Defensive Carry banner

The importance of 2A (many people are pro-regulation)

5K views 93 replies 20 participants last post by  Kerbouchard 
#1 ·
I have always felt that most people are more 2A pro-regulation then anti-regulation.

Why I believe the only reason gun owners rights are protected at the current level is because the 2nd is a constitutional right not a privlage dictated by the majority.

Yes, it is CNN. But there are a lot of surveys that show the average is less pro-gun then the NRA

Gun control: Election Center 2008 - CNN.com
 
#2 ·
actually you have no rights under the constitution! Constitution was designed to protect your god given ( or birth) rights. we are all born with right to carry. the 2A protects that right. That protection should only be taken away when we have done something to hurt ( not Protect) others. About more people being pro regulation to a extent your probably right. it is regulated now. we have to have a CHL or do a background check to buy. I think we are regulated enough. <-- that last part is opinionated.
 
#9 ·
I'm more comfortable with Kerbouchard and Hotgun's views then I would be with a lot of so called "liberals."

I can't agree that firearms should be unregulated. I do believe some regulations can be reasonable.

Just because a politician uses "reasonable" to suggest no one should be allowed to CC does not stop me from disagreeing with that point and then suggesting the reasonable regulation.

I also respect the anti-gun point of view, if the concern is real and not just hype. Often it is a matter of priorities and anti-gun just has their priorities mixed up.

With that said, I understand if you can't agree with me, and I respect, and even favor you views if give only two options.

..Constitution was designed to protect your god given (or birth) rights..
We can agree on this.
 
#3 ·
I have always felt that most people are more 2A pro-regulation then anti-regulation.
That may be true where you are at up in the cold North, but it surely aint true around here.

We are already regulated enough.

How would more regulations do any good whatsoever?

Answer: they would'nt.
 
#4 ·
If anybody could point to one fact that proves regulation has helped anything I would be inclined to reconsider my postion. As of yet, that has not happened.

It turns out, criminals, by definition, do not obey laws or regulations. If they did, they wouldn't be criminals.
 
#5 ·
...point to one fact that proves regulation has helped anything ...
I don't want research to do a term paper. Further any study I might point out, most will just argue about the facts of the study. I'm not anti-gun, I'm understanding to the pro-regulation crowd. In some situation it is the right choice.

Don't just consider me anti-gun just because I'm semi-pro-regulation. You will find that I'm pro-university carry and airport pick-up / drop off. But I'm against CC carry "IN" airports and on a plane. I think there are some reasonable (common sense) regulatons.

I once told a friend of a friend (who was anti-gun) that I felt some reasonable regulation was needed for firearms. Immediately thought I was on board, and went on to talk how everyone who CC is a nut. I was CC at the time. I casually said I dis not consider that view to be reasonable, then let the conversation drop politely because I did not want to share with him I was armed.

So when you hear me say I'm pro-reasonable regulation, please consider, what I call reasonable is not the same as anti-gun. Should we let the anti-gun crowd own any phrase that starts with reasonable?

I don't think "reasonable regulation" is a bad word. I will not let the anti-gun people own that phrase.
 
#93 ·
I just want to know one case where a criminal or mass shooter walked up to a gun free zone, saw the sign, and turned around and left because guns weren't allowed there.
Here ya go Kerbouchard. An example of the effects of gun control zones on a BG.

Gun Free Zones


:wave:
 
#7 ·
Consider this Thanis...

every single regulation that deals with firearms is considered "reasonable" by someone.

Sarah Brady harps that registration of all firearms is reasonable.

Joe Biden says that a reasonable person, does not need, evil black assault weapons, or anything that resembles them.

Bill Clinton told everyone that reasonable man didn't need any more than 10 rounds in his magazine.

Rudy Guiliani thinks that reasonable people don't need guns for self defense in his city, one of the highest ranking in violent crime in the nation.

Here is another example...
But I'm against CC carry "IN" airports and on a plane. I think there are some reasonable (common sense) regulations.
What is reasonable to you is not to me.

