Gun Control Compromise

[Chuz Life]

My proposed "compromise" (though I struggle with the right legal language) is that the people have the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms and the government has the right to regulate our "arms" but ONLY with our consent. A consent that is itself fixed with a sunset clause that requires it to be occasionally revisited and renewed. And a "consent" that we, the people have the right to revoke in a time of crisis.

 

[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.

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.

Nice humor, but not a logical argument.
Gun control does not legislate the use and care associated with something inherently capable of being dangerous, but just arbitrarily prohibits in a discriminatory way.
The reality is that all those people likely could find safe and legitimate uses for firearms, but pointing them at people who are clearly not intending a threat, is a totally separate violation of law, "Conduct Regardless of Life".
So what they are doing that is illegal is not owning firearms, but recklessly pointing them.
You can make all the laws you want about not being reckless with anything dangerous, but it is inherently illegal to just blanket try to prohibit them.
That is because clearly guns do have legitimate uses. We don't have to look all the way back to the Korean grocers in the LA riots to see that. If guns did not have legitimate uses, then police and military would not carry them. And we must always trust the average population much more than government employees, without a doubt. Because clearly government is always corrupt to some degree, and will always tend to becoming much more corrupt over time. That is inherent due to fact people blindly do what those paying them tell them to do, right or wrong.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Why thank you my own personal Terrorist cupcake. I've left you speechless. My job is done here.

NOT SPEECHLESS, just no reason to talk to a ignorant traitor

On Feb 1, 2019, I get another installment from my serving 20 years in the US Military. I guess I need to turn in my Traitor membership card since I have been an extreme dismal failure at it.

the oath you took says you defend the constitution not state laws

hey john kerry also was in the military,,,so youre in good company

The US Constitution are what ALL State Constitutions are based on, cupcake. The US Constitution allows the State and local constitutions to make things work. If you support one, you support them all. The days of the State Constitutions being different than the US one is long gone.

But if you misinterpret one you are also going to misinterpret the other like you do, terrorist cupcake.

go peddle your crazy elsewhere,,,we're full up here

You wanted to call names, cupcake. But when someone else joins the fun and games you want to .....well, it's not fun and games anymore. But you already know I'm game, bully.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The difference between "most" and "all" is very minimal in my opinion.

I suspect that if our Founding Fathers were sitting in a pub and drafting out the Second Amendment over lunch and there was a drunk banishing a gun they would disarm him and then go back to protecting our rights to keep and bear arms.

as like with the 1st A,,, the 2nd protects us from the government not from the guy sitting next to us

and as for the mentally ill, its a due process that is used to declare a person unfit for possession not the government

Due process has to start with the Legislated arm of the Government in all levels. The Courts can only rule on the existing laws in place and cannot write new laws.

unless like in this case its restricted by the constitution

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is pretty clear

Which does not apply to the State and Locals for the most part. The only thing they can't do is not allow you to have a handgun in your home but they can require you to have to register your gun AND have a permit to own it. Most States and Locals don't go that far but the ones that do are perfectly legal. The 2nd Amendment only restricts the Federals, not the States.

Wrong.....the 2nd Amendment prevents this...at all levels of Government.

Then I suggest you get the Supreme Court to agree with you. They don't. And I have a feeling they are a damn well smarter than you are.

 

[Pilot1]

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.

The States, and thus their cities agreed to the Constitution when they became States. That requires them to abide by Amendments like the Second Amendment. Legally, they can NOT pass gun control laws that infringe on our Natural Right to Keep, and Bear Arms as guaranteed by the 2A. Any restrictions on Arms we can carry IS an infringement. All those state and city laws should be nullified by the courts, but as the courts have become politically corrupt, they uphold them. The Founders missed that one.

I would add mental illness to the list above as also a cause of crime. Otherwise, I think you nailed it.

 

[Chuz Life]

.

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.

Opinion noted.

Just because you missed the concept or that it sails over your head. That does not mean the concept isn't there.

 

[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.

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.

Now you're backpedaling. First you said that no amendment besides the 2nd referenced a specific technology. Now you're claiming "arms" is a broad definition. Specific and broad are polar opposites, so which is it?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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.

.

The Puckle Gun is a bad example. It was more of a danger to the one shooting it than the one being shot at. It had a tendency to blow up or fire rounds out of sequence. That is the reason the revolver rifle and shotgun never caught on.

 

[progressive hunter]

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.

.

The Puckle Gun is a bad example. It was more of a danger to the one shooting it than the one being shot at. It had a tendency to blow up or fire rounds out of sequence. That is the reason the revolver rifle and shotgun never caught on.

just because it a bad one has nothing to do with it

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

You can own a tank legally. A guy in Houston bought one. You can also own a F-15 if you can afford to purchase one.

That's the real trick. Can you afford to purchase one?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The Puckle Gun is a bad example. It was more of a danger to the one shooting it than the one being shot at. It had a tendency to blow up or fire rounds out of sequence. That is the reason the revolver rifle and shotgun never caught on.

