Gun Control Compromise

[Rigby5]

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.

Yes....we know that, you can't use your gun to murder someone else...that is the limitation on the 2nd Amendment...you can't use your gun to violate the Rights of another Citizen......just like you can't use the 1st Amendment to violate the Rights of another citizen....done, over, that is all you need to know....any other limit is an infringement on the Right to own and carry a gun.

There is absolutely no limit in the 2nd amendment because the 2nd amendment only is a total and complete bar to any and all federal jurisdiction. Sure there is a limit to what individuals can do with weapons, but all that has to be specified by state or local laws. The 2nd is without any qualification, totally banning any federal involvement in weapons legislation, at all.
The 2nd amendment is not a source of any right, but is a complete denial of any federal authority at all. All rights have to pre-exist, because if they did not, then you could not have the authority to write about them in any constitution or any law.
So the 2nd amendment is not the source of any right.
It is just a restriction on the federal government.

 

[Pilot1]

The idea was that private citizens could at least have some deterrent to a tyrannical government to make them think twice before attempting to Oppress them. That deterrent was being armed.

 

[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.

It isn't up to interpretation except for people who want to limit it...then they always interpret it to exclude more and more guns and equipment...."Shall not be infringed" is easy to read, it is short and to the point...... you want to limit it....so it is "ambiguous" .....we get it....so...No.

That is the last 4 words. Tell me how all the rest is still applicable?

The last 4 words bans all federal jurisdiction over guns.
But if you want to understand how the beginning about the well regulated militia still applies, that is easy.
There was more need for a militia in the founders days because there were no police or standing army close by, but the need for a militia never can go away, first of all because the police can't respond fast enough to actually protect anyone, but also because as government always become corrupt, eventually another rebellion will be as necessary as the one in 1776, with the police and military being the bad guys, once again.
The phrase "well regulated" means practiced, so that they will be efficient at arms when the time comes for that to be necessary. And that will never go away. It could be a tsumani, nuclear war, plague, insurrection, invasion, etc. Does not matter. Anyone who thinks society will continue on forever as is, is just foolish. Anyone who is not prepared and passes that down to their children, is irresponsible.

 

[Pilot1]

Well Regulated = Well trained, well equipped. That means private citizens HAD to posses firearms so they could train, and be proficient with them. Also, that militia section is SEPERATE from the Right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms.

When clocks became common, they were called "Regulators" because they could TIME things, and measure an element of proficiency. Regulation in this context had NOTHING to do with restrictions, nor limitations. Nothing. Yet the weak minded, and ignorant constantly says that it does ever after being shown over and over again that is false.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

It also says, "Well Regulated Militias"... which means regulating who can have what kinds of guns among the people.

But the reality is, militias don't work. It's why you need well trained professional soldiers and police. Not these guys.

View attachment 240425

When you tell me how you can keep guns out of the hands of these guys, let me know.

No, "well regulated" means to prevent impediments, such as in the interstate commerce clause, where the federal government is charged with the duty of "regulating" interstate commerce. It is quite clear from what the founders wrote, that the word regulate means to maintain regularity, such as regular digestion and bowel movements. In the case of interstate commerce, it means preventing one state from blocking commerce from another state, and creating an obstruction. The phrase "well regulated" in the 2nd amendment means that the militia has to have had regular practice with firearms so that if some emergency arises, they will be well practiced and ready.

It is obvious it does NOT at all mean restricting who should have guns or what kind, because the next part of the sentence say the "right of the people to bare arms shall not be infringed". Which clearly prohibits any federal jurisdiction at all. The term "the people" clearly means defensive arms are an individual right, and only local laws are then legal. Feds are supposed to have very limited jurisdiction, and only over what is explicitly given over to federal jurisdiction in the constitution. No where is there anything in the constitution giving any federal jurisdiction over weapons, except their importation.

