CDZ GUNS: a challenge to both liberals and conservatives

[Picaro]

They don't care about saving lives. That is the point that everyone seems to be missing. They are only concerned with their politics and their agenda to take rights and freedoms from American citizens so that we are stuck in a nanny state whether we want to be or not.

Can't compromise freedoms. It makes no sense at all and certainly doesn't benefit anyone in the long run.

Actually what freedoms I am suggesting the 2nd Amendment side compromise on are so minor it really isn't a problem, and you know and I know that it won't make any difference in the violence in our society or any significant difference in our liberties.

But if it would bring the gun control group to the table to agree on some things that actually would make a difference--not lip service, not promises that won't be kept, but real concrete change in attitudes and emphasis that I believe would really make a difference, then it would be worth it.

I am NOT suggesting at all anything unilateral on the side of the 2nd Amendment group here. It has to be win-win or no deal.

Foxy, they don't want a compromise. They want to abolish the second amendment, no matter how much they might deny it. Sadly, they are a people with an ideology that just can't be trusted no matter what.

Again, not ALL liberals take that hardline of a stance. For those who do, which I believe is a pretty small percentage, you are correct, there is no compromise, Let's stop talking about them, there is no solution there. Let's talk about, and to, those who ARE willing to compromise, the large majority of Americans. However, we MUST be willing to compromise ourselves, or it is, again, pointless. Maybe we can start by emphasising the concessions pro-2nd people have ALREADY made.

That's it. There are some intellectually honest and thoughtful liberals out there but unfortunately not all that many who post on these political message boards. But even the hardliners might soften if we could just convince them we are acting in good faith.

So we could start from working to get agreement of what the goal is: i.e. reduce or stop school violence and that within society as a whole. Would each side be willing to discuss all the provisions that have been made to date, what has worked, what hasn't, and find mutual solutions we could all live with.

Pointing fingers and accusing each other/calling names/etc. would need to be off limits in the discussion; otherwise the discussion just becomes that.

Unfortunately, we are so divided as a country, I doubt that will happen until we address the underlying division. Thus, THAT is where we need to start. As Lincoln once said, "A house divided cannot stand." He got that from the bible I believe, in Matthew 12:25: " And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto him, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:" Whether one is religious or not, one must be able to understand and accept the wisdom therein.

For one, moderates, conservatives, and paleo-liberals have already compromised no end with faux 'progressives' and left wing radicals, have for decades now, no need for those demographics to compromise any more, especially with lunatics and outright traitors and mentally ill deviants who rely on promoting racist hate crimes, quota systems, and hate their own country. Trying to peddle such a meaningless term as 'compromise' is dishonest and avoiding genuine objectivity in fact, not practicing it; all positions and views and ideologies are not valid, certainly not morally or intellectually equivalent just because they have some degree of popularity and fashionable with some demographic or other.

Citing isolated verses from the bible is fun, it creates a false appearance of an appeal to authority and 'ancient wisdom'; the bible is also full of what compromising with those who would destroy your country leads to as well. Mathew 12:25 is just as easily to be taken as a call for driving out the harmful and dishonest dividers who want to destroy their houses. Thomas Jefferson thought deporting them was the just solution.

Some 'scientific rationalists' think the 'right' to kill babies should be extended to the age of two. What kind of 'compromise' would you like to see with them? Meet them at age of 6 months? When they come back later on, then compromise with them on the age of 1? Then a little later on 1 and a half? And then after that ...

 

[ChrisL]

It IS a highly charged topic which is why I did NOT want this to be just another angry gun control thread.

I wish everybody would re-read the the OP and back up a little bit.

My hope is to stop the senseless violence that is all too prevalent in American culture and the only way I see to stop it is not with more gun control but with changing the culture.

Too many on the right think more guns in more places are the answer. It isn't. Yes, hardening vulnerable sites will help and save lives but it won't fix the problem.

Too many on the left think fewer guns or less dangerous guns are the answer. It isn't. Those intent on doing violence are going to find a way to do it regardless of what laws we pass.

So this thread was intended to start a conversation of what each side could agree to in order to achieve fewer violent people and a far more safe America for school children and everybody else.

And that has much less to do with guns than it does with changing the culture.

Unless everybody coming to the table for that conversation has something to gain from it, however, they won't come to the table. And nothing constructive can happen. That is what the compromise in the OP was all about.

And I am discouraged that anybody other than me is interested in having the conservation at all.

I think it is pretty clear (at least from my point of view) why there is no compromising with liberal demands. You cannot trust them. They are extremely dishonest, they fail to see or even to acknowledge the big picture and the unintended consequences, and things have gotten worse and worse since we have allowed them to trample on our 2nd A rights. NOTHING has gotten better as they have promised MANY times, but things have instead gotten worse. They will NEVER stop saying, just one more inch, just one more inch. They don't even realize or want to realize what the true problems are or where they come from. They just want to keep imposing themselves on the citizens and our rights.

