Pro 2A vs. antis: "Compromise of the century"

It doesn't get much more iron clad than the Bill of Rights, and that's barely slowed the antis down.

If that doesn't work, what will?

Yea, Obama was a constitutional law professor, and it's still opinion.

PRM said:

Yea, Obama was a constitutional law professor, and it's still opinion.

Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with Obama. Nice try though. And you may think it is an opinion, but it is also the majority opinion of every Supreme Court, every legislative body, and every administration that has ever been seated. It was also the prevailing opinion of the founding fathers. It is established.

So if you want to make something else up go right ahead. Just understand that you will be in the, shall we say, minority.

Useless thread - useless proposition.

Give them an inch and next year, they'll DEMAND and inch and a half.

Best way to stop the erosion is to dig in... hard - and push back!

Compromise will never lead to a permanent resolution unless the "compromise" is: "We won't throw you in jail if you give them ALL up NOW!

Pro 2nd Amendment people have Already made all of the significant compromises, off the top of my head (say "no" to acronymspeak).

What meaningful compromises have Anti 2nd Amendment politicians in Chicago, NY, NJ, MA, CT, CA etc and the US Senate made....
which have Not been required by court decisions? To those politicians, it's all about the deceptive facade of crime control.

Well, I did think of a way to make such an agreement iron clad, but it would require the immediate and summary execution of anyone who suggested a change. So there goes freedom of speech and due process.

JRH6856 said:

Well, I did think of a way to make such an agreement iron clad, but it would require the immediate and summary execution of anyone who suggested a change. So there goes freedom of speech and due process.

Click to expand...

LOL. Those two have also had enough compromise.

Agsalaska, my point was not as much about the person as the position. You try to take the academic approach and act superior to everyone else. The truth is, what is taught in the classroom varies greatly dependent upon the ideology and spin the individual professor puts on it. And NO, every administration that has ever been seated has not been in agreement with its predecessor. If that were true, we would only have one political party and elections would be moot. For every position you lay claim too, there is an opposite and equally valid opinion.

Useless thread - ApacheCoTodd

Yep - you got those whom you agree with and those you don't. Nobody's changing anyone else's mind. Just another waste of time on the internet.

PRM said:

Agsalaska, my point was not as much about the person as the position. You try to take the academic approach and act superior to everyone else. The truth is, what is taught in the classroom varies greatly dependent upon the ideology and spin the individual professor puts on it. And NO, every administration that has ever been seated has not been in agreement with its predecessor. If that were true, we would only have one political party and elections would be moot. For every position you lay claim too, there is an opposite and equally valid opinion.

Click to expand...

I agree with the part about professors. But discussions about the constitution are inherently academic. It has nothing to do with being superior. Thats not the point. And every administration has agreed with my premise. So has every court and every legislative body. Its actually not my premise. It is theirs.

I made a simple comment that amendments are all subject to agreed upon restrictions. My exact quote was- 'Because the truth of the matter is all constitutional rights are subject to agreed upon restrictions of some kind.'

You said a lot of people are going to disagree with that.

Again, they can disagree all they want. You can disagree with whether or not the sky is blue. That won't change the fact that it is.

The statement I made is not an opinion. It is established. Can you yell fire in a theater? Can you film child porn? Can you threaten to kill the president? Can a cop search you without a warrant in some circumstances? Can a felon vote? Can you advocate in print the overthrow of the United States?

These are all very simple restrictions to amendments from the same document. The 2nd amendment is not immune to the same process that brought those restrictions.

hso said:

Never gonna happen. You can give away little bits and pieces in hopes of getting a "compromise", but there's no such thing.

Click to expand...

The 5-4 division in the Heller case didn't help. It will take an 8-1 or a 9-0 decision to really silence them.

So, to your point, not happening.

I'm wondering if the OP is even a gun owner? No rational gun owner would think those "compromises" are good. Seems that all of them would place more restrictions on me then I currently have. So I'm supposed to accept this because an NRA instructor says more restrictions are on the way? I would have to be a complete moron to accept these restrictions. BTW, becoming an NRA instructor isn't hard so I don't know why it's even a point of reference.

The OP is living in some form of dream world. The anti side's goal isn't just about firearms. It's about controlling every aspect of your life. They won't stop until all firearms are gone. They won't stop until they tell you what you can and can't do down to the most trivial mundane thing.

Gun owners that share the OP's opinion need to get out of the way and stop preaching. You are doing nothing but harming gun owners. The time for compromise is over. Compromise has given is the NFA, GCA, Hughes Amendment and a whole host of other horrible restrictions. We don't need anymore, period. These restrictions only effect law abiding citizens because criminals don't follow laws.

Machine guns are out of reach of most because of the registry. It created a closed market and as the years go by there are less available. If it didn't exist you would pay maybe $100 more for full auto versus semi automatic. The differences are usually very slight. Repeal the NFA, GCA, FOPA along w/ all the state level restrictions like preemption and things will be better off for gun owners. Compromise of any type is for the foolish.

