TexasCHLforum.com

From anygun's OP.

Convince me that reasonable restrictions on firearms are necessary.

Why would we set upon anygun? He posed a question, and others answered, you were the one posing ridiculous scenarios in the guise of reductio ad absurdam.

You said yourself that there were no such thing as reasonable restrictions. In a previous post of yours, we find this exchange.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:
Then I expected that an interesting discussion of where, among variety of personal weapons listed above, should "the line" be drawn, and under what circumstances LAC's should be able to possess and carry those types of weapons.

Since there can be no line there can be no such discussion.

I'm just curious as to why you didn't direct a similar comment to anygun after reading his OP.

I think it is because you agree with the opinion he expressed in his OP, that no restrictions were reasonable, while you do not agree with mine. So it's fine with you if anygun posts what is, to you, a pointless question. But it is not fine when someone answers with a position that you disagree with.

You further point out.....

The point might be a logical discussion, such as reasons why there might be a line to be drawn and how sharp that line might be, but you had to jump in with an illogical extension and hijack the thread.

How can there be any valid reasons why a line might be drawn if, in your own words, "Since there can be no line, there can be no such discussion."?

My last statement on WMD's.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:
[It merely demonstrates that there is a broad consensus (incredibly broad in fact) that we should and must have "restrictions" that prevent it from being allowed.

But you have failed to demonstrate that concensus.

I know of no country or place on Earth where nuclear weapons can be freely bought, sold, possessed, carried, kept, and born by private citizens without restriction. That seems to indicate a pretty broad world wide consensus to me. Not to mention several formal international treaties.

Do you know of any place where nukes can be freely possessed, transferred, kept and born?

That is not reductio ad absurdam, it is a formal fallacy and fails to make any point, much less that there may be reasonable restrictions.

Actually, my scenarios were perfect examples of the reductio ad absurdum argument. It's not that they don't make any point. It is that the point that they do make is one that you and some others do not like.

Quote frankie_the_yankee
Ahhhhh. I have to admit I'm curious. What exactly is the "formal fallacy" that you are referring to in my statement?

You need to re-acquaint yourself with the rules and concepts of debate, it's covered there.

I believe that type of comment to be patronizing.

I would like you to explain, logically, just what it is about my statement/scenario that constitutes "a fallacy". If you can't, at least we will know that you can't and can move on.

Note: A "fallacy" of logic is when a statement or hypothesis contradicts itself.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:
Maybe I'll take those points and start a new thread.

Good idea, just don't start veering off into WMDs again.

More patronizing.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:
Well, I wouldn't bother to start a thread about it if people are going to presume to tell me what arguments I can make and which ones I can't make.

And that's just the reply I would expect.

Of course it is.

Tell you what. Start a thread, and I will appoint myself arbiter of what points you can agrue and what ones you cannot argue. Ask yourself what you would think of that?

A lot of hoopla is spreading regarding Heller. The good old patriotic baseball, hot dogs, apple pie, and Chevrolet side of me expects a 7-2 decision for Heller because I still am holding out that all is not lost. I am also not holding my breath. The history of mutilations SCOTUS has passed on as decisions obviously has me playing the part of jaded citizen.

I make it 5-4 but a win is a win.

I will throw out another one of my beliefs on the RKBA. Convicted felons, having served their sentence and probation, have the RKBA. They still have the right to cast their vote. Remember, we do not decide who has a right. Creator did. We decide who has a privilege. Our government serves us and it is a privilege we give them.

My opinion - convicted violent felons, no RKBA. Convicted non-violent felons, RKBA restored.

Get back on the issue and not on people, or this thread is going to be locked. I had hoped that at some point, you folks would just have to agree to disagree.

Chas.

I am trying, Chas. I appreciate your and the other moderator's patience in this. I would like to have more folks join in the discussion. If it does not happen soon I will let it rest and go on my merry little hermit way.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:Whether something is reasonable or not is a matter of opinion.

