What are "Reasonable Restrictions"?

[slimmer13]

The issue that you hard liner no restriction guys don't get is there are mechanisms to repeal the second (or any other) amendment. If the line becomes so hard as to loose public support you will loose everything by the amendment being repealed. It has to be flexible enough to withstand the pressures against it.

Here's how I see it. My rights are like money. I start out with my full rights intact, $100. Over the years, muggers have got me over and over again, whittling away at it a little at a time, taking what they are not entitled to, so now I'm down to about $60.

I don't really understand the argument that it makes sense to freely give them another cent they are not entitled to, in the hopes they will let me have the rest of my money they are not entitled to.

 

[Colts4me]

Founding Fathers itemized the reasonable restrictions on our Second Amendment rights, shall not be infringed was pretty clear.

 

[Argonaut]

Here's how I see it. My rights are like money. I start out with my full rights intact, $100. Over the years, muggers have got me over and over again, whittling away at it a little at a time, taking what they are not entitled to, so now I'm down to about $60.

I don't really understand the argument that it makes sense to freely give them another cent they are not entitled to, in the hopes they will let me have the rest of my money they are not entitled to.

You are like my wife........she only counts the money I spend and not what I bring in. We have had many victories over the last decades in gun law. The huge one is when the Supreme Court ruled that the Malitia clause extended to individuals. (Did you forget that one?) or how about the numerous other city and state laws that have been overturned by the court? (Like the rediculous DC laws). Even the ATF its self has supported many second amendment principles. Are you old enough to remember when we had to register handgun ammunition? (You forgot that one too........) what is the 40% you have lost? Bumpstocks that were only legal for a short period of time (after an ATF ruling making them legal?) there are onerous (unconstitutional) state and local laws but they only stand because we haven't committed the time and money to take them to the Supreme Court. You can't blame the system if you are too cheep or lazy to stand up for your rights in the manner prescribed by the founders.

 

[Argonaut]

Founding Fathers itemized the reasonable restrictions on our Second Amendment rights, shall not be infringed was pretty clear.

You have to be smarter than that. Do you think a newspaper man could get away with causing a stampede in a movie theater by crying out fire and claiming it was his first amendment right (so he had a story to report on) ? ( off course, William Randolph Hurst did get away with the same thing in the sinking of the Maine) our rights are defined by the court's interpretation of laws. It all goes back to insuring we have a president and senate that keep originalist jurists on the court..........do you really want felons and other criminals to be allowed to legally own guns?.......that is anarchy.......the opposite of a law abiding civil society.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

We need to exercise our rights responsibly....
The classic example of :
Yelling "Fire" in a theater , when there is no fire and causing a panic , comes to mind.
You may say what you want...but you must also take responsibility for it as well....

This example / action however , really means nothing to the 2nd Amendment , on the just the surface...
The act of simply owning a gun , will not cause a panic , or harm others.
Whereas the act of yelling fire for no reason , can....

Reasonable restrictions sounds like a good idea until...we get down to just is really being restricted.
Should everyone be allowed to own a firearm... No , not if they are a danger to themselves and others.
Should a law abiding US citizen be allowed to own the firearms of their choice...yes...Because a law abiding person harms no one.

The tricky parts to all of this is :
What is one man's reasonable is another man's extreme ...and one man's extreme is another man's starting point....
Just who gets to decide on who is dangerous....What process is used...?
What is "dangerous "...
Exactly what does "Shall not be infringed " mean....?
Restrictions of any kind will only work if the other person agrees to abide by the restriction...
Just why have restrictions in the first place...we already have laws and restrictions in place ...are they working as intended...? Are they even being consistently and evenly enforced...?
Restrictions often are only "one sided"...as in one side gives in to the restriction and then gets nothing in return....

Please note that I am not saying that we need to "junk" everything and all run amok...Just saying that the restrictions need to well thought out , so as to , serve , protect and not cause undo hardship on the law abiding citizen.
Andy

 

[Colts4me]

We have plenty of laws on the books that cover misuse of a fire arm, we don't need restrictions. Murder, assualt, brandishing and right on down the line covers ever need for laws on guns. Restrictions are infringement.

 

[Argonaut]

We have plenty of laws on the books that cover misuse of a fire arm, we don't need restrictions. Murder, assualt, brandishing and right on down the line covers ever need for laws on guns. Restrictions are infringement.

