Reasonable Gun Control

This is a discussion on Reasonable Gun Control within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by Tubby45 Excuse me while I go vomit. Why? The Founders also believed we should be mustering at least once or twice a ...

Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 115

Thread: Reasonable Gun Control

  1. #46
    BAC
    BAC is offline
    VIP Member Array BAC's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    2,292
    Quote Originally Posted by Tubby45 View Post
    Excuse me while I go vomit.
    Why? The Founders also believed we should be mustering at least once or twice a year to drill, and of those who can keep arms they ought keep arms.

    Need I remind you:

    Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16: "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."

    The right to self defense isn't in question at all here. We all recognize that as an essential human right. We're talking about, as the topic title suggests, what gun control laws are considered "reasonable", a term I omitted for "constitutional" since "reasonable" can't be discussed in a legal sense but "constitutional" can. None of my suggestions restrict rights.

    In all fairness, the prohibition on modes of carry is a state issue, NOT a federal one, and I shouldn't have included them. I'll go back and strike those accordingly.

    So again, I ask why do you have a problem with training requirements, given the quoted text of the constitution above and the lack of explanation on your part?


    -B

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #47
    BAC
    BAC is offline
    VIP Member Array BAC's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    2,292
    Quote Originally Posted by DPro.40 View Post
    Thanks BAC
    BAC... I don't see removing the people off the street, these very criminals and crazies that we protect ourselves from as a constitutional issue. I see it as a moral issue. An issue that can be addressed by enforcing the current laws.
    I guess we can agree to disagree. I think we are coming at this from two different angles.
    DPro, I don't disagree with your first paragraph. However, the question that was asked was if anyone could think of "reasonable", which I interpreted as "constitutional", gun control measures. None of those measures are designed to handle criminals, nor should they be able to. Those are separate laws regarding a separate subject.

    Do I believe a felon who's served his or her time should be permitted to arm themselves? Absolutely. They did their time, and should be considered citizens in the fullest again. If the crime was so serious as to have their rights permanently suppressed then they shouldn't have been let out in the first place.

    Do I believe a crime committed with a weapon should bear more responsibility than a crime without a weapon? Absolutely not. Crimes are crimes regardless of the implements used. Punish actions, not objects.

    These are examples of moral issues, though. These are not strictly constitutional issues (though the first is debatable), just as you identified. Further, these (punitive statutes) are issues that per the 10th Amendment are relegated to the States to decide. I will not delve into the subject of state statutes, because I frankly don't know other states' statues very well. I can argue Florida law, sure, but that's because I know the Florida Constitution fairly well. I can't say the same about, say, Michigan and Missouri. The only laws we all have in common are those on the national level, hence, those are the only laws I can fairly argue/discuss.

    There is nothing, not one thing in our country's Constitution that bars Congress from ensuring the militia, We The People, are well-regulated. Well-regulated meant disciplined. Trained. Ready. In fact, that's exactly what the first Article of the Constitution states as one of Congress's duties. The right to keep and bear arms, as outlined by the Constitution, was not a prohibition on training, and the literature of the Founders made pretty damn clear that they wanted an armed, trained, and ready citizenry. That right to keep and bear arms we as humans are endowed with is recognized by the Second Amendment as coming with the condition that we, as armed Americans, are always trained and always ready to protect that which needs protection.

    So I say again, mandatory training and requalification, provided that they were not prohibitive and were offered freely to U.S. citizens, is an example of both Congress fulfilling its duties and of what I suppose could be called "reasonable" (read: constitutional) gun control. Cost should not be an issue; since it's required, it's the government's job to ensure it's paid for. Those states with more intensive requirements (there will be some) would pay the difference.


    -B

  4. #48
    VIP Member Array Tubby45's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Making ammo.
    Posts
    3,047
    Quote Originally Posted by BAC View Post
    The right to self defense isn't in question at all here. We all recognize that as an essential human right. We're talking about, as the topic title suggests, what gun control laws are considered "reasonable", a term I omitted for "constitutional" since "reasonable" can't be discussed in a legal sense but "constitutional" can. None of my suggestions restrict rights.
    Mode of carry restrictions? You are going to support legislation that tells you how you can carry a gun, in what type of holster, in what position to wear the holster?

    In all fairness, the prohibition on modes of carry is a state issue, NOT a federal one, and I shouldn't have included them. I'll go back and strike those accordingly.
    It is a non-issue as in neither the state's nor federal government's interest or business how I carry a weapon.