My point, exactly. Is the existence of the RKBA an opinion or a fact? Is the 2A statement that the RKBA shall not be infringed an opinion or a fact? Since one person’s rights end where the next person’s rights begin, since when does someone else’s opinion on what is a reasonable restriction start to infringe on my rights and at what point can I as a free man actually push them away and reject them as illegal and unconstitutional and declare myself not subject to the unconstitutional laws of the legislative and executive branches and tyrannical leanings and legislative actions of SCOTUS?

frankie_the_yankee wrote:The internet searches document the numbers of genocide victims. But show me the link or resource that concludes or opines that the restrictions that those victims lived under were "reasonable", or that I would consider them to be reasonable. I do not think that such a link or resource exists.

If I understand your comment then I conclude that you and I believe the same thing here. Those restrictions were not reasonable, but some of them are the very same restrictions we live under, and under the current status of our government there is very little we could do to prevent the wholesale confiscation of our arms and elimination of our RKBA. If you agree first that these millions died under unreasonable restrictions and second that some of these same restrictions exist today in the laws that we live under, then how can they be reasonable restrictions now?

frankie_the_yankee wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote: The oppressors obviously thought that the restrictions were quite reasonable but you can be sure the oppressed felt differently.

Nothing of the kind is obvious to me.

Not having been a nazi or a communist dictator I guess it is not really obvious to me either now that I think about it but allow me some creative license here.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:The oppressors may well have thought that disarming their potential victims would simply make it easier for them to slaughter them. They probably knew that their actions weren't "reasonable", and didn't care. And you yourself admit in your statement that you believe that there was a difference of opinion between the oppressors and the oppressed as to what was "reasonable".

There is no basis to equate what a mass murderer might think is reasonable with what some people on this board might think is reasonable.

Allow me to use your statement to express a point.

Anygun's Brilliant Point Using Frankie's Point wrote:The oppressors (Bradys, antis, Dems, GOP RINOs, VPC, UN, Daley, ad nauseum) may well have thought that disarming their potential victims(US citizens) would simply make it easier for them to slaughter (control, eliminate their rights) them. They probably knew that their actions weren't "reasonable", and didn't care. (They really don’t and have said so publicly) And you yourself admit in your statement that you believe that there was a difference of opinion between the oppressors and the oppressed as to what was "reasonable". (Correct)

There is no basis to equate what a mass murderer (Bradys, antis, Dems, GOP RINOs, VPC, UN, Daley, ad nauseum) might think is reasonable with what some people on this board might think is reasonable.

Are we really supposed to go about our day thinking our rights are just someone’s opinion or are we supposed to accept our rights as a fact? When did we as a people develop the boiling frog mentality that we can let our rights slip away because someone who lauds their authority over us tells us a restricted right is reasonable?

frankie_the_yankee wrote: Finally, I think that the discussion would be better focused on what Americans living under the US Constitution would or should consider reasonable restrictions, and what might or might not be constitutional.

That's what's of direct interest to most of us, I think. Not whether Zimbabwe has good gun laws or ever had them.

Frankie, you and I do agree on a whole lot more than the casual reader who stumbled on this forum would believe, and I honestly think that as an obviously educated individual, you would support the belief that what has happened historically can and will happen again, and what happens in Zimbabwe can happen here because there is no changing human nature.

Let’s change courses.

Let’s just assume that all reasonable restrictions are removed.

Pixies dust the three branches of the government. The GCA 1968 is repealed. The NFA 1934 is repealed. The Texas constitution is changed. All 20,000+ gun control laws are repealed. The lion lies down with the lamb. Unicorns dance around rainbows. Men finally understand women. Dogs stop chasing cats. Teenagers think their parents are Mensa candidates. Mayor Daily applies for Canadian citizenship.

As a firm believer in absolute rights, I am also a firm believer in personal responsibility. I think we could get by with fewer laws. I think the proliferation of laws is a direct result of lack of personal responsibility. I also think that the trend is reversible. I have some ideas about how to do it and I am sure more will come to me as I develop my thoughts.

What would you do different if we started with a clean slate?

Since there would no longer be any class 3 restrictions I would buy some full auto rifles. The price will come down so they will be affordable.

I will still carry concealed most of the time but will OC when it fits my needs/wants.

Thinking about it really, life for me will not change all that much since I value my RKBA and do as much as I can to preserve it.

