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

[grter]

Absolutely not. This goes against the principles of checks and balances which is the framework of our constitution.

To be clear ANY KIND OF FIREARM REGISTRATION IS DANGEROUS TO THE SECURITY OF OUR RIGHTS. Regardless of what laws a state may have on firearms possesion, who legally owns and what type of firearm/firearms is legally owned by someone is no ones business, especially the states and US government.

Forcing anyone to reveal this is no different than forcing someone to waive their rights to be protected from unreasonable search and seizure.

The laws of this land (America) demand that governing bodies be kept under tight and constant scrutiny by the people not the other way around and allowing any registries to be created or flourish is akin to asking for trouble and firearm registries are at the least very likely, if not certain, to be used against legal gun owners.

This is not rocket science, it's common sense.

 

[B!ngoFuelUSN]

I believe that both responses (including the one quoted below) are based on a misinterpretation of my comments. I am not suggesting that the mental health issue (and the drug issue for that matter) are or should be linked in any way to the gun issue. Yes, some may see a relationship in that drug users and mentally unstable individuals likely commit more gun-related crime per capita than those who aren't.
But my point is that each of these items need to be solved in their own right, without doing so in the context of anything else including the gun issue.
However when they are addressed, one of the consequences of their impact will be the reduction of violent crime. And with that, the intelligent parties of the anti-gun movement will stand down. And there will be other positive impacts as well including prison costs and court backlogs and the like.
Yes, there will always be rabid anti-gun advocates. But when violent crime drops, the pro-gun forces will have a better argument than, 'it's written in the 2A!'.
B

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."

 

[B!ngoFuelUSN]

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?

I'll just have to disagree here. Perhaps in the time of the Founders, the 2A was sufficiently descriptive in the context of the state of the art of firearms technology. In this day, the 2A reads only as a guideline or an intent. An important one but not sufficiently descriptive to be defining. Why? Because firearms or weapons technology has evolved to the point beyond (perhaps) what the Founders intended. Should a citizen be able to stockpile nuclear weapons? How about spent or active uranium cartridges? RPG's? Etc. I'm sure there are some who feel we should have such entitlements granted under the 2A since it's intent was to enable enable a citizens militia to repel or overthrow the government should it be deemed necessary. And these days it would take those types of weapons to do so. But I for one would consider a nuclear civil war to be intolerable.
So we are left with interpretation. I don't like it and I'm sure most others would agree. But its just a reality we have to deal with. Which is why continuously pointing to the 2A and stating that it's all clear is not a winning argument.
B

 

[goon]

The intent of the Bill of Rights wasn't to "enable" citizens to do anything. At the time, the Anti-Federalists feared the creation of a strong central government because they felt it could too easily infringe on citizens' rights. The Federalists supported it and proposed a Bill of Rights to help assuage the fears of the Anti-Federalists as a way to get the Constitution accepted and ratified. There were arguments against a Bill of Rights because it was feared that the very existence of such a list could give government a pretext to base eventual infringements on. In other words, they feared that the government could claim that it "granted" those rights, so it was within the power of government to take those rights away.

But government did not grant those rights. Those rights belong to every human being from the very first breath. Governments all over the world infringe on those rights, but they're still the birthright of every living human being.

As to where a limit would be, at the time you could own your own ship, outfit it with cannon, hire a crew, and go to war as a privateer. If you were between wars, you could keep your cannon and crew as defense against pirates and use that ship to carry rum to North America from the Caribbean. So I'd say that wherever the limit is, it's on the other side of a warship. I think many of us could live with that.

 

[Berger.Fan222]

This generation is not empowered to compromise the RKBA of the next.

 

[JRH6856]

I believe that both responses (including the one quoted below) are based on a misinterpretation of my comments. I am not suggesting that the mental health issue (and the drug issue for that matter) are or should be linked in any way to the gun issue. Yes, some may see a relationship in that drug users and mentally unstable individuals likely commit more gun-related crime per capita than those who aren't.
But my point is that each of these items need to be solved in their own right, without doing so in the context of anything else including the gun issue.
However when they are addressed, one of the consequences of their impact will be the reduction of violent crime. And with that, the intelligent parties of the anti-gun movement will stand down. And there will be other positive impacts as well including prison costs and court backlogs and the like.
Yes, there will always be rabid anti-gun advocates. But when violent crime drops, the pro-gun forces will have a better argument than, 'it's written in the 2A!'.

