Musings on the concept of Reasonable Restriction

While it seemed clear enough to me, I added the italicized portions to help you out...
Click to expand...

Italicized or not it still makes no sense.

I gots to shoot tonight., someone needs to do a properly crafted poll.

WildsohotAlaska
 
Italicized or not it still makes no sense.
Click to expand...

Well, no. You just don't understand. The two are not the same thing.

OK, I'll not be merely flippant.

Try it this way: It's nobody's business what I own or collect or have. No more so than it's any of your business how much I drink or what booze I own. At least not UNTIL I do something wrong because of the drink. DUI, assault, whatever. Then you punish me for my act of irresponsibility. We don't punish everybody in advance for what they might do because they drink. We tried that once. It was called Prohibition. It failed. Miserably. Modern "gun control" is the same mindset and it has been just as miserable a failure and spawned just as much, or more, crime.
 
MacGille said:
If the reason for the 2nd Amendment was to secure our right to have the means to resist tyranny from our own government or from without; then it has already failed. We would have to have the capability to combat air assault, armor, and combined operations. It would also include communications and detection. Obviously beyond the individuals capabilities.
Click to expand...
A guerrilla resistance on one's own soil would not require any of those things. All it would take would be enough lone wolves who were willing to pick off the enemy (e.g., by sniping) until being killed themselves.

A population armed with rifles (and IEDs) sure couldn't face off against a modern army in open warfare, but an armed and hostile segment of the population would make governing the population untenable. Citizens can't be ruled from inside tanks or helicopters; that takes boots on the ground. Any troops who live amongst a population in order to exert tyrannical control will always be subject to attacks and harassment. That's the whole idea behind guerrilla/asymmetric warfare. So the Second Amendment is still completely viable.

Restrictions on the sale or possession of explosives, weapons of mass destruction (machine guns), gas, bio weapons, armed warplanes, cannon etc are reasonable if one wants to live in a stable and reasonably safe world. Hey, wait a minute, we already have those restrictions. Thank God.
Click to expand...
I generally agree with the above with the exception of machine guns, which in my opinion are no more deadly than semi-auto weapons (though full-auto can be useful at very close ranges). Someone who quickly but carefully aims each of 30 shots from a magazine is likely to kill more people than someone who sprays 30 rounds into a crowd (hitting lots of arms and legs in addition to some vital areas). Look at what Cho did at Virginia Tech. Heck, even bolt-action weapons can be used to commit massacres (e.g., Charles Whitman). But we still have the right to own these weapons because America wasn't founded on the principle of absolute safety, and there's no such thing anyway. Freedom has risks.

With regard to those other weapons you mentioned, I don't have a problem with restrictions on those because (1) they're not really necessary to protect freedom because of the guerrilla warfare angle I was just talking about; (2) in many situations they can't be used at all without risk of collateral damage; and (3) they generally aren't even useful for self-defense (it's not like a bioweapon or nerve gas is going to help much if someone breaks into your home).

All in all, my position on private ownership of weapons is that people should be allowed to own any direct fire weapon available. I don't have a problem with background checks for serious disqualifiers or even some kind of requirement to demonstrate safe handling and usage. But once those requirements are passed, then the individual should be able to buy a belt-fed machine gun from the local gun store.
 
Of course not. Drug laws and gun laws are responsible for most gang activity. If there were little black market value or need for either then such industries would not exist. This doesn't even touch on the issue of "crime" in the form of paperwork violations, "modifications", etc. OTOH I suppose it is in character for you to gripe that you don't understand, then pick out one line and dismiss it specifically while ignoring everything else. :rolleyes:
 
So if there weren't any laws people couldn't / wouldn't break them and there would be no crime or gang activity???
 
jselvy, if you can put a finite definition on the word "reasonable," then you need to quit your job and go teach law school. We've dedicated whole days of class time to sitting around asking each other, "What is 'reasonable'?" It can't be answered.

