What are "Reasonable Restrictions"?

[Juany]

A way to keep it out of the hands of criminals? Realistically, nothing. A vast majority of murders involving firearms are drug/gang related and they get their guns illegally. A vast majority of the guns used in murders are also handguns.

In the U.S, banning things never worked out too well and only gave power to criminal organizations.

Mass shootings has a solution, but it involves getting the media to stop sensationalizing the shooters by showing their face and name all over which turns them into folk heroes for the insane. It gives them incentive for other wackos to do the same act.

I never said anything about banning. I suggested universal background checks. Is that perfect? Nope. Reasonable? I believe it is.

 

[Juany]

A look into SSRI drugs, feminizing boys and pressures of social media etc might be a good place to start.

Guns aren't new but this style of horrendous acts are relatively so. Something that we have been doing in the last 20 years has brought this kind of mentality.

Agree. There are MANY reasons we have lost our way.

 

[Mister Bisley]

You keep trying to pound us with your beliefs, but I believe it's not the answer

 

[Mister Bisley]

Agree. There are MANY reasons we have lost our way.

Then why not delve into this further, before further constricting the rights of the people that do the right thing and will mostly be affected by these new laws you are suggesting?

 

[Boboclown]

I never said anything about banning. I suggested universal background checks. Is that perfect? Nope. Reasonable? I believe it is.

Re-read the first paragraph for context of the situation with banning. Most murders involving guns are gang/drug related due to the banning of substances. The mafia got power when alcohol was banned, cartel when drugs are banned. And the U.S is one of the biggest consumers of illegal substances.

Realistically, there's nothing we can do. Mass shootings are perpetuated by the media giving incentive to the wackjobs, and other murders involving firearms continue because of illegal drugs. For the most part anyways.

 

[Juany]

You keep trying to pound us with your beliefs, but I believe it's not the answer

So stop reading this post. The question posed was what are reasonable restrictions. I'm sharing my opinion and listening to others. We don't agree. That's ok. It's a debate and an interesting topic.

 

[Mister Bisley]

Re-read the first paragraph for context of the situation with banning. Most murders involving guns are gang/drug related due to the banning of substances. The mafia got power when alcohol was banned, cartel when drugs are banned. And the U.S is one of the biggest consumers of illegal substances.

Realistically, there's nothing we can do. Mass shootings are perpetuated by the media giving incentive to the wackjobs, and other murders involving firearms continue because of illegal drugs. For the most part anyways.

With freedom comes consequences

 

[Juany]

Re-read the first paragraph for context of the situation with banning. Most murders involving guns are gang/drug related due to the banning of substances. The mafia got power when alcohol was banned, cartel when drugs are banned. And the U.S is one of the biggest consumers of illegal substances.

Realistically, there's nothing we can do. Mass shootings are perpetuated by the media giving incentive to the wackjobs, and other murders involving firearms continue because of illegal drugs. For the most part anyways.

Yes. We can never stop all mass shootings. Can we limit them?

 

[Boboclown]

Yes. We can never stop all mass shootings. Can we limit them?

Yes, get the media to stop sensationalizing the shooters. It happens a lot here (relatively speaking) because our media gives them an incentive to do so. The people who commit the mass shootings typically idolize the mass shooters the media shows all over the place.

Copycat crime is done because it gets them attention.

 

[Juany]

With freedom comes consequences

Yes. I can accept that as well. Not looking for perfectionist. Hoping for improvement.

 

[Mister Bisley]

So stop reading this post. The question posed was what are reasonable restrictions. I'm sharing my opinion and listening to others. We don't agree. That's ok. It's a debate and an interesting topic.

But you're not listening. You keep trying to justify why we need more restrictions and at the same time, talk about how staunch you are when it comes to the 2A. Get off the fence already.

We could pass a law that would restrict all citizens from owning guns, but that wouldn't stop criminals. Look at London...they are talking about banning knives with sharp points for Christ's sake...where does it end?

 

[Juany]

But you're not listening. You keep trying to justify why we need more restrictions and at the same time, talk about how staunch you are when it comes to the 2A. Get off the fence already.

We could pass a law that would restrict all citizens from owning guns, but that wouldn't stop criminals. Look at London...they are talking about banning knives with sharp points for Christ's sake...where does it end?

I just simply disagree that we should do nothing. I think universal background checks are acceptable. Where does it end? That's the question suggested by the author of this post.

 

[Mister Bisley]

I just simply disagree that we should do nothing. I think universal background checks are acceptable. Where does it end? That's the question suggested by the author of this post.

I'm not suggesting that we do nothing. I am suggesting that we take a look at the real problems at hand, which is NOT the law abiding citizen.

Why aren't you up in arms about how the Broward County school system, Broward County Sheriffs Office AND the FBI all failed in Parkland? Your suggestions are merely aimed at the law abider, which will do nothing at all. We already do the right thing. How's the kool-aid tasting?

 

[Argonaut]

I believe that boboclown hit it on the head. The drug trade coupled to the incessant news coverage deviants get are primary problems, others are mood altering prescription drugs and violent video games that inordinately effect young men. We are going to have to get over the permissive attitude and legalization of recreational drugs, control and limit the use of drugs prescribed to young people and take a close look at the effects of extremely graphic violence in realistic video games on adolescent minds. We have created a modern society that is too quick to assign victim hood and slow to establish individual responsibility. I assign much of the root cause to the redicoulsy liberal academia and corosponding liberal teaching profession that has a large influence molding young minds in impressionable formative years.

