Gun Control Compromise

[Stormy Daniels]

All states are legally obligated to recognize a "common law" marriage, which is one without a marriage license.

False. States are not obligated to recognize common law marriages, and most states have gotten rid of them.

 

[satrebil]

I see lefties frequently screech about how 2A supporters refuse to compromise. Well, that's because there's never BEEN a compromise, rather a one-sided chipping away of 2nd Amendment rights with nothing offered in return.

So here, I'll offer an actual compromise. You lefties want universal background checks? I can get behind that. But in exchange I want universal reciprocity on CCW permits.

Deal?

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

Oh, so NOW you lefties care about state rights?

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

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

I'm not a 'leftist' you moron.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

And you further demonstrate your ignorance. Your examples are infringements on the rights of others, and despite government's power to regulate, I wouldn't need a permission slip to do any of the things you say to begin with.

Go on though, keep making false equivalencies. Maybe you'll stumble onto something that actually makes sense.

 

[satrebil]

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

100% incorrect.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Your examples are infringements on the rights of others

Oh really? So the constitution guarantees you the right to be liked by everyone? The right to not have mean things said about you? The right to not have people not like you? The right to not hear things you don't want to hear?

Get the **** out of here you god damned snowflake!

 

[Rigby5]

All states are legally obligated to recognize a "common law" marriage, which is one without a marriage license.

False. States are not obligated to recognize common law marriages, and most states have gotten rid of them.

Incorrect.
Common law predates any state, and no state has the authority to not recognize them.
The proof is that in all states, common law marriages have successfully sued for alimony, survivorship rights, etc.
States do not have the authority to dictate a private personal relationship like marriage, and never should.
The trend is the opposite, and things like palimony are more common now, not less.

 

[satrebil]

Your examples are infringements on the rights of others

Oh really? So the constitution guarantees you the right to be liked by everyone? The right to not have mean things said about you? The right to not have people not like you? The right to not hear things you don't want to hear?

Get the **** out of here you god damned snowflake!

You listed slander and blaring music at 3 am, not "saying mean things". Make up your ******* mind.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Common law predates any state, and no state has the authority to not recognize them.

This is complete bullshit. You are making it up.

The proof is that in all states, common law marriages have successfully sued for alimony, survivorship rights, etc.

That only means that all states, at some time in the past, recognized informal marriages in some capacity. That is, if your claim is even true.

States do not have the authority to dictate a private personal relationship like marriage, and never should.
The trend is the opposite, and things like palimony are more common now, not less.

Stop talking. Your fan fiction is ruining Tolkien for me.

 

[Rigby5]

I see lefties frequently screech about how 2A supporters refuse to compromise. Well, that's because there's never BEEN a compromise, rather a one-sided chipping away of 2nd Amendment rights with nothing offered in return.

So here, I'll offer an actual compromise. You lefties want universal background checks? I can get behind that. But in exchange I want universal reciprocity on CCW permits.

Deal?

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

Oh, so NOW you lefties care about state rights?

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

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

I'm not a 'leftist' you moron.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Government is not the source of authority to regulate free speech when it comes to things like libel, slander, noise, etc.
That comes only from government attempting to compromise between conflicting rights of individuals.
Government itself has not authority of its own, but can only act as an agent for inherent individual rights.

But in the case of weapons, clearly all federal jurisdiction is totally and completely denied by the 2nd amendment.
Even if the vast majority wanted federal weapons regulations, that would not be legal without an amendment to the Bill of Rights.
Which really is not a good idea, since then states must also then be given another opportunity to opt out.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Here is My compromise.

I can buy any gun I want and gun grabbers can go sit in the corner and be quiet.

I'll grant them a bit more. Gun grabbers may depart, and apply repeated impacts to fine mineral particles.

 

[Rigby5]

Common law predates any state, and no state has the authority to not recognize them.

This is complete bullshit. You are making it up.

The proof is that in all states, common law marriages have successfully sued for alimony, survivorship rights, etc.

That only means that all states, at some time in the past, recognized informal marriages in some capacity. That is, if your claim is even true.

States do not have the authority to dictate a private personal relationship like marriage, and never should.
The trend is the opposite, and things like palimony are more common now, not less.

Stop talking. Your fan fiction is ruining Tolkien for me.

The whole point of "common law" is the historical precedent that has always existed, and states and marriage licenses are extremely recent compared to the ancient precedent of common law marriage.