"Reasonable" depends upon the cultural norms and standards of the day, tailored to meet a specific goal or purpose. If your goal is for everyone in the world to own as many guns as possible, then NO restrictions are "reasonable." If your goal is to make sure that noone in the world ever has the opportunity to fire a gun, then ANY restriction would be "reasonable."

So, then we go to the "majority goal" of the people, thereby trying to normalize or equalize both the goals and the social norms of the people. Most folks want to be able to own a gun if they want to. But, most folks also want murderers, robbers and rapists to not be able to get a gun. So, we dream up restrictions, and we ask, "Will this further our goal of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, while still preserving our ability to get a gun if we want one?" If yes, we enact it. If no, it fails. (In theory...)

The definition of "reasonable" depends on your goals. If a measure is declared "reasonable," and it conflicts with your goals, then ask yourself in what ways your goals are out of sinc with the rest of the world. Why do you feel they are "unreasonable"?
 
I have not been to come up with an universal definition of reasonable. This worries me as the concept is very much part of our laws.

Jefferson
 
Which is why our Founding Fathers left the Constitution and The Bill Of Rights quite ambiguously worded. They designed it as such so that a "reasonable" court, comprised of jurors (our peers), will ultimately interpret the law...and what is reasonable and what is not.

Reasonable to me means the sum of a collective intelligence of the society at large. I think Abraham Lincoln once said: "You can fool all of the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time".

As for me, in regards to the reasonable use of deadly force, "It is better to be judged by twelve than carried by six."

Sounds pretty reasonable.
 
Last edited:
Reasonable to me means the sum of a collective intelligence of the society at large.
Click to expand...

Yay! At last someone gets it.

Wildthereisyouranswertothegreatdichotomiesfoundbetweenhistoricalcircumsatncesandtheconstituionalunderpinning
sofournationtoincludebutnotbelimitedtodeathpenaltyslaverysearchandseizureabortiongunsetcAlaska
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I generally agree with the above with the exception of machine guns, which in my opinion are no more deadly than semi-auto weapons (though full-auto can be useful at very close ranges). [/
Click to expand...

Well, I sure am glad that the beer drinking, wife beater down the street doesn't have am M60 when he gets drunk and mad the next time.:eek:

As far as guerrilla warfare, any observer can see the trouble the VC caused in Viet Nam, and the destruction in Baghdad. However, these "insurgents" are not even Iraqi for the most part, and they are armed trained and supplied by a foreign nation (Syria and Iran). So they are irregular troops of a foreign nation and not guerrillas. Also the conquest of Viet Nam was by the NVA not the VC. Even so, The citizens of this nation could cause a lot of trouble for an oppressing army. But, they could not win, and the eventual result would be tyranny.

Reasonable is an imprecise term, but it is not without meaning. If the majority of the voters agree on what is reasonable in a given instance it can be codified. The main criterion is the ability to understand the viewpoint of the opposition. Not necessarily agree with it but at least understand his reasoning. Only then can a reasonable standard be reached.:)
 
Last edited:
Of course not. Drug laws and gun laws are responsible for most gang activity.
Click to expand...

laws are responsible for crime and gang activity? Where do you come from? As far as history shows, there have always been some who want to do whatever they want, to anyone available. Goths, Visigoths, Huns, Franks, whomever! Every society has had criminals who violate society's laws. Does disease cause germs or do germs cause disease? The human condition causes crime, not the laws designed to protect the members from criminals.:D
 
jselvy, if you can put a finite definition on the word "reasonable," then you need to quit your job and go teach law school. We've dedicated whole days of class time to sitting around asking each other, "What is 'reasonable'?" It can't be answered.
Click to expand...

This is the same kind of reasoning that allowed Bill Clinton to escape impeachment because no one could define the word "is". Typical lawyer reasoning where the reality of humanity is ignored in favor of the technicalities of language.:barf:

"reasonable" can be codified and is codified in many cases. The majority defines "reasonable " by their votes. If it doesn't fit your desires you have the choice to obey, or dissent, WITHIN THE LAW. Anything else is punishable.:)
 
I think Abraham Lincoln once said: "You can fool all of the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time".
Click to expand...