Those who do not wish to exercise their RKBA really do not have to do much either. They just have to leave me alone and keep their opinions to themselves. I don’t bother anyone. Well, LCPD has come out once to tell me to turn the music down in my back yard. I did as I was asked and turned the tide on the neighbour who complained one week later when he did the same thing. Don’t bother me and I will not bother you.

Absolute rights. Personal responsibility. No infringement.

When the framers wrote the constitution and BOR they thought it was a grand concept that worked well as our country grew. Do you think it can work again?

Anygunanywhere

anygunanywhere wrote:Absolute rights. Personal responsibility. No infringement.

When the framers wrote the constitution and BOR they thought it was a grand concept that worked well as our country grew. Do you think it can work again?

Anygunanywhere

Nope. Different time. Different world.

My guess is that the framers never, in their wildest dreams could envision a world where a million people would live, one atop another, in an area the size of one of their farms;

Where the prevailing mindset is one of me/mine NOW with absolutely no thought given to the common good;

Where “sacrifice� means that one goes without watching TV/Big Macs/Crack for a day;

Where the philosophy of “if I want it I will take it� prevails rather than “if I want it I will work for it�;

Where the federal government is not only expected to feed/cloth/educate/provide for me but to do so at absolutely no monetary or sweat equity cost from me;

Where a sizable percentage of the populace has never read the Constitution and/or the BOR, would not and could not understand them if they did, and has no idea the depth of fortitude it took to creat them.

Shall I go on?

Maybe it’s the curmudgeonly side of me (my wife says that is all sides) or maybe its just that I am overly cynical and jaded, but, unfortunately and sadly, the days of personal responsibility, at least for a huge minority (if not the majority) of the population, are gone.

Some will argue that there is a vast silent majority out there that will disprove my hypothesis. I sincerely hope that they are correct.

While this treatise has little to do with the original post, it does answer your last question.

anygun,

It's obvious that while you and I do not agree 100%, we do have a lot of common ground here.

anygunanywhere wrote: My point, exactly. Is the existence of the RKBA an opinion or a fact?

A fact.

anygunanywhere wrote: Is the 2A statement that the RKBA shall not be infringed an opinion or a fact?

A fact. However, where opinions can enter into it here, in my opinion, is as to the proper intended meaning of the word "infringed."

anygunanywhere wrote: Since one person’s rights end where the next person’s rights begin, since when does someone else’s opinion on what is a reasonable restriction start to infringe on my rights and at what point can I as a free man actually push them away and reject them as illegal and unconstitutional and declare myself not subject to the unconstitutional laws of the legislative and executive branches and tyrannical leanings and legislative actions of SCOTUS?

Within the law, I do not think there is any point, short of revolution, where one can declare themselves not subject to the actions of the three branches of the government.

In my view, we can all certainly have opinions as to what is reasonable and what is not, what is constitutional and what is not, etc. But our opinions ar just that - opinions. Even individual SCOTUS judges simply write their opinions.

But in the case of SCOTUS judges, when a majority of them share the same opinion, that opinion takes on the status of a ruling. The ruling is then "the law of the land."

We of course remain free to try to change or reverse such rulings through political action, voting, speaking out, doing legal scholarship, etc. But if we choose to defy the law or ruling because we ourselves don't believe it is constitutional, we are getting into a state of anarchy.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:The internet searches document the numbers of genocide victims. But show me the link or resource that concludes or opines that the restrictions that those victims lived under were "reasonable", or that I would consider them to be reasonable. I do not think that such a link or resource exists.

anygunanywhere wrote: If I understand your comment then I conclude that you and I believe the same thing here. Those restrictions were not reasonable, but some of them are the very same restrictions we live under, and under the current status of our government there is very little we could do to prevent the wholesale confiscation of our arms and elimination of our RKBA.

Like I said, I think we are pretty close.

I do not know each and every gun law in that was in place in the places where genocide was ultimately perpetrated. So I can't say if I would consider every one of them to be unreasonable. But I think that in almost every case the target group was effectively disarmed through gun bans, confiscation, (facilitated by registration at some earlier time of course) and I certainly do regard all of those things as "unreasonable restrictions / infringements" of the RKBA.

Keep in mind also that in many of these genocides there was another factor operating. In many cases, the restrictions were cynically applied only to the target group Favored groups were given a pass. In Hitler's Germany, the strict guin laws were vigorously enforced against the Jews while members of Hitler's Nazi party got a wink and a nod (and a gun).

