Gun Control Compromise

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Registration is the frst step to confiscation. How it happened in other countries. Never negotiate.

You mean like how the gummint confiscated everybody's cars?

Oh wait.

Ah well it's only been 116 years. I'm sure they'll get around to it. Any day now.

They don't have to confiscate them when they can dictate how/when/and if you are allowed to used them at will. They also make for fantastic revenue generators through their various taxes and compliance requirements. But go on, make some more dumb ass comparisons.

Who are ‘they’ – elected representatives enact firearm regulatory measures at the behest of the people, reflecting the will of the majority of the people.

‘They’ are clearly the people.

That’s why acts of lawmaking entities are presumed to be Constitutional until the courts rule otherwise, out of deference for the will of the people.

And should the people err and enact a measure repugnant to the Constitution, those adversely affected are at liberty to seek relief in the courts, where an unlawful measure is invalidated.

It’s the adversarial relationship between the political and judicial process which allows Constitutional case law to evolve, including Second Amendment case law.

 

[Hossfly]

I do not want to compromise one iota on a right guaranteed to me in the Bill of Rights.

"Shall not be infringed" means exactly what it says. Not much wriggle room there.

I am not compromising with the Left Loonies or the government. They can eat shit and die.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Because the 14th Amendment requires the states to allow all citizens residing in the states the right to due process and equal protection of the law.

Like the right to KEEP AND BEAR ARMS?

Derp.

Just to point this out: The Tenth Amendment makes reference to three entities that have powers/rights—the federal government, the states, and the people. The primary point of the Tenth Amendment is to establish that the federal government has only those powers that the Constitution specifically assigns to it; all other rights being reserved to the states or to the people.

The Tenth Amendment doesn't really distinguish between powers belonging to the states and those belonging to the people; but the Second Amendment is explicit about to whom the power that it affirms belongs.

 

[satrebil]

Registration is the frst step to confiscation. How it happened in other countries. Never negotiate.

You mean like how the gummint confiscated everybody's cars?

Oh wait.

Ah well it's only been 116 years. I'm sure they'll get around to it. Any day now.

They don't have to confiscate them when they can dictate how/when/and if you are allowed to used them at will. They also make for fantastic revenue generators through their various taxes and compliance requirements. But go on, make some more dumb ass comparisons.

Who are ‘they’ – elected representatives enact firearm regulatory measures at the behest of the people, reflecting the will of the majority of the people.

‘They’ are clearly the people.

That’s why acts of lawmaking entities are presumed to be Constitutional until the courts rule otherwise, out of deference for the will of the people.

And should the people err and enact a measure repugnant to the Constitution, those adversely affected are at liberty to seek relief in the courts, where an unlawful measure is invalidated.

It’s the adversarial relationship between the political and judicial process which allows Constitutional case law to evolve, including Second Amendment case law.

The 2A doesn't say "shall not be infringed unless the courts say otherwise because some people are throwing hissy fits.".

It says SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
PERIOD.

 

[Crepitus]

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?

How about this: we get strong gun control, you kids can have your silly wall.

Why don't you just tell us what gun control law you have hidden up your sleeve that magically stops criminals who don't give a flying fuck about laws to begin with?

Not that ridiculous straw man again.

By that logic we should have no laws whatsoever.

 

[OKTexas]

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?

Note: This is the opinion of the author, and only the author, this is not shared or endorsed by millions of Americans.

.

 

[satrebil]

By that logic we should have no laws whatsoever.

No, it points out your leftist inability to understand that laws serve to punish criminal behavior, not prevent it - and that the laws you pass only impact the law abiding. This isn't rocket surgery.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

[Well maybe they're is a trade there as well.

We will let them ask questions to qualify owning a gun, and we get to have a short test before people can vote. Nothing too hard, just questions like who is the VP, what party are they from, who is the Speaker of the House, who has the majority in the Senate, just simple things like that.

If you can't pass the test, you can't vote. Good bye Democrat leadership forever.

You mean like the “literacy tests” that they used to use in parts of this country, to determine who could or couldn't vote?

No. Just no. You know that if any such tests are applied as you propose, they will end up being abused just as they were before.

Literary tests are a little different than political knowledge tests. I mean, let's say MLB allowed citizens of each city to vote on the players for their team. Your city allows any citizen to vote on players, and in my city, you have to demonstrate knowledge of baseball and the MLB. Which city do you suppose would have the better team?

