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

[MoPed]

Absolutely no compromise!!!

 

[Warp]

I don't believe anybody who is 'free in society' should be denied their [supposed] Right to keep and bear arms. Violent or non-violent offender.

Seriously guys, the idea that a violent offender who is a danger to the public/other people suddenly won't be a problem because there is a law that says s/he cannot have a firearm is exactly the same thing as the idea that a no guns allowed sign/law at a school will prevent a shooting.

If a person is not incarcerated they ought to have their Rights, including the keeping and bearing of arms. If a person has proved through prior action that they are not to be trusted in society they need to be incarcerated.

(getting rid of a bunch of our asinine gun control laws...and drug laws...and other laws...would help free up the prison space to keep the legitimately dangerous individuals locked up...otherwise the above is mostly a theoretical exercise)

 

[berettaprofessor]

No compromise. No trust. There are many examples where we have lost 2A rights in the long term after short term compromise. The most surprising thing to me here is how the OP, with 2600 posts here, would have expected a different answer.

 

[lxd55]

nope we have had to much taken away as is. they would go after bullets. the socialist march never ends even when they are out of power they are moving on their agenda.
you think the aca was thought up and printed overnight so it could be voted on? it was already written. the goal is America

 

[JRH6856]

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.

OK, I said this was off the top of my head, and my thinking is that this compromise is at the federal level and only pertained to personal firearms as defined. There is no prohibition of any weapon.

Ownership of weapons not affected by the compromise is still a matter of law in the individual states.

 

[LiveLife]

We should fight any and all universal background checks and try to have existing ones repealed.

... Any gun owner worth his or her salt should fight any attempts for Universal Background Checks as they are a step away from Registration.

If we keep it this way we are going to lose..and lose badly...this is exactly what a veteran and NRA certified instructors told me

Wrong, wrong, wrong!

In February of this year, of all places in CALIFORNIA, in a landmark decision the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals confirmed that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to carry firearms for self-defense in public (And yes, NRA was an essential part of this fight) - http://www.nraila.org/legal/article...t-confirms-right-to-carry-arms-in-public.aspx

And yesterday, the Ninth Circuit Court ruled again to move us closer to ending restrictions on conceal carry permits - http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...fornia-restrictions-on-conceal-carry-permits/

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals includes the following states and territories and eventual case win will have far reaching implications. I say absolutely NO COMPROMISE and fight, fight, fight for our Second Amendment rights!!!

- Alaska
- Arizona
- California
- Hawaii
- Idaho
- Montana
- Nevada
- Oregon
- Washington
- Guam
- Northern Mariana Islands

 

[CoRoMo]

90 Replies.

Have we sufficiently pointed out the gaping flaws to everyone's satisfaction?

Yep.

Close'r down please.

 

[Spats McGee]

Compromise? How about "gimme back the damn rights that politicians of prior generations bargained away from me?"

As for the OP's suggestions, no, no, no. For reasons already expressed by others.

And get those darned kids off my lawn. . . .

 

[GoWolfpack]

But I for one would consider a nuclear civil war to be intolerable.

Why is it acceptable for a government to have nuclear weapons it could fire on its citizenry but not for a citizens to have access to the same weapons to defend itself?

A nuclear civil war would be terrible, but a one-sided nuclear civil war would be just as bad.

 

[kayak-man]

They want to compromise? Fair enough. Here it is:

I'll own, shoot, carry, build whatever I want, whenever I want. If you have a problem with that, you are more than welcome to not own/carry a firearm and/or not MOVE INTO A HOUSE THAT IS NEAR THE SHOOTING RANGE.

 

[Warp]

Why is it acceptable for a government to have nuclear weapons it could fire on its citizenry but not for a citizens to have access to the same weapons to defend itself?

A nuclear civil war would be terrible, but a one-sided nuclear civil war would be just as bad.

Because this

The idea in my concept is that those who feel they must take up arms to defend their cause must have the ability to effectively do their oppressors significant harm. So their best weapons must not be mere heated words, pointed sticks, and other low-effect tools. A portion of society that feels all hope of peaceful redress of grievances through the legislative process is lost, must have the ability to act effectively in violent concert.

On the other hand, the goal of insurrection as promoted by the Founders in the Declaration of Independence and other documents is not that ONE person could have the power to force his will on others, and/or destroy towns, and kill mass numbers of people. So there is a practical reason for why ordnance (and the sorts of mass-effect weapons that have been developed, from nerve gasses to nuclear weapons) are not in the hands of the individual.

There is a balance here. We don't want one man to have the ability to wipe out a city because he's not happy. The individual with his rifle, or with his machine gun, grenades, and other anti-personnel weapons doesn't present a credible threat to society at large, and is not a compelling force for governmental change and/or resistance. But a large number of individuals all dedicated to one goal and armed with conventional arms may be so.

 

[Agsalaska]

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

It doesn't matter. Thats a tired defense. As I argued earlier in this thread, it is well understood and has been proven true with 200 years of case law, judicial decisions, and legislative actions that agreed upon restrictions can be put on amendments. Thats not a new revelation. There are restrictions or modifications of some kind on many amendments that are well established and within the original intent.

 

[Agsalaska]

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.

With all due respect this is a distortion. The founding fathers accepted the fact that clarification and at times restrictions can and should be put on certain rights. They had safeguards but also a system in place to do just that in the legislative and judicial branches. There is nothing about the felon restriction that is against the inherent beliefs of the founding fathers and the bill of rights.

 

[PT92]

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

See there, any new proposal would be redundant...You just recited the "already on the books" Second Amendment...

 

[akarguy]

No way. How many times have republicans agreed on some sort of compromise only to be stabbed in the back by Democrats? History (and the last 6 years) are littered with examples. We would never have that type of committment, unless of course registration/databases were on the table and even still I wouldn't trust there to be no chipping away as time went on. Reagan's single largest regret of his presidency was agreeing g to amnesty in exchange for a border fence that 30 years later we are still waiting for Democrats to build. How ironic you posit such a suggestion at this point in time

 

[MachIVshooter]

Originally Posted by Sam1911 View Post
90 Replies.

Have we sufficiently pointed out the gaping flaws to everyone's satisfaction?

Yep.

Close'r down please.

Also please ask Saturno to stop with the collaborationist threads. Ain't the first time he's stirred this pot.

 

[goon]

With all due respect this is a distortion. The founding fathers accepted the fact that clarification and at times restrictions can and should be put on certain rights. They had safeguards but also a system in place to do just that in the legislative and judicial branches. There is nothing about the felon restriction that is against the inherent beliefs of the founding fathers and the bill of rights.

I haven't read anything about people being released from prison not being able to own a flintlock. I could be wrong. If you've got a citation on that, please share.

Still, I'd argue such laws don't stop any ex-con from getting a gun. There are tens of thousands of of them in Chicago who have guns right now. If you can't trust them with a gun - and they can get a gun if they want one - then you should address that by not letting them out of prison rather than by tacking another sentence on after the sentence they just served. FWIW, I want to see voting rights restored as well. I'd be fine with restoring ALL rights to ex-cons after they've been out and trouble free for one year. Admittedly, "one year" is an arbitrary number - but I don't expect it to ever be that way anyhow. What I think is fair and what actually takes place is rarely the same thing.

Getting back to the compromise on gun rights thing, I'm not aware of the pro-gun community ever coming out with anything we wanted from a "compromise." Historically, any compromise leaves us with less and nothing in return. Suppressors could help make hunters and shooters better neighbors and protect our hearing. A 12" barreled lever action .44 Magnum or Remington 870 could make a great defensive weapon against large predators. Short barreled 9mm carbines could make a great HD weapon. Our compromises never get us things like this back. What do we ever gain?

As someone else in this thread said, we don't think compromise means what they think it means.

 

[Agsalaska]

I haven't read anything about people being released from prison not being able to own a flintlock. I could be wrong. If you've got a citation on that, please share.

Still, I'd argue such laws don't stop any ex-con from getting a gun. There are tens of thousands of of them in Chicago who have guns right now. If you can't trust them with a gun - and they can get a gun if they want one - then you should address that by not letting them out of prison rather than by tacking another sentence on after the sentence they just served. FWIW, I want to see voting rights restored as well. I'd be fine with restoring ALL rights to ex-cons after they've been out and trouble free for one year. Admittedly, "one year" is an arbitrary number - but I don't expect it to ever be that way anyhow. What I think is fair and what actually takes place is rarely the same thing.

Getting back to the compromise on gun rights thing, I'm not aware of the pro-gun community ever coming out with anything we wanted from a "compromise." Historically, any compromise leaves us with less and nothing in return. Suppressors could help make hunters and shooters better neighbors and protect our hearing. A 12" barreled lever action .44 Magnum or Remington 870 could make a great defensive weapon against large predators. Short barreled 9mm carbines could make a great HD weapon. Our compromises never get us things like this back. What do we ever gain?

As someone else in this thread said, we don't think compromise means what they think it means.

There is no such law about a flintlock. The point is the felon law is not by itself a constitutional violation just because there is nothing in the 2nd amendment that says a felon can't have a gun. The founding fathers understood and put in place a process that would allow for laws just like that. Just like, for example, exceptions to reasonable search and seizure or inciting a riot thru speech.

Now granted, the vast majority of limitations on rights did not occur until the 20th century. It really took incorporation to bring challenges. And most of the early rulings were 1st amendment rulings(and I will leave that there to keep this THR). But that does not mean the authors of the constitution and the bill of rights did not understand the need for it. In fact there was, during some of the drafting, language outlying requirements for restrictions that they later chose to leave out. But this decision had nothing to do with a belief that there could be none.


