"Reasonable" restrictions?

[BerksCountyDave]

Guess what Dave , for the purpose of the bill in legislation your AR-15 is an assult rifle. Not putting you or it down, but it is a term that is well known and describes (for legal purposes ) a AR-15

You just backed up what I said. According to the BILL, it's an assault rifle. But, in reality, it most certainly is not. That's why I said we as gun owners shouldn't be using anti-gunner vocabulary.

[imperialism2024]

I can understand some restrictions.

In a perfect world, I wouldn't have a problem with a vetting process for firearm owners. Mainly consisting of a psychological health screening and a mental aptitude test. I don't like the idea of belligerent and violently unstable individuals' being able to own guns, nor do I like the idea of idiots' being able to own guns. I don't much see the point in banning certain classes of firearms, however, as someone shot in the right place with a .22 will be just as dead as someone shot with a .50BMG. However, note the term "in a perfect world".

In the unperfect world in which we live, though, the circumstances change. First off, there is the black market, and the fact that individuals can purchase and keep (if not carry concealed) any gun they want, as long as they have the right connections and money. So vetting owners does nothing to stop crazies and idiots from getting guns anyway. Secondly, and much more importantly, criminals don't differentiate between idiots and crazies and "normal" folks. To me, the most unethical action anyone can take is to deprive another of the right to effective self-defense. Third, guns are only marginally more deadly than other tools that can be used to create havok*. If one is just woefully negligent in handling unaimed firearms, the chances of accidentally killing someone are marginal at best. If one wants to kill/injure someone, there are other methods that are only a few degrees more difficult than shooting the target.

Not to mention the issue of selection. As bad as I feel when I read about someone who shoots himself and/or a spouse and/or a child, I can't help but think about how it's fortunate that the idiot with the gun has most likely removed his genes from the gene pool...

So to answer the implicit question about how to solve "gun crime", the answer is neither gun control nor turning prisons into concentration camps. First off, there must be gun education in public schools starting from an early age. The benefit would be twofold, to prevent NDs from kids (and adults) who don't know how to handle a gun. It would also introduce many more individuals to firearms in a positive environment, dramatically improving the number of the people who carry guns. Remember, the severity of punishment doesn't deter crime, but the frequency of punishment. The threat of 1 in 2 adults carrying guns in much more of a deterrent than an automatic death sentence by the state for being accused of any crime. Another step that can be taken to reduce "gun crime" is to make sure that those individuals who have identified themselves as unable to play well with others (convicted violent criminals and those with multiple involuntary institutionalizations) are not allowed out into the free world unless they are no longer a danger to others... instead of releasing them to make room for a kid caught carrying a dimebag.



*While I don't feel like working out the numbers again, I once calculated the comparative cross-sections of a .45ACP round versus a Geo Metro, as well as the "muzzle energy" of a Geo Metro going a given speed, in order to demonstrate the greatly increased lethality of a Geo Metro with a bad drive compared to a .45ACP round fired negligently.

[Carnes]

We need stricter penalties for breaking the law.

We also need to cut out laws that are not doing our society any good. If we could get rid of, or trim the fat out of the ridiculous liquor laws, marriage laws, firearm laws, prostitution laws, motor vehicle laws, drug laws and tax laws that we have, we could free up a tremendous amount of law enforcement and judicial resources. You can't keep someone in jail if you don't have space for them.

We need to strive to limit our laws to only the ones that punish people for actually violating and infringing upon the rights of others.

[BerksCountyDave]

We also need to cut out laws that are not doing our society any good. If we could get rid of, or trim the fat out of the ridiculous liquor laws, marriage laws, firearm laws, prostitution laws, motor vehicle laws, drug laws and tax laws that we have, we could free up a tremendous amount of law enforcement and judicial resources. You can't keep someone in jail if you don't have space for them.

We need to strive to limit our laws to only the ones that punish people for actually violating and infringing upon the rights of others.

Fuckin' right.

[JDePietro]

I can understand some restrictions.

In a perfect world, I wouldn't have a problem with a vetting process for firearm owners. Mainly consisting of a psychological health screening and a mental aptitude test. I don't like the idea of belligerent and violently unstable individuals' being able to own guns, nor do I like the idea of idiots' being able to own guns. I don't much see the point in banning certain classes of firearms, however, as someone shot in the right place with a .22 will be just as dead as someone shot with a .50BMG. However, note the term "in a perfect world".

In the unperfect world in which we live, though, the circumstances change. First off, there is the black market, and the fact that individuals can purchase and keep (if not carry concealed) any gun they want, as long as they have the right connections and money. So vetting owners does nothing to stop crazies and idiots from getting guns anyway. Secondly, and much more importantly, criminals don't differentiate between idiots and crazies and "normal" folks. To me, the most unethical action anyone can take is to deprive another of the right to effective self-defense. Third, guns are only marginally more deadly than other tools that can be used to create havok*. If one is just woefully negligent in handling unaimed firearms, the chances of accidentally killing someone are marginal at best. If one wants to kill/injure someone, there are other methods that are only a few degrees more difficult than shooting the target.

Not to mention the issue of selection. As bad as I feel when I read about someone who shoots himself and/or a spouse and/or a child, I can't help but think about how it's fortunate that the idiot with the gun has most likely removed his genes from the gene pool...

