Reasonable regulations

[Noble Cause]

The Second Amendment is the only reasonable regulation we need. And it regulates the government not the people, which is why they work so hard to destroy it.

Concise summation...

I am absconding with this for future arguments...


Noble

[rustyx]

Reasonable regulations

Yuu just stepped in it...watching you flame out, crash and burn on this one

Haha yeah. I don't think any regulations are needed. But at most they're just a speed bump for criminals and are BS that we non criminals have to follow them. Sure a background check may slow down a criminal dumb enough to go to a shop to buy a firearm.

After reading the link posted above it's cemented in that anything that infringes is wrong, and thanks to calguns for upping my knowledge as it does every day.

Just wish we lived in a society that the citizen isn't looked at as guilty before a trial. In the average self defense case the person needs to defend themselves against a corrupt legal system. People are innocent until proven guilty but not treated as such.

I used to think background checks were kind of a helping thing that slowed people down but that was stupid thinking. and in the event a criminal uses a stolen weapon it's not like they're even charged as harshly as they should be. California is for forefront for stupid thinking and all regulations are infringements.

If it wasn't for the corrupt legal system no firearms regulations would even be needed. If you commit a crime with a firearm you should be sentenced harshly. If you're just out shooting and having fun there should be no regulations.

And really I don't think any weapon should be regulated. Or anything really for that matter. People should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as they aren't hurting anyone or their property.

Thanks @dwalker for the link.

[rustyx]

haha yeah these things are crazy.



what liberties do you think you're entitled to as a man?

I think as a human being I'm entitled to nothing more than my life, a means to protect it in any way I see fit, my property, and the ability to improve my life in any way necessary as long as I don't tread on any other humans life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness.

[rustyx]

(You don't have a right to happiness.)



So what's your dilemma about "reasonable" regulations? What is this all about?

Re read my post. I never said anyone had the right to happiness. I said as a human you have the right to pursue happiness.

I have no dilemma with regulations other than the ones that are already there to make us tax slaves and bow down to the crown.

This thread was to get a consensus of what people's ideas of what, if any, regulations were worse or better or in any way seemed to be reasonable.

[jdl6mm]

Reasonable?

None.

It is not reasonable to ask me to violate my privacy to exercise a RIGHT. Owning a firearm or for that matter ANY weapon is not a privilege, its a RIGHT.

A RIGHT incidentally, that the Founders had no intention of denying to anyone, and that includes criminals. That did not come around until 1968, and if viewed in the circumstances of the day, was specifically aimed at preventing blacks from owning firearms.

So no, I disagree with any so called "reasonable" regulation

Was it really to keep blacks from owning firearms? Do explain please. Just out of curiosity, what ethnicity are you?

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

[rustyx]

You can't negotiate and give an inch. That just resets the line. Look at smokers for example. They accepted reasonable anti smoking efforts and where has that gotten them? I hear there are cities where you can be cited for smoking in public. Anywhere! You don't negotiate with people who don't want you to exist. It's always ends bad. You give a inch and they want a foot and then 10 yards, 50 yards, 100 yards then extinction. This only sounds reasonable when you are young and haven't seen others victimized by capitulation. Once you've seen it, you quickly learn the end game.

You just dropped some knowledge.

[rustyx]

Reasonable regulations

Was it really to keep blacks from owning firearms? Do explain please. Just out of curiosity, what ethnicity are you?

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

If I remember right it was originally designed for natives. Then blacks. Then in ca I think it was started to keep asians from guns. Then spread to everyone. There's a documentary about it. I can't think of the name right now.

[rustyx]

You actually did say there is a right to happiness, whatever that would mean.



As far as your question on firearms regulations and a consensus, it's nonsense to ask a group of firearm enthusiasts what their consensus on firearms law would be.

Please quote where I said you have a right to happiness. I said pursuit of happiness. You have that right. Perhaps you'll never achieve it, but the right to pursue it.

[MosinVirus]

Education - yes
Regulation - no

[Unsilenced]

There are regulations I would be OK with, but none really that I like.

Either way, nobody pushing gun control has any interest in stopping after any amount of "reasonable" restriction. There will always be more they want to take, so any inch ground, no matter how petty, must be defended as if it was the last.

They've made this a tug-of-war, and in tug-of-war you don't compromise, especially when the other side is winning.

[Rogerbutthead]

Giving a bureaucrat the ability to make Reasonable regulations on an item means you can't have one.

[rustyx]

Reasonable regulations

lead a horse to water and all that. I suppose the blm and antifa guys/gals/whatevs are just exercising their rights to pursue happiness.

Still didn't say I'm entitled to happiness. Said I'm entitled to the right to pursue it.


So you don't believe you have to right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

If blm/antifa were peaceful and not damaging other people's property and hurting people then yes, but they're not. They're effecting other people's lives, liberties, and pursuits of happiness. They hit people with bike locks. They suppress people's free speech.

[rustyx]

If it isn't in the bill of rights, then no they aren't rights. After rights, you must look to your legislators for what they allow or disallow you to do.

I'll quote, "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore, Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Does that have some legal meaning to you? Will you take the huddled masses, the homeless, and bring them to your home because they believe they have right?

No it does not have legal meaning, but it has moral meaning. If you have the ability to help, you should. That quote does not say they have the right to enter someone's home because they are tired, poor, or homeless. If you think you don't, as a human, have the right to your own life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness, I'm not sure what to say to you.

[The Gleam]

First mistake was "Today I interacted with someone on another forum...."

Them internets on the world wide web is serious business. That's one just itching to take to 4chan.

[rustyx]

Ahh gotcha, I must accept all 3 of your tenets you propose, or I'm a nazi right?

Life and liberty are guaranteed by the bill of rights, not your pursuit of happiness. No need to pull the lefty card.

I don't think you're a nazi, and I'm not a lefty.