What defines "reasonable restrictions"?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

I heard this term several times and it seems rather nebulous. In fact, it's so ill-defined I wonder if perhaps I might not agree with some of its presumed proposals, I just lack the proper (read: any) understanding of what is being proposed. I, for one, would like to find common ground as that means fewer arguments overall.

On the other hand, "reasonable restrictions" implies an understanding and appreciation for the opposite side of the argument. Unless it is a term used to lull someone into a false sense of security "reasonable restriction" means, "we ask this and promise no further."

[MicaelS]

1. Think in this context...

Are you in favor of "reasonable restrictions" on abortion and contraception?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

3. Excellent point!

[one-eyed fat man]

6. Thorny questions

As a parent and grandparent, I have to wonder why my pre-teen daughter has to get my permission to have her ears pierced but is free to travel across state lines for an abortion without my knowledge?

[DissedByBush]

11. Here the issue of minors comes into play

I don't think my minor child should be able to own a gun without my consent either.

[one-eyed fat man]

16. Nor do I

But I did grow up in an era where things like getting your first pocket knife, the first .22 rifle and the first shotgun were milestones in a boy's life. If you weren't responsible enough, for example to be trusted with a pocket knife by seven or eight or you didn't have your own single shot .22 by eleven or twelve you were viewed as a failure and a wastrel by adults and your peers.

[DissedByBush]

27. Technicalities

My daughter had her "own" bolt-action .22 magnum at age ten. But legally it's mine, and she shoots supervised.

There is a grey area. My dad is from the country, and back in the early 60s would take his .22 to school and drop it off with the principal. He would try to shoot something for dinner on the way home. It's popular in places to get some pheasant or duck hunting in before school, once resulting in a case where students were busted for having shotguns in their truck when parked OFF of school grounds while they were at school.

But in any case the child still has permission from his parents to carry the weapon, even if he is alone with it.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

37. Sure

.......coat hangers shouldn't be use.
.......licensed doctors should perform them.
.......illegal and unlicensed abortionists can join illegal and unlicensed gun owners in jail.

[iverglas]

60. sure I am!

Are you in favor of "reasonable restrictions" on abortion and contraception?

Do you have some in mind?

One I can think of is that abortion is legal only when performed by a physician in an appropriate medical facility.

And then there's the requirement that hormonal contraception be dispensed only by a pharmacist.

Both strike me as entirely reasonable restrictions based on the public interest, in the same way as I am not permitted to perform heart transplants on my kitchen table or sell The Pill in schoolyards.

Feel free to put forward any others that you (or someone else) consider reasonable, and the arguments for that position, and we can take a look.

[Common Sense Party]

67. I think banning third-trimester abortions is a reasonable restriction

unless there is a threat to the mother's life.

A very small person is different from a zygote.

[iverglas]

68. well good for you, chum!

I'm sure you could present all kinds of worthwhile arguments to support what you "think", and back up the strange assertion of fact you have made, if we were having a discussion about it. This would not be where we are doing that.

The question asked was whether one would support "reasonable restrictions" on abortion and contraception. I had neglected to read fightthegoodfightnow's post before writing mine and didn't see how redundant I was being.

So I guess the point has been made. Pretty much everybody would say "yes".

Backfire supreme.

[Common Sense Party]

75. You're not nearly as clever as you think you are.

Sometime you may want to try being civil and clear, rather than circumlocutory and hostile.

Try just having a conversation. Just once.

[iverglas]

77. "hostile"?

Yeah, advocating that women's right to life be violated, that's not hostile at all.



By the way, can you quote the "hostile" bit of my post for me? I must have nodded off while I was typing it and missed it.

If you don't want my response to your thoughts, try not replying to my posts. Your post had nothing to do with mine.

[iverglas]

80. oh dear, nothing to quote, I see

Just a torrent of hostility.

[Common Sense Party]

82. There you go again.

[iverglas]

87. I do indeed

Snorking up my sleeve atpeople who pitch their diversionary invective around and expect not to be laughed at.

Oh look, it's happening again ...

[TPaine7]

69. You are challenging the most sacred, most liberal, most progressive, most important of all rights!

To harbor the slightest doubt that a mother has the right to terminate a pregnancy from the moment of conception to the instant the birth is totally completed is unspeakable heresy.

The right to abortion up to instant of birth completion is the core of civilization, the penultimate right. It is much more important than, say, the right to free speech, to freedom of conscience, to the means to protect oneself, to the right to protest and even to the right to think freely.

You are beyond the pale. I feel sure that our local champion of abortion rights (and arbiter of African American legitimacy) will be along shortly to banish you into outer darkness.

There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth!

[iverglas]

74. huh

I guess it took 8 minutes to type that ...

[rrneck]

2. Restrictions that are within the ability

if civil authorities to enforce without endangering the lives or civil liberties of citizens.

They are about as reasonable as they can get right now: NICS checks, more extensive training for public carry, criteria on the form 4470.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

38. ...and still Wayne Lapierre with

..the NRA equates airport wands with being raped.