So to answer the implicit question about how to solve "gun crime", the answer is neither gun control nor turning prisons into concentration camps. First off, there must be gun education in public schools starting from an early age. The benefit would be twofold, to prevent NDs from kids (and adults) who don't know how to handle a gun. It would also introduce many more individuals to firearms in a positive environment, dramatically improving the number of the people who carry guns. Remember, the severity of punishment doesn't deter crime, but the frequency of punishment. The threat of 1 in 2 adults carrying guns in much more of a deterrent than an automatic death sentence by the state for being accused of any crime. Another step that can be taken to reduce "gun crime" is to make sure that those individuals who have identified themselves as unable to play well with others (convicted violent criminals and those with multiple involuntary institutionalizations) are not allowed out into the free world unless they are no longer a danger to others... instead of releasing them to make room for a kid caught carrying a dimebag.



*While I don't feel like working out the numbers again, I once calculated the comparative cross-sections of a .45ACP round versus a Geo Metro, as well as the "muzzle energy" of a Geo Metro going a given speed, in order to demonstrate the greatly increased lethality of a Geo Metro with a bad drive compared to a .45ACP round fired negligently.

I concur save the bolded.

Perfect is hardly ever what it claims it can be. Human nature or the nature bestowed upon us by a higher power for all the religious folk, prevents us from enjoying anything of perfection. Perfect is warmth without cold, pleasure without pain, and love without hate. We are the Gods ultimate joke for we cannot enjoy any of the above without the antonym present. Therefore I argue we do live in a perfect world, one in which we are given both in order for us to enjoy them that much more.

Guns, knives, rocks, wood, all of these are but tools, tools given, tools fashioned. The power in which they are wielded lays soley with the skill anyone can posses. The skill can be taught, it can be adapted to anyones physical ability and even poorest in design can be taught to kill. Education is key in understand how and why.

Learning how is of a fraction as important compared to learning why, the learning why part is what will make the difference between a crime and an act of patriotism.

Restriction are man made, rarely man followed. Education is the solution to all problems.

[gnbrotz]

In a perfect world, I wouldn't have a problem with a vetting process for firearm owners.

In a perfect world, no vetting process would be necessary.

Just sayin'.

[Rauswaffen]

The only exception would be violent criminals and mentally unstable. For this to work, criminals would need to do the actual time for their crime. None of this pleading down to 9mos for a crime that holds a 10 year sentence. It is ridiculous to me that people can do more time for selling a bag of weed than someone committing a gun crime. My opinion is that if you did your (full length time) you have paid your debt to society and all your rights should be restored.

As to what I think a citizen should be allowed to own----any / all small arms in use or used by the military.

Justfacts.com says that 1 out of 14 violent crime offenders are actually charged and serve time. Go justice Go!

[Eugene V. Debs]

Reading the complete thread of Headcase's sarcastic OC episode got me to thinkin'. Most members of PFOA would probably agree with the addage that they'd rather deal with the negatives of too much liberty than the negatives of too little. But, I'm sure most of us know folks who you wouldn't trust with a sharpened stick let alone a firearm.

Which leads me to my question. Since liberty for one means liberty for all, despite the fact that some of the "all" are (I believe the term used on this forum is) asshats, would there ever be a case where "reasonable" limitations on use, ownership, storage, purchase, caliber, rate of fire, etc. would actually be reasonable.

No, I'm not trolling. I'm actually interested 'cuz I think it blends itself in nicely with danp's "secret project" thread which I've yet to be able to come up with something of value to contribute. If anyone has any ideas that they may feel have value but don't want to contribute to any anti-agenda that may be monitoring the forum, just PM me.

Much obliged.

PS. If I use your idea, I promise to leave a list of references cited so I don't get accused of plagiarism like our VP elect.

Well, maybe...but you can almost guarantee whenever a politician says "reasonable restrictions" it's code for gun-grabber legislation. Kinda like when someone says "I'm no racist, but..."

[Eugene V. Debs]

We also need to cut out laws that are not doing our society any good. If we could get rid of, or trim the fat out of the ridiculous liquor laws, marriage laws, firearm laws, prostitution laws, motor vehicle laws, drug laws and tax laws that we have, we could free up a tremendous amount of law enforcement and judicial resources. You can't keep someone in jail if you don't have space for them.

We need to strive to limit our laws to only the ones that punish people for actually violating and infringing upon the rights of others.

Damn. Wish I could give ya more rep for that one.

[edstephan]

The several Constitutions have no provisions for any restrictions!!!!!!!!!!!

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms (except Machine Guns, Bad looking rifles, and Pistols that hold more then 10 rounds) shall not be infringed. (except who we designate as acceptable).

The right of the citizens to bear arms (except Machine Guns, Bad looking rifles, and Pistols that hold more then 10 rounds) in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned (except who we designate as acceptable)


I must have missed the caveats’ in the U.S. Constitution and Pennsylvania Constitution where is says “except who we don’t like”. The minute you do this you turn a RIGHT into a privilege. A privilege has limitations attached to it and eventually will be expaned to the point where everyone will be prohibited.
Natural Law has always been once you paid the dues for a crime your rights were restored.
The several Constitutions have already been usurped more then they should have been.
What will it take to get back to the Original Constitutions?
I’m afraid we have gone down the path so far to return to Original Constitutions will be a major upheaval in this country as people now a day’s have not a clue in self reliance.
I maybe old fashioned but that is my .02¢ worth