Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: What defines "reasonable" regulation?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863

    Post imported post

    Gun Rights activists, prohibitionists battle over what is "reasonable" regulation of guns.

    The Seattle Gun Rights Examiner asks some probing questions and how you answer will determine which side of this battle you are on.



    http://www.examiner.com/x-4525-Seattle-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m6d29-Gun-rights-activists-prohibitionists-battle-over-what-is-reasonable

    If that doesn't work, try this:

    http://tinyurl.com/lvx7tu

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Pierce is a Coward, ,
    Posts
    1,100

    Post imported post

    Dave Workman wrote:
    Gun Rights activists, prohibitionists battle over what is "reasonable" regulation of guns.

    The Seattle Gun Rights Examiner asks some probing questions and how you answer will determine which side of this battle you are on.



    http://www.examiner.com/x-4525-Seattle-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m6d29-Gun-rights-activists-prohibitionists-battle-over-what-is-reasonable

    If that doesn't work, try this:

    http://tinyurl.com/lvx7tu
    When did I give them permission to regulate my guns, in the first place? As soon as they answer that question, we can talk about what sort of regulations are proper. "Reasonable" ought never be a standard of law.

    One man's reasonable is another man's gulag.

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818

    Post imported post

    smoking357 wrote:
    Dave Workman wrote:
    Gun Rights activists, prohibitionists battle over what is "reasonable" regulation of guns.

    The Seattle Gun Rights Examiner asks some probing questions and how you answer will determine which side of this battle you are on.



    http://www.examiner.com/x-4525-Seattle-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m6d29-Gun-rights-activists-prohibitionists-battle-over-what-is-reasonable

    If that doesn't work, try this:

    http://tinyurl.com/lvx7tu
    When did I give them permission to regulate my guns, in the first place? As soon as they answer that question, we can talk about what sort of regulations are proper. "Reasonable" ought never be a standard of law.

    One man's reasonable is another man's gulag.
    +1

    "Reasonable Regulation" is a BS term invented by the courts. There needs to be penalties for infringing on other peoples rights but prior restraint on anything in the Bill of Rights is undefendable.

    The very reson that the founders wrote "shall not be infringed" is because the British reasonably regulated the arms right out from under their citizens. If the justices don't understand that, they're idoits. If the justices do understand that, and adopt "reasonable regulation" anyway,they should be impeached.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    What defines "reasonable" regulation? Strict scrutiny. But, like Incorporation, the controllers don't want the strict scrutiny of gun law to get a SCOTUS hearing.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Pierce is a Coward, ,
    Posts
    1,100

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    What defines "reasonable" regulation? Strict scrutiny. But, like Incorporation, the controllers don't want the strict scrutiny of gun law to get a SCOTUS hearing.
    "Strict scrutiny" and "incorporation" are fallacies invented by the courts.

    These terms appear nowhere in the Constitution.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Perhaps, but incorporation is how the Constitution and Bill of Rights has been applied to the States that otherwise are not subject to the limits on power of the Constitution.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Washintonian_For_Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Mercer Island, Washington, USA
    Posts
    922

    Post imported post

    Brass Magnet wrote:
    smoking357 wrote:
    Dave Workman wrote:
    Gun Rights activists, prohibitionists battle over what is "reasonable" regulation of guns.

    The Seattle Gun Rights Examiner asks some probing questions and how you answer will determine which side of this battle you are on.



    http://www.examiner.com/x-4525-Seattle-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m6d29-Gun-rights-activists-prohibitionists-battle-over-what-is-reasonable

    If that doesn't work, try this:

    http://tinyurl.com/lvx7tu
    When did I give them permission to regulate my guns, in the first place? As soon as they answer that question, we can talk about what sort of regulations are proper. "Reasonable" ought never be a standard of law.

    One man's reasonable is another man's gulag.
    +1

    "Reasonable Regulation" is a BS term invented by the courts. There needs to be penalties for infringing on other peoples rights but prior restraint on anything in the Bill of Rights is undefendable.

    The very reson that the founders wrote "shall not be infringed" is because the British reasonably regulated the arms right out from under their citizens. If the justices don't understand that, they're idoits. If the justices do understand that, and adopt "reasonable regulation" anyway,they should be impeached.
    +1000

    There is no such thing as reasonable regulation when it comes in the form of laws, ordinances, regulations, directives or guidelines designed to restrict liberty. Example, any and all gun laws. Gun laws are stupid and ineffective. They give sheep a false sense of security and allow for killing zones where the victims are unarmed. Why do we need a law that says you can't brandish your weapon when we already have laws against making threats? A threat against someones life is a threat against someones life and should carry the same punishment no matter what the weapon, be it fist, knife or gun. Murder is murder (not to be confused with killing), so why should anyone receive a harsher sentence for murdering someone with a gun than with a knife or with their fists? Extra laws, ordinances, regulations, directives or guidelines are only designed to do one thing; give control freaks more control.