I agree reasonable measures can be done but don't look to the NRA to agree.

[DonP]

43. I'm sure you can provide a cite for that claim, right?

Or is that another one that came form your nether region?

It shouldn't be a problem since all the NRA material is available on the public record.

The NRA wrote most of the current gun regulations. You surely don;t think those idiot staff members of congress critters know jack shit about firemarsm, do you?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

50. Wand Rape

For your convenience, you'll find the words in this article:

http://www.nrahq.org/transcripts/cpac0202.asp

[gejohnston]

53. Parts of it

like being sexually assaulted by TSA, the walk through x ray (Thom Hartmann calls them Chernoff porno scanners), and other over reactions to 9-11 sounds more like Randi Rhoades and Thom Hartmann that Rush. What does "wand rape" have to do with the discussion?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

56. Read Thread

NRA president used the expression.

Someone responded wanting citation.

[spin]

4. Florida has what I consider "reasonable restrictions" ...

A quick summary can be found at: What Are the Gun Laws in Florida? http://crime.about.com/od/gunlawsbystate/p/gunlaws_fl.htm

[gejohnston]

5. another question is

what do they know about current restrictions and are they reasonable enough?

Like the latest Bloomburg stunt with internet sales (first thing I think of are interstate via FFLs). The reporters writing about it do not seem to know about GCA-68. The other day I was talking to a guy that asked me if the GOP house would pass a bill to stop mailing handguns through the mail. He was rather surprised to learn that a Republican house speaker introduced such a bill and was signed by a Republican president Calvin Coolidge in Feb. 1927.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

7. I think the real question is --

why no replies from those advocating "reasonable restrictions." Granted, this thread is relatively new; folks are at work and whatnot.

I have a pair of theories but both are rather uncharitable. I wonder if perhaps "reasonable" isn't a ruse to reflexively paint dissenters as unreasonable. Surely the unreasonable are to be dismissed out-of-hand and ignored. Once they are properly ignored then any restriction -- reasonable or otherwise -- can be affected over their protests.

My other theory is "reasonable restriction" is a "gateway drug" of sorts. Just try this restriction; it's reasonable. What can it hurt? C'mon, all the cool countries are doing it. You like that? Good, now try this one...

But that's why I'm hoping for defined terms; because I am just that cynical. I hoping to be proven wrong and that the proposed restrictions really are reasonable and those proposing them seek an end-point where each side can compromise. We are, after all, told we are overreacting when claims of total bans on ownership are bandied about. "This and no more," would be an excellent way to silence those concerns.

My other cynical fear is that those who ordinarily champion "reasonable restrictions" will only reply with, "You're too biased to accept the truth" and continue to advance broad, undefined terms during the course of their debates.

[iverglas]

61. see my post 59

A course in constitutional law might really help you, I say in all sincerity.

You could peruse some of these web pages to your advantage:

http://www.google.ca/search?num=30&hl=en&safe=off&complete=0&site=webhp&q=%22united+states%22+%22supreme+court%22+%22reasonable+restriction%22&btnG=Search

"united states" "supreme court" "reasonable restriction"

(Apologies; haven't figured out how obfuscated links at this place work yet.)

Who knows; perhaps some of the people you are listening to actually know what they're talking about!

[TPaine7]

8. I asked that a few years back and got abusive and irrational hysterics in response

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x170607

I think the question was only answered in my OP, and the proponents of "reasonable restrictions" didn't like the answer. In your thread, on the other hand, they don't want to defend the term in the clear light of day.

The only convenient answers are
1) the question is wrong (a "straw man," for example).
2) the question does not exist (surely they wouldn't ignore a clear, simple question to dodge the truth, right?)

It seems like in this thread people are going with option 2.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

9. I would like to see something along the lines of --

* no weapon ownership for covicted felons

* criminal background checks prior to purchase not to exceed 1 per year (assuming convicted felons serve at least a year in confinement)

* no weapon wonership for those convicted of domestic violence

* incentivized weapon safety classes

* manadatory liability insurance ala car ownership


That's not to say I am for or against any of the above listed ideas, I'm just spit-balling a generalized format for presentation.

[DissedByBush]

12. Some initial reactions

"no weapon ownership for covicted felons"

I would restrict that to convicted violent felons, and with the ability for those rehabilitated to regain their right. Does a straight-laced 60 year-old man who took a joy ride for his 18th birthday really endanger society if he has a gun?

"criminal background checks prior to purchase not to exceed 1 per year (assuming convicted felons serve at least a year in confinement) "

I could be convinced, but the system needs to be quick, free and anonymous, but protect people from having frivolous checks done on them not related to a gun purchase.

"no weapon wonership for those convicted of domestic violence "

Domestic violence can be defined as many things other than a violent attack on a spouse. But this is a step up from where merely being accused can lose you your guns.

"incentivized weapon safety classes "

I had a mandatory gun safety class in junior high. How about we bring that back?

"manadatory liability insurance ala car ownership "

Can't put a price tag on the exercise of a right, so this one's an absolute no-go.

