Gun Control Compromise

[August West]

We've already compromised our Rights with 22,000 restrictive gun laws already on the books. Also, sweeping Fed Laws like NFA 1934, and GCA 1968 are a travesty. States have passed extremely restrictive gun laws. ALL of them unconstitutional.

22,000 unenforceable gun laws. The way the NRA designed them to be. Is it unconstitutional to ban the sale of guns in vending machines?

Really? You're asserting that all the gun laws on the books are unenforceable, and therefore we need more gun laws, because THESE will somehow miraculously be enforceable where all the others aren't? THAT'S your argument?!

THAT`S my argument. Anyone who wants a gun can get one. 22,000 gun laws or 22 million, they aren`t worth a damn.

 

[Pogo]

We should all own nukes. Because "shall not be infringed" means what it says.

We should own what our government owns.

Don't want us to own nukes? Get rid of them.

Nope, can't do dat. Why not? Second Amendment.

 

[Pilot1]

THAT`S my argument. Anyone who wants a gun can get one. 22,000 gun laws or 22 million, they aren`t worth a damn.

So, you are saying the yet more laws won't solve the violence, and murder issues? I agree. What do you recommend?

 

[satrebil]

When they wrote that Constitution there was no such thing as even the Minié ball yet ---- let alone F-14s, Uzis, tanks, drones, "surgical strikes" etc. You go ahead and take your stand on your front lawn with your pea-shooter and let us know how many you bring down, Rambeaux.

Ahh yes the predictable leftist "but the government has XXXX so your guns are meaningless" argument.

Do you morons actually believe you can just start lobbing missiles and tank shells into residential areas without killing a metric shit ton of innocent bystanders that would result in perpetual insurgency? How fucking stupid are you, honestly?

 

[Pogo]

When they wrote that Constitution there was no such thing as even the Minié ball yet ---- let alone F-14s, Uzis, tanks, drones, "surgical strikes" etc. You go ahead and take your stand on your front lawn with your pea-shooter and let us know how many you bring down, Rambeaux.

You are misinformed.

Thomas Jefferson purchased a Puckle Gun.

As for the other "arms" many private citizens owned gunships, cannons, etc.

You are telling us that the founders did not contemplate advancements in technology (as you exercise your free speech via a computer). That is simply not the case.

I'm afraid that IS the case, given linear time. By definition if Constitution-writers.... or anyone at all anywhere .... could have conceived of nukes and drones and submarines and internal combustion engines...... then they would have developed them INTO those manifestations. Eighteenth-century muskets had nowhere remotely near the accuracy/efficiency/quickness of an AR-15, but the musket mentality was the technological context DURING the time they wrote all that. Which means, plainly, that the term "Arms" has a floating definition that changes with every new tech twist. Once Claude-Étienne Minié did his thing in the 19th century, the 18th century definition of "Arms" was already obsolete. "Arms" had bee redefined.

The 2A is the only part of the Bill of Rights that refers to a specific physical technology. And any specific physical technology is continually subject to change and development. ALL of the other entries in the BofR refer to concepts.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The 2A is the only part of the Bill of Rights that refers to a specific physical technology. And any specific physical technology is continually subject to change and development. ALL of the other entries in the BofR refer to concepts.

"freedom of the PRESS"???

The technology angle is ridiculous. As technology improves, the last thing the founders would have wanted is to limit the people in their ability to defend themselves with equally effective arms. I have already demonstrated to you that the founders contemplated advancements in technology and you have provided me no reason to believe that they would have limited the right in any way.

.

 

[Rigby5]

We've already compromised our Rights with 22,000 restrictive gun laws already on the books. Also, sweeping Fed Laws like NFA 1934, and GCA 1968 are a travesty. States have passed extremely restrictive gun laws. ALL of them unconstitutional.

22,000 unenforceable gun laws. The way the NRA designed them to be. Is it unconstitutional to ban the sale of guns in vending machines?

Really? You're asserting that all the gun laws on the books are unenforceable, and therefore we need more gun laws, because THESE will somehow miraculously be enforceable where all the others aren't? THAT'S your argument?!

THAT`S my argument. Anyone who wants a gun can get one. 22,000 gun laws or 22 million, they aren`t worth a damn.

That makes no sense because anyone who want drugs also can get them, and it was easy to get alcohol during prohibition.
The fact you can NEVER succeed in preventing criminals from getting guns with threats of penalties less than they already intend to risk, is why there should likely be NO gun laws, not more.
So then gun laws only empower fascists who target honest people who are the ones who should be armed.
Anyone who says that police or the military is more trustworthy with arms, is a fascist traitor who should be shot.
The whole point of a democratic republic is that ONLY the general population can be trusted with arms, and that anyone trying to disarm them is trying to instead turn this into a fascist dictatorship.

 

[satrebil]

The 2A is the only part of the Bill of Rights that refers to a specific physical technology. And any specific physical technology is continually subject to change and development. ALL of the other entries in the BofR refer to concepts.

False.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

*effects plural : movable property

My computer is not a concept. It is one of my effects. It is also a physical piece of technology that is protected from unreasonable search and seizure under the 4th Amendment, as are countless other things I own that the founding fathers never envisioned.

 

[Pogo]

The 2A is the only part of the Bill of Rights that refers to a specific physical technology. And any specific physical technology is continually subject to change and development. ALL of the other entries in the BofR refer to concepts.

"freedom of the PRESS"???

The technology angle is ridiculous. As technology improves, the last thing the founders would have wanted is to limit the people in their ability to defend themselves with equally effective arms. I have already demonstrated to you that the founders contemplated advancements in technology and you have provided me no reason to believe that they would have limited the right in any way.

I see it's on to the "let's act stupid" tactic.

The term "freedom of the press" does not mean an actual physical printing press may not be shut down. "Press" is a metaphor here. Whatever technology improves the 18th century printing press has no effect on the intellectual CONTENT of that technology, which is what it CLEARLY FUCKING MEANS. Not "freedom of the physical instrument".

 

[Rigby5]

THAT`S my argument. Anyone who wants a gun can get one. 22,000 gun laws or 22 million, they aren`t worth a damn.

So, you are saying the yet more laws won't solve the violence, and murder issues? I agree. What do you recommend?

We know what the causes of crime are, like poverty, injustice, lack of opportunity in education, jobs, housing, health care, etc.
It is easy to vastly reduce murders very quickly.
But increasing gun law intimidation won't work at all.
All that does is require responsible citizens to distrust government even more, and stockpile even more arms, for the rebellion that becomes even more inevitable.

Clearly any and all federal gun legislation at all is totally illegal. It is entirely under state or local jurisdiction. The BATF needs to be totally disbanded.

 

[Pogo]

The 2A is the only part of the Bill of Rights that refers to a specific physical technology. And any specific physical technology is continually subject to change and development. ALL of the other entries in the BofR refer to concepts.

False.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

*effects plural : movable property

My computer is not a concept. It is one of my effects. It is also a physical piece of technology that is protected from unreasonable search and seizure under the 4th Amendment, as are countless other things I own that the founding fathers never envisioned.

The concept in that passage is "Seized" --- not "effects". It describes, as do the others, what the government cannot do, i.e. is restricted from doing --- 'Seizing". It lays out the requirements the government must meet in order to seize them; what those effects are and how they develop technologically, is irrelevant to the act of seizure.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I see it's on to the "let's act stupid" tactic.

Let's keep the discussion free from bullshit, can we?

The term "freedom of the press" does not mean an actual physical printing press may not be shut down. "Press" is a metaphor here. Whatever technology improves the 18th century printing press has no effect on the intellectual CONTENT of that technology, which is what it CLEARLY FUCKING MEANS. Not "freedom of the physical instrument".

The same can be said for "arms" in the way you try to limit them. The founders CLEARLY meant arms to mean self-defense and defense of state. You can't have it both ways.

The technology angle cannot be true without screwing up other freedoms.

.

 

[Foxfyre]

I see lefties frequently screech about how 2A supporters refuse to compromise. Well, that's because there's never BEEN a compromise, rather a one-sided chipping away of 2nd Amendment rights with nothing offered in return.

So here, I'll offer an actual compromise. You want universal background checks? I can get behind that. But in exchange I want universal reciprocity on CCW permits.

Deal?

Fuck that.

UBC for zero restrictions on all firearms.

If you can pass a UBC, you're safe with a machine gun, right?'


.

I'd be fine with that too. The point I'm making is that none of our existing laws were "compromises". They are one-sided restrictions.

Yes, so the compromise would be that it's THEIR turn to give something up, not us giving anything else.

That is INCLUDED in the compromise. We on the pro 2A side agree to universal background checks for ALL firearms but they in return will agree to universal CC reciprocity. We are giving them something in return for something we want which is a hell of a lot more than they have been willing to negotiate with us.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The concept in that passage is "Seized" --- not "effects". It describes, as do the others, what the government cannot do, i.e. is restricted from doing --- 'Seizing". It lays out the requirements the government must meet in order to seize them; what those effects are and how they develop technologically, is irrelevant to the act of seizure.

The 2A describes what the government cannot do (infringe) and LEAVES OUT any method or requirement the government must meet in order to infringe. What those arms are and how they develop technologically, is irrelevant to the act of infringing.

 

[Rigby5]

The 2A is the only part of the Bill of Rights that refers to a specific physical technology. And any specific physical technology is continually subject to change and development. ALL of the other entries in the BofR refer to concepts.

False.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

*effects plural : movable property

My computer is not a concept. It is one of my effects. It is also a physical piece of technology that is protected from unreasonable search and seizure under the 4th Amendment, as are countless other things I own that the founding fathers never envisioned.

The concept in that passage is "Seized" --- not "effects". It describes, as do the others, what the government cannot do, i.e. is restricted from doing --- 'Seizing". It lays out the requirements the government must meet in order to seize them; what those effects are and how they develop technologically, is irrelevant to the act of seizure.

Federal gun control, whether seizing them after they have been acquired or seizing them to they can not be acquired, it totally and completely illegal. It clearly is completely out of federal jurisdiction, and violates the 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments as well.

 

[satrebil]

The 2A is the only part of the Bill of Rights that refers to a specific physical technology. And any specific physical technology is continually subject to change and development. ALL of the other entries in the BofR refer to concepts.

False.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

*effects plural : movable property

My computer is not a concept. It is one of my effects. It is also a physical piece of technology that is protected from unreasonable search and seizure under the 4th Amendment, as are countless other things I own that the founding fathers never envisioned.

The concept in that passage is "Seized" --- not "effects". It describes, as do the others, what the government cannot do, i.e. is restricted from doing --- 'Seizing". It lays out the requirements the government must meet in order to seize them; what those effects are and how they develop technologically, is irrelevant to the act of seizure.

Is that so? Let's apply your same argument to the 2A now, shall we?

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Pogo says

'The concept in that passage is "keep and bear" --- not "arms". It describes, as do the others, what the government cannot do, i.e. is restricted from doing --- 'infringing". .... what those ARMS are and how they develop technologically, is irrelevant to the act of INFRINGING.'

Way to argue yourself into a corner, assclown. Now go away.

 

[Pogo]

The concept in that passage is "Seized" --- not "effects". It describes, as do the others, what the government cannot do, i.e. is restricted from doing --- 'Seizing". It lays out the requirements the government must meet in order to seize them; what those effects are and how they develop technologically, is irrelevant to the act of seizure.

The 2A describes what the government cannot do (infringe) and LEAVES OUT any method or requirement the government must meet in order to infringe. What those arms are and how they develop technologically, is irrelevant to the act of infringing.

The 2A is the only part of the Bill of Rights that refers to a specific physical technology. And any specific physical technology is continually subject to change and development. ALL of the other entries in the BofR refer to concepts.

False.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

*effects plural : movable property

My computer is not a concept. It is one of my effects. It is also a physical piece of technology that is protected from unreasonable search and seizure under the 4th Amendment, as are countless other things I own that the founding fathers never envisioned.

The concept in that passage is "Seized" --- not "effects". It describes, as do the others, what the government cannot do, i.e. is restricted from doing --- 'Seizing". It lays out the requirements the government must meet in order to seize them; what those effects are and how they develop technologically, is irrelevant to the act of seizure.

Federal gun control, whether seizing them after they have been acquired or seizing them to they can not be acquired, it totally and completely illegal. It clearly is completely out of federal jurisdiction, and violates the 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments as well.

