearm. The examiner just might think that anyone that wants a firearm must not be of sound mind creates a report that sits on a judge's desk until that judge feels like getting around to looking through those reports. The judge then takes the report and either actually goes about reading it and makes a declaration of the applicant's fitness, or just stamps it "denied" without actually opening the cover.

Reasonable restriction:
Must not have been convicted of a felony.

Potential for abuse:
Caught doing 85mph in a 55 mph zone? Felony speeding. Wild marijuana found growing in the backyard? Felony possession of a controlled substance. Some spammer sends someone pictures of naked children? Felony trade in child pornography. There are so many felonious offenses on the books that lack reason and even lack a true victim that it seems that just about everyone will inevitably break a law that is deemed a felony.

How about this, suppose someone let's their firearm ownership license lapse (You know, the one that shows you are older than 18 and mentally fit and have taken your safety course?) and still owns a firearm can now be charged with felony possession of a firearm without proper licensing.

I can tell that people don't think this could ever happen if truly reasonable restrictions were passed into law. Let me tell you something, IT HAS ALREADY HAPPENED! Every gun law now in place started out as a "reasonable" restriction that no one (except, presumably, true criminals) would ever notice or care about.

I have seen "reasonable" laws get bent, contorted, and skewed into the most unreasonable of laws. I don't want to give those that wish to disarm us even the slightest of traction to meet their goals. Should a minor have a firearm? Perhaps not, but that should be the job of the parent to decide not some lawmaker in another state. Should people know the safe handling of a firearm? Of course, but you can lead an ass to water but you can't make them think. Any safety training, no matter how rigorous, just won't sink in to some people. There is a fool born every second. The instruction of safe handling of a firearm, and a household oven, should be the responsibility of the owner. You burn yourself then that is your own fault. If a person is so mentally challenged that they cannot understand the consequences of the use of a firearm then they do not belong outside of direct supervision of a caretaker.

This is the big one that many people here seem to agree on, if a person has done a crime so grievous that they cannot be trusted with a firearm then they do not belong outside of a prison.

 

[frankie_the_yankee]

There are those in this thread that claim there is such a thing as a "reasonable" restriction on the trade of firearms. I do not. What ever you claim as reasonable is open for abuse.

And if they were abused in the contrived way you describe in your post, they would constitute infringements in my opinion. They would be open to court challenge, and if the system worked the way it should, would be overturned.

And if you're gonna look at the "potential for abuse", let's look at the potential for abuse of a "restrictions = infringements and are not allowed" regime.

Al Qaeda suidice death squads boarding airliners with freely purchased and carried MP-5's engaging in firefights at 35,000 feet. Alternatively, they could show up at day care centers or shopping malls with freely purchased and carried MP-5's and hose the place down.

People attending court proceedings for bitterly contested divorces and custody battles with freely purchased and carried MP-5's.

Convicted violent felons toting freely purchased (mail order) and carried MP-5's in prison.

And remember, I have nothing against MP-5's. I happen to like MP-5's. I shot one once and it was really, really fun.

More abuse.

Criminals could obtain firearms as easy as obtaining a can of soda pop. No questions could or would be asked.

And my favorite "potential for abuse" ......

The government, implementing a policy of not letting people out of jail until they can be trusted to carry guns could start locking up its political opponents for minor offenses on the grounds that they could not be trusted carrying guns. In addition, so many people would pile up in prisons that there would be political pressaure to engage in mass executions. The death penalty would be applied to many more offenses than at present.

And it's only a small stretch to simply make "not able to be trusted carrying a gun" itself a "crime" for which someone could be locked up. (They would do it "for the children".)

And if you don't think that has "potential for abuse" you're dreaming. In fact, that would lead more directly to a tyrannical government than almost any infringement of the 2A.

The bottom line is that any law or policy has potential for abuse. Some have more than others. And the consequences of some are more severe than others. So in the real world we look at the tradeoffs of different policy options.

That's why when I look at something and form an opinion as to whether it constitutes a "reasonable restriction", one criteria (and not the only one) I use is the burden it places upon the criminal or terrorist compared to the burden it places on the LAC. I favor policies that put a relatively large burden on criminals (like not being able to freely purchase and carry MP-5's aboard airliners) while putting a relatively small burden on LAC's.

