Gun Owners, It's time to stop compromising.

[Dr Grump]

the right to bear arms is absolute - not subject to any restrictions][/b]
.
.

Cool. Let felons and mental patients have guns. Brilliant!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

the right to bear arms is absolute - not subject to any restrictions

Ignorant nonsense.

The Heller Court was clear and specific, as with other rights, the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment are not absolute, and indeed subject to reasonable restrictions:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

 

[FA_Q2]

I'm not the slightest bit "anti-gun". I probably own more guns than you do.

I noticed you don't seem to be able to answer my question, though.

He does not need to. The OP posted a video that actually outlined various ways that gun owners (and all Americans for that matter) have compromised with the gun control crowd. The fact that you could not be bothered to click the video that was imbedded for your convenience does not mean that he or anyone else on this thread should bother to do the legwork for you. How about you actually address the points given. You can ask your question again only AFTER you have addressed the examples already supplied.

It is also worthy of note that the gun advocates have absolutely ZERO burden of proof in this endeavor. It is the gun control crowd that is demanding the limiting of a right. Because of that, it is on them to not only show that the government has a valid interest in this endeavor but that the measures put forth actually address that. To date, I have not received one single piece of evidence that supports the gun control crowd’s case. Universally, it seems gun control laws have virtually no effect on crime rates. You don’t get to limit a right just for a feel good. You need to show real and tangible gains.

Again, background checks are both Constitutional and effective in facilitating laws prohibiting the mentally ill, felons, and undocumented immigrants from possessing firearms, “or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” (DC v. Heller (2008)).

Laws having no effect preventing gun violence and crime would include waiting periods, licensing, permit, and registration requirements (save that of a license to carry a concealed weapon), as well as the prohibition of the possession of firearms due to magazine design or capacity, or other superficial or cosmetic aspects such as a pistol grip or flash suppressor.

Unfortunately, current Second Amendment jurisprudence doesn’t reflect this rationale, in light of the two recent rulings concerning AWBs in New York and Connecticut, respectively. Needless to say these and similar cases will likely end up before the Supreme Court.

In both of those cases each court found that an AWB indeed infringes upon the Second Amendment right, and that AR and AK type firearms are in ‘common use.’ But given the courts’ level of judicial review, in conjunction with the states’ demonstrating a compelling interest and legitimate legislative end, public safety, the bans were upheld as Constitutional.

In the meantime it would seem one’s Second Amendment rights are contingent upon his state of residence, where the states are at liberty to place restrictions and bans on various classes of weapons, but may not ban handguns outright nor deny a citizen the right to carry a concealed firearm.

But one’s civil liberties are not dependent upon his state of residence, where the majority lacks the authority to determine who will or will not have his Constitutional rights. Gun owners are citizens of the United States first and foremost, the states and other jurisdictions lack the right to dictate to citizens who own firearms the manner in which they exercise their right of self-defense.

It’s incumbent upon advocates of Second Amendment rights, therefore, to demonstrate that AWBs and similar regulations do not facilitate public safety, are an unwarranted violation of the right to self-defense, and are in no way rationally based.

You had it up until this point. It is not incumbent on advocates for existing rights to justify actually having those rights. It is incumbent on those that wish to infringe upon those rights to justify that infringement. There is nothing showing that AWB does jack to protect anyone.

It is easy to show otherwise though that those laws are not rationally based. Most of them have more to do with the look of the weapon more than the function as the term ‘assault’ weapon has become a literal joke.

 

[westwall]

ya but then the dems would say that all gun owners are nut bags and disqualify em all

Any thread on guns on USMB would kind of prove them right.

Usually a gun thread on USMB is the usual suspects talking about all the people THEY JUST CAN'T WAIT TO SHOOT!!!!

Bullshit. As are the majority of your posts.

 

[jillian]

the right to bear arms is absolute - not subject to any restrictions][/b]
.
.

Cool. Let felons and mental patients have guns. Brilliant!

his assertion is also incorrect. even scalia (who's as radical as anyone on the issue) acknowledges in heller that reasonable regulation is constitutionally acceptable.

 

[zeke]

Believe what you want to believe and disregard the rest. Right you gun nutters? You just don't want to believe that reasonable restrictions on guns is lawful and has been used before.

Just disregard those restrictions, take two aspirins and you will feel better tomorrow when you come back here and make the same ignorant arguments you always make.

Will the revolution be televised?

 

[jon_berzerk]

I have proposed a solution here a few times. Instead of registering guns and limiting magazine sizes and whatnot, we should register gun buyers.

If you apply to be a gun buyer, and pass a mental health and criminal background check, your name goes on a list. Sort of like those people who can now get pre-screened before flying.

If you wish to purchase a firearm, the retailer simply looks to see if your name is on the approved gun buyer list. If it is, you can buy as many guns and any size magazines you wish, and no record is kept of what you bought.

If you are a certified nutjob, your name does not get on the list and you cannot buy a gun.

If you are on the list, and then get convicted of whatever crime the people of your state decide warrants your removal from the list, then you are taken off the list.

If you are on the registered gun buyer list, it does not necessarily mean you have bought a gun. Nor does it indicate how many guns you own. Nor does it indicate how much ammo or magazines you own. It just indicates you are an upstanding citizen whose Second Amendment rights shall not be infringed or taken away without due process.

registration = confiscation

 

[SwimExpert]

Again, background checks are both Constitutional and effective in facilitating laws prohibiting the mentally ill, felons, and undocumented immigrants from possessing firearms, “or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” (DC v. Heller (2008)).

Sorry, quoting a court opinion to say that policy is "effective" is ultimately fallacy. The court has no authority or expertise to be the arbiter of the quality of a public policy. Whether a law is good or bad, effective or ineffective, is for the people to decide through the democratic process.

[/quote]It’s incumbent upon advocates of Second Amendment rights, therefore, to demonstrate that AWBs and similar regulations do not facilitate public safety, are an unwarranted violation of the right to self-defense, and are in no way rationally based.[/QUOTE]

This is false. The first burden of proof lies with the positive claimant. It might be true that, in the context of current public policy, exacting a change will place the burden of action upon second amendment supporters. It may also be true that within the context of legal action, the burden of action and proof will fall on those claiming an infringement of rights. But insofar as we are all on this messageboard and discussing the most effective public policy options available to us as a people, the burden of proof is a purely logical one. Not legal or social. Thus, it lies with the positive claimant.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Sandy Hook almost did it. But the NRA went on the offensive. So no gun laws for preventing this type of tragedy. What is going to happen, with the continued proliferation of military weapons, is that there will finally be a massacre so horrible that the citizens of this nation will vote in laws as stringent as those in other sane first world nations. Laws that will even effect the type of traditional hunting weapons that I have. So be it, you fools have brought it on yourselves.

Sandy Hook almost did it.

almost did what

 

[jon_berzerk]

Chicago Father and Daughter Rushed By Two Home Intruders – One Thug Shot Dead By Dad – Dad Charged For Expired Gun “Ownership Permit”…

CHICAGO - A 44-year-old man on crutches fatally shot one of two intruders who came charging at him Friday morning in the Heart of Chicago neighborhood, according to police.

Mario Viramontes, 31, was declared dead on the scene in 2000 block of West 21st Street at 9:22 a.m., according to the Cook County medical examiner’s office.

Police were called to the scene at 9:09 a.m. for a burglary, and when they arrived, they found that a “male offender” who had been trying to commit a burglary had been shot by the homeowner, said Police News Affairs Sgt. Antoinette Ursitti.

The 44-year-old homeowner was sleeping when his frightened 18-year-old daughter woke him up, then told him that she heard noises and thought someone was breaking into the apartment behind theirs, according to a police report.


During the course of the investigation, police learned the 44-year-old homeowner's Firearm Owners Identification card was expired and he was charged with one count of possessing a firearm with an expired FOID card, a misdemeanor, police said.

Cops: Burglar shot to death by homeowner on West Side - chicagotribune.com

 

[Wildman]

So what exactly have gun nuts "compromised" on?

every damn gun law since the 1934 gun control act,

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/nfa/index.html

1938
The Federal Firearms Act of 1938 places the first limitations on selling ordinary firearms. Persons selling guns are required to obtain a Federal Firearms License, at an annual cost of $1, and to maintain records of the name and address of persons to whom firearms are sold. Gun sales to persons convicted of violent felonies were prohibited.

The Gun Control Act of 1968, Public Law 90-618

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-82/pdf/STATUTE-82-Pg1213-2.pdf

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-103hr1025enr/pdf/BILLS-103hr1025enr.pdf

concessions ? we have conceded nearly every gun right we ever had, up until the 1968 gun control act a 14 y.o. boy could walk into the local hardware store with his Mom/Dad and buy his own .22 rifle and ammo. we could mail order guns, we could even buy a full auto rifle/machine gun IF we jumped thru a few Gvmt. hoops and paid the $200.00 tax stamp.

no more ******* concessions such as, "we just want you to stop smoking on airplanes" THAT is when we started conceding to you whiney assed liberfools.

**** YOU ALL FROM NOW ON !!

regards,
Wildman

So you've supported all those gun control laws?

Who do you claim to speak for, when you say you've "compromised" on those laws?

are you stupid or something ? please do not reply, as you will only confirm my suspicions that you have no concept of the topic.

 

[hangover]

Places like Florida, where everyone can carry a gun, makes it too easy to kill people for stupid reasons, like texting in a theater, or playing music in a car. The reality is, there is too many stupid people with guns. And guns are NOT saving any of those being killed! That's just another stupid lie by the gun nuts.

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

Colion Noir says here many of the things that I have posted here and other places many times in the past.

Gun Owners have compromised. It's time to stop.

WTF have they compromised on? Please. Really. Stupidest Post of the Day goes to you, toots.

So what exactly have gun nuts "compromised" on?

Just goes to show how deep the ignorance is on the anti-gun side.

Amazing really . .

Oh mighty man of old wisdom...Maybe you might want to enlighten us.

 

[Wildman]

Actually, I think it's a pretty safe bet that you fall into my poorly-defined category of "gun nuts" perfectly.

Have you ever "compromised" on gun laws?

No actually I've followed them like all law the abiding citizens you people want to **** with. But I agree with the guy in the video, it's way past time to stop even talking about any more gun laws. The ones we have aren't enforced and didn't work to begin with. You want to call people like me an nut go the **** ahead, I really don't give a shit anymore. Someday you may decide to become part of the solution instead of being the problem.

Who you callin' "you people"?

I don't support a vast majority of gun control laws.

so, which ones do you support ?

i support one and only one...,

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

notice, there are no comas, periods or any other punctuation marks in the bold highlighted the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be
infringed., that is the part that all liberals, anti-gun fools etc., fail miserably at understanding.

 

[hangover]

When I Am Called A Racist.., I Know I Have Won The Discussion

^^^^The ideology of the KKK.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Who you callin' "you people"?

I don't support a vast majority of gun control laws.

so, which ones do you support ?

i support one and only one...,

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

notice, there are no comas, periods or any other punctuation marks in the bold highlighted the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be
infringed., that is the part that all liberals, anti-gun fools etc., fail miserably at understanding.

But you keep ignoring the part about a WELL REGULATED MILITIA.

A "WELL-REGULATED" militia would not include these guys.

 

[Iceweasel]

But you keep ignoring the part about a WELL REGULATED MILITIA.

A "WELL-REGULATED" militia would not include these guys.

Those guys had issues and probably should have been in a happy farm but that's considered cruel these days. As far as the militia goes, a militia IS armed, that's part of the definition. The 2nd A says "the people" for a reason. We don't need a crystal ball since the founders wrote about what they meant and the language is clear to all but those who want the people disarmed.

 

[JoeB131]

But you keep ignoring the part about a WELL REGULATED MILITIA.

A "WELL-REGULATED" militia would not include these guys.

Those guys had issues and probably should have been in a happy farm but that's considered cruel these days. As far as the militia goes, a militia IS armed, that's part of the definition. The 2nd A says "the people" for a reason. We don't need a crystal ball since the founders wrote about what they meant and the language is clear to all but those who want the people disarmed.

I'm pretty sure the Founding Slave Rapists weren't going about handing out rifles to their slaves.

They wanted to guns to be restricted only to those they considered worthy.

We should apply the same standard. not eveyrone needs a gun, not everyone should have one.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I have proposed a solution here a few times. Instead of registering guns and limiting magazine sizes and whatnot, we should register gun buyers.

If you apply to be a gun buyer, and pass a mental health and criminal background check, your name goes on a list. Sort of like those people who can now get pre-screened before flying.

If you wish to purchase a firearm, the retailer simply looks to see if your name is on the approved gun buyer list. If it is, you can buy as many guns and any size magazines you wish, and no record is kept of what you bought.

If you are a certified nutjob, your name does not get on the list and you cannot buy a gun.

If you are on the list, and then get convicted of whatever crime the people of your state decide warrants your removal from the list, then you are taken off the list.

If you are on the registered gun buyer list, it does not necessarily mean you have bought a gun. Nor does it indicate how many guns you own. Nor does it indicate how much ammo or magazines you own. It just indicates you are an upstanding citizen whose Second Amendment rights shall not be infringed or taken away without due process.

Registration is an infringement.
Fail.

 

[M14 Shooter]

it is impossible to comprimise with the anti-gun loons.

To compromise, each side gives a little to get someting it wants.

The anti-gun loons have nothing to give to the gun owners, and so compromise is, by definition, impossible.