TexasCHLforum.com

Mighty fine debating going on gentlemen.
Allmost like we are around the campfire during hunting season.

anygunanywhere, ever think about running for office???

Dan

phddan wrote:Mighty fine debating going on gentlemen.
Allmost like we are around the campfire during hunting season.

anygunanywhere, ever think about running for office???

Dan

I respect myself, my friends, and loved ones too much to dabble in the realm of politics. I don't want to lay down with the dogs. No offense to my canine friends!

I would rather keep my safe full, well lubricated, sighted in, with ample stocks of rifle and pistol food and wait for the time when myself and my brethren are ready to do what is necessary.

Since I started this thread I want to once again ask that we drop the machine guns on airliners debate and return to the original intent. The totality of gun control and second amendment infringement does not hinge on showdowns on airliners between GG and BG with automatic weapons, although it might make great theater. I kind of skimmed over the responses dealing with the machine guns on planes stuff and might address it later.

Reasonable restrictions.

Once the first reasonable restrictions on firearms were in place it seems that more reasonable restrictions were enacted. Reasonable restrictions keep piling on. The antis are never happy with their 20,000 plus examples of reasonable restrictions. The AWB was a reasonable restriction. Ask any anti their definition of reasonable restrictions and they will probably say get rid of them all. The UK has reasonable restrictions. Canada has reasonable restrictions.

Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. How many innocents have died globally from reasonable restrictions. Once all firearms are gone from reasonable restrictions what will be next?

Ah yes. Real ID. Reasonable restrictions. Homeland Security says that unless states adopt the Real ID we will not be allowed to travel on planes. I thought airlines were private property. Why do I need a chip to fly? Reasonable restrictions. The Patriot Act was a reasonable restriction. 9-11 response required reasonable restrictions.

Why don't reasonable restrictions apply to illegal immigration and border security. Why don't reasonable restrictions apply to ensuring that only citizens vote?

The term reasonable restriction does not belong in a patriot's vocabulary. There comes a ime when we, the people must wake up to the fact that reasonable restrictions are slowly eliminating our rights and freedoms in the name of security.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:

Anygunanywhere wrote:

frankie_the_yankee wrote:Sometimes rights conflict with each other. Sometimes they conflict with enumerated powers or purposes. (Think, "..to provide for domestic tranquility.."). And when this happens, something has to yield.

My rights ALWAYS trump powers and purposes. Me, Anygun, one of the people, gives the government its powers. The government has its powers at MY discretion. Let the government yield to me.

Different people can have different opinions about these things. We resolve such differences in the courts. And the courts do not agree that your rights, or mine, or ours, always trump powers and purposes.

And the government doesn't get its powers from you. It gets them from all 300 million of us. We elect people to public office, judges get appointed, etc. Every so often, if enough of us don't like the way things are going we elect different officials, etc.

The courts are part of the problem. They stopped using the constitution as the foundation of determining the constitutionality of law and “interpreted� the constitution, twisting the meaning, using foreign law in their decisions, and extended the governmental powers granted by the constitution far beyond what the intent of the document allowed. The commerce clause is a prime example of a governmental power that was mutated by the courts and is way out of control.

I realize that I am only one among 300 million. My point is still clear. We the people grant the government its power. The government does not grant us rights, and my rights do outweigh governmental power every time. Ask me and I will tell you so. I am convinced that if more of us actually even knew what our rights are and insisted that governments stop trampling on them we would be far much better off.

anygunanywhere wrote: Since I started this thread I want to once again ask that we drop the machine guns on airliners debate and return to the original intent. The totality of gun control and second amendment infringement does not hinge on showdowns on airliners between GG and BG with automatic weapons, although it might make great theater. I kind of skimmed over the responses dealing with the machine guns on planes stuff and might address it later.

If you're advocating "no restrictions", or that any restrictions constitute infringements of the 2A, you don't get to just ignore some of the inconvenient consequences. I mean you can if you want to, but it kind of makes any sort of further discussion meaningless.

Now if you want to say that banning machine guns on airliners DOES constitute a "reasonable restriction" and move on to other things, that would be perfectly OK with me.