And this post is an example of why most conservatives are unable to address the issue in good faith: their propensity for lying, their inherent dishonesty, their hyperbolic demagoguery, and their comprehensive ignorance of the law.

As already correctly noted: no Second Amendment rights have been ‘trampled on,’ particularly by ‘liberals’ – the notion is a ridiculous lie; all the measures advocated for by Democrats are perfectly Constitutional and consistent with current Second Amendment jurisprudence, none having been invalidated by the Supreme Court.

As long as conservatives remain ignorant of Second Amendment case law, as long as they continue to refuse to acknowledge the fact that the Second Amendment is not ‘absolute,’ and as long as they refuse to address the issue honestly and in good faith, seeking compromise with conservatives is pointless.

Yes they have and they will continue to be until we put a stop to your craziness, trying to enact laws to control crazy.

 

[ChrisL]

Actually what freedoms I am suggesting the 2nd Amendment side compromise on are so minor it really isn't a problem, and you know and I know that it won't make any difference in the violence in our society or any significant difference in our liberties.

But if it would bring the gun control group to the table to agree on some things that actually would make a difference--not lip service, not promises that won't be kept, but real concrete change in attitudes and emphasis that I believe would really make a difference, then it would be worth it.

I am NOT suggesting at all anything unilateral on the side of the 2nd Amendment group here. It has to be win-win or no deal.

Foxy, they don't want a compromise. They want to abolish the second amendment, no matter how much they might deny it. Sadly, they are a people with an ideology that just can't be trusted no matter what.

Again, not ALL liberals take that hardline of a stance. For those who do, which I believe is a pretty small percentage, you are correct, there is no compromise, Let's stop talking about them, there is no solution there. Let's talk about, and to, those who ARE willing to compromise, the large majority of Americans. However, we MUST be willing to compromise ourselves, or it is, again, pointless. Maybe we can start by emphasising the concessions pro-2nd people have ALREADY made.

That's it. There are some intellectually honest and thoughtful liberals out there but unfortunately not all that many who post on these political message boards. But even the hardliners might soften if we could just convince them we are acting in good faith.

So we could start from working to get agreement of what the goal is: i.e. reduce or stop school violence and that within society as a whole. Would each side be willing to discuss all the provisions that have been made to date, what has worked, what hasn't, and find mutual solutions we could all live with.

Pointing fingers and accusing each other/calling names/etc. would need to be off limits in the discussion; otherwise the discussion just becomes that.

Unfortunately, we are so divided as a country, I doubt that will happen until we address the underlying division. Thus, THAT is where we need to start. As Lincoln once said, "A house divided cannot stand." He got that from the bible I believe, in Matthew 12:25: " And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto him, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:" Whether one is religious or not, one must be able to understand and accept the wisdom therein.

Yes. That is where we have to start. And that requires calling out those who deliberately create and/or promote the divisions for fun, profit, personal/political advantage, etc.

Which describes a great many from both sides of the aisle, so there goes your compromise.

 

[Foxfyre]

Foxy, they don't want a compromise. They want to abolish the second amendment, no matter how much they might deny it. Sadly, they are a people with an ideology that just can't be trusted no matter what.

Again, not ALL liberals take that hardline of a stance. For those who do, which I believe is a pretty small percentage, you are correct, there is no compromise, Let's stop talking about them, there is no solution there. Let's talk about, and to, those who ARE willing to compromise, the large majority of Americans. However, we MUST be willing to compromise ourselves, or it is, again, pointless. Maybe we can start by emphasising the concessions pro-2nd people have ALREADY made.

That's it. There are some intellectually honest and thoughtful liberals out there but unfortunately not all that many who post on these political message boards. But even the hardliners might soften if we could just convince them we are acting in good faith.

So we could start from working to get agreement of what the goal is: i.e. reduce or stop school violence and that within society as a whole. Would each side be willing to discuss all the provisions that have been made to date, what has worked, what hasn't, and find mutual solutions we could all live with.

Pointing fingers and accusing each other/calling names/etc. would need to be off limits in the discussion; otherwise the discussion just becomes that.

Unfortunately, we are so divided as a country, I doubt that will happen until we address the underlying division. Thus, THAT is where we need to start. As Lincoln once said, "A house divided cannot stand." He got that from the bible I believe, in Matthew 12:25: " And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto him, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:" Whether one is religious or not, one must be able to understand and accept the wisdom therein.

Yes. That is where we have to start. And that requires calling out those who deliberately create and/or promote the divisions for fun, profit, personal/political advantage, etc.

