Gun Control Compromise

[Daryl Hunt]

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.

It used to be that the GOP had the broad support range and had the most diversified groups. Not so anymore. It's become a primarily white only party. Just look at the GOP senate versus the DEM House.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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.

.

Maybe old Ben could have but that's about it. And he didn't have a hand in writing the bill of rights where the 2nd amendment was lifted.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Maybe old Ben could have but that's about it. And he didn't have a hand in writing the bill of rights where the 2nd amendment was lifted.

Let me say that again.

Because the founders saw a full-auto that didn't work, they could not have imagined such a device ever working in the future at the time they wrote the 2A?

Think about that for a minute before you answer.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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.

.

The original intent of the Constitution was that it was supposed to be a living and breathing document. It's supposed to be updated and upgraded to keep up with the times. The 2nd Amendment is about the only part that has been allowed to get out of date. And every part of it needs to be undated. I already pointed out that 2/3rds of it became outdated as of 1917. And for exactly the same reasons, the last phrase also needs to be updated. This is one reason that the Supreme Court avoids 2nd amendment rulings like the black plague. Congress is chicken livered and not doing it's job.

 

[Pogo]

So then you and I can keep and bear nukes. And anything else.

Note that "keep and bear nukes" is not the same as "owning" nukes. I can keep and bear somebody else's nuke. You can too. Highest bidder.

Yes, according to the 2A.

Like I said, if you don't like it....CHANGE IT!!!

No, you want to parse words and "interpret" your way around the CLEAR language of the 2A.

Besides, no citizen owns nukes.

Have you thought that argument through all the way?

Iran---the entire fucking country of Iran---has been trying to get nukes for decades.

Actually I've posted absolutely nothing about "what I 'like'". I've been posting about what *IS*.

you must have posted that on a different thread, cause all youve posted here is whats,,NOT

By all means go ahead and quote where I made a value judgment. I stand behind everything I post.

well everything you posted was devoid of reality and accuracy ,and just your opinion

I provided you with the words and intent of the founders and you ignored it,,,

beyond that no one can help whats ailing you

.
You didn't answer the question, did you.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

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?

That is not a functional proposal, as it would entail a conflict of state versus federal power. Congress can (theoretically) implement universal background checks. However, Congress does not have the power to mandate permit reciprocity, as licensing is a power reserved to the states.

Actually, Congress does have the authority to enact legislation authorizing state reciprocity with regard to concealed carry licenses and permits:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/38?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22concealed+carry+reciprocity+act%22%5D%7D

But you’re correct to note the hypocrisy of conservatives who claim to be ‘advocates’ of “states’ rights.”

You should read the link you're providing. That bill only says that the CCW permit holder would be allowed to conceal carry on federally owned public lands. That bill would not mandate states honor reciprocity.

Furthermore, even if the bill you're showing did demand states honor reciprocity, that would not show constitutionality. Just because Congress does something does not mean it was automatically constitutional.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Maybe old Ben could have but that's about it. And he didn't have a hand in writing the bill of rights where the 2nd amendment was lifted.

Let me say that again.

Because the founders saw a full-auto that didn't work, they could not have imagined such a device ever working in the future at the time they wrote the 2A?

Think about that for a minute before you answer.

They NEVER saw even a full auto that didn't work. It was a concept much like Scifi is to us now. Beam me up Scotty. When the bill of rights were drawn up, most people didn't believe man should or could be able to fly. There were many things we take for granted today that was the dreams of the dreamers then. One thing our FFs were was not dreamers. They were doers. I doubt seriously that any thought of automatic weapons or Nuclear Weapons were even in the deepest recesses of their minds.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The original intent of the Constitution was that it was supposed to be a living and breathing document.

OH MY GOD!!!!!

The biggest LIE EVERY!!!

It's alive. It's ALIVE!!!

That is NOTHING MORE than a BULLSHIT excuse for not using the amendment process.

