What are "Reasonable Restrictions"?

[Sandaholic]

So while many of the upper elites in the country with their gated communities and armed security might be relatively safe, I think the majority of people who are looking to ban guns in this country haven't thought things through very well. What exactly do they think keeps home-invaders, robbers, rapists, murderers out of their neighborhoods and homes at night? Think about that for a minute folks...its called deterrence...you know, like what countries spend billions/trillions of dollars on with their militaries.
BOSS​

The majority of people don't think at all. They think what the TV and social media tells them to think.​

 

[Argonaut]

Then get rid of the 26th Amendment. If you're not an adult you shouldn't be voting.

Get rid of other amendments then while at it.

The only thing the 26th amendment discusses about age is voting, not gun ownership, drinking, being able to sign enforceable contracts. Those are age of majority issues dictated by the states and other federal laws.

 

[Boboclown]

The only thing the 26th amendment discusses about age is voting, not gun ownership, drinking, being able to sign enforceable contracts. Those are age of majority issues dictated by the states and other federal laws.

Voting is a right, keeping and bear arms is a right. Drinking is not a right.

So let's get rid of the 26th Amendment. Not an adult? No voting for you. If we're going to have arbitrary age limits, then go all in.

 

[Argonaut]

Voting is a right, keeping and bear arms is a right. Drinking is not a right.

So let's get rid of the 26th Amendment. Not an adult? No voting for you. If we're going to have arbitrary age limits, then go all in.

Then how do you explain the 21 year old requirement to buy a handgun? Your argument does not hold water. I have no problem repealing the 26th amendment but it is only nessisary if you want to raise the voting age to 21. In many states an 18 year old can not even sighn a mortgage.

 

[Boboclown]

Then how do you explain the 21 year old requirement to buy a handgun? Your argument does not hold water. I have no problem repealing the 26th amendment but it is only nessisary if you want to raise the voting age to 21. In many states an 18 year old can not even sighn a mortgage.

Because handguns are mostly for self defense and the 2nd Amendment is not about self defense.

So if we're gonna have the arbitrary age limit for a right, then have the arbitrary age limit for your other rights too. Don't be a hypocrite going about it.

 

[Argonaut]

Because handguns are mostly for self defense and the 2nd Amendment is not about self defense.

So if we're gonna have the arbitrary age limit for a right, then have the arbitrary age limit for your other rights too. Don't be a hypocrite going about it.

The 26th is narrowly written, other issues as to age are left to different state and federal laws. Your can not go anywhere with guns in that argument.......and your explanation about handguns is silly. They are not separately called out by the constitution anywhere.

 

[Boboclown]

The 26th is narrowly written, other issues as to age are left to different state and federal laws. Your can not go anywhere with guns in that argument.......and your explanation about handguns is silly. They are not separately called out by the constitution anywhere.

Except in the past guns have been banned as they weren't seen as necessary. So why are those not protected?

Also, if you can't trust them with one right, then don't trust them with another. Don't be a hypocrite.

 

[Argonaut]

Except in the past guns have been banned as they weren't seen as necessary. So why are those not protected?

Also, if you can't trust them with one right, then don't trust them with another. Don't be a hypocrite.

It is simply the law...........nothing more or less. I am sorry it doesn't agree with your opinion. There is no hypocrisy. The accession to the chronological age of 18 does not necessarily convey all rights (or responsibilities) of adulthood. The constitution only says you must be given the right to vote via the 26th amendment.......by the way, I believe South Carolina should still be paying reparations for starting the civil war.......(that won't happen either)

 

[Boboclown]

It is simply the law...........nothing mor or less. I am sorry it doesn't agree with your opinion. There is no hypocrisy. The accession to the chronological age of 18 does not necessarily convey all rights (or responsibilities) of adulthood. The constitution only says you must be given the right to vote via the 26th amendment.

It very much is hypocritical to arbitrarily have an age limit for one right because you can't trust them meanwhile having then vote. Either you can trust them, or you can't.

I'm sorry you can't see the hypocrisy in it. Bless your heart.

 

[Colts4me]

It very much is hypocritical to arbitrarily have an age limit for one right because you can't trust them meanwhile having then vote. Either you can trust them, or you can't.

I'm sorry you can't see the hypocrisy in it. Bless your heart.

I notice that a lot that folks are not consistent in their thinking, sometimes it's hypocrisy and sometimes they just don't think a subject though. Your point on trust is well taken but I doubt the big thinkers here get it. People age different in many respects, a farm boy raised by his pappy to respect guns and people is far different than the street urchin raised in the ghetto. Folks painting with a wide brush saying age makes a difference have no concept of the world we live in.

One size does not fit all when it comes to regulations.

 

[Boboclown]

I notice that a lot that folks are not consistent in their thinking, sometimes it's hypocrisy and sometimes they just don't think a subject though. Your point on trust is well taken but I doubt the big thinkers here get it. People age different in many respects, a farm boy raised by his pappy to respect guns and people is far different than the street urchin raised in the ghetto. Folks painting with a wide brush saying age makes a difference have no concept of the world we live in.

