Would you be willing to accept this Second Amendment compromise?

[Auld Phart]

Comparing cities and states is like comparing apples and oranges.

States==lots of spread out people.

Comparing cities and states is like comparing apples and oranges.

Cities==lots of people in a small area.

 

[jasonnfree]

So Joe, there are areas in the country, usually in certain parts of the big cities, where there is much gun violence. Other parts of the country, very little gun violence even where most everybody has a gun. Let each state or municipality determine gun laws.

There's little gun violence because there are few people. There's lots of gun violence where there are lots of people.

One more time. EVERY OTHER INDUSTRIAL DEMOCRACY HAS FIGURED THIS OUT. There's no good reason for civilians to own guns, and if you ban them or limit them, you don't have gun violence.

But America, like the special Retard who keeps writing down "2+2=Cat", keeps trying to explain why there are other reasons why we have 32,000 gun deaths a year and how this is totally acceptable.

Every other industrial democracy didn't have gun rights like we do in the first place. With Obama willing to take in as many syrian refugees as possible, mostly young men.... good luck being disarmed.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

By the way retard I DO own a firearm, an M1 carbine one of those evil semi automatic rifles your ilk call assault rifles.

You've also said that you need to be heavily medicated to keep from going on homicidal rampages.

Which is a pretty good reason why you shouldn't have a gun.

Liar. quote me where I said that.

 

[JoeB131]

Every other industrial democracy didn't have gun rights like we do in the first place. With Obama willing to take in as many syrian refugees as possible, mostly young men.... good luck being disarmed.

Guy, only 13 Americans were killed by terrorists in 2014.

A lot more were killed by Second Amendment Enthusiasts shooting up churches, schools, theaters, etc.

Just because 200 years ago, some dumb-ass slave rapists couldn't write a militia amendment properly is not a good reason to let crazy people buy guns.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Would you be willing to accept this Second Amendment compromise?"

Again, this is a 'compromise' in search of a 'dispute' – universal background checks are currently Constitutional, as a Federal court has held with regard to Colorado's UBC statute; and citizens are able to obtain concealed carry permits in each of the 50 states; there's little point to accept comprehensive reciprocity when UBC laws can be enacted in jurisdictions that so desire, laws likely to pass Constitutional muster.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.

What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home
So.... no.

 

[Treeshepherd]

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home
So.... no.

The amendment just says "Arms". That could be nuclear arms, like a personal suitcase nuke. Could be a vehicle-mounted grenade launcher on an L.A. Freeway. The amendment doesn't say anything about a hyper ADD 4th-grader carrying a side arm. Pretty sure everybody agrees that would be a bad idea. There has to be compromise. Different people will disagree on where the line should be drawn.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home
So.... no.

The amendment just says "Arms".

A term that has been greatly clarified by the court - nukes and belt-fed grenade launcher do not qualify; firearms in common use for lawful puposes do.

 

[emilynghiem]

The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.

What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?

I'd set it up the other way: Allow citizens access to take the same training and oath as officers,
including mental health screening.

If officers only agree to work in districts where gun owners are REQUIRED to take the same
training, oath and screening as they are, then the district, city or homeowners/neighborhood association
can decide their own rules on that as part of the local ordinances.

But it would have to be a policy decided on a local level,
similar to the policies for hiring teachers, and what is required to teach professionally.
Or what is the requirement for DAYCARE providers, or for counselors.

If a district or association agrees that within their jurisdiction, they only want
professionally trained police or guards, etc. that is up to that private group.

But I do not believe you can get a consensus on the state or federal level to regulate guns to this degree.
Maybe on a local level, the residents and property owners could form a private agreement.

 

[emilynghiem]

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home
So.... no.

The amendment just says "Arms". That could be nuclear arms, like a personal suitcase nuke. Could be a vehicle-mounted grenade launcher on an L.A. Freeway. The amendment doesn't say anything about a hyper ADD 4th-grader carrying a side arm. Pretty sure everybody agrees that would be a bad idea. There has to be compromise. Different people will disagree on where the line should be drawn.

Dear Treeshepherd
Where I believe people agree:
1. Nobody has the right to bear arms for the purpose of violating rights or laws.
(we just don't agree how to pinpoint these people without overreaching and punishing law abiding citizens)
2. The purpose of guns is clearly to be CONSISTENT with *DEFENDING laws and rights* not violating them.

You do not need to be an official officer to enforce the laws.
Anyone can stop a robbery, rape or other crime by intervening to defend the rights or laws being violated.

So anyone with this intent has the right to use arms "for the purpose of DEFENDING the law" from violation.