    So again, I ask why do you have a problem with training requirements, given the quoted text of the constitution above and the lack of explanation on your part?
    The very nature of the right to own and carry weapons is that there is no qualification to acquire or exercise the right. If we are to require training to exercise rights, then we should be properly trained to:

    know how to resist the quartering of troops
    know how to hold protests
    know how to petition the government
    know how to practice or not practice religion
    know how to request council during criminal proceedings
    know how the bail system works
    know what is excessive fines or cruel and unusual punishment is
    know how to be presumed innocent before proven guilty

    Hell, we should have licensing to be able to not have soldiers quartered into our homes, we should be registered as being knowledgeable about criminal proceedings. Look everyone, I'm a licensed protester!!! Yippee!

    The government does not have the right to tell me how I can carry a gun nor ask me to provide qualifications or training to exercise a right in which they have no right to regulate in the first place. The very essence of a right is that it is not earned. There is nothing one has to perform or prove to obtain or exercise a right. Even thinking of it goes against everything the Constitution stands for.

    "No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, nor charge a fee therefore."

    Murdock v PA

    It's this un-American liberal crap trying to regulate a right, finding any way to get their greasy little claws around our rights and squeeze and squeeze and squeeze until there is nothing left. This is supposed to be a pro gun forum but I can't believe the stuff that is being written here. Some of us here are worse than Obama. I can't believe there are gun owners out there that actually believe this crap works and are actually in favor of this crap. I'm at a complete shock.
    07/02 FFL/SOT since 2006

  5. #49
    BAC
    BAC is offline
    VIP Member Array BAC's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    2,292
    Quote Originally Posted by Tubby45 View Post
    Mode of carry restrictions? You are going to support legislation that tells you how you can carry a gun, in what type of holster, in what position to wear the holster?
    Personally, no. But whether or not a state permits concealed or open carry has been a discussion that's existed since the early 1800s and it's always been left to the states. Aymette v. The State, 21 Tenn made fairly clear that the types of arms and how they are carried may be regulated by the states (if the arms are not deemed suitable to the purpose of the militia). My point is that this is a state decision, not a national one. In my state, I already see it: we're not allowed, under any circumstance, to openly carry arms unless we're a uniformed police or security officer. I have every intention of pushing to change this when I'm more financially grounded. None of us have to like it, but the whole point of a representative republic is to manage exactly these decisions locally since "one-size-fits-all" legislation simply doesn't work.

    It is a non-issue as in neither the state's nor federal government's interest or business how I carry a weapon.
    You're ignoring the point. It's not the authority of the federal government to dictate how you carry a weapon, but it is within the authority of the states to legislate how you carry a weapon. The Constitution's pretty clear on that. If you don't like being told how to carry a weapon, take your case to your legislators, get support, and change the system to your liking. We have a legal process for a reason.

    The very nature of the right to own and carry weapons is that there is no qualification to acquire or exercise the right. If we are to require training to exercise rights, then we should be properly trained to:

    know how to resist the quartering of troops
    know how to hold protests
    know how to petition the government
    know how to practice or not practice religion
    know how to request council during criminal proceedings
    know how the bail system works
    know what is excessive fines or cruel and unusual punishment is
    know how to be presumed innocent before proven guilty
    The problem with all of your examples is that the wording of the Second Amendment is unlike any other provision in the Constitution. It explains itself. The First Amendment says Congress can't create law respecting an establishment of religion, "or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances". It only says what Congress can't do, making no reference for how Americans are to be. The Third Amendment isn't even an absolute ("but in a manner to be prescribed by law.").

    You cannot pick and choose which of the Constitution to ignore or not ignore. If you don't like a part, petition for change and get it amended. Until then, read the Second Amendment as a whole. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Congress already has a constitutional duty to make sure the militia is armed and trained. Would you object to them enforcing that provision (Article 1, Sec 8, Clause 14)?

    The government does not have the right to tell me how I can carry a gun nor ask me to provide qualifications or training to exercise a right in which they have no right to regulate in the first place. The very essence of a right is that it is not earned. There is nothing one has to perform or prove to obtain or exercise a right. Even thinking of it goes against everything the Constitution stands for.

    "No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, nor charge a fee therefore."