{...
Definition of common law (Entry 2 of 2)

: the body of law developed in England primarily from judicial decisions based on custom and precedent, unwritten in statute or code, and constituting the basis of the English legal system and of the system in all of the U.S. except Louisiana

Examples of common-law in a Sentence
Recent Examples on the Web: Noun

The Supreme Court has long recognized that two particularly useful sources in understanding constitutional terms are British common law and enactments of the First Congress.— Kate Storey, Town & Country, "Could Meghan Markle and Prince Harry's Child Be a US President and In Line For the Throne?," 15 Oct. 2018These legal concepts go back to 17th-century English common law, in which much of American law still finds its basis.— German Lopez, Vox, "Florida man who killed black man in parking lot charged with manslaughter," 13 Aug. 2018

...}


Anyone who would not understand why common law marriage, the oldest and most traditional form of marriage, must be observed by all bodies, simply does not realize that almost all US legal decisions and traditions are based on British common law traditions.
That include the Declaration of Independence as being based on British common law.
That should be obvious because states did not originally exist.
And as such they do not then have the authority to ever deny or invent rights in any way.
All states can do then is just attempt to defend well established common law rights.
To do anything else would be to be self authorizing, which is totally and completely illegal.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

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

Well, considering that family members are around that gun 100,000x more than a bad guy (if not infinite), that statistic is motherfucking meaningless and stupid.

The fraudster that came up with that statistic cheated, in quite a number of ways; one of the most blatant of which was probably to count guns brought into homes by criminals, specifically with the intent of using them to commit crimes against the occupants of those homes, as “a gun in the house”.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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

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

THAT is BULLSHIT.

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

And that is just unrealistic. With the really nasty weapons, there has to be some limits made. Can you imagine if there weren't limits on manufacture and sales of battle rifles and explosive devices? Plastic Explosives would fall under Arms by some people's definition. Then there is the Mercury tipped bullets along with bullets capable of penetrating body armor and light vehicle armor. The Bad guys don't have these things because the manufacturing is heavily controlled. Now, remove that control. Yes, that's part of Firearms and Weapons Control. We need some control. But how much is debatable. And each person has their own idea where the line should be drawn. Some don't want a line. Some want a brick wall. Most of us fall somewhere n between. No restrictions means that when the Bad Guys get these really Bad Actor weapons and ammo, they are no longer able to be stopped by anything other than a small army along with losing a good portion of the surrounding neighborhood.

"Should be NO restrictions" is rather naive.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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

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

THAT is BULLSHIT.

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

And that is just unrealistic. With the really nasty weapons, there has to be some limits made. Can you imagine if there weren't limits on manufacture and sales of battle rifles and explosive devices? Plastic Explosives would fall under Arms by some people's definition. Then there is the Mercury tipped bullets along with bullets capable of penetrating body armor and light vehicle armor. The Bad guys don't have these things because the manufacturing is heavily controlled. Now, remove that control. Yes, that's part of Firearms and Weapons Control. We need some control. But how much is debatable. And each person has their own idea where the line should be drawn. Some don't want a line. Some want a brick wall. Most of us fall somewhere n between. No restrictions means that when the Bad Guys get these really Bad Actor weapons and ammo, they are no longer able to be stopped by anything other than a small army along with losing a good portion of the surrounding neighborhood.

"Should be NO restrictions" is rather naive.

So who needs plastic explosives and armor piercing bullets for defense?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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

Let me say that again.

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

Think about that for a minute before you answer.

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

In 1859, new breeds of weapons were on the verge of coming out that I doubt if your FFs envisioned. The level of carnage was just unfathomable in their time. Muskets and single shot rifles were one thing but something like the old BAR introduced in late 1917 (it's called a model 1918) and not allowed to be used in WWI for fear of falling into enemy hands (we ended up using that French crap), or the improvement of the Cannon that shot balls and grapeshot being replaced by Artillery that killed more people in WWI than all the bullets and bombs put together. WWII was no different. Taking the idea of the Puckle gun and introducing the Gatlin and so on. All this in just a couple or three decades. Plus, the introduction of the Thompson introduced in 1919 because the US needed a better SMG than the crap that the Brits and the French had us use in WWI. We didn't outgrow out weapons, our weapons outgrew us.

I doubt if our FFs could envision this explosion of weapons improvement so fast. Or they thought we would grow at an equal speed. We didn't grow a bit but our weapons exploded in development. The fact remains, we are no more civilized than we were in 1775. In fact, we may be less civilized in many ways.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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

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

THAT is BULLSHIT.

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

And that is just unrealistic. With the really nasty weapons, there has to be some limits made. Can you imagine if there weren't limits on manufacture and sales of battle rifles and explosive devices? Plastic Explosives would fall under Arms by some people's definition. Then there is the Mercury tipped bullets along with bullets capable of penetrating body armor and light vehicle armor. The Bad guys don't have these things because the manufacturing is heavily controlled. Now, remove that control. Yes, that's part of Firearms and Weapons Control. We need some control. But how much is debatable. And each person has their own idea where the line should be drawn. Some don't want a line. Some want a brick wall. Most of us fall somewhere n between. No restrictions means that when the Bad Guys get these really Bad Actor weapons and ammo, they are no longer able to be stopped by anything other than a small army along with losing a good portion of the surrounding neighborhood.

"Should be NO restrictions" is rather naive.

So who needs plastic explosives and armor piercing bullets for defense?

You never know when an entire division of bad guys are trying to invade your kitchen for your lucky charms and you need to wire up your back porch to stop them. And they just might be wearing kelvar fruit of the looms.