And I also agree that under our current laws there is a vast potential for abuse such that the government could one day attempt a wholesale confiscation of guns. Example, the law requiring 4473's. Anybody wonder why the BATFE is so picky about things like spelling out the word "Yes" instead of just writing "Y"? I think it's because they think that someday they will obtain the authority to scan all 4473's into a database, achieving defacto registration. The more uniformly the forms are filled out, the easier it is to scan them and the more accurate the whole process becomes.

Just my theory.

So yes, as I have said many times in this thread and others, I believe that some of our current gun laws are "unreasonable" and that they do constitute infringements on the RKBA.

Some.

anygunanywhere wrote: If you agree first that these millions died under unreasonable restrictions and second that some of these same restrictions exist today in the laws that we live under, then how can they be reasonable restrictions now?

The restrictions that I believe to have been unreasonable in the genocides I still believe to be unreasonable here in America.

But it does not follow that I would believe all restrictions to be unreasonable or unconstitutional.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:The oppressors may well have thought that disarming their potential victims would simply make it easier for them to slaughter them. They probably knew that their actions weren't "reasonable", and didn't care. And you yourself admit in your statement that you believe that there was a difference of opinion between the oppressors and the oppressed as to what was "reasonable".

There is no basis to equate what a mass murderer might think is reasonable with what some people on this board might think is reasonable.

anygunanywhere wrote: Allow me to use your statement to express a point.

Anygun's Brilliant Point Using Frankie's Point wrote:The oppressors (Bradys, antis, Dems, GOP RINOs, VPC, UN, Daley, ad nauseum) may well have thought that disarming their potential victims(US citizens) would simply make it easier for them to slaughter (control, eliminate their rights) them. They probably knew that their actions weren't "reasonable", and didn't care. (They really don’t and have said so publicly) And you yourself admit in your statement that you believe that there was a difference of opinion between the oppressors and the oppressed as to what was "reasonable". (Correct)

There is no basis to equate what a mass murderer (Bradys, antis, Dems, GOP RINOs, VPC, UN, Daley, ad nauseum) might think is reasonable with what some people on this board might think is reasonable.

Yup.

anygunanywhere wrote: Are we really supposed to go about our day thinking our rights are just someone’s opinion or are we supposed to accept our rights as a fact? When did we as a people develop the boiling frog mentality that we can let our rights slip away because someone who lauds their authority over us tells us a restricted right is reasonable?

Our rights are a fact. But the extent of those rights is defined in the constitution, and by both statute, and case law. As I have stated, sometimes rights conflict with each other, and sometimes with enumerated powers and purposes. (And I do not believe that, legally, rights always trump enumerated powers, or that a right or power listed at a more recent time automatically trumps one laid down at an earlier time. Sometimes, yes, depending on the specifics involved. But not automatically.) These conflicts must be resolved in day to day life. The Brady people have a right to free speech, but they can't be allowed to block access to a hospital emergency room while exercising that right. So their right has limits, and those limits have to be defined by statute with the concurrence of the courts. It's not "someone's" opinion we need to be concerned with. It is the opinion (ultimately) of the majority of The Court. Even when we might disagree and believe The Court acted unreasonably.

anygunanywhere wrote: Frankie, you and I do agree on a whole lot more than the casual reader who stumbled on this forum would believe, and I honestly think that as an obviously educated individual, you would support the belief that what has happened historically can and will happen again, and what happens in Zimbabwe can happen here because there is no changing human nature.

Yes we do agree on a lot.

And what happened in Zimbabwe could certainly someday happen here.

But it is far from inevitable.

And if you go back a couple of pages, you'll see where I listed around 6 different areas where I think that reasonable restrictions could exist (and for the most part, do exist) without infringing on the RKBA and without leading to genocide. (You will note that I rejected registration and 'licenses to own' as "unreasonable" due to their zero benefit to society and high potential for abuse.)

I figured I'd bump my list of "reasonable restrictions" to the top, just in case anyone wants to discuss any of them.

frankie_the_yankee wrote: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. They must be physically small places. (Otherwise, true security cannot be achieved because the perimeter becomes too large.) 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, poison gas, and attack helos are out. Forget about going to Electric Boat and ordering up a new Ohio Class "boomer" with a full load of MIRV's missiles. 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.