    Murdock v PA
    I mentioned nowhere about prohibitive use of mandatory training; in fact, I emphasized pretty strongly it not be prohibitive, because the second it becomes prohibitive it is no longer constitutional. The idea is all citizens who compromise the militia (you know, We The People), be armed and trained, and Congress is charged with finding some way to do it. The model was designed very closely to that of the Swiss, minus the mandatory military service, since conscription is arguably slavery. What other way can you possible think of to ensure that both Congress fulfills its constitutional duties and that we, the armed of America, are a well-regulated militia, and also have this apply equally across the country?

    Then let me ask you a question. Do you or do you not believe that we are to be a well regulated militia?

    It's this un-American liberal crap trying to regulate a right, finding any way to get their greasy little claws around our rights and squeeze and squeeze and squeeze until there is nothing left. This is supposed to be a pro gun forum but I can't believe the stuff that is being written here. Some of us here are worse than Obama. I can't believe there are gun owners out there that actually believe this crap works and are actually in favor of this crap. I'm at a complete shock.
    You're all over the place with this one. Your understanding of liberal, and for that matter likely conservative, is clearly off with regards to politics. Nothing I've suggested squeezes any rights, unless you are that vehemently against no less than two provisions of the U.S. Constitution (one listed among the duties of Congress, one listed within the Bill of Rights, not even including the "well-regulated" reference of the Second Amendment itself). What have I written that would provoke the Obama reference, and what on earth is being promoted a something that "works"?

    The topic was really damn simple, and effectively asked a question: what would be reasonable gun control. Since we can't argue "reasonable", but we can argue "constitutionality", I went the latter route. I'm not pushing an agenda; I'm responding to the original topic. Yes, gun control that is constitutional is possible; hard, yes, and requires strict self-control by government and strict oversight by We The People, but still possible. Does anything I said equate to Congress infringing on your right to keep and bear arms if everyone is trained, regardless of whether or not they wish to keep arms?


    -B

  6. #50
    VIP Member Array goldshellback's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    OKC; by way of St. Mayberry, GA
    Posts
    4,750
    Quote Originally Posted by mr.stuart View Post
    Criminals do not care about gun control
    I disagree, I think criminals LOVE gun control! Makes thier 'job' a little safer for them
    "Just getting a concealed carry permit means you haven't commited a crime yet. CCP holders commit crimes." Daniel Vice, senior attorney for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, quoted on Fox & Friends, 8 Jul, 2008

    (Sometimes) "a fight avioded is a fight won." ... claude clay

  7. #51
    Senior Member Array ronwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    816
    At most, "reasonable" gun laws would be a shall issue permit system with a background check only for violent criminal history and VERIFIED mental instability. Gun possesion illegal for violent felons (rapists, armed robbers, child molestors, murderers, etc.), no carry under the influence and nation wide reciprocity.
    Member NRA, SAF and Georgiacarry.org
    “America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.” Abraham Lincoln

  8. #52
    VIP Member Array Rob99VMI04's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    NOVA...200 square miles surrounded by reality
    Posts
    3,180
    Quote Originally Posted by PaulJ View Post
    The term "reasonable gun control" has been abused in the past. I was wondering what the members of this forum consider "reasonable", in particular when it comes to concealed carry permits.

    In my opinion, I consider the following reasonable:

    - Convicted felons should not be permitted to carry guns.


    - Alcohol and guns don't mix. While I wouldn't mind carry in bars, I would consider similar rules as for DUI reasonable.

    - Minors should not carry guns. 21 vs. 18 years old: I don't really care. If they are old enough to serve in the armed forces, they are probably old enough to carry.

    - I don't mind mandatory training. Having people carry concealed without a basic understanding of gun safety and reasonable use of force is a scary aspect to me. 100% Disagree. Training should be optional not mandatory. Whos gonna run it? What if its too expensive for the lady next door, do she now become a victim of red tape gun control. I'm sure if you look at shootings in Vermont (no training Requiremen/no permit requirement) vs. Texas strict training requirement you probably find the number of "bad" shootings probably is equal.

    - A gun owner is responsible for guns they own, and responsible for keeping them out of BGs hands by reasonably securing them (either have them close to you at all times, or lock them up)
    Just because somebody goes to jail they loose the right to defend themselves I don't know about that. I'm still trying to find in the constitution the part that says....the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed....however. Look if you don't want them to have a gun or want to disallow them access, "DON'T RELEASE THEM FROM PRISON" People make mistakes, I've made them I'm sure everybody has. Pay for your mistakes then continue living life.