The NRA has done an outstanding job over the years convincing its members that any and all restrictions on private gun ownership are a violation of your rights. I understand why they do that, but it drives me crazy because its just not true. It creates a distorted view of the document, the authors, and our entire system of government. But, it seems to be working.

Lastly, I do not say that in support of the antis or even the OP. I would not compromise another inch with those leftist loons. Like someone else said earlier, it has more to do with control than it does guns. I do believe the restrictions passed 'reasonable' many moons ago. They can all go pound sand.

 

[B!ngoFuelUSN]

We're a lot more aligned than you (or others) might think. Though I disagree with your first point. I suspect the real hard-over anti-gunners would also take away slingshots as well. Along with big gulps. There are extremists on both sides of the line. And often the best way to burst their bubbles is to find the root cause of their angst and address it.
On the AR mag capacity issues, I consider a 30 round mag a standard capacity mag and support it being the legal standard, without a bullet button, in 50 states. And I personally don't care if people own 40- 60- or whatever mags. No question. Same for the Glock standard capacity issue, as well as all the others. I completely support that, but I think you would agree that what we are agreeing on are details that enhance the clarity of the 2A.
B

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 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.

 

[B!ngoFuelUSN]

Regardless of your beliefs, my point is that these details are, as well, not spelled out in the 2A. They are expansions on the right(s) expressed in the 2A and that detail is needed.
For what it's worth, I tend to like a simple rules like, 'if you are convicted of a felony and are required to serve a sentence of greater than one year, you lose some of the features of citizenship - like (for example): voting, and carrying a gun'. I understand your point, but I also see that if the rules are not simple, they become as lengthy as the tax code, and end up in courts to be litigated endlessly by members of the legal community. It's also why the current gun laws, at least in some states, are impossible to understand, prosecute and even abide by. We spend as much time asking questions about the laws out here in CA, as we do at the range.
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.
.

 

[B!ngoFuelUSN]

I think we're in agreement. Except about the naive part. That's just incorrect. The reason is that I simply do not believe that there is a path to a stable solution until some of the metrics that are used by the anti's can be addressed and deflated. And once deflated, the pro's have the upper hand in the argument.
I've spent a lot of time involved in complex legal arguments (as an expert not as an attorney) and I well understand the art and science of winning a legal argument.
Again, I'm all about winning here.
B

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.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

With all due respect this is a distortion. The founding fathers accepted the fact that clarification and at times restrictions can and should be put on certain rights.

An they did precisely that in the Constitution. They left nothing to conjecture, construal, opinion, feeling, want, dislike, etc., etc..

They had safeguards but also a system in place to do just that in the legislative and judicial branches.

It's called 'due process'. The legislature can pass the constitutional laws and the Judiciary adjudicates in accord with the Constitution and constitutional law.

There is nothing about the felon restriction that is against the inherent beliefs of the founding fathers and the bill of rights.

I beg to differ. There has been no power granted to the Feral Government to limit anyone's rights other than as set in the Constitution. The processes in the Constitution do, however, exist to allow for the execution or lockup for life anyone who cannot be trusted out in society.

If the Constitution is followed, there is no need to limit or prohibit anyone's rights or freedoms who is not in prison, institutionalized, or under guardianship - except in a tyranny, dictatorship, or any other form of government that must keep an iron hand on its subjects.

Woody

 

[AlexanderA]

Warp wrote:

If a person is not incarcerated they ought to have their Rights, including the keeping and bearing of arms. If a person has proved through prior action that they are not to be trusted in society they need to be incarcerated.

Two words: prison overcrowding. While in theory, dangerous people ought to be kept locked up, in practice there just isn't enough room, and society isn't prepared to pay to construct twice as many prisons. So we release the less dangerous (although they are still dangerous) and imprison the most dangerous. Parolees are still not to be trusted. I would rather they not have weapons -- although I'll admit that they will probably find ways to get them.

 

[Agsalaska]

This was in response to ConsitutionCowboy but it was in no way in line with what we can discuss here so I withdraw it.

 

[goon]

Prison overcrowding... partly from locking up people who weren't dangerous in the first place for things that shouldn't have been illegal in the first place.

Understand, in principle, I don't want someone who's been convicted of a heinous crime having a weapon either. It makes me uncomfortable. But my comfort isn't a good enough reason to infringe on someone else's rights. If he has been sentenced to ten years in prison under the law, by due process and a jury trial, then ten years in prison was his sentence. Restricting his rights after he has served his sentence imposes a life sentence on him as a second-class citizen. A lifelong sentence that can never be overcome no matter how hard he works to be a productive, law-abiding citizen sounds like a cruel and unusual punishment to me.

Hang 'em, lock 'em up for good, or let them be free and equal after they've served their time. Those are the most reasonable choices I see.