 

[Juany]

Then why not delve into this further, before further constricting the rights of the people that do the right thing and will mostly be affected by these new laws you are suggesting?

We absolutely should. There are dozens

I'm not suggesting that we do nothing. I am suggesting that we take a look at the real problems at hand, which is NOT the law abiding citizen.

Why aren't you up in arms about how the Broward County school system, Broward County Sheriffs Office AND the FBI all failed in Parkland? Your suggestions are merely aimed at the law abider, which will do nothing at all. We already do the right thing. How's the kool-aid tasting?

There is lots of blame to go around. FBI failed, family failed,gun got into the wrong hands.

I have been responding to the question of this post. You don't know what I think about Parkland or most any other topic. Do you have anything to add other than you just don't like my ideas?

 

[Mister Bisley]

I believe that boboclown hit it on the head. The drug trade coupled to the incessant news coverage deviants get are primary problems, others are mood altering prescription drugs and violent video games that inordinately effect young men. We are going to have to get over the permissive attitude and legalization of recreational drugs, control and limit the use of drugs prescribed to young people and take a close look at the effects of extremely graphic violence in realistic video games on adolescent minds. We have created a modern society that is too quick to assign victim hood and slow to establish individual responsibility. I assign much of the root cause to the redicoulsy liberal academia and corosponding liberal teaching profession that has a large influence molding young minds in impressionable formative years.

BOOM!

 

[Argonaut]

We absolutely should. There are dozens

There is lots of blame to go around. FBI failed, family failed,gun got into the wrong hands.

I have been responding to the question of this post. You don't know what I think about Parkland or most any other topic. Do you have anything to add other than you just don't like my ideas?

72 posts and 13 likes........your ideas are not popular or well thought of here.......I am sure there is a forum that would be more receptive to your ideas.

 

[Mister Bisley]

We absolutely should. There are dozens

There is lots of blame to go around. FBI failed, family failed,gun got into the wrong hands.

I have been responding to the question of this post. You don't know what I think about Parkland or most any other topic. Do you have anything to add other than you just don't like my ideas?

Exactly. How would a universal background check fix any of the 3 problems you listed?

I have given a lot of factual information here. I truly do appreciate your concern about our society, I just think you have the wrong mindset when it comes to addressing the problems.

 

[Ura-Ki]

So how do you keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people? Hope it works out? Allowing random shootings to continue? I understand that you/we want to keep our personal freedoms. However, I believe that if our society continues down the path we are on we will continue to see more and more of the random violence that plagues our society. Most people don't have the stomach to allow that to continue.

The strategy of "its my personal right" so I shouldn't have to do anything isn't working. The problem is complex. Our country continues to get divided. Compromise is the foundation of any society. Not willing to compromise? Then don't ask the other side to listen or respect your position.

I just simply disagree that we should do nothing. I think universal background checks are acceptable. Where does it end? That's the question suggested by the author of this post.

To answer the first question of this thread, there can be no reasonable restrictions, PERIOD! The same old Saw, is the anti side still believes the "We" ( us gun owners) should continue to Compromise our rights away, just one more law! There can no longer be any "Reasonable" discussions on this topic, line in the sand sort of thing!
I get where your coming from, but your ideas are flawed, universal back ground checks allready take place every time you attempt to purchase a firearm or do a NFA form 1/4! Just what would you expect to add to what is allready investigated in the BGC we allready submit to? You see, we are already subjected to unreasonable compromise having to submit each and every time, instead of a one shot deal! How would you improve things? You insist that "WE" need to do something, and that if we don't, we're in the wrong, how do you justify that position? I have never committed a single crime, have never taken drugs, never abused any one, and I am mentally sound, nothing has changed on that front in the 47 years I have walked this earth, so why do I need to submit to a Universal BGC? I currently hold a Top secret Mil. Clarence, a current FAA cert and pilots licence, a current comercial class A drivers licence with HAZMAT indorcement and a current CCP in 33 states and am a active member of my local county emergency management team and I am a certified emergency responder! I'm so completely vetted and subjected to constant random drug screens it makes my head spin! So, how is it I should be subjected to yet more scrutiny which is actually quite a bit less then what I allready go through? Your ideas are full of holes, sorry to tell you, but at least you have a chance to read some critical thoughts and if your as smart as I think you are, you will take all this to heart and maybe change your thinking a little, after all, it's WE who stand to loose every thing here and at the least become felons! Take what you read here and apply critical thinking to it and see what you come up with!

 

[Tacticool22]

I listened to a podcast a few weeks ago that stuck with me and got me thinking. It was a discussion between a Libertarian Pastor and a YouTuber (fairly conservative) about the Second Amendment. They both agreed that it at least covered what the typical soldier or police officer would carry, but they disagreed in how far beyond that it extends. I won't say what they came up with (mainly because I don't remember exactly) but my thoughts are that 2A should cover anything man portable that can be directed at a single point target. What do you all think?

TLDR: Beyond a standard soldiers loadout, what does the 2A protect at the individual level?

NO restrictions. We had better arms than the redcoats.
Any arm that can be made should be legal for a law abiding US Citizen to have. No registration. No checks. No permission slip. Nothing.