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

Status
Not open for further replies.
goon said:
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.
Click to expand...
On a side note, I agree with that. I do not believe felons should lose rights, especially the right to vote but also the right to bear arms.
 
Agsalaska said:
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.
Click to expand...
You and I agree, but I think this comment of yours puts us on thin ice with others. The implication (if I understand you correctly) is that the 2A (as an example) can be 'refined' and 'narrowed' via the legislative process. Which is correct, but is at odds with others who state that the 2A is a right and cannot be infringed, which such a refinement could be.
I don't mean to be putting words in your mouth but that's how I read it. Correct?
B
 
herrwalther said:
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?

Click to expand...

I've never seen that as a graphic, but I have seen it described in some detail.

My source is from The LawDog Files.

There are few as articulate as LawDog when it comes to issues like this.

 
GoWolfpack said:
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.
Click to expand...
Your statement is logically correct. But I hardly think it is practically wise or prudent. And that points out what I cited in my first post on this thread. It is unlikely that the intent of the 2A can be fulfilled. That is, it includes the right for citizens to overturn a federal government which no longer properly serves them. Even if it requires an armed conflict.
Which is not to say that there shouldn't be the freedom, expressed as a right, to bear arms. For a variety of reasons this is a good thing. But technology and scale have extinguished the ability to fulfill the intent.
BTW, the reason I am making these points, and it's getting a bit long at this point (guilty as charged), is to provide the basis for a better argument than what the pro-guns movement has been using. To try to secure a stable solution, without giving any ground as the OP suggests. I am not an anti- and I am not trying to express support for the limitations that some states have expressed, such as my own state of CA. In fact quite the opposite. I want the baseless anti-arguments extinguished, and where they may have some validity, to take action to remove the basis of the remaining arguments. That's how to achieve a stable and positive result.
B
 
AlexanderA said:
Warp wrote:



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.
Click to expand...

I disagree that it is the right thing to do, to tell a person they cannot have a gun, because they got caught with marijuana.

This is a wider issue of course as there are a whole hell of a lot of things that are felonies yet shouldn't even be illegal.

Regardless, I think any reasonable person should be able to agree that a lot of people who have done nothing to indicate they area danger to others are barred from possession of a firearm.
 
t32bt32b said:
Your statement is logically correct. But I hardly think it is practically wise or prudent. And that points out what I cited in my first post on this thread. It is unlikely that the intent of the 2A can be fulfilled. That is, it includes the right for citizens to overturn a federal government which no longer properly serves them. Even if it requires an armed conflict.
Which is not to say that there shouldn't be the freedom, expressed as a right, to bear arms. For a variety of reasons this is a good thing. But technology and scale have extinguished the ability to fulfill the intent.

BTW, the reason I am making these points, and it's getting a bit long at this point (guilty as charged), is to provide the basis for a better argument than what the pro-guns movement has been using. To try to secure a stable solution, without giving any ground as the OP suggests. I am not an anti- and I am not trying to express support for the limitations that some states have expressed, such as my own state of CA. In fact quite the opposite. I want the baseless anti-arguments extinguished, and where they may have some validity, to take action to remove the basis of the remaining arguments. That's how to achieve a stable and positive result.
B
Click to expand...

I disagree.
 

One of the things one learns in troubleshooting a business is the concept of finding what changed when things begin to go south.

I note that in 1965, when I was in high school, we didn't have mass shootings with the notable exception of the Texas Tower incident, and in that case bystanders were able to shoot back.

There was no licensing. There was no background check. You could also mail order just about any damned thing you wanted. Sears Roebuck and Montgomery Ward's sold guns through their catalogs. You could buy a hunting rifle at your local hardware store or gas station. Gun safety was taught as part of the school rifle team's training. Guns were dirt common.

A base assumption was that pretty much everyone could be expected to have a gun -- or several -- and one conducted oneself accordingly. Things didn't really start to head south for real until sometime after that. Yes, there were infringements before that, but in 1965 gun ownership was a fairly easy thing.

If you're looking for a starting point, I think that's a good baseline.

And, starting there, one can roll back the earlier infringements since it was already clear by then that those infringements had achieved precisely nothing in terms of "public safety" or any such claptrap.