If you knew much about aircraft construction at all, you would understand that a bullet hole, or even several of them will not bring down a plane. In stead, you think that you reasonable regulation will keep weapons off of planes. Sure, thats true for people that obey the law, but someone that is dedicated and willing will always find a way to get around those restrictions so in effect all you have done is guaranteed that everyone in that plane is defenseless.


So when you hear me say I'm pro-reasonable regulation, please consider, what I call reasonable is not the same as anti-gun. Should we let the anti-gun crowd own any phrase that starts with reasonable?

I don't think you are necessarily anti-gun, but it does appear that you argue the 'facts" as you know them from an anti-gun position and I am not the only one here that thinks that.
If your former posts are any indication of your thought process, I think that you have a lot of thinking to do on the issues.

Something else that concerns me. You worry too much about what the anti-gun crowd thinks. Me personally, I don't care what they think. They are so out of touch with reality that they aren't even reasonable enough for me to consider that anything they put out is "reasonable".

If the average person worried or cared about what they thought like you did, there wouldn't be a state in the union that had provisions for concealed weapons, every single gun would be registered for future confiscation, you could only buy one gun a month, your local police chief or mayor or even doctor would have to approve your purchase, you would have to undergo a mental evaluation, you might possibly have to store you arms in a locked vault at a gun club and any ammunition that could penetrate a vest would be illegal, and that would include most of them.

And if you think any in that last paragraph are "extreme" remember that every single one of them was proposed at one time or another as "reasonable regulation.

Get my drift ?
 
#8 ·
There are some regulations that are reasonable in my opinion. For instance, convicted felons, mentally impaired, people with a history of family abuse. These things that are asked on the 4473, and checked during a NICS check have in fact kept some people from purchasing firearms that should not be purchasing them. I don't have a real problem with that.

The hard core criminal, or a person that is dead set on purchasing a firearm to prove a point to the nation or whatever is not going to let a NICS check or the questions on the 4473 stop them from purchasing, stealing, or doing whatever to obtain a firearm for their activities, that is a given.

The trouble IMO lies with our failure or inability to enforce the laws that some would consider reasonable, ie those few things stated above, and when someone is caught who is a convicted felon, or domestic abuser or whatever they simply get a slap on the wrist and are sent on their way. So no real punishment is given for a crime that many feel is a reasonable restriction. If your not going to strictly inforce laws that many feel are reasonable it doesn't make any sense to put more laws on the books that many don't feel are reasonable. Then all your really doing is taking away rights from those that are not intending on breaking the laws anyway.

It is no different than illegal drugs, illegal immigration, or anything else we try to legislate out of existance. You can't do it with laws.
 
#10 ·
I also respect the anti-gun point of view, if the concern is real and not just hype. Often it is a matter or priorities and anti-gun just has their priorities mixed up.
The thing is the more you study up on their views, the more the hype,misrepresentation of fact and lies become evident.

As for priorities, for some it is exactly that. A priority for them to disarm me and take away my ability to defend myself. I do not respect that at all.

The country is full of people that used to be anti-gun and believe the whole Brady agenda, hook line and sinker, but had a life altering change of mind because of violence. All of a sudden they realized that all is not as it seems, and they took up guns for self defense.

I've heard the stories of many of them that came through CHL classes. They used to be anti, and realized the error of their ways.
 
#19 ·
The thing is the more you study up on their views, the more the hype,misrepresentation of fact and lies become evident.

As for priorities, for some it is exactly that. A priority for them to disarm me and take away my ability to defend myself. I do not respect that at all.

The country is full of people that used to be anti-gun and believe the whole Brady agenda, hook line and sinker, but had a life altering change of mind because of violence. All of a sudden they realized that all is not as it seems, and they took up guns for self defense.

I've heard the stories of many of them that came through CHL classes. They used to be anti, and realized the error of their ways.
I believe that happened to an Ohio legislator...anyone remember his name?

I love the South...most of the people in rural Florida still 'cling' to religion and guns...:yup::congrats::hand10::image119:

Stay armed...love the South...stay safe!
 