You are just like every other communist who wants to circumvent the constitution without proper amendment.

It's supposed to be updated and upgraded to keep up with the times.

THROUGH THE AMENDMENT PROCESS!!!!

The 2nd Amendment is about the only part that has been allowed to get out of date.

Bullshit. Lots of "parts" are out of date.
Amend it.

I already pointed out that 2/3rds of it became outdated as of 1917. And for exactly the same reasons, the last phrase also needs to be updated. This is one reason that the Supreme Court avoids 2nd amendment rulings like the black plague. Congress is chicken livered and not doing it's job.

So, until congress does its job, WITH THE CONSENT OF THE STATES through ratification, arms means arms means ALL arms.

It is criminal what politicians have allowed over the past 80-100 years.

 

[progressive hunter]

Yes, according to the 2A.

Like I said, if you don't like it....CHANGE IT!!!

No, you want to parse words and "interpret" your way around the CLEAR language of the 2A.

Besides, no citizen owns nukes.

Have you thought that argument through all the way?

Iran---the entire fucking country of Iran---has been trying to get nukes for decades.

Actually I've posted absolutely nothing about "what I 'like'". I've been posting about what *IS*.

you must have posted that on a different thread, cause all youve posted here is whats,,NOT

By all means go ahead and quote where I made a value judgment. I stand behind everything I post.

well everything you posted was devoid of reality and accuracy ,and just your opinion

I provided you with the words and intent of the founders and you ignored it,,,

beyond that no one can help whats ailing you

.
You didn't answer the question, did you.

I dont see any question marks in your comment


but I did post what is needed to prove your opinion wrong

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

They NEVER saw even a full auto that didn't work. It was a concept much like Scifi is to us now. Beam me up Scotty. When the bill of rights were drawn up, most people didn't believe man should or could be able to fly. There were many things we take for granted today that was the dreams of the dreamers then. One thing our FFs were was not dreamers. They were doers. I doubt seriously that any thought of automatic weapons or Nuclear Weapons were even in the deepest recesses of their minds.

You cannot possibly believe that they didn't contemplate man's ability to harness destructive power. You don't really believe that, do you?

Are you just making more "it's alive" excuses?

The only means of fixing things like that? AMEND!!!

 

[2aguy]

You know, because we keep showing you, that the guy who did that research had to change that number from 43 to 2.3 times....and even then, he kept the same flawed techniques to get even that number...you doofus....

Nope, he never said that.

Tell you what, show me VIDEO of him saying that. DIRECTLY. Not, "how we parse some parts of his research through five sources to kind of get a number that doesn't look so bad."

I gave you his actual paper...you doofus......

 

[progressive hunter]

They NEVER saw even a full auto that didn't work. It was a concept much like Scifi is to us now. Beam me up Scotty. When the bill of rights were drawn up, most people didn't believe man should or could be able to fly. There were many things we take for granted today that was the dreams of the dreamers then. One thing our FFs were was not dreamers. They were doers. I doubt seriously that any thought of automatic weapons or Nuclear Weapons were even in the deepest recesses of their minds.

You cannot possibly believe that they didn't contemplate man's ability to harness destructive power. You don't really believe that, do you?

Are you just making more "it's alive" excuses?

The only means of fixing things like that? AMEND!!!

who better than ben franklin to consider new tech???

 

[2aguy]

You know, because we keep showing you, that the guy who did that research had to change that number from 43 to 2.3 times....and even then, he kept the same flawed techniques to get even that number...you doofus....

Nope, he never said that.

Tell you what, show me VIDEO of him saying that. DIRECTLY. Not, "how we parse some parts of his research through five sources to kind of get a number that doesn't look so bad."

And now this....