    How about regulations that ban smoking in buildings, or bars, or restaurants? Not one of them is good or reasonable. Sure, they may FEEL good, but they take liberty and give nothing of value in return. The same people who champion these anti-smoking laws are those who scream loudest about being PRO-CHOICE... yet where was their vote for choice here? Hell, most people who smoke are adults and can make choices unlike the baby in the womb... but that's another argument.

    Again, there is no such thing as reasonable regulation as all laws, ordinances, regulations, directives and guidelines are just redundant, restrictive and designed to control people's behavior.

    The constitution makes abundantly clear our judicial rights and our method of seeking redress of grievances and for justice in the case of capital crimes and fraud, but the control freaks who seek power don't like the freedom we have and the restrictions placed on them... so, they create thousands upon thousands of laws, ordinances, regulations, directivesand guidelines to obfuscate and obscure our Freedom from us.

    The market is the only true regulator of behavior that works. Just ask any store or business that has been successfully boycotted.
    Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. ~ George Washington

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Pierce is a Coward, ,
    Posts
    1,100

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    Perhaps, but incorporation is how the Constitution and Bill of Rights has been applied to the States that otherwise are not subject to the limits on power of the Constitution.
    So? What do the courts have to do with the Constitution?

  9. #9
    Regular Member Washintonian_For_Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Mercer Island, Washington, USA
    Posts
    922

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    Perhaps, but incorporation is how the Constitution and Bill of Rights has been applied to the States that otherwise are not subject to the limits on power of the Constitution.
    Oh, and how is it that everyone so conveniently overlooks the wording of the US Constitution to give the States total exemption from the contract that binds them? This isn't just a limit on the power ofa central government, but a set of guidelines set up for those who sign on to it to adhere to. You can squirm, twist and turn all you like and try and change the meanings of words to justify denying people their rights... but it is still unconstitutional and the whole concept of incorporation is a BS concept born out of one man's desire to enslave another... I call BS on your statement. All States who agree to abide within the limits of the Constitution agree to its protections for the individual. Any who claim that they are NOT subject to the limits of the Constitution are the true enemy of Liberty and will eventually have to answer for their tyrannical ways... and likely, with the way things are going in the US... that time will be quite soon.

    Read the 10th Amendment once again.... it tells States that they are also limitedin infringing onthe freedoms protected by and enumerated in the Constitution.

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

    The Constitution is also to act as a guideline for what State Constitutions should respect... Freedom of Speech is being ripped apart by this... as well as every other freedom we have.... if you give one inch... they take a mile. Never ever give them any leeway.
    Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. ~ George Washington

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818

    Post imported post

    Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
    Doug Huffman wrote:
    Perhaps, but incorporation is how the Constitution and Bill of Rights has been applied to the States that otherwise are not subject to the limits on power of the Constitution.
    Oh, and how is it that everyone so conveniently overlooks the wording of the US Constitution to give the States total exemption from the contract that binds them? This isn't just a limit on the power ofa central government, but a set of guidelines set up for those who sign on to it to adhere to. You can squirm, twist and turn all you like and try and change the meanings of words to justify denying people their rights... but it is still unconstitutional and the whole concept of incorporation is a BS concept born out of one man's desire to enslave another... I call BS on your statement. All States who agree to abide within the limits of the Constitution agree to its protections for the individual. Any who claim that they are NOT subject to the limits of the Constitution are the true enemy of Liberty and will eventually have to answer for their tyrannical ways... and likely, with the way things are going in the US... that time will be quite soon.

    Read the 10th Amendment once again.... it tells States that they are also limitedin infringing onthe freedoms protected by and enumerated in the Constitution.

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

    The Constitution is also to act as a guideline for what State Constitutions should respect... Freedom of Speech is being ripped apart by this... as well as every other freedom we have.... if you give one inch... they take a mile. Never ever give them any leeway.

    Sorry, just a small correction.... You are looking for the 9th amendment, not the 10th.

    "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

    The 10th amendment,specifies "powers" which are more easily regulated than rights. The powers are extended first to the states, and then to the people (seemingly if the states don't want them...hardee har har).

    Sometimes the 10th amendment is called "states rights" but only individuals have rights, not the states. The 10th amendment would more appropriately be called "states police power". IMHO.