 

[alan]

Re comment offered by frankie_the_yankee, in post#205, the following comes to mind, thoughts offered by the late Lyndon Johnson regarding legislative proposals. Johnson, as readers might recall, re his push for "a national Sullivan law", turned out to be no friend of constitutional rights, that is the rights of law abiding citizens to own, acquire and use guns.

His comment, re legislative proposals ran as follows, the following is not an exact quote. Re legislative proposals, what needs to be looked at is not the claimed benefits gained from the proper enforcement of some particular enactment, but rather the harm obtained or done through it's abuse or improper enforcement.

Re this, might I offer the historically documented antics of a government agency that has existed under several names, that is currently known as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE). Other agencies might also be mentioned, however I would think that re discussions on this site, the antics of BATFE, in light of Johnson's comments, would loudly ring all sorts of bells.

Readers might also read through post #204 by IA farmboy, regarding potential for abuse as opposed to the potential for achievment of "good ends" from proposed legislation. The following comes to mind re pushes for legislation and or the hue and cry over the alleged immediate need for "doing something", often heard. Legislate in haste, repent at leisure. Trouble is that while legislators MIGHT repent, it's the citizenry that suffers, seemingly without end.

 

[MakAttak]

Al Qaeda suidice death squads boarding airliners with freely purchased and carried MP-5's engaging in firefights at 35,000 feet. Alternatively, they could show up at day care centers or shopping malls with freely purchased and carried MP-5's and hose the place down.

People attending court proceedings for bitterly contested divorces and custody battles with freely purchased and carried MP-5's.

Convicted violent felons toting freely purchased (mail order) and carried MP-5's in prison.

Al Queda has access to MP-5s or (more likely) fully automatic AKs already. Why don't they just show up and the airport and blast away at the security line where there is EASILY a thousand people standing there to be taken.

People attending bitter divorce cases will be shot for using said MP-5s. Although you think people are completely unstable, the likelihood of immediate retribution and death REALLY affects demeanor.

Incarcerated Criminals are not "the people" and never have been.

If criminals and terrorists had MP-5s, then perhaps we would get REAL about security. Airplanes are owned by private companies. They have every right to say: "You can't bring your guns if you want to fly on our planes." That's not an infringement on the right to bear arms, that's a contract for service.

If criminals could use MP-5s, they have to know that there are people all around with automatic glocks ready if they use that weapon for crime. Again, INSTANT DEATH tends to make people question whether they want to risk it.

Despite what people think, the "Wild West" had a VERY low crime rate. When people know you'll get strung up or shot for stealing cattle, few people stole cattle.

You are trying to make this out to be that the whole country would be at the mercy of automatic weapon-toting criminals and terrorists, subject to the whims of angered spouses. Perhaps my scenarios are not realistic enough. I submit, though, that your scenarios are missing key elements as well...

Also, woohoo! Number 100!

 

[Fletchette]

Just ask yourself if the restriction would be acceptable if you replaced the "gun" with a "book".

Throughout most of history, and still in most places of the world, books have been considered 'dangerous' and highly controlled. Having the wrong 'book' often got the owner the death sentence.

Should carrying a concealed book [gun] be against the law? After all, if you do not intend to be smuggling that book or are intending to use the information it contains for nefarious purposes why would you want to hide it?

Should books advocating violence [assault weapons] be outlawed? After all, these books only exist to hurt other people. Perhaps books advocating revolution should be outlawed and only comic books allowed.

Advocating Freedom of the Press was considered highly radical and dangerous. Tyrants still try to control information to this day. This is why we passed the Bill of Rights, and it should not be ignored. Ever.

 

[Correia]

I'm in favor of a 3 day "cooling off" period before you can take home a 155mm atomic howitzer.

Other than that, nada.

 

[hnk45acp]

Just ask yourself if the restriction would be acceptable if you replaced the "gun" with a "book".

The problem with that analogy is that there is a separation of usage and deed, whereas the usage of a gun (our 2A) IS a deed.

Also books ARE regulated. I couldn't write "How Donald Trump Molested my 3 yr. old Poodle" without recrimination nor could I write "A guide to all our top Secret Missle Installations"

If a book tells people to go out and kill someone, there's a separtion of the knowledge gleaned from the book to the deed done.