OP is in a fantasy world. There is no possible way to make ANYTHING Ironclad. Will your "ironclad" agreement stand 200 years from now when language has changed just as it changed from the founding to now?

Antis will never quit until guns no longer exist in the hands of private citizens.

There is no compromise that will satisfy them. The only course is to fight tooth and nail against anything they want. We gain nothing by compromising...ever.

I'm absolutely against any compromise of my and my son's and future generations' rights. Just because you've given up in Washington doesn't mean I'm giving up in Tennessee.

If you want a gun free zone, make the area secure for me. I don't want to have my head blown off by a mass shooter just because the idea of a gun free zone gives some non-thinker a warm fuzzy feeling. Lock the building down, have some competent armed guards, and have some lockers for my Spyderco and CCW to be secured in while I'm in the building. Otherwise, shut your pie hole and let me see to my own security.

National CCW standards and allow states to keep their own standards for residents who don't care about reciprocity. In several states, it's perfectly legal to strap your handgun on and carry it with no permit. I'd like to see any state that wants to run it that way be able to. But ALL STATES AND CITIES need to honor any permit that meets the national criteria. I don't care if people in Chicago and NYC don't like the idea of me carrying a J-frame - they can get over it.

If they want background checks, they can put a system in where we can run our own checks on private sales. I worked at a gun store and running a check isn't rocket science. You call a phone number, key in some numbers, and the check is run. Anyone with a pulse can run a background check, so open it up to all of us and the background check issue will be a thing of the past.

And while we're at it, let's repeal the NFA.

That's where I'd start for a compromise.

PRM said:

The upside is that WA is not a reflection of the rest of the country. Get off the left coast and the extreme North East and traditional America is still going strong.

Click to expand...

Yea but the problem with that statement is that much of the nations population lives in the two places you cite. And many dedicated gun owners are part of that population. So if the goal is to 'escape', that can work, but if you think that running away from the problem will prevent it from creeping to other parts of the U.S., you may want to reconsider.
I'm likely 'left' of many people on this site, live in a repressive state, but remain concerned how this issue may go in the future. And I don't thing there is any way to resolve the gun ownership/gun law issue between anti's and pro's, including the OP's recommendations. Nor do I think that is where the problems lie that ultimately concern the anti-gun crowd. Here's my take:
1. First issue lies in the country's mental health problems. As an example, during the Reagan administration there were enormous changes in mental health rules, laws and care that ended up letting many who need help back out on the streets, and making it hard to care for many who could use help. For example, when you look at some of the violent school shootings (which though sad, comprise a very small part of gun violence in the U.S.), these people/students/shooters are deeply troubled, should not have access to weapons, and really should not be out on the street. It is these types of violent incidents that, in part, fuel the anti-gun crowd. However there is no way, short of banning all firearms (which should not and will not ever happen) will a significant part of gun violence be reduced without addressing mental health issues.
2. We have to re-address the ridiculous drug laws in the U.S. The 'war on drugs' continues to sweep otherwise good people in to prisons, and creates gun-amplified violence among drug users, drug sellers, drug cartels and innocent citizens. And it is drug-driven gun violence that motivates the anti-gun crowd. We need to follow the actions of some western european countries and legalize many drugs, reduce sentencing, treat drug use as a medical problem rather than a crime and gun violence, without changing any gun ownership laws, will plummet. Privately owned prisons would cry foul, and many others who have much to gain via the 'war on drugs' will never allow it, but it will work.
Again, having the anti-gun crowd threaten legislation that limits gun ownership of the current population is like looking for your keys under the lamp post. It's an obvious place to look, but its more than likely the wrong place. There is no know correlation between restrictive gun legislation and reduced gun violence. And amping up the current laws such as the anti's want to do won't change that.
If the NRA and responsible gun owners want to remove the motivation of the anti-gun crowd from writing and passing increasingly restrictive legislation, then just referencing the 2A and paying vast sums to lobbyists, or offering a compromise (such as the OP's) that will never remain stable is a wasteful and useless strategy. If as many gun owners cite, 'guns don't kill people, people kill people' then address the people problem. Deal with mental health and drugs or this mess will go on forever.
B

For what it's worth, there are some things that I actually think might be preferable that could be part of a "compromise".

But as someone else said before in the thread, the antis don't really want a happy medium. The most rabid of them just don't want us armed at all. And a great many of us point-blank are not going to go along with that. So if giving them something doesn't gain us anything, then I'm going to make them expend money and political capital every single time they want even the slightest thing. It can be a law to reduce a standard box of .22LR from 50 rounds to 49 and I'm still going to do everything I can to make them waste millions of dollars on that and still lose.

If they like extremism so much, let's see how they like it when they get a taste of ours.