Which describes a great many from both sides of the aisle, so there goes your compromise.

I don't think so because we're not talking about everybody on either side. The numbnuts, trolls, idiots, loony tunes, and opportunists regardless of which side they are on aren't most of the people out there. There are only the loudest, greediest, and most mean spirited. And we don't have to allow them to do our thinking or our speaking for us and/or dictate what the policy will be.

So what has to happen is to find enough people still capable of critical thinking and reasonableness who actually want to solve the problems and work out the solutions.

 

[ChrisL]

Again, not ALL liberals take that hardline of a stance. For those who do, which I believe is a pretty small percentage, you are correct, there is no compromise, Let's stop talking about them, there is no solution there. Let's talk about, and to, those who ARE willing to compromise, the large majority of Americans. However, we MUST be willing to compromise ourselves, or it is, again, pointless. Maybe we can start by emphasising the concessions pro-2nd people have ALREADY made.

That's it. There are some intellectually honest and thoughtful liberals out there but unfortunately not all that many who post on these political message boards. But even the hardliners might soften if we could just convince them we are acting in good faith.

So we could start from working to get agreement of what the goal is: i.e. reduce or stop school violence and that within society as a whole. Would each side be willing to discuss all the provisions that have been made to date, what has worked, what hasn't, and find mutual solutions we could all live with.

Pointing fingers and accusing each other/calling names/etc. would need to be off limits in the discussion; otherwise the discussion just becomes that.

Unfortunately, we are so divided as a country, I doubt that will happen until we address the underlying division. Thus, THAT is where we need to start. As Lincoln once said, "A house divided cannot stand." He got that from the bible I believe, in Matthew 12:25: " And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto him, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:" Whether one is religious or not, one must be able to understand and accept the wisdom therein.

Yes. That is where we have to start. And that requires calling out those who deliberately create and/or promote the divisions for fun, profit, personal/political advantage, etc.

Which describes a great many from both sides of the aisle, so there goes your compromise.

I don't think so because we're not talking about everybody on either side. The numbnuts, trolls, idiots, loony tunes, and opportunists regardless of which side they are on aren't most of the people out there. There are only the loudest, greediest, and most mean spirited. And we don't have to allow them to do our thinking or our speaking for us and/or dictate what the policy will be.

So what has to happen is to find enough people still capable of critical thinking and reasonableness who actually want to solve the problems and work out the solutions.

You should say until they present some realistic solutions that aren't just more feel good laws and putting a Band Aid on a very serious issue. These are people who think that banning things (after our history with banning alcohol and drugs) is going to somehow prevent a mentally ill person who spends weeks if not months planning on killing a bunch of people from carrying out their deeds.

 

[Foxfyre]

That's it. There are some intellectually honest and thoughtful liberals out there but unfortunately not all that many who post on these political message boards. But even the hardliners might soften if we could just convince them we are acting in good faith.

So we could start from working to get agreement of what the goal is: i.e. reduce or stop school violence and that within society as a whole. Would each side be willing to discuss all the provisions that have been made to date, what has worked, what hasn't, and find mutual solutions we could all live with.

Pointing fingers and accusing each other/calling names/etc. would need to be off limits in the discussion; otherwise the discussion just becomes that.

Unfortunately, we are so divided as a country, I doubt that will happen until we address the underlying division. Thus, THAT is where we need to start. As Lincoln once said, "A house divided cannot stand." He got that from the bible I believe, in Matthew 12:25: " And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto him, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:" Whether one is religious or not, one must be able to understand and accept the wisdom therein.

Yes. That is where we have to start. And that requires calling out those who deliberately create and/or promote the divisions for fun, profit, personal/political advantage, etc.

Which describes a great many from both sides of the aisle, so there goes your compromise.

I don't think so because we're not talking about everybody on either side. The numbnuts, trolls, idiots, loony tunes, and opportunists regardless of which side they are on aren't most of the people out there. There are only the loudest, greediest, and most mean spirited. And we don't have to allow them to do our thinking or our speaking for us and/or dictate what the policy will be.

So what has to happen is to find enough people still capable of critical thinking and reasonableness who actually want to solve the problems and work out the solutions.

You should say until they present some realistic solutions that aren't just more feel good laws and putting a Band Aid on a very serious issue. These are people who think that banning things (after our history with banning alcohol and drugs) is going to somehow prevent a mentally ill person who spends weeks if not months planning on killing a bunch of people from carrying out their deeds.

I'm not talking about band aids. We've had far too much of that as well as too much legal manipulation that hasn't fixed anything. Nor has pointing fingers, accusing, and condemning helped anything.