[SlimJimmy]

24. For the most part, I agree with you on these. Having to purchase a product to exercise a

Constitutional right is also a no-go for me.

[DissedByBush]

26. Of course you have to purchase a gun

If you choose to do so, you buy a gun.

If you choose to vote, you take on expenses getting to the polling place.

Many means of exercising freedom of speech cost money.

However, the government cannot make the cost of exercising these rights more burdensome than it naturally is.

The poll tax is unconstitutional because it burdens peoples' right to vote. I believe the same criteria should apply to the exercise of the 2nd Amendment. If the government wants to require something such as a background check or insurance, then it should be free (or, rather, the cost shared by all taxpayers), otherwise the right is taken away from the poor.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

28. You COULD concievably make one...

and the 2nd doesn't protect guns, it protects ARMS. Guns are merely a subset of arms.

However, the fact that it does cost money to exercise a right doesnt mean there is a problem.

[DissedByBush]

31. The question is the reason for the cost

If the cost is imposed by the government, then it is a BIG problem.

If I can't exercise my 2nd Amendment right because I can't afford a gun, that's my problem.

If I can't exercise that right because the government banned inexpensive guns ("Saturday Night Specials&quot , that's a violation of my right.

If I can't exercise that right because the government arbitrarily imposed an added expense (insurance, registration, etc.), that's a violation of my right.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

35. I agree with you 100%.

Any additional costs imposed upon the people by the government in order to exercise a right is absolutely wrong.

[SlimJimmy]

36. Agree, well stated.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

39. There's a Constitutional Right to Cheap Guns?

...missed that one.

Oh wait....there isn't!

[DonP]

40. You know if you worked at it ... just a little ... you could be even less informed

Based on the content of your posts, It's safe to assume you get most of your data on gun owners and gun laws from bumper stickers.

Thankfully, your opinions are just that, yours and only yours, to judge from the lack of any new gun control legislation in the last decade.

With the lowest violent crime rate in 35+ years and record firearm sales for the last 4 years, only a handful of malcontents agree with you.

Do you have anything to add to the actual subject of the thread?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

42. What part of that fact do you disagree with?

There is no constitutional right to cheap guns despite what the poster implied.

If you disagree, please state if your post is a fact or an opinion.

Here's another fact. We have more guns and more violent crime than any country in the world.

[DonP]

44. The post did not imply that

The issue is how much should you have to pay to excercize an established and confirmed constitutional right (you know like voting ID requirements in Wisconsin) and the subject of this thread is what do you consider "reasonable restrictions".

Got any actual suggestions beyond cheap shots? Let's hear them?

But ... probably not.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

47. Read Post 31 Again

He clearly says government fees on gun ownership that make guns unaffordable is a violation of his rights.

No court has agreed. There is no Constitutional right to cheap guns.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

57. Wrong as usual...

...yes - fees which make firearms unaffordable are a violation of one's rights. Yes, courts have said as much.

As far as the right to cheap guns, there is no authority for government to impose a minimum price floor, hence there is a right to obtain them as inexpensively as possible.

[PavePusher]

45. No, that's not a fact.

What is your cite for your assumption?

[PavePusher]

46. No, but there is a Constitutional Right....

to not have the government tax them out of the reach of the common Citizen.

Perhaps there should be a $100 tax (and a six month background check) on the purchase of each individual newspaper.

Damn, what's that high-pitched screeching from.....

[DissedByBush]

49. In order to make sure poor people couldn't get guns

They tried to outlaw cheap guns.

BTW, "poor people" pretty much means blacks in this case.

How about we ban any newspaper costing under $50, or any service provider or blog host costing less than $500 per year?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

51. Banning and Taxing are Different Things

....look it up.

[friendly_iconoclast]

54. Not when it comes to Constitutionally protected activities. See "Minneapolis Star v. Minnesota"...

or more formally, "Minneapolis Star and Tribune Company v. Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue"

http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1982/1982_81_1839

See also poll taxes in Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harper_v._Virginia_Board_of_Elections

Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966), was a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court found that Virginia's poll tax was unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. The Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibited poll taxes in federal elections; the Supreme Court extended this prohibition to state elections.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

95. Ridiculous

A distinction can be made about taxing the right to vote and other taxes.

You may disagree with taxing guns (sales taxes, gun store property taxes, registration fees, etc) BUT there is no constitutional right to not pay taxes on guns or for that matter to have cheap guns.

[friendly_iconoclast]

99. It is when the taxes act to limit availability. And there are already taxes on guns and ammo.

A 10-11% excise tax, depending on what's being sold:

http://www.ttb.gov/firearms/reference_guide.shtml

You're not the first poster at DU to come up with the argument for taxes as gun control, btw:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php/www/www.scn.org/youtube.com/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=474450&mesg_id=474871

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php/www/www.scn.org/youtube.com/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=474450&mesg_id=474903

[We_Have_A_Problem]

71. Not if the "tax"...

...is used to functionally ban something.

Poll taxes and all that - but hey, don't let facts get in the way.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

96. Ban?

The suggestion that taxing guns equates to banning them is unfounded.

