What are "Reasonable Restrictions"?

[Kruel J]

I get where you're going Andy, and generally, I try to take that line myself. Harder to do when folks come here and insult the entire forum. That said, I've said my piece, I'll leave it go from here.

Same. Not worth any more keystrokes.

 

[Ura-Ki]

Again, this all comes down to the Counties willingness to support or Ignore, and what the county Sheriff will or will not do! Remember, the Sheriff IS the top dog law enforcement officer in his county, all other LEO are subservient to his authority including Fed agents and enforcement personal! So, This is the more important question, where do our Sheriff's stand?

 

[Kruel J]

Again, this all comes down to the Counties willingness to support or Ignore, and what the county Sheriff will or will not do! Remember, the Sheriff IS the top dog law enforcement officer in his county, all other LEO are subservient to his authority including Fed agents and enforcement personal! So, This is the more important question, where do our Sheriff's stand?

Mine stands where he should. Next to the people and for the Bill of Rights.

 

[Ura-Ki]

As does my current one! in Marion County!

We should do a list of our sheriff's posting their stance on such things and the 2nd and the sanctuary state status, be pretty telling to see it all listed out!

 

[NW Backpacker]

I was talking with a friend of mine about the 2A. He brought up a very good point. When the Constitution was being written, it was being written for the absolute latest, greatest and most modern firearms of the time.

That should be the way it is meant today!

I think the intent of your comment was pro-2A, but what you wrote is problematic.

The 2A was not written to protect our right to keep and bear the "most modern firearms of the time". The Constitution was written in the hopes that the USA would survive long into the future, and that we the people could defend ourselves from a government that they knew, with absolute certainty, would become oppressive and probably tyrannical; that is the natural progression of governments that they had experienced personally, and had also read about in their history books. If they had intended the 2A to mean "the right of the people to keep and bear this or that type of musket shall not be infringed" they would have described the characteristics of those types of muskets. They knew that gun technology would change - they had seen it change themselves.

In the same way, they did not intend to limit the 1A to the "most modern media of the time", which was probably a crude printing press of some kind.

The argument that the 2A only protects our right to muskets is frequently made by antis.

 

[etrain16]

As does my current one! in Marion County!

We should do a list of our sheriff's posting their stance on such things and the 2nd and the sanctuary state status, be pretty telling to see it all listed out!

I wish I could say the same for mine, but he rides the fence due to the part of our county that touches Multnomah. He seems to prefer to test the direction of the wind before he takes a position. Too bad because I think most of our county, save for the little blip up by PDX, falls hard on the side of protecting 2A rights.

 

[Ura-Ki]

Yea, I wonder about that guy! Too bad, as your county is pretty solid Blood Red!

 

[etrain16]

Yea, I wonder about that guy! Too bad, as your county is pretty solid Blood Red!

They gerrymandered Clackamas county a number of years back. Carved out a tiny little section (I happen to be in) in the NW of the county, maybe 10% of the total area of the county. We get 2 reps in Salem, now, one is always a hard-core, anti-gun D. Thankfully our state senator has been solidly R, solidly pro-gun. Before the gerrymandering, we provided 2 pro-gun reps in Salem.

Dirty rotten rats.

 

[nammac]

We've got the best mods on the interwebs. thanks team for keeping this forum the greatest.

 

[The Heretic]

The only 'restriction' necessary, was handed down by Moses, long before guns were invented: "You shall not kill". Not religious, just a good moral value that I don't think is taught much any more?? Could solve a lot of our problems??

It was not "you shall not kill", it was "you shall not murder" (if you look at the original text before translation). There is a difference.

I haven't read any of the thread, but I will say this; for the most part, the only "reasonable" restrictions that I can think of off the top of my head are:

1) Adult supervision - i.e., ownership/possession of a firearm should be age restricted to whatever we consider to be an adult capable of "consent" - otherwise there needs to be a supervising adult present while a non-adult has possession of a firearm.