So I suggest something new, i.e. finding people willing enough to agree to fix the problem instead of just futilely doing more political correct stuff and/or stripping rights and liberties from peaceful people and pretending that is doing anything other than creating the problem in the first place. Or holding one's beliefs so tightly he/she is unwilling to even have a conversation about them.

Of course the remedies in the OP don't apply to everybody and it isn't necessary that they do. But when that kind of culture was the norm, we weren't breeding mass killers despite there being pretty much no gun control.

 

[evenflow1969]

After 911 we fortified our airports and train stations bus stations museums stadiums and many other easy targets...now it's time to do the same to our schools...why is that so difficult to comprehend?

Because the fucks that decide our laws are not sitting in schools. They put six deputies at the front of every governemnt installation in town and the schools get the old guy that likely has not walked the beat since the 1980's.

 

[oldsoul]

Actually what freedoms I am suggesting the 2nd Amendment side compromise on are so minor it really isn't a problem, and you know and I know that it won't make any difference in the violence in our society or any significant difference in our liberties.

But if it would bring the gun control group to the table to agree on some things that actually would make a difference--not lip service, not promises that won't be kept, but real concrete change in attitudes and emphasis that I believe would really make a difference, then it would be worth it.

I am NOT suggesting at all anything unilateral on the side of the 2nd Amendment group here. It has to be win-win or no deal.

Foxy, they don't want a compromise. They want to abolish the second amendment, no matter how much they might deny it. Sadly, they are a people with an ideology that just can't be trusted no matter what.

Again, not ALL liberals take that hardline of a stance. For those who do, which I believe is a pretty small percentage, you are correct, there is no compromise, Let's stop talking about them, there is no solution there. Let's talk about, and to, those who ARE willing to compromise, the large majority of Americans. However, we MUST be willing to compromise ourselves, or it is, again, pointless. Maybe we can start by emphasising the concessions pro-2nd people have ALREADY made.

That's it. There are some intellectually honest and thoughtful liberals out there but unfortunately not all that many who post on these political message boards. But even the hardliners might soften if we could just convince them we are acting in good faith.

So we could start from working to get agreement of what the goal is: i.e. reduce or stop school violence and that within society as a whole. Would each side be willing to discuss all the provisions that have been made to date, what has worked, what hasn't, and find mutual solutions we could all live with.

Pointing fingers and accusing each other/calling names/etc. would need to be off limits in the discussion; otherwise the discussion just becomes that.

Unfortunately, we are so divided as a country, I doubt that will happen until we address the underlying division. Thus, THAT is where we need to start. As Lincoln once said, "A house divided cannot stand." He got that from the bible I believe, in Matthew 12:25: " And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto him, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:" Whether one is religious or not, one must be able to understand and accept the wisdom therein.

For one, moderates, conservatives, and paleo-liberals have already compromised no end with faux 'progressives' and left wing radicals, have for decades now, no need for those demographics to compromise any more, especially with lunatics and outright traitors and mentally ill deviants who rely on promoting racist hate crimes, quota systems, and hate their own country. Trying to peddle such a meaningless term as 'compromise' is dishonest and avoiding genuine objectivity in fact, not practicing it; all positions and views and ideologies are not valid, certainly not morally or intellectually equivalent just because they have some degree of popularity and fashionable with some demographic or other.

Citing isolated verses from the bible is fun, it creates a false appearance of an appeal to authority and 'ancient wisdom'; the bible is also full of what compromising with those who would destroy your country leads to as well. Mathew 12:25 is just as easily to be taken as a call for driving out the harmful and dishonest dividers who want to destroy their houses. Thomas Jefferson thought deporting them was the just solution.

Some 'scientific rationalists' think the 'right' to kill babies should be extended to the age of two. What kind of 'compromise' would you like to see with them? Meet them at age of 6 months? When they come back later on, then compromise with them on the age of 1? Then a little later on 1 and a half? And then after that ...

I see no reason to respond to such as what you wrote other than to question such things as what basis you have for declaring that an entire demographic is comprised of "lunatics and outright traitors and mentally ill deviants".

This type of demagoguery has NO PLACE in civil discourse, regardless of the validity or source. It does nothing but polarise our society further.

 

[oldsoul]

Foxy, they don't want a compromise. They want to abolish the second amendment, no matter how much they might deny it. Sadly, they are a people with an ideology that just can't be trusted no matter what.

Again, not ALL liberals take that hardline of a stance. For those who do, which I believe is a pretty small percentage, you are correct, there is no compromise, Let's stop talking about them, there is no solution there. Let's talk about, and to, those who ARE willing to compromise, the large majority of Americans. However, we MUST be willing to compromise ourselves, or it is, again, pointless. Maybe we can start by emphasising the concessions pro-2nd people have ALREADY made.