The Fallacy of "43 to 1"

The source of the 43-to-1 ratio is a study of firearm deaths in Seattle homes, conducted by doctors Arthur L. Kellermann and Donald T. Reay ("Protection or Peril?: An Analysis of Firearm-Related Deaths in the Home," New England Journal of Medicine, 1986). Kellerman and Reay totaled up the numbers of firearms murders, suicides, and fatal accidents, and then compared that number to the number of firearm deaths that were classified as justifiable homicides. The ratio of murder, suicide, and accidental death to the justifiable homicides was 43 to 1.

This is what the anti-gun lobbies call "scientific" proof that people (except government employees and security guards) should not have guns.

Of the gun deaths in the home, the vast majority are suicides. In the 43-to-1 figure, suicides account for nearly all the 43 unjustifiable deaths.
-------

So by counting accidents and suicides, the 43-to-1 factoid ends up including a very large number of fatalities that would have occurred anyway, even if there were no gun in the home.

Now, how about the self-defense homicides, which Kellermann and Reay found to be so rare? Well, the reason that they found such a low total was that they excluded many cases of lawful self-defense. Kellermann and Reay did not count in the self-defense total of any of the cases where a person who had shot an attacker was acquitted on grounds of self-defense, or cases where a conviction was reversed on appeal on grounds related to self-defense. Yet 40% of women who appeal their murder convictions have the conviction reversed on appeal. ("Fighting Back," Time, Jan. 18, 1993.)

In short, the 43-to-1 figure is based on the totally implausible assumption that all the people who die in gun suicides and gun accidents would not kill themselves with something else if guns were unavailable. The figure is also based on a drastic undercount of the number of lawful self-defense homicides.

Moreover, counting dead criminals to measure the efficacy of civilian handgun ownership is ridiculous. Do we measure the efficacy of our police forces by counting how many people the police lawfully kill every year? The benefits of the police — and of home handgun ownership — are not measured by the number of dead criminals, but by the number of crimes prevented. Simplistic counting of corpses tells us nothing about the real safety value of gun ownership for protection.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

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?

That is not a functional proposal, as it would entail a conflict of state versus federal power. Congress can (theoretically) implement universal background checks. However, Congress does not have the power to mandate permit reciprocity, as licensing is a power reserved to the states.

Oh, so NOW you lefties care about state rights?

Tell me then: if "licensing is a power reserved to the states" then why didn't you and your ilk respect that in regards to gay marriage?

Oh so now you blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah!

I'm not a 'leftist' you moron.

And if you really want to complain about how state licensing power applies to marriage licenses and gay marriage, it's really quite simple. In fact, gun rights are a perfect example.

The Supreme Court held that marriage is a fundamental right of individuals, protected by the constitution. And the same constitution's equal protection laws furthermore demand that same sex marriage be equally protected as heterosexual marriage.

The question isn't about states' rights, it's about individuals' rights. The constitution is chiefly concerned with protecting individuals' rights, not states' rights. Very simple.

Furthermore, I never said anything about states' rights. By talking about "states' rights" you are proving you are an idiot. That has nothing to do with anything. The CCW issue is about state power versus federal power. Rights and powers are two different things. Some morons can't understand the difference, because you love suckling at the state teat and bowing down to worship the almightiness of power.

Just because you have the power to do something does not mean you have the right to do it. The government has great powers. But it has limited rights. For example, a government has power to legislate. That does not mean any piece of legislation is within its rights to enact.

In the future, I suggest you refrain from saying things that are insanely stupid, as if looking for an outlet for your mindless emotions, like some kind of mental diarrhea.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

The only compromise is suspending the communists and lame stream media from the gallows. The is why they fear the 2nd Amendment, they know it has sealed their ultimate fate so long as it exists.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

.

The original intent of the Constitution was that it was supposed to be a living and breathing document. It's supposed to be updated and upgraded to keep up with the times. The 2nd Amendment is about the only part that has been allowed to get out of date. And every part of it needs to be undated. I already pointed out that 2/3rds of it became outdated as of 1917. And for exactly the same reasons, the last phrase also needs to be updated. This is one reason that the Supreme Court avoids 2nd amendment rulings like the black plague. Congress is chicken livered and not doing it's job.

