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...
Hey, Mr. Norman, how about we set “rational limits” to your free speech rights - and, oh, by the way, I get to define “rational”.
To the author: Define infringe for me, and then we can talk. Moron.
Rational limits, defined and enforced by collectivists. What could possibly go wrong?
Be very careful what you agree to.
The definition of mentally ill can be very broad. It can encompass everything from something like temporary post partum depression to schizophrenia.
Most mental illness would not preclude gun ownership. Only those adjudicated as mentally ill as being a danger to themselves or others should be prohibited from owning guns.
The Left would take an open ended statement like the mentally ill and march a battalion of restrictions through the gap. They are currently ready to diagnose every soldier that has ever seen combat with PTSD so they can restrict their right to own guns.
Oh come on, guys. They’re ‘rational’ limits, and who else is better qualified to determine ‘rational’ limits on firearms ownership than a bunch of city dwelling liberal nimrods who don’t know a damn thing about firearms or the people who legally own them. What could possibly go wrong?
Freedom cannot be rationed.
Tony Norman appears to be the newspaper “sob sister”. They are editorialists who are hired specifically to irritate readers. Often, if they do not generate enough hate mail, they are fired.
They always have limits, however, because if they annoy the public too much, they will be fired for that as well.
Yup. Headed that way. Depressed? Anxious? Be vewwy vweey cawefull what you say or express. Basically, keep quiet.
ATF Form 4077 line f is where the line should be draw...
Anything outside of that standard should contested tooth and nail...
The gun lobby does not consider arming blind people an absurdity and views any restriction on gun ownership as inherently unconstitutional.
So this guy is saying that the handicapped are second class citizens and not entitled to the same rights as other citizens.
And by the way the government is not arming this man they are returning his legal property (which was probably illegally confiscated). The man is arming himself which is his right.
Boy this guy is goose stepping little fascist isnt he.
He is ready to gut the Bill of Rights from groin to gullet.
“We need to hold people accountable first who are taking these drugs...”
We need to hold people accountable first who are making these drugs available...ie, the psychiatrists...
Because there are no rational limits!
Why can’t Big Government Lovers handle limits?
“Mr. Norman....we already have rational limits on gun ownership”
I would even go so far as to say we have irrational limits on gun ownerhsip.
2A implies nothing about hunting ...
but it implies plenty about not being prey.
>> I would even go so far as to say we have irrational limits on gun ownership
You got that exactly right. I would make a bet that in the not distant future, anyone who ever took a valium after a bereavement or some such, is going to be on the list as “mentally unstable” and not eligible for Second Amendment rights.
That’s why I can’t say it enough, do NOT register your guns!
limits evolves in to “limiters”.
And it goes without saying that he and his ilk get to decide the parameters of “free” speech, and we already where the lines will be (already in Australia a radio personlity was hauled before some kind of court or commission or some such, probably something like Canada has, and prosecuted or examined for opposing man-made global warming on the air in a debate with a warmist).
Also, Christians (but not Muslims) will be, more than they already are, proscribed from publicly professing their faith.
Why can’t liberals use rational limits for free speech, like using printing presses and be limited to handing out flyers instead of mass printed newspapers and electronic mediums like the Internet?
We already have rational, actually what I call irrational limits.
The question is Mr. Norman, why can’t you accept them and live with them?
You f’rs are never satisfied. You won’t be until only criminals can have guns.
The problem that I have with these liberals, socialists and communists is that they aren’t satisfied with just 1/2 a loaf or even 1/4 of a loaf when they want something. They will eventually want the whole loaf. So, by getting us to give them this “JUST ONE “LITTLE BITTY, ITTY BITTY” CONCENTION TO THEIR DEMANDS, WILL MEAN, EVENTUALLY, EVERYTHING THEY WANT”. So, no thank you, we’ll keep our weapons, without having to register any of them to the government. We saw what all of that will mean, right after the hurricane “KATRINA” in New Orleans, when they sent their deputies to every house that had registered their weapons. Up to today, none of those confiscated weapons have ever been returned to their rightful owners, and the owners were never paid for the weapons that was confiscated.
This guy get’s paid to write?
His ideas are stale and way past the expiration date for his argumment
Why can't fascist tyrants read?
Exactly so. The word “rational” is like the word “some”. Neither word is definitive and does not have a universally accepted definition. What may be rational to Norman is unacceptable and irrational to me. Then again, his little essay is intended for liberals and others who are of the same mind as him rather than for gun owners and 2nd Amendment supporters. Just another piece dribble for liberals to circle-jerk about.
I’m a gun lover who respects rational limits on ownership. When the basement, the main house, and the garage are full, I do the only rational thing. I find a bigger house.
We're gettin' there, Mr. President . . .
Because gun grabbers have no limits.