You are not the legal arbiter of that........the Supreme Court is.

 

[etrain16]

True but in a representive republic you can't buck massive public opinions long. The 18-21 exclusion on some weapons ownership does not seem unreasonable to me given the history of school shootings. Reclassifying bump stocks and the like to class 3 does not seem unreasonable. I might relax the class 3 laws in several ways but in general the law has been successful allowing access while protecting the public. If the majority of the general public perceives the law (the second amendment) its self as a major problem it will eventually be repealed. Where will you be then. We have to be better at "winning the hearts and minds" of non shooters around us. We are becoming a minority in many ways and places. We are responsible to counter that trend or we will eventually loose everything like other countries already have.

Do you know how many of the mass shooters under 21 actually purchased their weapons? According to the information I've been able to find, since 1982, only 2 under 21 purchased their weapons. The rest were either stolen, usually from a family member, or otherwise obtained illegally, such as on the black market.

Most mass shooters are well above 21 years old. Yet we're being let to believe there is an epidemic of under 21 shooters legally buying guns then going on shooting sprees. That's simply not true. It's a media ruse to try and further restrict our rights based on emotional reporting. There are no facts to back such an epidemic.

The fact is that texting and driving is killing more kids 16-19 than guns, by quite a bit. Yet there are no calls for 'reasonable' restrictions on teen drivers or cell phone ownership/use. For this reason, I am convinced this push to restrict gun ownership by age is yet another attempt to restrict rights with no actual basis in fact, no evidence that passing such laws will stop these events. And far too many, including gun owners, are falling prey to this lie. They don't care about saving lives, they care about putting as many restrictions on us as possible.

Let's just look at some real numbers. Since 1966 (52 years), 1,091 people have been killed in mass shootings. That works to an average of 21 mass shooting deaths per year. Now, compare that to the total number of teens killed as a result of texting and driving - EVERY YEAR - 4,015 teens die - every year. That's 11 kids dying every day. If there is an epidemic of teen deaths, this is where it lives. Yet there is no outrage. No calls for new laws. No 'reasonable' restrictions to raise the driving age to 21 or restrict cell phone use to 21. And that's something that actually would save lives. But again, this has never been about saving lives, it's about control. Between 2009 and 2015, there were 156 mass shootings - of those, 11 were committed by shooters under 21, while only 2 were committed by shooters under 21 with 'assault' weapons. Of those 2, only one, JUST ONE, purchased the rifle legally. Again, where is the 'epidemic' that justifies the creation of more laws and restrictions? (see the VOX link below for these numbers - they are coming from places like Everytown, no friend of the 2nd amendment, but even they can't show an epidemic).

Considering all but 3 mass shooters have been male, wouldn't it also be 'reasonable' to restrict gun ownership to only women? If men are doing most of the shooting, why not prevent men from owning guns? Of course no one would support such a ridiculous idea, yet folks are eager to jump on board with restricting 18-21 year olds from buying guns.

And what about 18-21 year olds that are living on their own, as adults? Do they not deserve the right to own a gun for self-defense? Or are only older folks allowed to protect their lives? What about the 19 year old woman who is being stalked and fears for her life? Why must she be denied the right to own a gun for defense? Because a handful of folks have done shootings? Under 21 they already can't buy a pistol, and a shotgun may be too much for them to handle. A small AR may be just right, but that apparently is a problem for some folks.

So no, I don't consider such age restrictions 'reasonable', because there is no fact or evidence to back that up. It's emotion, plain and simple. And I won't support any law based on such things. And personally, if we're going to be consistent and restrict ownership by age, then lets do away with voting under 21, signing legally binding contracts under 21, serving in the military under 21 and anything else people can lawfully do from age 18 onward. Passing laws to sooth folks' emotions isn't the way to do this. It needs to stop, and we need to be the ones to stop it.

Sources for the death numbers I noted above:

Teens Texting and Driving: Facts and Statistics - TeenSafe

Analysis | More than 50 years of U.S. mass shootings: The victims, sites, killers and weapons

Gun safety expert: push to ban guns for those under 21 would have little or no effect on mass shootings

Raising the age limit on the AR-15 from 18 to 21 would do depressingly little

 

[Argonaut]

In most cases, perception trumps facts. That is the problem. It can go either way and many perceptions are led by the dishonest news media leaving us to deal with the aftermath.

