Gun Control Compromise

[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 The 2nd Amendment is about the only part that has been allowed to get out of date.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 I already pointed out that 2/3rds of it became outdated as of 1917.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.

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.

Correct, it wasn't. There's an amendment process for that. But the term "living" document refers to it being changed without any process at all; it changes by itself according to interpretations.

However the founders limited that change by a huge majority of the country. If it were to be changed by a simple majority, it would be changing every couple of years, thus render it useless as the supreme law of the land. It would be no different than with no constitution and make up (and change) laws based on who is in power at the time.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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.

Then you agree that it's a living and breathing document like our FFs envisioned. They left a back door. But a difficult to operate back door so not every tom, dick and harry could willy nilly change things to suit just themselves.

But I disagree to what the 2nd amendment says. It's up to interpretation and that's the problem. It's not cut and dried as you and others think it is. Some say to throw it out and some say that it is perfect and shouldn't be monkeyed with. I say that it's to ambiguous and badly needs to be kept up with the times. At least clean up the first 2/3rds of it that no longer has any meaning to it.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Then you agree that it's a living and breathing document like our FFs envisioned. They left a back door. But a difficult to operate back door so not every tom, dick and harry could willy nilly change things to suit just themselves.

If by "living document" you mean that it can be amended, then yes, I do agree. Usually, when someone says "living document" they mean that it can be interpreted to fit with the political agenda of the Justices on the Court and their political ilk. They want to bypass the burden of amending.

THAT is BULLSHIT.

If Congress and the States amended the Constitution to restrict certain types of "arms" it would be constitutional to do so. As it stands, there SHOULD be no restrictions.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

But I disagree to what the 2nd amendment says. It's up to interpretation and that's the problem. It's not cut and dried as you and others think it is. Some say to throw it out and some say that it is perfect and shouldn't be monkeyed with. I say that it's to ambiguous and badly needs to be kept up with the times. At least clean up the first 2/3rds of it that no longer has any meaning to it.

But, it clearly says SPECIFICALLY, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That is NOT up to interpretation. There is NO ambiguity there.

You can see where all the distrust and suspicion originates. No one can argue that the quoted portion means anything other than the government shall not restricted the right of people to bear arms. The fact that some DO argue that makes the rest of us CERTAIN that complete ban and confiscation MUST be the ultimate goal.

 

[satrebil]

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.

If marriage was a RIGHT then YOU WOULDN'T NEED A GOVERNMENT PERMISSION SLIP TO GET ONE, DIPSHIT.

In the future I suggest YOU refrain from calling people morons until you understand the difference between a right and a permit.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

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 Tenth Amendment speaks of rights/powers belonging to the federal government, to the states, and to the people.

The Second Amendment is clear about to whom the right which it affirms belongs. It is the right of the people. This means that it does not, and never did, belong to any level of government; not to the federal government, not to the states, not to local governments. It belongs to the people. And it doesn't say or imply that any level of government has the power to infringe it; it says that the right shall not be infringed.

State and local governments have no more legitimate authority to interfere with this right than does the federal government.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

Then you agree that it's a living and breathing document like our FFs envisioned. They left a back door. But a difficult to operate back door so not every tom, dick and harry could willy nilly change things to suit just themselves.

But I disagree to what the 2nd amendment says. It's up to interpretation and that's the problem. It's not cut and dried as you and others think it is. Some say to throw it out and some say that it is perfect and shouldn't be monkeyed with. I say that it's to ambiguous and badly needs to be kept up with the times. At least clean up the first 2/3rds of it that no longer has any meaning to it.

The only ambiguous part about it is whether it was intended for militias only or all people. The problem is before we had a military, militias were just that--the people. And the government didn't supply firearms to those that needed to fight. They brought their own so they needed to be armed.

However many scholars believe that the comma back then was used like a semicolon is used today. It was not a running sentence. So in a sense, it actually reads the militia and the citizens.

The word Arms refers to weapons whether used for offense or defense. In other words you're not going to nuke your neighbor, nor will you need a tank to defend yourself from him. But an AK is an offensive and defensive weapon. Any ban on them (or like firearms) is a violation of the Constitution.

What Does the Word "Arms" Mean in the 2nd Amendment? | | Tenth Amendment Center

 

[Rigby5]

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.

Full auto or not is irrelevant. The founders had coach guns like a blunderbuss that could kill a dozen people with one pull of the trigger.
There has never been a shortage of weapons technology, and clearly the founders wanted us all to have the best military grade weapons if the government was going to or needed them.

 

[HenryBHough]

Once you compromise a single sentence of The U.S. Constitution the whole thing is null and void But, then, it has been since Obama shredded and smoked the original copy that had been in The White House (it was written on paper made from hemp).

But not to worry. Liberals like serfdom.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

Don't see how the 2nd amendment could ever possibly get out of date.
What the founders correctly realized is that it is the people who should be the main source of arms and soldiers in an emergency that required defense.
If you ever rely on paid mercenaries, they will do what ever those paying them will tell them to do, and no democratic republic can withstand that sort of threat.
The paid military obviously is always the biggest threat any country ever faces.

 

[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.

.

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.

Don't see how the 2nd amendment could ever possibly get out of date.
What the founders correctly realized is that it is the people who should be the main source of arms and soldiers in an emergency that required defense.
If you ever rely on paid mercenaries, they will do what ever those paying them will tell them to do, and no democratic republic can withstand that sort of threat.
The paid military obviously is always the biggest threat any country ever faces.