    In any case, one could very well make an argument that originally, the BOR didn't apply to the states; however, that argument is rendered mootupon ratification of the 14th. The 14th clearly applied the BOR to the states.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,170

    Post imported post

    Woudn't the protections afforded under the 14th amendment be more suitable for this discussion? Although the 9th and 10th are also viable.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Washintonian_For_Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Mercer Island, Washington, USA
    Posts
    922

    Post imported post

    Nutczak wrote:
    Woudn't the protections afforded under the 14th amendment be more suitable for this discussion? Although the 9th and 10th are also viable.
    Both you and Brass Magnet bring up good Amendments and you're both right. However, I believe the 10th Amendment does in fact limit the States in the same way it limits the Federal government in regards to liberty enumerated within the Constitution... so the Bill of Rights is something that States can not deny its citizens just as the Federal Government cannot deny those rights... the only thing the 10th Amendment does more than that is give any powers not restricted to the Fed and the States is up to the States or the people to decide... not the Federal Government.

    The 14th Amendment codifies equal protection, but could use a little modification with a new Amendment concerning anchor babies. For example:

    Amendment XXVIII - The clause in the 14th Amendment concerning natural born citizens is amended to read any child born of at least one natural born or naturalized parent is automatically a citizen. If neither parent is natural born or naturalized, the child is considered a citizen of either parent's home country and is not entitled to any United States citizen rights.

    Or something to that effect.
    Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. ~ George Washington

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Norfolk, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,000

    Post imported post

    Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
    Nutczak wrote:
    Woudn't the protections afforded under the 14th amendment be more suitable for this discussion? Although the 9th and 10th are also viable.
    Both you and Brass Magnet bring up good Amendments and you're both right. However, I believe the 10th Amendment does in fact limit the States in the same way it limits the Federal government in regards to liberty enumerated within the Constitution... so the Bill of Rights is something that States can not deny its citizens just as the Federal Government cannot deny those rights... the only thing the 10th Amendment does more than that is give any powers not restricted to the Fed and the States is up to the States or the people to decide... not the Federal Government.

    The 14th Amendment codifies equal protection, but could use a little modification with a new Amendment concerning anchor babies. For example:

    Amendment XXVIII - The clause in the 14th Amendment concerning natural born citizens is amended to read any child born of at least one natural born or naturalized parent is automatically a citizen. If neither parent is natural born or naturalized, the child is considered a citizen of either parent's home country and is not entitled to any United States citizen rights.

    Or something to that effect.
    You won't see that happen. Too many politicians would lose their support base and thus, their jobs.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Delaware County, New York, USA
    Posts
    276

    Post imported post

    Watch out, you guys may end up being labeled as 'Constitutional extremists.'

    Or, as I read recently from a European contibutor to a 2A discussion "Why do you Americans worship your Constitution?"

  15. #15
    Regular Member Washintonian_For_Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Mercer Island, Washington, USA
    Posts
    922

    Post imported post

    darthmord wrote:

    Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
    Nutczak wrote:
    Woudn't the protections afforded under the 14th amendment be more suitable for this discussion? Although the 9th and 10th are also viable.
    Both you and Brass Magnet bring up good Amendments and you're both right. However, I believe the 10th Amendment does in fact limit the States in the same way it limits the Federal government in regards to liberty enumerated within the Constitution... so the Bill of Rights is something that States can not deny its citizens just as the Federal Government cannot deny those rights... the only thing the 10th Amendment does more than that is give any powers not restricted to the Fed and the States is up to the States or the people to decide... not the Federal Government.

    The 14th Amendment codifies equal protection, but could use a little modification with a new Amendment concerning anchor babies. For example:

    Amendment XXVIII - The clause in the 14th Amendment concerning natural born citizens is amended to read any child born of at least one natural born or naturalized parent is automatically a citizen. If neither parent is natural born or naturalized, the child is considered a citizen of either parent's home country and is not entitled to any United States citizen rights.

    Or something to that effect.
    You won't see that happen. Too many politicians would lose their support base and thus, their jobs.
    They'll lose more than their jobs if they ignore us for too long. We can only keep this country together for so long before enough people lose all faith in the government and revolt.

    WheelGun wrote:
    Watch out, you guys may end up being labeled as 'Constitutional extremists.'
    Guilty as charged!

    WheelGun wrote:
    Or, as I read recently from a European contibutor to a 2A discussion "Why do you Americans worship your Constitution?"
    Euros are already slaves... the only way they'll ever see freedom again is by armed insurrection.

    Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. ~ George Washington

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Delaware County, New York, USA
    Posts
    276

    Post imported post

    Never happen. Remember learning about all the military rifles as well as personally ownedfirearms Americansent to the British during WW2? They were reduced to scrap metal after the war.

    What will they use now? The sharp edges of broken wine bottles?



  17. #17
    Regular Member Washintonian_For_Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Mercer Island, Washington, USA
    Posts
    922

    Post imported post

    WheelGun wrote:
    Never happen. Remember learning about all the military rifles as well as personally ownedfirearms Americansent to the British during WW2? They were reduced to scrap metal after the war.

    What will they use now? The sharp edges of broken wine bottles?

    Sharpened Pointy Sticks.
    Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. ~ George Washington

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •