Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 27

Thread: 'Reasonable regulation'...Should open carry be banned? (Answer the questions)

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

    'Reasonable regulation'...Should open carry be banned? (Answer the questions)

    Brace yourselves for 'reasonable regulation'



    How do you feel about licensing gun owners, registering all of their firearms, requiring training in order to own a firearm, mandatory liability insurance for every gun owner, limiting citizens to owning a single handgun for personal protection, background checks for all firearms transactions and mandatory waiting periods on all gun purchases?

    Anti-gun newspaper editorials are giving us a road-map to where gun prohibitionists want the country to go following Monday's SCOTUS ruling in McDonald v. Chicago...

    [Be sure to read all the way to the bottom and answer the questions!]

    http://www.examiner.com/x-4525-Seatt...ble-regulation

    Or try this:

    http://tinyurl.com/28kudgj

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    514
    Q: Should all guns or just handguns be registered?
    A: All firearms should be registered at the time of purchase from a licensed reseller. Beyond that no.

    Q. Should gun owners be licensed?
    A: No, not for owning a gun. Unless you count some form of identification proving age and residency... but a specific "License to own a firearm" is redundant. Would we also need a License to Speak Freely?

    Q. Should people be limited to one gun purchase per month?
    A: No, what would that do? That is on equal footing with limiting handguns to 10 rounds of ammunition. It is an ineffectual strategy to represent the notion that something is being done to curb violent crime.

    Q. Should training be required before citizens can purchase a firearm?
    A: I am on the fence here... I really believe that you should have some form of training or education before you are allowed to own a killing machine. We require training and testing to drive a car, for instance. But the law would have to be very specific and probably over bloated with rhetoric in order to quantify what "training" would be as defined by the states.

    Q. Should gun owners be required to have liability insurance?
    A: No, but I can see a new market opening up for Firearm Liability Insurance... if they are going to let the scum bags sue us after being shot, we should have the option of buying some form of indemnity. Note I said OPTION.

    Q. Should open carry be banned?
    A: No, not unless a reasonable and compelling argument can be made as to it being unsafe or unreasonable.

    Q. Should right-to-carry / "Shall-issue" laws be repealed and carry permits only be issued at the discretion of local sheriffs and police chiefs?
    A: No, it should remain a state issue... if each municipality has its own regulations then just driving up the Interstate from one city to the next would become a legal nightmare.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SLC, Utah, USA
    Posts
    144
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Workman View Post
    Brace yourselves for 'reasonable regulation'

    How do you feel about licensing gun owners, registering all of their firearms, requiring training in order to own a firearm, mandatory liability insurance for every gun owner, limiting citizens to owning a single handgun for personal protection, background checks for all firearms transactions and mandatory waiting periods on all gun purchases?
    How do I feel about it? What part of "shall not be infringed" do these claimed "constitutional professionals" not understand? Thats how I feel.

    They know 100% well that the reason behind the second ammendment is to ensure that the citizens of this country have a way to fix or overthrow a treasonous government...

    "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it..."
    ...yet, they of course don't like the meaning because THEY are the "government"...

    The supreme court's ruling was a step in the right direction, but not a big enough step.
    Last edited by YoZUpZ; 07-01-2010 at 02:46 PM.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    Let me translate what this codeword, "reasonable Regulation" really means...

    What the people who are proposing "reasonable regulation" are REALLY saying is that they believe it is "reasonable" to regulate the freedom and civil rights of people who are not what they consider to be the "right kinds of people".

    And from the last several decades of that phrase--"the right kinds of people"--I think we all know what that means.

    It means, the poor. It means anyone who isn't white, wealthy and well-connected. It means anyone who exercises their First Amendment rights to dissent against oppressive government or corrupt politicians. It means anyone who dares to stand up in protest--in the streets, on the internet, or in print. It means anyone who they want to keep dependent on the system--single mothers, the elderly, the displaced, the disenfranchised, and the uneducated.

    "Reasonable Regulation" is Jim Crow taken to an even more deep level of evil. It's not just racist, it's classist.

    And if you're not in the right "class", they want to regulate your CIVIL RIGHTS.

    It starts with "gun control". Next will be "press control", "web control", and "voice control"...

