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.