CDZ GUNS: a challenge to both liberals and conservatives

[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.

I interpret it that the 2nd Amendment means that the FEDERAL government cannot infringe on our right to bear arms. But it poses no restriction whatsoever on whatever laws state and local governments can impose or what rules a private home or establishment may have. If the saloon owner wants no guns, there should be no federal law requiring him to have one. If I don't want guns in my home, I should not have to have them. But, if I am a collector and want 100 or 1000 firearms in my collection, the federal government has no authority to say I can't have that.

But ultimately, the safety of the nation, the state, the local community, and the home resides in the integrity and culture of the people and not in gun control.

I disagree on whether states/localities can impose restrictions the Feds cannot. If we allow for that with the second, what stops your state from imposing restrictions on any of the other rights enshrined in the COTUS. Ultimately the COTUS is the supreme law of the land, thus no law may violate it, whether that law be federal, state or local. Hence, "Jim Crow" laws where struck down, along with many others, such as in the Heller case.

 

[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.

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.

I interpret it that the 2nd Amendment means that the FEDERAL government cannot infringe on our right to bear arms. But it poses no restriction whatsoever on whatever laws state and local governments can impose or what rules a private home or establishment may have. If the saloon owner wants no guns, there should be no federal law requiring him to have one. If I don't want guns in my home, I should not have to have them. But, if I am a collector and want 100 or 1000 firearms in my collection, the federal government has no authority to say I can't have that.

But ultimately, the safety of the nation, the state, the local community, and the home resides in the integrity and culture of the people and not in gun control.

I would agree...as soon as bakers can refuse service to gay weddings I will agree to allow private businesses to violate the 2nd Amendment....

 

[2aguy]

Heller clearly states that guns that are in common use are protected......the 4th Circuit completely ignored not only Heller, but Caetano, and Miller.....they should have been slapped down by the Supreme Court, but the SJWs on the court want guns banned regardless of the Constitution....

From Heller....

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
------------

In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” I

---

We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordinary military equipment” could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.
That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939.

We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179.

The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.”

State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 6–15, 252–254 (1973)). Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Secon
-----

Maybe so, but it's hard to argue with the 4 US Courts of Appeal who said in essence that the 2nd Amendment does not extend to AR-15s and the like, and there's no Court at that level that has ruled otherwise. That's all I'm saying, I don't support a federal ban on them myself.

I could live with the universal background checks that the Dems want though, or are they asking for more than I thought?

The 4th completely ignored all of the previous Supreme Court rulings.....they are wrong on all levels, so no, it isn't hard to argue with them since the argument they make doesn't even come close to being Constitutional or even backed by legal precedent......I just quoted Heller, Caetano and Miller...and they ignored all 3.........

Why would you support a universal background check?

Criminals do not go through them, and mass shooters pass them.

Criminals use straw buyers to buy guns from gun stores...that means their straw buyers can pass any federal background check...that means they will pass a background check on a private sale too.......

Criminals will also steal guns, which goes around any and all background checks.

Criminals do not buy guns from private sellers, because they don't know if they are cops or federal agents, they use the straw buyers because they are friends and family, they also buy from other criminals who use straw buyers or steal the guns....

The only reason anti gunners want universal background checks is because it gives them the power to come back and demand universal gun registration.......they will say universal background checks do not work unless we know who originally owned the gun...and we cant do that unless all guns are registered....

Universal background checks are just a way to get to registration......

Ok, your knowledge in this area probably exceeds mine, but here's the thing: UBCs would not make it impossible for a criminal or nutcase to acquire a gun but it does make it harder. How many people know somebody on the black market or somebody who will sell them an AR-15 in a private sale? In most if not all of the mass shootings we read about in the papers we eventually find out where the weapons that were used got into the hands of the shooter/killer. If you're a private citizen and there is a UBC req't to sell your AR-15 to somebody and you do not require that person to get a background check through an authorized dealer, then presumably you're in big legal trouble, no? A UBC law would have to have a penalty under the law for that. So what if it costs an extra $25 bucks or so to pay the dealer to do the check, what's that compared to the several hundred bucks you have to pay to the seller?

As for gun registration that's a separate issue, you don't automatically get that as part of the deal IMHO. I wouldn't support gun registration but that's not a reason to deny UBCs.

Ok, so you clearly laid out your case for UBCs. I disagree, but that is another matter. Here's the thing, It's been illegal to murder since the inception of this country. That does not stop people from murdering. Sure, it may discourage some, and imprison those convicted. How many lives have been made whole again though this system? Not one. Simply put, it's because prevention is the only way.

Prevention is key, on that I think we agree. Would UBCs prevent "nut jobs" from getting guns? Maybe. You know what, I'll even say in some cases it would. However, a determined person can still get a gun. That would be made exponentially more difficult if we had some kind of psychiatric hold laws. Something like this:

I, and several others, believe one of my relatives/friends is a threat to themselves or others. We go before a judge and testify as such, providing evidence. The judge then has the authority, if deemed appropriate, to legally compel this person to undergo a psych eval in a secured facility. The doctors then make a determination on the individual's mental state and report back to the court. The court then decides if this person can be released, and under what conditions.

Does it take itime? Sure, so does doing a murder investigation. Will it stop all murders? Of course not, but it does follow the intent of our framers that everyone has certain rights that cannot be taken away without DUE PROCESS.

What do you think? Where is the flaw? What am I missing?

Was wondering at what point in your process do you suspend the individual's right to buy a gun. Do you also confiscate the weapons he already has? I can go along with your idea of psychiatric hold laws, but I'm not sure we have the facilities or the means to do this for everybody that might need to be held.

The local police department could hold the weapons....I don't think there are that many people who will have their guns pulled, if there are, we need to rethink this option since it would be being abused....

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

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 me, at least, this is pretty easy. The intent was to ensure the government could not prevent otherwise law abiding citizens from owning (bearing) arms with which they could mount an effective resistance to an oppressive (or tyrannical) government. Therefore, as with all rights enshrined in the COTUS, if it does not infringe on another's' rights, it is within the scope of protection. Using this logic, it would be within one's rights to own (bear) any and all weapons. The brandishing, or use thereof is another matter altogether, and a matter for legislation and prosecution.

For example, using your example of "machine guns" (AKA fully automatic weapons), it would be within one's rights to own a BAR. Brandishing it to initiate an aggressive act/threaten, would already be illegal, as you are threatening to deprive someone of their right to life. Using it, for purposes other than for target shooting, hunting, self-defense, etc., would also be illegal, as it is reasonable to believe that you intend to deprive someone of life.

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.

I wholeheartedly agree. We are in a very sad state when 2 out of 3 people cannot even name the three branches of the federal government. Something that should be basic civics, even for a 3rd grader.

As for what arms that the people are allowed to bear under the Constitution, you raise a good point that we are not to be denied the right to defend ourselves, even against our own government should it rise up against the people to do violence in an unlawful manner.

But I also balance that against a guy who often got blind stupid drunk, probably including more than one substance, and totally out of his mind on weekends and once decided to do some target practice in his back yard with his perfectly legal and honorably acquired deer rifle. Thank God nobody was injured or killed but he put some inadvertent bullets into some of his neighbor's houses. The police took care of it arriving about 20 minutes or so after the shooting binge started. I was told that he and his moved away after he spent awhile in jail, and he apparently checked himself into a rehab center and got dried out.

But what if he was our neighbor and he had a machine gun or a missile launcher or a Bradley tank in the back yard on those nights he was literally out of his mind? I think I would not be comfortable with that at all.

