Is there room for compromise in gun rights vs gun control?

Gun control works

 

If you allow danger then you no longer have liberty, and life follows soon thereafter. The whole purpose of government is to control violence and once it occurs in any but the most tightly regulated way government ceases to exist. Guns are useless to save America and worse, they give people the false idea they might be. The time to save America is before guns are necessary, because once it's to the point where guns are necessary America will already be beyond saving

 

The gun banners work 24 / 7 as do you to try and baffle us with B.S. that gun control isn't gun control. They come in the front door and they have other avenues to attack gun owners by.

 

And what of when government itself is the reason allowing danger to exist in the first place? The united states federal government has allowed for the unprecedented crossing of millions of illegal aliens across its border, with no effort at weeding out the violent criminals from those seeking sanctuary, and doing everything in its power to hide them from public scrutiny so they cannot be found.

Where is the proof in support of your claim?

 

Something they are not willing to give me. . .respect and acceptance of them as co-equal citizens with the right to have a differing opinion.

 

No one that I'm aware of on this thread is attempting to ban firearms and always remember that "firearms" are not expressly protected by the Second Amendment. "Arms" are protected by the Second Amendment and the "People" and the "Government" does have the authority to define, to some extent, which "Arms" are protected and which "Arms" are not protected by the Second Amendment.

We can note from the DC v Heller decision the following caveat on gun laws:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#Decision

The legislative scope of the Congress under the Commerce Clause is extensive and extends to the sale and possession of firearms in the opinion of the late Justice Scalia that wrote the opinion in Heller.

 

I'm quite aware of what happened in the Heller decision and alluded to it several days ago in another thread. Bottom line: Judicial Activists legislated from the bench and changed standing precedents set by our earliest court decisions and upheld by the United States Supreme Court in their first decisions.

To strip away your argument to its basic core, if we hide behind the Commerce Clause, Americans have no unalienable Rights and government grants Rights so the Constitution becomes, as George W. Bush called it, just a G.D. piece of paper.

Well, I disagree and would tell all Americans: The Supreme Court had the power to legislate from the bench; however, they lacked the authority.

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" - Patrick Henry

"The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” — Tench Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

 

The Tenth Amendment Center is applying a false "intentionalist" interpretation in addressing the Second Amendment.

The "intentionalist" forgets one basic "intent" of the authors of the Constitution: "The framers at the Convention in Philadelphia indicated that they did not want their specific intentions to control interpretation."
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/interp.html

Intentionalist interpretation, that the Tenth Amendment Center is applying, is a violation of the original intent of the framers of the Constitution.

Additionally there's also no support for the belief that "unrestricted access to firearms" implies unrestricted access to any specific type of firearm. If, for example, in 1787 everyone had unrestricted access to a Brown Bess musket, but no other firearms, it would meet the requirements of "unrestricted access" to firearms.

 

Absolute hogwash:

“On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit of the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” Thomas Jefferson

"But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed." George Washington, farewell address 1796

"The Constitution shall never be construed . . . to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." Samuel Adams

 

The only way for the state to eliminate danger is to destroy liberty.
Do you REALLY want to live in a place where the state has made it impossible for a criminal to get a gun?

False. The whole purpose of government is to protect the rights of its people.

Unsupportable nonsense..

 

So, while insisting on compromise, you have nothing to offer in like and kind to those who you would have give up part of their rights.
That is, you do not seek compromise, but acquiescence.

And you wonder why the pro-gun side resists your self-described "common sense" measures, measures that lack any sense whatsoever.

 

You keep spouting this nonsense, understanding fully that the SCotUS has defined 'arms" as the term in used in the 2nd; neither Congress nor the Executive can change this definition or infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear those arms.

 

Go to any Central American "banana Republic," go to any nation on the globe where the governments are routinely overthrown by violence, tell me if they are stable and prosperous to any degree even approaching ours.

Hobbes said that we institute governments because without them life is "nasty, brutal, coarse and short". You libertarian anarchists apparently regard that as Utopia and want to impose it on the rest of us, sorry, but we sane people look on that as just a little too much "freedom"

 

Guessing there was supposed to be a response here..?

 

Some use concepts like "Judicial Activists" and "unalienable rights" and "precedent" without apparently understanding what they mean.

We can first address the term "unalienable rights" that's a reference to "natural rights" established by the Laws of Nature but we must understand the criteria for a natural right because it must meet that criteria. "A natural right is inherent in the person, not dependent upon another person, it cannot violate the rights of another person, nor can it impose an involuntary obligation upon another person." If it doesn't meet that criteria then it's neither a natural right or an unalienable right of the person.