Can you give a recent example where that has happened?

[gejohnston]

98. not recent but

that was the idea behind NFA's $200 transference tax, which would be $3,376.57 in 2011. It did not keep up with inflation.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

102. No i cannot

The reason I cannot is because every time some stupid politician brings up the idea, someone on his staff reminds him why the suggestion is blatantly unconstitutional on its face and wouldn't survive a committee vote, let alone a lawsuit were it to actually pass.

[MicaelS]

13. Well let’s see….

Last edited Fri Dec 16, 2011, 03:57 PM - Edit history (1)

No weapon ownership for convicted felons

Restrict it to those convicted of violent felonies. Misdemeanors don’t count. Someone who writes a hot check shouldn’t be prevented from owning a gun.

Criminal background checks prior to purchase not to exceed 1 per year (assuming convicted felons serve at least a year in confinement)

I find the current NICS system perfectly acceptable.

Beyond that, to any "extensive" background check, then who pays for this? Is funded by the Federal Government or does the Gun Owner bear the cost? How long does it take? What are the disqualifying criteria? I think that is simply too much for any non-NFA weapon.

No weapon ownership for those convicted of domestic violence.

As long as there is concrete evidence of domestic violence. No simply she said / he said.

Incentivized weapon safety classes

What is the incentive, and what does the gun owner get from the class or classes? Do they get a Nationwide Carry Permit?

Mandatory liability insurance ala car ownership

No, sorry, this one is unacceptable. Too many chances for abuse by the authorities.

“You let your insurance expire? You don’t have enough insurance for that many guns. You go to jail?”

Too much like that “Safe Storage” requirements with only the authorities deciding what is “safe”. Some criminal cuts his way into a gun safe with a blow torch, some the “Safe Storage” advocates want the gun owner to be held criminally liable.

Mandatory liability insurance and “Safe Storage” are just stealth tactics to prevent all but a privileged and wealthy few from owning guns and keeping them in their homes.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

14. Please keep in mind -- my bullet list was NOT recommendations

Don't take them seriously -- at least from me -- as I was only demonstrating the sort of concise description, format notwithstanding, of the sort of proposals those advocating "reasonable restrictions" will hopefully provide.

MY LIST IS NOT A GENUINE SET OF PROPOSALS ON MY PART

Certainly, if others have an idea they prefer and that idea mimics something I wrote I'm fine with that.

[MicaelS]

15. Sure I undertand that...

I was just giving you my opinions. Your post was a good one, it put several concepts in one post.

[SteveW]

25. I've had a number of "does not exist" responses...

when I suggested a re-opening of the question about making the NICS test universal, even offering problem areas and possible solutions. As a rule, no response.

I think the reason is that "reasonableness" to most controllers is requiring a priori:

(1) Registration of all gun-owners and the guns they own;
(2) Making concealed carry illegal, or at the discretion of LEOs (so only special people can get a license); and most important
(3) Establishing the principle that the government can in the future place any restrictions on civilian gun-ownership it wishes.

A "universal NICS" does seem rather paltry in that light.

[iverglas]

65. "abusive and irrational hysterics"

Would you like to stand up and spit those mealies out of your mouth and state clearly the name(s) of the poster(s) who you allege engaged in abusive and irrational hysterics in that thread?

"Abusive" indicates a violation of the rules of the website. If your characterization is accurate, why were the posts in question not deleted? Obviously you reported such a violation.

Irrational? Hm, was(were) the poster(s) in question a woman (women)?

I'd think so, becuase "hysterics", as we all know, refers to a weakness of women.

What a spectacle.

[TPaine7]

70. Yes, abusive and irrational hysterics.

Would you like to stand up and spit those mealies out of your mouth and state clearly the name(s) of the poster(s) who you allege engaged in abusive and irrational hysterics in that thread?

iverglas


"Abusive" indicates a violation of the rules of the website. If your characterization is accurate, why were the posts in question not deleted? Obviously you reported such a violation.

"Abusive" indicates no such thing. Consult any dictionary you please. Cite just one definition that refers to DU rules. Sophist.

And no, obviously I wouldn't have reported a violation. I don't report violations, as I've told you many times. I am quite pleased that your drivel is still there; I don't want it deleted.

Irrational? Hm, was(were) the poster(s) in question a woman (women)?

I'd think so, becuase{sic} "hysterics", as we all know, refers to a weakness of women.

I don't know for sure, iverglas. Are you a woman? This is the internet. You tell me.

As for your "hysterics" whining, what's your point? Are you saying that no women are hysterical? Are you saying that it's wrong to accuse a woman of being hysterical because it's automatically sexist, even if it is true? Yes, I understand the background of the word "hysterical" but isn't this a new low for you? Just because the term has been misused doesn't mean it can't be properly used. In my world, at least, truth is an absolute defense. (I understand that to you, truth is an absolute offense, but I can't help that.)