There are always some wrinkles in the debate. But I honestly believe returning the American society to a homogenous people sharing mostly common values of personal responsibility, accountability, and working out their differences without violence, we would not have enough of a gun problem to worry about.

I would bet that this was not a one time occurance. Assuming it was not, I refer you to the proposal I layed out in post #296, and ask for your reaction. Could my proposal have prevented such a situation? Would it cause you to be more comfortable with people having weapons that can do significant damage in very short periods of time?

Of course there still needs to be restrictions on HOW one uses weapons from of ALL kinds. I believe we, as a society, need to think twice about restricting WHAT weapons one can own. Lest we lose more rights...

According to my friend recounting the event, it was a once and only occurrence, and the guy was otherwise considered an upstanding member of his church, community, and he somehow had managed to avoid any police encounters of any kind. He almost certainly would have been sober and of sound mind in taking any kind of psychiatric test and he almost certainly would have passed any kind of background check. Only those closest to him knew of his drinking problem and they did not consider him dangerous. Until he was.

I believe that because I have lived 30+ years with a recovering alcoholic who has been clean and sober all that time but was a mess before he got that way. But he never lost a job, never had a D.U.I., was never arrested or had any kind of unpleasant encounter with law enforcement.

So you are always going to have the occasional crazy or inappropriate as that seems to just be something the human race has always had to put up with. But making law or policy based on the rare anomaly is not the way to go about making law or policy.

Like the Founders of this great nation, I trust the people to get it right for themselves if they are allowed to choose the law and/or policy that is right for them. What is right for one place may not work so well for another, but if folks are allowed to sort things out, they'll usually make better choices than the federal government will do making those choices for them.

But I still say that no amount of laws will bring peace between an angry, contentious, socially and politically divided people who share few common cohesive values. Most especially when the evil and opportunistic are actively working to keep us angry, contentious, and socially and politically divided. Until we fix that, we are pretty well screwed.

 

[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.

I interpret it that the 2nd Amendment means that the FEDERAL government cannot infringe on our right to bear arms. But it poses no restriction whatsoever on whatever laws state and local governments can impose or what rules a private home or establishment may have. If the saloon owner wants no guns, there should be no federal law requiring him to have one. If I don't want guns in my home, I should not have to have them. But, if I am a collector and want 100 or 1000 firearms in my collection, the federal government has no authority to say I can't have that.

But ultimately, the safety of the nation, the state, the local community, and the home resides in the integrity and culture of the people and not in gun control.

I disagree on whether states/localities can impose restrictions the Feds cannot. If we allow for that with the second, what stops your state from imposing restrictions on any of the other rights enshrined in the COTUS. Ultimately the COTUS is the supreme law of the land, thus no law may violate it, whether that law be federal, state or local. Hence, "Jim Crow" laws where struck down, along with many others, such as in the Heller case.

No state or local community should be able to pass any law discriminatory toward any person just because that person is who/what he/she is through no fault of his/her own. But any state or local community should be able to pass any law that applies to all persons regardless of who/what/they are. So if a state/city wants to pass a law prohibiting indecent exposure, setting requirements for who can be legally married under the law, prohibiting open saloons or public drunkenness or profanity or littering or soliciting for sex or money or prohibiting open and/or concealed carry or any other provisions they want for their society, the federal government should have no say whatsoever in that.

If that is not the case, then none of us have any liberties whatsoever other than what the federal government allows us to have. And that is a complete reversal of what the Founders intended with the Constitution and the great nation founded under its auspices.

 

[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.

I interpret it that the 2nd Amendment means that the FEDERAL government cannot infringe on our right to bear arms. But it poses no restriction whatsoever on whatever laws state and local governments can impose or what rules a private home or establishment may have. If the saloon owner wants no guns, there should be no federal law requiring him to have one. If I don't want guns in my home, I should not have to have them. But, if I am a collector and want 100 or 1000 firearms in my collection, the federal government has no authority to say I can't have that.

But ultimately, the safety of the nation, the state, the local community, and the home resides in the integrity and culture of the people and not in gun control.

I would agree...as soon as bakers can refuse service to gay weddings I will agree to allow private businesses to violate the 2nd Amendment....

If we all shared cohesive values, we would agree that any private business should not have to provide any product or service that it doesn't choose to provide or participate in any event that goes against a person's moral convictions or sense of justice. And we would agree that nobody should have to permit people to bring guns into his/her private establishment or home or community when he/she they do not want those guns present.

Once we agree on what liberty is, then working out a reasonable policy to live by is a lot easier. But until we mostly share those cohesive values as a people, nobody is likely to compromise on anything and we become ever more divided, angry, resentful, contentious, uncompromising, and sometimes violently dangerous.

 

[oldsoul]

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.

I interpret it that the 2nd Amendment means that the FEDERAL government cannot infringe on our right to bear arms. But it poses no restriction whatsoever on whatever laws state and local governments can impose or what rules a private home or establishment may have. If the saloon owner wants no guns, there should be no federal law requiring him to have one. If I don't want guns in my home, I should not have to have them. But, if I am a collector and want 100 or 1000 firearms in my collection, the federal government has no authority to say I can't have that.

But ultimately, the safety of the nation, the state, the local community, and the home resides in the integrity and culture of the people and not in gun control.

I disagree on whether states/localities can impose restrictions the Feds cannot. If we allow for that with the second, what stops your state from imposing restrictions on any of the other rights enshrined in the COTUS. Ultimately the COTUS is the supreme law of the land, thus no law may violate it, whether that law be federal, state or local. Hence, "Jim Crow" laws where struck down, along with many others, such as in the Heller case.

No state or local community should be able to pass any law discriminatory toward any person just because that person is who/what he/she is through no fault of his/her own. But any state or local community should be able to pass any law that applies to all persons regardless of who/what/they are. So if a state/city wants to pass a law prohibiting indecent exposure, setting requirements for who can be legally married under the law, prohibiting open saloons or public drunkenness or profanity or littering or soliciting for sex or money or prohibiting open and/or concealed carry or any other provisions they want for their society, the federal government should have no say whatsoever in that.

If that is not the case, then none of us have any liberties whatsoever other than what the federal government allows us to have. And that is a complete reversal of what the Founders intended with the Constitution and the great nation founded under its auspices.

I do agree with the overall message, however, when it come to the rights of the citizens, I have a problem. Think of it this way. If we allow states to have a ban on the ownership/possession of handguns (a clear violation of the 2nd as decided in Heller), what then, would stop a state from banning speech of a given variety? In other words what is the fundamental difference between banning handguns and banning anti-semitic speech, for example? I find BOTH bans to be clear violations of their respective amendments (2nd and 1st). Therefore, I find BOTH to be equally appalling, even though I find anti-semitism to be appalling in and of itself.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

I interpret it that the 2nd Amendment means that the FEDERAL government cannot infringe on our right to bear arms. But it poses no restriction whatsoever on whatever laws state and local governments can impose or what rules a private home or establishment may have. If the saloon owner wants no guns, there should be no federal law requiring him to have one. If I don't want guns in my home, I should not have to have them. But, if I am a collector and want 100 or 1000 firearms in my collection, the federal government has no authority to say I can't have that.

But ultimately, the safety of the nation, the state, the local community, and the home resides in the integrity and culture of the people and not in gun control.

I disagree on whether states/localities can impose restrictions the Feds cannot. If we allow for that with the second, what stops your state from imposing restrictions on any of the other rights enshrined in the COTUS. Ultimately the COTUS is the supreme law of the land, thus no law may violate it, whether that law be federal, state or local. Hence, "Jim Crow" laws where struck down, along with many others, such as in the Heller case.

