Posted: 9/2/2012 11:04:43 AM EDT
|
Do you support any form of 'reasonable restrictions' to gun ownership or weapon ownership? I know that 'reasonable' is subjective, which is why I ask if you support any form at all.
Myself, I do support some restrictions. I don't want mentally ill people to have deadly weapons if they aren't in control of themselves. I don't want people who have committed certain violent crimes to have deadly weapons, as I believe you can never 'repay' your debt for some crimes. If you happen to be in favor of no restrictions whatsoever, does that apply just to guns, or does it extend to other weapons such as grenades, rockets, nukes? What if someone developed a gun that could shoot miniature nuclear bullets, with enough yield to kill anyone within, say, 100 yards... should everyone be allowed to have those guns? I'm not trying to act like a liberal troll, or a devil's advocate. I think these kinds of questions are important for everyone to ask themselves, not just on this subject either, to examine your beliefs in detail and why you hold them. |
|
Well prisoners and mental patients who are actively committed shouldn't be allowed to have guns. Once they get out they should be given their rights back. If they're not safe to give them a gun when they get out, they shouldn't be out.
Otherwise I'd say anyone who is 18 or older should be able to build, buy, and carry whatever they want, wherever they want, and anyone under 18 must have permission from their parent or guardian, but may otherwise engage in carrying any firearm they want. |
|
This is one of the reasons some of us oppose (in principle) incorporation. Because of the obsession with applying common law principles to the Constitution, we are forced to read the Constitution in that context. This means that we have to look to the application of protections amongst the states and in previous applications of already incorporated rights and federal-only protections.
That means there is no choice but to agree to reasonable restrictions. There is no other way to read the second amendment and also be consistent with existing "rights" precedent. What is "reasonable" is a separate argument entirely. That rests on what McDonald means. To my eyes, McDonald requires a strict scrutiny test, and that's a good thing in an otherwise dangerous situation. The Second Amendment should have been read exactly as it was intended: keep the national government out of gun law entirely (with the exception of making interstate commerce regular––that is to say, no trade wars between states over gun sales or whatever). We all want our rights protected. And we all want less gun regulation. I feel that too many of us don't think about the eventual implications of the tactics we've used. |
|
Quoted:
Well prisoners and mental patients who are actively committed shouldn't be allowed to have guns. Once they get out they should be given their rights back. If they're not safe to give them a gun when they get out, they shouldn't be out. Otherwise I'd say anyone who is 18 or older should be able to build, buy, and carry whatever they want, wherever they want, and anyone under 18 must have permission from their parent or guardian, but may otherwise engage in carrying any firearm they want. I agree with everything said here. |
|
I'm ok with the instant background check system.
I just wish they would arrest all the felons that try to buy a gun but get blocked. That being said I wish that a streamlined system would be but in place to restore gun rights to felons that have changed their lives. |
|
Quoted:
No to: Convicted Felons, Lawfully/Certified Insane or Dishonorable Discharge from Military Service. Must be 18 or older to purchase. I would say those are "Reasonable Restrictions".  I kind of agree, although I don't know if a DD would instantly qualify as 'reasonable' for me, only because there can be some petty stuff that get's you kicked out of the .mil, I think. You're a commanding married officer and you start poking one of your privates, as an example. I don't think that you should lose your right to own a firearm, after they kick you out, in that hypo. Chris |
|
Whenever a politician says the word "reasonable", watch your fucking ass. If it was so fucking reasonable, they wouldn't have to stress the word so hard.
What's "reasonable" to a politician? Is Washington DC reasonable? Is our national debt reasonable? Is abandoning the guardianship of our southern border reasonable? Those people don't understand what that word MEANS. "Reasonable" gun laws in the past did nothing to hinder crime while making a bunch of previously law abiding citizens criminals because of cosmetic, feel good bullshit. "Reasonable" gun laws cost good people their lives because they follow them while bad people ignore them. Fuck those shit-spewing, ignorant, useless, thieving, self-promoting jackasses and fuck anything they would call "reasonable", because they sure as shit haven't proven even a toddler's basic understanding of the meaning behind the words they use. |
|
Quoted:
Well prisoners and mental patients who are actively committed shouldn't be allowed to have guns. Once they get out they should be given their rights back. If they're not safe to give them a gun when they get out, they shouldn't be out. Otherwise I'd say anyone who is 18 or older should be able to build, buy, and carry whatever they want, wherever they want, and anyone under 18 must have permission from their parent or guardian, but may otherwise engage in carrying any firearm they want. +1 |
|
No hypothetical nuclear bullets, as its an incomplete situation and it's pointless to discuss.
