Reasonable Gun Laws ...
- Thread starter ICBentley
- Start date
- Status
Brett Bellmore
New member
Sure there can be reasonable gun laws. Falling into such a catagory would be laws criminalizing
1. Murder using a gun.
2. Assault using a gun.
3. Robbery using a gun.
4. Reckless endangerment using a gun.
5. Rape using a gun. (Hm, this could be interpreted more than one way...)
Of course, all the reasonable gun laws got enacted a long, long time ago.
------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!
1. Murder using a gun.
2. Assault using a gun.
3. Robbery using a gun.
4. Reckless endangerment using a gun.
5. Rape using a gun. (Hm, this could be interpreted more than one way...)
Of course, all the reasonable gun laws got enacted a long, long time ago.
------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!
I have to disagree, Brett. There are reasonable laws.
1.) Murder
2.) Assault
3.) Robbery
4.) Reckless endangerment
5.) Rape
6.) Running red lights.
Doesn't matter what, if any, tool is used in the commission of the crime.
On the gun law part of it, possibly a law preventing a minor from purchasing a gun without parental permission. I'm not convinced either way on this one.
[This message has been edited by Colombe (edited July 30, 2000).]
1.) Murder
2.) Assault
3.) Robbery
4.) Reckless endangerment
5.) Rape
6.) Running red lights.
Doesn't matter what, if any, tool is used in the commission of the crime.
On the gun law part of it, possibly a law preventing a minor from purchasing a gun without parental permission. I'm not convinced either way on this one.
[This message has been edited by Colombe (edited July 30, 2000).]
I want to support the Second Amendment without limitation. Nevertheless, I believe a few “common sense” constraints should be imposed on the RKBA. Specifically, I do not want violent felons to have legal access to weapons, nor the mentally deranged, nor minors, nor dishonorably discharged individuals. These groups (except minors, obviously) have forfeited their rights through their actions in many arenas (for example, felons lose their right to vote). However, with the exception of these reasonable restrictions, the Second Amendment should provide an absolute right for citizens to keep and bear arms without governmental interference.
I will now muster the fire extinguishers, don my Nomex suit, and charge the fire hoses.
I will now muster the fire extinguishers, don my Nomex suit, and charge the fire hoses.
In an ideal world I could support "reasonable" gun laws. Problem is we currently do not live in an ideal world.
Fact of the matter is we inhabit living space with people who have access to the levers of power at the state and federal levels. These same people sincerely believe their political positions supercede any moral prohibitions against misrepresentation and outright lying. When you combine unfettered access to coersive power with a lack of a moral guidance system you have the potential of a government turning on its population. The founding father of the US clearly saw that is a reality. Their solution. . . make it clear to the government that if it does "go bad" there will be a price to be paid.
Short answer? No, there are no reasonable gun laws because of the moral fiber of those who oppose RKBA as guaranteed by the American social contract, the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
------------------
Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.
Barry Goldwater--1964
Fact of the matter is we inhabit living space with people who have access to the levers of power at the state and federal levels. These same people sincerely believe their political positions supercede any moral prohibitions against misrepresentation and outright lying. When you combine unfettered access to coersive power with a lack of a moral guidance system you have the potential of a government turning on its population. The founding father of the US clearly saw that is a reality. Their solution. . . make it clear to the government that if it does "go bad" there will be a price to be paid.
Short answer? No, there are no reasonable gun laws because of the moral fiber of those who oppose RKBA as guaranteed by the American social contract, the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
------------------
Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.
Barry Goldwater--1964
Jeff Thomas
New member
As a good friend puts it, 'everything bad you can do with a gun is already illegal' ... many times over, I'll add.
The 'reasonable' gun laws are listed above ... murder, assault, etc. Everything else is simply citizen control and anti-self defense.
Regards from AZ
The 'reasonable' gun laws are listed above ... murder, assault, etc. Everything else is simply citizen control and anti-self defense.