No state or local community should be able to pass any law discriminatory toward any person just because that person is who/what he/she is through no fault of his/her own. But any state or local community should be able to pass any law that applies to all persons regardless of who/what/they are. So if a state/city wants to pass a law prohibiting indecent exposure, setting requirements for who can be legally married under the law, prohibiting open saloons or public drunkenness or profanity or littering or soliciting for sex or money or prohibiting open and/or concealed carry or any other provisions they want for their society, the federal government should have no say whatsoever in that.

If that is not the case, then none of us have any liberties whatsoever other than what the federal government allows us to have. And that is a complete reversal of what the Founders intended with the Constitution and the great nation founded under its auspices.

I do agree with the overall message, however, when it come to the rights of the citizens, I have a problem. Think of it this way. If we allow states to have a ban on the ownership/possession of handguns (a clear violation of the 2nd as decided in Heller), what then, would stop a state from banning speech of a given variety? In other words what is the fundamental difference between banning handguns and banning anti-semitic speech, for example? I find BOTH bans to be clear violations of their respective amendments (2nd and 1st). Therefore, I find BOTH to be equally appalling, even though I find anti-semitism to be appalling in and of itself.

We agree on much. Decent, compassionate, tolerant people hate exclusion of people purely on who they are, what they think, what they believe, what they say and will criticize anti-semitic or any other hateful displays or speech everywhere it occurs.

But where you and I are not going to agree is that yes, technically, any local entity, community, county or state should have the ability to order what kind of society they want to be and the federal/central government should have little or no say in that. I have no problem with federal law that says, unless there is a compelling reason to do so, a public entity cannot ban men, women, Jews, Muslims, Christians, straights, gays, etc. etc. etc. A compelling reason might be if it is a Christian organization advertising itself as such, it should not be compelled to put non-Christians on its governing board or some such as that. Or if it is a men's club for men only, it should not be required to admit women, etc. Or when it comes to biological needs/differences/morality/safety we should be able to have separate restrooms, locker rooms, sleeping accommodations and such for men and women.

So yes, I think a public entity--i.e. any place open to the general public--has every right to dictate what speech is or is not acceptable within that segment of society. If I want to require coats and ties or no service or shirts and shoes or no service, or prohibit profanity or bigoted speech, it should be my right to do so in my place of business. And if I do not want guns in my place of business, it should be my right to say sorry, no guns--leave them at home or check them at the door, but we are a gun free establishment. (No, I would not do that if I was running a business, but it should be my right to do.)

So long as it does not discriminate against any specific person, demographic, or group but applies the same rules to everybody, it should be my right to decide what will and will not be allowed in my place of business. Even if some people are more inconvenienced than others.

The same goes for the community, the county, and the state. Each Constitutionally is authorized to establish whatever sort of society it wishes to have and to be able to enforce that and the federal government or the courts should have very little say in that. Some aren't going to do it the way we think it should be done, but the more that intended right of the states and the people is infringed, the fewer liberties we all have.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

I interpret it that the 2nd Amendment means that the FEDERAL government cannot infringe on our right to bear arms. But it poses no restriction whatsoever on whatever laws state and local governments can impose or what rules a private home or establishment may have. If the saloon owner wants no guns, there should be no federal law requiring him to have one. If I don't want guns in my home, I should not have to have them. But, if I am a collector and want 100 or 1000 firearms in my collection, the federal government has no authority to say I can't have that.

But ultimately, the safety of the nation, the state, the local community, and the home resides in the integrity and culture of the people and not in gun control.

I disagree on whether states/localities can impose restrictions the Feds cannot. If we allow for that with the second, what stops your state from imposing restrictions on any of the other rights enshrined in the COTUS. Ultimately the COTUS is the supreme law of the land, thus no law may violate it, whether that law be federal, state or local. Hence, "Jim Crow" laws where struck down, along with many others, such as in the Heller case.

No state or local community should be able to pass any law discriminatory toward any person just because that person is who/what he/she is through no fault of his/her own. But any state or local community should be able to pass any law that applies to all persons regardless of who/what/they are. So if a state/city wants to pass a law prohibiting indecent exposure, setting requirements for who can be legally married under the law, prohibiting open saloons or public drunkenness or profanity or littering or soliciting for sex or money or prohibiting open and/or concealed carry or any other provisions they want for their society, the federal government should have no say whatsoever in that.

If that is not the case, then none of us have any liberties whatsoever other than what the federal government allows us to have. And that is a complete reversal of what the Founders intended with the Constitution and the great nation founded under its auspices.

I do agree with the overall message, however, when it come to the rights of the citizens, I have a problem. Think of it this way. If we allow states to have a ban on the ownership/possession of handguns (a clear violation of the 2nd as decided in Heller), what then, would stop a state from banning speech of a given variety? In other words what is the fundamental difference between banning handguns and banning anti-semitic speech, for example? I find BOTH bans to be clear violations of their respective amendments (2nd and 1st). Therefore, I find BOTH to be equally appalling, even though I find anti-semitism to be appalling in and of itself.

The difference is the level of judicial review.

When government enacts measures seeking to preempt or restrict free speech, the courts will subject that measure to the highest level of judicial review: strict scrutiny – a very high bar for measures to pass Constitutional muster, and indeed much of the time those measures end up being invalidated by the courts.

That’s not the case with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

Absent being compelled to apply strict scrutiny to firearm regulatory measures, the courts have been inclined to let stand such measures as magazine capacity restrictions, universal background checks, and restricting ownership of AR platform and similar rifles.

 

[2aguy]

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.

I interpret it that the 2nd Amendment means that the FEDERAL government cannot infringe on our right to bear arms. But it poses no restriction whatsoever on whatever laws state and local governments can impose or what rules a private home or establishment may have. If the saloon owner wants no guns, there should be no federal law requiring him to have one. If I don't want guns in my home, I should not have to have them. But, if I am a collector and want 100 or 1000 firearms in my collection, the federal government has no authority to say I can't have that.

But ultimately, the safety of the nation, the state, the local community, and the home resides in the integrity and culture of the people and not in gun control.

I disagree on whether states/localities can impose restrictions the Feds cannot. If we allow for that with the second, what stops your state from imposing restrictions on any of the other rights enshrined in the COTUS. Ultimately the COTUS is the supreme law of the land, thus no law may violate it, whether that law be federal, state or local. Hence, "Jim Crow" laws where struck down, along with many others, such as in the Heller case.

No state or local community should be able to pass any law discriminatory toward any person just because that person is who/what he/she is through no fault of his/her own. But any state or local community should be able to pass any law that applies to all persons regardless of who/what/they are. So if a state/city wants to pass a law prohibiting indecent exposure, setting requirements for who can be legally married under the law, prohibiting open saloons or public drunkenness or profanity or littering or soliciting for sex or money or prohibiting open and/or concealed carry or any other provisions they want for their society, the federal government should have no say whatsoever in that.

If that is not the case, then none of us have any liberties whatsoever other than what the federal government allows us to have. And that is a complete reversal of what the Founders intended with the Constitution and the great nation founded under its auspices.

I do agree with the overall message, however, when it come to the rights of the citizens, I have a problem. Think of it this way. If we allow states to have a ban on the ownership/possession of handguns (a clear violation of the 2nd as decided in Heller), what then, would stop a state from banning speech of a given variety? In other words what is the fundamental difference between banning handguns and banning anti-semitic speech, for example? I find BOTH bans to be clear violations of their respective amendments (2nd and 1st). Therefore, I find BOTH to be equally appalling, even though I find anti-semitism to be appalling in and of itself.