You may not be suggesting it, but that hardly matters. The link between mental health and gun ownership has already been made by the antis and by many gun owners who are naively unaware of just how fuzzy the operative definitions are and how much they are exposing themselves to the loss of their rights.

And it is equally naive to believe that the goals of the anti gun movement has anything to do with crime. That is another linkage of convenience. The "intelligent parties of the anti-gun movement" will not stand down until they have achieved their goal of total civilian disarmament.

Crime and mental health are just means to an end. The more actions that can be criminalized, the more individuals that can be made into criminals who are prohibited from owning guns. The more individuals that can be diagnosed with mental illness, the more that can be prohibited from owning guns.

And the more people that can be prohibited from owning guns, the fewer there will be with standing to oppose further restrictions.

 

[Bobson]

The "antis" wouldn't go for it. You need to understand their position: guns kill people, and if we can somehow take guns out of the picture completely (not just legally, but also physically), we will all be more safe.

You can't reason with that because it's a response that demonstrates a severe lack of respect for logic. You can't compromise with that because it's very deeply rooted in an emotion. Facts mean nothing in this issue. That's all there is to it. End of discussion.

They will never stop trying to get guns out of this country. You can either give in, or accept that you'll spend the rest of your life fighting to preserve your rights.

Welcome to America.

 

[Ignition Override]

Carsten1911: Those are excellent points.

Many of the anti-gun politicians are so lost in their academic thinking that they can't separate theory from reality. They believe that their elite academic and/or legal training makes them ethically far superior to the unlettered rabble (masses).

A friend from Essen explained the detailed written records kept in German gun clubs which quantify how much of Your ammo is stored there, which type. This follows your gun class which instructs the theory, then practical gun use.
I can't imagine the cost and paperwork just to acquire whichever Erlaubnis or Schein usw. Etwas lacherlich und fast barer Unsinn.

Another friend is from eastern Germany, and escaped/hitchhiked into an embassy in Budapest Hungary a few years before the wall came down.
He is so thankful for the freedoms which we have, despite citizen majorities in certain states where they allow politicians to gradually limit what they had enjoyed for one-two hundred years: CA, IL. NY, NJ, CT, MA.

If we ever had registration of all guns legally owned in the US, or even just a majority of them, what would prevent politicians from doing what they did in the UK and Australia?

 

[goon]

Crime and mental health are just means to an end. The more actions that can be criminalized, the more individuals that can be made into criminals who are prohibited from owning guns. The more individuals that can be diagnosed with mental illness, the more that can be prohibited from owning guns.

And the more people that can be prohibited from owning guns, the fewer there will be with standing to oppose further restrictions.

This. Exactly.

I used to be more willing to hear the other side of the argument, but in the course of a hundred discussions, I've stopped giving the other side even the slightest bit of credit. The people in the middle - some of them can be swayed by reason. People who are unfamiliar with firearms - some of them can also be swayed by reason. Some of them may even have good intentions when they argue for more restrictions, just as the OP in this discussion may have good intentions when he (or she) suggests compromise.

But the people who are really turning the wheels on gun control would be glad to see every weapon right down to recurve bows stripped away from civilian hands.

That's where they're coming from.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

This generation is not empowered to compromise the RKBA of the next.

Good point. It bears repeating over, and over and over and ...

Woody

 

[JRH6856]

This generation is not empowered to compromise the RKBA of the next.

Good point. It bears repeating over, and over and over and ...

The right may not be compromised, as it is unalienable. But the protection of the right afforded by the Constitution may be compromised whenever there is sufficient support for a new amendment or a repeal of the existing one.

That is why eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.

 

[Chris Sarno]

What do you think and there is any technical way to reach what I call the "compromise of the century" between 2A supporters and the antis. We need to stop being worried all the time about our rights being chipped away and the antis need to deal with the fact that guns are a constitutional rights and are here to stay.

This is what my "proposal" is:

- Shall issue Concealed Permits (where is required to pass a proficiency test) as maximum level of restriction allowed for every state reciprocated in all 50 states of the union like any state issued driving license. States that do not have any CCW requirements can keep doing what they do. I know that some of the staunchest gun supporters are opposed to concealed permits because gun ownership is a constitutional right where driving around with a car is not....well, without digressing too much, personally I believe that getting around your own country (by feet, car, train, airplane) is some sort of unwritten right in itself and, frankly, we need to reach a middle ground.....someone's freedom and rights stop where my freedom and rights begin so I frankly do not want an armed citizen in public incapable to hit the wide side of a barn at 5 yards...I do not want to lose my life in his/her attempts to save his/hers. In your own property you can do whatever you want exactly like you can drive a car with no license and registration in your own land.