Of course, if you're going to roll back gun laws to 1965, may I also suggest that you roll back the social engineering aspect of public education to where it was in that same era.

My high school teachers were, in large part, WW II vets.

Their idea of gun safety was proper training, not controlling what a person could own.


Now, about this idea of compromise:

No.

You're suggesting entering into some kind of agreement with people who will lie to you about their intent and their plans, who will write obfuscated legislation and lie to you about what's in it, and then smugly assert -- after they've finessed it into actual law -- that they put one over on you because you're just too stupid to figure out what they've done.

This isn't some abstract conjecture. This is today's headlines.

You want to bargain with people having that kind of integrity?

NO.

No effing way.

Sue them. Take them to court. Win and keep winning. And beat them repeatedly about the head and shoulders with those victories until the very thought of trying to infringe on gun rights -- indeed, human rights at all -- makes them curl up and whimper.

Give them nothing.

Crush them and their totalitarian dreams.

No quarter.

Until victory is complete.

 
t32bt32b said:
Originally Posted by Agsalaska View Post
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.


post by t32bt32b

You and I agree, but I think this comment of yours puts us on thin ice with others. The implication (if I understand you correctly) is that the 2A (as an example) can be 'refined' and 'narrowed' via the legislative process. Which is correct, but is at odds with others who state that the 2A is a right and cannot be infringed, which such a refinement could be.
I don't mean to be putting words in your mouth but that's how I read it. Correct?
B
Click to expand...
That is more or less what I am saying. The amendments of the constitution do allow for agreed upon restrictions. That was always the intention. It was meant to have any needed restrictions thru the legislative and judicial process. In fact there was original language included but was removed, but not because they didn't believe it. There are numerous examples of this across many amendments. Incorporation, or the application of the constitution to the states, brought a lot of these interpretations with it as well.

As I stated earlier and like you pointed out, that puts many of us on thin ice. I believe that is because the NRA has convinced its members and other gun owners that somehow someway this well established process somehow does not apply to the 2nd amendment. I understand why they have done that but its just wrong. The 2nd amendment is no different than the 1st amendment in that respect.


Edit for clarity
 
Last edited:
Interesting thread to be sure.

But the responses remind me of the eternal ongoing debate over "Constitutional Interpretation." As an undergrad I had the pleasure of having SCOTUS (failed) Nominee Robert Bork speak before a huge lecture hall filled with "Political Law" majors.

Bork (as I do) subscribes to the "Originalist" interpretation of The Constitution (2A specifically for the purposes of this thread) which allows ZERO "wiggle" room whatsoever for judges to impose their own subjective and/or elitist values when considering "gun cases."

This is precisely why I never can understand (or accept) arguments that there must be changes to the way Americans are afforded their respective freedoms under the Constitution...? Why when it flies completely in the face of the (verbatim) laws already on the book, namely, the Second Amendment as spelled out in The Bill of Rights which clearly ) gives American Citizens 1) the right to keep and bear arms... and 2) prohibits any governmental entity from usurping power.

So while I do comply with bogus gun laws created outside the scope of the Constitution, I do not find such to be lawful regulation/s but only blatant overexertions of governmental authority.
 
Agsalaska said:
The 2nd amendment is no different than the 1st amendment in that respect.
Click to expand...

The Second Amendment is quite different from the First - and the rest of them as well. The Second Amendment is absolute. Even the Thirteenth Amendment allows for servitude(basically slavery) to the state in certain instances.

Nowhere in the Second Amendment is there any word, phrase, clause or sentence granting government any power to sidestep the prohibition to infringe upon the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms.

Woody
 
saturno_v said:
Machine guns, for all practical purpose are already out of reach of gun owners...let's not kid ourselves.
Click to expand...

Don't be deceived. This is ONLY because the registry is closed. In many cases a full auto (i.e. open bolt) is cheaper to make than a semi auto version.

This is exactly what I'm proposing..an iron clad agreement.....absolutely no possibility to tinker with it...<snip>....we say NO MAS in block letter after this...and we get quite a bit out of this.
Click to expand...

"Shall not be infringed" already means all of that and more, yet here we are.

If we compromise we are heading the wrong direction.