The difference is the level of judicial review.

When government enacts measures seeking to preempt or restrict free speech, the courts will subject that measure to the highest level of judicial review: strict scrutiny – a very high bar for measures to pass Constitutional muster, and indeed much of the time those measures end up being invalidated by the courts.

That’s not the case with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

Absent being compelled to apply strict scrutiny to firearm regulatory measures, the courts have been inclined to let stand such measures as magazine capacity restrictions, universal background checks, and restricting ownership of AR platform and similar rifles.

They let them stand because neither side, the democrats who want to ban them, and the actual Justices, who want to protect the 2nd Amendment, don't have the 5th vote...and neither side trusts kennedy....

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

I interpret it that the 2nd Amendment means that the FEDERAL government cannot infringe on our right to bear arms. But it poses no restriction whatsoever on whatever laws state and local governments can impose or what rules a private home or establishment may have. If the saloon owner wants no guns, there should be no federal law requiring him to have one. If I don't want guns in my home, I should not have to have them. But, if I am a collector and want 100 or 1000 firearms in my collection, the federal government has no authority to say I can't have that.

But ultimately, the safety of the nation, the state, the local community, and the home resides in the integrity and culture of the people and not in gun control.

I disagree on whether states/localities can impose restrictions the Feds cannot. If we allow for that with the second, what stops your state from imposing restrictions on any of the other rights enshrined in the COTUS. Ultimately the COTUS is the supreme law of the land, thus no law may violate it, whether that law be federal, state or local. Hence, "Jim Crow" laws where struck down, along with many others, such as in the Heller case.

No state or local community should be able to pass any law discriminatory toward any person just because that person is who/what he/she is through no fault of his/her own. But any state or local community should be able to pass any law that applies to all persons regardless of who/what/they are. So if a state/city wants to pass a law prohibiting indecent exposure, setting requirements for who can be legally married under the law, prohibiting open saloons or public drunkenness or profanity or littering or soliciting for sex or money or prohibiting open and/or concealed carry or any other provisions they want for their society, the federal government should have no say whatsoever in that.

If that is not the case, then none of us have any liberties whatsoever other than what the federal government allows us to have. And that is a complete reversal of what the Founders intended with the Constitution and the great nation founded under its auspices.

I do agree with the overall message, however, when it come to the rights of the citizens, I have a problem. Think of it this way. If we allow states to have a ban on the ownership/possession of handguns (a clear violation of the 2nd as decided in Heller), what then, would stop a state from banning speech of a given variety? In other words what is the fundamental difference between banning handguns and banning anti-semitic speech, for example? I find BOTH bans to be clear violations of their respective amendments (2nd and 1st). Therefore, I find BOTH to be equally appalling, even though I find anti-semitism to be appalling in and of itself.

The difference is the level of judicial review.

When government enacts measures seeking to preempt or restrict free speech, the courts will subject that measure to the highest level of judicial review: strict scrutiny – a very high bar for measures to pass Constitutional muster, and indeed much of the time those measures end up being invalidated by the courts.

That’s not the case with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

Absent being compelled to apply strict scrutiny to firearm regulatory measures, the courts have been inclined to let stand such measures as magazine capacity restrictions, universal background checks, and restricting ownership of AR platform and similar rifles.

Personally I do not think it the constitutional prerogative of the courts--any courts--to determine what is not a legal weapon. That should be determined by the lawfully elected representatives of the people if it is to be determined at all. And those people take the following oath in the House of Representatives with the Senate oath being much similar:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
​

If they violate that oath in what they support with their votes in Congress, it should not be up to the courts to simply rewrite the law as they think it should be. It is the duty of the court to affirm a constitutional violation of the law and it should be up to the people to recall an errant senator or congressperson.

​

However, the foxes now decide what rules shall apply to the hen house and everything related to it, and little or no civics, Constitution, or personal responsibility or accountability is being taught, much less emphasized in the schools these days. Therefore, we have a public woefully undereducated in what is and is not constitutionally legal and who have made a kind of god of the courts and allowed them to dictate to the people how things are going to be.

 

[kaz]

In the wake of yet another tragic school shooting, it is reasonable to have a national discussion on what to do about it. And since the discussion so far is a) more gun control vs b) more guns/protection for the kids, and there seems to be little middle ground, the solution seems to be an unattainable goal for most of American society.

So the challenge is:

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.

--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.

--kids need role models that demonstrate some of the best to which we can aspire instead of heaping admiration and fame, making heroes out of, or generating sympathy for those who promote hate, anger, violence, and lawless behavior.

--kids need to be taught personal responsibility and accountability in which the norm is educating yourself, staying away from illegal substances and activities, meriting a good reputation, learning a trade, getting married before having kids, and contributing to your family, your community, your country. Such people are rarely involved in any kind of bad acts.

--kids need video games, television programs, and movies that promote real heroism, good triumphing over evil, and rejection of violence except in self defense. When video games have the player having to do bad, even evil things to win, how can that not translate how they relate to their real world? When what passes for entertainment promotes the worst kind of violence, promiscuity, immorality, and sympathy for the bad guys, it is no wonder that children become desensitized to violence or the pain of others and see bad acts as glorious acts. It all is teaching the kids and it is invariable that some of them will be motivated to act on it.

Maybe correlation isn't causation when it comes to kids being violent, but I sure think we need to look at what we really are teaching and how that contributes to the social problems we have.
​

And if the liberals were willing to acknowledge the advantage in all or most of that, would the conservatives/libertarians be willing to consider:

Reasonable restrictions on civilian guns that are not likely to ever be used for hunting or self protection or recreational target shooting but that are designed to effect maximum damage?

Reasonable gun registration even at gun shows, so that effective background checks can be run and guns can be denied or confiscated from those who are clearly incompetent to have them or who are a danger to themselves or society?

Maybe the problem is the people who do bad things with the guns and not the gun themselves, and certainly bad people who do terrible things don't care what laws they break to do them, but can we admit that at least some reasonable restrictions are worthwhile to consider? Could we compromise on some things in order to achieve agreement and cooperation from most everybody to actually fix the problem?
​

So that's it. This is the CDZ so keep it reasonably civil if the topic interests you. And the poll is designed so that you can change your choices if you are inspired to change your point of view during the discussion.

Discuss.

​

​

I'm confused by your poll choices. You seem to be mixing statements that I can agree or disagree with in general and what should be government's role in this.

My answer is that I agree with most of what you said personally, but I don't think I saw any choices that I would agree is government's role.

The second amendment is a restriction on government, it is not a power of government

 

[kaz]

In the wake of yet another tragic school shooting, it is reasonable to have a national discussion on what to do about it. And since the discussion so far is a) more gun control vs b) more guns/protection for the kids, and there seems to be little middle ground, the solution seems to be an unattainable goal for most of American society.

So the challenge is:

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.

--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.

--kids need role models that demonstrate some of the best to which we can aspire instead of heaping admiration and fame, making heroes out of, or generating sympathy for those who promote hate, anger, violence, and lawless behavior.

--kids need to be taught personal responsibility and accountability in which the norm is educating yourself, staying away from illegal substances and activities, meriting a good reputation, learning a trade, getting married before having kids, and contributing to your family, your community, your country. Such people are rarely involved in any kind of bad acts.