- Background checks for every kind of sale or permanent transfer.

- If the antis wants "gun free zones", these are reasonably limited to courthouses, police stations, some federal buildings and maybe airports. No frivolous local gun legislation. When I say maybe no guns in airports I mean not on your person but I want the ability to fly let's say from Seattle to Dallas, carrying my gun...you just check it in with your luggage.

- Current federal firearms classification limits are perfectly fine (no fully automatic, .50 cal. maximum practical limit), no further limitation of capacity, type, etc...no more evil AK or AR scare.

That's it, after that get of my back and leave my guns alone. focus on something else that requires way more urgent attention.

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

Agree?? If you do any practical way to reach it??

I'm sorry but this is stupid! I don't care about reciprocity on a national scale, and I sure as hell wouldn't even consider such if it came at the cost of stupidly coughing up my rights to conduct a sale absent some state sponsored nanny looking over my shoulder!

 

[herrwalther]

I tried looking it up but couldn't find it. I was looking for a cartoon that describes gun rights as a pie, and each piece of legislation passed in the last 100 years takes a larger chunk. Like the GCA of 1968 and the assault weapons ban. And each time the cartoon depicting gun owners "us" agrees to the compromise, which isn't a compromise at all seeing how the antis don't give us anything in return. At the end of the cartoon the gun owner is angry because the anti is asking "why won't you compromise" as we stand here with less than 1/4 of our own pie.

Reciprocity of concealed carry is a right. If I moved to another state, my marriage to my wife would remain legal. My permission to drive would remain legal. My right to practice all my first Amendment rights would be legal. But my 2A right, may not be legal depending on the state. So why on earth should gun owners give up MORE rights for little or no return, just for nationwide reciprocity we should have in the first place?

 

[BK]

Your strategy is akin to feeding the alligator your feet first and hoping he'll get full before he kills you.

That is an awesome assessment! I'll have to remember that one.

I continue to recall this one when these type threads crop up; was put as well.

Compromise with the anti's seems impossible because all the "give" is to be on our side. They won't accept something like the repeal of any anti-gun law.

What they mean by "compromise" is that they propose some extreme Draconian law, and then allow themselves to "compromise" on something less rigid. But we still lose.

I have made this comparison:

You have two $50 bills in your wallet. One day while waiting for a bus, you feel your wallet being pulled from your pocket and grab the pickpocket's hand. He begs you not to call the police and offers a "compromise". He will take $50; you keep the other $50 and the wallet. See how easy that is. No hassle, no need to testify, no trouble.

But if you accept that "compromise", you are a stupid sucker and he is a crook who got away with $50 of your money.

That is the anti's "compromise". They compromise by taking less from us than they originally wanted. But we still lose. And they will introduce more anti-gun laws next week.

And that pickpocket will be back tomorrow for the other $50.

Jim

 

[hamp sandwich]

If a mugger wants to rob you, he isn't interested in a compromise. Your money, not a reasonable donation, a credit card, an IOU or a coupon for chicken.
Anyone that wants to take something from you is no different. The "antis" are no different. If you're willing to compromise, just give the robber your entire wallet, because he won't stop at a buck.

http://www.nfafa.org/

 

[JRH6856]

You want a compromise? OK, here is one off the top of my head. Quid pro quo. We will accept Universal Background Checks in principle and stipulate that one must clear such a check to both own and carry a firearm. It will work like this:

1 Citizens of the US with clean criminal records shall have no restrictions on their rights as citizens. This includes the right to keep and bear arms, and the right to vote.

2. Every person in the USA will be issued a photo ID. This ID will show the citizenship/immigration status and criminal background (clear or restricted)

This ID shall serve as proof of a clean criminal record. It must be presented whenever the individual seeks to vote or purchase a personal firearm. It also serves as proof that there are no restrictions on the keeping and bearing of personal firearms in any fashion or in any location.

3. Personal Firearms shall include any firearm that can be operated by a single person without the aide of an external mount or rest. It shall not include arms that fire explosive projectiles or rockets (no bazookas, RPGs, or grenade launchers).

4.There shall be no restriction on attachments beneficial to the health of the operator (suppressors/silencers are not restricted).

Seems like a reasonable compromise to me. Does anyone think the antis will accept it even temporarily until they can renew their attack?

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Compromise - The left keeps using that word. I don't think it means what they think it means.

What does the anti-gun-rights crowd have that we'd want to compromise with anyway? They take what we don't give. We just lose.