And as far as militia goes, they almost ALWAYS work.
Not only was the US created by a successful militia, but there were no police of significant federal force for over a whole century. And in fact, the US military has consistently been beaten by every single militia they have ever gone up against, from Vietnam to Syria.
In places like Iraq and Afghanistan, we can hold the militia at bay, but only at great costs. So clearly the militia will eventually win. They almost always do.

Our militias were well known for murdering Indian women and children and running quickly from Indian braves.
Gnadenhutten massacre - Wikipedia
Most of general St. Clair`s troops were militia who got a well deserved ass kicking.
St. Clair's Defeat - Wikipedia

Militia usually lose when they try to fight as ordinary troops because they have different advantages and weaknesses.
The strength ordinary troops comes from formations and chain of command, while militia are bad at that.
But the strength of militia is the ability to hide and blend in, finding and hitting weak spots, and being right there instead of having to travel great distances.
So yes militia have been defeated, like Braddock's Defeat, but only when not acting like a militia, and instead attempting to act like ordinary troops. If you think of the Civil war even, the north did not defeat the south in battle, but essentially starved them into surrender by blockade.

AS for the Indian Wars, the native Americans were essentially only a militia as well. Being a militia does not make you right necessarily, but certainly is less corrupt than distant government hiring people willing to kill for pay.

 

[Rigby5]

Well Regulated = Well trained, well equipped. That means private citizens HAD to posses firearms so they could train, and be proficient with them. Also, that militia section is SEPERATE from the Right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms.

When clocks became common, they were called "Regulators" because they could TIME things, and measure an element of proficiency. Regulation in this context had NOTHING to do with restrictions, nor limitations. Nothing. Yet the weak minded, and ignorant constantly says that it does ever after being shown over and over again that is false.

Another common example is how we talk about digestion being "regular".
We eat fiber to say regular, and that is the opposite of being restricted.

 

[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?

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.

Except in the real world where what you believe doesn't actually happen...as more Americans own and actually carry guns our crime rates have gone down, not up...how do you explain that, genius?

If you had a point, the following would not be true...but it is true, showing you are wrong...

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17.25 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2018...guess what happened...


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

It's also gone down in areas that people don't carry gun more frequently. NYC is a good example. It went from the Murder capital of the World to the safest Metro City in the World and Guns had nothing to do with it by either criminals nor private citizens. If you make a cesspool then you get what you describe. If you clean that cesspool up using Social Programs (yes, cupcake, job creation is a social program) then the gun crime and all other crimes go down. Neighborhoods that are gainfully employed won't tolerate all this nonsense and it attracts Jobs and Businesses to it. Unfortunately, only NYC seems to have learned that lesson.

Not sure I would give NYC as a positive example.
While there certainly are ways to make a city safer without guns, that entails more jobs, opportunities, education, vocational training, better owner occupied housing opportunities, equality, etc.
I don't think NYC did anything good.
Instead I think they just make their cops more abusive, and murdered and intimidated a lot more poor people.
Like the Eric Garner who had a legal right to sell single cigarettes.
I saw the video, and it was murder, without any legal basis for arrest, much less jumping on him and deliberately causing asphyxiation.
I would rate the NYC police as some of the most criminal in the world, and have an incredibly high murder rate.

 

[Rigby5]

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

No, you gave me some NRA propaganda where other people talk about his methodology with such stupidity as "He didn't just count nice white people".

Moron, I gave you the actual research paper that he did to change the number from 43 to 2.7, and that has nothing to do with the NRA....you have been caught again, making up dumb crap, and now you spew...."But...the NRA....but....the NRA...."

I stopped reading at the word Moron. You still don't get it. This type of argument only makes the other side sound more right to others that are sitting on the fence. Try being nice. If you are getting angry, "STEP AWAY FROM THE KEYBOARD", there is a wonderful world out there. My breakfast is soon to be had and that's more important than anything posted in here.

Good advice. It is an emotional subject. I should try to be more calm. Thanks.

 

[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.

Except in the real world where what you believe doesn't actually happen...as more Americans own and actually carry guns our crime rates have gone down, not up...how do you explain that, genius?