My position is that if you want a ban on any arms, then go get a constitutional amendment. (Notice I did not say "guns" - we need to stop letting gun-banners frame the question and get back to the word the Framers used),

We'll start with the Death Star - it shouldn't be too hard to get a constitutional amendment banning private ownership of Death Stars.

Next up we might go for an amendment banning nuclear weapons...

And so on...

At some point you will reach a point where you no longer can get enough votes in congress to pass amendments or enough states to ratify them.

And trust me, you won't get enough states to ratify an amendment banning machine guns, not to mention SBR's, SBS's, AOW's, and the rest of the piddly little crap in 18 USC 922, like the number of imported parts in a firearm.

And then we don't have to put up with a huge, expensive, multilayered bureaucracy of agencies, law enforcement, courts, and an untouchable group of 9 mere mortals who took it upon themselves, without any power granted to them by "We The People" in our Founding Document to say that "no right is absolute".

Some people just can't handle unlimited unadulterated liberty. Some because they are criminal. Some because they are immoral. Some because they want to exercise dominion or control over others. Some because of greed. Or (generally) a combination of those.

So why don't the gun-banners want to go that route? Or anyone for that matter?

1) Because there is no penalty for passing unconstitutional laws and 2) it sets an insurmountable precedent. Why would you go through all that when any opposition will have to go through years of expensive litigation, even if it's possible to be recognized as having "standing", for the *possiblity* that your case of individual liberty *might* be heard.

So instead of the input of millions of Americans doing it the way it should be done (the amendments process via our elected representatives and state ratification), the question - whatever the question is - ultimately comes down to the *opinion* of 9 people who are appointed for life to have the last word.

The 16th and 17th amendments under the evil leadership Woodrow Wilson truly were the coup d-etat and coup de grace of the United States of America: a) the tax bills would no longer be apportioned to the states by population, thus big states with large populations could now spend without recourse - i.e. facing the voters after taking that big tax bill home with them; b)the states are no longer represented in congress, and therefore the Senate (the states' representatives) no longer introduce constitutional amendments that the state legislatures want to see, thereby forever upsetting the balance of power between the states and the federal government. Now the only way the states can ever take back any power or limit the growth an expansion of an ever-expanding and ever more opressive government is to invoke a constitutional convention where the states can put forth and propose amendments.

I'm surprised the good ol' US of A has lasted the 100 years since their institution... Well it hasn't quite been 100 years. And just think we have Wilson and Obama as the bookends on that 100 years - the worst two presidents imaginable in my not so humble opinion.
 
Last edited:
saturno_v said:
Machine guns, for all practical purpose are already out of reach of gun owners...let's not kid ourselves.
Click to expand...

Wait, you really said that? And you've been a member here for how long?

I understand why somebody else said you are here to stir the pot.
 
ConstitutionCowboy said:
The Second Amendment is quite different from the First - and the rest of them as well. The Second Amendment is absolute. Even the Thirteenth Amendment allows for servitude(basically slavery) to the state in certain instances.

Nowhere in the Second Amendment is there any word, phrase, clause or sentence granting government any power to sidestep the prohibition to infringe upon the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms.

Woody
Click to expand...
Listen, I try my best to stay away from internet battles and I can see this is not going to get me anywhere so I will leave it at this.

I know that is what the NRA has sold and you are good at repeating a talking point. You may even find someone with a little credibility that can be paid enough to defend it. But its just not true. The 2nd amendment is not an exception. It was not intended to be or written to be different than any of the others. You can probably cut and past a few quotes from the 18th century that may make it appear that it is, but when studied as a whole it is very clear that the authors did not have any intention of singling out the 2nd or any other amendment.

I do believe that its basis in historical law from state constitutions back to English Law, is based in self preservation that, at the time, was expressed in militia. The nationalization of state militia did not however make the amendment obsolete as leftists will argue. Gun ownership for self defense is absolutely a constitutionally protected right. This has been acknowledged by the Supreme Court. But there is no evidence at all, anywhere, that supports your position that it is somehow different. None.

That being said, compromise is insane. I personally believe there are far more restrictions on gun ownership than are acceptable, needed, helpful, or constitutional. But those restrictions are not inherently unconstitutional because the restrict.

Ive said my peace multiple times on this thread. Understanding who I am conversing with I will let it go. I enjoy this sight a lot and learn a lot about guns from people who know far more than I do. Keep up the good fight and do not compromise.
 