Then we could debate which restrictions might be reasonable and which might be unreasonable.

anygunanywhere wrote:
Reasonable restrictions.

Once the first reasonable restrictions on firearms were in place it seems that more reasonable restrictions were enacted. Reasonable restrictions keep piling on. The antis are never happy with their 20,000 plus examples of reasonable restrictions. The AWB was a reasonable restriction. Ask any anti their definition of reasonable restrictions and they will probably say get rid of them all. The UK has reasonable restrictions. Canada has reasonable restrictions.

I agree completely with what you state above.

anygunanywhere wrote: Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

I agree with that too.

But it does not follow from logic that any and all restrictions are therefore unreasonable.

anygunanywhere wrote: The term reasonable restriction does not belong in a patriot's vocabulary. There comes a ime when we, the people must wake up to the fact that reasonable restrictions are slowly eliminating our rights and freedoms in the name of security.

Then we should use some other term.

But recognize that EVERY law is intended as a "reasonable restriction" on SOMETHING.

Anygunanywhere wrote: The courts are part of the problem. They stopped using the constitution as the foundation of determining the constitutionality of law and “interpreted� the constitution, twisting the meaning, using foreign law in their decisions, and extended the governmental powers granted by the constitution far beyond what the intent of the document allowed. The commerce clause is a prime example of a governmental power that was mutated by the courts and is way out of control.

I fully agree that the courts have drastically exceeded their authority in many areas, and continue to do so.

But we must have some institution to interpret and mediate the law, because different people can honestly hold different opinions as to what any given law or constitutional provision means. And rights can conflict with each other and with enumerated powers as I have shown.

Under the constitution, it is the courts who interpret the law, and we the people agree to peacefully accept the results.

We also reserve the right to replace public officials, through the orderly process of free elections, with officials more to our liking. And this includes officials who can be expected to appoint judges who will rule on the law in ways that are more to our liking.

And we do so.

Just look at many of the decisions of the notorious Warren Court of the 60's, and compare their reasoning with that of the courts of today. Since the judicial excesses of the 60's, there has been a broad shift towards a more Originalist philosophy - away from the activist "living constitution" of the Warren era. This is the result of the voting patterns that have prevailed over many years.

If you look at history, the activist school took control sometime during the FDR administration, reached its peak under Warren, and has since then been slowly receding.

Even though Bork never made it on to The Court, his writings have been a huge influence in this direction. I would recommend "The Tempting of America" as a must read for anyone looking for a thorough airing out of the Originalist philosophy. In it, Bork systematically dismantles, shreds, and tosses the "living document" approach on to history's ash heap where it rightly belongs.

Now, are we there yet? Absolutely not. We still have a long way to go. But it's encouraging when a long time liberal like Lawrence Tribe of Harvard Law School, author of the basic text used to teach law students constitutional law, ("American Constitutional Law" is the title, I think), changes his line on the 2A in the more recent editions of this text to state that it does affirm an individual right to keep and bear arms.

And this is all why I think the upcoming presidential election is so important. Another 8 years of Originalist judicial appointments would be a huge step towards getting the federal judiciary on track, while 8 years of Breyer type appointments (who look to cherry pick court rulings from other countries for guidance as to how to properly interpret the US Constitution) would set the Originalist movement back by decades.

So name your restriction and let's debate as to whether it's reasonable or not.

Or state that no restrictions are reasonable and tell me how to cope with the numerous inconvenient consequences.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:If you're advocating "no restrictions", or that any restrictions constitute infringements of the 2A, you don't get to just ignore some of the inconvenient consequences. I mean you can if you want to, but it kind of makes any sort of further discussion meaningless.

I already stated in a prior post that since airlines are private property I would accept restrictions to carry on airlines. I have stated my opinion to restricted carry on commercial private property in many other threads so I will not debate the issue any longer in this thread. There are many more instances of reasonable restrictions that affect us on a day-to-day basis than airline carry.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:Now if you want to say that banning machine guns on airliners DOES constitute a "reasonable restriction" and move on to other things, that would be perfectly OK with me.