    100% Disagree. Training should be optional not mandatory. Whos gonna run it? What if its too expensive for the lady next door, do she now become a victim of red tape gun control. I'm sure if you look at shootings in Vermont (no training Requiremen/no permit requirement) vs. Texas strict training requirement you probably find the number of "bad" shootings probably is equal.
    “Are you a thermometer or a thermostat, do you reflect or become what is happening in the room or do you change the atmosphere, reset the temperature when you come into the room”?--Chuck Swindoll

    Its not about guns...Its about Freedom!

  9. #53
    Senior Member Array rmilchman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    780
    Quote Originally Posted by Rob99VMI04 View Post

    100% Disagree. Training should be optional not mandatory. Whos gonna run it? What if its too expensive for the lady next door, do she now become a victim of red tape gun control. I'm sure if you look at shootings in Vermont (no training Requiremen/no permit requirement) vs. Texas strict training requirement you probably find the number of "bad" shootings probably is equal.
    I think training is mandatory, just need to define what training actually is. When I bought my gun it was given to me in the box and away I went.

    In my opinion what should have a happened was the dealer should have asked me if I knew how to use this particular weapon. If not spent 30 minutes with me putting some rounds through it, show me its basic safety functions and how to strip it. I would consider this being trained.

  10. #54
    VIP Member Array Rob99VMI04's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    NOVA...200 square miles surrounded by reality
    Posts
    3,180
    Quote Originally Posted by rmilchman View Post
    I think training is mandatory, just need to define what training actually is. When I bought my gun it was given to me in the box and away I went.

    In my opinion what should have a happened was the dealer should have asked me if I knew how to use this particular weapon. If not spent 30 minutes with me putting some rounds through it, show me its basic safety functions and how to strip it. I would consider this being trained.

    Still disagree 100%, I'm still waiting for that clause about training to materialize in the 2A about being a requirement to own, possess, use, purchase etc........

    I would HOPE that most people seek out knowledge, and Skills to safely use a gun, however, it should not be madatory.

    Where do you draw the line on training?
    Who regulates it/how rigorus is the training? ? BATF (isn't there a E on the end now?) Okay BATFET! well then in 2 years a NAVY SEAL/SAS/ or SF operator would probably not be able to pass it if the Dems take control of the executive house. Because they would probably require a license to fly an F-22 Raptor a long with your Trident/Tab ect.....

    If I have a medical condition let say carpaltunnel do I get a waiver?
    Now that I have arthritis am I not allowed to protect myself, because I can't pass the "Training Requirement"?
    Can they make it tougher?
    How much does it cost?
    If somebody can only afford a handgun and not the training are they not allowed to protect themselves?

    I know where your coming from and believe me I hope everybody knows how to use a gun, and can deploy it effectively. However, in my state (VA) , there are no training requirents to fire, load, draw from a holster....etc.... to apply fro a Concealed handgun permit. I can't remember of a shooting by a ccw holder where they shot and missed and hit an innocent bystandard. In fact the last 3 ND's I know of where by LEO's and one by a secruity guard.

    IIRC the last bad shooting I heard of in the state was at the former Shooters Paradise Federal officer shot himself in the butt

    Just like everything else in the world you have the right to free speech however, you impeed on somebody elses well being i.e. threatening them. Well you are responsible for your actions.
    “Are you a thermometer or a thermostat, do you reflect or become what is happening in the room or do you change the atmosphere, reset the temperature when you come into the room”?--Chuck Swindoll

    Its not about guns...Its about Freedom!

  11. #55
    Senior Member Array cmidkiff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Kansas City, Missouri
    Posts
    835
    Our right to keep and bear arms should be as free of infringement as any other right protected by the constitution. I should not have to conform to any more rules, laws, or regulations in order to purchase, own, or carry a firearm than I do in order to purchase, own, or carry a book, or to attend a church service. The right to keep and bear arms is no less important, and no less protected, than the right to free speech, or the right to freedom of religion, or any other right that is supposed to be protected by the constitution.

    When I can order a new Glock 18 through the mail, have it delivered to my front door, strap it to my hip and catch a flight across the country with it... then, and only then, will I consider my right to keep and bear arms free of restriction.