Let me also say that for these measures to be "safe" (i.e. to not evolve into unreasonable restrictions over time) we would also need a series of strong SCOTUS rulings that make it crystal clear that the RKBA is a fundamental individual right, and that any law that would limit it in any way must meet the highest level of judicial scrutiny ("strict scrutiny").

Otherwise, we risk going the UK route where they passed LTC laws that were at first, in the 1920's, administered as "shall issue". But then, over time, the Interior Ministry quietly issued regulations to the local PD's to limit the permissible "reasons" for issuing LTC's. Little by little, previously acceptable reasons were taken off the table. By the 60's and 70's, LTC were almost impossible to get, and by the 90's, handguns themselves were banned.

So yes, the people of the UK slid all the way down the slippery slope to where they are now, on the very bottom.

But they did not have the benefit of a constitution to serve as a legal roadblock.

And as a practical matter, if a broad consensus ever developed here, as it did there, to ban guns, we wouldn't need to go down the slippery slope to get there. It would be like Prohibition. An amendment would be passed, and millions of Americans would have to turn in their guns or turn in to criminals overnight. So even without a slippery slope there are no guarantees in life.

I have a very left wing sister who lives in CA. She's always telling me, "Enjoy those guns and gun rights now while you can. Someday, and it might take 50 or 100 years, but someday, they will all be banned." And get this. Even though she is very left wing in her views, she understands my reasons for owning guns and even for carrying guns in public. She is of the school that it's OK for me, her brother, to do it, but, "..what about all those (crazy, drunk, redneck, stupid, take your pick) other people?" Typical leftist view of the average person, that they are some kind of irresponsible moron (except when they get into a voting booth I guess).

But I digress.

So if people object to the restrictions I've outlined above because they represent a slippery slope, I get it. But I'd like to get beyond that and assume that with Heller and subsequent favorable rulings and precedents, we will have a strong legal roadblock in place to "flatten out" the slippery slope. So we might be able to review and discuss the proposals I listed above on their own merits.

And here's my guerilla post...

Reasoning where one extrapolates to the extreme is inductive reasoning, not deductive reasoning. Remember Occham's Razer.

Then this statement:

If our rights were absolute, how would we resolve situations where two or more rights conflict with each other? Who would decide who's "right" took precedence?

How about restoring the republican government founded by our forefathers. One where every man is his own sovereign and your rights end where my nose begins. That is to say any laws and the purpose of government should be, at a maximum, a defender of our lands and a defender of our individual right.

Lot's has been made of history; we are living in a democracy (majority rule...or mob rule if your prefer) and we call ourselves such. Every democracy throughout history has first become corrupt and then fallen.

I will now leave this thread to those more erudite on the 2A and "reasonable restrictions".

frankie_the_yankee wrote: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.

A license represents an infringement.

frankie_the_yankee wrote: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.

If felons lose their rights, then restricting them from possession is not an infringement, if they are restored any rights, they all should be restored.

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

Very grey area - are you in favor of restricting their other rights also?

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

I don't know where we lost the old concept that minors did not have rights, but only came into them at their majority. OTOH there is a fight brewing in Illinois right now because the state police are threatening to stop issuing FOIDs to kids under ten years of age. My stepson had a FOID in Illinois when he was eleven.

frankie_the_yankee wrote: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.

That one we agree on, except that I feel that the benefit is not "virtually" non-existent, it is absolutely non-existent.

frankie_the_yankee wrote: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. They must be physically small places. (Otherwise, true security cannot be achieved because the perimeter becomes too large.) 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.

The problem is that the lines drawn start to extend in directions that are unacceptable, there are some who already are trying to extend airport secure areas to, and beyond, the perimiters of the airports, for "safety." Draw a line somewhere and there will be those who twist, stretch, and warp that line until it bears absolutely no resemblance to the one originally drawn. Those lines represent infringement, even if minimal, and they are the camel's nose under the edge of the tent.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:7) Weapons other than common small arms (pistols, rifles, and shotguns) can be reasonably restricted, IMO. Nuclear bombs, poison gas, and attack helos are out. Forget about going to Electric Boat and ordering up a new Ohio Class "boomer" with a full load of MIRV's missiles. 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.