And Kludge, While I disagree with part of your first comments in post 162, I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment of the 16th and 17th. Devastating.



To somehow apply this post to THR, no more compromises!!
 
Yep, no more compromises.

Now, we need to start pushing for things we want.

How about removing suppressors, SBR's, and SBS's from the NFA as a start? Let's not be happy with the status quo. It's not time to rest, and it's certainly not time to surrender more in a misguided hope that we can somehow appease those who disagree with us. It's time to push harder.

And FWIW, though I am an NRA member (reluctantly), the NRA doesn't seem to have a plan to win back anything that's been lost. All the literature they send me focuses on sending money to cling to what we have left. Well we've got a Republican Congress now and we might just be able to win something back. Even if it's just having the minimum barrel length for an SBR changed from 16" to 12" - something that's almost not even noticeable. Now is the time to take the offensive and push for some kind of win. Win something back!

That's all I got. I'm outta this one too.
 
Last edited:
"Nuclear weapons"
I would trust any individual, or even small group, that had the resources and wherewithal to score their own nuke far more than a government. 1) The question is moot, since nukes are a nation-scale undertaking, 2) our nukes are essentially in the care of individuals working on behalf of our government already ('upstanding' citizens, like Truman, Nixon, and Obama), 3) nukes have only been used offensively or recklessly in testing by governments. To move the argument further away from the pointlessly hyperbolic realm of nuclear weapons, I would argue the same criteria apply to bombers, large stockpiles of ordnance, chemical weapons, heavy artillery, and yes, aircraft carriers. To move the argument back to actual reality; the reason none of these things are issues (remembering that someone so rich to afford them won't be easily constrained by mere law ;)) is because the cost inherent to any of them is beyond what any rational human would devote to defense or hobby. They darn sure wouldn't go out and do something foolish that would cause them to be destroyed or taken away, either. The closest thing to the "doomsday scenario" of a person or corporation mounting a private war of any scale that I can think of, is probably the Dole Pineapple takeover of the Hawaiian kingdom --and that was with tacit US backing, as I recall (such a responsible and upstanding citizen of the world, that Government ;))

Bringing the question back down further to what I like to call "ground level," or "what actually matters," I would remind readers that rules/restrictions on the use and storage of weaponry/anything under legitimate safety considerations is most certainly allowable under the constitution and our principles. Limits on how/how much powder you can legally store, where/how you can discharge your weapons, and yes, arguably on how (and maybe where) you can carry arms are all perfectly valid --so long as failing to do so by definition infringes upon the rights of others (i.e. walking around with a lit matchlock in a highly flammable environment). RPGs are actually remarkably safe and controllable weapons, but there is wisdom in barring their use or presence in areas where only collateral damage could result. Same with grenades and any number of "destructive devices" like large-bore rifles and pepperboxes. In truth, the fact that the owner/user would still be liable for the damage caused by their weapons would effectively keep them from behaving recklessly. But, thanks to the demons inherent to human nature, these lines are blurred by ulterior motives, and soon we forget why we needed rules or restrictions in the first place. Anti's want restrictions to make gun ownership impractical if not criminal. Gun owners want freedom simply so we won't become criminals without intent or harm to others. I'd say it's pretty clear which has a greater claim to morality, which is why I side with gun rights. That old axiom about moderation and liberty applies.

"Some people just can't handle unlimited unadulterated liberty. Some because they are criminal. Some because they are immoral. Some because they want to exercise dominion or control over others. Some because of greed. Or (generally) a combination of those."
I think for most it's simply weakness. I know I wouldn't appreciate having complete, unfettered freedom in all my actions; I wouldn't know what to do with myself. Far too much responsibility for the likes of me, or possibly any person. Working for the Man for a chunk of the day gets me bread, though, and gives me more appreciation for the time I do have at my own bidding.

"That being said, compromise is insane."
Nah, I think it's simply just incorrect. At the end of the day, all gunnies want is "to be let alone" to quote Mr. Davis, and that's the kind of yes/no situation that 'compromise' isn't even applicable to. Whether to count slaves as half or 3/5's a person --that's a compromise. Whether to allow a person to be bonded in servitude or not --there is no means to a mutual agreement. What I don't understand is why anti's can't grasp how dangerous proceeding down such a path is. I really do think a lot of them would provoke open war in this country in an effort to better manage our unruly society :scrutiny:

"Machine guns, for all legal purposes are already out of reach of gun owners...let's not kid ourselves."
Yes, let's not kid ourselves about how easy it is to illegally manufacture an open bolt machinegun. Heck, in legal parlance, you can do it accidentally through no action on your own part (broken/worn disconnect/sear)

And lastly, Kludge;
I am heartened to know at least one other person understands just how villainous Woodrow Wilson really was. I used to think both he and Bismarck were of the same kind; well-intentioned, ruthless fools blindly pursuing their vision of justice (Germany for Bismarck, 'humanity' for Wilson). But there are so many examples of the man pursuing the most destructive course of action in any given situation, here and abroad, that I can't see it as anything but the intent of a madman to break the world so it might be remade in his image. To a certain extent, his wish has been fulfilled, with a Europe (and soon, America) so broken and codependent that it must coalesce into ever larger and more unaccountable governing bodies (the Eurozone, and the US Federal government). Peace at any price. If only his face was put on Rushmore instead of Jefferson, we point to the monument as a warning of what to look out for in our leaders (yes, even Washington exercised some very questionable leadership during the Whiskey Rebellion, especially acute given the proximity to the revolution waged over practically the same thing).

TCB
 
Last edited:
Okay, that was pretty funny :D. I especially liked how the Anti girl gets progressively fatter and crumb-strewn over the course of the strip --nice attention to detail, there :p

Sadly, the comic applies to pretty much every freedom there is :(

TCB
 
ArfinGreebly: Superb argument.

And if the NRA doesn't have the most influence supporting the Second Amendment on a national level, maybe some people imagine that another organization has similar clout and experience on Capitol Hill?

We can deal with the extra paper in the mail box, by the way.

If this other organization exists, which has similar influence, the name seems to be a secret.
 
goon said:
How about removing suppressors, SBR's, and SBS's from the NFA as a start? Let's not be happy with the status quo. It's not time to rest, and it's certainly not time to surrender more in a misguided hope that we can somehow appease those who disagree with us. It's time to push harder.
Click to expand...

That is not demanding enough. How about demanding the repeal of the whole NFA? Unrealistic? Sure. There will be intense resistance to such a demand. So we do what the antis always want us to do--we compromise. And accept the removal of suppressors from the NFA. For health reasons. Then we come back in the next session of Congress and demand the repeal of the NFA and GFSZA. And compromise by accepting the removal of SBRs.

That's how the antis do it and that is why we keep complaining that we keep compromising ant they keep winning. Let's just turn the tables.
 
Ignition Override said:
ArfinGreebly: Superb argument.

And if the NRA doesn't have the most influence supporting the Second Amendment on a national level, maybe some people imagine that another organization has similar clout and experience on Capitol Hill?

We can deal with the extra paper in the mail box, by the way.

If this other organization exists, which has similar influence, the name seems to be a secret.

Click to expand...

Maybe the SAF?

The Second Amendment Foundation have been serious players in recent years.

Without them we don't have Heller and McDonald.

They're the real deal. They are, as we used to say, "the goods."

 
barnbwt said:
"Nuclear weapons"
I would trust any individual, or even small group, that had the resources and wherewithal to score their own nuke far more than a government.
Click to expand...

Because so many nuclear weapons have been used improperly by governments in the ~70 years nuclear weapons have been around?

If the islamic state scores a nuke, will you stand by your statement?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

W
  • Locked
Is the Vermont and Alaska 'Model' of Carry the 2A Ultimate?
2
Replies
26
Views
1K
Cosmoline
C
TanklessPro
  • Locked
Do you avoid a buisness because of their anti 2a views?
2 3 4 5
Replies
112
Views
3K
Saakee
S
C
  • Locked
Anti-2a logic flaw
Replies
17
Views
907
EddieNFL
E
ScrapMetalSlug
  • Locked
Why aren't we compromising?
2 3
Replies
57
Views
2K
kimbernut
K
W
  • Locked
"Find Compromise in Gun Debate"
2 3
Replies
57
Views
3K
txgolfer45
T
Back
Top