 

[Rigby5]

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

Well, considering that family members are around that gun 100,000x more than a bad guy (if not infinite), that statistic is motherfucking meaningless and stupid.

The fraudster that came up with that statistic cheated, in quite a number of ways; one of the most blatant of which was probably to count guns brought into homes by criminals, specifically with the intent of using them to commit crimes against the occupants of those homes, as “a gun in the house”.

The biggest fraud is that they never counted defensive use where the criminal was not killed.
You almost never even need to actually pull the trigger for defensive use, and even less likely to kill if at any range.
But they only compared deaths, so did not include anything less.

 

[Rigby5]

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

Let me say that again.

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

Think about that for a minute before you answer.

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

In 1859, new breeds of weapons were on the verge of coming out that I doubt if your FFs envisioned. The level of carnage was just unfathomable in their time. Muskets and single shot rifles were one thing but something like the old BAR introduced in late 1917 (it's called a model 1918) and not allowed to be used in WWI for fear of falling into enemy hands (we ended up using that French crap), or the improvement of the Cannon that shot balls and grapeshot being replaced by Artillery that killed more people in WWI than all the bullets and bombs put together. WWII was no different. Taking the idea of the Puckle gun and introducing the Gatlin and so on. All this in just a couple or three decades. Plus, the introduction of the Thompson introduced in 1919 because the US needed a better SMG than the crap that the Brits and the French had us use in WWI. We didn't outgrow out weapons, our weapons outgrew us.

I doubt if our FFs could envision this explosion of weapons improvement so fast. Or they thought we would grow at an equal speed. We didn't grow a bit but our weapons exploded in development. The fact remains, we are no more civilized than we were in 1775. In fact, we may be less civilized in many ways.

Wrong, blunderbuss, punt guns, grape shot, etc. were intended and designed to kill dozens of people with a single shot.
The founders were well aware of weapons of mass destruction, and found no problem at all with them.
It is the standing military they wanted to be kept restricted, not the general population.

Grape shot was not a WWI invention, and was not used in WWI.
It was only used in previous muzzle loading smooth bores.
{... Grapeshot was widely used in wars of the 18th and 19th centuries at short range against massed troops. ...}

Nor would the improvements in weapons be at all relevant to government, law, or gun control.
The worlds is not over 10 times the population, so of course you need improved weapons.

 

[Rigby5]

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

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

THAT is BULLSHIT.

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

And that is just unrealistic. With the really nasty weapons, there has to be some limits made. Can you imagine if there weren't limits on manufacture and sales of battle rifles and explosive devices? Plastic Explosives would fall under Arms by some people's definition. Then there is the Mercury tipped bullets along with bullets capable of penetrating body armor and light vehicle armor. The Bad guys don't have these things because the manufacturing is heavily controlled. Now, remove that control. Yes, that's part of Firearms and Weapons Control. We need some control. But how much is debatable. And each person has their own idea where the line should be drawn. Some don't want a line. Some want a brick wall. Most of us fall somewhere n between. No restrictions means that when the Bad Guys get these really Bad Actor weapons and ammo, they are no longer able to be stopped by anything other than a small army along with losing a good portion of the surrounding neighborhood.

"Should be NO restrictions" is rather naive.

So who needs plastic explosives and armor piercing bullets for defense?

Lots of people.
If you have stumps or rocks to clear, the defense of your enterprise may need plastic explosives.
If you are a fisherman and have frequent encounters with sharks, you may need armor piercing projectiles that don't flatten out on the water's surface.

The point is that it is NOT up to government.
They have no authority at all to dictate anything, and can not infringe at all except the defense of the rights of others.

 

[Rigby5]

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

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

THAT is BULLSHIT.

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

And that is just unrealistic. With the really nasty weapons, there has to be some limits made. Can you imagine if there weren't limits on manufacture and sales of battle rifles and explosive devices? Plastic Explosives would fall under Arms by some people's definition. Then there is the Mercury tipped bullets along with bullets capable of penetrating body armor and light vehicle armor. The Bad guys don't have these things because the manufacturing is heavily controlled. Now, remove that control. Yes, that's part of Firearms and Weapons Control. We need some control. But how much is debatable. And each person has their own idea where the line should be drawn. Some don't want a line. Some want a brick wall. Most of us fall somewhere n between. No restrictions means that when the Bad Guys get these really Bad Actor weapons and ammo, they are no longer able to be stopped by anything other than a small army along with losing a good portion of the surrounding neighborhood.

"Should be NO restrictions" is rather naive.

Nonsense. The bad guys have all these things, like armor piercing bullets, because laws ALWAYS only restrict the honest people and not the criminals.
The only way you can restrict the criminals is by making the punishment too great of a risk.
But since any criminal using a firearm is already risking the maximum penalties, there is no possible way any federal weapons penalty is going to have any possible effect.
And no, the federal government needs no control at all.
Obviously it should be up to the states and municipalities instead, and even then, it is clear someday the federal government will have to be defeated once more. It always happens. History shows government last at most about 400 years. They always go bad.

 

[Rigby5]

Nice video on history of arms in US.