If our founders wanted the Constitution to be a living document, they wouldn't have wrote a Constitution at all.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

They NEVER saw even a full auto that didn't work. It was a concept much like Scifi is to us now. Beam me up Scotty. When the bill of rights were drawn up, most people didn't believe man should or could be able to fly. There were many things we take for granted today that was the dreams of the dreamers then. One thing our FFs were was not dreamers. They were doers. I doubt seriously that any thought of automatic weapons or Nuclear Weapons were even in the deepest recesses of their minds.

You cannot possibly believe that they didn't contemplate man's ability to harness destructive power. You don't really believe that, do you?

Are you just making more "it's alive" excuses?

The only means of fixing things like that? AMEND!!!

I can see that you are dead set in your ideas and nothing including reality will ever change them. Fine, that's your right.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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.

.

The original intent of the Constitution was that it was supposed to be a living and breathing document. It's supposed to be updated and upgraded to keep up with the times. The 2nd Amendment is about the only part that has been allowed to get out of date. And every part of it needs to be undated. I already pointed out that 2/3rds of it became outdated as of 1917. And for exactly the same reasons, the last phrase also needs to be updated. This is one reason that the Supreme Court avoids 2nd amendment rulings like the black plague. Congress is chicken livered and not doing it's job.

If our founders wanted the Constitution to be a living document, they wouldn't have wrote a Constitution at all.

And it would have been chiseled in stone as well with the clause that it can't ever be changed by anyone. Seems that wasn't the case.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I can see that you are dead set in your ideas and nothing including reality will ever change them. Fine, that's your right.

Why is it so hard to accept the fact that "arms" means all weapons without exclusion, whatever they may be, and that "shall not be infringed" means no restrictions or regulation.

You act like the 2A is set in stone. It can be amended. What I cannot tolerate is circumventing the amendment process. That is tyranny.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Actually, I didn't vote for Obama in 2008. I voted for him in 2012 because I fucking hate Mormons with a passion that would blot out suns.

Frankly, running a business (you inherited from your dad who did all the real work) doesn't really prepare you for running a government, as Trump is demonstrating amply now.

I see you never addressed that comprehension problem either. I said he ran or owned over 500 businesses. HIs father was just a real estate guy.

Well, at least she got something out of it.. that's the point. Enlightened self interest. If you have half the population voting for free stuff, it's because you've made it so hard for them to get it on their own.

Nothing hard about getting a cell phone on your own. Get a job and pay for it like everybody else.

Naw, man, I just enjoy needling you about it. The best thing in the world for you in your situation would be to have Single Payer, where they don't care who you work for or how sick you are... you get covered.

I think you're just sacred of what the doctor might say. Perhaps even you know how bad of a problem you have.

Why should anyone need to get an ID to practice a human right.

And, yes, SCOTUS had no idea what they were talking about in Heller...

Obviously they did and that's why Americans being armed are protected by the Constitution.

Voting is a human right? When did that happen? A human right is a right everybody on earth has. And trust me, if you don't have the smarts to get an ID (which even a mentally retarded person does) then you're not smart enough to vote either.

Ever hear of "no taxation without representation"?
If you are going to be taxed, you then have the right to vote.
The fact there are dictators who violate this right, does not mean the right does not exist anyway.
For example, the fact there are murders does not mean you don't have the right to life.

And the problem with voter ID is that they range from $35 to $75, and they must be free to the poor.

No, not necessarily.

In Ohio, you pay taxes where you live and where you work. I'm sure a lot of places are like that. However, you don't get a right to vote on representatives where you work--only where you live.

You do have a right to vote, and that's where the problem is. Nearly half of the people in our country pay no federal income tax, and they get to vote money out of other people's pockets for their benefit.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

And it would have been chiseled in stone as well with the clause that it can't ever be changed by anyone. Seems that wasn't the case.

Right. You have the amendment process, which you seem to be afraid to use.

.