And therein lies the rest of the rub - you are willing to accept a line, even if you don't know where it belongs, and someone else wants the line in a different place, and yet another in a different place, and the ones with the most influence wind up getting the line where they want it, while the rest of us suffer. It's the line that is the infringement. Recall also that the people who wrote the Second Amendment had the (legitimate) government's attempts to eliminate the private possession of cannon to think about. Yes you can own that helo, jet, or sub, demilled, and even own guns for them if you jump through the right hoops, but that represents an infringement. Any line at all represents an infringement.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:Let me also say that for these measures to be "safe" (i.e. to not evolve into unreasonable restrictions over time) we would also need a series of strong SCOTUS rulings that make it crystal clear that the RKBA is a fundamental individual right, and that any law that would limit it in any way must meet the highest level of judicial scrutiny ("strict scrutiny").

And there will still be those who will make every effort to twist, spin, and pervert the words and meanings just to get that little extra control. A line is an infringement.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:Otherwise, we risk going the UK route where they passed LTC laws that were at first, in the 1920's, administered as "shall issue". But then, over time, the Interior Ministry quietly issued regulations to the local PD's to limit the permissible "reasons" for issuing LTC's. Little by little, previously acceptable reasons were taken off the table. By the 60's and 70's, LTC were almost impossible to get, and by the 90's, handguns themselves were banned.

So yes, the people of the UK slid all the way down the slippery slope to where they are now, on the very bottom.

But they did not have the benefit of a constitution to serve as a legal roadblock.

And as a practical matter, if a broad consensus ever developed here, as it did there, to ban guns, we wouldn't need to go down the slippery slope to get there. It would be like Prohibition. An amendment would be passed, and millions of Americans would have to turn in their guns or turn in to criminals overnight. So even without a slippery slope there are no guarantees in life.

I have a very left wing sister who lives in CA. She's always telling me, "Enjoy those guns and gun rights now while you can. Someday, and it might take 50 or 100 years, but someday, they will all be banned." And get this. Even though she is very left wing in her views, she understands my reasons for owning guns and even for carrying guns in public. She is of the school that it's OK for me, her brother, to do it, but, "..what about all those (crazy, drunk, redneck, stupid, take your pick) other people?" Typical leftist view of the average person, that they are some kind of irresponsible moron (except when they get into a voting booth I guess).

But I digress.

So if people object to the restrictions I've outlined above because they represent a slippery slope, I get it. But I'd like to get beyond that and assume that with Heller and subsequent favorable rulings and precedents, we will have a strong legal roadblock in place to "flatten out" the slippery slope. So we might be able to review and discuss the proposals I listed above on their own merits.

Not just a slippery slope, a virtual cliff, and almost impossible to flatten if any slope is still allowed - any line is an infringement.

Dragonfighter wrote: And here's my guerilla post...

Reasoning where one extrapolates to the extreme is inductive reasoning, not deductive reasoning. Remember Occham's Razer.

My examples were purely deductive. The hypothesis (no restrictions on anything, including WMD) was tested by stipulating certain situations that could arise under that hypothesis. Sure, bombs from vending machines in front of the UN Building was just my way of injecting a little humor into the whole thing. But the hypothesis would allow for it, so it was a valid example. And yes, the result would be absurd. Showing where a given hypothesis can produce an absurd result is the essence of reductio ad absurdum. "Frankie's Bomb Superstore" would produce the same result.

Dragonfighter wrote: Then this statement:

If our rights were absolute, how would we resolve situations where two or more rights conflict with each other? Who would decide who's "right" took precedence?

How about restoring the republican government founded by our forefathers. One where every man is his own sovereign and your rights end where my nose begins. That is to say any laws and the purpose of government should be, at a maximum, a defender of our lands and a defender of our individual right.

The problem is that two different people could well have two different opinions as to what the law means, where one's rights leave off and another's begin, etc. This in fact happens all the time. The result is usually a civil lawsuit.

But people can also have different opinions as to the proper reach, scope or balance of criminal laws vs. rights. If people act on these opinions, they will sometimes find themselves in criminal court.

