What are "Reasonable Restrictions"?

[Boboclown]

18 is not adult. Adult dies not equal voting. States get to set their age limits for lots of things. This is normal and you need to get past it. If you want to repeal the 26th amendment it works the way it would to repeal the 2nd.

While you're wanking over shall not be infringed we're going to get trampled

And while you give in to "reasonable" restrictions we're going to get trampled.

 

[Skier]

The real question is what am I'm going to do with all these spent fuel rods now that I shut my reactor down.

"You've shutdown the main reactor; We'll be destroyed for sure! ... This is madness... We're doomed... There'll be no escape for the princess this time..."

 

[CamoDeafie]

Did not read entire thread
Me? I say the only "reasonable restriction" would be "how much money can you pay for the equipment?"

As for the militia question; where was it that one of the Founding Fathers said the unorganized militia is the whole of the people, consisting of armed private citizens who are able bodied and of sound mind?

The Organized Militia is technically what the State Guards and National Guard units are; whereas the Unorganized Militia is supposed to consist of all the able bodied adults who are also of sound mind

Ask the gun control people this question.

"Why do the police need semiauto rifles?"

(Its to not be outgunned by criminals)

If they answer that way; then ask "why shouldn't we also not be outgunned by criminals?"

And see if their heads explode or they say because we are all victims

 

[olyroller]

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.

You keep using the word "allow". No one is allowing anything. The whole point is that there is no good way to stop random shootings. Do you really believe that you can remove every gun from the face of the planet? That is what it would take for so called gun control to actually work. You can't do it, so it won't work. Get it? Your so called compromises are just incremental movements toward that unachievable goal. Those who are opposed to gun control realize that each incremental step to disarming the people will actually make us less safe. We understand that the strategy is death by a thousand cuts. Every "common sense" gun control measure is just one more step in that march toward total banning and confiscation. Since no gun control law ever actually produces its intended result, the next "common sense" law is waiting to be trotted out. In the process, our God given rights are being eroded until they are gone, and for no good reason.
GUN CONTROL DOESN'T WORK!

 

[Diamondback]

How 'bout we just brand every Prohibited Person with the letters PP on their foreheads, and anyone else can buy anything they want, anytime they want, cash-and-carry? Still has to be an FTF transaction, but with that visible Instant Check...

BTW, since gun control "compromises" have NEVER been either reasonable OR in good-faith just steps toward the goal of confiscation...

Take your "compromise" BS and shove it up your craplocker, lubricated with Thai ghost-pepper paste.

 

[OldBroad44]

Always remember, it was the great Antonin Scalia who penned the Heller decision and left the door open to restriction.

"Like most rights, the rights secured by the second amendment are not unlimited..." "Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

This is by one of the most popular conservative SCJ of all time. So while we may not want to hear it, there is now and will likely forever be "reasonable restrictions" on the 2A. Our best hope as gun owners is to work our best to keep that "reasonable" benchmark from slipping any further down the slippery slope, to inch it back up when we can, and to continue to challenge blatant violations like 43.

You all might not enjoy hearing this, but understand that I'm saying this with the best of intentions of preserving the 2A for my children. If we continue to fight from the point of shall not be infringed means shall not be infringed (no matter how much WE all agree on this), then we will get further marginalized.

So, challenge things like waiting periods, minimum purchases, mandatory BGC, and bans of certain classes of firearms. But the nuke talk, while funny, serves no real purpose in the grand scheme. It just makes us look like kooks.

Have a great day, God bless!

I agree. Furthermore, I think it would be impractical to allow private citizens to own everything the government can own. There are too many flakes who want to become infamous, too many terrorists, etc. I don't want private citizens owning weapons of mass destruction such as atomic weapons or chemical and biological warfare agents. Or missiles, even shoulder mounted ones that could be used to shoot down airplanes. Or bombs. Rich people could afford all this stuff.

 

[Boboclown]

How 'bout we just brand every Prohibited Person with the letters PP on their foreheads, and anyone else can buy anything they want, anytime they want, cash-and-carry? Still has to be an FTF transaction, but with that visible Instant Check...

BTW, since gun control "compromises" have NEVER been either reasonable OR in good-faith just steps toward the goal of confiscation...
View attachment 477369
Take your "compromise" BS and shove it up your craplocker, lubricated with Thai ghost-pepper paste.

Sounds like a 4th Amendment issue. Here's a compromise though: We remove the BS laws and they can go suck on a pacifier.