--kids need video games, television programs, and movies that promote real heroism, good triumphing over evil, and rejection of violence except in self defense. When video games have the player having to do bad, even evil things to win, how can that not translate how they relate to their real world? When what passes for entertainment promotes the worst kind of violence, promiscuity, immorality, and sympathy for the bad guys, it is no wonder that children become desensitized to violence or the pain of others and see bad acts as glorious acts. It all is teaching the kids and it is invariable that some of them will be motivated to act on it.

Maybe correlation isn't causation when it comes to kids being violent, but I sure think we need to look at what we really are teaching and how that contributes to the social problems we have.
​

And if the liberals were willing to acknowledge the advantage in all or most of that, would the conservatives/libertarians be willing to consider:

Reasonable restrictions on civilian guns that are not likely to ever be used for hunting or self protection or recreational target shooting but that are designed to effect maximum damage?

Reasonable gun registration even at gun shows, so that effective background checks can be run and guns can be denied or confiscated from those who are clearly incompetent to have them or who are a danger to themselves or society?

Maybe the problem is the people who do bad things with the guns and not the gun themselves, and certainly bad people who do terrible things don't care what laws they break to do them, but can we admit that at least some reasonable restrictions are worthwhile to consider? Could we compromise on some things in order to achieve agreement and cooperation from most everybody to actually fix the problem?
​

So that's it. This is the CDZ so keep it reasonably civil if the topic interests you. And the poll is designed so that you can change your choices if you are inspired to change your point of view during the discussion.

Discuss.

​

​

Reasonable restrictions on civilian guns that are not likely to ever be used for hunting or self protection or recreational target shooting but that are designed to effect maximum damage?

AR-15s are used for both hunting and self protection......as are all the other semi auto rifles and pistols.....

Reasonable gun registration even at gun shows, so that effective background checks can be run and guns can be denied or confiscated from those who are clearly incompetent to have them or who are a danger to themselves or society?

Do you realize that felons and criminals...under the Haynes v. United States Supreme Court decision do not need to register illegal guns because it would violate their Right against self incrimination...so if actual criminals don't have to register their illegal guns.....how do you expect to require legal gun owners to register their legal guns...

Gun registration was used in Germany, Britain, Australia, Canada, New York and California to eventually confiscate guns......and in Germany, the disarmed were murdered in gas chambers.........

Criminals do not get their guns from gun shows, they use straw buyers or steal the guns....straw buyers can pass current federal background checks which means they can pass any background check at a gun show or for a private sale.....on the other side, forcing background checks on private property increases the time and cost to people who have committed no crime. We can already arrest felons who buy guns illegally, so we don't need to increase background check laws......

Maybe the problem is the people who do bad things with the guns and not the gun themselves, and certainly bad people who do terrible things don't care what laws they break to do them, but can we admit that at least some reasonable restrictions are worthwhile to consider? Could we compromise on some things in order to achieve agreement and cooperation from most everybody to actually fix the problem?

The problem isn't a lack of gun laws.....the problem is democrat politicians constantly releasing violent gun criminals out of jail...to shoot more people, and the government failing to deal with actually dangerous people they know about.....

Felons can't buy, own or carry guns....we can already arrest them. We don't need more laws to do this...we can do it already...

The only thing we should do...increase jail sentences for gun criminals....this is how Japan stopped the Yakuza from using guns in their latest gang war........we need to put a 30 year sentence on actual gun crime, rape, robbery and murder.....this has the added benefits of no increase in pointless paperwork, no added cost to law abiding gun owners, and no legal jeopardy for law abiding gun owners....we actually focus on people who use guns to commit crimes...not people who own guns for self defense..

I hope this helps....

I come from a long line of hunters and not a single one of them has ever gone hunting with an AR-15. I am quite certain that an AR-15 isn't necessary to hunt any kind of game anybody is hunting.

So while I appreciate the information on guns--I own guns, am a damn good shot, and a card carrying member of the NRA and a strong 2nd Amendment advocate--the premise of the thread is what you or any others would be willing to compromise on in order to achieve a mutual effort to make schools and our society in general more safe.

It's not "what's necessary" to exercise to hunt. The second amendment is not about huniing. NO compromise should be made.

Nor is the OP about what is necessary for hunting. My post was in response to somebody who insisted AR-15s are used for hunting. Any reasonable person would agree that AR-15s are not NECESSARY for hunting.

Thus, if I could get all or most of those cultural things on the list in the OP, I could agree to ban manufacture and sale of AR-15s with a pretty clear conscience. Do I think that banning AR-15s would solve the problem in any way? Not at all. But understanding that some here think they would, that is one of some concessions I would be willing to make in order to get what I believe would be a solution to the problem.

You see I believe our culture is creating and cultivating criminal minds and intent and sociopathic tendencies. I want us to stop doing that. The pro gun control crowd almost certainly disagrees with me on that, but would they consent to all or most of the cultural fixes in order to get at least some of the gun control they want?

No one needs to justify to government why they should be free to exercise their Constitutional rights. Specifically in this case, we don't need to convince government if we have a right to an AR15 or not, we do.

Just like we don't need to convince government to give us free speech, a jury trial or a warrant to search our home.

Why would they bother putting it in the Constitution if it's our job to convince government to protect that right? That's not really a protected right at all

 

[kaz]

Point of clarification: I am advocating a COMPROMISE here, and not any form of acquiescence on either side. Unless both sides come to the table with some concrete and enforceable agreements, there would be no deal.

Somebody said the 2nd Amendment group has compromised and compromised. But they haven't. They have never gotten anything in return for the liberties they gave up or had forcibly taken from them. That isn't compromise. That is giving away something or being robbed. That is not acceptable. Both sides have to get something that they want out of the deal or no deal.

Would you say you'll "compromise" and give up your first amendment rights in order to get others to give up their second amendment rights?

 

[oldsoul]

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.

I interpret it that the 2nd Amendment means that the FEDERAL government cannot infringe on our right to bear arms. But it poses no restriction whatsoever on whatever laws state and local governments can impose or what rules a private home or establishment may have. If the saloon owner wants no guns, there should be no federal law requiring him to have one. If I don't want guns in my home, I should not have to have them. But, if I am a collector and want 100 or 1000 firearms in my collection, the federal government has no authority to say I can't have that.

But ultimately, the safety of the nation, the state, the local community, and the home resides in the integrity and culture of the people and not in gun control.

I disagree on whether states/localities can impose restrictions the Feds cannot. If we allow for that with the second, what stops your state from imposing restrictions on any of the other rights enshrined in the COTUS. Ultimately the COTUS is the supreme law of the land, thus no law may violate it, whether that law be federal, state or local. Hence, "Jim Crow" laws where struck down, along with many others, such as in the Heller case.

No state or local community should be able to pass any law discriminatory toward any person just because that person is who/what he/she is through no fault of his/her own. But any state or local community should be able to pass any law that applies to all persons regardless of who/what/they are. So if a state/city wants to pass a law prohibiting indecent exposure, setting requirements for who can be legally married under the law, prohibiting open saloons or public drunkenness or profanity or littering or soliciting for sex or money or prohibiting open and/or concealed carry or any other provisions they want for their society, the federal government should have no say whatsoever in that.

If that is not the case, then none of us have any liberties whatsoever other than what the federal government allows us to have. And that is a complete reversal of what the Founders intended with the Constitution and the great nation founded under its auspices.

I do agree with the overall message, however, when it come to the rights of the citizens, I have a problem. Think of it this way. If we allow states to have a ban on the ownership/possession of handguns (a clear violation of the 2nd as decided in Heller), what then, would stop a state from banning speech of a given variety? In other words what is the fundamental difference between banning handguns and banning anti-semitic speech, for example? I find BOTH bans to be clear violations of their respective amendments (2nd and 1st). Therefore, I find BOTH to be equally appalling, even though I find anti-semitism to be appalling in and of itself.