That's it. There are some intellectually honest and thoughtful liberals out there but unfortunately not all that many who post on these political message boards. But even the hardliners might soften if we could just convince them we are acting in good faith.

So we could start from working to get agreement of what the goal is: i.e. reduce or stop school violence and that within society as a whole. Would each side be willing to discuss all the provisions that have been made to date, what has worked, what hasn't, and find mutual solutions we could all live with.

Pointing fingers and accusing each other/calling names/etc. would need to be off limits in the discussion; otherwise the discussion just becomes that.

Unfortunately, we are so divided as a country, I doubt that will happen until we address the underlying division. Thus, THAT is where we need to start. As Lincoln once said, "A house divided cannot stand." He got that from the bible I believe, in Matthew 12:25: " And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto him, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:" Whether one is religious or not, one must be able to understand and accept the wisdom therein.

Yes. That is where we have to start. And that requires calling out those who deliberately create and/or promote the divisions for fun, profit, personal/political advantage, etc.

Which describes a great many from both sides of the aisle, so there goes your compromise.

Well, at least we have some "common ground" to start from...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

as long as they continue to refuse to acknowledge the fact that the Second Amendment is not ‘absolute,’

Regardless of what the SCOTUS has ruled, which is another topic altogether, what part of this seems to indicate to you that the second is NOT absolute:

"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." (emphasis added)

I agree that case law is such that it is effectively not absolute, however, I have yet to see an argument that is based on reason and logic, that refutes the clear absolution in the wording. Maybe you wish to give it a go. I won't even limit you to using your own words, quote whomever you like. The fact is that it was made really quite clear in the wording that it IS ABSOLUTE, regardless of how people have interpreted it sense.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, including the Second Amendment.

Nowhere in the Second Amendment, for example, will you find the words ‘individual’ or ‘self-defense’ – but nonetheless the Second Amendment does codify an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense.

Just as the text of the Second Amendment does not limit the scope and purview of the rights it enshrines, so too does it not render those rights ‘absolute’ or ‘unlimited.’

As Justice Kennedy explained in Lawrence:

Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.

And had those who drew and ratified the Second Amendment known comprehensively the rights it protects, they likewise might have been more specific, but they too did not presume to have such insight, allowing later generations to invoke its principles, and acknowledge its limitations.

Last, with regard to reason and logic, it is both reasonable and logical to infer that the Second Amendment right is no different than any other right, that while it protects the people from government excess and overreach, it does not prohibit them from placing necessary and proper restrictions on our rights, reflecting the will of the people through the political process, provided those restrictions conform with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

as long as they continue to refuse to acknowledge the fact that the Second Amendment is not ‘absolute,’

Regardless of what the SCOTUS has ruled, which is another topic altogether, what part of this seems to indicate to you that the second is NOT absolute:

"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." (emphasis added)

I agree that case law is such that it is effectively not absolute, however, I have yet to see an argument that is based on reason and logic, that refutes the clear absolution in the wording. Maybe you wish to give it a go. I won't even limit you to using your own words, quote whomever you like. The fact is that it was made really quite clear in the wording that it IS ABSOLUTE, regardless of how people have interpreted it sense.

Now, with regard to the text of the Second Amendment:

“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[]” by government.

Article I of the Constitution authorizes the political process, where the will of the people is expressed by their elected representatives, including the will of the people to place limits and restrictions on citizens’ rights.

Articles III and VI of the Constitution authorize the judicial process, the means by which the people seek relief in the courts from government excess and overreach, and where government actions repugnant to the Constitution are invalidated, regardless the will of the majority of the people.

Article VI also acknowledges the rule of law, the supremacy of the Federal courts, that the Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means, and that those rulings become the law of the land.

The Bill of Rights is the foundation upon which the mechanics of government operate: the political process checked by the judicial process. Elected representatives enact laws and measures regulating – and in some cases, restricting – what the people may or may not do.

And those who believe that they have been disadvantaged by those laws and measures are at liberty to appeal to the courts, as for them the political process has failed.

In some cases, the courts will invalidate a measure because it does not comport with the Constitution; in other cases, the courts will uphold a measure as it is consistent with the Constitution, and does not manifest as an infringement, although a right is indeed being regulated or restricted.

Consequently, the Second Amendment’s admonishment that the right not be infringed does not prohibit its lawful and Constitutional regulation, including restrictions and prohibitions with regard to the possession of certain types of weapons.

 

[ChrisL]

as long as they continue to refuse to acknowledge the fact that the Second Amendment is not ‘absolute,’

Regardless of what the SCOTUS has ruled, which is another topic altogether, what part of this seems to indicate to you that the second is NOT absolute:

"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." (emphasis added)

I agree that case law is such that it is effectively not absolute, however, I have yet to see an argument that is based on reason and logic, that refutes the clear absolution in the wording. Maybe you wish to give it a go. I won't even limit you to using your own words, quote whomever you like. The fact is that it was made really quite clear in the wording that it IS ABSOLUTE, regardless of how people have interpreted it sense.