You were hysterical and irrational. You carefully avoided the historical facts and dodged the real points. You threw dirt in the air and distracted from the facts in the case. It's there for all to see. (Which is one reason why I never report your posts.)

What a spectacle.

Yes you are.

[iverglas]

88. I'm sorry; I forgot to answer

"Abusive" indicates a violation of the rules of the website. If your characterization is accurate, why were the posts in question not deleted? Obviously you reported such a violation.
"Abusive" indicates no such thing. Consult any dictionary you please. Cite just one definition that refers to DU rules. Sophist.

Google's initial offering (emphasis mine):

a·bu·sive/əˈbyo͞osiv/
Adjective:

Extremely offensive and insulting.
Engaging in or characterized by habitual violence and cruelty

Now.

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See Community Standards.)

It is the responsibility of all DU members to participate on our discussion forums in a manner that promotes a positive atmosphere and encourages good discussions among a diverse community of people holding a broad range of center-to-left viewpoints. Members should refrain from posting messages on DU that are disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. ...

"Extremely offensive and insulting"
"disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate"

Anyone got a magnifying glass handy?

Now, actually, at the time the posts in question (mine) were written, the rules read thus:

Do not personally attack any individual DU member in any way.

Now, you're telling me that a post that is "extremely offensive and insulting" passes that test?

I couldn't care less whether you report rule violations or not.

What you don't get to do is claim rule violations when no ruling to that effect has been made by the appropriate authority at this site.

I trust this will be of assistance.

[MicaelS]

72. "What a spectacle "

As TPaine7 said "Yes, you are." Only 48 hours ago this was your post in the old DU Gungeon"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x485909#485932

I vote for staying here

The inmates have taken over the penitentiary at the new place. "Jurors" are not uncommonly morons and/or have axes to grind, and the right-wing gun militants have discovered how to silence the voices of reason and decency. Whine. Loudly.

There have actually been more egregious examples of abuse of the jury system that I have seen in this forum (and seen and been informed of in others) at the new site -- and I'm sure there have been others that I haven't seen, in my own case, because only successful alerts are communicated to the target; I just happened to be told about that one above. (As a juror, I make a practice of informing both the person whose post is reported and the alerter, if I can identify them, of the alert and the outcome.)

And yes the words ""abusive and hysterics" also apply to you. Calling your fellow members "morons", "inmates" and "right-wing gun militants" would certainly fall in those categories.

[iverglas]

73. gosh

I take my bow.

Would you like it autographed? I think that would fetch a pretty price at a few places on line I could name!

[Simo 1939_1940]

84. Jurors have axes to grind?

Well isn't that special.

If you limit your participation on DU to this forum, and are outspoken in your opposition to gun restriction you are automatically branded a right wing troll by some. I know - because it's happened to me. Pretty amusing, given the fact that I donated the maximum legal amount to President Obama's campaign and a few hundred dollars to the Democratic Party in '08. Not to mention donations to liberal causes and subscriptions to The Nation, etc.

[iverglas]

92. hahahaha

I wasn't talking about *that* jury. Well, at least not about the four that got it.

By the way,

If you limit your participation on DU to this forum

I don't. This week I've been bored, but my earlier DU3 participation was focused somewhere else altogether. I thought we were all real good at tracking people around the site. (Although I've discovered this one is completely lacking in a decent search function.)

I agree I post much less in the general-type forums than I used to. The decline in the quality of the discourse, and the posters, overall, over the last, oh, three or four years, has made "participation" less than an accurate characterization of most contributions to most threads there; I don't find it edifying to read a load of one-liners cracking wise (not very) about Republicans and their fellow travellers in response to anything and everything under the sun, let alone to bother "participating" in such non-discussions.

Besides, I got banned for life from the genealogy forum* (you're not allowed to say rude things about the family of the Canadian head of state if you're Canadian - only if you're a true Brit!) ... and the sockpuppet subscription somebody else handed over to me expired and I forgot to renew it on time and now I have to figure out how to do that again ...

* I realize I should clarify: a forum elsewhere on the internet, not here at DU! I've only been banned from one forum here. Do not criticize the sacred AA or you will be stomped in 12 easy steps!

[DissedByBush]

10. Depends on who you are

If you're an anti-rights gun banner, "reasonable" means an effective ban.

If you're a 2nd Amendment supporter, it means what you actually DO with a weapon is restricted, like shooting an innocent, brandishing without cause, purposely selling to a criminal, etc. And that of course is already illegal using a small fraction of the gun laws currently on the books.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

30. yes, it is the actions that need to discussed and "restricted"

We, as a society. should agree what the restrcitions should be.

[DissedByBush]

32. I think we mostly agree on restricted actions already

Shooting someone with a weapon is bad
Threatening someone with a weapon is bad
Menacing with a weapon is bad
Shooting with disregard to the safety of others is bad
Selling a weapon to a known violent felon is bad

There is the issue of exceptions for self-defense of course.

We definitely do disagree on things like "Mixing up or losing paperwork is worth spending years in prison." But then that doesn't have anything to do with actions concerning the gun itself.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

17. What I don't understand is

why people seem to think restrictions on those who have done nothing wrong are even needed.