The right to bear arms (protecting oneself is act and deed). Unless you read that owning (keep & bear) is seperate from usage (ie: defending oneself). However many people see it as one and the same therein lies the difference

 

[yesit'sloaded]

My belief on the keeping guns out of the hands of violent criminals hinges on a restructuring of the justice system we haven't had yet so I consider it moot right now. The problem with laws in general is that they are made to stop behaviors that common sense and ethics would prevent most people from acting out anyway. If everyone expressed common sense and ethics there would be no laws and we could give out machine guns and it would be hunky dory. But it isn't. There are criminals and crazies that plot to kill people. Once again, common sense and ethics would prevent these people from using guns in crimes anyway, but they don't care. That is why I support the NICS check, although I agree it needs to be improved. Restrictions on guns, waiting periods, no gun zones, and the like are a crock. There is a line somewhere that makes available guns to noncriminal sane people, while preventing nut cases and known criminals from getting them. I'm sure that if I was ever denied on the NICS check I would change my opinion, but as of now I think it is reasonable.

 

[ronwill]

Just ask yourself if the restriction would be acceptable if you replaced the "gun" with a "book".

Throughout most of history, and still in most places of the world, books have been considered 'dangerous' and highly controlled. Having the wrong 'book' often got the owner the death sentence.

Should carrying a concealed book [gun] be against the law? After all, if you do not intend to be smuggling that book or are intending to use the information it contains for nefarious purposes why would you want to hide it?

Should books advocating violence [assault weapons] be outlawed? After all, these books only exist to hurt other people. Perhaps books advocating revolution should be outlawed and only comic books allowed.

Advocating Freedom of the Press was considered highly radical and dangerous. Tyrants still try to control information to this day. This is why we passed the Bill of Rights, and it should not be ignored. Ever.
__________________
"But I am only one person. What can I do?"
Ans: Buy more ammo.

Fletchette, even freedom of the press has its limitations. A book of child pornography is considered not only immoral but illegal, and rightfully so. All rights have their limitations and great responsibility. Most of us use the RKBA responsibly and I firmly believe that ALL LAW ABIDING citizens have this right. The limitations should be placed on those who show disregard for that responsibility. Murderers, rapists, child molesters and spouse beaters have demonstrated a disrespect for others rights and these violent criminals should not be allowed to carry weapons.

 

[MakAttak]

The problem with that analogy is that there is a separation of usage and deed, whereas the usage of a gun (our 2A) IS a deed.

Also books ARE regulated. I couldn't write "How Donald Trump Molested my 3 yr. old Poodle" without recrimination nor could I write "A guide to all our top Secret Missle Installations"

If a book tells people to go out and kill someone, there's a separtion of the knowledge gleaned from the book to the deed done.

The right to bear arms (protecting oneself is act and deed). Unless you read that owning (keep & bear) is seperate from usage (ie: defending oneself). However many people see it as one and the same therein lies the difference.

No no no and once more no.

As has happened many times, you have used consequences for reckless speech (inciting riots, shouting fire in a crowded theater) and paralleled them to regulations on gun ownership. Regulations prevent and discourage the excercise of a right. Consequences (laws) punish mis-use of that right. Thus, your analogy is flawed.
Gun regulations do not address crime. The role of the government is NOT to restrict rights, but to respond to crime. This is why so many of us are saying the government should not be regulating guns.
Now if you want to make laws like- "using a gun in a felony adds 20 years to your sentence" THEN I would say these are reasonable gun laws. However, gun restrictions are an abuse of the power of the government.

 

[MakAttak]

Also, you CAN write a book about Donald Trump. You can even publish it and sell it. However, if the information is false AND harmful, then you will suffer consequences because you have committed LIBEL.

I agree, gun laws should be the same. If you do something with a gun that is unlawful and harmful, there should be severe consquences.

 

[Fletchette]

Fletchette, even freedom of the press has its limitations. A book of child pornography is considered not only immoral but illegal, and rightfully so. All rights have their limitations and great responsibility. Most of us use the RKBA responsibly and I firmly believe that ALL LAW ABIDING citizens have this right. The limitations should be placed on those who show disregard for that responsibility. Murderers, rapists, child molesters and spouse beaters have demonstrated a disrespect for others rights and these violent criminals should not be allowed to carry weapons.