2) Someone who has proven (not probable cause, proof as in a witnessed action) that they cannot be trusted with a firearm. E.G., a person who committed a violent crime where a firearm was involved - e.g., armed robbery, murder, assault, etc. - included in this might be someone who negligently used a firearm, e.g., negligent homicide, negligent use of a firearm in such a way that negligently endangered other people.

Those two pretty much covers most of the situations I can think of where a person would be someone that should not be trusted with a firearm such that their rights to own/use a firearm should be constrained. I think there are a LOT of people out there that own firearms that probably shouldn't, but I would not be willing to take away their rights until such time as they prove that they shouldn't have them.

 

[ma96782]

The argument that the 2A only protects our right to muskets is frequently made by antis.

AND, the Constitution doesn't say...........

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, unless I say it's reasonable.

IF you feel that there must be some "reasonable sort of law" then, Check this out............

§ 4003. Carrying dangerous weapons

A person who carries a dangerous or deadly weapon, openly or concealed, with the intent or avowed purpose of injuring a fellow man, or who carries a dangerous or deadly weapon within any state institution or upon the grounds or lands owned or leased for the use of such institution, without the approval of the warden or superintendent of the institution, shall be imprisoned not more than two years or fined not more than $200.00, or both.

Note: "INTENT" must be proved.

Does that say something about where the legislature's head was at? (BTW, this is Vermont's Law.) The mere possession of a firearm, isn't the problem. It's how a firearm is USED or intended to be USED.

Aloha, Mark

 

[Diamondback]

Just as an aside, what happened to the blue ribbons for Mods? Just noticed they were gone...

 

[The Heretic]

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, (pause)

^^ meaning that an armed militia (or currently, a standing army) is necessary - does NOT mean only the militia or army should have arms.

the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

^^ because of the militia or army, the "people", i.e., all citizens/civilians - not the militia, should not have their right to keep and bear arms infringed.

The two parts of that sentence are separate. It is saying that because we have a militia, the people must also be armed.

And they say arms, not just side arms, not just infantry rifles, but arms, as in cannon, grenades, i.e., anything that the government "army" has, so should the people be able to keep and bear.

And the meaning of "bear" should be obvious - as in carry upon ones person or possess wherever you go. The manner is not proscribed - so concealed carry is not forbidden, and was common at the time the Second Amendment was written (probably more so than now).

In short, the whole reason for the Second Amendment was to provide for a balance of power between the government and the governed, the founding fathers believing strongly in the right of the people to rebel against their rulers as necessary and giving them the means to do so.

 

[DuneHopper]

Here is DuneHopper, going..... really people ?


How dare I be the voice of reason, but knock it off already.
This is a good topic.
And its very disrespectful when some are trying to have civil discussions here.

On this site lets be clear..

1. Passion does not equal disrespect or name calling.
2. There is fine line between supporting your thoughts, and being the crazy drunk guy in a bar.
3. Don't let DuneHopper be the voice of reason, I have a reputation to up hold here.

Ask any of the mods or the admin

 

[DuneHopper]

Reasonable = means compromise.

When a Mob King pin, says to you they are reasonable, your about to wake up with a horse head...

 

[Johnny Tremain]

Reasonable is: SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED period.
Anyone that is a citizen can own one. Those that should not we be weeded out.

For any libtards out there. They had semi autos in the 1700s. They were just to expensive to own or use for war, just like class III today.

Here in washingrad, you cant buy lead nor have black powder delivered to your door in quantity.
So since the state has stripped me of my flintlock, I guess the AR will be the next best thing.

 

[alv7722]

It was not "you shall not kill", it was "you shall not murder" (if you look at the original text before translation). There is a difference.

I haven't read any of the thread, but I will say this; for the most part, the only "reasonable" restrictions that I can think of off the top of my head are:

1) Adult supervision - i.e., ownership/possession of a firearm should be age restricted to whatever we consider to be an adult capable of "consent" - otherwise there needs to be a supervising adult present while a non-adult has possession of a firearm.

