This is a discussion on What is reasonable gun control... within the General Firearm Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by Sarisataka My thanks to you and yours for your service. My turn With the "proposal" I put here and there I am ...
What you propose is NOT reasonable. The problem is, in this country anything the government tries to do to further restrict the people will be frowned upon. Fear the government that fears your guns. How many examples do some people need? Its all about control, unarmed peasants are easier to control.
My rifle and pistol are tools, I am the weapon.
Reasonable gun control is using two hands when possible.
I had to put the period on "NO" because the forum won't allow a 2 letter answer.
If you want my feelings on reasonable gun control... look around. There are other threads on the topic to which I have responded today... and my fingers are cramping.
And, the honest truth is, I never used to be a cold, dead hands kinda guy... But this latest idiot in Colorado and gun free zones have done pushed me right off the deep end... And I came to the epiphany that regulating objects... dead, inanimate objects DOES NO GOOD. And frankly, only causes more to be victimized by those same regulated, taxed, rationed objects in the hands of those who should not have them under the regulations that restrict them.....
All that said....
It could be worse.
"The History of our Revolution will be one continued Lye from one end to the other."
Well the other board has decided to enforce their rule against "No Gun Talk" except in a specific sub-thread colloquially called the gungeon. I was able to get in a last post which I have put below.
My social experiment has affirmed my belief that there is no 'reasonable conversation' when it comes to trying to talk with those who favor 'sane gun control laws'. Whatever you even hypothetically offer is 'only a start'.
I will make one cautionary statement to take or leave as you wish-An instructor of mine had a favorite question he would ask "Are you ignorant or are you stupid?"
Ignorance is a lack of knowledge, you cannot know what you have not learned. It can be fixed with education.
Stupid is you have been given the information but refuse to use or accept it.
Posts were made about automatic weapons, high powered weapons.... that were inaccurate. People knowledgeable about guns posted corrections; much like if you said a car can run on spaghetti, a car mechanic would say no it can't.
For attempting to educate those who have never learned, we are called gun-nuts, gun-religionists, cowboys, penisally-challenged, no true liberal can favor gun ownership and many more... even gun reactionaries. Several posters proclaimed they are ignorant and don't want to learn any more because they know enough to know, i.e. have moved themselves out of the ignorant category to the other.
Yet despite all of the baseless accusations, name calling, broad brush categorizing, ignorant statements, openly false statements it is always the pro-rights side that is accused of being the ones who cannot have a meaningful conversation.
Now there is celebration that we shall be re-locked into the gungeon. For those with no interest on the issue I fully understand; there are topics I do not go to because they do not interest me. But there are those who celebrate that they can be rid of voices that dare to disagree with them of the subject. There is even a call for an anti-gun echo chamber where people can post all they want saying 'guns are bad m'kay'. I would rather converse with those who may have a different take on a subject than sit around a group of yes wo/men.
You can relax now. Those of us who a liberal and believe in the Bill of Rights as written and affirmed will go back to using the side entrance so as to not offend the 'better people' who know all they need to whether it is right or wrong.
I do challenge you to ask yourself the question, "Are you ignorant or are you stupid?"
If the former and you wish to learn, you know where to find us.
Many of the replies here were of the 'my cold dead hand' vein. Such talk does not win over anyone into believing gun owners are reasonable average people you see everyday. It reinforces the stereotype that all we do is wear cammo, run around the woods and wait for the government or great race war to come.
So what? you ask. Why should I care what people think.
Today the pendulum of gun control has swung strongly in favor of us who support rights and freedom. Less than 20 years ago it was strongly in favor of those who favored eliminating rights and government control.
The funny thing about pendulums is they swing. Should it start to swing the other way any time soon, I would like as many undecided to look upon me as just another guy than some mentally unbalanced lunatic that is going to go off at any time.
I surrender the soap box...
Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor liberty to purchase power.
Zero tolerance only on fellons carry of any guns. First time offenders life imprisnment, second time death penalty.
"One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation."
--Thomas B. Reed, American Attorney
Second Amendment -- Established December 15, 1791 and slowly eroded ever since What happened to "..... shall not be infringed."
It's not about what they think. You're right, why should we care? Think for a minute, why should the majority of our population be restricted in any way in a free country because a few are breaking laws that are all ready in place? It is the threat of freedoms that should get everyone fired up. So yes, why should we be concerned with what they think? Especially when none of what they have established through legislation has worked. It's been proven over and over again; country to country and U.S. city to city regarding gun control. When will it stop? When will the focus be where it should be which is on the people who wouldn't think twice about gutting your children so they can get drug money or rape your mom for fun before she's robbed? These are the people that are the problem and the ones who don't deserve our freedoms. It is very hard not to be frustrated with the insanity as the prison terms get shorter as does our list of freedoms. Cruel and unusual punishment? Well it wouldn't be unusual if we did it more often.
Should we make certain words illegal when someone writes a bad article? Come on, it's only one or two words. Or how about becoming adamant about banning a certain religion because how dare they believe in all that nonsensical gibberish? I bet the light would go on then right? We would never hear the end of the fight for those freedoms from the same people who think that the 2A is somehow different. But guess what? The people who believe in and exercise their Second Amendment rights also believe in those freedoms as well. And if it ever came down to it, we would be some of the first people to speak up.