"Commerce" is not a natural right because it's always dependent upon another person and therefore laws of commerce cannot infringe upon a natural (unalienable/inalienable) right of the person.

We have a "natural right of self defense against an act of aggression against us" but that does not include a "right to kill" the aggressor because a natural right cannot violate the natural rights, such as the right to life, of another person. It is for this reason that "if" (and someday it will happen) a non-lethal weapon that is as effective or more effective than a firearm in stopping an act of aggression is invented then firearms can be banned because they're a potentially lethal weapon that can result in the violation of the Right to Life of an aggressor.

When we address "Judicial Activists" it's actually very interesting because the Judicial Activist is the jurist that applies non-textual interpretations to the Constitution that can include "original intent" or "pragmatism" or "natural rights" as the primary basis for their decision. While I don't have an example based upon gun control notably one of the most "activist" decisions that imposed "law from the bench" is the Roe v Wade decision but it's grossly misunderstood as to what the "activist" decision was.

In Roe v Wade, based upon textualism (i.e. exactly what the Constitution states) the woman was the only "person" protected by the Constitution and the abortion laws, based upon strict scrutiny, violated her Constitutionally protected rights. The striking down of all restrictive abortion laws was not a Judicial Activist decision but instead was the purest form of "Originalism" in interpreting the Constitution.

The Judicial Activist part of Roe v Wade was the establishment of the "potential person" with "potential rights" that allowed some restrictive abortion laws to be imposed. The "potential person" and "potential rights" are no where to be found in the Constitution and that was an "Judicial Activist" decision based upon "pragmatism" and "natural rights" (non-originalism).

If the court was to strike down Roe v Wade based upon the Judicial Activist part of the decision then all abortion restrictions would be unconstitutional based upon the "textual" (originalist) interpretation.

"Precedent" is the final concept that needs to be understood. "Precedent" is the establishment of the "common law" by the decisions of the court but it's limited by the arguments and evidence presented in the court case. The courts do give great weight to prior precedent established by US Supreme Court decisions but that doesn't imply that the arguments and evidence (as well as the laws) don't change over time.

For example there were no laws expressly prohibiting same-sex marriage prior to 1971 when the Baker v Nelson decision established limited precedent (it was a state supreme court decision) in denying same-sex marriage that wasn't prohibited under the law. The plaintiff's failed to show any "state's interest" such as raising a child that would have changed the court's decision and because it was filed in a state court it couldn't address the financial considerations of marriage related to federal income tax laws, bankruptcy protections, and/or inheritance. When finally addressed by the US Supreme Court the denial of equal protection to same-sex couples under DOMA Section 3 became clearly evident so the "prior precedent" albeit it only from a State Supreme Court, was overturned because the arguments and evidence had changed over time (and based upon filing in a federal as opposed to a state court).

So precedent does change in many cases with time, and it should, because the arguments and the evidence can change with time.

No laws have been passed that "confiscate" existing firearms and they can't be passed because it would establish post de facto criminal law that's prohibited by clause 3 of Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution.. All firearms in the possession of private citizens remain in our "possession and under our direction" which is what Patrick Henry is addressing. New firearms can be limited or prohibited if they don't fall into a group of "arms" designed for reasonable self-defense purposes.

BTW If the government ever attempts to confiscate firearms by law then the ACLU is waiting to assist in overturning the imposition of ex post facto criminal law. The ACLU has already won one case in Florida that I'm aware of when law enforcement attempted to confiscate a person's firearms.

I discount anyone that calls upon a "trust in God" because "god" has proven the be about as trustworthy as the tooth fairy. We're the United States, "One nation under the US Constitution" and not "One Nation Under God" in spite of the nefarious religiously motivated changes to the Pledge of Allegiance and the change to our National Motto of "E Pluribus Unum" to "In God We Trust" in the 1950's. Like Jefferson and Madison I oppose the inclusion of "religious beliefs" into the laws of our nation.

 

Again, you have posted something you know is not true, as you know the SCotUS holdings on the subject do not say this.

 

Shiva_TD is a master at throwing up walls of text that have no relevance to the topic at hand and he tries to baffle you with B.S. because he cannot dazzle you with brilliance.

The real issue is with precedents, that once the Supreme Court rules on a statute or a principle of constitutional law, if anyone is dissatisifed, you amend the Constitution, not give the courts power to reinterpret standing precedent at the Supreme Court level. Hell, if you're going to do that, why bother even having a Congress???