2) Someone who has proven (not probable cause, proof as in a witnessed action) that they cannot be trusted with a firearm. E.G., a person who committed a violent crime where a firearm was involved - e.g., armed robbery, murder, assault, etc. - included in this might be someone who negligently used a firearm, e.g., negligent homicide, negligent use of a firearm in such a way that negligently endangered other people.

Those two pretty much covers most of the situations I can think of where a person would be someone that should not be trusted with a firearm such that their rights to own/use a firearm should be constrained. I think there are a LOT of people out there that own firearms that probably shouldn't, but I would not be willing to take away their rights until such time as they prove that they shouldn't have them.

Sixth Commandment:
"Thou shalt not kill" (Exodus 20:13). God values life; each son and daughter is precious to Him. Under normal circumstances, you do not have the right to take someone else's life. Only in times of war, self-preservation, or other extenuating circumstances would killing be necessary or acceptable to God. As a general rule, God makes it clear that killing is wrong.

I am not a religious person, but it still seems like a good value to live by. Thank you. And, I am NOT qualified to argue anything about the bible.

AND. In case #2 you mentioned, there is no valid reason to not appear in a court of law, and have the ability to confront your accuser.

Case #1, not so sure about. I used to go rabbit and dove hunting after school, when I was 16. We had the guns at school, we just never considered shooting any kids or teachers. I have had access to firearms since age 6. I think it is an experience and responsibility that is beneficial. But, I guess I am just too old for modern times.

 

[nwslopoke]

Any prohibition leads to a black market whether it be drugs, booze, cigarettes or guns or what ever.

Gun grabbers never have a Plan B outside of becoming refugees. Just look at our southern border.

We saw them scratching at the doors when they thought their rights to abortion might be challenged. Those same people are willing to jail or 'nuke' anyone not willing to surrender their rights to guns.

Left coast big cities decide who is or isn't a violent group. For some reason the left has a new found love for MS13, Antifa and violent communist but legal gun owning citizens are the bad guy.

I don't plan to give up any right I already possess. That would be dumb. But the right to self protection is the highest of all (Brought to you by God. Confirmed by the Constitution).

 

[The Heretic]

Sixth Commandment:
"Thou shalt not kill" (Exodus 20:13). God values life; each son and daughter is precious to Him. Under normal circumstances, you do not have the right to take someone else's life. Only in times of war, self-preservation, or other extenuating circumstances would killing be necessary or acceptable to God. As a general rule, God makes it clear that killing is wrong.

The Hebrew verb רצח‬ (r-ṣ-ḥ, also transliterated retzach, ratzákh, ratsakh etc.) is the word in the original text that is translated as "murder" or "kill", but it has a wider range of meanings, generally describing destructive activity, including meanings "to break, to dash to pieces" as well as "to slay, kill, murder".

Thou shalt not kill - Wikipedia

 

[Member 3687]

I skipped over a lot of the comments as there a lot to read but the ones I did look over I found some to be quite interesting to say the least.

First on nukes and RPGs your average gang member/individual would not be able to afford these even if these where readily available to own just like machine guns are priced out of the average person's income now a days.

And for your information the drug cartels in Mexico all ready have RPGs in limited numbers. If you watch the news you will see from time to time they capture them during major drug bust. So if the gang members truly wanted them they could get one but for the most part they buy cheap guns on the black market or steal them.

I guess as I have understood the Second amendment to mean anything the infantry, law enforcement (including SWAT) or militia would have or be issued as standard kit.

Rifles, pistols shotguns and suppressors including full auto/M203 and no NFA restriction on barrel length/butt stock as these are the items issued to every solders weather front line or in the rear with the gear.

At least when I was in the military things like LAW rockets, RPGs (Russian counterpart) and this type where issued only as needed for a specific mission.

On the M203 you could limit the type of round to paint or shotgun and anything else that is high explosive could be reasonably restricted.

This is my interpretation, some will agree others will not and this is our problem even we as gun owners cannot come up with a standard of what is acceptable.