Even putting aside the question of "can the government legally do X", why any restrictions at all?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

18. Well, I invite the advocates of reasonable restrictions to define that term

Perhaps their ideas are reasonable enough to overcome your concern.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

19. That's the thing though...

regardless of what people consider "reasonable", that doesnt answer the question of why any at all?

Putting aside the whole "...shall not be infringed" part, I cannot see any real benefit to restrictions. Perceived benefits - sure, but no actual benefit.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

20. It might be argued that background checks are reasonable

as a means of keeping convicted felons or those under restraining orders from owning weapons. Unfortunately, there is a presumption of potential offense upon everyone seeking to make a purchase, the overwhelming majority of whom will never run afoul of the law or unjustifiably threaten another person. That seems to smack against several inherent rights but I've seen several pro-2A advocates say they find such a practice to be "reasonable."

[We_Have_A_Problem]

21. Well except that...

...you cannot require someone who will fail the check to undergo one. Self incrimination and all that. So ultimately, the only people getting a check done on them are those who can pass anyway.

Still, I don't see the benefit of this regardless of what some may consider "reasonable".

[Nuclear Unicorn]

22. I dunno. The law would state its illegal for covicted felons to own

You wouldn't own until AFTER the check. There's no legal immunity from a crime not yet committed. That's why you can swear-in people to tell the truth when testifying and why warnings against fraud are printed on government documents.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

23. But a felon knows he is ineligible...

...and the law requires him to self-incriminate....

[DissedByBush]

33. You wouldn't believe

"So ultimately, the only people getting a check done on them are those who can pass anyway. "

I've talked to gun shop owners, and you wouldn't believe the number of people who come in to buy a weapon, and submit to the check, who know full well they are ineligible. One was a wanted felon on the run, and the owner was asked to stall him until the police could arrive.

This was obviously not on a border state during Fast & Furious.

[DissedByBush]

29. It reminds me of the Army

Because someone did it, we all get punished.

I understand in the context of the Army, but I'm not in the Army anymore, and my voluntary agreement to various restrictions on my rights and behavior expired long ago.

I am now a free citizen, and I should only be punished for what **I** do wrong.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

41. Right....

....and seatbelts should be optional to wear.
....there's a free speech right to yell fire when there is not a fire.
....there's a constitutional right to sacrifice a family member to give thanks to God.

NOT.

Law abiding citizens rightfully have all types of restrictions on their rights. Guns should not be exempt.

[sylveste]

48. seatbelts

should be optional to wear, in fact the government should have no say in the matter at all.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

52. Good luck with that...

.....most people disagree and for good reason.

How do feel about licensing...guns or cars?

[friendly_iconoclast]

55. You mean that CCW licenses should be honored universally, like driver's licenses...

...as in HB 822? Or that the only "prior approval" you would need to buy a gun was enough cash, like cars?

Be careful what you wish for- you might get it.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

106. Wish For?

You got that from my post?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

58. Lets look at this...

Seat belts absolutely should be optional to wear. Arguably they are anyway. There are just penalties if you don't.

You absolutely can yell fire when there is no fire. Nothing is stopping you except your own responsibility.

Human sacrifice directly violates the rights of another. That should be pretty obvious even to you.

None of what you mentioned was a restriction on a right.

However, if you wish to say there should be penalties for criminal misuse of a firearm, I agree with you 100% and always have.

[iverglas]

59. since you ask ...

Last edited Thu Jan 5, 2012, 12:06 PM - Edit history (1)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11726078#post34

... how the hell would I know? I've never used the term, myself. Mind you, I could, since the concept it refers to is common currency in constitutional law. Here; this should explain the basics for you, in the context in which I might use the term "reasonable limit", which seems about the same:

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1986/1986canlii46/1986canlii46.html

You say you've heard the term several times. Has it never occurred to you to ask the person using it what they mean?

Meanwhile, if you're asking what form of restrictions on firearms access I support (i.e., I suppose, consider "reasonable" ), you'll find that in several posts of mine dated yesterday, which I'm sure you won't have any difficulty locating. Feel free to reply.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

63. um

I'm not sure how a case centering on the constitutionality of a drug statute that mandates assumptions of trafficking relate to the topic at hand.

Even more to the point, as nice as the canadian constitution may be I'm not familiar with it and it *may* not be relevant here seeing as the US consititution has an explicit right to own guns. If the canadian consitution lacked such an expressed right it would not serve the discussion at hand becuase the canadian constitution, obviously, is not the gatekeeper of US rights and laws.

You say you've heard the term several times. Has it never occurred to you to ask the person using it what they mean?

I have and been left unanswered; that is why I have made this more open, public inquiry.

Also, as seems the case, some pro-control advocates take umbrage at being associated with the petitions of other pro-control advocates. If one person favors a total ban and you do not there is no reason you should be saddled by their arguments, nor would I want to argue a point with you or anyone else if in fact we had no cause for argument. If you reject calls for a total ban on private firearm ownership by law-abiding citizens then we need not spill electrons over the issue.