Ultimately, a court determines the correct way, under the laws, that the conflict should be resolved.

And it pretty much has to be this way. A document is just a piece of paper. It's not going to hop out of its display case in the museum and save your hide in court. It's just gonna sit there. You have your opinion as to what it means. And the government has its opinion(s) as to what it means, and what rights, powers, etc. properly take precedence.

Absent an orderly judicial process, all we would have is anarchy.

shaggydog wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:Absolute rights. Personal responsibility. No infringement.

When the framers wrote the constitution and BOR they thought it was a grand concept that worked well as our country grew. Do you think it can work again?

Anygunanywhere

Nope. Different time. Different world.

My guess is that the framers never, in their wildest dreams could envision a world where a million people would live, one atop another, in an area the size of one of their farms;

Then by all means, please give us a range report on that flintlock pistol you're carrying. After all, the Brady Bunch argues, the founders could never envision modern semi-auto arms.

Either the Constitution is a timeless document cast in stone, or it's just some suggestions.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:A fact. However, where opinions can enter into it here, in my opinion, is as to the proper intended meaning of the word "infringed."

Bill, you had your two terms, it's time to fade into obscurity now.

"infringed" is used here in its obsolete intransitive form, which is generally defined as "encroached upon." Following that up, we find the definition of encroach to be "1 : to enter by gradual steps or by stealth into the possessions or rights of another
2 : to advance beyond the usual or proper limits <the gradually encroaching sea>"

It is interesting to note that the first definition of encroach pretty well sums up what has been happening.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:Keep in mind also that in many of these genocides there was another factor operating. In many cases, the restrictions were cynically applied only to the target group Favored groups were given a pass. In Hitler's Germany, the strict guin laws were vigorously enforced against the Jews while members of Hitler's Nazi party got a wink and a nod (and a gun).

This kind of like what goes on in may issue or no issue states. The target group is us, the people, and the favored group is the elected, the elite. The elite inicludes the socially elite. Lots of winks and nods going around the cocktail parties and halls of the capitols.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:And I also agree that under our current laws there is a vast potential for abuse such that the government could one day attempt a wholesale confiscation of guns. Example, the law requiring 4473's. Anybody wonder why the BATFE is so picky about things like spelling out the word "Yes" instead of just writing "Y"? I think it's because they think that someday they will obtain the authority to scan all 4473's into a database, achieving defacto registration. The more uniformly the forms are filled out, the easier it is to scan them and the more accurate the whole process becomes.

The BATFE ranks right up there with the IRS in my book. I could go major league off-topic on this one. Suffice it to say that the foundation for abuse is there and that I believe the ATF house needs to be cleaned. Too bad the foxes are guarding the house.

Anygunanywhere

KD5NRH wrote:

frankie_the_yankee wrote:A fact. However, where opinions can enter into it here, in my opinion, is as to the proper intended meaning of the word "infringed."

Bill, you had your two terms, it's time to fade into obscurity now.

"infringed" is used here in its obsolete intransitive form, which is generally defined as "encroached upon." Following that up, we find the definition of encroach to be "1 : to enter by gradual steps or by stealth into the possessions or rights of another
2 : to advance beyond the usual or proper limits <the gradually encroaching sea>"

It is interesting to note that the first definition of encroach pretty well sums up what has been happening.

What a term means in the law is not always the same thing as what it means in a dictionary.

If the courts had at any time believed that the word infringed as used in the 2A had the absolute meaning that some ascribe to it, no federal gun law passed in the last 200+ years would have been found to be constitutional.

And the 2A would certainly have been incorporated by now under the 14th, such that all state and local gun laws would have been nipped in the bud as well.

I have predicted many times that even assuming that we win the Heller case, The Court will leave the door open for quite a few types of gun control laws, including some that most of us, including me, would believe to be "unreasonable". Heller will give us a good idea as to the meaning that The Court applies to the word "infringed".

Note that the current issues of American Rifleman and America's First Freedom both have articles about Heller. And they clearly state that people shouldn't expect any sort of wholesale voiding of gun laws across the country.

And I note that the OP was seeking opinions as to what types of gun laws, if any, people would consider to be reasonable. Anygun did not specifically ask what types of gun laws we would consider to be constitutional.

There's likely to be a difference.