 

[Diamondback]

I agree. Furthermore, I think it would be impractical to allow private citizens to own everything the government can own. There are too many flakes who want to become infamous, too many terrorists, etc. I don't want private citizens owning weapons of mass destruction such as atomic weapons or chemical and biological warfare agents. Or missiles, even shoulder mounted ones that could be used to shoot down airplanes. Or bombs. Rich people could afford all this stuff.

You do realize that in the Founding era, even Men o' War--the ICBM's of the day--were privately owned and operated, right? Granted, they had to have a Letter of Marque to go hunting, but IIRC they were freely allowed to escort merchants, kind of like the Blackwater of their day.

 

[OldBroad44]

I was only 20 the first time I defended myself with a gun, so I tend to dislike the idea of limiting handguns or other guns to those who are 21. Eighteen is a natural break. Up until then, most live with and are supported and protected by their parents. But after that, many or most leave home and get jobs or go to college. Why should we require them, especially the women, to be completely unprotected during this maximally vulnerable time?

One major reason is that recent advances in understanding brain development make it obvious that the brain continues developing up until about 25. Then comes the semantics. If you refer to the brain as being "undeveloped" until 21 or later, that seems to argue in favor of treating people like they are children until 21 or later. I think it's lots more relative than that, and 18 is developed enough to get on with. Virtually all societies that I've heard of deemed that young men were mature enough to defend their tribe or country by the age of 18, or even earlier. Sure, your brain continues developing, as well as gains from real experience with being an adult. But I think 18 is developed enough to be considered an adult. Meaning old enough to vote, drink, own a gun, or go to war.

 

[OldBroad44]

You do realize that in the Founding era, even Men o' War--the ICBM's of the day--were privately owned and operated, right? Granted, they had to have a Letter of Marque to go hunting, but IIRC they were freely allowed to escort merchants, kind of like the Blackwater of their day.

This is a really good point that requires me to rethink my position.

 

[Diamondback]

This is a really good point that requires me to rethink my position.

Granted, a warship or even a land AFV requires a large crew to both operate and maintain... ditto an aircraft. One pilot can't just load an F-16 up with 20mm ammo and Sidewinders and go off on his own, he's gotta have several ordies help manhandle the weapons, grapes fuel it up, specialists to tend to the life-support gear and pack his ejection seat...

Gives you a different perspective when you think about how a 200', three-decker Ship of the Line was operated by the brute musclepower of almost a thousand men.

 

[OldBroad44]

Granted, a warship or even a land AFV requires a large crew to both operate and maintain... ditto an aircraft. One pilot can't just load an F-16 up with 20mm ammo and Sidewinders and go off on his own, he's gotta have several ordies help manhandle the weapons, grapes fuel it up, specialists to tend to the life-support gear and pack his ejection seat...

Gives you a different perspective when you think about how a 200', three-decker Ship of the Line was operated by the brute musclepower of almost a thousand men.

More good points. If I get your argument, this means your average lone nutter wouldn't be up to using such weapons, even if they were legal for individuals and readily available. But presumably domestic terrorist groups would be.

We already have one or two rich guys who have started building rockets to go to space. Those rockets could presumably just as easily carry a bomb. I wonder whether any permission or permits from the government are needed. And what about Blackwater? Do they have any permission or permits? They don't subcontract just with the USA, do they? Or do they?

 

[Boboclown]

Blackwater can work for whomever... They're PMCs, what separates them from mercs (illegal) is pretty much one has beauracracy and the other doesn't. We can't have the U.S being hypocrites after all.

 

[Cavedweller]

We already have one or two rich guys who have started building rockets to go to space. Those rockets could presumably just as easily carry a bomb. I wonder whether any permission or permits from the government are needed.

Amateur rocketry, although not as popular today as it once was, is a hobby many young men have participated in, both in Europe and the US. Some of our top scientists started out as amateur rocketeers. AFAIK, there is no law against building or possessing a rocket, although there may be restrictions on where you can launch them. What you can not do is build an explosive device, so you can't put a warhead on one (i.e. weaponize it).

 

[Diamondback]

Data for perspective: A Sidewinder weighs around 200#--that's the smallest air-to-air missile cleared for fixed-wing use. A Hellfire for air-to-ground weighs about 110. Even with the assistance of a mechanical loader, it's still at least a two-man job getting things racked and pinned into place.

Before BW moved over to Dubai, IIRC they used to require clients have some referral from Defense or State Department, and similarly Sandline and Executive Outcomes used to similarly require British MoD blessing before they'd accept a contract.