It is a bad example of technological advances demonstrating that the founders contemplated automatic machine guns?

I think you are missing the point.

It may have been a shitty design, but repeating fire was contemplated and accepted with the 2A was drafted.

I win.

.

 

[Flash]

 

[Desperado]

There will never be a compromise on Gun Control if the GOP ever wants to be re elected

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The Puckle Gun is a bad example. It was more of a danger to the one shooting it than the one being shot at. It had a tendency to blow up or fire rounds out of sequence. That is the reason the revolver rifle and shotgun never caught on.

It is a bad example of technological advances demonstrating that the founders contemplated automatic machine guns?

I think you are missing the point.

It may have been a shitty design, but repeating fire was contemplated and accepted with the 2A was drafted.

I win.

.

It was by far NOT an automatic weapon. The sequence to fire each and every round took a bunch of time and it was complicated. I forget exactly the true sequence but it wasn't much faster than a musket with a competent shooter. At best, you could call it a sort of autoloader, not an automatic weapon. Pull this, turn this, push this, close this, rotate that and then, maybe, it won't blow up in your face when you fire it. Then you get to go through it all over again. At first glance it sort of looks like a Gatlin if you squint just right and drink enough. But it's not even close. It had zero effect on anyone except for Puckle who died broke.

 

[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.

Opinion noted.

Just because you missed the concept or that it sails over your head. That does not mean the concept isn't there.

The concept is certainly there --- it's the verbal phrase "shall not be infringed". But that concept hangs on a technology, and that technology has a definition, and that definition changes with development, resulting in a definition that is radically different now that it was 230 years ago. In other words "Arms" to them did not mean anything like what "arms" means to us now. That's so long ago we're not even capitalizing nouns any more.

By contrast, the concepts of, say, freedom of the press, religion, personal effects, etc are not influenced by changing technology. The fact that you can now read a bible on an e-reader, which you couldn't do in the 18th century, has no bearing on whether the government can prevent you from reading it. Neither books nor e-readers kill anybody.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

There will never be a compromise on Gun Control if the GOP ever wants to be re elected

I would think there are a hell of a lot more important issues that the GOP needs to address other than Gun Control to stay in power and it appears that they aren't doing a very good job of it right now. Maybe we should ban guns from the GOP Politicians to avoid them from shooting themselves in the foot so much.

 

[Pilot1]

There will never be a compromise on Gun Control if the GOP ever wants to be re elected

They don't have that much vision. Also, they always think the Media, and Democrat voters will all of a sudden "like them" if they do things like that. It is why you see Republican defecting their core message, but Democrats never, or very rarely do.

The GOP are their own worst enemy.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

.

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.

Opinion noted.

Just because you missed the concept or that it sails over your head. That does not mean the concept isn't there.

The concept is certainly there --- it's the verbal phrase "shall not be infringed". But that concept hangs on a technology, and that technology has a definition, and that definition changes with development, resulting in a definition that is radically different now that it was 230 years ago. In other words "Arms" to them did not mean anything like what "arms" means to us now. That's so long ago we're not even capitalizing nouns any more.

By contrast, the concepts of, say, freedom of the press, religion, personal effects, etc are not influenced by changing technology. The fact that you can now read a bible on an e-reader, which you couldn't do in the 18th century, has no bearing on whether the government can prevent you from reading it. Neither books nor e-readers kill anybody.

I think our founders were bright enough to realize our arms would not always be muskets and single shot rifles. While they probably never dreamed of the internet, I’m sure they knew we would develop ways to spread the news to more people and much quicker than they were able to when they wrote our Constitution.

Today, people can get radicalized religiously from thousands of miles away and act on what they learned.

Our founders built in a way to change the Constitution for things that outgrew their concept at the time. But most people must be behind those changes for it to take place.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[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.

Nice humor, but not a logical argument.
Gun control does not legislate the use and care associated with something inherently capable of being dangerous, but just arbitrarily prohibits in a discriminatory way.
The reality is that all those people likely could find safe and legitimate uses for firearms, but pointing them at people who are clearly not intending a threat, is a totally separate violation of law, "Conduct Regardless of Life".
So what they are doing that is illegal is not owning firearms, but recklessly pointing them.
You can make all the laws you want about not being reckless with anything dangerous, but it is inherently illegal to just blanket try to prohibit them.
That is because clearly guns do have legitimate uses. We don't have to look all the way back to the Korean grocers in the LA riots to see that. If guns did not have legitimate uses, then police and military would not carry them. And we must always trust the average population much more than government employees, without a doubt. Because clearly government is always corrupt to some degree, and will always tend to becoming much more corrupt over time. That is inherent due to fact people blindly do what those paying them tell them to do, right or wrong.

Those projections of possible actions are irrelevant to the point --- they simply illustrate where that point goes.

The point being, and remaining, that if I have the uninfringed right to keep and bear Arms, then I can own the same nuke Little Rocket Man can. Because words mean what they mean.

 

[Pogo]

Interesting, the brown skin.

Says a lot, doesn't it.