Based on responses from other posters as well you, Frankie, seem to be the one stuck on this machine gun on airliner issue. If I agree to compromise just for the sake of moving this thread along to something more suited to our way of life then I will.

Reasonable Restriction to the Second Amendment #1 – There will be no machine guns allowed on airlines because there will be blood running down the evacuation slides from the terrorists and patriots shooting each other.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:Then we could debate which restrictions might be reasonable and which might be unreasonable.

Time to move on.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote: The term reasonable restriction does not belong in a patriot's vocabulary. There comes a ime when we, the people must wake up to the fact that reasonable restrictions are slowly eliminating our rights and freedoms in the name of security.

But recognize that EVERY law is intended as a "reasonable restriction" on SOMETHING.

You are supporting my argument. Reasonable restrictions are intended to prohibit something with respect to firearms and/or their possession or use. Why is an offense any more serious or heinous because a firearm is used? Is someone more dead because they were shot and not stabbed?

Murder is already a crime. If someone kills someone with a knife, club, gun, poison, or with their bare hands, the punishment should be the same. Since murder was wrong, a crime, and not acceptable for who knows how long before gunpowder was even invented, why since the concept of a second amendment has it become fashionable to restrict a basic right in an attempt to change/prevent behavior that has existed since man experienced self-realization as a hominid?

The punishment for robbery, rape, murder, kidnapping, assault, or any other instance of violence, trespass, or infringement on another person’s rights, should be the same whether the instigator performs the act with no weapon or a gun. Anyone who insists that the deed is worse when performed with a gun is an imbecile.

Intentions do not count for much at all. Murder laws have intended to prevent murder since forever and have never prevented one homicide.

Reasonable restriction is an oxymoronic term. How can restricting something be reasonable since the restriction will not do anything to eliminate the behavior?

Mrs. Anygun and I deciding jointly what to eat and when to eat supper is reasonable. Her restricting me to just one helping is an unreasonable restriction since it will not change my behavior.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:So name your restriction and let's debate as to whether it's reasonable or not.

Frankie is addressing the rest of those on this board, not me.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:Or state that no restrictions are reasonable and tell me how to cope with the numerous inconvenient consequences.

Dealing with the inconvenient consequences.

Murder is illegal even with no restrictions on the 2A.

Robbery, assault, rape, kidnapping, etc, etc, is illegal even with no restrictions on the 2A.

Enforcing every single word of the penal code is possible even if there were no restrictions on the 2A.

Respecting personal property rights is possible with no restrictions on the 2A.

The criminal courts would work just as well with no special provisions for crimes committed with firearms. No restrictions on the 2A.

Restrictions on the 2A never stopped stupid people from doing stupid things.

You might say that laws do prevent people from doing bad things, but they don’t. Our sense of right and wrong instilled in us by our parents, family, friends, teachers, you know, the village (gigglesnort), keeps us in line. Our faith, our mutual respect, our love of our fellow man prevents us from killing the cell phone jerk doing 10 mph less than posted in the left lane on I-45. We could abolish 90% of the laws on the books and society would be just fine, probably better.

I think the major issue that our collective psyche has in comprehending a world with no restrictions on the 2A results from our growing up in a world with so many restrictions. We are like mice in a maze looking for the food. Every wall we bump with our whiskery nose is a restriction placed on us by those legislators we elect. We keep pushing on under the mistaken assumption that we are guided by restrictions until we finally reach the chamber where we smell the scent of……the cheese.

But there is no cheese. Some jerk moved it. Dadburn! Another restriction.

Anygun

Actually, there ARE a few "reasonable restrictions" from government that I would support . . .

1. Illegal aliens ought not be allowed to buy, sell, own, or possess firearms. Criminal offense if they do.

2. Unrestricted sales of firearms to children ought not be allowed. (We can debate where to set the age limit, but IMHO anyone old enough to vote or serve in the military ought to be able to have a firearm.)

3. Convicted violent criminals, drunks, and those addicted to illegal drugs ought not have guns. (Personally, violent criminals ought not be running around loose, but that's a whole different debate.)