Now, for grenades? Discuss regular old explosive grenades, either hand-thrown or from a launcher. Should you be able to pick up a pack of 6 at Walmart? You know, I'm not saying there wouldn't be problems with a lack of restrictions on those at first, but I am sure that after 5-10 years, there would no longer be problems with irresponsible usage of those. |
|
Reasonable is too broad of a word. Restrictions? Yes. Convicted felon, age of 18.
"Arms" is a defined term from the old country, I want to say the dudes name was "Blackwell". The definition was something like size of mans arm and easily carried. My personal opinion is that weapons which are purely offensive in nature are not constitutionally protected. How do you define that? If I cannot use the weapon buck naked in my bedroom to kill an intruder without risking serious injury to myself(nukes, grenades, etc), then its a offensive weapon. The Constitution is not a suicide pact. |
|
Shall Not Be Infringed.
David Codrea stated if you can't be trusted with a firearm you should have to have a personal custodian. What we have is that age old slippery slope. Reasonable restrictions to us, law abiding gun owners and to the gun grabbers are not going to be in same universe let alone the same neighborhood. Should a person be able to have a should fired nuclear weapon? Well lets look at why the Second Amendment was written. It was written as a protection from a Tyrannical Government. Said Tyrannical Government is going to have all the weapons we supply them with. You are not protected from that with your bolt action 30-06. Do I support, what I call reasonable restrictions? YES. Do I support what the Brady Bunch and Obama's Administration calls reasonable restrictions FUCK NO. |
|
Quoted:
Whenever a politician says the word "reasonable", watch your fucking ass. If it was so fucking reasonable, they wouldn't have to stress the word so hard. What's "reasonable" to a politician? Is Washington DC reasonable? Is our national debt reasonable? Is abandoning the guardianship of our southern border reasonable? Those people don't understand what that word MEANS. "Reasonable" gun laws in the past did nothing to hinder crime while making a bunch of previously law abiding citizens criminals because of cosmetic, feel good bullshit. "Reasonable" gun laws cost good people their lives because they follow them while bad people ignore them. Fuck those shit-spewing, ignorant, useless, thieving, self-promoting jackasses and fuck anything they would call "reasonable", because they sure as shit haven't proven even a toddler's basic understanding of the meaning behind the words they use. In this case, "Reasonable" is a legal term likely meaning that the state must prove it has a compelling state interest (this has its own lengthy precedential definition). The law must be narrowly tailored to meet that specific goal. And the law must accomplish that goal using the least restrictive means possible. |
|
Quoted:
Well prisoners and mental patients who are actively committed shouldn't be allowed to have guns. Once they get out they should be given their rights back. If they're not safe to give them a gun when they get out, they shouldn't be out. Otherwise I'd say anyone who is 18 or older should be able to build, buy, and carry whatever they want, wherever they want, and anyone under 18 must have permission from their parent or guardian, but may otherwise engage in carrying any firearm they want. But, this doesn't happen in the real world. And I'll posit that violent felons have a permanent mindset that should preclude them from firearm ownership. Ditto loons. |
|
Quoted:
No hypothetical nuclear bullets, as its an incomplete situation and it's pointless to discuss. Now, for grenades? Discuss regular old explosive grenades, either hand-thrown or from a launcher. Should you be able to pick up a pack of 6 at Walmart? You know, I'm not saying there wouldn't be problems with a lack of restrictions on those at first, but I am sure that after 5-10 years, there would no longer be problems with irresponsible usage of those. I think hypothetical nuclear bullets are important to discuss. If you truly support no restrictions at all, would you support people having those if they were developed? The point of questions like this is to get people thinking about where the line is drawn. I worry about things like grenades, because they aren't something that you can easily control collateral damage. A single AD near a school with a gun might kill or injure one(or a few possibly) children. An AD with a grenade... |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well prisoners and mental patients who are actively committed shouldn't be allowed to have guns. Once they get out they should be given their rights back. If they're not safe to give them a gun when they get out, they shouldn't be out. Otherwise I'd say anyone who is 18 or older should be able to build, buy, and carry whatever they want, wherever they want, and anyone under 18 must have permission from their parent or guardian, but may otherwise engage in carrying any firearm they want. But, this doesn't happen. And I'll posit that violent felons have a permanent mindset that should preclude them from firearm ownership. Ditto loons. In my opinion, a child rapist can never repay his debt to society. We let them out though. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