Hell, my frat brothers and I coulda built an ICBM all the way from motors to RV's if we'd put our minds to it... we just didn't have a construction site big enough or a viable test site.

 

[Laughingman]

The vast majority of modern rifle firearms restrictions are solutions for non-existence problems... Take for example I1639 it specifically targets rifles used in crime. In 2016 something like 11 rifles were used in actual murders in Washington state. The vast majority of Murders in this state were done with handguns and likely the sizable proportion of those were stolen. The logical way to prevent these crimes would be too subsidize gun safes, to prevent the stealing of firearms.

Source Table 12

 

[Ura-Ki]

I was only 20 the first time I defended myself with a gun, so I tend to dislike the idea of limiting handguns or other guns to those who are 21. Eighteen is a natural break. Up until then, most live with and are supported and protected by their parents. But after that, many or most leave home and get jobs or go to college. Why should we require them, especially the women, to be completely unprotected during this maximally vulnerable time?

One major reason is that recent advances in understanding brain development make it obvious that the brain continues developing up until about 25. Then comes the semantics. If you refer to the brain as being "undeveloped" until 21 or later, that seems to argue in favor of treating people like they are children until 21 or later. I think it's lots more relative than that, and 18 is developed enough to get on with. Virtually all societies that I've heard of deemed that young men were mature enough to defend their tribe or country by the age of 18, or even earlier. Sure, your brain continues developing, as well as gains from real experience with being an adult. But I think 18 is developed enough to be considered an adult. Meaning old enough to vote, drink, own a gun, or go to war.

I would further this by saying that a Person is considered Legally an adult at the age of 18 through out most of this country, so it stands to reason that if they can be legally kicked out of the home, join the service, be tried as an adult, ect........then they should be afforded every right as a citizen, including purchasing and owning firearms and ammo! THis may not sit well with todays society, but thats the nuts and bolts of this!

BTW, a Man-O-War was the province of rich merchants almost exclusively, they were so expensive to operate that many countries who wished to operate a navy had to "Hire" privateers to carry out the missions of the state! They also removed them selves from any recrimination should said privateers go above and beyond so to speak! The S.O.P. was for the Ships owner to sail under the flag of the country of Marque ( papered) and that the governments Payments for "Services rendered" was a Share-O-the Prize, or bounty for any and all ships captured or sunk! Read the full history of Ol'Iron Sides and the Barbary Corsairs to get an idea of how things were! Also read up on the Beginnings of the Revenue Cutter Service, that will open your eyes! Its one of the biggest reasons why we have laws specifically banning a Mercenary or Private standing army or navy! Cant have competitions in the piracy world now can we!

FYI, You can purchase and own military weapons as long as you fill out all the required papers and pay the fed tax and go through the BGC. Its been a very common thing, especially after WW-2 with the masses of weapons and equipment left over, its how fortunes were made by some of the biggest names in recent history! Read up on Fred Divine Diving and Salvage in Portland Or, an absolute legend in the Maritime Salvage business, and a hero long forgotten! World record holder of the most ships successfully salvaged in history, all done with an old war ship and second or third hand military equipment!

 

[Diamondback]

All the fun toys, flying charter... damn, @Ura-Ki, I wanna come play as an apprentice at YOUR toy-shop.

Another fun-fact: On that three-decker, each man was working so hard he was burning FIVE THOUSAND calories per day, and we're talking guys usually my size (5'6") or less! So five million calories a day in crew maintenance... and an entire live cow yields about 500# of useful meat for about half a million calories available... you're talking around a small herd (ten head) every day, less if supplemented with potatoes and other things. Just the FOOD alone would be expensive, never mind the wages, cannons and cannonballs or the ship itself! (And this is a big part of why despite their firepower, three-deckers were extremely rare even for SOL's, which as a whole were vastly outnumbered as a whole by one-decker frigates and smaller...)

 

[Boboclown]

I would further this by saying that a Person is considered Legally an adult at the age of 18 through out most of this country, so it stands to reason that if they can be legally kicked out of the home, join the service, be tried as an adult, ect........then they should be afforded every right as a citizen, including purchasing and owning firearms and ammo! THis may not sit well with todays society, but thats the nuts and bolts of this!

X20, only because I can't count higher than that.

If 18 is old enough to die for your country, then you should be able to own a gun. I don't care what anyone says, saying otherwise is hypocrisy to a grand degree.

 

[Diamondback]

So either the Rule of 18 or the Blackjack Rule, but one consistent Age of Majority for everything, and just for simplicity let's make that the Age of Consent too.