#13 ·
2A and regulation is a sensitive issue and anyone posting agreement one way or the other is subject to many flaming replies. I don't want the Federal Government telling me what I can and can't carry, or how many rounds, caliber, or whatever I can have. Unfortunately regulations are created based not on the trained and capable gun owner, but on the knuckleheads who endanger the public at large while pursuing their 2A rights.
 
#16 ·
I don't think "reasonable regulation" is a bad word. I will not let the anti-gun people own that phrase.
I hate that word with a passion.

Anytime you hear "reasonable regulation," that means you are about to get your eyeballs screwed right out of their sockets.

And when an anti gunner uses it, it means he wants to regulate and take more than what you are willing to give.
 
#17 ·
Reasonal regulation and common sense restrictions - two phrases often kicked about, but why are the so important today?

These phrases are so important today because they mean trading some freedom for more security. Is that necessary in today's society? To answer that question, let's look at what has changed? Over the past 50 - 60 years, personal freedom and liberty has been slowly encroached and encirled by regulation upon regulation, more state laws, more federal laws, and so many well meaning people in authority.

But is today really that much different than 50 or 60 years ago? I think not. Spend time reading journals and diaries from times past. Watch older movies (though not all are factual) from the 30's and 40's. The same concerns and issues were shared by prior generations as with current generations. Often times, men will "see a need," claim things have changed, so we need change? But do we really? Sure we do, but only in so much as decreasing criminal rights and restricting the courts and government powers back to a reasonable and common sense level.

Abolish all parole, no exceptions. Criminals serve their time and reenter society with ALL rights restored. So what's the catch? The length and severity of sentences. No more revolving doors, no light sentences, and make judges accountable. Commit car theft - 20 years. Commit a violent crime - 35 years. Commit murder - 30 - 50 years. Commit a property crime - 10 - 15 years. Violent sex offender or pedophile - life or death. Guess what, in about 5 years, crime will have dropped significantly. Folks will be safe to walk the streets again. And the best part - neither you nor I need to trade our liberty or freedoms to get it.

I'm ranting, so please forgive. It's just that I remember how much better things were than they are now and how much more freedom we enjoyed.
 
#18 ·
Guess what, in about 5 years, crime will have dropped significantly. Folks will be safe to walk the streets again. And the best part - neither you nor I need to trade our liberty or freedoms to get it.
Come on man...you are using way to much common sense here. You KNOW that wont fly.
 
#20 ·
"Fed UP"

"They all start with an inch, and continue until they have taken everything. Once people accept small regulations as commonplace, it is not as hard to get the next regulation passed because it is not that large of a step":nono:
Case in point is my county, rural area with most if not all surrounding ones supporting CCL'S. But of course I get stuck in the one with the Judge who, as a matter of "principle" does not issue. I am on the road sales, and therefore rarely in the cty of residence. Do I stick my neck out and appeal on a state level to be granted a carry for all ctys but the cty of residence? What a bunch of Tripe!!:twak:
I am law abiding, I have had a permit for 18 years, and my right to bear arms has clearly been infringed. I am too old to roll over for this crap. I am about to get "Lawyerd Up". Any ideas, or legal precedents? Thanks in advance, and fed up. This should be Federally Mandated!!:tired:
 
#22 ·
I agree with you completely. We recently had a poll where 85% of the forum membership wanted reasonable restrictions. The real problem, as you noted, is the phrase and its connotation. I prefer to simply read the words. Reasonable Restrictions. Age, citizenship, background checks, convictions, proficiency are restrictions that most people, including gun owners think are not only acceptable but necessary.

And we as a society must determine what is reasonable, just like in every other aspect of our lives. Fringe political beliefs and actions of activists only hurt our cause. The ONLY way we can succeed is effective political discourse. Despite the incorrect assertion that our rights are being curtailed, in reality our gun rights are being expanded through the hard work of dedicated politicians.
 