Woody

 

[psyopspec]

OP, in your world the woman I love is incapable of exercising her right to defend herself. Her strong hand is disabled, and depending on who gets to prescribe your shooting test, she may not pass it. As a human being who's been a victim of violence in the past, she is perfectly capable of doing what needs to be done with a pistol at contact distance to protect herself but may not be an expert marksmen at 25 yards.

So respectfully, I hope the rest of your day is as pleasant as you are.

 

[AlexanderA]

3. Personal Firearms shall include any firearm that can be operated by a single person without the aid of an external mount or rest. It shall not include arms that fire explosive projectiles or rockets (no bazookas, RPGs, or grenade launchers).

This is worse than the current NFA. Crew-served weapons, including machine guns and destructive devices, are allowed if permitted by state law, if a transfer tax is paid, and if certain procedures, such as a background check, fingerprints, photographs, and a CLEO signature, are followed. (Some of these procedures don't apply if ownership is through a trust.) Even new destructive devices are allowed.

The way I read the 2nd Amendment, it is precisely these kinds of weapons that are most protected, since they provide the means to resist a tyrannical domestic government or foreign invader. Strictly from the point of view of the 2nd Amendment, even the current NFA is too much of an infringement.

Anyway, if you're going to outlaw machine guns and destructive devices, at least cite some cases where such weapons, registered and highly regulated, have been a problem. There have been, what?, two or three cases in the 80 years that the NFA has been law.

 

[Warp]

I have and will continue to strongly vote NO to "national reciprocity" or any other such nonsense. NO.

 

[B!ngoFuelUSN]

The intent of the Bill of Rights wasn't to "enable" citizens to do anything. At the time, the Anti-Federalists feared the creation of a strong central government because they felt it could too easily infringe on citizens' rights. The Federalists supported it and proposed a Bill of Rights to help assuage the fears of the Anti-Federalists as a way to get the Constitution accepted and ratified. There were arguments against a Bill of Rights because it was feared that the very existence of such a list could give government a pretext to base eventual infringements on. In other words, they feared that the government could claim that it "granted" those rights, so it was within the power of government to take those rights away.

But government did not grant those rights. Those rights belong to every human being from the very first breath. Governments all over the world infringe on those rights, but they're still the birthright of every living human being.

As to where a limit would be, at the time you could own your own ship, outfit it with cannon, hire a crew, and go to war as a privateer. If you were between wars, you could keep your cannon and crew as defense against pirates and use that ship to carry rum to North America from the Caribbean. So I'd say that wherever the limit is, it's on the other side of a warship. I think many of us could live with that.

I totally accept your clarification and historic detail. It is spot on and I probably overglossed it for expediency (though your knowledge of U.S. history definitely outstrips mine).
But I'm not sure most would agree with you on the last point. Today, to maintain equivalency, you are talking about privately owned aircraft carriers, fully stocked with F/A-18's with whatever arms stored below decks. Besides the price tag, and finding a cooperating builder (where is Elon Musk when you need him?), I suspect that's over the top. As the old joke goes, 'now we're just talkin' terms'.
So whether it's your set point or mine, it still has to be defined. Because it's not defined but just expressed as an open-ended right. And with the power and reach of modern weaponry, that just doesn't work. For me at least.
Perhaps we'll have to agree to disagree but I don't believe that I'll change my view on simply referencing the 2A as the single argument for the pro-crowd. It has proven to be ineffective and there are better arguments to be had. To me, winning the argument outstrips sticking solely to, without abandoning ones principals.
B

 

[ljnowell]

What do you think and there is any technical way to reach what I call the "compromise of the century" between 2A supporters and the antis. We need to stop being worried all the time about our rights being chipped away and the antis need to deal with the fact that guns are a constitutional rights and are here to stay.

This is what my "proposal" is:

- Shall issue Concealed Permits (where is required to pass a proficiency test) as maximum level of restriction allowed for every state reciprocated in all 50 states of the union like any state issued driving license. States that do not have any CCW requirements can keep doing what they do. I know that some of the staunchest gun supporters are opposed to concealed permits because gun ownership is a constitutional right where driving around with a car is not....well, without digressing too much, personally I believe that getting around your own country (by feet, car, train, airplane) is some sort of unwritten right in itself and, frankly, we need to reach a middle ground.....someone's freedom and rights stop where my freedom and rights begin so I frankly do not want an armed citizen in public incapable to hit the wide side of a barn at 5 yards...I do not want to lose my life in his/her attempts to save his/hers. In your own property you can do whatever you want exactly like you can drive a car with no license and registration in your own land.