Meanwhile, if you're asking what form of restrictions on firearms access I support (i.e., I suppose, consider "reasonable", you'll find that in several posts of mine dated yesterday, which I'm sure you won't have any difficulty locating. Feel free to reply.

Yeah, I kind of figured that would be the response but truth be told so many of your posts are combative I honestly don't feel like hunting through your posts in other threads. The very posts you are envisioning are conveniently located under the "My Posts" tab of your browser window. If you could copy and paste them in this sub-thread it would be appreciated.

[iverglas]

64. hm

I'm not sure how a case centering on the constitutionality of a drug statute that mandates assumptions of trafficking relate to the topic at hand.

Colour me not surprised.

This is why I suggested that you would benefit from a course in constitutional law, if you choose to engage in the discussion of concepts that belong to that field.

the canadian constitution, obviously, is not the gatekeeper of US rights and laws.

Unfortunately, I had written this post in direct response to your invitation in the other thread, and not in relation to any other content in this thread.

I hav since added another post in which I suggested that you investigate the concept in your own constitutional law, and linked to some google results that should give you a leg up in that direction.

Presumably you were not aware that the term was used in Heller and has also been used by the USSC in relation to the exercise of rights relating to speech and religion, for example. I think you would agree, then, that this is the place to start if you seek to understand the meaning of the term.

Yeah, I kind of figured that would be the response but truth be told so many of your posts are combative I honestly don't feel like hunting through your posts in other threads.

Well, I suppose I should be hurt and disappointed by that. Oddly, I'm not.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=6102

You could do a little searchie of this forum for the last 48 hours for the word "registration" and find the others, I imagine.

Oh hell, I'm feeling generous and have some work I need to avoid, so I'll do your homework.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11725811#post10

In order to seriously address and effectively reduce the risk of harm associated with access to firearms, what is needed is:

(a) mandatory licensing of persons, so that anyone who wishes to acquire / possess firearms is first screened for risk factors, to the extent possible and reasonable
- this will reduce the risk of inappropriate candidates for firearms possession acquiring firearms

(b) mandatory registration of firearms, so that the identity of anyone who acquires / possesses a firearm is known and associated with that firearm, which can then be traced to that person if it is sold or otherwise transferred, or lost or stolen
- this will reduce the risk of straw purchases and of firearms being otherwise transferred by lawful owners to ineligible persons

(c) mandatory safe/secure storage of firearms
- this will reduce the risk of firearms being accessed by children or thieves, or used for improper purposes by owners

(d) public information and education campaigns to encourage compliance with the above requirements, e.g. about the risks involved in transferring firearms to ineligible persons and in failing to secure firearms when not in use

(I have added the fourth item as a separate proposal since I have always had to point out this need in responding to objections to the efficacy of the other measures proposed, and since it is in fact necessary in order to reach the lawful firearms owners who are the source of many of the firearms used to commit crimes and cause harm.)


I might add:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11725835#post9

Argument from judicial authority works in court. It doesn't work in discussions of public policy where the issues are efficacy and reasonableness -- constitutions are of course a consideration, but judicial interpretations of constitutions are subject to critique like any other opinion.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

66. Thank-you for your replies

(a) mandatory licensing of persons, so that anyone who wishes to acquire / possess firearms is first screened for risk factors, to the extent possible and reasonable
- this will reduce the risk of inappropriate candidates for firearms possession acquiring firearms

(b) mandatory registration of firearms, so that the identity of anyone who acquires / possesses a firearm is known and associated with that firearm, which can then be traced to that person if it is sold or otherwise transferred, or lost or stolen
- this will reduce the risk of straw purchases and of firearms being otherwise transferred by lawful owners to ineligible persons

(c) mandatory safe/secure storage of firearms
- this will reduce the risk of firearms being accessed by children or thieves, or used for improper purposes by owners

(d) public information and education campaigns to encourage compliance with the above requirements, e.g. about the risks involved in transferring firearms to ineligible persons and in failing to secure firearms when not in use

This is exactly the sort of direct response I was hoping for. I won't debate the points because that is not my intent and is some instances we would not have much debate.

It's my hope other gun control advocates would also add to the thread with similarly enumerated and explained propositions. At least then we know where the debates, if any, start.

[Simo 1939_1940]

85. Re. mandatory registration:

You may find the following chapter interesting, Nuclear Unicorn. Scroll to the bottom of page #31 for commentary re. registration in section "F".

http://www.saf.org/journal/13/absolutistpoliticsinamoderatepackage.pdf

You'll note that Dr. Kleck provides citation for his assertion that there is no evidence that registration reduces firearm crime rate. He also provides citation for his observation that supporters of registration have failed to provide empirical evidence supporting their position.

It's likely that I'll be in the company of a police detective I know in the near future who is a liberal Dem. I'll run the argument past him and see what he says.

[slackmaster]

101. Yes, political surveys rarely contain validity checks to ensure that the answers are meaningful

I suspect many people answer questions without truly understanding the issues. Worse yet, the same people elect politicians who are equally ignorant, who in turn write stupid laws.