#24 ·
We can agree to "discourse," but in my book that is just a fancy, politically correct word for my getting screwed yet again by more well intentioned folks that think "we need to do something, this is something, so we need to do this."
''




Very well spoken ctr,

Excellent post. Finally,someone that sees it for what it is. Thankyou for that. :congrats:
 
#29 ·
The majority of pro-gun people fully believe that it it the God give right for anyone except possibly those in jail to own any gun they wish and carry it anywhere that they wish with no restrictions. That no one shoul ever have their guns deprived from them unless they use it in a crime and then only while they are incarcerated.

Is this a correct statement or not?
 
#31 ·
The majority of pro-gun people fully believe that it it the God give right for anyone except possibly those in jail to own any gun they wish and carry it anywhere that they wish with no restrictions. That no one shoul ever have their guns deprived from them unless they use it in a crime and then only while they are incarcerated/

Is this a correct statement or not?
I can't speak for the majority and yet, 85% of forum respondents want reasonable restrictions.

I am pro gun but I believe there are places that carry should be prohibited. I also believe there should be prohibitions for the mentally deficient, the incompetent, and those who have ever committed a felony.
 
#30 ·
When did I say that all governments were evil or that certain restrictions are bad? I'm only saying that we are born with unalienable rights. Freedoms if you will.
Sometime we surrender these rights to the group or government in order to live what we think might be a better life. We give up thses rights by choice or at other times by force.

Unalienable Rights
"By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect. People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123)."

Am I anti government? Depends on how you think I suppose. I believe governments are necessary if we expect to live together.
Do I believe they can be trusted? NO.
They need to be watched like a hawk. Our form of government was set up so that each branch of government would constantly be watching the other. Our founding fathers knew that it couldnt be trusted without checks on its power.

Michael
 
#32 ·
When did I say that all governments were evil or that certain restrictions are bad? I'm only saying that we are born with unalienable rights. Freedoms if you will.
Sometime we surrender these rights to the group or government in order to live what we think might be a better life. We give up thses rights by choice or at other times by force.
Never by force. We elect our representatives so we are the government.

Yes, we are born with inalienable rights. I agree with hat. But I have yet to see any enumeration and the authority for them. Certainly, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are typically offered as these rights but to believe that specifics like concealed carry is an inalienable rights has no factual support.

And no, I am not accusing you of being anti-government at all. Only that our government has specific, limited powers and legislating outside that realm is beyond their scope. Our government has no duty or responsibility to protect your rights because they have no power, other than that enumerated in the Constitution.
 
#34 ·
Thanis, it's hard to understand how you believe in the 2A, and yet believe in 'reasonable regulations'. Based on definitions which I pointed out in post #11, any regulation, reasonable or otherwise is an infringement and violation of the 2nd Amendment. I don't see a middle-ground. As soon as you allow the 2A to be eroded, there is nothing to check that erosion. The erosion will continue until the 2A is only something mentioned in the History books as a misguided thought a long time ago.
 
#35 ·
Thanis, it's hard to understand how you believe in the 2A, and yet believe in 'reasonable regulations'...., reasonable or otherwise is an infringement and violation of the 2nd Amendment....
Look up the words infringed then look up the word reasonable.

I will not consider the word "reasonable regulation" as a bad word. I will not concede the word "reasonable" to anti-gun.

Infringed and reasonable do not negate each other. As a citizen of the United State, I demand that every politician who serves at the federal level to only create reasonable restrictions that do not violate, or infringe on, the right to bear arms. I think every gun-owner who is a US citizen should make this demand.


I don't see a middle-ground...
Because you choose not to. How very liberal of you.

...As soon as you allow the 2A to be eroded, there is nothing to check that erosion. The erosion will continue until the 2A is only something mentioned in the History books as a misguided thought a long time ago...
I will use two classic, non-2A, examples.

1) You have the right to express yourself. This does not give you the right to yell "fire" in a theater.

2) There is freedom of the press and freedom of information. That does not give the press the right to print the name and aka of every CIA agent.

The erosion argument only goes so far.

For example, if you want to hold me to one reasonable restriction I believe in, I do not believe 2A protects a right to carry, or CC a firearm on an airplane or in an airport. Thats my opinion. I am offended when a gun-nut thinks I'm anti-gun because of this opinion. I do believe 2A protects the right to CC while picking someone up at the airport.
 