Now, with regard to the text of the Second Amendment:

“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[]” by government.

Article I of the Constitution authorizes the political process, where the will of the people is expressed by their elected representatives, including the will of the people to place limits and restrictions on citizens’ rights.

Articles III and VI of the Constitution authorize the judicial process, the means by which the people seek relief in the courts from government excess and overreach, and where government actions repugnant to the Constitution are invalidated, regardless the will of the majority of the people.

Article VI also acknowledges the rule of law, the supremacy of the Federal courts, that the Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means, and that those rulings become the law of the land.

The Bill of Rights is the foundation upon which the mechanics of government operate: the political process checked by the judicial process. Elected representatives enact laws and measures regulating – and in some cases, restricting – what the people may or may not do.

And those who believe that they have been disadvantaged by those laws and measures are at liberty to appeal to the courts, as for them the political process has failed.

In some cases, the courts will invalidate a measure because it does not comport with the Constitution; in other cases, the courts will uphold a measure as it is consistent with the Constitution, and does not manifest as an infringement, although a right is indeed being regulated or restricted.

Consequently, the Second Amendment’s admonishment that the right not be infringed does not prohibit its lawful and Constitutional regulation, including restrictions and prohibitions with regard to the possession of certain types of weapons.

The Bill of Rights is meant to protect the people's rights from government encroachment. The founders wanted a government that ONLY did the necessities and not to have it involved in people's day to day lives.

So, would you agree to have a clean debate with my friend who is a constitutional lawyer about the purpose of the Bill of Rights, the meaning of the 2nd amendment?

 

[2aguy]

as long as they continue to refuse to acknowledge the fact that the Second Amendment is not ‘absolute,’

Regardless of what the SCOTUS has ruled, which is another topic altogether, what part of this seems to indicate to you that the second is NOT absolute:

"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." (emphasis added)

I agree that case law is such that it is effectively not absolute, however, I have yet to see an argument that is based on reason and logic, that refutes the clear absolution in the wording. Maybe you wish to give it a go. I won't even limit you to using your own words, quote whomever you like. The fact is that it was made really quite clear in the wording that it IS ABSOLUTE, regardless of how people have interpreted it sense.

Now, with regard to the text of the Second Amendment:

“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[]” by government.

Article I of the Constitution authorizes the political process, where the will of the people is expressed by their elected representatives, including the will of the people to place limits and restrictions on citizens’ rights.

Articles III and VI of the Constitution authorize the judicial process, the means by which the people seek relief in the courts from government excess and overreach, and where government actions repugnant to the Constitution are invalidated, regardless the will of the majority of the people.

Article VI also acknowledges the rule of law, the supremacy of the Federal courts, that the Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means, and that those rulings become the law of the land.

The Bill of Rights is the foundation upon which the mechanics of government operate: the political process checked by the judicial process. Elected representatives enact laws and measures regulating – and in some cases, restricting – what the people may or may not do.

And those who believe that they have been disadvantaged by those laws and measures are at liberty to appeal to the courts, as for them the political process has failed.

In some cases, the courts will invalidate a measure because it does not comport with the Constitution; in other cases, the courts will uphold a measure as it is consistent with the Constitution, and does not manifest as an infringement, although a right is indeed being regulated or restricted.

Consequently, the Second Amendment’s admonishment that the right not be infringed does not prohibit its lawful and Constitutional regulation, including restrictions and prohibitions with regard to the possession of certain types of weapons.

And yet they specifically protect in Heller those weapons in common use for self defense and sporting purposes......and since the AR-15 and semi auto rifles are the most common weapons in use....they are Constitutionally protected from the attacks by anti gunners.....right?

 

[oldsoul]

as long as they continue to refuse to acknowledge the fact that the Second Amendment is not ‘absolute,’

Regardless of what the SCOTUS has ruled, which is another topic altogether, what part of this seems to indicate to you that the second is NOT absolute:

"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." (emphasis added)

I agree that case law is such that it is effectively not absolute, however, I have yet to see an argument that is based on reason and logic, that refutes the clear absolution in the wording. Maybe you wish to give it a go. I won't even limit you to using your own words, quote whomever you like. The fact is that it was made really quite clear in the wording that it IS ABSOLUTE, regardless of how people have interpreted it sense.

Now, with regard to the text of the Second Amendment:

“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[]” by government.

Article I of the Constitution authorizes the political process, where the will of the people is expressed by their elected representatives, including the will of the people to place limits and restrictions on citizens’ rights.