Not to worry. Nobody's getting paid now.

 

[Pogo]

Once you compromise a single sentence of The U.S. Constitution the whole thing is null and void But, then, it has been since Obama shredded and smoked the original copy that had been in The White House (it was written on paper made from hemp).

But not to worry. Liberals like serfdom.

You can't smoke hemp. You can but it gets you nowhere. Doesn't have THC in it.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

Then you agree that it's a living and breathing document like our FFs envisioned. They left a back door. But a difficult to operate back door so not every tom, dick and harry could willy nilly change things to suit just themselves.

But I disagree to what the 2nd amendment says. It's up to interpretation and that's the problem. It's not cut and dried as you and others think it is. Some say to throw it out and some say that it is perfect and shouldn't be monkeyed with. I say that it's to ambiguous and badly needs to be kept up with the times. At least clean up the first 2/3rds of it that no longer has any meaning to it.

The only ambiguous part about it is whether it was intended for militias only or all people. The problem is before we had a military, militias were just that--the people. And the government didn't supply firearms to those that needed to fight. They brought their own so they needed to be armed.

However many scholars believe that the comma back then was used like a semicolon is used today. It was not a running sentence. So in a sense, it actually reads the militia and the citizens.

The word Arms refers to weapons whether used for offense or defense. In other words you're not going to nuke your neighbor, nor will you need a tank to defend yourself from him. But an AK is an offensive and defensive weapon. Any ban on them (or like firearms) is a violation of the Constitution.

What Does the Word "Arms" Mean in the 2nd Amendment? | | Tenth Amendment Center

It does not at all matter if the 2nd amendment was intended for the militias or for all the people, although it does say, "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
All that matters is that all federal jurisdiction over weapons was clearly totally denied.
Why they did that can be subjective or change over time, the bottom line remains the same, that only states and municipalities can legally regulate weapons.

Although I do like your point about differentiating based on whether or not things are purely offensive or can be defensive.

 

[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.

If marriage was a RIGHT then YOU WOULDN'T NEED A GOVERNMENT PERMISSION SLIP TO GET ONE, DIPSHIT.

In the future I suggest YOU refrain from calling people morons until you understand the difference between a right and a permit.

Rights are not absolute. All rights have certain limitations. You have the right to free speech. That doesn't mean you have the right to make slanderous statements about people that cause them harm. It doesn't mean you have the right to set up rock concert speakers in public areas and shout your political beliefs at 3 in the morning. The government has power to regulate the exercise of rights to limited degrees. And that is where licensing kicks in.

This is usually pedestrian stuff for most middle schoolers. Hang in there, you'll get it eventually. Maybe.

 

[Rigby5]

JoeB131 said, "Gun in the house is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than a bad guy."

That is completely wrong and ridiculous.
Correlation is NOT at all similar to causation.
The reality is the statement is not even written correctly because the claim is 17 times, not 43, and it still is not at all scientific.
To be scientific, you would have to take a sample group and divide them into 2 so you have one group as a control, without guns, and then give guns to the other group.

But the reason the statistics are totally wrong is because obviously those who are at risk from a dangerous neighborhood, will likely obtain a gun in the house, while those in some secured, gated community that is perfectly safe, likely will not.
In either case, it would not be gun owenership that made their lives safe or risky.
It never does.
In fact, it is the other way around, in that clearly those who are armed likely do so for good reasons, and are much safer being armed.
It is not like life is safe.
There are over 1 million successful serious, violent crimes each year, and over 10 million attempted serious violent crimes.
So then anyone who suggests weapons are not necessary and have not prevented millions of attempted crimes, is just a liar or lunatic.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Rights are not absolute. All rights have certain limitations.

They are absolute when the constitution states, "shall not be infringed."

But, you can amend it.

.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

If marriage was a RIGHT then YOU WOULDN'T NEED A GOVERNMENT PERMISSION SLIP TO GET ONE, DIPSHIT.

In the future I suggest YOU refrain from calling people morons until you understand the difference between a right and a permit.

You most certainly do NOT at all need a government permission slip to get married.
All states are legally obligated to recognize a "common law" marriage, which is one without a marriage license.
A marriage license is just a convenience, like a will, and is not and can not be required by any government body.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

Agreed.
And also don't forget that when a firearm is used defensively, usually not a shot has to be fired.
So then it is quite possible that a firearm was use to repel hundreds of intruders without firing a shot, before the one time use of the firearm for suicide.
Not that I find anything wrong with using a firearm for suicide.
In another 15 years or so, that is likely what I intend, when the times comes it is necessary.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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?

Wow, so more disaffected citizens will be allowed to carry a concealed gun, what could ever go wrong.

Assuming the vetting process is equal or greater than what a candidate for a badge goes through (full psyc. eval being only one), some fall through the cracks.

Power tends to corrupt, and the simple possession of a gun gives many too much power.

 

[Rigby5]

Rights are not absolute. All rights have certain limitations.

They are absolute when the constitution states, "shall not be infringed."

But, you can amend it.

.

More specifically, when something in the Bill of Rights says, "shall not be infringed", that is only referring to a total abolition on any federal jurisdiction. The Bill of Rights does not intend to restrict the states or municipalities in any way.
It is just a bar on federal jurisdiction.