If you had a point, the following would not be true...but it is true, showing you are wrong...

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17.25 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2018...guess what happened...


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

It's also gone down in areas that people don't carry gun more frequently. NYC is a good example. It went from the Murder capital of the World to the safest Metro City in the World and Guns had nothing to do with it by either criminals nor private citizens. If you make a cesspool then you get what you describe. If you clean that cesspool up using Social Programs (yes, cupcake, job creation is a social program) then the gun crime and all other crimes go down. Neighborhoods that are gainfully employed won't tolerate all this nonsense and it attracts Jobs and Businesses to it. Unfortunately, only NYC seems to have learned that lesson.

Not sure I would give NYC as a positive example.
While there certainly are ways to make a city safer without guns, that entails more jobs, opportunities, education, vocational training, better owner occupied housing opportunities, equality, etc.
I don't think NYC did anything good.
Instead I think they just make their cops more abusive, and murdered and intimidated a lot more poor people.
Like the Eric Garner who had a legal right to sell single cigarettes.
I saw the video, and it was murder, without any legal basis for arrest, much less jumping on him and deliberately causing asphyxiation.
I would rate the NYC police as some of the most criminal in the world, and have an incredibly high murder rate.

I would suggest you volunteer for a Ride Along, especially on a Friday or Saturday swing shift. You might be a lot more tolerant after a couple of calls.

 

[Pilot1]

 

[Rigby5]

They are serious about it in Colorado Springs. They banned all semi autos. Commie California has banned all kinds of firearms. They are doing it in Washington State. It took the Supreme Court to stop the banning in DC and Chicago. Any place the asshole Democrats have the authority they have imposed significant restrictions on the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms and that is despicable.

The filthy Left would do it in a New York minute any place if they thought they could get away with it.

And this is a good thing. You don't need a gun, and most people aren't comfortable with you having one.

Says you, citing you.

The reality is, if we put gun control to a vote, most of the 79% of us who don't own them would be just fine with sensible gun control.

Says you, citing you.

Not everyone shits their pants at the sight of a gun, Joey.

There is a so called Veterans club here. I won't go into the negatives about it but for one item that has been talked about and more than a few veterans refuse to go there over it.

The Directors Son walks around with an open carry gun on his hip. He says it's to protect everyone in there. No, it's not. It's to make his Johnson feel bigger, nothing more. He's more than a bit of a fruitcake to begin with. To makes things even weirder, they say they are supporting US Veterans yet both the Director and the Son are Canadians. Yes, through the wiggle room of the laws, the Son gained Citizenship and then spent 2 years in the US Army. He used that to gain his various permits although Open Carry does not require any special licensing. He hasn't set one foot in a CCW class. He used the clause about a newly separated Military Person being able to apply and get a CCW just by filing. Do I need to be armed equally to protect everyone around him from Him if push comes to shove? In the event of an emergency I am quite certain he will do something stupid like draw and shoot when maybe there wasn't enough reason. 2 years of pushing a pencil in the US Army doesn't get your ready for anything other than how to administer first aid for paper cuts.

Good point that being experienced with a firearm from years in the military does not mean one knows the laws, rights, and responsibilities of weapons in civilian situations.
Military experience is about the most opposite of civilian life one could imagine.

 

[progressive hunter]

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.

Yes....we know that, you can't use your gun to murder someone else...that is the limitation on the 2nd Amendment...you can't use your gun to violate the Rights of another Citizen......just like you can't use the 1st Amendment to violate the Rights of another citizen....done, over, that is all you need to know....any other limit is an infringement on the Right to own and carry a gun.