    Be afraid. Be angry. Be Brave. and Be Prepared. The "end game" is afoot, because they realize that they are losing their grasp of control. The tyrants have become cornered, wounded animals--they are at their most dangerous in this time...

  5. #5
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661
    Q: Should all guns or just handguns be registered?
    A: No gun should ever be registered. It will lead directly to another incidently like that in New Orleans where guns were being confiscated from law-abiding citizens.


    Q. Should gun owners be licensed?
    A: No. See above.

    Q. Should people be limited to one gun purchase per month?
    A: No, there are plenty of legitimate reasons for purchasing more than one a month.


    Q. Should training be required before citizens can purchase a firearm?
    A: No. Training is not required for you to be able to exercise any of your other fundamental rights. So why should it be for your 2A right?


    Q. Should gun owners be required to have liability insurance?
    A: No. Do you have to have liability insurance to exercise your right to free speech? Do you have to have liability insurance to exercise your right to self defense?


    Q. Should open carry be banned?
    A: No. What benefit would banning open carry achieve? No criminal openly carries their weapons as it would draw too much attention to them. Only law abiding citizens openly carry.


    Q. Should right-to-carry / "Shall-issue" laws be repealed and carry permits only be issued at the discretion of local sheriffs and police chiefs?
    A: No, that would be unreasonable and easily lead to discrimination. The difference between shall-issue and may-issue is that may-issue allows and even encourages discrimination, including racial, whereas shall-issue disallows and prevents most discrimination. Though permits are already unreasonably infringing on your rights. They will have no impact whatsoever on criminals that carry and only prevent law abiding citizens from carrying. There are already laws about using firearms to commit a crime which are very severe punishments. If the criminal is will to commit a felony, they are not going to care about a misdemeanor charge of carrying a gun without a carry license.

  6. #6
    Regular Member AL Ranger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Huntsville, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    238
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack House View Post
    Q: Should all guns or just handguns be registered?
    A: No gun should ever be registered. It will lead directly to another incidently like that in New Orleans where guns were being confiscated from law-abiding citizens.


    Q. Should gun owners be licensed?
    A: No. See above.

    Q. Should people be limited to one gun purchase per month?
    A: No, there are plenty of legitimate reasons for purchasing more than one a month.


    Q. Should training be required before citizens can purchase a firearm?
    A: No. Training is not required for you to be able to exercise any of your other fundamental rights. So why should it be for your 2A right?


    Q. Should gun owners be required to have liability insurance?
    A: No. Do you have to have liability insurance to exercise your right to free speech? Do you have to have liability insurance to exercise your right to self defense?


    Q. Should open carry be banned?
    A: No. What benefit would banning open carry achieve? No criminal openly carries their weapons as it would draw too much attention to them. Only law abiding citizens openly carry.


    Q. Should right-to-carry / "Shall-issue" laws be repealed and carry permits only be issued at the discretion of local sheriffs and police chiefs?
    A: No, that would be unreasonable and easily lead to discrimination. The difference between shall-issue and may-issue is that may-issue allows and even encourages discrimination, including racial, whereas shall-issue disallows and prevents most discrimination. Though permits are already unreasonably infringing on your rights. They will have no impact whatsoever on criminals that carry and only prevent law abiding citizens from carrying. There are already laws about using firearms to commit a crime which are very severe punishments. If the criminal is will to commit a felony, they are not going to care about a misdemeanor charge of carrying a gun without a carry license.
    +1 and AMEN 'cause you're preachin' to the choir!

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863
    Guys:

    It helps immensely if you also add your comments at the end of the column in the "Comments" section.

    Thx

  8. #8
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524
    Q: Should all guns or just handguns be registered?
    A: Neither one. Absolutely no registration of any kind for "ARMS" of any type.

    Q. Should gun owners be licensed?
    A: No, period. End of discussion.

    Q. Should people be limited to one gun purchase per month?
    A: No, period. End of discussion.

    Q. Should training be required before citizens can purchase a firearm?
    A: No, period. End of discussion.

    Q. Should gun owners be required to have liability insurance?
    A: No, period. End of discussion.

    Q. Should open carry be banned?
    A: No, period. End of discussion.

    Q. Should right-to-carry / "Shall-issue" laws be repealed and carry permits only be issued at the discretion of local sheriffs and police chiefs?
    A: Should right-to-carry / "Shall-issue" laws be repealed? Absolutely.
    Should carry permits only be issued at the discretion of local sheriffs and police chiefs? Absolutely NOT!!