Where people disagree
1. What is the "due process" by which people can be "determined to have criminal intent"
and/or inability to use guns for the agreed purpose of defending the law
2. What level of law or govt can determine regulations on individual liberty to own or use guns
for people who "haven't been found guilty of committing crimes"

I would recommend community agreements between residents and local police
on what ordinances or standards they agree to enforce, what process and training are required, etc.
Whatever works on local levels to reduce crime, violence and abuse should be recommended
to other districts, cities or states to adopt. I believe this is best established by a democratic process,
to encourage citizen participation in govt, and not by politicized agenda mandated from the top down.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Dear Treeshepherd
Where I believe people agree:
1. Nobody has the right to bear arms for the purpose of violating rights or laws.
(we just don't agree how to pinpoint these people without overreaching and punishing law abiding citizens)
2. The purpose of guns is clearly to be CONSISTENT with *DEFENDING laws and rights* not violating them.

I do not agree with either of these statements.

The right to keep and bear arms belongs to every free American, and is not dependent on any individual's purpose—whether for good or ill—for wanting to do so.

If someone uses a gun to commit a robbery, then that robbery is a crime, for which he should be fully prosecuted. No matter his intent, he had a right to be in possession of a gun (assuming it was rightfully his, and not stolen from someone else); but he did not have a right to rob anyone.

It is legitimate to prosecute someone as a criminal for committing an act which unjustly violates the rights of others. It is not legitimate—not even in connection with a genuine crime—to prosecute someone for being in possession of something which the Constitution explicitly affirms his right to possess.

And the purpose of a gun is whatever its owner or possessor intends its purpose to be, nothing more or less.

Where people disagree
1. What is the "due process" by which people can be "determined to have criminal intent"
and/or inability to use guns for the agreed purpose of defending the law
2. What level of law or govt can determine regulations on individual liberty to own or use guns
for people who "haven't been found guilty of committing crimes"

The Constitution is clear enough.

Criminal intent is established by due process of law. which means that one accused of having committed a crime is given a proper trial, and found, by a unanimous ruling by a jury, to be guilty of that crime, whereupon he may be sentenced to an appropriate punishment for that crime.

The Constitution rather clearly forbids government from imposing “regulations on individual liberty to own or use guns
for people who ‘haven't been found guilty of committing crimes’”.

Though “innocent until proven guilty” is not found in the Constitution, it has long been considered an essential foundation of our system of laws and justice. One cannot legitimately be denied any of his Constitutional rights just because he is suspected of having criminal intent. He can only be denied as part of a sentence for a crime of which he has been properly and lawfully convicted by a jury of his peers, in the course of a proper trial.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Treeshepherd
Where I believe people agree:
1. Nobody has the right to bear arms for the purpose of violating rights or laws.
(we just don't agree how to pinpoint these people without overreaching and punishing law abiding citizens)
2. The purpose of guns is clearly to be CONSISTENT with *DEFENDING laws and rights* not violating them.

I do not agree with either of these statements.

The right to keep and bear arms belongs to every free American, and is not dependent on any individual's purpose—whether for good or ill—for wanting to do so.

If someone uses a gun to commit a robbery, then that robbery is a crime, for which he should be fully prosecuted. No matter his intent, he had a right to be in possession of a gun (assuming it was rightfully his, and not stolen from someone else); but he did not have a right to rob anyone.

It is legitimate to prosecute someone as a criminal for committing an act which unjustly violates the rights of others. It is not legitimate—not even in connection with a genuine crime—to prosecute someone for being in possession of something which the Constitution explicitly affirms his right to possess.

And the purpose of a gun is whatever its owner or possessor intends its purpose to be, nothing more or less.

Where people disagree
1. What is the "due process" by which people can be "determined to have criminal intent"
and/or inability to use guns for the agreed purpose of defending the law
2. What level of law or govt can determine regulations on individual liberty to own or use guns
for people who "haven't been found guilty of committing crimes"

The Constitution is clear enough.

Criminal intent is established by due process of law. which means that one accused of having committed a crime is given a proper trial, and found, by a unanimous ruling by a jury, to be guilty of that crime, whereupon he may be sentenced to an appropriate punishment for that crime.

The Constitution rather clearly forbids government from imposing “regulations on individual liberty to own or use guns
for people who ‘haven't been found guilty of committing crimes’”.

Though “innocent until proven guilty” is not found in the Constitution, it has long been considered an essential foundation of our system of laws and justice. One cannot legitimately be denied any of his Constitutional rights just because he is suspected of having criminal intent. He can only be denied as part of a sentence for a crime of which he has been properly and lawfully convicted by a jury of his peers, in the course of a proper trial.

No, I disagree. If you are criminally ill where you would commit a crime using a weapon
NO you do NOT have a right to own, borrow, get or use a gun.

If you use a gun to defend yourself, yes.

If you are so legally incompetent, such a danger to society,
that you need to be under supervision,
then NO you do not need access to a gun if you are that sick.