There is absolutely no limit in the 2nd amendment because the 2nd amendment only is a total and complete bar to any and all federal jurisdiction. Sure there is a limit to what individuals can do with weapons, but all that has to be specified by state or local laws. The 2nd is without any qualification, totally banning any federal involvement in weapons legislation, at all.
The 2nd amendment is not a source of any right, but is a complete denial of any federal authority at all. All rights have to pre-exist, because if they did not, then you could not have the authority to write about them in any constitution or any law.
So the 2nd amendment is not the source of any right.
It is just a restriction on the federal government.

its a restriction on all government,,,or it would say only feds,,,,
specifics matter,,,you just cant go makin shit up for the sake of makin shit up

 

[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.

Except in the real world where what you believe doesn't actually happen...as more Americans own and actually carry guns our crime rates have gone down, not up...how do you explain that, genius?

If you had a point, the following would not be true...but it is true, showing you are wrong...

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17.25 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2018...guess what happened...


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

Your obsession with guns is noted.

 

[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?

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.

Except in the real world where what you believe doesn't actually happen...as more Americans own and actually carry guns our crime rates have gone down, not up...how do you explain that, genius?

If you had a point, the following would not be true...but it is true, showing you are wrong...

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17.25 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2018...guess what happened...


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

It's also gone down in areas that people don't carry gun more frequently. NYC is a good example. It went from the Murder capital of the World to the safest Metro City in the World and Guns had nothing to do with it by either criminals nor private citizens. If you make a cesspool then you get what you describe. If you clean that cesspool up using Social Programs (yes, cupcake, job creation is a social program) then the gun crime and all other crimes go down. Neighborhoods that are gainfully employed won't tolerate all this nonsense and it attracts Jobs and Businesses to it. Unfortunately, only NYC seems to have learned that lesson.

Not sure I would give NYC as a positive example.
While there certainly are ways to make a city safer without guns, that entails more jobs, opportunities, education, vocational training, better owner occupied housing opportunities, equality, etc.
I don't think NYC did anything good.
Instead I think they just make their cops more abusive, and murdered and intimidated a lot more poor people.
Like the Eric Garner who had a legal right to sell single cigarettes.
I saw the video, and it was murder, without any legal basis for arrest, much less jumping on him and deliberately causing asphyxiation.
I would rate the NYC police as some of the most criminal in the world, and have an incredibly high murder rate.

I would suggest you volunteer for a Ride Along, especially on a Friday or Saturday swing shift. You might be a lot more tolerant after a couple of calls.

I did not mean to imply that what police do is easy, but that likely it should not usually be done, and should be done more by the local community or volunteers. It is not a good job to just pay strangers to do. Most of it is domestic violence, which police really can't do.
Much of the problems are caused by government, such as the war on drugs, unfair tax laws, lack of protection for unions, poor educational systems, etc. Police can't fix those problems, and are not intended to. The government likely intends police to make them worse.

 

[Pilot1]

Good point that being experienced with a firearm from years in the military does not mean one knows the laws, rights, and responsibilities of weapons in civilian situations.
Military experience is about the most opposite of civilian life one could imagine.

Nor does being in current law enforcement, or retired law enforcement. I have been a member at several gun clubs over my years of shooting, and have seen some police practice poor safety habits, and also have been inaccurate shooters. I have seen some very good ones too, but it doesn't guarantee you are more proficient than the average gun owner.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

Yes....we know that, you can't use your gun to murder someone else...that is the limitation on the 2nd Amendment...you can't use your gun to violate the Rights of another Citizen......just like you can't use the 1st Amendment to violate the Rights of another citizen....done, over, that is all you need to know....any other limit is an infringement on the Right to own and carry a gun.

There is absolutely no limit in the 2nd amendment because the 2nd amendment only is a total and complete bar to any and all federal jurisdiction. Sure there is a limit to what individuals can do with weapons, but all that has to be specified by state or local laws. The 2nd is without any qualification, totally banning any federal involvement in weapons legislation, at all.
The 2nd amendment is not a source of any right, but is a complete denial of any federal authority at all. All rights have to pre-exist, because if they did not, then you could not have the authority to write about them in any constitution or any law.
So the 2nd amendment is not the source of any right.
It is just a restriction on the federal government.

its a restriction on all government,,,or it would say only feds,,,,
specifics matter,,,you just cant go makin shit up for the sake of makin shit up

There was no Bill of Rights originally.
They only added the Bill of Rights after too many states were hesitant to sign on to the new proposed constitution, after the Articles of Confederation were shown to not be working because they were too weak.
So historically it is clear the whole point of the Bill of Rights was to lay our strict limits to federal authority.
The 9th and 10th amendments are most clear on this.
They say that the Bill of Rights was to have no effect on existing state or municipal authority or powers.

