"Reasonable" restrictions?

[Sandcut]

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.

[riverpirate]

I had this discussion with a guy at work the other day. I personaly dont mind some restrictions BUT........ I also know that "some" can and will turn into many. I have no reason for an assult rifle , but understand that im not everybody. My guns are for hunting , target and protection. I dont need a gun that has a 30 round magazine , but I recognize the right of others to own them.
I have a uncle (in kentucky )that has boxes of "assult rifles" burried all over his property with 1000's of rounds of ammo also. He beleives the government watches everything he does and is preparing for the end. He is a little nuts as far as im concerned , but I recognize his right to own all of that.

[Guns4Fun]

In my mind, there are no reasonable restrictions. Only the law abiding adhere to the restrictions. Criminals don’t care and will still get what they want.

I also believe that if you are walking the streets, you should be able to purchase a firearm. 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.

[riverpirate]

I needed to revisit this. Let me say that Im NOT for restrictions. I can understand the want for them and in a small way understand the "need" for them, but I am not for them. I beleive that everyone that has not commited a violent crime or is mentaly unable to own a firearm should be able to. I also know that most of the time criminals that do commit a violent crime dont get charged with it, they get a plea deal and a lesser charge. They also dont do the time in jail. Ive said before, you comit a crime using a gun you go to jail period. 5 years shouldbe a start. No plea deal to a lesser no nothing. Until this starts to happen though things will not change. It will be all about the "gun owners" not the "gun users".
Take for example a couple of months ago my store had a guy that kept comming in grabbing lots of merchandise and running out to the tune of $1600. The 5th time my loss prevention guy grabbed the bag but refused to grab the guy and hold him till the cops got there. ( 4 days prior the my little female supervisor tried to grab the guy and he threatened her saying " I will pull my gun and shoot you ") So the guy runs out and me being pissed went after him. I chased him for 5 blocks till the police drove past me and ran the guy down. I just went to court on this guy the other day. He had multiple other priors involving theft and assult and a gun charge( he wasnt a nice guy ). Here was his sentence............ready. 6 months jail , 2 years probation. The DA tells me if we took it to court he would probably get less.

Poin of all the above is...... we will keep getting restrictions put on us until those that "use a gun" get punished for it.

[Dredly]

As soon as the phrases "reasonable restrictions" or "common sense laws" start getting thrown around it makes my skin crawl. "Reasonable" and "Common Sense" are anything but.

Is it reasonable for a single person to own 5 guns? 15? 25? 250? Is it reasonable to keep people form owning guns because they didn't think an action through before doing it? Is it reasonable to allow convicts to own guns if they have been "rehabed" and released back into society?

[BerksCountyDave]

I had this discussion with a guy at work the other day. I personaly dont mind some restrictions BUT........ I also know that "some" can and will turn into many. I have no reason for an assult rifle , but understand that im not everybody. My guns are for hunting , target and protection. I dont need a gun that has a 30 round magazine , but I recognize the right of others to own them.
I have a uncle (in kentucky )that has boxes of "assult rifles" burried all over his property with 1000's of rounds of ammo also. He beleives the government watches everything he does and is preparing for the end. He is a little nuts as far as im concerned , but I recognize his right to own all of that.

Please don't use the anti-gunner vocabulary. I have an AR-15. It is not an assault rifle. It does not function in 3 round burst or full auto, and therefore is not an assault rifle. It's a semi-automatic rifle.

[nepawolf]

I know how to read, including old english, middle english, and colonial english. Therefore, I know how to read the constitution and the bill of rights. When one of our rights is bastardized and slowly eroded away, it does not take long before they all go that way.

We need stricter penalties for breaking the law. That is the only effective way for stopping people from breaking the law. If someone kills someone when robbing a bank, and knows they will not likely get more than 6 years after pleas and bargaining, it isn't that effective of a deterrent. That's ignoring the fact that our prisons are actually rather nice. There have been many points in my life where I would have been living much nicer if I were in jail than if I were a free man. They have it pretty nice there. I don't want to hear how "bad" it is in jail, because it really isn't. There are only three downsides to being in an American jail: no alcohol, no smoking, and no guns. Yes, you can get stabbed or killed in there, but I can get stabbed or killed out here too.

If I want to get an artillery gun, rpg, or a full auto, then that's my RIGHT as an American. If someone wants to stand on their soap box and talk about how we need to shave the whales (not a typo, Dilbert reference), then that's their right. If a group of people gets together to train in survival, shooting and whatnot as a "militia," well that's their right too. I do not believe in any "reasonable restrictions" on any of our rights. Since our Declaration of Independence, brave men, women and children have fought and died for our rights. I, for one, see it disrespectful of them, and ourselves, and downright treasonous to allow any "reasonable restrictions" on, as our founding fathers put it, our God-given rights. If you believe in a higher power, and America, then you would also be spitting in the face of that deity by letting any "reasonable restrictions" slide by without getting pissed off and hopefully saying something to your elected officials. Even more so, reelecting one of those scumbags back into office.


Phew, that's what I needed. The commies and hippies near me started avoiding me, so I don't get to rant that kind of stuff often.

Edit: The criminals will either be in jail for a long time, or dead if we ran this country the way it was intended.

[riverpirate]

Please don't use the anti-gunner vocabulary. I have an AR-15. It is not an assault rifle. It does not function in 3 round burst or full auto, and therefore is not an assault rifle. It's a semi-automatic rifle.

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

[nepawolf]

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

Well, pump shotguns are "assault weapons" now, too. It's a slippery slope. The road to hell has always been paved with good intentions. The fact is, you can illegally get a full auto m16 cheaper than what a legal semi auto costs (at least with the current prices). Not busting on you, I'm just trying to point out that any shotgun that holds more than two rounds they want to take from you too. Don't forget about the term "sniper rifle." If you want a highly accurate rifle with a scope on it to take game more humanly, they want to take those away from you, too.

[Frenchy]

Please don't use the anti-gunner vocabulary. I have an AR-15. It is not an assault rifle. It does not function in 3 round burst or full auto, and therefore is not an assault rifle. It's a semi-automatic rifle.

Did he say you where His Uncle?

Here is an Idea for the Govt. Restrictions…

Let’s do a Penn Dot of firearms permit.
You learn how to operate the said firearm; you can own it as per the second Amendment.

Restrictions:

· Every one starts off being allowed to use water guns and cap guns. Bicycles.

· Under adult supervision, you can use a pellet gun from the age of standing up to age 10 Mini bike
· At age 10, you can learn how to use black powder and rim fire revolvers and rifles and archery equipment. . Scooter
Joining the Boy scouts, Girl guides will be nessesary to get to the next level.
· At 18, you can graduate with a successful firearms safety course (Civilian) to semi auto rifles, small caliber center fire revolvers and pistols, Up to .32 calibers. Motor bikes and cars
Joining the reserves ROTC and or civilian militia will be nessesary to gain the next level.
· 18 to 35, you can join the military and learn to use any and all the firearms and destructive devices, after a full tour 4 or 5 years pending on instructions) you become eligible to shoot large caliber rifles, revolvers, pistols, and selective fire weapons. Heavy loads, tractor trailers…

To improve the general economy, Soldiers will be allowed to not only leave the military with their new permits but the firearms they have used as well.

This will also stimulate the economy, as the production of firearms will now go up.
Soldiers, who have had a discharge other then dishonorable, will be able to regain their status by remaining in active duty as:

Civilian trainers. Police officers, Government security and or national guard/Border guard.

What do you guys think of that Kind of "restriction"?

Of course, just like PENN Dot, the authorities reserve the right to test your skills pending medical restrictions and or criminal activities.