What are "Reasonable Restrictions"?

[ma96782]

Hitler was full of reasonable.....Rrrright?

The Past as Prelude: Nazi Disarmament and the U.S. Gun Grab

Aloha, Mark

 

[Andy54Hawken]

One man's reasonable is another man's extreme , one man's extreme is often another man's starting point.

"All bad precedents begin as justifiable measures"
Quote attributed to Julius Caesar
Andy

 

[OldTengu]

My favorite quote that I consider to be a case against disarmament in the United States, (supposedly) comes from the Japanese general Isoroku Yamamoto, "You cannot invade the mainland United States, there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."
Take away those rifles, we still have a strong military, but as we're still seeing in other nations, an armed populace to go along with a great military generally doesn't bode well for an invading force.
So, unless you've proven it unwise for yourself to be allowed use of firearms by your own actions, I say no restrictions are reasonable.

 

[Inquisitor]

I believe that the existing prohibitions in 18 USC § 922 are too broad and include many people who are not, nor have they ever been, a threat to themselves or others. While it is reasonable to prevent people who are a threat to themselves and/or others from having firearms, it is unreasonable to extend that prohibition to people who have never been a threat to themselves and/or others. Federal law [18 USC § 922 - Unlawful Acts] needs to be changed such that the only prohibitions are: people who are adjudicated in a court of law to be a threat to themselves and/or others are ineligible to possess, receive, ship, or transport firearms or ammunition. Exceptions and limitations to the adjudication rule shall be:

• Persons convicted of crimes in a criminal court are ineligible. This ineligibility ends after any incarceration is complete. This ineligibility may be extended by the court, at the time of conviction, to include any parole and/or probation sentence is complete, but these extensions can only be in cases of violent criminal convictions.
• Persons certified as a danger to themselves and/or others as a result of mental defect or incompetence either by voluntary individual certification or a court of law, are ineligible. This ineligibility ends after any commitment unless the court determines that the ineligibility extends until any supervised outpatient treatment is complete.
• Fugitives from justice, when charged or convicted of a violent crime are ineligible.

Revocation of US Constitutional rights, beyond what is identified herein, is separably subject to review and appeal in Federal Court.

 

[po18guy]

There were no (effective) rerstrictions on a baggage handler (R.I.P.) who stole a turboprop and could easily have killed hundreds - all this in the post-9/11 era. Where was the background check? The mental health report? The social media history? The waiting period?

The "musket" argument is both a canard and a red herring. The left has always hated the innocent and loved the guilty.

 

[CamoDeafie]

The left has always hated the righteous and loved the guilty.

Fixed.

 

[Johnny Tremain]

The entire firearms act of 1968 is unconstitutional.
It is NOT part of the bill of rights, its just a regulation.
ANY citizen can own a firearm, If you were a felon in prior to 1967, when you were released, you could own firearms.

That was one of many infringements. Since then its only gotten worse.
I know a lot of exfelons that have lots of firearms. None of them have shot anyone.
They are regular folk like you or me.

Rights are made by God, not man. Man can not take them away. Period.

Before all this unconstitutional crap when a bad man had a gun, and did bad, THEY SHOT HIM.

A fellow NCO I know lost his rights and his Army career because he throw a piece of dog poo at his step son. Now he never own a firearm, and has no criminal record.

Shall not be infringed does not mean a thing to the gun grabbers

 

[CountryGent]

So I understand the desire to "fire a round back" , so to speak when someone gets snarky...but
If what they say ain't true...then it ain't a insult....and not really worth the time or effort to respond to...

Exactly my sentiments, as well. My father, many years ago, gave me a blindly insightful piece of advice: "Ignore the idiots". Said dictum has been most assuredly a blessing when I have dutifully heeded said.

As to the question about "reasonable restrictions"? This notion is a farce. I simply do not need some vacuous, unethical pissant in DC or Salem dictating to me how I take care of my family, work our land, run our business ventures, build our assets, govern what is/is not put in our bodies, what technologies we use, dictates whom we sleep with, or any other private matter. And that includes what hardware we own and operate, provided said is done so in a safe, legal and otherwise responsible fashion. Any Trotskyite puke who doesn't like it is cordially invited to pound sand.

 

[ARFrog]

Reasonable restrictions are a slippery slope. Ask any gun owner in NY, NJ, MA or CA. Mix in a little fear, political grandstanding and funding for a gov't agency to codify said restrictions and you are off to the races.

 

[NW Backpacker]

My apologies if this has already been posted - I have not read all 22 pages of comments. Here is what US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said about the right to keep and bear arms:

And one more on Heller vs District of Columbia:

 

[Diamondback]

Got a plan to make Barry's Little B*tchboy Roberts put some teeth behind it?

God save the United States and DAMN this dishonorable Court!

 

[SUPER X]

My favorite quote that I consider to be a case against disarmament in the United States, (supposedly) comes from the Japanese general Isoroku Yamamoto, "You cannot invade the mainland United States, there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."
Take away those rifles, we still have a strong military, but as we're still seeing in other nations, an armed populace to go along with a great military generally doesn't bode well for an invading force.
So, unless you've proven it unwise for yourself to be allowed use of firearms by your own actions, I say no restrictions are reasonable.

History is forgotten or conveniently left out As is often done when the truth interfears with the agenda.

 

[Boboclown]

It is reasonable that a person should be able to own a firearm without any extensive BS designed to even keep the innocent from being armed. Either by making it an arbitrary expense or by making it such a long drawn out process that they quit.

In short, as is is fine if not removing some restrictions. Like, I don't know, allowing us to own automatics, or taking suppressors off the NFA.

 

[SUPER X]

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?

Reasonable would be anyone not respecting or abiding by the constatution and bill of rights be hung for treason.

 

[Stomper]

Like I've always said.... judges are merely lawyers wearing black robes... and we know how well regarded lawyers typically are....

 

[Goosebrown]

Hitler was full of reasonable.....Rrrright?

The Past as Prelude: Nazi Disarmament and the U.S. Gun Grab

Aloha, Mark

After all. He was a vegitsrian and loved children and dogs.

 

[Stomper]

After all. He was a vegitsrian and loved children and dogs.

He didn't drink, or look at porn either.

 

[mkwerx]

How about limit it to area-effect weapons under 1T TNT equivalent, and no biological, chemical, or radiological weapons. Anything bigger requires a 10 day wait, fingerprinting, safe storage requirement, and a 4 hour training course "Duck and Cover - Explosives and You"

Anything smaller is unregulated as to number, capacity, caliber, or carry. That seems reasonable.

 

[The Heretic]

How about limit it to area-effect weapons under 1T TNT equivalent, and no biological, chemical, or radiological weapons. Anything bigger requires a 10 day wait, fingerprinting, safe storage requirement, and a 4 hour training course "Duck and Cover - Explosives and You"

Anything smaller is unregulated as to number, capacity, caliber, or carry. That seems reasonable.

I have long advocated that nobody, not civilians or gov should have NBC weapons and that this should be the only general limit on the 'bear arms' part of the Second Amendment.

OTOH, earlier in this thread I mentioned age limits and IIRC someone pointed out that they had guns when they were kids.

This is not the 50s or 60s, todays kids are not the same as we were, and juvenile crime, including shootings and murder is much more prevalent. We also have a much larger urban population and less room to go shooting as a sport. Also, as a percentage of the population, fewer parents teach their children to safely handle firearms. I don't believe most children today under the age of 16 should have unsupervised access to firearms.

 

[Stomper]

And yet they can obtain a driver license at 16....