BTW, don't some of these anti-gunners remind you of the old biblical Scribes and Pharisees that Jesus railed against?

 

Oh, I know. That's why I ignore the word salad and respond to specific lines.
Most of what he posts is copy/paste anyway, so its not like he takes the time to devise his responses.

 

That is correct but always remember that the purpose of government, in fact the very reason for it's existence, is to protect our rights from being violated by other people. This is clearly established by the US Declaration of Independence that states,

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
http://www.ushistory.org/DECLARATION/document/

This is also addressed by one of the First Principles upon which America was founded.

"The First Principle of limited government means that the protection of unalienable rights is the legitimate purpose and limit of government requires the government to be strong enough to fulfill its purpose yet limited to that purpose."
http://www.americassurvivalguide.com/americas-first-principles.php

I would like to take this opportunity to remind Republicans that the principle of "limited government" does not establish "small government" or "inexpensive government" but instead the size and power of the government must be enough to protect our unalienable rights. The size and cost of government is driven by "necessity" and to reduce the cost and size of government the "necessity" must be eliminated.

For example pollution is a violation of the unalienable rights of the person and the US is producing massive amounts of pollution. We need stronger government, larger government, and more expensive government to curb the pollution being produced by the United States.

Another example is that our laws do not protect the Natural (unalienable) Right of Property because our laws are based upon "ownership" that allows possession without the establishment of the "right to possess" by the person that holds title to the property. Using an anecdotal case when my father passed away I inherited "title of ownership" to a house he built in the 1980's. I'd expended no labor on the house nor was I using it initially so I had "ownership" without establishing a "Right to Possess" based upon my labor and use of the house. It wasn't until I moved into the house and began to use and maintain it with my labor that I finally acquired a Right to Possess the house based upon Natural Law.

Because our laws of property are not based upon the unalienable right of property we have those in society that are being "ripped off" by employers that don't provide a "living wage" and their "Right of Property" to their "support and comfort" based upon their labor is being violated, We could pass a minimum wage (compensation) law that covered the basic costs of "support and comfort" to provide the minimum fair compensation or we can do what we're doing by mitigating the violation of the Right of Property with government welfare assistance. What our government cannot do is simply ignore the violation of the Natural Right of Property by employers that don't provide adequate compensation based upon the labor of their employees.

Personally I support a revised minimum "compensation" law that addresses wages and benefits to ensure that every full time working adult can afford to support their household. That eliminates the necessity for government welfare assistance that only mitigates the violation of the Rights of the Person as opposed to ending the violation of the Rights of the Person.

 

As well as non-person entities.

.

 

The united states is not far removed from being classified as a banana republic itself. Respect for law and order, both by the people, and by the government, has been waning for well over a decade now. During the administration of Barack Obama, lawlessness was the name of the game, with government doing whatever it wanted, regardless of the rules, and the courts largely refusing to do anything but find ways to justify their actions.

Once again. What of when government itself is the reason allowing danger to exist in the first place?

 

The above is false. Various states, such as those of California and New York, already have laws in existence and in force that confiscate legally owned firearms, even when the owner has done nothing wrong.

Cite the portion of Heller, McDonald, or Caetano that state such to be fact. You will find that such does not exist.

 

Not really. That's a myth promulgated by the druggies. (all data following from 2015, last easily available) In real life, a little less than 50%(49.5%) of federal prisoners are in for drug-related offenses, but mostly not for drug use, but for sales/smuggling. About 53% of state prisoners (who are the majority of prisoners) are in for violent crimes (only 15.7% for drug crimes, (3.5% for possession, )).
If we look at raw numbers, the U.S. total prison population is 1,526,800 (193,000 federal, 1,333,800 state) . The people in prison for drug offenses (mostly trafficking, not using) is 298,300, (206,300 in state, 92,000 in federal.) We do not come anywhere close to even 50% of prisoners being in for drug offenses. The exact number is closer to 20%.

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p15.pdf

 

Wrong, actual crime statistics have been falling for decades. Conservatives ignore or deny this but it's true.

Or perhaps you have a different definition of "lawlessness" seeing it as "anything conservatives don't like"

Be that as it may what we were talking about was the nonsensical supposition that the 2nd Amendment was put in place to enable and encourage the people to murder their government officials if they should ever disagree with them enough and not find the normal mechanisms for conflict resolution sufficient to address their grievances. This does seem patently absurd on the face of it but that IS what lots of gun advocates seem to think, go figure