One size does not fit all when it comes to regulations.

I was raised in the city and the farm. And the farm was in South Korea where we had no guns. It makes no difference. At age 18 I'm no different than I am now.

 

[Dornai]

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

Mmm. Strongly disagree. There are plenty of mass shooters over the age of 21, and school shootings are no better, no worse than any other mass shooting. The reason for the prohibition on handgun ownership of those between the ages of 18 and 20 is to prevent gang related shootings, not school shootings.

Furthermore, the prohibition of "class 3 weapons" such as automatic weapons, short barreled firearms, and so on was an effort to ban them ($200 tax stamp in those times was effectively a ban) so that organized crime syndicates in the early 1900's could not attain "tommy guns" and the likes.

Both are unconstitutional, and did nothing to prevent either of the goals they set out to accomplish. It only prevented law abiding citizens from exercising their rights.

I was serving my country in the Army at the age of 18, however to own a handgun in my State my father had to purchase one as a birthday gift and give it to me because I was legally allowed to own and carry one but not purchase one. That is absolutely ludicrous.

Even so, while I may have been an exception to the average maturity of an 18 year old, if we as a society consider 18 year olds legally adults and allow them the right to vote and serve their country then they are also allowed to exercise their constitutional rights such as the right to bear arms - handguns or any other firearm to be included.

 

[Boss]

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

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree...for many of the hard core 'anti's' there is no 'cooling down' to take away our guns. They hate guns, and want them out of the hands of every citizen. Every incremental restriction that passes to them is a 'success' and gives them a feeling of momentum. Granted, there's probably many that just want those nasty, scary 'fully semi-automatic aaassssauuulllltttt weapons!!' and Glocks to be taken away, but after they hear 'Make our schools safer...for the children...if it saves just one child's life' rhetoric, I think they just tune out and blindly jump on the bandwagon. But these are the gateway to the next 'just a little bit more' restriction...which leads to the next 'just a little bit more common sense' restriction, and so on, and so on...

And when gun owners like those who only do things like shoot trap down at the country club (no offense to any trap shooters) come out and naively say they don't mind restricting AR's, standard cap (10+ rounds), etc. cuz anti's aren't going after their 'civilized' trap guns and the like, at least not yet, it emboldens them further.

At age 18 I'm no different than I am now.

With 18 a couple decades+ in my rearview mirror, I can tell you, while my core beliefs haven't changed too much, in many ways, I am very, very different (a ton more responsibilities beyond just myself and different priorities).

BOSS

 

[Boboclown]

With 18 a couple decades+ in my rearview mirror, I can tell you, while my core beliefs haven't changed too much, in many ways, I am very, very different (a ton more responsibilities beyond just myself and different priorities).

For a long time I had a single mother after my father passed. Have to grow up fast when you're the emotional support.

 

[Vettewine]

I've read it, and I agree with you in principle, but in practice should private citizens be allowed to own and use Nukes?

I don't think that "nukes" would be considered firearms by anyone's standard but if the bad guys have them then I want them, too...!

 

[Diamondback]

For a long time I had a single mother after my father passed. Have to grow up fast when you're the emotional support.

Truth. Life also has a way of making you grow up fast when your first girlfriend has a stalker and her life is in your hands day in and day out...

 

[Juany]

Anything short of WMD should be good to go in my opinion.

If we actually have problems with gangs using RPGs at police on a regular basis, we could discuss NFA type regulations on them, but 1 week wait time maximum!

The mass shootings that we see now would be 100x worse. Imagine Las Vegas with RPGs. The public would not/should not stand for it.

The 1A protects free speech. However, you still can't yell fire in a crowded theatre. There is a reason some restrictions exist.

 

[Juany]

I agree that the nukes question is absurd, but it does demonstrate a practical limit on the second amendment.

Nukes are an absurd example. I agree though that it demonstrates some limits. How about a fully functioning tank? Surface to air missles? Napalm?
The reasonable answer is that some restrictions are needed. The bigger question is where to draw that line. If we cannot be reasonable and thoughtful someone else will make that decision for us.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

The 1A protects free speech. However, you still can't yell fire in a crowded theatre. There is a reason some restrictions exist.

Yelling fire in a theater is not the same as owning a gun , of any type.

By yelling fire in a theater for no reason , you can cause a panic or harm ....Simply owning a gun will not harm anyone.
The comparison is not the same at all....

That said one must use any right responsibly
Andy

 

[Juany]

Yelling fire in a theater is not the same as owning a gun , of any type.

By yelling fire in a theater for no reason , you can cause a panic or harm ....Simply owning a gun will not harm anyone.
The comparison is not the same at all....

That said one must use any right responsibly
Andy

I'm not trying to make a literal comparison. Only suggesting that limits do apply to other rights.