Bob Blaylock
if you believe EVERY PERSON has the inherent right to a gun
what AGE would you consider the legal age of consent?

is 18 just a magic number where as long as you are that age you automatically have this right?

sorry but there are responsibilities that come with gun ownership.

The same way you don't automatically get to 'drive a car' just because you turn a certain age,
you don't automatically get to have a gun. That would be negligent to endanger the public.

There is "common sense" involved in government.

All the people I know who defend gun rights take this for granted
that they are all versed in Constitutional laws and history.

There has to be that commitment to use guns to defend the law, and not to violate laws,
or else it is either negligence or malicious to let people have guns who are
so criminally ill as to be legally incompetent.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

No, I disagree. If you are criminally ill where you would commit a crime using a weapon
NO you do NOT have a right to own, borrow, get or use a gun.

If you use a gun to defend yourself, yes.

If you are so legally incompetent, such a danger to society,
that you need to be under supervision,
then NO you do not need access to a gun if you are that sick.

If a person can be proven, through proper due process of law, to be a danger to society, due to criminality or to mental dysfunction; then the solution is to remove that person from free society.

As long as such a person remains free, it does no good to enact a law that says that person may not possess arms. If someone is not going to obey laws that say that one may not commit acts of robbery or violence, then one is certainly not going to be any more obedient to laws against possessing weapons.

Where you have someone who is proven to be unwilling or unable to obey the law, there is nothing to be gained by passing more laws for him to disobey.

Bob Blaylock
if you believe EVERY PERSON has the inherent right to a gun
what AGE would you consider the legal age of consent?

is 18 just a magic number where as long as you are that age you automatically have this right?

I figure that legal adulthood is a reasonable point. Before one is an adult, one is not truly free, but is subject to the will of his parents or guardians.

I don't know that there was a clear boundary defining when someone became an adult back when the Second Amendment was written, but since then, it has been rather sharply defined as eighteen years of age.

It's worth noting, I think, that the Second Militia Act of 1792—enacted the year after the Bill of Rights was ratified—defined the militia as consisting of all able-bodied men from the ages of seventeen to forty five years; so at that point, one was obviously considered a man—an adult—by seventeen years of age.

sorry but there are responsibilities that come with gun ownership.

The same way you don't automatically get to 'drive a car' just because you turn a certain age,
you don't automatically get to have a gun. That would be negligent to endanger the public.

There is "common sense" involved in government.

All the people I know who defend gun rights take this for granted
that they are all versed in Constitutional laws and history.

There has to be that commitment to use guns to defend the law, and not to violate laws,
or else it is either negligence or malicious to let people have guns who are
so criminally ill as to be legally incompetent.

Nothing in the Second Amendment, nor anywhere else in the Constitution allows any such conditions to be placed on the right to keep and bear arms. In fact, in the strongest and clearest language found anywhere in the Constitution, it forbids government from even touching this right. If you don't like it, go ahead and write your elected misrepresentatives, and ask them to initiate the process of ratifying an amendment to overturn the Second Amendment. But unless and until such an effort is successfully completed, the Second Amendment remains part of the highest law in this nation, and you are on the wrong side of it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.

What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?

1) To the extent that I think "militia" even NEEDS to be interpreted, I do indeed adhere to the meaning of the word as it was at the time of the ratification of the Constitution. I see no reason to interpret it as anything else, since any sort of official, standing military body would simply be irrelevant to the topic of the Second Amendment.

2) Defining militias is a fairly secondary issue, anyway, since the Second Amendment has always referred to a right of individual citizens. Not only have the writings of the authors of the Constitution said so, the Supreme Court has very consistently ruled that way all along. I'm not one for worshipping the words dripping from the lips of lawyers in black robes, but the left is, so it's odd that on this one subject, they're willing to just wave away the position of the courts.

3) I have no interest whatsoever in a "compromise" that is nothing more than "We just tell you how reasonable we're being, and you give us our way". I'm certainly not going to require some 90-pound female or 60-year-old granny to join the National Guard simply to "earn" her Constitutional right to protect herself from mugging, rape, and home invasion. Fucktard.

 

[Cecilie1200]

NOpe.

Any attempt to raise the cost of gun ownership is a restriction on a important Right.

If the whole point of the amendment is arming the militia, then shouldn't we be barring those incapable of entering the militia to have one? Think about the kind of person who couldn't even join a volunteer irregular military-lite.

I am.

Old people, handicapped people, women who do not want to be part of a military force...

I have read too many accounts of people like that using guns to protect themselves to want to take away their guns.

Exactly. I'm a 46-year-old grandmother with a bad knee. I couldn't join the National Guard even if I wanted to. I fail to see why I should agree to forfeit my right to shoot a burglar to ignorant leftist twats who are terrified at the idea of self-defense.