#62 ·
Actually ctr, that post seems pretty eloquent to me.
+1

...Yes, I disagree that gun owner rights are protected at the current level because of 2A. Historically, we had more rights in the past, even in my lifetime this has been true. We have lost many of those rights - how did 2A protect it? It did not. You get what you fight for....
I'm disappointed we can't see eye to eye on the first post. I consider 2A a water break that prevented public opinion from prohibiting or allowing even greater restrictions.

Historical fact is controlled fron the view you determine and you do not value modern surveys or polls nor their interpretation. You believe in a silent majority that I can not quantify beyond what you feel is fact.

It is an irony, as it is not unlike many "feelings" anti-gun has concerning statistics and also history.

....That does not make my position any less relevant, nor my beliefs any less valuable.
It does make your position less relevant, as there is no way to quantify what is fact. I've been trying to find a better way of stating this, but I can't find something PC. :9:

Thank you for your honest reply.

"Reasonable restrictions" remind me of the reasonable restriction that Hitler convinced Lord Chamberlain to accept when he proposed that all he wanted was Czechoslovakia. We all know how that reasonable restriction turned out.
1st, you are providing an example of something that was unreasonable. 2nd, you remind me that people don't like reasonable restrictions or preventative gun laws but are willing to agree with
a preventative war foreign policy doctrine.

FYI to all Nazi arguments. Look up Godwin's Law.

The overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact. I know that by even knowing this term I'm going to read about how liberial I am, etc. But almost every time Nazi as a historical refrence is used on this forum it really does robs the valid comparisons of their impact.
 
#54 ·
"Reasonable restrictions" remind me of the reasonable restriction that Hitler convinced Lord Chamberlain to accept when he proposed that all he wanted was Czechoslovakia. We all know how that reasonable restriction turned out.
 
#68 ·
1st, you are providing an example of something that was unreasonable.
Exactly! But at the time Chamberlain was willing to accept the offer and to sacrifice Czechoslovakia in hopes that would prevent any additional demands on Great Britain. I believe we call that appeasement. Those who rail against gun owners for not wanting to accept further restrictions do so in hopes that we haven't learned from history. Besides the myriad gun laws that currently exist haven't stopped the criminals. Therefore, why should we believe even more "reasonable restrictions" will have a different outcome?

2nd, you remind me that people don't like reasonable restrictions or preventative gun laws but are willing to agree with
a preventative war foreign policy doctrine.
Apples and Oranges. A country's foreign policy is beyond the scope of this discussion of our rights as protected by the 2nd Amendment to our Constitution.
 
#57 ·
Very interesting thus far:blink:
The problem that I see with the arguements that some are putting out is that they are the same ones that Nancy Pelosi, Bill Clinton and Rudy Guliani either have used or are still using.
If we can't mention Germany in the 30's then how about the United Kingdom today. They use the words reasonable, safe, safety, public good and what is best for society and look where they have ended up. Would anyone consider where they are now to be reasonable?:aargh4:
They didn't get there overnight, but they did start with the reasonable restriction arguement.
What is reasonable to me is not reasonable to others in this thread. What is reasonable to many of the politicians is certainly not reasonable to anyone here.
The problem with "reasonable" is that like "pornography" it is nearly impossible to define.
Why can't we call it a right and punish those who misuse it? Maybe that is to simple or maybe I'm too simpleminded!:confused:
 
#58 ·
Why can't we call it a right and punish those who misuse it? Maybe that is too simple or maybe I'm too simpleminded!:confused:
No, you're not too simpleminded and it is that simple. Our politicians are just too simpleminded to understand it.
 
#59 ·
Gunnutty summed it up eloquently.
 
#60 ·
Our politicians are just too simpleminded to understand it.
As are some posters that tend to overly complicate it.

But make no mistake, while I believe that some politicians dont understand, some understand exactly what they are doing....which is trying to eliminate private ownership of guns in the most subtle way that they know of.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top