The Constitution didn't have an expiration date. Read it, respect it, and thank those who have defended it for it is all of the above in the Constitution that is the reason that they are able to say what they say. It's also the Second Amendment that protects all of the others when all else fails. I don't think that is unreasonable. And to the undecided, maybe they ought to take a step back a bit, study a little history and read the Constitution before they stereotype and focus too much on the camo pants and race wars. The Second Amendment is just as much of a freedom of theirs as it is of ours.
THIS is reasonable - The Constitution Of The United States
Vietnam Vets, WELCOME HOME
Crossman 760 BB/Pellet, Daisy Red Ryder, Crossman Wrist Rocket, 14 Steak Knives, 3 Fillet Knives, Rolling Pin-14", Various Hunting Knives, 2 Baseball Bats, 3 Big Dogs and a big American Flag flying in the yard. I have no firearms; Try the next house.
Well, I'll give credit to the OP for raising a topic for discussion that is probably worth having. We are members of the gun-owning community, and if there's going to be any additional regulation of ownership, our ideas should be represented in it.
This story is going to drive a news cycle or two: Cape Coral man kills door-to-door salesman.
Pretty clear that Roop here was deranged, psychotic. It's also now becoming known that the Colo. movie shooter was seeing a psychiatrist. There were flags up around the Va Tech shooter. Gabby Gifford's assailant was going whackballs. So although the law does not allow sales of firearms to mentally disturbed people, nutballs and psychos aren't encountering sufficient barriers to purchase.
My preference is that this problem be addressed in some fashion that does not involve restricting everyone's rights in order to constrain the behavior of a few crazies. Yet, if the gun-owning community doesn't get proactive on this matter, then somebody on the other side will, and they'll probably look to some sweeping law that very much does apply to restricting the rights of all persons.
"It may seem difficult at first, but everything is difficult at first."
The thing I find so insupportable is the presumption that most such proposed changes (euphemism: improvements) would actually inhibit crime. Where is the practical efficacy of most such steps? The hypothetical value can be hoped for, but until practical efficacy is shown then there isn't good reason to implement such steps.
For example ...
1. Capacity limits -- ie, Revolvers <=6rds; rifles <=5rds; detachable magazines <=30rds. Plenty of high-casualty murder sprees have been accomplished by motivated criminals with so-called "low-cap" firearms, both during periods of capacity limits and otherwise. And the vast majority of deaths and injuries come from violent criminals who use one or two simple weapons directed at one or two others in attacks of brief duration and scope. The point being, capacity doesn't inherently affect the outcome, once a murderer decides to act.
2. Fees -- The primary effects include making equipment more costly for the lower rungs of the economic classes and funding bureaucratic jobs via those fees.
3. Tools via permission (ammunition, weapons) -- It's an offensive, categorical presumption that the mere possession of a tool equates to criminal predisposition or tendencies. And such a permissions-based environment won't stop the truly criminal from acquiring tools to enhance their effectiveness.
4. Restrictions on who is allowed to have effective tools of defense, via permitting process -- The primary effect is to prejudge who's to be bureaucratically forced to be more likely to become a victim if violently attacked. By what right, such prejudgement?
5. Liability "insurance" schemes -- There are penal code statutes already on the books covering felonious behavior (murder, robbery, assault, etc), which help ensure criminals who are caught are kept off the streets. Forced insurance on the upstanding and innocent pushes a cost of criminality onto citizens, which they already bear as a result of crime. People found liable for their actions are already held responsible, criminally, financially and socially.
6. Registration -- The governing administrators report to the People, not the other way around. The primary effect of registration is to provide the governing few documentation on which of the many are of greatest implied threat to the few, should push come to shove. It's about power and control in the long run, and the retaining of it.
Consider the "No defensive purpose" claim that's often made. Claims of no defensive purpose existing for use of tools with a given measure of effectiveness have no basis. The mere fact criminality exists itself justifies the defensive purpose, as well as the inherent utility of ending such criminality as expeditiously as possible. No defensive purpose? Tell that to those who defended their homes in the Los Angeles riots (post R.King beatings); or to the parishioners at the New Life church in Colorado; or to the victims of the Virginia Tech or Aurora theater massacres; or to the thousands of people annually who protect themselves and others with such tools.
The Second Amendment of the Constitution makes a simple guarantee, assuring the People that the right to bear arms is inviolable, an inherent right of a free People. The Founders had the right of it. Arms weren't declared an inalienable right for any other reason than to ensure the ability of the People to protect themselves against the predations of others ... and that includes against a marauding, liberty-swallowing governing few, murderers, or any other predator.
Last edited by ccw9mm; July 28th, 2012 at 08:44 AM.
Whats reasonable gun control ?
Whats reasonable size for a sugary drink?
Its all subjective but I tell you this......The rules should be made not be the people who
are anti gunners or skinny people it should be made by the experts who are shooters and fat people
Get the idea....Let the experts make the rules :)
In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm and three or more is a congress. -- John Adams
If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free! -- P.J. O'Rourke
I agree with you completely, my biggest concern now is what you said about liability insurance. Our current US Supreme Court finds that it is NOT un-constitutional to require everyone in this country to purchase health insurance. What's to stop them now from requiring all those who choose to own guns to purchase liability insurance for any use of those guns.....
I never would have thought I'd have to worry about being forced to purchase liability insurance because I own a gun, but with the recent ruling on the Affordable Health Care Act, now I'm not so sure.......
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
How can anything be reasonable if you have to violate the Constitution to impose it?
Last edited by mlr1m; July 28th, 2012 at 07:24 PM. Reason: I made an oopsie
Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor liberty to purchase power.