You're both right.

That's why that sleazy neighbor of yours, and mine, should be able to own a nuke. And a shoulder-fired missile for those days when you're bored and a plane goes by. And tanks, lots of tanks. Heat-seeking missiles. ICBMs.

Remember, these are going to your enemies/competitors/rivals. But it'll work out just great.

Careful what you wish for.

 

[Rigby5]

The concept in that passage is "Seized" --- not "effects". It describes, as do the others, what the government cannot do, i.e. is restricted from doing --- 'Seizing". It lays out the requirements the government must meet in order to seize them; what those effects are and how they develop technologically, is irrelevant to the act of seizure.

The 2A describes what the government cannot do (infringe) and LEAVES OUT any method or requirement the government must meet in order to infringe. What those arms are and how they develop technologically, is irrelevant to the act of infringing.

Since it is up to states and municipalities to decide when infringement is a civic need, clearly any and all federal participation is strictly forbidden. While NYC could reasonably legislate against loaded weapons in vehicles, that would clearly be extremely unsafe in rural bear country in Alaska. So again, any federal involvement would have to inherently be illegal infringement. The feds can't know or decide. So they were totally prohibited any and all jurisdiction to decide anything, very explicitly by the 2nd amendment.
Anyone who thinks there is any advantage at all for having any federal weapons law at all, has got to be insane.
If someone is harming one state by transporting something illegal from another state where it may be legal, there are already thousands of laws that take care of that, and the actual substance is not relevant to the federal jurisdiction on not violating the laws of one state from another. You don't need a BATF for that. And in fact the BATF is inherently violating the jurisdiction of both states in that case.

 

[Pogo]

The 2A is the only part of the Bill of Rights that refers to a specific physical technology. And any specific physical technology is continually subject to change and development. ALL of the other entries in the BofR refer to concepts.

False.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

*effects plural : movable property

My computer is not a concept. It is one of my effects. It is also a physical piece of technology that is protected from unreasonable search and seizure under the 4th Amendment, as are countless other things I own that the founding fathers never envisioned.

The concept in that passage is "Seized" --- not "effects". It describes, as do the others, what the government cannot do, i.e. is restricted from doing --- 'Seizing". It lays out the requirements the government must meet in order to seize them; what those effects are and how they develop technologically, is irrelevant to the act of seizure.

Is that so? Let's apply your same argument to the 2A now, shall we?

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Pogo says

'The concept in that passage is "keep and bear" --- not "arms". It describes, as do the others, what the government cannot do, i.e. is restricted from doing --- 'infringing". .... what those ARMS are and how they develop technologically, is irrelevant to the act of INFRINGING.'

Way to argue yourself into a corner, assclown. Now go away.

Yes, because "Arms" is a broad definition which changes with its own technology --- like any broad definition would.

"Arms" is the direct object. "What the people keep and bear". That makes it central. You can't have the verb "infringe" without some right to BE infringed, and that right is defined BY THAT DIRECT OBJECT. Without which, it simply does not exist. You can't protect the "right of the people to keep and bear" without specifying WHAT IT IS they may keep and bear.

Sorry if this sailed over your head. Why don't you let the adults handle it.

 

[Pogo]

I see it's on to the "let's act stupid" tactic.

Let's keep the discussion free from bullshit, can we?

The term "freedom of the press" does not mean an actual physical printing press may not be shut down. "Press" is a metaphor here. Whatever technology improves the 18th century printing press has no effect on the intellectual CONTENT of that technology, which is what it CLEARLY FUCKING MEANS. Not "freedom of the physical instrument".

The same can be said for "arms" in the way you try to limit them. The founders CLEARLY meant arms to mean self-defense and defense of state. You can't have it both ways.

The technology angle cannot be true without screwing up other freedoms.

Sure they did. And in that day it would have been inconceivable for a person with some of those "Arms" to walk into a schoolhouse and start strafing twenty kids and teachers. Such an assailant would have had nowhere near the time, or the accuracy, to do that with the known technology of the time.

Hate to be the revealer of disturbing news but Arms can be, and are, used in allllllllllllllll kinds of ways that have zero to do with 'self-defense and defense of state'. And the Amendment cites no such distinction.