Reply #437: Mud? [View All]

[beevul]

"If the word "reasonable" is added (as in, "No, no, we're not talking about taking your guns away, we're talking about reasonable gun control"), certain guns owners freak out and say, "You're implying I'm not reasonable!" (So that's why they think it means a gun ban...?)"

What is reasonable gun control?


Will you or anyone else label someone/somegroup unreasonable if they don't agree, BECAUSE they don't agree, or because of why they don't agree?


"If the word "legislation" comes in, it's too vague. If the legislation is spelled out, that's too vague. Certain gun-owners think the legal definition for banned assault weapons is too vague, but never offered re-writes -- because to them, changing legislation means "MORE legislation" and they say we don't need that. (So does that explain why they think control means a total gun ban?)"

First, there is no legal definition for banned assault weapons.
Second, countless gun-owners never offered re-writes, because to them changing legislation means keeping what 10 years ago was "MORE legislation", that was never needed to begin with - rather than seeing it sunset as it was designed to do.

And, as for the ban itself, was it common sense? Did it take anyones guns away? Was it intended to? Future aquisitions perhaps? And, if I disagree, am I unreasonable?

"Gunshow loopholes, child access prevention laws, safety standards, locks, strengthening the background check system, ensuring people who own firearms know how to use them and store them, strenthening law enforcement


There is no such thing as a gunshow loophole. What your referring to, is a "private sale of private property loophole", whether it happens at a gunshow, in a newspaper, or otherwise.

Child access prevention laws and the rest?

Thats a locality issue. That may be do-able in urban areas without a problem. For many rural folks, farmers, ranchers, guns are introduced to kids at a semi-early age, responsibility and safety taught.


"-- these can't even be discussed, proposed, tweaked, modified, worked or reworked because even breathing a hint of them makes some gun owners FEEL emotionally upset. The rhetoric of this thread is steaming with fear and anger (almost as if we were talking about a total gun ban)."
."

Not on a federal level, in other words, with the exception of strengthening the background check system. I am ok with that federally, and most pro-gun folks in my experience seem to be. I guess I didn't quite spell out that much of what I have said is in the federal sense. Fear and anger? The fear has been discussed. The anger? Anger at being disreguarded. Anger at being marginalized. Anger at being misunderstood, as a group, either through ignorance, or bigotry, or both. Sounds familiar, cause of anger, no?


"As far as women's reproductive choices, the law DOES impose what society considers "reasonable restrictions" there. Women can't have an abortion past viability, for example."

Yes, but noone that I am aware of makes women register the day they reach viability because one might decide to break the law, and do it/find a way to get it done anyway. Womens privacy should be respected.


"There are reasonable restrictions on most rights. You have the right to property, but not by stealing it."

True enough. And fair enough.

"You have the right to speak, but not to slander."

True enough, though noone supports banning a certain types of mouth, only how it is used. How do you feel about free speech zones? How would you feel about testing and liscense to use free speech?
Can you deny that speech has the potential to be highly dangerous?

"You can use dangerous equipment, including cars, but only when you've shown you know how."

Actually, you can own and use most dangerous equipment, including cars , without being licensed. You only need to show you know how, if want to use them in a public sense. Not on private property. Drivers liscenses, concealed carry permits, etc.


"And laws are continually revised -- which isn't called "MORE legislation" except when it comes to guns."

The assault weapons ban was NOT a revisal of any old law.

It was new and unneeded legislation.


"The problem as I see it is that when it comes to guns, some people focus on THEIR rights alone, and there's a great deal of fear involved. The issues of public safety -- the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness -- are vigorously pushed aside.

I disagree (though I do agree that there is fear involved). The issue of public safety seems to come into conflict with the issue of life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness. Public safety versus individual liberty. Its all about how how much of one you feel is ok to give up to get some of the other. Again, that is why most anything on the federal level wont fly, and if anything, just worsens matters where red states are concerned. Local controls are the answer. That is choice. Something we are supposed to pride ourselves on.


"The government has an interest in public safety in every other area and it's accepted, EXCEPT when it comes to guns."

The degree of that interest, and the degree to which that interest allows infringement in any given area, and who decides those things for who, is definitely at the heart of the matter.


"I still do not understand why certain gun-owners' minds make the leap of logic to consider "gun control" equivalent to complete "gun ban." That's what I said I don't understand and that's still what I don't understand."

The assault weapons ban (despite its effect) was intended to ban guns.
There is no getting past, around, over, or under that. There was no logical or rational reason for it in the first place. It was touted as "reasonable" and "common sense" "gun control".

Read SB 1431 (someone help me out here)

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.1431:

This was also touted as "common sense" and "reasonable" "gun control", just as the original ban was.

Gun control, like the legislation the term usually describes, is not a nationally palatable one size fits all entity, and it never will be.

Basically, the term "gun control" has in the past MEANT selective subjective bans acompanied by platitudes to hunters talking about hunting weapons, further intrusion into, and further infringement of the rights of, and more government in the lives of - those who believe theres already too much of all the above going around - on a national (federal)level.



In any case, I appreciate a dialogue free of flames. Thanks. :) :thumbsup: