Skip to comments.Tony Norman: Why can't gun lovers handle rational limits?
Posted on 03/22/2014 10:47:37 AM PDT by rktman
An action alert was sent to tens of thousands of gun control supporters across the commonwealth over the weekend: Five firearms-related bills designed to weaken the state's already porous gun laws will come before the state House Judiciary Committee today. Because this is Pennsylvania -- a state where the gun lobby can pretty much dictate to our do-nothing lawmakers when they can and can't go to the bathroom -- groups like CeaseFirePA don't have the luxury of mincing words when it comes to motivating supporters to pressure their representatives in the Legislature to do the right thing.
(Excerpt) Read more at post-gazette.com ...
Oh. Wait. Maybe that's a bad idea too. Maybe respecting all of our inalienable rights is the sensible way to go. No infringement, OK?
Mr. Norman....we already have rational limits on gun ownership....
Many including myself think almost any limit except preventing criminals and mentally ill from owning guns is over the rational line. ...
A simple explanation is that “Mr. Norman and all of his monkey relatives”, cannot understand, nor find the dictionary to explain, “shall not be infringed”.
Because anyone with common sense knows that, to communists, “rational limits” is just another way of saying, “the camel’s nose”. Take a hike Tony boy.
How much pistol ammunition was it again that DHS ordered?
Because lying phonies like YOU, Tony, play with the meaning od words like, well, ‘rational’.
Which “rational” limits? The ones which began being inflicted upon us in defiance of the Second Amendment from decades ago, or the latest ones they are trying to inflict upon us, with the end goal of total confiscation, using registration to make it easier to find us? Where and when do these “rational” limits end?
Why can’t hoplophobes make arguments without calling the opposition irrational?
Why can't Tony tolerate just a few rats in his home, just a few fleas in his carpet, just some lice in his children's hair, and a couple of bedbugs for each of 'em?
The problem with the whole mentally I’ll schtick is that it will simply be modified to include more and more “illnesses”. The types of “criminals” banned will be expanded as well. Surely we can imagine they think people who are fascinated by firearms are mentally ill.
Re: Why can’t gun lovers handle rational limits?
There are already 22,000 laws. What makes this clown think law 22,001 will do anything more to stop crime?
I agree the definition of mentally ill can be a slippery slope...but just about every major modern mass murder can be traced back to a mentally ill person taking psychopathic prescribed drugs...
We need to hold people accountable first who are taking these drugs. ..
No, the real question is why don’t gun haters accept rational limits. THey ask for one restriction, then another, then another, then a ban. They NEVER stick to rational limits.
If Mr Norman really thinks his ideas are rational, then he should support a constitutional amendment to amend the 2nd Amendment, so his ideas would then not be a violation of the Constitution.
The standard for an idea to not violate the Constitution is not whether the idea is rational or popular, but rather, whether is is allowed by the Constitution.
Popman, your position begs an interesting question. Holding THEM accountable should NOT include infringement of my rights, or those of others.
How would you propose to hold them accountable? By applying an additional burden on the rest of us? Or...?
The only gun control that is rational is the control we practice at the range, when hunting and, when shooting the enemys of freedom.
The only acceptable gun control IMHO is deterance created by the fear of being shot.
Yep, I am the one they fear the most.
One of the commenters at the Post-Gazette site epitomizes the pure Fudd mentality when he says,
“I have a safe full of guns and use mine for hunting and target shooting. ALTHOUGH I DO NOT USE THEM FOR SELF DEFENSE (emphasis) I understand the motivations of those who do.”
He supports `universal background checks’, BTW.
Because all of their, “Rational,” limits involve punishing the innocent, and crime going up.
It is an interesting question, at least about the mentally ill, one I think can be answered by people being responible and aware ...
How many people who are bat sh*t crazy and own a legal gun...by lying on line F on the ATF Form 4473 and their family know but do not care...
f. Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes having been adjudicated incompetent to manage your own affairs) or have you ever been committed to a mental institution?
These people need to contact their local authorities and ask them to look into it...
As for criminals and illegal gun ownership ...That's the $64,000 question...