Gun Control Compromise

[progressive hunter]

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.

great its case law clayton to the rescue...

only a full repeal of the 2nd amendment changes anything

so take your case law and shovel it

 

[Rigby5]

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?

Absolutely yes.
It can never be otherwise in a democratic republic.
For equality under the law demand it.
The source of authority comes from individual rights not government.
It may seem risky, but there simply is no other way than to trust the general population.
If you don't trust them with weapons, then you certainly could not trust them with the power to vote.

What you can legally do is ensure they have adequate training, need, storage, etc.
But any absolute prohibition would require by law that all police and military then also be disarmed.

 

[progressive hunter]

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?

Absolutely yes.
It can never be otherwise in a democratic republic.
For equality under the law demand it.
The source of authority comes from individual rights not government.
It may seem risky, but there simply is no other way than to trust the general population.
If you don't trust them with weapons, then you certainly could not trust them with the power to vote.

What you can legally do is ensure they have adequate training, need, storage, etc.
But any absolute prohibition would require by law that all police and military then also be disarmed.

we are a representative republican not a democrat republic

 

[Rigby5]

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

No, the Bill of Rights historically was not taken as representing individual rights until AFTER the 14th amendment, and civil rights against state abuse became an issue in states with a history of the confederacy.
Until then, the legal precedent was that the Bill of Rights had no individual implication.
As the Bill of Rights was slowly "incorporated" as individual rights by SCOTUS decision, the 2nd amendment was the most recent. The 2 rulings were Heller vs DC and McDonald vs Chicago. So it is an individual right now, but it was a long and complicated process to get there.

And clearly is was never intended to be an absolute restriction on all government legislation, but only infringement. And since that needs clarification, it seems pretty clear they were leaving that up to states to decide. For example, do you want open carry in bars, courtrooms, etc.? I don't think so.

 

[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.

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.

I'm retired Law Enforcement, I know what's out there and live my life accordingly. Armed civilians sometimes take chances which they would not do without being armed.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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?

Absolutely yes.
It can never be otherwise in a democratic republic.
For equality under the law demand it.
The source of authority comes from individual rights not government.
It may seem risky, but there simply is no other way than to trust the general population.
If you don't trust them with weapons, then you certainly could not trust them with the power to vote.

What you can legally do is ensure they have adequate training, need, storage, etc.
But any absolute prohibition would require by law that all police and military then also be disarmed.

we are a representative republican not a democrat republic

Our representatives are elected by the people. Don't be naive and / or echo the meme that we are not a Democratic Republic.

 

[progressive hunter]

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

No, the Bill of Rights historically was not taken as representing individual rights until AFTER the 14th amendment, and civil rights against state abuse became an issue in states with a history of the confederacy.
Until then, the legal precedent was that the Bill of Rights had no individual implication.
As the Bill of Rights was slowly "incorporated" as individual rights by SCOTUS decision, the 2nd amendment was the most recent. The 2 rulings were Heller vs DC and McDonald vs Chicago. So it is an individual right now, but it was a long and complicated process to get there.

if only that were true,,,courts dont make laws or rights,,,they only confirmed it has always been an individual right

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It is a national disgrace that the courts do not apply the same strict scrutiny on our right to keep and bear arms like they apply strict scrutiny to all individual rights.

Most gun control laws are unconstitutional.

I suspect that once the old bag dies and Trump gets to appoint a clear Conservative majority Supreme Court there will be a flood of cases to corrupt the oppression that we see.

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

Wrong.

The only thing clear is that the Supreme Court alone determines when a right has been infringed.

 

[progressive hunter]

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?

Absolutely yes.
It can never be otherwise in a democratic republic.
For equality under the law demand it.
The source of authority comes from individual rights not government.
It may seem risky, but there simply is no other way than to trust the general population.
If you don't trust them with weapons, then you certainly could not trust them with the power to vote.

What you can legally do is ensure they have adequate training, need, storage, etc.
But any absolute prohibition would require by law that all police and military then also be disarmed.

we are a representative republican not a democrat republic

Our representatives are elected by the people. Don't be naive and / or echo the meme that we are not a Democratic Republic.

in a dem republic the people vote for the laws,,in a rep republic the reps vote on the laws


its a subtle but clear difference

 

[progressive hunter]

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

Wrong.

The only thing clear is that the Supreme Court alone determines when a right has been infringed.

that doesnt mean they make laws or rights

 

[Rigby5]

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?

Absolutely yes.
It can never be otherwise in a democratic republic.
For equality under the law demand it.
The source of authority comes from individual rights not government.
It may seem risky, but there simply is no other way than to trust the general population.
If you don't trust them with weapons, then you certainly could not trust them with the power to vote.

What you can legally do is ensure they have adequate training, need, storage, etc.
But any absolute prohibition would require by law that all police and military then also be disarmed.

we are a representative republican not a democrat republic

There is actually even more to it, since we actually are a constitutional, democratic, representative, etc., republic.
But you could have a representative republic that had no ability for expression of the will of the people, and that would be bad.
So I think we we were going to leave out the less important, and include the more important, I think throwing in democratic is high on the list to include. Even though originally is was less so, with the electoral college using the popular vote only as a suggestion. These days women and landless can vote, and the vote is considered more of a mandate to electors.
Which I think are improvements.

 

[Rigby5]

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?

Absolutely yes.
It can never be otherwise in a democratic republic.
For equality under the law demand it.
The source of authority comes from individual rights not government.
It may seem risky, but there simply is no other way than to trust the general population.
If you don't trust them with weapons, then you certainly could not trust them with the power to vote.

What you can legally do is ensure they have adequate training, need, storage, etc.
But any absolute prohibition would require by law that all police and military then also be disarmed.

we are a representative republican not a democrat republic

Our representatives are elected by the people. Don't be naive and / or echo the meme that we are not a Democratic Republic.

in a dem republic the people vote for the laws,,in a rep republic the reps vote on the laws


its a subtle but clear difference

Yes, but do you want to retain the ability for referendum or not?
I like it.

 

[progressive hunter]

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?

Absolutely yes.
It can never be otherwise in a democratic republic.
For equality under the law demand it.
The source of authority comes from individual rights not government.
It may seem risky, but there simply is no other way than to trust the general population.
If you don't trust them with weapons, then you certainly could not trust them with the power to vote.

What you can legally do is ensure they have adequate training, need, storage, etc.
But any absolute prohibition would require by law that all police and military then also be disarmed.

we are a representative republican not a democrat republic

Our representatives are elected by the people. Don't be naive and / or echo the meme that we are not a Democratic Republic.

in a dem republic the people vote for the laws,,in a rep republic the reps vote on the laws


its a subtle but clear difference

Yes, but do you want to retain the ability for referendum or not?
I like it.

thats a different subject, and as of yet hasnt been a problem

 

[Rigby5]

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

Wrong.

The only thing clear is that the Supreme Court alone determines when a right has been infringed.

that doesnt mean they make laws or rights

This can get complicated.
Since legislators are not supposed to just make up laws arbitrarily either, they have to be based on some inherent existing right of individuals that the legislators can justify defending to make the legislation needed and valid.
So then the SCOTUS does in effect does make law.
What they determine is if the previously existing basis for law, does in fact determine what is legal or not, and in effect make law.
The only difference is that they are limited only to what has been brought before the bench, and can't go off on other tangents on their own.

 

[progressive hunter]

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

Wrong.

The only thing clear is that the Supreme Court alone determines when a right has been infringed.

that doesnt mean they make laws or rights

This can get complicated.
Since legislators are not supposed to just make up laws arbitrarily either, they have to be based on some inherent existing right of individuals that the legislators can justify defending to make the legislation needed and valid.
So then the SCOTUS does in effect does make law.
What they determine is if the previously existing basis for law, does in fact determine what is legal or not, and in effect make law.
The only difference is that they are limited only to what has been brought before the bench, and can't go off on other tangents on their own.

you and those that think like you are obviously the problem with this country,,,

nothing you said is backed up in the constitution

 

[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.

I'm retired Law Enforcement, I know what's out there and live my life accordingly. Armed civilians sometimes take chances which they would not do without being armed.

And that is a good thing, right?
For example, if someone if breaking into your car, if you are not armed, likely you would be afraid to go out and stop them.
But if armed, you an have the confidence to scare them away and protect your rights.

And that is better for police as well, as they then don't have to arrive at a scene unknown to them, and take all those risks.

 

[Rigby5]

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

Wrong.

The only thing clear is that the Supreme Court alone determines when a right has been infringed.

that doesnt mean they make laws or rights

This can get complicated.
Since legislators are not supposed to just make up laws arbitrarily either, they have to be based on some inherent existing right of individuals that the legislators can justify defending to make the legislation needed and valid.
So then the SCOTUS does in effect does make law.
What they determine is if the previously existing basis for law, does in fact determine what is legal or not, and in effect make law.
The only difference is that they are limited only to what has been brought before the bench, and can't go off on other tangents on their own.

you and those that think like you are obviously the problem with this country,,,

nothing you said is backed up in the constitution

Yes it is.
The whole point of the preamble, is to point out that laws must never be arbitrary, but instead based on the defense of inherent rights of individuals.
Although the Declaration of Independence is more clear.
There are only 3 possible source of authority:

1 is inherent individual rights.
2 is might makes right of a dictatorship.
3 is divine right of a theocracy.

I vote for door number 1.

 

[progressive hunter]

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.

I'm retired Law Enforcement, I know what's out there and live my life accordingly. Armed civilians sometimes take chances which they would not do without being armed.

And that is a good thing, right?
For example, if someone if breaking into your car, if you are not armed, likely you would be afraid to go out and stop them.
But if armed, you an have the confidence to scare them away and protect your rights.

And that is better for police as well, as they then don't have to arrive at a scene unknown to them, and take all those risks.

thats nice but has nothing to do with the original intent of the 2nd

 

[progressive hunter]

unless like in this case its restricted by the constitution

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is pretty clear

Wrong.

The only thing clear is that the Supreme Court alone determines when a right has been infringed.

that doesnt mean they make laws or rights

This can get complicated.
Since legislators are not supposed to just make up laws arbitrarily either, they have to be based on some inherent existing right of individuals that the legislators can justify defending to make the legislation needed and valid.
So then the SCOTUS does in effect does make law.
What they determine is if the previously existing basis for law, does in fact determine what is legal or not, and in effect make law.
The only difference is that they are limited only to what has been brought before the bench, and can't go off on other tangents on their own.

you and those that think like you are obviously the problem with this country,,,

nothing you said is backed up in the constitution

Yes it is.
The whole point of the preamble, is to point out that laws must never be arbitrary, but instead based on the defense of inherent rights of individuals.
Although the Declaration of Independence is more clear.
There are only 3 possible source of authority:

1 is inherent individual rights.
2 is might makes right of a dictatorship.
3 is divine right of a theocracy.

I vote for door number 1.

we arent talking about laws,,,

 

[Rigby5]

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.

I'm retired Law Enforcement, I know what's out there and live my life accordingly. Armed civilians sometimes take chances which they would not do without being armed.

And that is a good thing, right?
For example, if someone if breaking into your car, if you are not armed, likely you would be afraid to go out and stop them.
But if armed, you an have the confidence to scare them away and protect your rights.

And that is better for police as well, as they then don't have to arrive at a scene unknown to them, and take all those risks.

thats nice but has nothing to do with the original intent of the 2nd

I think it does, especially since there were no police back then, and more threats, like native attacks, pirates, border gangs, etc.
Clearly all individuals were part of the militia, and the militia was not for the government's use as much as for individuals.