Regards from AZ
walangkatapat
New member
Those who use the word reasonable are setting up those who disagree with them as ureasonable. These are reasonable gun laws, so therefor you are unreasonable and are or should be discredited, ignored. Who with any sanity wouldn't support this gun law? So if you are against supporting the law you must be insane. The antis got their Nazi propaganda down perfectly. Demonization of the opposing beliefs, views, lies built on lies, hoping the ignorant will prevail, etc. Reasonable is nothing but a political tool.
------------------
"Gun Control is Only to Protect Those in Power"
------------------
"Gun Control is Only to Protect Those in Power"
Brett Bellmore
New member
Jeff: Exactly my point; Sorry, Colombe; I didn't actually mean to imply that I supported laws to specifically address those crimes when guns were used...
RWK: No need for the Nomex suit; Those are indeed reasonable laws. If enacted at the state level, not by the federal government! But let's go with Colombe's formulation; "without parental permission"; There's no particular evidence that the country was a bloodbath back when minors buying guns was still legal.
------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!
RWK: No need for the Nomex suit; Those are indeed reasonable laws. If enacted at the state level, not by the federal government! But let's go with Colombe's formulation; "without parental permission"; There's no particular evidence that the country was a bloodbath back when minors buying guns was still legal.
------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!
At one time I thought that "reasonable" gun laws were the type that provided penalties for murder with a gun, etc. Then I came to TFL and saw the light 
. Why is killing someone with a gun somehow more serious than killing someone with a hammer? It would seem to me that it takes a much more vicious person to kill someone with a hammer, and therefore that crime is more heinous than if the killing is done with a gun. In the end, though, murder is murder.
Dick
Want to send a message to Bush? Sign the petition at http://www.petitiononline.com/monk/petition.html and forward the link to every gun owner you know.
. Why is killing someone with a gun somehow more serious than killing someone with a hammer? It would seem to me that it takes a much more vicious person to kill someone with a hammer, and therefore that crime is more heinous than if the killing is done with a gun. In the end, though, murder is murder. Dick
Want to send a message to Bush? Sign the petition at http://www.petitiononline.com/monk/petition.html and forward the link to every gun owner you know.
Badger Arms
New member
YES, THERE IS SUCH A THING. It is reasonable to require every able-bodied male citizen of voting age to keep a firearm and ammuntion at the ready. Heck, we consider it reasonable to require all such men register for the draft, don't we? We should also punish those who restrict our right to keep and bear arms as we punish those who restrict our free speech and freedom of the press.
Thank you all. Excellent answers so far and I'm looking forward to more. So far two points come to mind:
walangkatapat:
Brilliant point! Lies and rhetorical tricks are essential to the current level of success of the antis. You clearly reveal one of their current favorites.
RWK:
I do understand where you are coming from; and I do not think it is a worthwhile battle to join in public at this time, but:
There was once the idea that a convict who had served his time had "payed his debt to society" and should be given another chance. If the criminal justice system operated properly would not one's rights, including self defense, be restored when one's debt is paid? Shouldn't one who really has been adjudged to be so dangerous as to not be allowed access to a weapon even for self defense be kept in prison? Just a thought.
Also, I do wonder about the inclusion of dishonorable discharge. Please inform me. Is there a guarantee of due process here? Is it definite that such an individual is necessarily unfit to exercise the right of self defense? If so, does this fall under the above question of restoration of rights when the debt is paid?
Respectfully,
Bentley
"There is more truth in one sword than in 10,000 words.."
-The Koran
walangkatapat:
Brilliant point! Lies and rhetorical tricks are essential to the current level of success of the antis. You clearly reveal one of their current favorites.
RWK:
I do understand where you are coming from; and I do not think it is a worthwhile battle to join in public at this time, but:
There was once the idea that a convict who had served his time had "payed his debt to society" and should be given another chance. If the criminal justice system operated properly would not one's rights, including self defense, be restored when one's debt is paid? Shouldn't one who really has been adjudged to be so dangerous as to not be allowed access to a weapon even for self defense be kept in prison? Just a thought.
Also, I do wonder about the inclusion of dishonorable discharge. Please inform me. Is there a guarantee of due process here? Is it definite that such an individual is necessarily unfit to exercise the right of self defense? If so, does this fall under the above question of restoration of rights when the debt is paid?