At the risk of serious thread drift, I think child pornography is merely evidence of a crime. The piece of paper is just that, a piece of paper. The real criminal is the person who abused the child.

Morality is very subjective. For example, look at the current controversy in Sudan: a British citizen is on trial, with possibly execution, for naming a Teddy Bear "Mohammed". The police consider that 'immoral'.

Sure, most people consider child pornography immoral, but is it more immoral than murder? The picture below was put on the front page of millions of newspapers and broadcast on television. Should this picture be banned?

As an American that believes in Freedom of the Press, I do not advocate censorship. Going down that road means censoring pictures like that below, censoring news, controlling the flow of all information considered "immoral" and eventually, tyranny.

 

[hnk45acp]

As has happened many times, you have used consequences for reckless speech (inciting riots, shouting fire in a crowded theater) and paralleled them to regulations on gun ownership. Regulations prevent and discourage the excercise of a right. Consequences (laws) punish mis-use of that right. Thus, your analogy is flawed.

I am merely pointing out the differences between reading/writing a book and use of a firearm. The point is they are different and analogous only up to a point. That's why we have different laws that govern different rights (voting, assembly, speech, expression).

 

[MakAttak]

I am merely pointing out the differences between reading/writing a book and use of a firearm. The point is they are different and analogous only up to a point. That's why we have different laws that govern different rights (voting, assembly, speech, expression).

You're right there are differences. The problem is you think we should treat them differently in how the government acts.

We really should make people pass a background check before they can read Mein Kampf. There is so much danger for abuse that we really shouldn't let just anyone have this book. Also, because there is so much danger in the ideas, we should register all owners of Mein Kampf to make sure they don't pass the book on to someone who might use it in a dangerous way.

Ideas are just as dangerous as guns. I would argue even more so. Why don't we make sure people can't get their hands on these bad ideas?

 

[hnk45acp]

We really should make people pass a background check before they can read Mein Kampf. There is so much danger for abuse that we really shouldn't let just anyone have this book. Also, because there is so much danger in the ideas, we should register all owners of Mein Kampf to make sure they don't pass the book on to someone who might use it in a dangerous way.

Ideas are just as dangerous as guns. I would argue even more so. Why don't we make sure people can't get their hands on these bad ideas?

You just proved my point. You can't regulate all rights the same way. In your absolutist system a felon walking out of jail could walk in and out of a gun shop with a gun. Clinically depressed outpatients could as well and mentally handicapped as well. If there's nowhere to draw the line then what? I just don't believe that is a possibility. Remember this is a discussion of "reasonable" restrictions. If you don't think there are any, fine but you can't convince me that an absolutist approach will ever happen in the real world.

This is like one of those threads that the OP asks "what Glock should I get?" then everybody chimes in "get an XD, or a Sig or an HK"

 

[Fletchette]

Quote:

We really should make people pass a background check before they can read Mein Kampf. There is so much danger for abuse that we really shouldn't let just anyone have this book. Also, because there is so much danger in the ideas, we should register all owners of Mein Kampf to make sure they don't pass the book on to someone who might use it in a dangerous way.

Ideas are just as dangerous as guns. I would argue even more so. Why don't we make sure people can't get their hands on these bad ideas?

You just proved my point. You can't regulate all rights the same way. In your absolutist system a felon walking out of jail could walk in and out of a gun shop with a gun. Clinically depressed outpatients could as well and mentally handicapped as well. If there's nowhere to draw the line then what? I just don't believe that is a possibility. Remember this is a discussion of "reasonable" restrictions. If you don't think there are any, fine but you can't convince me that an absolutist approach will ever happen in the real world.

This is like one of those threads that the OP asks "what Glock should I get?" then everybody chimes in "get an XD, or a Sig or an HK"

Then you have freedom!

If we let someone out of jail, why shouldn't that person be able to have a gun? Because we don't like him? If the convict is too dangerous to trust with a gun we should not let him out of prison.