 

[Boboclown]

Easy to manipulate perception when technology made everyone stupid.

 

[Jonnyuma]

Do you think a newspaper man could get away with causing a stampede in a movie theater by crying out fire and claiming it was his first amendment right

The classic example of :
Yelling "Fire" in a theater , when there is no fire and causing a panic , comes to mind.

That's a strawman argument and one of the antis favorites regarding the restriction of rights. The other one is libel and/or slander. They use those examples as "common sense" restrictions on the 1A all the time... and now you two just did too.

Libel, slander, and attempting to cause/incite a riot or stampede are not legitimate means of exercising one's rights because the INTENT is to do harm to others. See the difference? Just as murder, assault, brandishing, intimidating, etc, are not legitimate or lawful excercise of 2A rights, neither are libel, slander, or purposely inciting a riot. The INTENT to do damage is not legitimate. Getting it?

I hope that you are, and that you put that arrow in your quiver to use against your very own argument next time a gun-grabber presents it to you... they will.

"Intent", nebulous as it is, is written into the laws just as "reasonable" and "prudent" are.

ETA: @AndyinEverson, I see you weren't actually using that lame argument as an argument. Just citing it as AN argument. I enjoy blowing away arguments because most are stupid and ill-concieved, short-sighted and off topic. Sorry for using it (and you) as an example... may have been a little short-sighted and ill-concieved myself.

 

[Will_White]

Unfortunately, in today's bizarro world, this is probably true. The main reason I'd be for 18-21 restrictions on some guns is to hopefully reduce school shootings and cool down the desires of the antis to take our guns. 18-21 year olds can defend themselves with revolvers/shotguns until they hopefully mature and are less likely to go bonkers and shoot up schools. See the list of school shootings below - scroll down and look at the ages - huge numbers of kids even below the age of 18, so controlling access to guns at home may help, and no, IP44 is not the answer - it's too punitive to gun owners.

List of school shootings in the United States - Wikipedia

Your own link discredits you, only 2 shootings on that list perpetrated by 18-20 year olds between 2000-present used assault weapons that they didn't steal and weren't gang related or otherwise illegally in possession of, and one of those 2 was possibly gang related but it wasn't clear. The rest used handguns which are already illegal under 21, and shotguns.

 

[Argonaut]

The first and second (as well as all the other) amendments carry equal weight under the law. The example is a fair one and the court has upheld unspecified restrictions as legal and legitimate. Your argument is moot.

 

[Jonnyuma]

The first and second (as well as all the other) amendments carry equal weight under the law. The example is a fair one and the court has upheld unspecified restrictions as legal and legitimate. Your argument is moot.

You talkin' to me?

 

[Argonaut]

You talkin' to me?

You know John Brown had a great cause and ideas but still got himself hung.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

ETA: @AndyinEverson, I see you weren't actually using that lame argument as an argument. Just citing it as AN argument. I enjoy blowing away arguments because most are stupid and ill-concieved, short-sighted and off topic. Sorry for using it (and you) as an example... may have been a little short-sighted and ill-concieved myself.

No worries Jonnyuma....
Glad to see that someone actually reads my postings....
Andy

 

[Boboclown]

I'd read your posts but I'm an illiterate clown. Its why I can't use the 1st very well.

That, and people are scared of clowns for some reason...

 

[teflon6string]

Reasonable restrictions?

I think term limits would be a great start.

 

[Sandaholic]

Here's a reasonable restriction;

If you can't pick it up unassisted and fire at least 1 aimed shot ....
.... you can't own more than 2 without a permit.

@albin25
Who gets to define an aimed shot? 200 yards within 2 feet of target? 400 yards must be able to hit inside a 2' circle? The broadside of a barn at 1000 yards?

I honestly think part of what you posted is a reasonable restriction. I also believe it is right on the edge of that slippery slope.

Why only 2 before the permit and how much would permits cost? How long does the government have to decide if they want to issue this permit?

Shall not be infringed is pretty clear. But I do wonder if our society could endure total and complete unrestrained access to all arms?

 

[Argonaut]

The German's have a similar system. To buy or own a gun, you have to have either a Jachtschein (hunting licence) or a Waffenschein (weapons licence) it takes months and sometimes years of intense training to qualify for either one. I am not sure we want that system in our country but we may be headed that direction. I would do what was nessisary to keep and obtain guns. Once licenced, the German's can own as many as they like.