4. Hmmm . . . having a hard time coming up with another.

(This only applies to normal firearms . . . I'm not talking about MANPADs, artillery, satchel charges, poison gas, etc., but rifles, pistols, shotguns, FA, .50s, and suppressors are OK in my book.)

HankB wrote:Actually, there ARE a few "reasonable restrictions" from government that I would support . . .

1. Illegal aliens ought not be allowed to buy, sell, own, or possess firearms. Criminal offense if they do.

2. Unrestricted sales of firearms to children ought not be allowed. (We can debate where to set the age limit, but IMHO anyone old enough to vote or serve in the military ought to be able to have a firearm.)

3. Convicted violent criminals, drunks, and those addicted to illegal drugs ought not have guns. (Personally, violent criminals ought not be running around loose, but that's a whole different debate.)

4. Hmmm . . . having a hard time coming up with another.

(This only applies to normal firearms . . . I'm not talking about MANPADs, artillery, satchel charges, poison gas, etc., but rifles, pistols, shotguns, FA, .50s, and suppressors are OK in my book.)

Essentially you have only two since illegal aliens are by their definition criminals.

Anygun

anygunanywhere wrote: Essentially you have only two since illegal aliens are by their definition criminals.

Anygun

In #3, I specified violent criminals for restrictions - I see no reason to restrict firearms for US citizens who are non-violent criminals (Martha Stewart, Scooter Libby, for example.) And I don't want druggies or drunks using guns any more than I want them driving cars.

On the other hand, illegal aliens of ALL types - violent or non violent - ought to be restricted.

So I think I still have three.

1) Requiring a license to legally carry a gun in public is reasonable, IMO, so long as the license is "shall issue" with criteria that any adult LAC can meet. "May issue" licenses are not reasonable, IMO.

2) Banning gun possession by convicted violent felons is reasonable. But I agree that Martha, Libby, Liddy, etc. should be able to purchase, possess, and carry guns just as anyone else can.

3) Adjucated drunks, dope addicts, and the (adjucated) insane can be reasonably restricted from possessing guns.

4) Minors can be reasonably restricted from the unsupervised possession of guns. But restrictions of supervised possession are not reasonable, IMO.

5) Registration of firearms is not reasonable due to its virtually non-existent benefit and huge potential for abuse. For the same reason, I believe licensing of gun owners, as opposed to people who want to carry guns in public, to be unreasonable.

6) Certain narrowly defined places can be reasonably designated as "sterile areas" where possession of guns is prohibited. These areas must have security screening in place. They may or may not have provisions for people to check their guns. Some places that come to mind are airliners, courtrooms, The White House, and possibly a few other similar places that I might have left out. By the same token, it is not reasonable to prohibit guns from public places (such as post offices, government buildings, national parks, etc.) and public accommodations (such as commercial establishments open to the public) where security screening is not in place.

7) Weapons other than common small arms (pistols, rifles, and shotguns) can be reasonably restricted, IMO. Nuclear bombs and attack helos are out. And no, you can't have that F22 Raptor you want, unless it has been totally de-milled. But MP-5's are in. (I really, really like MP-5's. ) Somewhere in between is where I would draw the line, though I'm not sure exactly where.

I think firearms restrictions for convicted felons are reasonable just like voting restrictions.

If it's reasonable for a business to restrict carrying firearms, it's also reasonable for them to restrict carrying newspapers and bibles.

It's reasonable for the government to restrict private citizens from carrying guns in the same places they restrict the secret service from carrying guns.

Waiting periods, mandatory training, licenses, permission from a government official, etc. Wake me when the Supreme Court says those are reasonable restrictions for abortions and then we can talk about guns.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:And I'd like to think that I form opinions on what is reasonable based on my reading of the constitution and applying deductive reasoning to this or that proposal or law rather than simply being a product of my previously oppressive environment.

But the impression you give with your previous statements is that in escaping RI you got to a place where the restrictions were more acceptable to you.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:There are good arguments that "arms" as referred to in the 2A meant what we would describe as "small arms" that would be carried by an infantryman. Things like pistols, rifles, and shotguns. I find myself pursuaded by these arguments.

