Gun Control Compromise

[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.

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?

Good luck with remedial reading. May your teacher be a specific broad.

 

[Cecilie1200]

]
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?!

He's right. Many are unenforceable, and all of them are ignored by criminals. However, I think his point is that the only thing that would really work would be total gun BANS, and door to door gun CONFISCATION. If that actually were tried on a large scale (larger than what happened in New Orleans, and Connecticut) it would get very ugly, very fast.

Oh, I get his point. And he's only right to the extent that the best lies contain a tiny nugget of truth wrapped in mounds of bullshit. The gun laws on the books that are unenforceable/ineffective are NOT the fault of the NRA. Those can be laid at the feet of the left, and nothing they're proposing to "fix" things would be any more useful.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Oh, okay. So now you want us to believe that you can come up with a law that criminals, who ignore laws by definition, will obey?

Yeah, that's all kinds of smarter than your last attempt.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Yeah, and something they'll pay just as much attention to as they do everything else they don't like. Ink wouldn't even be dry on that "compromise" before they went back on it.

No. Compromise requires that both sides be operating in good faith, and that's one thing leftists never do.

It also requires that you accept that perhaps a little of what they demand might possible be reasonable and/or tolerable. That's not the case, either.

So no. I can't think of a single reason why I should or would give up one iota of rights that are explicitely recognized by the Constitution, certainly not just because a bunch of cretins are afraid of me having them. Sounds far more like a reason to hang onto them even harder.

 

[satrebil]

Good luck with remedial reading. May your teacher be a specific broad.

Way to try and duck out of your own stupidity.

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.

You clearly don't even know what the word 'concept' means. The concept in the 2A is arms you blathering fool. Arms to them meant the same thing as it does to us today - defense tools that are sufficient to fight off tyranny. The technology is irrelevant. A bat is not a sword. A sword is not a taser. A taser is not a gun. Yet all fit the notion, or concept, of arms.

 

[Desperado]

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.

That is only 1/2 of it, Reading the Bible hasn't changes by what you read it on, However, Freedom of Speech has been changed by technology. Now it is so much easier to publish your views. with the help of the internet, Think it was as easy to spread your opinion to the world even 20 years ago as it is now?

 

[Pogo]

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.

That is only 1/2 of it, Reading the Bible hasn't changes by what you read it on, However, Freedom of Speech has been changed by technology. Now it is so much easier to publish your views. with the help of the internet, Think it was as easy to spread your opinion to the word even 20 years ago as it is now?

Dooooon't think so, no. But that still has zero to do with the fact that the gummint can't legislate it away, whether you're on an Apple tablet or a stone tablet.

At base the difference is, whatever technology changes happen in media, doesn't change what you can do (say) with that new or old technology. The content will be the same regardless its medium.

Whatever technology changes happen in "Arms" by contrast--- very much does change what you can do with it.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

So, because it didn't work, the founders could not have contemplated the concept of the auto-loading, repeating rifle when they drafted the 2A?

You're making a shitty argument.

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

And this is the entire point. The Left wants to circumvent the 2A, rather than do it the proper way.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Dooooon't think so, no. But that still has zero to do with the fact that the gummint can't legislate it away, whether you're on an Apple tablet or a stone tablet.

Why is that different than legislating away the right to bear arms?

 

[Pogo]

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.

So, because it didn't work, the founders could not have contemplated the concept of the auto-loading, repeating rifle when they drafted the 2A?

You're making a shitty argument.

That's because you're not looking at it.

The point is that, when they wrote that 'the Right to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed', they were using a different definition of "Arms" that we use now. The definition we have now, did not exist for them.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

That's because you're not looking at it.

The point is that, when they wrote that 'the Right to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed', they were using a different definition of "Arms" that we use now.

Please, give us the founders' definition of arms and explain how that is different than this:

arms | Definition of arms in English by Oxford Dictionaries

Weapons; armaments.

Definition of ARM
arm

noun (2), often attributive
Definition of arm (Entry 3 of 5)

1a: a means (such as a weapon) of offense or defense

the definition of arms
arm
2
[ahrm]
noun

1. Usually arms. weapons, especially firearms.

 

[Pogo]

That's because you're not looking at it.

