tkroenlein Posted October 7, 2017 at 02:59 PM Share Posted October 7, 2017 at 02:59 PM In the wake of the tragic Las Vegas massacre, it has become apparent that not all gun owners (or members here) are on the same page where the boundary between reasonable regulation and infringement lies. I'm creating this thread to open a discussion on where this fine line is drawn in the minds of the members, in hopes to unify the effort to defeat anti gun efforts and to promote gun rights across the board. We can for sanity's sake define the parameters of the discussion to some extent. We first will accept Illinois Carry's stated and long standing position as having a goal of Constitutional Carry as resolved and not open for debate. That is to say that there should be no legal barrier prohibiting a citizen in good standing from carrying a loaded gun in public. And while using specific firearms or accessories as examples for the purposes of discussion is certainly appropriate, this is not the thread to specifically discuss the merits of any single item (bump fire stocks.) So if you think you can make a case for what constitutes "reasonable regulation" and what does not, please comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tip Posted October 7, 2017 at 03:09 PM Share Posted October 7, 2017 at 03:09 PM Reasonable regulation = same exact rules as applies to voting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldMarineVet Posted October 7, 2017 at 03:17 PM Share Posted October 7, 2017 at 03:17 PM There is NO reasonable regulation for the 2nd Amendment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tkroenlein Posted October 7, 2017 at 03:26 PM Author Share Posted October 7, 2017 at 03:26 PM There is NO reasonable regulation for the 2nd Amendment.Denying violent felons the right to bear arms is reasonable isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandyP Posted October 7, 2017 at 03:26 PM Share Posted October 7, 2017 at 03:26 PM And there you have it - All regulation is viewed by many as infringement (including some gun rights groups) - Some form of regulation is viewed by many as appropriate (including the Supreme Court). Might as well tack on some non-controversial topic... you know ... like religion, abortion or the death penalty. Topics where it is easy to find common ground and agreement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plinkermostly Posted October 7, 2017 at 03:28 PM Share Posted October 7, 2017 at 03:28 PM It is illegal to kill people. If bad guys ignore that, what possible gun regulation is going to improve things? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldMarineVet Posted October 7, 2017 at 03:41 PM Share Posted October 7, 2017 at 03:41 PM There is NO reasonable regulation for the 2nd Amendment. Denying violent felons the right to bear arms is reasonable isn't it? No "Violent felons" need to be hunted down, prosecuted, and put in prison for a long time (or capitol punishment.) If felons are evil they will get any weapons they prefer to kill people. And they don't follow gun laws. If they repent their crime they are entitled to self defense from evil people. When I say "evil," I understand there are evil people in this world. Has been since the beginning of mankind (Cain and Abel from the Old Testament?) They can't be rehabilitated. And you can’t legislate your way out of evil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mic6010 Posted October 7, 2017 at 03:47 PM Share Posted October 7, 2017 at 03:47 PM "Reasonable" is an indefinable term. And as soon as you start talking about what's "reasonable" in terms of what humans should and shouldn't be allowed to do is when you have problems.One persons "reasonable" becomes another persons "what the bleep" are you talking about. But lets make something constructive out of this question anyways. Personally I feel we don't need anymore gun laws that prohibit people from owning things. We have enough of those on the books already to last us a lifetime. But what this is all really about is the question you should be asking. Whats really happening here ? What is "reasonable" ? To the antis "reasonable" is whatever the low hanging fruit of the moment is. Their ultimate goal is for all firearms and owners to be fully registered, insured, locked up 24/7 in safes or lockers. They only want us to own bolt action rifles and shotguns. Maybe if we are lucky semi auto .22s with a 10 round magazine. They want a world where firearms are not to be seen or talked about. They want a world where firearms are not to be used except on very strictly regulated ranges where you're registered in and out like you're visiting someone in jail.Where am I getting these crazy ideas from ? Just see the UK, Europe, Australia etc.. Places that used to have gun freedoms and no longer do. That's what the antis envision for America when they start talking about "reasonable". That's ultimately the end game of what they want with every single piece of legislation they support.One step closer to the goal of the total destruction of Americas gun culture. But of course if you ask them they are all for protecting our right to bear arms and our traditions lol. Yeah right. And sadly that's what they are getting closer to every single day in states like California, New York, Connecticut. I mean take a look at those US states I just mentioned. Wouldn't most objective people without a dog in the fight say the regulations those states have are pretty "reasonable" ? But they aren't stopping passing laws are they ? Nope every few years they find something else to ban, regulate and make people register because they have the political power to do it without opposition. Now you have to be registered just to buy ammo even. Every single round accounted for like they are mini nuclear missiles. So I mean in the face of that what other opinion can you have if your even slightly pro gun rights ? You have to just draw the line in the sand and say no more.Because lets face it, there's no compromise with those people, they don't want a compromise or to be "reasonable" and they wont stop. As soon as they gather enough losers to piss on the second amendment they will ram their anti gun garbage right down our throats no matter we like it or not and then we will be the ones screaming about "Well what about being reasonable here"So yeah the only reply that ever needs being given to any of those questions is this one line....."No more new gun laws ever !!!