As for "clinically depressed" people, please reconsider what you just said. Depressed people are not necessarily a threat to others, any more than "normal" people. If you pass a law saying that "depressed" people cannot have guns then people will not seek help for depression.

As for "mentally handicapped" people, such people have to be adjudicated mentally insane. They cannot simply be eccentrics that simply choose to live life differently. The trade for society is that society must assume the responsibility to protect these people. They are essentially children, not responsible for their own actions. A mentally insane person cannot be held accountable for shooting someone, but their court-appointed guardian can.

In a free society, every non-mentally handicapped person is their own guardian. If the police become our legal guardians, we cannot be held accountable for shooting someone, but the police can. How is that for irony?

 

[hnk45acp]

Irony is right. in order for your system to work. The GOVERNMENT has determined that someone is a violent felon and should never be let free. Then we get into the discussion of who in the govermnet decides and where does the line get drawn if any? Kill someone...life?, rob a store with a gun...life?, drive drunk and kill someone...life?
Who decides? Why even decide? Since absolutists rule the day, Freedom for all, that is until someone from the government decides otherwise, then life.

Some poor shmuck has an ND, kills his buddy. Should this guy be locked up for life? He obvious can't handle a firearm and has proven himself a danger, so since there are no laws regulating ownership he should be locked up forever.

 

[MakAttak]

You just proved my point. You can't regulate all rights the same way. In your absolutist system a felon walking out of jail could walk in and out of a gun shop with a gun. Clinically depressed outpatients could as well and mentally handicapped as well. If there's nowhere to draw the line then what? I just don't believe that is a possibility. Remember this is a discussion of "reasonable" restrictions. If you don't think there are any, fine but you can't convince me that an absolutist approach will ever happen in the real world.

This is like one of those threads that the OP asks "what Glock should I get?" then everybody chimes in "get an XD, or a Sig or an HK"

No, it's not my point. Nor did I prove your point. What I showed was that rights should not be regulated. No other right is governed by "permission" from the government. Why then should the right to bear arms be predicated by that?

 

[Fletchette]

Irony is right. in order for your system to work. The GOVERNMENT has determined that someone is a violent felon and should never be let free. Then we get into the discussion of who in the govermnet decides and where does the line get drawn if any? Kill someone...life?, rob a store with a gun...life?, drive drunk and kill someone...life?
Who decides? Why even decide? Since absolutists rule the day, Freedom for all, that is until someone from the government decides otherwise, then life.

Who decides? A jury of peers. That is spelled out in the Constitution. Your questions seem to imply that you do not believe that someone should be sentenced to life (or the death penalty) if they commit murder. Why not? Are you lenient towards those who have actually harmed someone and want to restrict my rights, because I might harm someone?

Some poor shmuck has an ND, kills his buddy. Should this guy be locked up for life? He obvious can't handle a firearm and has proven himself a danger, so since there are no laws regulating ownership he should be locked up forever.

Here you seem to imply that every criminal act (or even an accident, which may not be a crime) requires life in prison. That seems a bit harsh. Why can't we simply punish those who actually commit crimes and not restrict people who don't? Why can't we pass laws that have punishments that fit the crime, rather than sentence everyone who breaks any law with life?

 

[hnk45acp]

That seems a bit harsh.

we'll then what's "reasonable" then?

I could say that negligent homocide is just as heinous as outright murder as the end result is the same. Which is a pretty absolutist take on things.

Who decides? A jury of peers.

These are the same peers that may think that a safety test for buying a handgun is appropriate?
You see people tend to be "reasonable" more so then "absolutist/extremeist".
If you apply absolutist logic to the 2A how will you treat all other rights? Will there be any middle ground? Is the 2A the only one worthy of an absolute view?

 

[The Unknown User]

To buy/own:

- Must be 18 years of age or older
- Must be a legal US citizen
- Must not have a criminal record
- Must be mentally sane
- Must pass a background check
- Safety course completed

To use:

- Anyone, as long as supervised by the legal owner of firearm in use (i.e. father showing his sun how to shoot a .22; father is legal owner, son is being supervised by owner)

 

[Gunnerpalace]

Well after seeing all these post I think we can all (most of us) agree on 2 things:

A mandatory safety class is infringing and an anti idea,

And 3 strike murderers should not own,

Beyond that things go astray.