The point is that, when they wrote that 'the Right to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed', they were using a different definition of "Arms" that we use now.

Please, give us the founders' definition of arms and explain how that is different than this:

arms | Definition of arms in English by Oxford Dictionaries

Weapons; armaments.

Definition of ARM
arm

noun (2), often attributive
Definition of arm (Entry 3 of 5)

1a: a means (such as a weapon) of offense or defense

the definition of arms
arm
2
[ahrm]
noun

1. Usually arms. weapons, especially firearms.

We all know what "Arms" means. What kinds of things fit into that definition is what has (d)evolved over the centuries.

Those writing about them in the 18th century, Constitutionally or in any context, were limited to the technology they knew at the time. As anyone is in any given time.

 

[Crixus]

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 lefties want universal background checks? I can get behind that. But in exchange I want universal reciprocity on CCW permits.

Deal?

Nope. Your need to CCW all over the country doesn’t make what ever a “universal background check” worthwhile to me. No one can even define what a universal background check even is.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

We all know what "Arms" means. What kinds of things fit into that definition is what has (d)evolved over the centuries.

Those writing about them in the 18th century, Constitutionally or in any context, were limited to the technology they knew at the time. As anyone is in any given time.

That does not change the concept of "arms" and the protections the founders intended.

If you want to amend the constitution to clarify what is meant by "arms" then go ahead. But, you can't just argue your way around the clear intent of the founders just because you don't like it.

.

 

[2aguy]

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.

So, because it didn't work, the founders could not have contemplated the concept of the auto-loading, repeating rifle when they drafted the 2A?

You're making a shitty argument.

That's because you're not looking at it.

The point is that, when they wrote that 'the Right to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed', they were using a different definition of "Arms" that we use now. The definition we have now, did not exist for them.

Yeah....Scalia covered this in Heller....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

 

[2aguy]

We all know what "Arms" means. What kinds of things fit into that definition is what has (d)evolved over the centuries.

Those writing about them in the 18th century, Constitutionally or in any context, were limited to the technology they knew at the time. As anyone is in any given time.

That does not change the concept of "arms" and the protections the founders intended.

If you want to amend the constitution to clarify what is meant by "arms" then go ahead. But, you can't just argue your way around the clear intent of the founders just because you don't like it.

.

Pogo, the idiot, doesn't know what he/she/it is talking about...from Justice Scalia and the opinion in Heller....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

 

[Pogo]

We all know what "Arms" means. What kinds of things fit into that definition is what has (d)evolved over the centuries.

Those writing about them in the 18th century, Constitutionally or in any context, were limited to the technology they knew at the time. As anyone is in any given time.

That does not change the concept of "arms" and the protections the founders intended.

If you want to amend the constitution to clarify what is meant by "arms" then go ahead. But, you can't just argue your way around the clear intent of the founders just because you don't like it.

.

Pogo, the idiot, doesn't know what he/she/it is talking about...from Justice Scalia and the opinion in Heller....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

Another wag so in need of remedial reading that he doesn't even notice he posted the same thing twice.

I made no argument about what "applies". I noted what was defined.

I did however get a chuckle at the old Reducto Ad My-Cherrypicked-SCOTUS-Judge-Said-This-ium.

Paging Mister Dred Scott................ call for Mr. Dred Scott.....

 

[Pogo]

We all know what "Arms" means. What kinds of things fit into that definition is what has (d)evolved over the centuries.

Those writing about them in the 18th century, Constitutionally or in any context, were limited to the technology they knew at the time. As anyone is in any given time.

That does not change the concept of "arms" and the protections the founders intended.

If you want to amend the constitution to clarify what is meant by "arms" then go ahead. But, you can't just argue your way around the clear intent of the founders just because you don't like it.

Correct, it does not change the concept of "Arms". Nor did I ever claim it does.

It changes the (again) definition.

 

[2aguy]

.

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.

You are a dumb ass...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.


And more......the AR-15 is a protected rifle...according to Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf

That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625. The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.