We agree on much. Decent, compassionate, tolerant people hate exclusion of people purely on who they are, what they think, what they believe, what they say and will criticize anti-semitic or any other hateful displays or speech everywhere it occurs.

But where you and I are not going to agree is that yes, technically, any local entity, community, county or state should have the ability to order what kind of society they want to be and the federal/central government should have little or no say in that. I have no problem with federal law that says, unless there is a compelling reason to do so, a public entity cannot ban men, women, Jews, Muslims, Christians, straights, gays, etc. etc. etc. A compelling reason might be if it is a Christian organization advertising itself as such, it should not be compelled to put non-Christians on its governing board or some such as that. Or if it is a men's club for men only, it should not be required to admit women, etc. Or when it comes to biological needs/differences/morality/safety we should be able to have separate restrooms, locker rooms, sleeping accommodations and such for men and women.

So yes, I think a public entity--i.e. any place open to the general public--has every right to dictate what speech is or is not acceptable within that segment of society. If I want to require coats and ties or no service or shirts and shoes or no service, or prohibit profanity or bigoted speech, it should be my right to do so in my place of business. And if I do not want guns in my place of business, it should be my right to say sorry, no guns--leave them at home or check them at the door, but we are a gun free establishment. (No, I would not do that if I was running a business, but it should be my right to do.)

So long as it does not discriminate against any specific person, demographic, or group but applies the same rules to everybody, it should be my right to decide what will and will not be allowed in my place of business. Even if some people are more inconvenienced than others.

The same goes for the community, the county, and the state. Each Constitutionally is authorized to establish whatever sort of society it wishes to have and to be able to enforce that and the federal government or the courts should have very little say in that. Some aren't going to do it the way we think it should be done, but the more that intended right of the states and the people is infringed, the fewer liberties we all have.

Let me cut to what I see as the fundamental disagreement here is:

So long as it does not discriminate against any specific person, demographic, or group but applies the same rules to everybody, it should be my right to decide what will and will not be allowed in my place of business. Even if some people are more inconvenienced than others.

Agreed, it is your business, and as such you should have the RIGHT to run it as you see fit, within the constraints you have set forth. However...

The same goes for the community, the county, and the state.

This is entirely different. Here is the case law president that was set:
"In Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), the Supreme Court held that Congress cannot pass laws that are contrary to the Constitution..." Supremacy Clause - Wikipedia
Hence, any law that would violate the COTUS, is therefore unconstitutional and not permitted under the Supremacy Clause, which states:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

 

[oldsoul]

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.

I interpret it that the 2nd Amendment means that the FEDERAL government cannot infringe on our right to bear arms. But it poses no restriction whatsoever on whatever laws state and local governments can impose or what rules a private home or establishment may have. If the saloon owner wants no guns, there should be no federal law requiring him to have one. If I don't want guns in my home, I should not have to have them. But, if I am a collector and want 100 or 1000 firearms in my collection, the federal government has no authority to say I can't have that.

But ultimately, the safety of the nation, the state, the local community, and the home resides in the integrity and culture of the people and not in gun control.

I disagree on whether states/localities can impose restrictions the Feds cannot. If we allow for that with the second, what stops your state from imposing restrictions on any of the other rights enshrined in the COTUS. Ultimately the COTUS is the supreme law of the land, thus no law may violate it, whether that law be federal, state or local. Hence, "Jim Crow" laws where struck down, along with many others, such as in the Heller case.

No state or local community should be able to pass any law discriminatory toward any person just because that person is who/what he/she is through no fault of his/her own. But any state or local community should be able to pass any law that applies to all persons regardless of who/what/they are. So if a state/city wants to pass a law prohibiting indecent exposure, setting requirements for who can be legally married under the law, prohibiting open saloons or public drunkenness or profanity or littering or soliciting for sex or money or prohibiting open and/or concealed carry or any other provisions they want for their society, the federal government should have no say whatsoever in that.

If that is not the case, then none of us have any liberties whatsoever other than what the federal government allows us to have. And that is a complete reversal of what the Founders intended with the Constitution and the great nation founded under its auspices.

I do agree with the overall message, however, when it come to the rights of the citizens, I have a problem. Think of it this way. If we allow states to have a ban on the ownership/possession of handguns (a clear violation of the 2nd as decided in Heller), what then, would stop a state from banning speech of a given variety? In other words what is the fundamental difference between banning handguns and banning anti-semitic speech, for example? I find BOTH bans to be clear violations of their respective amendments (2nd and 1st). Therefore, I find BOTH to be equally appalling, even though I find anti-semitism to be appalling in and of itself.

The difference is the level of judicial review.

When government enacts measures seeking to preempt or restrict free speech, the courts will subject that measure to the highest level of judicial review: strict scrutiny – a very high bar for measures to pass Constitutional muster, and indeed much of the time those measures end up being invalidated by the courts.

That’s not the case with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

Absent being compelled to apply strict scrutiny to firearm regulatory measures, the courts have been inclined to let stand such measures as magazine capacity restrictions, universal background checks, and restricting ownership of AR platform and similar rifles.

I understand the difference as it pertains to past rulings. However, past rulings are not necessarily correct. Wikipedia has an extensive list here List of overruled United States Supreme Court decisions - Wikipedia Of ruling that have been overturned by subsiquent rulings.

So, aside from case law, on what basis would you argue the difference is? Are the past rulings correct in your estimation? Why or why not?

 

[Foxfyre]

In the wake of yet another tragic school shooting, it is reasonable to have a national discussion on what to do about it. And since the discussion so far is a) more gun control vs b) more guns/protection for the kids, and there seems to be little middle ground, the solution seems to be an unattainable goal for most of American society.

So the challenge is:

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.

--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.

--kids need role models that demonstrate some of the best to which we can aspire instead of heaping admiration and fame, making heroes out of, or generating sympathy for those who promote hate, anger, violence, and lawless behavior.

--kids need to be taught personal responsibility and accountability in which the norm is educating yourself, staying away from illegal substances and activities, meriting a good reputation, learning a trade, getting married before having kids, and contributing to your family, your community, your country. Such people are rarely involved in any kind of bad acts.

--kids need video games, television programs, and movies that promote real heroism, good triumphing over evil, and rejection of violence except in self defense. When video games have the player having to do bad, even evil things to win, how can that not translate how they relate to their real world? When what passes for entertainment promotes the worst kind of violence, promiscuity, immorality, and sympathy for the bad guys, it is no wonder that children become desensitized to violence or the pain of others and see bad acts as glorious acts. It all is teaching the kids and it is invariable that some of them will be motivated to act on it.

Maybe correlation isn't causation when it comes to kids being violent, but I sure think we need to look at what we really are teaching and how that contributes to the social problems we have.
​

And if the liberals were willing to acknowledge the advantage in all or most of that, would the conservatives/libertarians be willing to consider:

Reasonable restrictions on civilian guns that are not likely to ever be used for hunting or self protection or recreational target shooting but that are designed to effect maximum damage?

Reasonable gun registration even at gun shows, so that effective background checks can be run and guns can be denied or confiscated from those who are clearly incompetent to have them or who are a danger to themselves or society?

Maybe the problem is the people who do bad things with the guns and not the gun themselves, and certainly bad people who do terrible things don't care what laws they break to do them, but can we admit that at least some reasonable restrictions are worthwhile to consider? Could we compromise on some things in order to achieve agreement and cooperation from most everybody to actually fix the problem?
​

So that's it. This is the CDZ so keep it reasonably civil if the topic interests you. And the poll is designed so that you can change your choices if you are inspired to change your point of view during the discussion.

Discuss.

​

​

Reasonable restrictions on civilian guns that are not likely to ever be used for hunting or self protection or recreational target shooting but that are designed to effect maximum damage?

AR-15s are used for both hunting and self protection......as are all the other semi auto rifles and pistols.....

Reasonable gun registration even at gun shows, so that effective background checks can be run and guns can be denied or confiscated from those who are clearly incompetent to have them or who are a danger to themselves or society?

Do you realize that felons and criminals...under the Haynes v. United States Supreme Court decision do not need to register illegal guns because it would violate their Right against self incrimination...so if actual criminals don't have to register their illegal guns.....how do you expect to require legal gun owners to register their legal guns...

Gun registration was used in Germany, Britain, Australia, Canada, New York and California to eventually confiscate guns......and in Germany, the disarmed were murdered in gas chambers.........

Criminals do not get their guns from gun shows, they use straw buyers or steal the guns....straw buyers can pass current federal background checks which means they can pass any background check at a gun show or for a private sale.....on the other side, forcing background checks on private property increases the time and cost to people who have committed no crime. We can already arrest felons who buy guns illegally, so we don't need to increase background check laws......

Maybe the problem is the people who do bad things with the guns and not the gun themselves, and certainly bad people who do terrible things don't care what laws they break to do them, but can we admit that at least some reasonable restrictions are worthwhile to consider? Could we compromise on some things in order to achieve agreement and cooperation from most everybody to actually fix the problem?

The problem isn't a lack of gun laws.....the problem is democrat politicians constantly releasing violent gun criminals out of jail...to shoot more people, and the government failing to deal with actually dangerous people they know about.....

Felons can't buy, own or carry guns....we can already arrest them. We don't need more laws to do this...we can do it already...

The only thing we should do...increase jail sentences for gun criminals....this is how Japan stopped the Yakuza from using guns in their latest gang war........we need to put a 30 year sentence on actual gun crime, rape, robbery and murder.....this has the added benefits of no increase in pointless paperwork, no added cost to law abiding gun owners, and no legal jeopardy for law abiding gun owners....we actually focus on people who use guns to commit crimes...not people who own guns for self defense..

I hope this helps....

I come from a long line of hunters and not a single one of them has ever gone hunting with an AR-15. I am quite certain that an AR-15 isn't necessary to hunt any kind of game anybody is hunting.

So while I appreciate the information on guns--I own guns, am a damn good shot, and a card carrying member of the NRA and a strong 2nd Amendment advocate--the premise of the thread is what you or any others would be willing to compromise on in order to achieve a mutual effort to make schools and our society in general more safe.

It's not "what's necessary" to exercise to hunt. The second amendment is not about huniing. NO compromise should be made.

Nor is the OP about what is necessary for hunting. My post was in response to somebody who insisted AR-15s are used for hunting. Any reasonable person would agree that AR-15s are not NECESSARY for hunting.

Thus, if I could get all or most of those cultural things on the list in the OP, I could agree to ban manufacture and sale of AR-15s with a pretty clear conscience. Do I think that banning AR-15s would solve the problem in any way? Not at all. But understanding that some here think they would, that is one of some concessions I would be willing to make in order to get what I believe would be a solution to the problem.

You see I believe our culture is creating and cultivating criminal minds and intent and sociopathic tendencies. I want us to stop doing that. The pro gun control crowd almost certainly disagrees with me on that, but would they consent to all or most of the cultural fixes in order to get at least some of the gun control they want?

No one needs to justify to government why they should be free to exercise their Constitutional rights. Specifically in this case, we don't need to convince government if we have a right to an AR15 or not, we do.

Just like we don't need to convince government to give us free speech, a jury trial or a warrant to search our home.

Why would they bother putting it in the Constitution if it's our job to convince government to protect that right? That's not really a protected right at all

But that is non sequitur to the point I was making. I haven't made an argument about convincing the government to do anything. This argument is about convincing all of us to stop the taunts and threats and yelling past each other and agree on what we want to do to stop the mass shooting and other unconscionable violence in our society and what each side of the debate might be able to agree to in order for that to happen.

It can't happen if all we do is say we want things like we want it and everybody else can just go to hell. It is that mentality that pretty much put us in the current mess in the first place.

 

[Foxfyre]

Point of clarification: I am advocating a COMPROMISE here, and not any form of acquiescence on either side. Unless both sides come to the table with some concrete and enforceable agreements, there would be no deal.

Somebody said the 2nd Amendment group has compromised and compromised. But they haven't. They have never gotten anything in return for the liberties they gave up or had forcibly taken from them. That isn't compromise. That is giving away something or being robbed. That is not acceptable. Both sides have to get something that they want out of the deal or no deal.

Would you say you'll "compromise" and give up your first amendment rights in order to get others to give up their second amendment rights?

Nope. I'm not asking that anybody give up their rights. I am asking both sides what they would be able to agree to in order to solve a problem they both see that exists.

 

[Foxfyre]

I interpret it that the 2nd Amendment means that the FEDERAL government cannot infringe on our right to bear arms. But it poses no restriction whatsoever on whatever laws state and local governments can impose or what rules a private home or establishment may have. If the saloon owner wants no guns, there should be no federal law requiring him to have one. If I don't want guns in my home, I should not have to have them. But, if I am a collector and want 100 or 1000 firearms in my collection, the federal government has no authority to say I can't have that.

But ultimately, the safety of the nation, the state, the local community, and the home resides in the integrity and culture of the people and not in gun control.

I disagree on whether states/localities can impose restrictions the Feds cannot. If we allow for that with the second, what stops your state from imposing restrictions on any of the other rights enshrined in the COTUS. Ultimately the COTUS is the supreme law of the land, thus no law may violate it, whether that law be federal, state or local. Hence, "Jim Crow" laws where struck down, along with many others, such as in the Heller case.

No state or local community should be able to pass any law discriminatory toward any person just because that person is who/what he/she is through no fault of his/her own. But any state or local community should be able to pass any law that applies to all persons regardless of who/what/they are. So if a state/city wants to pass a law prohibiting indecent exposure, setting requirements for who can be legally married under the law, prohibiting open saloons or public drunkenness or profanity or littering or soliciting for sex or money or prohibiting open and/or concealed carry or any other provisions they want for their society, the federal government should have no say whatsoever in that.

If that is not the case, then none of us have any liberties whatsoever other than what the federal government allows us to have. And that is a complete reversal of what the Founders intended with the Constitution and the great nation founded under its auspices.

I do agree with the overall message, however, when it come to the rights of the citizens, I have a problem. Think of it this way. If we allow states to have a ban on the ownership/possession of handguns (a clear violation of the 2nd as decided in Heller), what then, would stop a state from banning speech of a given variety? In other words what is the fundamental difference between banning handguns and banning anti-semitic speech, for example? I find BOTH bans to be clear violations of their respective amendments (2nd and 1st). Therefore, I find BOTH to be equally appalling, even though I find anti-semitism to be appalling in and of itself.

We agree on much. Decent, compassionate, tolerant people hate exclusion of people purely on who they are, what they think, what they believe, what they say and will criticize anti-semitic or any other hateful displays or speech everywhere it occurs.