[Remmah2]

62. It's a war of words. Reasonable restrictions versus compromise.

Firearms prohibitionist think in terms of absolutes, no ability to compromise, everything "on their terms" is reasonable.

I personally do not think it's reasonable to criminalize what are honest citizens, or those that might be guilty of a technical error.

[Fredjust]

76. Reasonable?

How about locked up at the National Guard Armory, where the rest of the of the "well-regulated militia" keep their death spewers?

Outside of that, I see no purpose for which a private citizen should be allowed to keep any type of firearm at home.

[gejohnston]

79. Or the Swiss model

where the well equipped militia keep their machine guns at home along with their personal guns?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

81. Perhaps

You missed the story of the woman defending herself and her infant son -- http://www.democraticunderground.com/11726078

And please try to appreciate the fact that the Supreme Court disagrees with your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. I may need their authority on legal matters some day to protect my right to choose.

[Fredjust]

86. The Supreme Court isn't always right...

And for every instance of that, there are 1000's of murders and accidental deaths involving death spewers. Take the Amish girl (only 15 years old!) murdered by some repugnican cleaning his death spewer, or Columbine, VA tech (x2!), Congressperson Giffords...

The Supreme Court would have supported slavery and prohibition at certain periods of history, I don't support thier decisions if they are dead wrong.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

91. Nope sorry - you're wrong.

For every murder there are thousands of examples of people legally protecting themselves. Accidental deaths are under 1000 annually so your statement is blatantly false on its face.

Keep trying though. You may inadvertently vomit forth an actual fact.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

93. And here I thought "judicial activism" was a solely RW complaint

You aren't saying anything other than, "I disagree so here are some stories presented in inflammatory terms." As many tragedies as there are I cannot bring myself to say that the tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people who lawfully defend themselves each year be left defenseless. Criminals should not be the only ones with access to firearms.

Even for the stories you listed those deaths were preventable. The first VA Tech incident and the Giffords shooting were pereptrated by people who should have been listed ineligible but the system -- the system you trust to ban guns -- failed to do its job and get them proper psychiatric treatment. Columbine, if memory serves, were straw purchases which are already illegal. Accidental deaths are inexcusable because they are so absolutely preventable with proper handling. I'm not a "gunner" I've fired guns exactly twice in my life but because of the training I received it was pounded into my head, "safety first."

Just because something is abused doesn't make a case for its prohibition. Cars, alcohol, pharmaceuticals, children, speech, religion -- if there is one constant in human history it is that humans will abuse anything they can get their hands on and often with violent results. Gun prohibitions do nothing other than disarm the one segment of society that society should protect the most -- the law-abiding.

[rrneck]

83. death spewers?

[Remmah2]

89. They can take my death spewer when they pry it from my cold dead hands.

Now if we could only get a clone of Heston to say that it...............

[Nuclear Unicorn]

94. If you're armed and they're not I wonder how that is supposed to work.

They would either be tremendous fools to even attempt such a thing or they would be tremendous hypocrites who would go back on their every argument to arms themselves sufficiently to overpower you.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

90. If you see no purpose...

...then by all means, don't own one. However, It has nothing to do with a private citizen being "allowed" to keep firearms, but rather everything to do with government not having the authority to say a damn thing about it either way.

The right to keep and bear arms is just that - a right. Permission or justification is not required.


Death spewers...that's a new one...funny too...

[fightthegoodfightnow]

97. Not One Thing?

Really?

So government has no business restricting gun ownership of convicted felons?

How about when people hear an elected official, say like the President, speak?

How about about gun manufacturers making and packaging a safe product?

What about taking ..... oh nevermind.

Guns can be, should be and are regulated.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

103. Yeah really

The government has no legal authority to say one word about someone being armed. Simple as that.

A convict loses that right via due process upon conviction. Not even remotely the same thing as what you propose.

If an elected official wants everyone who might hear him speak disarmed, tough shit for him. Really - there isn't a damn thing he can do about it. Yeah - believe it son. Obama comes to Houston and wants to speak in public, and guess what? My right to be armed is NOT suspended while he's here.

Expecting a manufacturer to make a product that is safe to use as designed doesn't really have a place in the argument. CA has been pulling that shit for a few years and yeah, its going to fail when it goes to court.

Accept it - your side lost and lost hard. As of now, you are advocating restricting a right based purely upon your own ignorance and bigotry. That makes you philosophically no different than the KKK.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

104. Boogy Man Logic

Gosh...seriously?

The KKK? Good grief.

If 'my side' lost, why are you still debating on a message board the very conversation you say is over.

Good luck with that.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

105. PS

...sounds like you've never heard Obama speech .

[ellisonz]

107. Hehe...

We_Have_A_Problem no longer has posting privileges, under that name at least.

[ileus]

100. death spewers...instant classic. disdeathspew the public NOW! it's for the childrenz.

criminals, and murderers...

Rude impolite home owners need disdeathspewed...