But I don't and that forms the dichotomy, once again, of who gets to draw the line, and where, and why and with which. You see the line as being suitably placed at "small arms," which might be used to someday eliminate 12 gauge shotguns, as they are over the standard military definition of small arm, ie less than fifty caliber.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:I know there are arguments that go the other way, but I really don't think that the 2A affirms an unrestricted right to purchase nuclear bombs from vending machines and to keep and bear them as we individually please.

But that is a syllogistic arguement, with no place in honest debate. Exemplifying such an impractical scenario does nothing to enhance your position and makes you appear to to be falling back on devices traditionally used by the anti-gun nuts.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:If there were such a right, I suspect that terrorists would have blown up most of our cities by now.

And I disagree, there is nothing in the world stopping those terrorists from assembling bombs now, in violation of the numerous laws against their doing so, cf Timothy McVeigh and his ilk. Just like gun control, bomb control accomplishes more in preventing the law abiding from doing things they might otherwise do if there were no law against it, rather than preventing those determined to commit crimes from doing so.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:So if not nuclear bombs then what? Are cannon OK? How about attack helicopters, or aircraft carriers? (Bill Gates could afford a couple of them, along with their escort vessels, right?) Then there's always poison gas and infectious disease agents. Does the 2A affirm an unrestricted right to keep and bear such things?

I see no reason not to think so. Yes, you will argue that WMD and such were not even in the weapons pantheon in the era, much less imagined, but actually they were, imagined that is, by various scientific types over the centuries, they were just not practical for the technology available, and those imaginings were not likely to have been totally missed by the people who wrote the BOR.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:If so, I'd like to see an estimate of the effects on our society from allowing for these things.

And if not, I'd like to see the constitutional principle by which cannon are OK, for instance, while nuclear bombs are not.

Remember, if we ban nuclear bomb vending machines, we could eventually work our way down to the point where slingshots are banned as well, right?

The point being, sometimes the slippery slope can be pretty slippery, and sometimes it is hardly slippery at all. Or maybe like many ski mountains, it is steep at the top, but levels out about halfway down the mountain to where even duffers like me can ski it.

Exactly, as long as we let the line be drawn, there will be someone who wants it moved a little more toward taking away my beloved Wham-O squirrel chaser, so the best solution is: NO LINE!

jimlongley wrote:

frankie_the_yankee wrote:So if not nuclear bombs then what? Are cannon OK? How about attack helicopters, or aircraft carriers? (Bill Gates could afford a couple of them, along with their escort vessels, right?) Then there's always poison gas and infectious disease agents. Does the 2A affirm an unrestricted right to keep and bear such things?

I see no reason not to think so. Yes, you will argue that WMD and such were not even in the weapons pantheon in the era, much less imagined, but actually they were, imagined that is, by various scientific types over the centuries, they were just not practical for the technology available, and those imaginings were not likely to have been totally missed by the people who wrote the BOR.

More a question that a statement of fact...regarding cannon/tanks/crew served weapons, seems like they have always been available in some fashion to private citizens. Some examples that come to mind are; private security companies like Blackwater and historical re-enactment groups. Doesn't Arnold Schwarzenegger own a tank? When the BOR was written, didn't private companies own rather large ships with cannon?

A quick google search shows several places to find interesting stuff that won't fit in the normal household safe. They are expensive, but check out the deals at the Antique Cannon Superstore...http://bronzecannon.net/

jimlongley wrote:

frankie_the_yankee wrote:
And I'd like to think that I form opinions on what is reasonable based on my reading of the constitution and applying deductive reasoning to this or that proposal or law rather than simply being a product of my previously oppressive environment.

But the impression you give with your previous statements is that in escaping RI you got to a place where the restrictions were more acceptable to you.

Both are true.

I escaped to a place where the restrictions were much more acceptable. And I form my opinions and beliefs based on deductive reasoning.

In fact, it is when I am using deductive reasoning that I usually catch criticism for setting up "unrealistic" scenarios etc., when what I am actually doing is illustrating some possible consequences of a person's argument that they would prefer not to address.