It was P.T. Barnum, who also said:"there's a sucker born every minute."
 
As far as guerrilla warfare, any observer can see the trouble the VC caused in Viet Nam, and the destruction in Baghdad. However, these "insurgents" are not even Iraqi for the most part, and they are armed trained and supplied by a foreign nation (Syria and Iran). So they are irregular troops of a foreign nation and not guerrillas. Also the conquest of Viet Nam was by the NVA not the VC. Even so, The citizens of this nation could cause a lot of trouble for an oppressing army. But, they could not win, and the eventual result would be tyranny.
Click to expand...
I haven't heard of any credible evidence presented that indicates Syria and/or Iran are officially arming or training Iraqi insurgents. (No offense to you, but I suspect that claim has roots in neocon propaganda designed to drum up public support for spreading the war into those other countries.) I don't doubt, however, that some of the insurgents have snuck across borders to fight in Iraq. Everything I've seen tells me that most insurgent are Iraqis who are fighting to expel the US. And of course many of them are fighting each other for religious reasons (Sunni vs. Shiite and so forth).

Check out the weapons they've been using. This is pure, down-and-dirty guerrilla stuff:

http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,Defensewatch_062405_Quigley,00.html

Regarding the effectiveness of guerrilla warfare in general, here's the main part of a pretty good article. I don't know anything about the author, but what he says makes a lot of sense:

The sheer numbers of firearms of all kinds in the hands of the American public would have made the American commanders in Vietnam quake in their boots. We’re not talking junk equipment here, either. Even the average deer hunter with a .270 or .308 could give an entire platoon of regular troops more grief than they want. There was a special on the tube recently about military armaments on sale in the black market (including Stinger missiles).

The population base from which revolutionaries could be recruited is massive – 250 million.

There are literally millions of well-trained men who, having served as officers and NCOs in foreign engagements such as Vietnam, have learned face-to-face how guerrilla warfare works. They haven’t forgotten it, either.

There are millions of young men out there with military training and experience with weapons of every conceivable kind who would make top-quality guerrilla troops.

Every one of the 100 counties in the state of North Carolina could field at least one full company that would be formidable in capability. If one assumes that North Carolina is no more capable than other states, that could amount to 180 divisions. These potential troops would be fast-moving light infantry with the capability of melting into the general population when necessary.

American military leaders would be in the position of having an inventory of high-tech weapons that they would depend on your son or nephew to use against you. There would be no enemy states in which you could say that any weapon could be used against the guerillas. They would be from each and every state and major city.

By the same token, there would be no sanctuary for the federal troops anywhere in the land. No matter where they were stationed, they would be subject to attack and harassment. The infrastructure on which the federal government depends would be rather easily disrupted by those who live there. Airfields and major lines of communications could be shut down and kept down for days at a time. Disruption of supplies to major bases and to centers of government would be simple. You don’t have to cut them off, just keep them hungry.

The federal government would be denied the use of all their major weaponry because they would still “own” the cities and villages. How do you justify bombing your own city just because there is a rebel company in it? One bombing would be the biggest recruiting drive ever for the rebel forces.

Now just how powerful do those 12 Army divisions and those three Marine divisions really look to you? Just how scary is the Air Force against America? What will the Navy do, shell all coastal cities? I don’t think so.

One of these days a truly charismatic individual is going to walk out of the heartland of America and point out that the Declaration of Independence has never been repealed and that it requires all citizens to rise up against an oppressive government. With the current attitude toward our government and the people who populate it, a massive groundswell of support for throwing the current crop to the dogs and starting over again might not be so difficult.

As for the ability of the American citizens to successfully wage a guerrilla war on their own government, the likes of which this world has never seen nor contemplated before, I am absolutely convinced that it could be done, and a lot more swiftly than many might believe possible. How many highly-capable long-range snipers can your county put together?