However, the "incorporation" process has used the Bill of Rights as a means of determining what individual rights likely should also be protected from state and local abuse. That is more the "pneumbra" argument and not a strict intent of the Bill of Rights, in my opinion. But here is more on that:
{...
The Bill of Rights had little judicial impact for the first 150 years of its existence; in the words of Gordon S. Wood, "After ratification, most Americans promptly forgot about the first ten amendments to the Constitution."[80][81] The Court made no important decisions protecting free speech rights, for example, until 1931.[82] Historian Richard Labunski attributes the Bill's long legal dormancy to three factors: first, it took time for a "culture of tolerance" to develop that would support the Bill's provisions with judicial and popular will; second, the Supreme Court spent much of the 19th century focused on issues relating to intergovernmental balances of power; and third, the Bill initially only applied to the federal government, a restriction affirmed by Barron v. Baltimore (1833).[83][84][85] In the twentieth century, however, most of the Bill's provisions were applied to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment—a process known as incorporation—beginning with the freedom of speech clause, in Gitlow v. New York (1925).[86] In Talton v. Mayes (1896), the Court ruled that Constitutional protections, including the provisions of the Bill of Rights, do not apply to the actions of American Indian tribal governments.[87] Through the incorporation process the United States Supreme Court succeeded in extending to the States almost all of the protections in the Bill of Rights, as well as other, unenumerated rights.[88] The Bill of Rights thus imposes legal limits on the powers of governments and acts as an anti-majoritarian/minoritarian safeguard by providing deeply entrenched legal protection for various civil liberties and fundamental rights.[89][90][91] The Supreme Court for example concluded in the West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) case that the founders intended the Bill of Rights to put some rights out of reach from majorities, ensuring that some liberties would endure beyond political majorities.[89][90][91][92] As the Court noted, the idea of the Bill of Rights "was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts."[92][93] This is why "fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."
...}
United States Bill of Rights - Wikipedia

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

It isn't up to interpretation except for people who want to limit it...then they always interpret it to exclude more and more guns and equipment...."Shall not be infringed" is easy to read, it is short and to the point...... you want to limit it....so it is "ambiguous" .....we get it....so...No.

That is the last 4 words. Tell me how all the rest is still applicable?

The last 4 words bans all federal jurisdiction over guns.
But if you want to understand how the beginning about the well regulated militia still applies, that is easy.
There was more need for a militia in the founders days because there were no police or standing army close by, but the need for a militia never can go away, first of all because the police can't respond fast enough to actually protect anyone, but also because as government always become corrupt, eventually another rebellion will be as necessary as the one in 1776, with the police and military being the bad guys, once again.
The phrase "well regulated" means practiced, so that they will be efficient at arms when the time comes for that to be necessary. And that will never go away. It could be a tsumani, nuclear war, plague, insurrection, invasion, etc. Does not matter. Anyone who thinks society will continue on forever as is, is just foolish. Anyone who is not prepared and passes that down to their children, is irresponsible.

Tell the readers what was the meaning of arms? And are the arms in play in the 18th century the same as the arms which exist in the 21st?

Taking at face value your comment, you or me and everyone else has the absolute right to own, posses and have in our custody and control Surface to Air Missiles, land mines, anti tank weapons, even anti-personal grenades.

Do you support such weapons available to the general public?

 

[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?

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.

Except in the real world where what you believe doesn't actually happen...as more Americans own and actually carry guns our crime rates have gone down, not up...how do you explain that, genius?