I very much believe that gun control is the strange notion that a woman found in an alley, strangled with her own pantyhose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to the cops how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound. No thanks.

 

[Cecilie1200]

NOpe.

Any attempt to raise the cost of gun ownership is a restriction on a important Right.

If the whole point of the amendment is arming the militia, then shouldn't we be barring those incapable of entering the militia to have one? Think about the kind of person who couldn't even join a volunteer irregular military-lite.

I am.

Old people, handicapped people, women who do not want to be part of a military force...

I have read too many accounts of people like that using guns to protect themselves to want to take away their guns.

The elderly and handicapped would be subject to that, yeah. The point of the amendment is arming the militia for use by the state, according to the amendment itself. Not everyone falls under the militia. It's meant to be the citizens - originally men - of military age. Look into the Selective Service. Its requirements are a good guide.

The point of what amendment? The Second, or your half-assed suggestion that holds no benefit whatsoever for the people you expect to just meekly hand over their rights to you?

The point of the Second Amendment is to guarantee the right of individual citizens to keep and bear arms. I have no idea what point you're trying to accomplish with your dumbass suggestion.

 

[Cecilie1200]

NOpe.

Any attempt to raise the cost of gun ownership is a restriction on a important Right.

If the whole point of the amendment is arming the militia, then shouldn't we be barring those incapable of entering the militia to have one? Think about the kind of person who couldn't even join a volunteer irregular military-lite.

Not happening, we have you anti gun loons by the short hairs with the 2nd as it is

I'm not anti-gun. I'm taking the Second Amendment at its word as to its meaning. It says that we can own guns because the militia needs to have guns. What I want is to make gun owners the militia and give them the regulation and training they need to pose more of a danger to foreign and domestic enemies than to themselves and innocent bystanders.

If the whole point of the amendment is arming the militia,

Nope, it's to give THE PEOPLE the right to keep and bear arms

It says that we can own guns because the militia needs to have guns.

Not what it says

Actually it is what it says. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" is what the dependent clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" DEPENDS on. If that wasn't a dependent clause, it would have no reason to be written there.

You should really get busy writing a letter to the Supreme Court, explaining to them how they are completely wrong in their interpretation of that Amendment and outlining your far superior understanding of the law. Let us know how that works for you.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Again, I'm not anti-gun. I'm absolutely fine with you having one. I'm even fine with you walking around with it concealed in public. I just want you to pass a psychological screening and have a basic awareness and respect for the killing tool in your hand instilled into you before you're allowed to do so.

Yeah ... so how do gun-control laws restrict flaming loons from getting them in a country that specifically enshrines the right to own guns? The loons can always get them.

We have always recognized that rights can be forfeited by an individual in the interest of public safety. This is why a person's right to liberty can be taken when they're convicted of a crime, and why felons are denied certain rights after they're released, including gun ownership. There are ways to deny legal gun ownership to crazy people that don't involve disarming all the sane folks.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I don't consider the Founding Slave Rapist's inability to write a militia amendment clearly to be the "highest law of the nation".

No other country has the kind of anarchy we have with gun ownership.

It doesn't matter whether you recognize it as such. The fact remains, that the Constitution is our highest law, and its status as such does not depend in the least bit on whether you recognize it, or agree with it. And of course, you continue to engage in the hypocritical folly of crying “anarcy” at those of us who recognize the law and wish for it to be obeyed, while expressing your own abject contempt for the law.

Nobody is talking about not recognizing the Constitution. We're talking about an amendment, which is the Constitutional way to change the document. We've done it before. It's not exactly a new thing.

Right. Hitler only disarmed the Jews. You'd love that, you Nazi fuckwad

Wanting tools made specifically for killing to have some sort of regulation makes you antisemitic? Doesn't that argument itself have antisemitic implications?

You have yet to explain to us why we should agree to such a compromise, or really, to ANY compromise on the subject. We have both the Constitution, the Supreme Court rulings, and well over a century of practical application of the law on our side. Why on Earth should we budge at all when we're winning?

 

[SAYIT]

Again, I'm not anti-gun. I'm absolutely fine with you having one. I'm even fine with you walking around with it concealed in public. I just want you to pass a psychological screening and have a basic awareness and respect for the killing tool in your hand instilled into you before you're allowed to do so.

Yeah ... so how do gun-control laws restrict flaming loons from getting them in a country that specifically enshrines the right to own guns? The loons can always get them.

We have always recognized that rights can be forfeited by an individual in the interest of public safety. This is why a person's right to liberty can be taken when they're convicted of a crime, and why felons are denied certain rights after they're released, including gun ownership. There are ways to deny legal gun ownership to crazy people that don't involve disarming all the sane folks.

I'm certainly do not support "disarming sane folks" and yeah ... I get that society can restrict certain people from legally obtaining weapons but in practice they get guns anyway.