Reprinted in “The Bullet Trap” by permission from Bill Bridgewater, “Alliance Voice”, August 1994
Click to expand...
Please note that I'm not advocating overthrowing the government; I'm just saying that if enough of the population in the future decided it was necessary to do so, it would likely be possible. And even if it didn't succeed, it's better to die than to live as a slave anyway. If I were an armed resident of Nazi Germany or Bolshevik Russia and the JBTs were coming for me, I'd resign myself to the fact that I was going to die one day anyway, so I might as well take some bad guys with me first.
 
One more thing (sorry if I'm getting off topic):

Of course not. Drug laws and gun laws are responsible for most gang activity.
Click to expand...
laws are responsible for crime and gang activity? Where do you come from? As far as history shows, there have always been some who want to do whatever they want, to anyone available. Goths, Visigoths, Huns, Franks, whomever! Every society has had criminals who violate society's laws. Does disease cause germs or do germs cause disease? The human condition causes crime, not the laws designed to protect the members from criminals.
Click to expand...
Actually, drug laws DO cause gang violence. Look at all the violence that was associated with alcohol prohibition. Then alcohol prohibition was repealed. How often today do we hear about people killing each other over alcohol profits?

The reason drug prohibition causes violence is economic. Drugs are something that a lot of people want and are willing to pay for. Making them illegal puts pressure on the supply without reducing the demand very much. That causes the price of drugs to rise, thus making them MUCH more profitable to sell. And where huge profits are involved, organized crime and gangs are going to get into the picture: fighting with each other over turf, bribing and assassinating officials, trying to get more people addicted, etc. When dealers are busted, the lure of the huge profits ensures that other dealers will take their place.

If I were a big-time drug dealer, my worst nightmare would be drug legalization. It would put me out of business and take away the source of all my money.
 
Saying that laws cause crime is the height of sophistry. Criminals are criminals because they see an opportunity to take from society without putting out the effort to earn. Drugs now, and Alcohol then, are only the tools used by the criminals to take. Rackets, extortion,protection, crooked unions, robbery murder, fraud, political graft,treason,and many other activities are crime, and to say that the law creates crime is foolish. Criminals create crime. And violence is in our nature. Or don't you ever get angry? That's the beginning of violence my child.

As far as the gun owning citizens rising up to stop tyranny, It ain't gonna happen Bubba. The citizens will pull their heads in and knuckle under because its too much trouble to stick your neck out. So buckle your seatbelt, put on your helmet, register your guns and ask permission to exercise your 2nd amendment rights. And if they refuse your rights then give in and take up kniitting.

If you don't buy insurance they'll cancel the registration on your car and if you starve to death because you can't get to work, well too bad. The tort lawyers need to eat too.
 
Last edited:
Reasonable?

One problem with the "reasonable" approach is that it changes over time. And it has changed a lot in the last century or so.

Not so long ago (in historical terms, but a couple of long lifetimes on a personal scale) it was entirely reasonable to shoot someone dead for stealing your property. And it was often "reasonable" to shoot a man caught cheating at cards (if there was money involved).

Turn on cable TV and you will be able to see something that was not even remotely "reasonable" even 50 years ago.

With respect to firearms ownership and our rights, each new generation changes that is reasonable, as it comes into its own. Many people who graduated in 1920 found the NFA '34 unreasonable (unfortunate for us they didn't do enough about it at the time) people who graduated in 1980 don't find it unreasonable. At least not the "average" person, who has little or no knowledge of machineguns, etc. It is a sad thing for us, but it is the undereducated (about guns) majority of our population that sets the standard for "reasonable".

As far as why we don't have "drive bys" with RPGs and explosives in this country (so far), is cultural, not because we have laws against it. Motivated individuals can get around laws, something proven every day.

And as far as any kind of revolution, well I hope I don't live to see it. My children are in the military, and I believe if they were ordered to do something against someone "just like Mom & Dad", they would have serious issues with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top