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScopeEye Posted October 7, 2017 at 03:48 PM Share Posted October 7, 2017 at 03:48 PM There is NO reasonable regulation for the 2nd Amendment.I'll second thatShall not be infringed... It's too bad so many members here don't get it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim123 Posted October 7, 2017 at 03:52 PM Share Posted October 7, 2017 at 03:52 PM There is NO reasonable regulation for the 2nd Amendment.Denying violent felons the right to bear arms is reasonable isn't it? Nope. If they're too dangerous to be trusted with a gun, they're too dangerous to not be in jail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papa Posted October 7, 2017 at 03:54 PM Share Posted October 7, 2017 at 03:54 PM If a felon has served his time then all rights should be restored. If he has proven that he can not be trusted in public then he should be in prison or dead. I do not support any regulations on the 2A at all. The founding fathers put the 2A and all rights in writing to protect us citizens from the government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tkroenlein Posted October 7, 2017 at 04:17 PM Author Share Posted October 7, 2017 at 04:17 PM There is NO reasonable regulation for the 2nd Amendment.Denying violent felons the right to bear arms is reasonable isn't it?No"Violent felons" need to be hunted down, prosecuted, and put in prison for a long time (or capitol punishment.) If felons are evil they will get any weapons they prefer to kill people. And they don't follow gun laws. If they repent their crime they are entitled to self defense from evil people.When I say "evil," I understand there are evil people in this world. Has been since the beginning of mankind (Cain and Abel from the Old Testament?) They can't be rehabilitated. And you can’t legislate your way out of evil.We are in *total* agreement, philosophically. But my pragmatic side sees the average baby rapist getting a few years in the pen and some probation. In lieu of a total overhaul of the criminal justice system, I'm afraid we're left with having to make some concessions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted October 7, 2017 at 04:19 PM Share Posted October 7, 2017 at 04:19 PM Do you really think it's wise to publicize what some might be willing to give up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tkroenlein Posted October 7, 2017 at 04:37 PM Author Share Posted October 7, 2017 at 04:37 PM Do you really think it's wise to publicize what some might be willing to give up?I certainly hope that this doesn't turn into a thread where there is a unanimous agreement where we concede anything, but rather we reach an understanding that, while we voice our opinions and raise talking points for purposes of discussion, that we are as a group unwilling to concede ANYTHING. I had no intention to directly state my own opinion so early in the thread, but since you've asked nicely; no man, woman, or child should be denied the right to defend themselves with any tool that they can procure to do so. It is an undeniable fact that the Founders enshrined the right to keep and bear arms because they recognized that it was strength of civilian arms that brought them from being subjects of a crown to being citizens of a self-governed nation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallbore Posted October 7, 2017 at 05:20 PM Share Posted October 7, 2017 at 05:20 PM I would be interested in seeing if someone could show me a reasonable restriction that actually protected the American citizen.If bump stock had all along been banned, would the LV terrorist still have murder even more Americans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted October 7, 2017 at 05:46 PM Share Posted October 7, 2017 at 05:46 PM There is NO reasonable regulation for the 2nd Amendment. I'll second thatShall not be infringed... It's too bad so many members here don't get it...I also agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trevis Posted October 7, 2017 at 05:48 PM Share Posted October 7, 2017 at 05:48 PM There's a large difference between mala prohibitum and mala in se. Pretty much any regulation or restriction on a fundamental right is mala prohibitum, wrong because it's prohibited, not because it's actually wrong. When it crosses the line into interfering with the rights of another, then there's a conversation to be had. Unfortunately, law makers have taken the interests of public good to mean anything they want. They'll ban, name illegal, anything they want to. The problem with that is that there is no evil object, the relationship we have with them is what makes it wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billzfx4 Posted October 7, 2017 at 06:34 PM Share Posted October 7, 2017 at 06:34 PM The only thing we should be giving the anti's is a big middle finger.Their idea of "reasonable regulation" never ends. First it's the slide fire, then magazine limits and on and on and on. The wish list never ends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilphil Posted October 7, 2017 at 06:46 PM Share Posted October 7, 2017 at 06:46 PM While it is very easy to say in the abstract that no person should be denied a gun, in the real world I think that doesn't always make sense.I have a sister-in-law that after 30+ years of severe alcohol and drug abuse is mentally unstable. She has a bad temper on the rare days that she is sober, when she is drunk or stoned she is a danger to her self, her 7 yr old son and others. I think it would be irresponsible to say that she and untold others like her should be able to own a gun. I should also mention that she has several non-violent felonies on her record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WitchDoctor Posted October 7, 2017 at 07:37 PM Share Posted October 7, 2017 at 07:37 PM As it is written.