On election night it gets pretty aggravating at times. You see the results and ask (WTF voted for him, or her, or whatever)?

In other words I think our country would be way better off if only people like us here in USMB were allowed to vote; people who know the issues and understand current events. Yet election after election, we end up with elections decided by people like this:

 

[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?

Note: This is the opinion of the author, and only the author, this is not shared or endorsed by millions of Americans.

.

You missed the point of the thread. I didn't expect any significant number of leftists to agree to this proposal and I was correct. In 9 pages of replies only ONE did, which just makes my case that leftists have no desire for compromise - they want control.

 

[Crepitus]

By that logic we should have no laws whatsoever.

No, it points out your leftist inability to understand that laws serve to punish criminal behavior, not prevent it - and that the laws you pass only impact the law abiding. This isn't rocket surgery.

Wrong. Laws are as much preventative as punitive.

 

[satrebil]

By that logic we should have no laws whatsoever.

No, it points out your leftist inability to understand that laws serve to punish criminal behavior, not prevent it - and that the laws you pass only impact the law abiding. This isn't rocket surgery.

Wrong. Laws are as much preventative as punitive.

So you're not a murderer strictly because some piece of paper says you can't be?

 

[OKTexas]

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?

Note: This is the opinion of the author, and only the author, this is not shared or endorsed by millions of Americans.

.

You missed the point of the thread. I didn't expect any significant number of leftists to agree to this proposal and I was correct. In 9 pages of replies only ONE did, which just makes my case that leftists have no desire for compromise - they want control.

No I didn't miss a thing, what you need to understand is you never, even in jest, offer something that will bind law abiding citizens to requirements to which criminals can never be legally bound.

.

 

[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?

Note: This is the opinion of the author, and only the author, this is not shared or endorsed by millions of Americans.

.

You missed the point of the thread. I didn't expect any significant number of leftists to agree to this proposal and I was correct. In 9 pages of replies only ONE did, which just makes my case that leftists have no desire for compromise - they want control.

No I didn't miss a thing, what you need to understand is you never, even in jest, offer something that will bind law abiding citizens to requirements to which criminals can never be legally bound.

.

This is the internet, not Congress

 

[OKTexas]

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?

Note: This is the opinion of the author, and only the author, this is not shared or endorsed by millions of Americans.

.

You missed the point of the thread. I didn't expect any significant number of leftists to agree to this proposal and I was correct. In 9 pages of replies only ONE did, which just makes my case that leftists have no desire for compromise - they want control.

No I didn't miss a thing, what you need to understand is you never, even in jest, offer something that will bind law abiding citizens to requirements to which criminals can never be legally bound.

.

This is the internet, not Congress

It's the principle, not the forum.

.

 

[Crepitus]

By that logic we should have no laws whatsoever.

No, it points out your leftist inability to understand that laws serve to punish criminal behavior, not prevent it - and that the laws you pass only impact the law abiding. This isn't rocket surgery.

Wrong. Laws are as much preventative as punitive.

So you're not a murderer strictly because some piece of paper says you can't be?

More straw man bullshit. Like most people I don't murder because I know it's wrong. I don't speed because I don't want a ticket though, and if I were inclined to kill someone I would think twice because I don't wanna go to prison.

 

[blackhawk]

What would a universal background check do that current background checks don't?

 

[easyt65]

We've already compromised our Rights with 22,000 restrictive gun laws already on the books. Also, sweeping Fed Laws like NFA 1934, and GCA 1968 are a travesty. States have passed extremely restrictive gun laws. ALL of them unconstitutional.

'Compromised'?

Try 'slowly forfeited' or 'stripped'...

 

[JoeB131]

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.

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.

 

[JoeB131]

Well maybe they're is a trade there as well.

We will let them ask questions to qualify owning a gun, and we get to have a short test before people can vote. Nothing too hard, just questions like who is the VP, what party are they from, who is the Speaker of the House, who has the majority in the Senate, just simple things like that.

If you can't pass the test, you can't vote. Good bye Democrat leadership forever.

Actually, I've found that most people who vote REpublican are equally piss ignorant, but voting is a right.

Compensating for a tiny pecker isn't. (The Second is about militias, not guns.)

 

[JoeB131]

You mean like the “literacy tests” that they used to use in parts of this country, to determine who could or couldn't vote?

No. Just no. You know that if any such tests are applied as you propose, they will end up being abused just as they were before.

Wow. Bob. That was actually insightful.