Example:

frankie_the_yankee wrote:I know there are arguments that go the other way, but I really don't think that the 2A affirms an unrestricted right to purchase nuclear bombs from vending machines and to keep and bear them as we individually please.

jimlongley wrote: But that is a syllogistic arguement, with no place in honest debate. Exemplifying such an impractical scenario does nothing to enhance your position and makes you appear to to be falling back on devices traditionally used by the anti-gun nuts.

You argue "no restrictions." I take your argument at face value and say, "Well then, it must be OK to sell nuclear bombs out of vending machines. I think I'll start building nuclear bombs and set up one of my machines outside of the UN Building in NYC." And you say that that, "...has no place in honest debate."

If "no restrictions" really means "no restrictions", then it would be completely legal for me to do that. And I'll bet I could make a ton of money doing it too. I'd just go to Pantex up in Amarillo and place an order for some bombs and have a big ol' vending machine built and off I go.

Now if you don't think our society should allow people to do that, then you have to back away from "no restrictions."

I'm sure nuclear bombs sold out of a vending machine outside of the UN Building is not what you had in mind when you think of "no restrictions." Why not just say so and be done with it? Then we can talk about what restrictions might be considered to be reasonable and what might not?

frankie_the_yankee wrote:If there were such a right, I suspect that terrorists would have blown up most of our cities by now.

jimlongley wrote: And I disagree, there is nothing in the world stopping those terrorists from assembling bombs now, in violation of the numerous laws against their doing so, cf Timothy McVeigh and his ilk. Just like gun control, bomb control accomplishes more in preventing the law abiding from doing things they might otherwise do if there were no law against it, rather than preventing those determined to commit crimes from doing so.

I was specifically referring to nuclear bombs. It is not the law that keeps terrorists from building them now. It is that they lack either the ability, or the fissionable material, or both.

If there were no restrictions, anyone could simply buy fully assembled bombs from my vending machine. A complete "push button" system, as it were. No assembly required.

And as for regular (non-nuclear) bombs, anyone planning to build and use such things at least needs to be pretty good at keeping their mouth shut. Because if the feds got wind of it, the would-be builders would probably qualify for the big needle.

I suspect that SOME would-be builders are inhibited by all that. Certainly more than if they could just buy the conventional bomb of their choice from one of my vending machines.

So as I said in another post, somewhere between MP-5's and nuclear bombs is where Frankie would draw the line. (Probably a lot closer to MP-5's! )

frankie_the_yankee wrote:So if not nuclear bombs then what? Are cannon OK? How about attack helicopters, or aircraft carriers? (Bill Gates could afford a couple of them, along with their escort vessels, right?) Then there's always poison gas and infectious disease agents. Does the 2A affirm an unrestricted right to keep and bear such things?

jimlongley wrote: I see no reason not to think so. Yes, you will argue that WMD and such were not even in the weapons pantheon in the era, much less imagined, but actually they were, imagined that is, by various scientific types over the centuries, they were just not practical for the technology available, and those imaginings were not likely to have been totally missed by the people who wrote the BOR.

No, I wouldn't argue that at all. That's a standard anti-gun argument and is completely irrelevant.

What I would argue is that I think it is perfectly reasonable to ban the possession of poison gas, nuclear bombs, biologocal weapons, and even things like fully functional attack helicopters, F22's, and other such things. I do not believe the RKBA covers such things. Please note: This is just my opinion. I do not claim to have any unique insight into "revealed truth." The Good Lord doesn't inform me about these things. It's all me. Others may have different opinions, which is perfectly fine.

I just think that the potential harm to society if the items I listed above were freely available (as in my poison gas / bio-weapon vending machine) is huge, and the potential benefit is nil. I don't want to live my life wondering if or when someone is going buy a nuclear bomb or a few tons of mustard gas from a vending machine and light it off in my city.

If we make it too easy, some whack job will do it. I see no problem with making sorties like that as difficult as possible. In fact if we could make it totally impossible for someone to do that, so much the better.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:I just think that the potential harm to society if the items I listed above were freely available (as in my poison gas / bio-weapon vending machine) is huge, and the potential benefit is nil. I don't want to live my life wondering if or when someone is going buy a nuclear bomb or a few tons of mustard gas from a vending machine and light it off in my city.