  9. #9
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Workman View Post
    Guys:

    It helps immensely if you also add your comments at the end of the column in the "Comments" section.

    Thx
    Stupid character limits.

  10. #10
    Regular Member bigdaddy1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southsider der hey
    Posts
    1,320
    What part of "shall not be infringed" do you have a problem with Usually shuts them up

  11. #11
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Two questions you must always ask yourself when government says they are here to help you or to fix a problem.

    o What is it going to cost?
    o What am I going to lose?

    The old adage, "there's no such thing as a free lunch" may be a little inconvenient in the business world, but when applied to government, it is generally an open door to disaster.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  12. #12
    Regular Member 45acpForMe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Yorktown, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,803

    Training required

    I am 100% FOR mandatory training!

    The training should start in Kindergarten and end at high school rifle teams! Everyone should be taught gun safety before they own a gun but not the way politicians want.
    With all K-12 schools teaching gun safety and why the 2nd ammendment exists we would be a better nation.

  13. #13
    Regular Member The Expert's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Taylor, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    118
    Quote Originally Posted by 45acpForMe View Post
    I am 100% FOR mandatory training!

    The training should start in Kindergarten and end at high school rifle teams! Everyone should be taught gun safety before they own a gun but not the way politicians want.
    With all K-12 schools teaching gun safety and why the 2nd ammendment exists we would be a better nation.
    Now THERE'S a good idea. I was always against "mandatory" anything in regards to guns, but this is something I can back.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by The Expert View Post
    Now THERE'S a good idea. I was always against "mandatory" anything in regards to guns, but this is something I can back.
    Horrible idea. Do you really want the government to be in charge of gun safety indoctri...er...education. I don't.

    I don't want them in charge of any education. And, I was a high school teacher.

  15. #15
    Regular Member elixin77's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Greenville, NC, ,
    Posts
    591
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Horrible idea. Do you really want the government to be in charge of gun safety indoctri...er...education. I don't.

    I don't want them in charge of any education. And, I was a high school teacher.
    Make it a course that kids' parents can enroll their kids in for an after school activity, make it an elective that students can choose during middle and high school, and have after school rifle marksmanship teams set up. Have them use .22's because the ammo's dirt cheap.

    What about something like that?
    Taurus PT1911 .45 ACP. Carried in condition 1, with a total of 25 rounds.

    Vice President of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, ECU Chapter

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by elixin77 View Post
    Make it a course that kids' parents can enroll their kids in for an after school activity, make it an elective that students can choose during middle and high school, and have after school rifle marksmanship teams set up. Have them use .22's because the ammo's dirt cheap.

    What about something like that?
    Voluntary would be fine. I still don't like the idea of the government being responsible. Well, I don't like the government running education in general.

  17. #17
    Regular Member 45acpForMe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Yorktown, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,803
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Voluntary would be fine. I still don't like the idea of the government being responsible. Well, I don't like the government running education in general.
    Well you are assuming the gov't would approve my plan in the first place. :-)

    I didn't say the gubbermant schools, I said K-12. IMHO we can save alot of money by doing away with the department of education and simply let states/counties manage their schools.

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by 45acpForMe View Post
    Well you are assuming the gov't would approve my plan in the first place. :-)

    I didn't say the gubbermant schools, I said K-12. IMHO we can save alot of money by doing away with the department of education and simply let states/counties manage their schools.
    I don't even like the States/counties running the schools. Let 'em fund it and then get out of the way!

  19. #19
    Campaign Veteran GLOCK21GB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    4,348
    1. No
    2. No
    3. No
    4. No
    5. No
    6. No
    7. No
    http://youtu.be/xWgVGu3OR4U AACFI, Wisconsin / Minnesota Carry Certified. Action Pistol & Advanced Action pistol concepts + Urban Carbine course. When the entitlement Zombies begin looting, pillaging, raping, burning & killing..remember HEAD SHOTS it's the only way to kill a Zombie. Stockpile food & water now.