Articles III and VI of the Constitution authorize the judicial process, the means by which the people seek relief in the courts from government excess and overreach, and where government actions repugnant to the Constitution are invalidated, regardless the will of the majority of the people.

Article VI also acknowledges the rule of law, the supremacy of the Federal courts, that the Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means, and that those rulings become the law of the land.

The Bill of Rights is the foundation upon which the mechanics of government operate: the political process checked by the judicial process. Elected representatives enact laws and measures regulating – and in some cases, restricting – what the people may or may not do.

And those who believe that they have been disadvantaged by those laws and measures are at liberty to appeal to the courts, as for them the political process has failed.

In some cases, the courts will invalidate a measure because it does not comport with the Constitution; in other cases, the courts will uphold a measure as it is consistent with the Constitution, and does not manifest as an infringement, although a right is indeed being regulated or restricted.

Consequently, the Second Amendment’s admonishment that the right not be infringed does not prohibit its lawful and Constitutional regulation, including restrictions and prohibitions with regard to the possession of certain types of weapons.

While I basically agree with this, I am still unclear as to how one can interpret "...shall not be infringed." as anything but an absolute ban on government restriction. Make THAT argument, and I will determine if I agree with it. As of yet, you have not.

 

[task0778]

as long as they continue to refuse to acknowledge the fact that the Second Amendment is not ‘absolute,’

Regardless of what the SCOTUS has ruled, which is another topic altogether, what part of this seems to indicate to you that the second is NOT absolute:

"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." (emphasis added)

I agree that case law is such that it is effectively not absolute, however, I have yet to see an argument that is based on reason and logic, that refutes the clear absolution in the wording. Maybe you wish to give it a go. I won't even limit you to using your own words, quote whomever you like. The fact is that it was made really quite clear in the wording that it IS ABSOLUTE, regardless of how people have interpreted it sense.

Now, with regard to the text of the Second Amendment:

“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[]” by government.

Article I of the Constitution authorizes the political process, where the will of the people is expressed by their elected representatives, including the will of the people to place limits and restrictions on citizens’ rights.

Articles III and VI of the Constitution authorize the judicial process, the means by which the people seek relief in the courts from government excess and overreach, and where government actions repugnant to the Constitution are invalidated, regardless the will of the majority of the people.

Article VI also acknowledges the rule of law, the supremacy of the Federal courts, that the Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means, and that those rulings become the law of the land.

The Bill of Rights is the foundation upon which the mechanics of government operate: the political process checked by the judicial process. Elected representatives enact laws and measures regulating – and in some cases, restricting – what the people may or may not do.

And those who believe that they have been disadvantaged by those laws and measures are at liberty to appeal to the courts, as for them the political process has failed.

In some cases, the courts will invalidate a measure because it does not comport with the Constitution; in other cases, the courts will uphold a measure as it is consistent with the Constitution, and does not manifest as an infringement, although a right is indeed being regulated or restricted.

Consequently, the Second Amendment’s admonishment that the right not be infringed does not prohibit its lawful and Constitutional regulation, including restrictions and prohibitions with regard to the possession of certain types of weapons.

And yet they specifically protect in Heller those weapons in common use for self defense and sporting purposes......and since the AR-15 and semi auto rifles are the most common weapons in use....they are Constitutionally protected from the attacks by anti gunners.....right?

So far as I know, the Supreme Court has never ruled on whether an AR-15 and similar guns are Constitutionally protected or not, but some 4 US Court of Appeals have ruled that they are not, and have left standing state laws that permit banning them.

 

[Foxfyre]

as long as they continue to refuse to acknowledge the fact that the Second Amendment is not ‘absolute,’

Regardless of what the SCOTUS has ruled, which is another topic altogether, what part of this seems to indicate to you that the second is NOT absolute:

"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." (emphasis added)

I agree that case law is such that it is effectively not absolute, however, I have yet to see an argument that is based on reason and logic, that refutes the clear absolution in the wording. Maybe you wish to give it a go. I won't even limit you to using your own words, quote whomever you like. The fact is that it was made really quite clear in the wording that it IS ABSOLUTE, regardless of how people have interpreted it sense.

Now, with regard to the text of the Second Amendment:

“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[]” by government.

Article I of the Constitution authorizes the political process, where the will of the people is expressed by their elected representatives, including the will of the people to place limits and restrictions on citizens’ rights.

Articles III and VI of the Constitution authorize the judicial process, the means by which the people seek relief in the courts from government excess and overreach, and where government actions repugnant to the Constitution are invalidated, regardless the will of the majority of the people.

Article VI also acknowledges the rule of law, the supremacy of the Federal courts, that the Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means, and that those rulings become the law of the land.