No to: Convicted Felons, Lawfully/Certified Insane or Dishonorable Discharge from Military Service. Must be 18 or older to purchase. I would say those are "Reasonable Restrictions". So the guy who cheated on his tax forms also can't have a firearm? Exactly. Or some guy who had some vicoden without a prescription? (Yes that's a felony in most places and even if it gets plead down drug misdemeanors in many places are disqualifiers as well) |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Whenever a politician says the word "reasonable", watch your fucking ass. If it was so fucking reasonable, they wouldn't have to stress the word so hard. What's "reasonable" to a politician? Is Washington DC reasonable? Is our national debt reasonable? Is abandoning the guardianship of our southern border reasonable? Those people don't understand what that word MEANS. "Reasonable" gun laws in the past did nothing to hinder crime while making a bunch of previously law abiding citizens criminals because of cosmetic, feel good bullshit. "Reasonable" gun laws cost good people their lives because they follow them while bad people ignore them. Fuck those shit-spewing, ignorant, useless, thieving, self-promoting jackasses and fuck anything they would call "reasonable", because they sure as shit haven't proven even a toddler's basic understanding of the meaning behind the words they use. In this case, "Reasonable" is a legal term likely meaning that the state must prove it has a compelling state interest (this has its own lengthy precedential definition). The law must be narrowly tailored to meet that specific goal. And the law must accomplish that goal using the least restrictive means possible. I don't agree. "Reasonable" is being used currently as a political weasel word, like "common sense". |
|
Quoted: Quoted: No to: Convicted Felons, Lawfully/Certified Insane or Dishonorable Discharge from Military Service. Must be 18 or older to purchase. I would say those are "Reasonable Restrictions". So the guy who cheated on his tax forms also can't have a firearm? I have 3 friends who are convicted felons. One of them was for running from the cops when he was 17 (he's 32 now and been out of trouble ever since), one was for possession of narcotics (he was a drug addict, and is now clean) and one was for running from the cops when he was drunk, over 10 years ago. Tell me why these guys aren't allowed to own firearms? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No to: Convicted Felons, Lawfully/Certified Insane or Dishonorable Discharge from Military Service. Must be 18 or older to purchase. I would say those are "Reasonable Restrictions". So the guy who cheated on his tax forms also can't have a firearm? Exactly. Or some guy who had some vicoden without a prescription? (Yes that's a felony in most places and even if it gets plead down drug misdemeanors in many places are disqualifiers as well) Violent felonies, IMO. |
|
Quoted:
I have 3 friends who are convicted felons. One of them was for running from the cops when he was 17 (he's 32 now and been out of trouble ever since), one was for possession of narcotics (he was a drug addict, and is now clean) and one was for running from the cops when he was drunk, over 10 years ago. Tell me why these guys aren't allowed to own firearms? They should be allowed to and there is a process to get ones rights restored. |
|
This is the real issue:
What is meant by 'people'? What is meant by 'arms'? We all know it says 'shall not be infringed', that's not the part in question. Should violent felons in prison be allowed to carry guns? If you support NO restrictions whatsoever, you have to answer yes to that question. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Keep. Bear. Shall not be infringed. ...be infringed. shall NOT be INFRINGED. Do you support allowing people who have no control over their physical movements(lots of spasms) to have guns? shall NOT be INFRINGED. Do you also think violent felons currently in prison should be allowed to carry guns? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
No hypothetical nuclear bullets, as its an incomplete situation and it's pointless to discuss. Now, for grenades? Discuss regular old explosive grenades, either hand-thrown or from a launcher. Should you be able to pick up a pack of 6 at Walmart? You know, I'm not saying there wouldn't be problems with a lack of restrictions on those at first, but I am sure that after 5-10 years, there would no longer be problems with irresponsible usage of those. I think hypothetical nuclear bullets are important to discuss. If you truly support no restrictions at all, would you support people having those if they were developed? The point of questions like this is to get people thinking about where the line is drawn. I worry about things like grenades, because they aren't something that you can easily control collateral damage. A single AD near a school with a gun might kill or injure one(or a few possibly) children. An AD with a grenade... I say incomplete because there are other factors around that hypothetical situation that may keep it from ever even being a firearms discussion. Are such nuclear bullets even safe to store or transport? Before considering their usage as "arms," is it a clear safety hazard to transport them? There are already plenty of restrictions on non-arms items that are dangerous to handle, so it's really not worth discussing those, and it could take a few pages of thread just to argue the realities that such a technology would involve. And your concerns are easily addressed by taking the very real grenades that are already out there. We know they are reasonably safe to store and transport, so what about their use as arms? Restricted, unrestricted? I think it's an unrealistic discussion either way... we are not within a decade of having all arms restricted or no arms restricted. Most of us just oppose all restrictions because a successful 2-4 years of winning every legal/political battle would still not get us to "no restrictions whatsoever," so it's pointless to expend mental energy on thinking through that result. I oppose the imposition of any new restriction and, currently, and willing to back any existing removal of restrictions until we get to a real world scenario where some restrictions can be proven as necessary. Until then, it's all hypothetical and unlikely, and any agreement with a restriction on some excessive situation will often be used as a false support (ab absurdum) for "some reasonable restriction" which can then be interpreted as an excuse for unreasonable bans on features that none of us ever agreed to as reasonable. |