But where you and I are not going to agree is that yes, technically, any local entity, community, county or state should have the ability to order what kind of society they want to be and the federal/central government should have little or no say in that. I have no problem with federal law that says, unless there is a compelling reason to do so, a public entity cannot ban men, women, Jews, Muslims, Christians, straights, gays, etc. etc. etc. A compelling reason might be if it is a Christian organization advertising itself as such, it should not be compelled to put non-Christians on its governing board or some such as that. Or if it is a men's club for men only, it should not be required to admit women, etc. Or when it comes to biological needs/differences/morality/safety we should be able to have separate restrooms, locker rooms, sleeping accommodations and such for men and women.

So yes, I think a public entity--i.e. any place open to the general public--has every right to dictate what speech is or is not acceptable within that segment of society. If I want to require coats and ties or no service or shirts and shoes or no service, or prohibit profanity or bigoted speech, it should be my right to do so in my place of business. And if I do not want guns in my place of business, it should be my right to say sorry, no guns--leave them at home or check them at the door, but we are a gun free establishment. (No, I would not do that if I was running a business, but it should be my right to do.)

So long as it does not discriminate against any specific person, demographic, or group but applies the same rules to everybody, it should be my right to decide what will and will not be allowed in my place of business. Even if some people are more inconvenienced than others.

The same goes for the community, the county, and the state. Each Constitutionally is authorized to establish whatever sort of society it wishes to have and to be able to enforce that and the federal government or the courts should have very little say in that. Some aren't going to do it the way we think it should be done, but the more that intended right of the states and the people is infringed, the fewer liberties we all have.

Let me cut to what I see as the fundamental disagreement here is:

So long as it does not discriminate against any specific person, demographic, or group but applies the same rules to everybody, it should be my right to decide what will and will not be allowed in my place of business. Even if some people are more inconvenienced than others.

Agreed, it is your business, and as such you should have the RIGHT to run it as you see fit, within the constraints you have set forth. However...

The same goes for the community, the county, and the state.

This is entirely different. Here is the case law president that was set:
"In Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), the Supreme Court held that Congress cannot pass laws that are contrary to the Constitution..." Supremacy Clause - Wikipedia
Hence, any law that would violate the COTUS, is therefore unconstitutional and not permitted under the Supremacy Clause, which states:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

As I have told many others, I do not allow others, certainly not the courts, to dictate what is right and wrong to me. The law itself may or may not represent virtue or righteousness, and very often it does not. And it is the nature of the courts these days to exaggerate the intent of what law or rulings exist and make that fit their own agendas.

So for the purpose of this discussion, I don't CARE what the law of the land is. I am looking for a compromise between an American left with its agenda and the American right with its agenda to find some way to compromise on a way to correct a problem that both see exists. That compromise might or might not involve new laws or changing existing ones.

Right now each side is dug into their own agenda and that is all that matters to them. So if we can't even have the conversation, no solution to the problem is going to be possible.

 

[hunarcy]

I disagree on whether states/localities can impose restrictions the Feds cannot. If we allow for that with the second, what stops your state from imposing restrictions on any of the other rights enshrined in the COTUS. Ultimately the COTUS is the supreme law of the land, thus no law may violate it, whether that law be federal, state or local. Hence, "Jim Crow" laws where struck down, along with many others, such as in the Heller case.

No state or local community should be able to pass any law discriminatory toward any person just because that person is who/what he/she is through no fault of his/her own. But any state or local community should be able to pass any law that applies to all persons regardless of who/what/they are. So if a state/city wants to pass a law prohibiting indecent exposure, setting requirements for who can be legally married under the law, prohibiting open saloons or public drunkenness or profanity or littering or soliciting for sex or money or prohibiting open and/or concealed carry or any other provisions they want for their society, the federal government should have no say whatsoever in that.

If that is not the case, then none of us have any liberties whatsoever other than what the federal government allows us to have. And that is a complete reversal of what the Founders intended with the Constitution and the great nation founded under its auspices.

I do agree with the overall message, however, when it come to the rights of the citizens, I have a problem. Think of it this way. If we allow states to have a ban on the ownership/possession of handguns (a clear violation of the 2nd as decided in Heller), what then, would stop a state from banning speech of a given variety? In other words what is the fundamental difference between banning handguns and banning anti-semitic speech, for example? I find BOTH bans to be clear violations of their respective amendments (2nd and 1st). Therefore, I find BOTH to be equally appalling, even though I find anti-semitism to be appalling in and of itself.

We agree on much. Decent, compassionate, tolerant people hate exclusion of people purely on who they are, what they think, what they believe, what they say and will criticize anti-semitic or any other hateful displays or speech everywhere it occurs.

But where you and I are not going to agree is that yes, technically, any local entity, community, county or state should have the ability to order what kind of society they want to be and the federal/central government should have little or no say in that. I have no problem with federal law that says, unless there is a compelling reason to do so, a public entity cannot ban men, women, Jews, Muslims, Christians, straights, gays, etc. etc. etc. A compelling reason might be if it is a Christian organization advertising itself as such, it should not be compelled to put non-Christians on its governing board or some such as that. Or if it is a men's club for men only, it should not be required to admit women, etc. Or when it comes to biological needs/differences/morality/safety we should be able to have separate restrooms, locker rooms, sleeping accommodations and such for men and women.

So yes, I think a public entity--i.e. any place open to the general public--has every right to dictate what speech is or is not acceptable within that segment of society. If I want to require coats and ties or no service or shirts and shoes or no service, or prohibit profanity or bigoted speech, it should be my right to do so in my place of business. And if I do not want guns in my place of business, it should be my right to say sorry, no guns--leave them at home or check them at the door, but we are a gun free establishment. (No, I would not do that if I was running a business, but it should be my right to do.)

So long as it does not discriminate against any specific person, demographic, or group but applies the same rules to everybody, it should be my right to decide what will and will not be allowed in my place of business. Even if some people are more inconvenienced than others.

The same goes for the community, the county, and the state. Each Constitutionally is authorized to establish whatever sort of society it wishes to have and to be able to enforce that and the federal government or the courts should have very little say in that. Some aren't going to do it the way we think it should be done, but the more that intended right of the states and the people is infringed, the fewer liberties we all have.

Let me cut to what I see as the fundamental disagreement here is:

So long as it does not discriminate against any specific person, demographic, or group but applies the same rules to everybody, it should be my right to decide what will and will not be allowed in my place of business. Even if some people are more inconvenienced than others.

Agreed, it is your business, and as such you should have the RIGHT to run it as you see fit, within the constraints you have set forth. However...

The same goes for the community, the county, and the state.

This is entirely different. Here is the case law president that was set:
"In Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), the Supreme Court held that Congress cannot pass laws that are contrary to the Constitution..." Supremacy Clause - Wikipedia
Hence, any law that would violate the COTUS, is therefore unconstitutional and not permitted under the Supremacy Clause, which states:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

As I have told many others, I do not allow others, certainly not the courts, to dictate what is right and wrong to me. The law itself may or may not represent virtue or righteousness, and very often it does not. And it is the nature of the courts these days to exaggerate the intent of what law or rulings exist and make that fit their own agendas.

So for the purpose of this discussion, I don't CARE what the law of the land is. I am looking for a compromise between an American left with its agenda and the American right with its agenda to find some way to compromise on a way to correct a problem that both see exists. That compromise might or might not involve new laws or changing existing ones.

Right now each side is dug into their own agenda and that is all that matters to them. So if we can't even have the conversation, no solution to the problem is going to be possible.

Perhaps we should treat mass shootings like all other murders and not look for a "special" solution. Truth is that it's the idea that it's a special sort of crime that is creating all the trouble.