    Please support your local,county, state & Federal Law enforcement agencies, right ???

  20. #20
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Horrible idea. Do you really want the government to be in charge of gun safety indoctri...er...education. I don't.

    I don't want them in charge of any education. And, I was a high school teacher.
    Well, eye, there ain't much we agree on but this is one of those rare occassions. I agree 100%.

  21. #21
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524
    Quote Originally Posted by 45acpForMe View Post
    Well you are assuming the gov't would approve my plan in the first place. :-)

    I didn't say the gubbermant schools, I said K-12. IMHO we can save alot of money by doing away with the department of education and simply let states/counties manage their schools.
    That's the way it was done before a peanut farmer got into the White House. Yep, Jimmy Carter got the Dept. of Education in 1976.

  22. #22
    Regular Member SaintJacque's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    139
    Q: Should all guns or just handguns be registered?
    Neither. The government only registers things so that it can take them away, and I don't trust the government to mind its limits. Registration leads to confiscation.

    Q. Should gun owners be licensed?
    Should churches be licensed? How about newspapers? Both can be dangerous, but that's not an excuse to restrict basic liberties.

    Q. Should people be limited to one gun purchase per month?
    What practical purpose does this even serve? I suppose some would argue it stops black market sales. I would argue otherwise, besides if Mexico wants to stop black market imports let them better police their border. As for me, I'm a law abiding citizen with the right to purchase as many firearms as I please.

    Q. Should training be required before citizens can purchase a firearm?
    No, although I would love to see schools doing more to educate kids on gun safety. If we can hand out condoms because kids are "going to do it anyway" why can't we teach kids the four rules of gun safety?

    Q. Should gun owners be required to have liability insurance?
    No, but neither should anyone be required to have health insurance. It's like a poll tax, which SCOTUS ruled unconstitutional.

    Q. Should open carry be banned?
    I think it's foolish to ban OC. A thin layer of cloth makes my gun no less a gun, it only satisfies the "out of sight, out of mind" crowd. I submit that OC could never be banned in any state that is not a shall issue state, as citizens must be able to carry in some manner.

    Q. Should right-to-carry / "Shall-issue" laws be repealed and carry permits only be issued at the discretion of local sheriffs and police chiefs?
    Absolutely not. It turns a right into a privilege. Even driver's licenses will be issued once you pass the test.

  23. #23
    Regular Member SaintJacque's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    139
    Quote Originally Posted by 45acpForMe View Post
    Well you are assuming the gov't would approve my plan in the first place. :-)

    I didn't say the gubbermant schools, I said K-12. IMHO we can save alot of money by doing away with the department of education and simply let states/counties manage their schools.
    Amen to that!

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    229
    Quote Originally Posted by 45acpForMe View Post
    I am 100% FOR mandatory training!

    The training should start in Kindergarten and end at high school rifle teams! Everyone should be taught gun safety before they own a gun but not the way politicians want.
    With all K-12 schools teaching gun safety and why the 2nd ammendment exists we would be a better nation.

    LOL... I remember back in 8th grade Health class (`78), we spent a week on Gun / Hunting safety. It was a good thing because I still remember the things that were taught, which now is just common sense.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    1,140
    It's weird that in my post, I got so many negative comments, as if I was the one making the statements. I brought up what the reality is, that the courts for a long time will be determining what "reasonable" is.

    The argument that is being made that there can be reasonable restrictions on buying a gun, waiting time, a permit, etc, means that without a permit, without an application one can not express their right to bear. This means that if you have to pay money, if you have to wait 60 days, during that time you can't actually have a gun. That in itself is fundamentally flawed. I apologize for not having the references, but the courts have already determined that on the other parts that one does not need a permit to congregate in a private place, to practice their religion, to make a speech about a topic they like... so it seems eventually the courts will apply that to bearing arms.

    However, we need to understand that certain restrictions on public bearing of arms may always be in place for a while. If you argue that it's a liberal vs. conservative court thing, please be aware it was the conservative courts that decided that the state can enforce permits for public events, having more than a certain amount of people meeting, and so on.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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