Respectfully,
Bentley
"There is more truth in one sword than in 10,000 words.."
-The Koran
Juan Hunt Greer
New member
As I recall, Kennesaw, Georgia has a reasonable gun law!
crankshaft
nralife, goa, jpfo, fcsa, smvfm
paranoia is a pretty good thing to have when they're actually out to get you!
crankshaft
nralife, goa, jpfo, fcsa, smvfm
paranoia is a pretty good thing to have when they're actually out to get you!
Had to look it up. Found this:
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3765960e027b.htm
GUN CONTROL "KENNESAW GEORGIA UPDATE"
Thw New American Magazine www.jbs.org
June 21, 1999 edition Robert W. Lee "GUN REPORT"
Kenesaw Update!!!!!!!
March 25th marked the 16th anniversary of Kennesaw, Georgia’s ordinance requiring heads of households {with certain exceptions} to KEEP at least one firearm in their homes. The City’s population grew from around 5,000 in 1980 to 13,000 by 1996 {latest available estimate}. Yet, there there have only been three murders: two with knives {1984 and 1987, and one with a firearm {1997}.
After the law went into effect in 1982, crime against persons plummeted 74 percent compared to 1981, and fell another 45 percent in 1983 compared to 1982. And it has stayed IMPRESSIVELY low.In addition to nearly non-existent homicide {murders have averaged a mere 0.19 per year}, the annual number of armed robberies, residential burglaries, commercial burglaries, and rapes have averaged respectively 1.69, 31.6, 19.7, and 2.00 through 1998.
Sounds reasonable to me!
Bentley
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3765960e027b.htm
GUN CONTROL "KENNESAW GEORGIA UPDATE"
Thw New American Magazine www.jbs.org
June 21, 1999 edition Robert W. Lee "GUN REPORT"
Kenesaw Update!!!!!!!
March 25th marked the 16th anniversary of Kennesaw, Georgia’s ordinance requiring heads of households {with certain exceptions} to KEEP at least one firearm in their homes. The City’s population grew from around 5,000 in 1980 to 13,000 by 1996 {latest available estimate}. Yet, there there have only been three murders: two with knives {1984 and 1987, and one with a firearm {1997}.
After the law went into effect in 1982, crime against persons plummeted 74 percent compared to 1981, and fell another 45 percent in 1983 compared to 1982. And it has stayed IMPRESSIVELY low.In addition to nearly non-existent homicide {murders have averaged a mere 0.19 per year}, the annual number of armed robberies, residential burglaries, commercial burglaries, and rapes have averaged respectively 1.69, 31.6, 19.7, and 2.00 through 1998.
Sounds reasonable to me!
Bentley
oberkommando
New member
RWK, I will post the question that will get falmed. Why should felons be exempt? The Second says nothing about them. Militia is ALL able bodied men. If you have served your debt to society then shouldnt you have the same rights? I know you said violent felons, but what of the white collar variety or the guy who get caught carring without a permit more than once, a felony in kali. This is not a flame to anyone here disagreeing its just that I question "Obviously Reasonable" gun laws, as there are always exceptions when something is put down in blanket terms. Even the Second has them in large scale devises such as tanks and nukes. It must be my living in kali that has me against almost all guns laws. As I have seen personally how far they go.
Another thing is that violent felons should be kept in prison where they belong and not released by parole boards. Then we wouldnt have much of a problem with them. And the few that did get out eventually I could deal with having arms as long as we all could carry for protection. I dont think most would see prison again if they did act violent a second time as someone is bound to take them out. Or they will be too old to do all the time and will die in prison the next time.
[This message has been edited by oberkommando (edited July 31, 2000).]
Another thing is that violent felons should be kept in prison where they belong and not released by parole boards. Then we wouldnt have much of a problem with them. And the few that did get out eventually I could deal with having arms as long as we all could carry for protection. I dont think most would see prison again if they did act violent a second time as someone is bound to take them out. Or they will be too old to do all the time and will die in prison the next time.
[This message has been edited by oberkommando (edited July 31, 2000).]
- Status