|
Quoted: The 2nd doesn't say "Shall not be infringed, except for those convicted of felonies, misdemeanor domestic violence, or any other group we think shouldn't have guns". If felons have served their debt to society they should have their rights restored. IF you can't trust a man after he is out of jail, then why did you let him out? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Whenever a politician says the word "reasonable", watch your fucking ass. If it was so fucking reasonable, they wouldn't have to stress the word so hard. What's "reasonable" to a politician? Is Washington DC reasonable? Is our national debt reasonable? Is abandoning the guardianship of our southern border reasonable? Those people don't understand what that word MEANS. "Reasonable" gun laws in the past did nothing to hinder crime while making a bunch of previously law abiding citizens criminals because of cosmetic, feel good bullshit. "Reasonable" gun laws cost good people their lives because they follow them while bad people ignore them. Fuck those shit-spewing, ignorant, useless, thieving, self-promoting jackasses and fuck anything they would call "reasonable", because they sure as shit haven't proven even a toddler's basic understanding of the meaning behind the words they use. In this case, "Reasonable" is a legal term likely meaning that the state must prove it has a compelling state interest (this has its own lengthy precedential definition). The law must be narrowly tailored to meet that specific goal. And the law must accomplish that goal using the least restrictive means possible. I don't agree. "Reasonable" is being used currently as a political weasel word, like "common sense". In the context of the law, it has a specific meaning. It is used in Heller to refer to what McDonald later defined as (in my opinion) reasonableness conforming to strict scrutiny. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No hypothetical nuclear bullets, as its an incomplete situation and it's pointless to discuss. Now, for grenades? Discuss regular old explosive grenades, either hand-thrown or from a launcher. Should you be able to pick up a pack of 6 at Walmart? You know, I'm not saying there wouldn't be problems with a lack of restrictions on those at first, but I am sure that after 5-10 years, there would no longer be problems with irresponsible usage of those. I think hypothetical nuclear bullets are important to discuss. If you truly support no restrictions at all, would you support people having those if they were developed? The point of questions like this is to get people thinking about where the line is drawn. I worry about things like grenades, because they aren't something that you can easily control collateral damage. A single AD near a school with a gun might kill or injure one(or a few possibly) children. An AD with a grenade... I say incomplete because there are other factors around that hypothetical situation that may keep it from ever even being a firearms discussion. Are such nuclear bullets even safe to store or transport? Before considering their usage as "arms," is it a clear safety hazard to transport them? There are already plenty of restrictions on non-arms items that are dangerous to handle, so it's really not worth discussing those, and it could take a few pages of thread just to argue the realities that such a technology would involve. And your concerns are easily addressed by taking the very real grenades that are already out there. We know they are reasonably safe to store and transport, so what about their use as arms? Restricted, unrestricted? I think it's an unrealistic discussion either way... we are not within a decade of having all arms restricted or no arms restricted. Most of us just oppose all restrictions because a successful 2-4 years of winning every legal/political battle would still not get us to "no restrictions whatsoever," so it's pointless to expend mental energy on thinking through that result. I oppose the imposition of any new restriction and, currently, and willing to back any existing removal of restrictions until we get to a real world scenario where some restrictions can be proven as necessary. Until then, it's all hypothetical and unlikely, and any agreement with a restriction on some excessive situation will often be used as a false support (ab absurdum) for "some reasonable restriction" which can then be interpreted as an excuse for unreasonable bans on features that none of us ever agreed to as reasonable. Sounds good :D |
|
Quoted:
The 2nd doesn't say "Shall not be infringed, except for those convicted of felonies, misdemeanor domestic violence, or any other group we think shouldn't have guns". If felons have served their debt to society they should have their rights restored. What about felons currently in prison? |
|
Quoted:
Join date... Check. Rehashing common argument that shows up every 3 months... Check. Inane hypotheticals that do nothing to aid clarity and only muddle the waters... Check.  Ah, right. If something has been discussed before, it's not allowed to be discussed again? People who won't discuss extreme hypotheticals miss out on a lot of knowledge... seriously, try it sometime. You'll be surprised what you learn. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Keep. Bear. Shall not be infringed. ...be infringed. shall NOT be INFRINGED. Do you support allowing people who have no control over their physical movements(lots of spasms) to have guns? shall NOT be INFRINGED. Do you also think violent felons currently in prison should be allowed to carry guns? Isn't that the point of prison? To strip your rights until your time is served? 
|