If you had a point, the following would not be true...but it is true, showing you are wrong...

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17.25 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2018...guess what happened...


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

Your obsession with guns is noted.

What else is there but weapons?
If you think your vote is going to protect you, from a criminal or tyranny, I think you are mistaken.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

all gun laws are unconstitutional

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.

Actually not.

The Second Amendment was incorporated to states and local jurisdictions in 2010. See McDonald v Chicago.

 

[progressive hunter]

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.

Yes....we know that, you can't use your gun to murder someone else...that is the limitation on the 2nd Amendment...you can't use your gun to violate the Rights of another Citizen......just like you can't use the 1st Amendment to violate the Rights of another citizen....done, over, that is all you need to know....any other limit is an infringement on the Right to own and carry a gun.

There is absolutely no limit in the 2nd amendment because the 2nd amendment only is a total and complete bar to any and all federal jurisdiction. Sure there is a limit to what individuals can do with weapons, but all that has to be specified by state or local laws. The 2nd is without any qualification, totally banning any federal involvement in weapons legislation, at all.
The 2nd amendment is not a source of any right, but is a complete denial of any federal authority at all. All rights have to pre-exist, because if they did not, then you could not have the authority to write about them in any constitution or any law.
So the 2nd amendment is not the source of any right.
It is just a restriction on the federal government.

its a restriction on all government,,,or it would say only feds,,,,
specifics matter,,,you just cant go makin shit up for the sake of makin shit up

There was no Bill of Rights originally.
They only added the Bill of Rights after too many states were hesitant to sign on to the new proposed constitution, after the Articles of Confederation were shown to not be working because they were too weak.
So historically it is clear the whole point of the Bill of Rights was to lay our strict limits to federal authority.
The 9th and 10th amendments are most clear on this.
They say that the Bill of Rights was to have no effect on existing state or municipal authority or powers.

However, the "incorporation" process has used the Bill of Rights as a means of determining what individual rights likely should also be protected from state and local abuse. That is more the "pneumbra" argument and not a strict intent of the Bill of Rights, in my opinion. But here is more on that:
{...
The Bill of Rights had little judicial impact for the first 150 years of its existence; in the words of Gordon S. Wood, "After ratification, most Americans promptly forgot about the first ten amendments to the Constitution."[80][81] The Court made no important decisions protecting free speech rights, for example, until 1931.[82] Historian Richard Labunski attributes the Bill's long legal dormancy to three factors: first, it took time for a "culture of tolerance" to develop that would support the Bill's provisions with judicial and popular will; second, the Supreme Court spent much of the 19th century focused on issues relating to intergovernmental balances of power; and third, the Bill initially only applied to the federal government, a restriction affirmed by Barron v. Baltimore (1833).[83][84][85] In the twentieth century, however, most of the Bill's provisions were applied to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment—a process known as incorporation—beginning with the freedom of speech clause, in Gitlow v. New York (1925).[86] In Talton v. Mayes (1896), the Court ruled that Constitutional protections, including the provisions of the Bill of Rights, do not apply to the actions of American Indian tribal governments.[87] Through the incorporation process the United States Supreme Court succeeded in extending to the States almost all of the protections in the Bill of Rights, as well as other, unenumerated rights.[88] The Bill of Rights thus imposes legal limits on the powers of governments and acts as an anti-majoritarian/minoritarian safeguard by providing deeply entrenched legal protection for various civil liberties and fundamental rights.[89][90][91] The Supreme Court for example concluded in the West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) case that the founders intended the Bill of Rights to put some rights out of reach from majorities, ensuring that some liberties would endure beyond political majorities.[89][90][91][92] As the Court noted, the idea of the Bill of Rights "was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts."[92][93] This is why "fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."
...}
United States Bill of Rights - Wikipedia

but there is one now,,,
and not only does it restrict all governments it requires anyone that took an oath to defend them against all infringements


sorry your argument fails on all counts