The Bill of Rights is the foundation upon which the mechanics of government operate: the political process checked by the judicial process. Elected representatives enact laws and measures regulating – and in some cases, restricting – what the people may or may not do.

And those who believe that they have been disadvantaged by those laws and measures are at liberty to appeal to the courts, as for them the political process has failed.

In some cases, the courts will invalidate a measure because it does not comport with the Constitution; in other cases, the courts will uphold a measure as it is consistent with the Constitution, and does not manifest as an infringement, although a right is indeed being regulated or restricted.

Consequently, the Second Amendment’s admonishment that the right not be infringed does not prohibit its lawful and Constitutional regulation, including restrictions and prohibitions with regard to the possession of certain types of weapons.

While I basically agree with this, I am still unclear as to how one can interpret "...shall not be infringed." as anything but an absolute ban on government restriction. Make THAT argument, and I will determine if I agree with it. As of yet, you have not.

The wrinkle in that argument is that the Founders had no way to envision Bradley tanks or machine guns or shouldered rocket launchers. For them at the time the Constitution was written, 'arms' were swords, knives, pistols and long guns, single shot at that plus some primitive mortars, howitzers, and cannon. Just as when they wrote there should be no abridgment of free speech or religion, they could not have envisioned 50 watt radio stations that can obliterate their weaker competition unless there is regulation of the airways, or the ability to send text and pictures from around the world to be viewed by people in their own living rooms and that resulted in regulation of what legal content--no incitement to riot, et al--could be transmitted and/or what would be considered decent content. They could not have imagined a Jim Jones who would so corrupt religious faith that he poisoned 900 of his followers on a single day or the necessity for law enforcement to have ability to intervene in something like that.

The struggle for us now is to honor and respect and enforce the original intent of the Constitution without using it to justify intolerable behavior made possible by modern inventions and technology.

To many conservatives I think won't allow 'intent' to be a factor when interpreting the words of the Constitution. And too many liberals want to twist/misrepresent and/or ignore intent and sometimes what the Constitution says period.

What we need is more education and training in Constitutional scholarship. . .and. . .

What we need is a national conversation that is thoughtful and focused on finding solutions to the problem instead of just more finger pointing, accusing, ideological denial, trolling, insulting, and casting blame and/or just one more legal band aid applied.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Hmm. No interest? Or no brave souls willing to take a stand? Or just nobody wants to be the first response? Come on. At least some of that strikes a responsive chord with somebody.

The entire list of suggestions that "liberals" are asked to accept is bogus and assumes that liberals don't have any friggen idea
how to raise children.

Why would anyone entertain the discussion?

 

[Foxfyre]

Hmm. No interest? Or no brave souls willing to take a stand? Or just nobody wants to be the first response? Come on. At least some of that strikes a responsive chord with somebody.

The entire list of suggestions that "liberals" are asked to accept is bogus and assumes that liberals don't have any friggen idea
how to raise children.

Why would anyone entertain the discussion?

Bogus? So you don't accept any of them as valid goals to shoot for? (And we wonder why this country is so screwed up right now.) But there's apparently another vote for 'hell no, I won't compromise as I would rather the country be screwed up rather than agree we need to do some things differently.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Hmm. No interest? Or no brave souls willing to take a stand? Or just nobody wants to be the first response? Come on. At least some of that strikes a responsive chord with somebody.

The entire list of suggestions that "liberals" are asked to accept is bogus and assumes that liberals don't have any friggen idea
how to raise children.

Why would anyone entertain the discussion?

Bogus? So you don't accept any of them as valid goals to shoot for? (And we wonder why this country is so screwed up right now.) But there's apparently another vote for 'hell no, I won't compromise as I would rather the country be screwed up rather than agree we need to do some things differently.

Would liberals be willing to consider the truth in the following and consider working toward social policy to achieve it?
--kids need a responsible mom and a dad in the home. Very very few criminals or violent people of any sort come from such homes.

Liberals already advocate for responsible parenting. And violent people come from all kinds of homes. Bogus.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Hmm. No interest? Or no brave souls willing to take a stand? Or just nobody wants to be the first response? Come on. At least some of that strikes a responsive chord with somebody.

The entire list of suggestions that "liberals" are asked to accept is bogus and assumes that liberals don't have any friggen idea
how to raise children.

Why would anyone entertain the discussion?

Bogus? So you don't accept any of them as valid goals to shoot for? (And we wonder why this country is so screwed up right now.) But there's apparently another vote for 'hell no, I won't compromise as I would rather the country be screwed up rather than agree we need to do some things differently.

-kids benefit from a religious faith that teaches love, respect for life and authority, caring from others. Good churches and synagogues aren't producing many criminals.

Religion is not needed for kids to learn love, respect for life and "authority", caring from others. Many criminals grew up in churches and synagogues. Bogus.