    Training? What other right do you have that you must submit to mandated training prior to exercising? Perhaps a mandatory class might prevent dangerous idiots like Fred Phelps from exercising their freedom of speech. Would it be worth it if it did?

    Felons? It doesn't seem to me that the current NICS system is preventing felons from obtaining firearms... they seem to be able to get them anyway. Why must I submit to a background check when the practice demonstratively fails in it's goals of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals? How much more draconian must the laws get before they would prevent felons from obtaining weapons? (hint: no law would suffice)
    Liberty is an inherently offensive lifestyle. Living in a free society guarantees that each one of us will see our most cherished principles and beliefs questioned and in some cases mocked. It's worth it.

  12. #56
    BAC
    BAC is offline
    VIP Member Array BAC's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    2,292
    Quote Originally Posted by Rob99VMI04 View Post
    Still disagree 100%, I'm still waiting for that clause about training to materialize in the 2A about being a requirement to own, possess, use, purchase etc........
    You won't find it in the Bill of Rights. However, you will find it in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 14 of the Constitution. Congress has a constitutional duty to ensure that the militia, which consists of We The People, is armed, trained, and ready for militia service if it should ever be needed. The Second Amendment recognizes the need of the people to keep and bear arms by placing a limit on Congress so they could never take away the right to keep and bear arms. Mandatory training, especially if covered by the administrating parties (or private parties approved by Congressional review for those who might want more intensive training) and given to everyone equally (gun owning or not) is within the powers of Congress.

    Whether or not you support the notion is another matter entirely. That becomes a matter of opinion. The law, as it stands, provides for mandatory training if that's how Congress deems it necessary to fulfill its constitutional duties and it is not conducted in a way that would prohibit keeping and bearing of arms.


    -B

  13. #57
    Senior Member Array PaulJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    616
    Training should include more then just gun safety. It should include some knowledge about the respective laws. What about mandatory training without test? At least you have to listen to it.
    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. (Thomas Jefferson)

  14. #58
    Senior Member Array bluelineman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    854
    I forgot to mention in my previous post...I think the only restricted place for CCW should be a jail/prison. I feel that we should also be able to carry on planes. 9/11 may not have ever happened if this were the case.

  15. #59
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,845
    "Reasonable Gun Control" is a myth. It always has been and it will
    always be.

    Every single law or regulation dealing with guns started out being "reasonable".

    The real fly in the ointment is that what is reasonable to me, may not be to you...or vice versa.

    I think that it is reasonable to own some very high powered rifles. Politicians in several states do not.
    I think that it is reasonable to own semi auto versions of assault weapons.Politicians in several states do not.
    I think that it is reasonable to be able to walk home with my gun when I pay for it. Politicians is several states do not.
    I think that it reasonable to be able to suppress a rifle or pistol for target shooting or hunting...guess what, Politicians in several states do not.

    The problem is, that we dont make the law. Politicians do and they really dont care what me or you think about it.

    Anyone that thinks there is "reasonable gun control" needs to take some history courses and study up. Maybe then, you'll be able to see how history has taken its course, with reasonable gun control.
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  16. #60
    Senior Member Array Phillep Harding's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    821
    I'm all for reasonable gun control, but I'm also willing to compromise; Let's repeal half of the laws and see what happens.

    The problem I see with requiring training, etc, is that the government that is supposed to supply the training can play games to reduce the number of people who pass. They can pull a Chicago and "run out of forms", reschedule the class or move it and "forget" to inform people, charge too much, require that only one clerk handle the paperwork or answer questions (and, oops, she's out sick today), "find" errors on an intentionally ambiguous form, fall prey to a budget cut, and on and on and on. Or simply "lose" the paperwork.

    And the very same games can, and are, played on the people trying to regain their rights to keep and bear firearms after a felony conviction.

    Anything that requires an action by a government can be subverted to prevent that action from taking place.

Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Looking for a S&W 637 whats a reasonable price?
    By rainyday in forum Defensive Carry Guns
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: September 27th, 2009, 12:39 PM
  2. Police chief says something reasonable about bad cop
    By paramedic70002 in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: April 1st, 2009, 09:23 PM
  3. Reasonable Restrictions
    By 2edgesword in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: July 20th, 2008, 04:02 PM
  4. Reasonable Gun Control Solution
    By Pitmaster in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: August 29th, 2007, 12:42 PM

Search tags for this page

gun control commercial

Click on a term to search for related topics.