Reasonable Gun Control

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.
- 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)

reasonable gun control means hitting the target you aim for, nothing more!

Reasonable gun control is the same law for politicians as it is for the rest of us. Oh ya, that goes for their bodyguards and police officers. Oh and the military, too.

The problem with "reasonable gun control" is that somebody else decides FOR YOU what is reasonable. I personally would prefer the same ability to carry my gun as a police officer, or a politician.

I know this goes aginst the grain of many 2A beliefs, but with the increasing 'popularity' of carrying I do feel there is a need for training those who have little experience of firearms prior to exercising that right. Safety, compentence, and knowledge of the law are necessary to make (and act if necessary) knowledgable decisions in a high stress situation.

I've carried when no prior training was required, but I also grew up with and around guns and strict adherence to ALL safty requirements......many today don't or haven't had that opportunity. I've since had several oppurtunities to instruct others and made opportunities for myself for further instruction....the experience is invaluable. Having also 'experienced' those with no training AND carrying weapons thier NOT qualified to use, I can fully understand (and insist on) the 'need' for making a baseline training a requirment.

Having said that, I have a 'quiet' fear of what someone else, in a leadership position, will deem as "reasonable" for me. It's a nasty 'catch phrase' that our leaders use to restrict us further and further in that Orwellian abyss.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Free American

The problem with "reasonable gun control" is that somebody else decides FOR YOU what is reasonable. I personally would prefer the same ability to carry my gun as a police officer, or a politician.

---

+1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shawn45

reasonable gun control means hitting the target you aim for, nothing more!

---

I agree, the problem with these types of laws that "allow" us to exercise our rights is we are chipping away at our freedoms as laid out by the founding fathers and all that lost American blood in defending them.

What's next "reasonable birth control" like China has? "Reasonable medical controls" like the UK has? I know these are extreme examples, but are they really (Hillarycare?, Planned Parenthood?)

I will counter your question with another question,

"What is Reasonable about Gun Control?"

There is nothing legal, or reasonable in regards to Gun Control. Why? Because its already against the law to kill people. People do it anyway.

Somebody who is not deterred by the laws against the crimes they already commit, will not be deterred by the laws against guns.

All reasonable gun control does is disadvantage Law-Abiding citizens. It has NO impact on a criminal. By definition, a criminal is someone who acts in disregard for the law. So, how could more laws ever become a reasonable solution?

The problem I am having, and the reason I started this thread, is that I for example will not join the NRA. I think what we need is an open an honest discussion of gun rights and responsibilities. Some of the posts here remind me of the reason why I wasn't carrying until recently.

If you look at any right provided by the constitution, it is controlled by laws. The 2nd. amendment should not be any different. As you have a right to carry, so I have a right to walk into Walmart without being afraid that a new rightful but untrained gun owner is practicing quick draws while enjoying his Nachos.

If you think its a good idea for everybody to carry, wouldn't it be a good idea for everybody to understand gun safety?

Quote:

---

What's next "reasonable birth control" like China has?

---

the US does have laws regulating birth control / abortion.

Quote:

---

Having said that, I have a 'quiet' fear of what someone else, in a leadership position, will deem as "reasonable" for me.

---

exactly what happens if nobody reasonable will stand up and talk to them. FWIW: I personally consider the training requirement in Florida reasonable.

Quote:

---

I personally would prefer the same ability to carry my gun as a police officer, or a politician.

---

I agree on the politician. As far as the police officer (or someone else mentioned military) goes: Are you willing to go thorugh the same training and qualify once a year?

Gun control and shall not be infringed don't really mix.

-If they are a dangerous felon they should be in jail, if not then give them their rights.
-Alcohol and guns don't mix, but what's the limit, one, two, none. Let me be responsible for my actions and suffer any resulting consequences.
-Minors have limited rights as is, so I'm fine with an age restriction.
-Training requirements are a clear infringment. It's like requiring a high school education to vote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PaulJ

The problem I am having, and the reason I started this thread, is that I for example will not join the NRA. I think what we need is an open an honest discussion of gun rights and responsibilities. Some of the posts here remind me of the reason why I wasn't carrying until recently.

If you look at any right provided by the constitution, it is controlled by laws. The 2nd. amendment should not be any different. As you have a right to carry, so I have a right to walk into Walmart without being afraid that a new rightful but untrained gun owner is practicing quick draws while enjoying his Nachos.

---

Pray tell, has this ever been an issue for you? Or anyone you've ever heard of? Can you cite a news story where someone was arrested for "practicing quick draws while enjoying his Nachos?"

To me, this is the sort of appeal to emotion that clouds the issue.

Matt

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PaulJ

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.
- 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)

---

And every one of those points is the law in Florida (and I suspect in the vast majority of other states). Not sure what the issue here is.

Matt

No felons.
Purchase at 18yo, including handguns, including from a dealer.

That's it. No others are necessary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Free American

The problem with "reasonable gun control" is that somebody else decides FOR YOU what is reasonable. I personally would prefer the same ability to carry my gun as a police officer, or a politician.

---

I agree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MattLarson

And every one of those points is the law in Florida (and I suspect in the vast majority of other states). Not sure what the issue here is.

Matt

---

I don't have much of a problem with alcohol and guns on your own property, in public yes. If I want to stay home and drink few beers while being armed that is my business and not the public nor government's interest.

Mandatory training is an infringement. I do not need training to have the other 9 rights protected by the BoR, I sure as hell don't need it to exercise the right to carry a weapon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 500Mag

Gun control and shall not be infringed don't really mix.

-If they are a dangerous felon they should be in jail, if not then give them their rights.

---

fellons are for example denied the right to vote.

Quote:

---

-Alcohol and guns don't mix, but what's the limit, one, two, none. Let me be responsible for my actions and suffer any resulting consequences.

---

There are some limits already established for driving. Why not take the same limit? Keeps things simple and the limits used for driving are well established.

Quote:

---

-Training requirements are a clear infringment. It's like requiring a high school education to vote.

---

or being of a certain age to vote?

Rights are regularly regulated in order to avoid conflicts with the rights of others. Do you vote for a politician, even if the particular person does not allow you to attend their rally armed?