- Background checks for every kind of sale or permanent transfer.

- If the antis wants "gun free zones", these are reasonably limited to courthouses, police stations, some federal buildings and maybe airports. No frivolous local gun legislation. When I say maybe no guns in airports I mean not on your person but I want the ability to fly let's say from Seattle to Dallas, carrying my gun...you just check it in with your luggage.

- Current federal firearms classification limits are perfectly fine (no fully automatic, .50 cal. maximum practical limit), no further limitation of capacity, type, etc...no more evil AK or AR scare.

That's it, after that get of my back and leave my guns alone. focus on something else that requires way more urgent attention.

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

Agree?? If you do any practical way to reach it??

No, no, and no.

It's already bad enough the requirements set upon me to get my CCL. I don't want it any worse.

A simple one paragraph law that says:

All states must honor the concealed firearm permits of all other states and carriers must follow the laws of the states they are traveling through or residing in.

That would be perfectly fine. It does not impose any more crap on any one. I do not want anything to do with the federal government making any standards or issuing any permits.


As far as your statement if machine guns, you should probably talk to some of the many Americans that own them. They aren't out of reach as long as you have a little cash(and maybe not as much as you think).

 

[B!ngoFuelUSN]

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.
.

.

Where does it say in the 2A that guns can be granted to non-violent offenders but cannot be granted to violent offenders? Just wondering... (and my comment is not directed to you per se but my logic is obvious I assume).
B

 

[goon]

So whether it's your set point or mine, it still has to be defined. Because it's not defined but just expressed as an open-ended right. And with the power and reach of modern weaponry, that just doesn't work. For me at least.

The anti's have already defined where that limit is, and for them, it's somewhere around a slingshot and a pocket full of marbles. Except not one of those powerful slingshots with the wrist brace... one of the ones you made from bike inner tube as a kid. They'd probably be happy with that as long as you were required to keep it secured at the local slingshot club.

But if you look at the actual discussion, we "gun people" are the only ones talking about where the line is drawn with warships or Apache helicopters. The real discussion is centered on things like magazine capacity for semi-automatic rifles and handguns and on banning semi-automatic firearms with military heritage. Our opponents want us to relinquish these items as part of their "compromise."

If you don't accept the right enumerated by the Second Amendment as open-ended, fair enough. Does your definition include an AR-15 and a 30 round magazine? How about a Glock or a SIG with a 15 round magazine? Because if it does, you and I can argue about the academic issues surrounding how and where you'd practice with your own 16" guns at a later date, after we've protected all the Glocks, Browning Hi-Powers, and AR-15's.

Where does it say in the 2A that guns can be granted to non-violent offenders but cannot be granted to violent offenders? Just wondering... (and my comment is not directed to you per se but my logic is obvious I assume).

Where does the Constitution grant government the power to deny any right to anyone who isn't in prison?
The Second Amendment, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights, does not grant citizens anything. Citizens have all rights imaginable at the time of their birth. Every single right you can think of as long as you don't harm anyone else. The Bill of Rights does not grant you the right to have a goldfish, yet you have that right. The Bill of Rights doesn't grant you the right to order a pizza on Friday night, but you have that right. You have every right possible... as long as you don't harm others or infringe on their rights. Just because there isn't specific wording granting a right, that doesn't mean the right doesn't exist.

We've fallen into the trap that some of the Founders feared - We've accepted that government has the power to grant or alter a right simply because a right was mentioned in the "list." But the last time I read it, I didn't see anything in the Constitution that distinguished the rights of those who've served prison sentences and been released from those who haven't. All should have equal rights under the law. Equal.

I'd argue that if the felon in question is so dangerous, he should not be let out of prison. After all, no law is going to prevent him from obtaining a gun. So if the guy is really too dangerous to have a gun, he shouldn't be out of prison. Restricting the rights of someone who has served his sentence doesn't really accomplish anything except for making someone feel like they've done something.

 

[Midwest]

Where does it say in the 2A that guns can be granted to non-violent offenders but cannot be granted to violent offenders? Just wondering... (and my comment is not directed to you per se but my logic is obvious I assume).
B

I don't believe that people who pushed paper the wrong way (white collar criminals) should lose their firearms rights forever. People like Martha Stewart and G. Gordon Liddy didn't commit any violent crimes. They paid their debt to society and should have their rights, (all of them) fully restored. Violent criminals should remain in prison.
.