The sad thing is that gun people know things and have insight that could actually be included to help craft better gun laws. We have military or security experience that could be helpful in securing schools and public areas. We understand how our side thinks and what kinds of solutions would and wouldn't work for us. But we're constantly marginalized, demonized, and excluded from the "national debate."

I didn't choose for it to the that way. They chose that, and no amount of complacency from me is going to change it.

From the OP:

And this must be iron clad with no possibility whatsoever to tinker with it ever again.

Click to expand...

I thought that was the purpose of the 2A....?

Look at how that's been under attack. And you think that adding another law will stop the anti's?!?!?!?

Pipe dream.

All the compromise needed was reached back when the Second Amendment was ratified. Period.

Got a problem with criminals? Lock them up.

Got a problem with insanity? Institutionalize.

Got a problem with juveniles? Parental guardianship is the answer.

Nothing more needs to said nor done.

Woody

If the ends sought cannot be achieved through the means granted to the Federal Government in the Constitution, there is neither a need nor the power for the Federal Government to get involved. B.E.Wood

t32bt32b said:

1. First issue lies in the country's mental health problems. As an example, during the Reagan administration there were enormous changes in mental health rules, laws and care that ended up letting many who need help back out on the streets, and making it hard to care for many who could use help. For example, when you look at some of the violent school shootings (which though sad, comprise a very small part of gun violence in the U.S.), these people/students/shooters are deeply troubled, should not have access to weapons, and really should not be out on the street. It is these types of violent incidents that, in part, fuel the anti-gun crowd. However there is no way, short of banning all firearms (which should not and will not ever happen) will a significant part of gun violence be reduced without addressing mental health issues.

Click to expand...

No doubt this is a problem. But once the antis realized that mental health could be used as reason to remove an individuals right to posess firearms any realistic solution to existing mental health problems went out the window. If you have never read the diagnostic criteria for mental conditions, you should do so. Most mental illnesses are spectrum disorders, meaning that they can range from virtually undetectable to severe. And just about every person in the USA can be diagnosed with at least one of the listed conditions. The question is where on the spectrum they fall. You can be completely sure that antis will push to have even the mildest conditions be sufficient to deny firearms rights.

So mental health is in the same situation as gun control. If we allow them to go any farther in using mental health to deny 2A rights, it will be a creeping incursion. They will never stop trying to move the bar until everybody is diagnosed with at least one "dangerous" condition. And with the federal govt. in charge of healthcare, it will be much easier to do.

So mental health is in the same situation as gun control. If we allow them to go any farther in using mental health do deny 2A rights, it will be a creeping incursion. They will never stop trying to move the bar until everybody is diagnosed with at least one "dangerous" condition.

Click to expand...

Yeah, and that's also very tragic. There are a lot of people who need serious help, and probably a lot more who could use some mild form of help from time to time to live happier and more productive lives. But now they're discouraged from seeking it because it could get them put on a "list."

saturno v said:

True....but we are not going to solve it dreaming of buying machine guns at the corner hardware store....ain't gonna happen...

Click to expand...

Less than a decade ago, people on this forum told me I would never see the Second Amendment recognized as an individual right in my lifetime. Less than two decades ago, you were better off just taking your chances and carrying a handgun illegally than trying to get legal permission to carry in Texas.

Your strategy is akin to feeding the alligator your feet first and hoping he'll get full before he kills you. You are also under the impression that the people you are dealing with really want universal background checks; but they don't. Universal Background Checks are just the marketing tool they use to sell it to the uninformed. If all they wanted was for sales to have background checks, they wouldn't write laws that make you a felon for showing your buddy the new gun you bought. If all they wanted was to make sure you were a good guy, they wouldn't write legislation that exempted CHL holders from the background check when purchasing a gun; but still required them to go to an FFL and fill out a 4473.

The first thing I'd advise is to wake up and get a clue about who you are dealing with; because the people pushing this legislation aren't stupid. Many of them are lawyers. Some of them even hold FFLs and follow the industry quite closely. These problems with the gun control laws being written aren't accidental. They are intentional.

Compromise? Never.

goon said:

And while we're at it, let's repeal the NFA.

That's where I'd start for a compromise.

Click to expand...

And then...........

Repeal the Federal Firearms Act of 1938
Repeal the 1968 Gun Control Act
Repeal The Lautenberg Amendment
Repeal The Gun Free School Zone
Repeal The Ban on Chinese Norinco's
Repeal The Ban on "Non Sporting" Rifles
Repeal ALL import restrictions
Repeal Universal Background Checks in States that have them

Also enable Non violent felons like Martha Stewart to get their gun rights back after serving their time and completing probation and restitution.
.

.

Appeasement is a dead end that seldom, if ever, comes to a good end. Lessons from WWII and Neville Chamberlain's attempts at appeasement of Germany prove that.

"Give them an inch and they'll take a mile" comes to mind. Or as an old Arabian proverb says: "If the camel once gets his nose in the tent, his body will soon follow."