If we make it too easy, some whack job will do it. I see no problem with making sorties like that as difficult as possible. In fact if we could make it totally impossible for someone to do that, so much the better.

And I still say that your vending machine scenario is merely reducing the debate to the absurd, why not use an honest example, something that could actually exist in real life? Until 1934 regular law abiding citizens could own, unrestricted, cannon, full automatic weapons, short barreled firearms, and other such stuff, and there wasn't any mass use of them, just a few extremely publicized incidents in the early 30s that led to a law that were are still saddled with today, and that law hasn't done anything proveable to change access to and use of such weapons. Since it can't be shown to have more than a salutary effect, it becomes an unreasonable restriction.

The rest of your arguement is the standard anti-gun nut arguement too.

The whack jobs are already doing it, despite the laws, easy or not, thus my example of McVeigh, I was talking bombs, not you, a much more accessible example.

And once again, I have to ask, who gets to say what's reasonable?

I have never seen so many words wasted by those who advocate gun control trying to pretend they don't.

Shall. Not. Be. Infringed.

"Reasonable restriction"? If it's a restriction, it's unreasonable. Quit trying to "what if" your way into justifying further restrictions. If you advocate any restriction, you're in favor of gun control. You're on Sarah Brady's side, and an enemy of the Constitution.

Cheers to anygunanywhere for having the patience to stay in this thread. I can't even read most of it without getting angry.

And I still say that your vending machine scenario is merely reducing the debate to the absurd, why not use an honest example, something that could actually exist in real life?

What's dishonest about it?

If there were no restrictions, why couldn't I order a few nukes from Pantex and sell them out of a vending machine set up outside of the UN Building? What would stop me from doing that? Not to mention mustard gas, Sarin, etc.

"No restrictions" either means no restrictions or it doesn't.

If you think I should be able to order up some nukes from Pantex and sell them just say so. Or if you think I shouldn't be able to do that then say that. I mean, you must think one or the other, right?

FWIW, by the use of an absurd example, I am simply employing the "reductio ad absurdum" method to illustrate that the "no restrictions" position leads to some absurd outcomes.

What it boils down to is that it is the "no restrictions" position that is absurd, not my argument.

What we would do better to discuss is just what restrictions might be reasonable and what ones might not be reasonable.

The rest of your arguement is the standard anti-gun nut arguement too.

That might be a handy way of avoiding having to deal with it. But I don't often see anti-gun people arguing that shall issue CHL's are OK, registration is unreasonable, and that "the line" should be drawn somewhere north of MP-5's (though south of attack helicopters).

Now, you want a more realistic example. No problem.

Refer to my reply to seamus. Back in the 60's, there were no rules against carrying guns on airliners, and no screening of passengers or carryon bags. It became quite common (once a month or more) for people to hijack airliners at gunpoint and demand they be flown to Cuba or wherever. It took a while, but the government finally banned guns from the passenger cabin and instituted passenger screening. After these actions were taken, the number of hijackings plummetted. These days, hijackings are very infrequent, especially of US airliners.

And yes, this didn't prevent 9/11. Nothing is perfect. In my view, a huge blunder on the government's part was to ban flight crews from carrying guns. This was done sometime in the 80's I think. (I don't exactly remember.) Prior to that, it wasn't uncommon for pilots to have a gun in the cockpit.

And note that these armed pilots were not effective at stopping hijackers armed with guns as in the 60's. The hijackers would usually manage to get the drop on the flight crew, or take one of them hostage, etc. But 9/11 involved guys armed with box cutters (because they couldn't get guns aboard). It's arguable that pillots armed with guns might have fared better against hijackers armed with box cutters than the way things turned out that day.

So there's an example that is not only realistic, it is a historical fact. When the passenger cabin was "uncontrolled", hijackings at gunpoint became very common. When the passenger cabin was established as a controlled area with no guns allowed, hijackings became much less frequent.