What are "Reasonable Restrictions"?

[Juany]

I'm not trying to make a literal comparison. Only suggesting that limits do apply to other rights.

Walking into a school with an AR might also cause some panic.

 

[Diamondback]

How's this for a line:

If it can be carried and operated by a single person, other than Disguised Firearms, and works on Ballistics/Kinetic Energy alone (i.e., no explosive charge or warhead) it's legal, anyone (except PP's) anytime anywhere. Disguised Firearms, Crew Served and Explosive are regulated the same as existing Title II NFA.

 

[Diamondback]

Walking into a school with an AR might also cause some panic.

Some places you cause a panic simply by having a penis in your pants...

 

[Juany]

Some places you cause a panic simply by having a penis in your pants...

Haha. Agreed. It's an interesting topic on reasonable restrictions.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Walking into a school with an AR might also cause some panic.

Walking into a school with AR will cause a panic...again...that is not the same as owning a gun.
This has nothing to do with my comments....
I said simply owning a gun will not harm anyone....Such as in the case of yelling fire , when there is none....or walking into a school with a gun....
The comparisons being used are not in the same class , so to speak....
Andy

 

[Juany]

Walking into a school with AR will cause a panic...again...that is not the same as owning a gun.
This has nothing to do with my comments....
I said simply owning a gun will not harm anyone....
The comparisons being used are not in the same class , so to speak....
Andy

Ok. Simply owing a nuke hurts no one as well but I think we can agree that's going too far.

Do you think there should be any limits on the 2a? If yes, what kind of limits? If no, then why not?

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Ok. Simply owing a nuke hurts no one as well but I think we can agree that's going too far.

Do you think there should be any limits on the 2a? If yes, what kind of limits? If no, then why not?

See my post on page 2 #33....
Andy

 

[Juany]

See my post on page 2 #33....
Andy

I read your post. You make some good points. I think reviewing what's working and what does not work regarding restrictions makes sense. I also infer by your post that you support some restrictions. The devil is in the details...
Getting a nation to agree to those details is a daunting task. And when I say agreeing I am referring to the laws/amendments that get passed.

 

[Geardo]

The mass shootings that we see now would be 100x worse. Imagine Las Vegas with RPGs. The public would not/should not stand for it.

How the hell is someone going to lug multiple RPGs around? You shoot once and have to reload. I doubt it would have been any worse.

About the only scary thing I can imagine someone using is a mk19, but it would be absurdly expensive to buy and feed, and you would have to have it mounted on a vehicle.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

I read your post. You make some good points. I think reviewing what's working and what does not work regarding restrictions makes sense. I also infer by your post that you support some restrictions. The devil is in the details...
Getting a nation to agree to those details is a daunting task. And when I say agreeing I am referring to the laws/amendments that get passed.

The first part of my post , #33 , aren't just "points"...
The definition of the word Arms , comes from the Websters Dictionary...
You could indeed , be fined for showing up to duty with sub-standard arms ...that is from many different first hand accounts of the Revolution and before as well...
The English were after Arms stored in Concord , including cannon...again from period accounts...
If you read the 2nd Amendment you see the wordage I stated ....and not the " Arms of this type , but not that type" etc...
These are not just points , they either actually happened or exist.

The rest of my post might considered "points" more open to debate....
Andy

 

[Juany]

How the hell is someone going to lug multiple RPGs around? You shoot once and have to reload. I doubt it would have been any worse.

About the only scary thing I can imagine someone using is a mk19, but it would be absurdly expensive to buy and feed, and you would have to have it mounted on a vehicle.

Not the point. How did that guy get all of his weapons into a hotel room?
The question is what limits if any would you support on the 2a?

 

[Mister Bisley]

Your comments are all over the place.

I support no limits except that felons, non-citizens and the mentally ill shouldn't have them.

The conversation we should really be having is...What are unreasonable restrictions

 

[Juany]

The first part of my post , #33 , aren't just "points"...
The definition of the word Arms , comes from the Websters Dictionary...
You could indeed , be fined for showing up to duty with sub-standard arms ...that is from many different first hand accounts of the Revolution and before as well...
The English were after Arms stored in Concord , including cannon...again from period accounts...
If you read the 2nd Amendment you see the wordage I stated ....and not the " Arms of this type , but not that type" etc...
These are not just points , they either actually happened or exist.

The rest of my post might considered "points" more open to debate....
Andy

I'm not sure what you are trying to suggest. I'm not going to be fined for showing up to my militia with an inadequate weapon. Times have changed apparently. Our society is pushing back on the 2a. Do we as a society need/support some restrictions? That's the more interesting debate in my opinion.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

I'm not sure what you are trying to suggest. I'm not going to be fined for showing up to my militia with an inadequate weapon. Times have changed apparently. Our society is pushing back on the 2a. Do we as a society need/support some restrictions? That's the more interesting debate in my opinion.

No you are not going to be fined today , right now...
I disagree with your use of the word "points" , when you quoted me.
I was saying that what I posted , in my post #33 , at least in the first part , are not points...but fact.
Andy

 

[Geardo]

The question is what limits if any would you support on the 2a?

And I answered that. None, except nukes/ bio weapons etc. Cost will prohibit 99% of people from owning anything really fun, and most rich people don't go on shooting sprees.

I used to think restrictions were OK, and the more I thought, argued, and researched, the more against them I became.

 

[titsonritz]

Reasonable? How's this, don't try and take my bubblegum I won't kill you. It is really that simple.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

In regards to society changing...the fact that one could get fined for not having a arm or having substandard arms...is interesting.
It is interesting for the time period in question , because it sets up the precedent that having the same arms as the military was a common practice.

At later date , one could mail order and have delivered right to your door , no FFL needed...the then current issued military rifle , a 1903 Springfield...
Folks were encouraged to own said rifles....

In the 50's -1970's it was common to see the M1 rifle in hands of target shooters...
While not first in line with the regular Army in the 70's ...you do see pictures of M1's in the hands of National Guardsmen of the period.

It is "interesting " in that at one time , it was no big deal to own a current military rifle , but now...it is vastly different.
Andy

 

[Juany]

And I answered that. None, except nukes/ bio weapons etc. Cost will prohibit 99% of people from owning anything really fun, and most rich people don't go on shooting sprees.

I used to think restrictions were OK, and the more I thought, argued, and researched, the more against them I became.

Ok. I disagree but respect your opinion.

 

[Vettewine]

Nukes are an absurd example. I agree though that it demonstrates some limits. How about a fully functioning tank? Surface to air missles? Napalm?
The reasonable answer is that some restrictions are needed. The bigger question is where to draw that line. If we cannot be reasonable and thoughtful someone else will make that decision for us.

I think that the 2nd Amendment refers to (fire)arms and not to weapons of every kind possible...!

 

[Juany]

I think that the 2nd Amendment refers to (fire)arms and not to weapons of every kind possible...!

Some on this site might disagree.