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunuser17 Posted October 7, 2017 at 07:37 PM Share Posted October 7, 2017 at 07:37 PM I understand the fear of giving an inch and they will take a mile. But I also know that most people seem to agree that prohibiting yelling fire in a theater where there is no fire is reasonable. So reasonable regulatin of a constitutional right is something most citizens accept. While it might feel good to be a 2nd Amendment absolutist, advocates still will have to engage in the discussion or we may find ourselves losing gun rights left and right. Relying on the supreme Court is not working so well in California. So we had better figure out "reasonableness" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldMarineVet Posted October 7, 2017 at 08:41 PM Share Posted October 7, 2017 at 08:41 PM There is NO reasonable regulation for the 2nd Amendment.Denying violent felons the right to bear arms is reasonable isn't it?No"Violent felons" need to be hunted down, prosecuted, and put in prison for a long time (or capitol punishment.) If felons are evil they will get any weapons they prefer to kill people. And they don't follow gun laws. If they repent their crime they are entitled to self defense from evil people.When I say "evil," I understand there are evil people in this world. Has been since the beginning of mankind (Cain and Abel from the Old Testament?) They can't be rehabilitated. And you can’t legislate your way out of evil. We are in *total* agreement, philosophically. But my pragmatic side sees the average baby rapist getting a few years in the pen and some probation. In lieu of a total overhaul of the criminal justice system, I'm afraid we're left with having to make some concessions. Fix the root cause. Lack of prosecution (like we see for South Side) is driven by corruption. No need for an "overhaul of the criminal justice system." The laws are already on the books. Enforce them and properly prosecute them. Don't infringe on the 2nd Amendment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wven33 Posted October 7, 2017 at 09:00 PM Share Posted October 7, 2017 at 09:00 PM NO MORE LAWS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FF1984 Posted October 7, 2017 at 10:31 PM Share Posted October 7, 2017 at 10:31 PM The problem with anti's is that "reasonable" means only the police and military have guns. When anti's consider the bill of rights and constitution "outdated" and subject to change, infringement isn't an issue. If their laws are "infringing", simply change the document (or it's interpretation via an activist court) and now the laws are "reasonable" and not an infringement. With every concession made, we've literally gained nothing but a temporary reprieve from something even more restrictive. We've simply lost more of our freedom...the only question is how much this time? It's a very subjective thing and as such anti-gunner's continue to move that goal post. It's a constant march towards the eventual eradication of the 2A. NO new laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hipshot Percussion Posted October 7, 2017 at 10:38 PM Share Posted October 7, 2017 at 10:38 PM No matter what I think, what I believe is we must fight them tooth and nail for every gosh darn inch. Period. For many years we gave up bits and pieces of our Rights to appease the Left. No more. http://research.pomona.edu/itsecurity/files/2017/05/nevergiveup.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Looper Posted October 7, 2017 at 11:05 PM Share Posted October 7, 2017 at 11:05 PM What " reasonable " Restrictions do you allow on all our other RIGHTS ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tkroenlein Posted October 7, 2017 at 11:12 PM Author Share Posted October 7, 2017 at 11:12 PM What " reasonable " Restrictions do you allow on all our other RIGHTS ??Free speech =/= blocking traffic (permitted protests like IGOLD.) Voter ID laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted October 7, 2017 at 11:34 PM Share Posted October 7, 2017 at 11:34 PM It would be easy to read some of your posts as implying that firearms are currently unregulated, or not sufficiently regulated. That surprises me. Can we at least agree that regulation does currently exist, far beyond what many of us would consider reasonable? Our purpose, after all, is to remove many of those layers of law, not add to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Illinois Sucks Posted October 8, 2017 at 12:52 AM Share Posted October 8, 2017 at 12:52 AM I am offended by gun laws that restrict what I can use or where I can protect myself and my family. This is especially insulting when it is under the premise that it is for the safety of others. They are implying that I am going to somehow be a danger to others if I have a bump stock or and automatic weapon or suppressor or if I am on public transportation or in a school. My morals keep me from being a danger to others. Laws are in place for those that don't have morals. Punishment for crimes should make those without morals think twice about breaking the moral contract you have by being a member of society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Googe1227 Posted October 8, 2017 at 12:56 AM Share Posted October 8, 2017 at 12:56 AM There is NO reasonable regulation for the 2nd Amendment.+1,000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.